In recent discussions surrounding theonomy and the role of civil government, some have claimed that non-legislative theonomists erroneously argue for the sufficiency of Scripture in all matters of politics. In one sense, we do, as non-legislative theonomists, claim that the Bible is sufficient for matters of civil justice. For example, in Redeemed by Justice (co-authored by Luke Saint) I write, “God’s Law provides sufficient guidance for establishing justice” (p. 78). This idea dovetails with the confessional claims regarding God’s Word: “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (Westminster Confession, 1.6). We conclude that matters of civil justice fall under the category of “faith and life.” Therefore, we agree with the confessional language, in a general sense, that all things necessary for civil justice are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture.
However, if the issue of “sufficiency” is framed in a different manner – namely, a strict, narrow, and technical sense – then it could be argued that the Bible does not give us “all things necessary” for faith and life. To give an extreme (but practical) example: Scripture does not teach people how to read. People use the Bible to teach their children to read (e.g., New England mothers using the New England Primer), but without human interaction (e.g., people speaking/teaching the language to others), no one would be able to read or understand Scripture. A newborn baby abandoned in the woods with a Bible beside him will not terminate in someone who understands Scripture unless God (or man) intervenes and teaches language. However, this is not a rebuttal of the confessional claim (or our claim as theonomists). We do not intend by our claims regarding Scripture’s sufficiency that man does not require “new” or “extra-biblical” information to glorify and obey God.
To give another example, if my wife is going to fulfill her biblical duty to love her husband (cf. Titus 2:4), she needs to be able to locate the jar of peanut butter on the pantry shelf so she can make me a sandwich. The Bible is not sufficient to tell her which shelf the peanut butter is on. She needs to use her senses (to locate the peanut butter, especially if one of our children moved it) and prudence (to ascertain if the peanut butter is spoiled) in order to fulfill her biblical duty. The location and condition of the peanut butter is “new” or “extra-biblical” information; it is not contained in Scripture.
Concerning that which is necessary (and thus sufficient) for civil justice, non-legislative theonomists assert that the Bible provides us with the structure and the legislation we need for justice. This position is based on the belief that Scripture is sufficient in giving us the laws and framework necessary for the proper functioning of civil government. We often refer to Deuteronomy 4:2, which states, “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God that I command you.” This verse emphasizes the completeness and sufficiency of God’s Law on those matters to which it speaks, warning against adding or taking away from it. The Bible also provides the structure for civil justice – namely, judges (magistrates/princes/rulers) adjudicating cases (cf. Deuteronomy 16:18-20, 25:1; Jeremiah 7:5; Ezekiel 18:8). Saint and I summarize in Redeemed by Justice: “The standing body of civil law is provided in the Bible. The general equity of these laws is applied in adjudication between disputants, not in creating new laws” (p. 45). (It should be emphasized that the “non-legislative” moniker refers to our rejection of the need for new man-made laws; we affirm legislation is needed but contend that God’s inscripturated legislation in the Bible is sufficient legislation.)
However, this does not mean that the Bible is sufficient for providing all the information needed to render a verdict in specific cases. The Bible does not contain all the specific details of every situation, and it is the responsibility of the civil magistrate (and others) to use wisdom to investigate the facts of a case to determine guilt or innocence. Just as the Bible does not tell my wife where the peanut butter is, neither does the Bible tell the judge if John murdered Jane. The magistrate uses wisdom, prudence, and diligence to search out the “extra-biblical” truth concerning how Jane ended up with a knife in her throat.
While non-legislative theonomists affirm the sufficiency of Scripture in providing the necessary laws and framework for justice, we also recognize that people need to obtain “new information,” such as the facts of a case, to render a just verdict. Proverbs 18:17 reminds us, “The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.” This verse highlights the importance of examining all the evidence and hearing both sides of a dispute before making a judgment. Thus, the Bible itself affirms the need for obtaining “new information.” This, however, is not an argument against the non-legislative theonomists, as we are not arguing against the need for new information. Rather, we are arguing that the Bible gives us the necessary laws and the sufficient structure to establish justice. To use the “new information” argument against the non-legislative theonomist would be to commit the strawman fallacy. We simply do not argue that the Bible provides all the information needed to establish justice; we argue it provides all the laws needed to establish justice.
Distinguishing Between Punishing Evildoers and Solving Problems
When discussing politics, it is essential to distinguish between two distinct aspects: (1) punishing evildoers and (2) solving other problems. Non-legislative theonomists assert that the former must be based explicitly on God’s Law (the authorization of the sword), while the latter can be achieved through creative means (wisdom in accord with God’s Word), as long as the sword/force is not used, and people are not punished where the Bible does not authorize punishment (a working definition of injustice). We can summarize the two aspects as follows:
Punishing Evildoers. The Bible clearly outlines the role of the civil magistrate in punishing evildoers and praising those who do good (cf. Romans 13:4; 1 Peter 2:14). Non-legislative theonomists argue that this aspect of politics must be grounded in God’s Law, as it is the ultimate standard for determining right from wrong. The civil magistrate is not authorized to punish people for actions that the Bible does not condemn as evil. To do so would be to usurp God’s authority and undermine the very purpose of civil government, which is to establish justice according to God’s revealed will.
Solving Other Problems. On the other hand, solving problems in society can be achieved through various creative means that do not involve the use of force or punishment. Non-legislative theonomists recognize that there are many areas of life where the Bible does not provide explicit instructions, and Christians are free to use their wisdom and resources to address these issues. This can include areas such as education, healthcare, poverty alleviation, and community development. In these matters, believers can apply biblical principles and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to find innovative solutions to the challenges faced by their communities. The key distinction is that these efforts should not involve the use of the sword or the creation of laws that punish people for actions that the Bible either (1) does not condemn as evil or (2) does not list a civil penalty for. By maintaining this distinction, non-legislative theonomists seek to preserve the proper role of civil government while encouraging Christians to actively engage in solving problems in their societies.
The late Christian theologian and philosopher Greg Bahnsen warned of the danger in conflating these two categories:
[A]ll civil magistrates today are under moral obligation to be guided and regulated by the law of God (throughout the Bible) where and when it speaks to political matters. To be properly understood, this conclusion calls for drawing a distinction between social ethics (in general) and political ethics (in particular). The failure to observe such a distinction is perhaps the most damaging oversight in contemporary evangelical thinking about the ethics of life-in-community. It is crucial to distinguish social from political ethics so that we may mark off, within the context of public moral duties and responsibilities, a delimited realm where the state has authority to enforce civil sanctions against misbehavior. Not all sins against the law of God are properly to be treated as crimes, and therefore we must (in an objective fashion) circumscribe the authority of the state to inflict punishment upon its citizens. (God and Politics, p. 42)
The pertinent question is not whether the Bible is sufficient for “all aspects” of “politics,” but rather, what does the Bible authorize the civil magistrate to do, especially concerning the use of force. I return to Bahnsen: “Any conception of the role of civil government that claims to be distinctively Christian must be explicitly justified by the teaching of God’s revealed Word.” Non-legislative theonomists claim that the Bible gives us the standard and framework for justice, making this issue primarily one of exegesis. What does the Bible say regarding justice, the magistrate, and the sword? These are the questions we are seeking to address.
The Limits of Civil Authority
Within the framework provided by Scripture, the civil magistrate is authorized to use wisdom, study history, and examine the facts of a situation. However, the magistrate cannot punish people where the Bible does not grant him the authority to do so. This limitation is crucial to maintaining justice and preventing the abuse of power. Romans 13:4 states, “for he [the magistrate] is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” This verse outlines the role of the civil magistrate as one who punishes evildoers and praises those who do good (cf. 1 Peter 2:14).
The issue with those who advocate for “natural law legislation” is that such a position leads to the creation of laws that punish people for non-evil acts. This practice is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. Non-legislative theonomists argue that such an approach to legislation is not only unnecessary but also unjust and unauthorized by God’s Word. Proverbs 17:26 warns, “To impose a fine on a righteous man is not good, nor to strike the noble for their uprightness.” This verse highlights the injustice of punishing the righteous, which occurs quite frequently when man-made laws are created based on “natural law” or the “common good.”
Application to International Relations
The principles outlined by non-legislative theonomists also apply to international relations. While wisdom and prudence are essential in navigating the complex world of global politics, treaties and agreements must not violate the principles of justice as defined by God’s Law. The Bible provides a framework for understanding the nature of justice, which should guide the actions of nations in their interactions with one another.
For example, when nations engage in diplomacy and form treaties, they must ensure that these agreements do not promote or enable injustice, such as the endorsement of evil practices. In addition, the use of military force must be guided by the principles of just war theory, which is rooted in biblical teaching. Furthermore, military service should be voluntary, as indicated in Scripture. Deuteronomy 20:8 states, “And the officers shall speak further to the people, and say, ‘Is there any man who is fearful and fainthearted? Let him go back to his house, lest he make the heart of his fellows melt like his own.’” This passage demonstrates that no one should be punished for refusing to fight in a war precipitated because of some treaty made by people in a smoke-filled back room.
By applying the principles of non-legislative theonomy to international relations, nations can work together to promote justice and maintain peace in a manner consistent with God’s revealed will. This approach acknowledges the need for wisdom and prudence in addressing global problems while remaining committed to the unchanging standards of justice found in Scripture and respecting the rights of individuals to make personal decisions about military service.
Conclusion
In conclusion, non-legislative theonomists do not claim, in a woodenly literalistic sense, that the Bible is “sufficient” for all aspects of civil life. We affirm that a magistrate needs to look up from the Bible to examine the evidence presented before him. But we do assert that Scripture provides the necessary laws and framework for the proper functioning of civil government and the pursuit of justice. The magistrate must operate within the bounds of biblical authority, using wisdom and investigating the facts of each case to render just verdicts. By adhering to the standard and framework provided by God’s Word, we can ensure that civil government fulfills its God-ordained role and promotes true justice in society. As Micah 6:8 states, “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” This is the heart of the non-legislative theonomist’s position. God has given us what we need to “do justice.” We must use wisdom/prudence where authorized (cf. Proverbs 25:2), but in terms of the legislation and structure required, the whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for “doing justice” is indeed set down in Scripture.