Here’s a little more analysis of the discussion on theonomy from the other day.

I initially asked about their claim that the death penalty for bestiality was unjust, and in his first comment, C Jay said, “And the Bible, properly interpreted, does not give permission to anyone to execute capital punishment except in the case of murder per the Noahic Covenant.”

Here’s Genesis 9:5-6, the relevant portion of the Noahic covenant to which he is referring, “And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”

But is this passage teaching that the death penalty is only to be used for murder? It specifies the death penalty for murder, but specifies no penalty for anything else. If you’re going to take this to say that only murderers should receive the death penalty, then you have to say that the government shouldn’t punish any other crime, including rape and kidnapping.

That is certainly not what Genesis 9 is teaching, but C Jay never responds to the objection that that is where his logic leads. Here is why C Jay’s is wrong that the death penalty is prohibited by the Noahic Covenant (except for murder):

1. The doctrine of bloodguiltiness.
2. The Mosaic civil law wasn’t given to only the Israelites.
3. The Noahic covenant isn’t called law.

Bloodguiltiness

In Genesis 4, Cain murders Abel, and Abel’s innocent blood has a voice that calls out to the Lord (Genesis 4:10). God is aware of every drop of innocent blood that is shed, and He will account for it, as He says in Genesis 9. This is called the doctrine of bloodguiltiness.

And later in history, the Lord reveals that murder isn’t the only crime that causes bloodguiltiness. In Leviticus 20:10-16, several different sexual sins are listed, including bestiality and homosexuality. For each of the sexual sins listed it says, “their blood is upon them.” These sexual sins don’t involve the shedding of blood, yet there is bloodguilt in the sin, so the death penalty is pronounced for each one. Is bloodguilt something that comes and goes with covenants? Certainly not.

The Law Wasn’t Given to Only The Israelites

Saying that the law was only given to the Israelites is a point that also fizzles under more scrutiny. Leviticus 20:23 says, “And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them.” The Canaanites that lived in Israel’s land before them suffered the death penalty at the hand of the Israelites for all the sins listed in that chapter, including the sexual sins. The Lord expected them to be sexually pure. There are other examples of other nations adopting or being held accountable to Israel’s law.

The Noahic Prohibition of Murder Isn’t Called Law

Romans 5:13-14 says that there was no law until Moses. That would preclude the Noahic covenant as offering a law. The rest of Scripture never calls the laws of any other country law. It often refers to their lawlessness–even nations that prided themselves on their laws, like the Romans. Check out this excellent article on that topic.

Conclusion

It is wishful thinking to believe that the Noahic covenant prohibits the death penalty for all but murder. Genesis 9 is only nine chapters into the Bible. The Lord, starting in the next book of the Torah, reveals a perfect and just civil law. If you reject it, there is no standard of justice to call any civil law just or unjust. C Jay (and none of the others I’ve ever asked these questions of) ever answered my questions about justice, because there are no answers. C Jay refused to discuss those questions, claiming that his covenant theology dictates that theonomy is wrong.

Well, if there’s one thing I know, it’s that theonomy is true, and C Jay never provided one valid argument against it. So if your other theology dictates that theonomy is wrong, either your other theology is wrong, or you’ve misapplied it.

It seems this simple question can not be answered by non-theonomists: When Muslims cut off a thief’s hand, is that unjust?

The Bible provides the proper punishment for stealing, homosexuality, murder, kidnapping, adultery, etc. I would guess that most Christians like the biblical punishment for stealing. The problem is if they accept that, they have no basis for rejecting the punishment for adultery and homosexuality, which they don’t like.

These guys put up a lot of barriers to discussing theonomy, but we had a fairly long discussion, until it just became apparent they have no answer for my objection, and now they won’t even post my last comment. I’m sure they’re nice guys, and we’d probably agree on a large percentage of laws, it’s just that they arrive at them for a different reason.

They claim to have a biblical basis for rejecting theonomy, but it seems more like smoke and mirrors to me.

Here’s my argument:

1. Theonomic laws are just.
2. Just laws ought to be the laws of the land. (He agreed to this one.)

The problem is that there is no basis for rejecting the first point if you reject theonomy. Non-theonomist Christians may be able to eliminate a lot of unjust laws, but ultimately, there’s no way of knowing what sins ought to be civilly punished, or how, without the only place in the Bible that explains it.

Their defense against theonomy is that Baptists have a different covenant. I think I cut through that when he agreed that just laws ought to be the law of the land. The only argument left is how to determine whether a law is just or not, which as you’ll see they never responded to my many questions about that.

If they have an answer for my simple question, why don’t they give it? What is their absolute standard of justice? The guy wrote 6 comments and never got around to gracing me with his explanation.

Here’s the discussion:

• 

  Sorry Bill. I had approved it but do not see it either. Don’t know what happened.

  The Bible is the absolute standard of justice. And the Bible, properly interpreted, does not give permission to anyone to execute capital punishment except in the case of murder per the Noahic Covenant. The exception to this was during the Israelite theocracy, but since the civil law was abrogated with the covenant, we cannot use it as the basis for our present situation. Thus, we must lean on the Noahic Covenant since the world is still under that one.

  

  Where does the Noahic covenant specify the penalty for theft, rape, kidnapping, etc.?
  • 

    It doesn’t. You’re obviously trying to make a bigger point, namely, that unless the Bible tells us exactly what civil law code we ought to have today, we can’t have any justification of criminal prosecution. But in any case, I can’t categorically adhere to your theonomic conclusions because, as per the above essay, I reject your formulation of Covenant Theology on which theonomy depends.

    • 

      You’re making it too complex. The civil law is obligatory because it is perfect and just. If we’re free to choose whatever laws we want (even if you wanted to constrain it by the moral law), why can’t we choose Old Testament civil laws? If you reject theonomy, you no longer have an absolute standard for justice. You don’t know what justice is for any crime except murder.

      

      Correctly exegeting Scripture is “making it too complex” for theonomists.
      

      I’m not making anything complex. I believe that the Mosaic Civil law was provided under the Covenant that was given to national Israel. This Covenant has been abrogated. Therefore, the Civil Law given to national Israel has been abrogated. Simple.

      No everything that is perfect and just is obligatory. For instance, God’s command to Abraham that he kill his son was perfectly just. But it is not obligatory for people who are not Abraham. Were God’s dietary laws just or unjust? If just, are they obligatory (of course, we’d both answer no)? If unjust, how can a just God give an unjust command? Similarly, just because God’s civil law was just does not mean it is obligatory for people to whom it has not been given.

      (I should also point out that the Covenant under which the Civil Law was given was in fact *imperfect* and thus needed to be replaced by a Covenant that was perfect. But that is a reference to the Covenant, not the Civil Law itself, so I won’t press that secondary point home.).

      “why can’t we choose Old Testament civil laws?” You can. No one is stopping you or the other theonomists from voluntarily agreeing to a covenant in which such laws are enforced. We only reject the idea that they are obligated to be forced on all of society who dissents (such as us Baptists). But yes, we libertarians certainly would let you build such a community just like we’d let a group of idealist socialists build a covenant community based on the community ownership of property as long as every member voluntarily agrees to be there (please don’t interpret me to be saying socialists and theonomists are similar!)

      “If you reject theonomy, you no longer have an absolute standard for justice.” Translation: if you do not interpret the Civil Law as I do, you must obviously not be using the Bible to build a case for justice. In which case, I don’t really have a response except, okay.
      

      You said, “No one is stopping you or the other theonomists from voluntarily agreeing to a covenant in which such laws are enforced.”

      I would contend that is what the early colonists did. Those who executed Thomas Granger were carrying out theonomy. Yet you have called his execution unjust. Do you believe Christians are free to enforce unjust laws?

      1. If I have to choose between a just law, and an unjust law, which should I (as a Baptist) choose?

      2. You said, “Translation: if you do not interpret the Civil Law as I do, you must obviously not be using the Bible to build a case for justice. In which case, I don’t really have a response except, okay.”

      You keep saying you have an absolute standard for justice. I’ve yet to hear any specifics except that you think those who shed blood ought to be executed. What is the just penalty for rape? When Muslims cut off a thief’s hand, is that just? Do you differentiate between accidental homicide and murder, and on what basis?

      

      “I would contend that is what the early colonists did.” No, Granger did not voluntarily agree to these rules. If he did, I will change my opinion about the justness of the situation.

      “Do you believe Christians are free to enforce unjust laws?” No.

      1. You should choose a just law.
      2. You are missing the entire point, which is what I previously stated. I am denying your presumption “that unless the Bible tells us exactly what civil law code we ought to have today, we can’t have any justification of criminal prosecution.” If you want specifics, we can look into that, but first you have to understand my approach. Especially, you have to understand that someone’s inability to come up with a just system does in no way make a positive proof of theonomy. Since the present context is about theonomy I would encourage you to stick with that. My view that the abrogation of the Mosaic Covenant renders the Civil Law abrogated and thus, there is no specific law code that God demands of nations today. Like Calvin said, each nation is free to initiate laws that are appropriate for its specific context (I agree with the general approach of this, though I have my own modifications and clarities to add) precisely because there is no modern national Israel. National Israel pointed to the church in a type/antitype way. Your disapproval of this does not prove theonomy. Which is what the present post should be about. The specifics of laws is a different conversation.

      • 

        “Granger did not voluntarily agree to these rules.”

        I don’t see how someone agreeing to certain laws makes an unjust law enforceable. At best, it would mean that he committed suicide, and the people who helped/forced him to commit suicide are guilty of murder.

        You said, “Like Calvin said, each nation is free to initiate laws that are appropriate for its specific context (I agree with the general approach of this, though I have my own modifications and clarities to add) precisely because there is no modern national Israel.”

        I’ve kept asking for your absolute standard of justice, and this appears to be it. Justice is whatever is “appropriate for its specific context.” Maybe you can see why I’m not impressed with the absoluteness of your absolute standard of justice.

        You have no basis for saying that the death penalty for bestiality is unjust. The Noahic covenant is silent on that. You have no basis for saying Muslims cutting off a thief’s hand is unjust, or that the death penalty for adultery, rape or homosexuality is unjust.

        You have no basis for saying whether theonomy is good or bad– just that it doesn’t line up with your personal opinion. You need to repent of you false personal opinions.

        • 

          Im having a hard time Bill because you are not following my arguments at all. The reason I pointed out that Granger did not voluntarily agree to these rules is because you asked me what was wrong with building a community in which theonomy was *chosen* to be the rule of the land. I said if such rules were voluntarily agreed to, i’d have no problem (because my only argument is that theonomy is not obligatory). You said that the Puritan societies were indeed voluntarily. I disagreed by expressing my understanding that Granger did not voluntarily agree.

          As for Calvin, again you are not following my point. My point there is not that kings can do whatever they want. My point is clearly that, like Calvin, I believe that Israel Civil laws are not obligatory and binding on nations today. They may borrow from these laws, adopt them, or learn from their principles, but God does not treat the modern nation like he did national Israel. That is the extent to my citing Calvin. I don’t even agree with Calvin’s views of an ideal civil order, preferring instead the much more “libertarian” approach of the later English dissenters and especially the New England Reformed Baptists

          I haven’t even mentioned or argued yet my “absoluteness of your absolute standard of justice.” I keep trying to help you realize that I am merely, in the present context, explaining why I cannot adhere to the theonomic system. So you can come back at me all day about how I haven’t impressed you with my case yet, and my response will always be: “I know. That’s because I haven’t explained it yet. The context of our conversation is why I am not a theonomist.” I am making a negative case *against *theonomy,* not a positive case *for* libertarianism.

          “You have no basis for saying whether theonomy is good or bad– just that it doesn’t line up with your personal opinion.” Actually, and contrarily (perhaps you didn’t read the above essay and the links posted at the end), I have explained time and again that my basis for rejecting theonomy is exegetical. Your blaming it on “my opinion” indicates to me that you have no willingness to engage in a meaningful dialogue.

          “You need to repent of you false personal opinions.” I will repent when I am convinced A) that my understanding of Covenant Theology and the nature of the Kingdom of Heaven is wrong; and B) that someone else’s understanding of these things is correct. Until then, I see no need to repent, because I believe that I have understood the Bible correctly (that’s why I believe it.). You and I have our differences of understanding of the nature of certain exegetical conclusions, but it is unhelpful to demand my repentance until I first see where I err. And to be clear, since there are a variety of differing views on Covenant Theology in the Reformed tradition, your command that I repent could just as well be applied to anyone else in the Reformed world with whom you disagree.

          

          Yes. I’m having a difficult time following you. It seems you have contradicted yourself repeatedly. Clearly I’m missing something.

          If I moved into a HOA where the covenants said the death penalty was required for someone who painted their house the wrong color, would it be acceptable as a Christian for me to submit to the death penalty, or for one of my neighbors to carry out the death penalty? If it’s not acceptable, why would it be acceptable for someone to submit to the death penalty for bestiality in a theonomic society?

          As far as all the links and the pages of documents you’ve written, it seems like obfuscation. I’ve tried to converse with you about several specific, concrete examples, and I can’t get you to commit to anything.

          

          Time to move on. Bill, you have not addressed a single argument in this post. You, like most theonomists, insist that theonomy must be true a priori, regardless of what Scripture says. You presuppose theonomy, not Scripture.

          Not having a standard of justice for modern nations today does not thereby make theonomy true. That’s a logical fallacy that Van Tillians are fond of.

          Of course I do believe Scripture provides us with a standard of justice (lex talionis, of which Gen 9:6 is an example), but the present issue is whether the civil laws of Israel continue to bind all nations, not whether Scripture provides us with a standard of justice.

          

          “I’ve tried to converse with you about several specific, concrete examples, and I can’t get you to commit to anything.” —Do you understand that there are two different issues here (1: whether theonomy is biblically justified and 2: what “my standard of justice is”)? You seem to be pressing me to answer 2, but I am trying to explain why I disagree with you on 1.

          Hence the talking past each other. I cannot be a theonomist, regardless of my own political theory. My understanding of covenants and kingdoms don’t let me. If you want to ask me about why I am a libertarian, I suggest you do so via email or in another comment section where the context calls for it.

          As for Granger, did or did not Granger agree that he should be executed before he committed his action? You said it was a voluntary set of laws. Can you prove this?