In the world of language it isn’t uncommon for words and terms to shift in meaning and definition. Linguists often explain how certain words can sometimes have different, or even opposite meanings given enough time. Take the word “nice” for example. If you go back in linguistic history, you’ll find that it originally meant “foolish” or “stupid.” Over the course of a few hundred years, it came to mean what it does today. Indeed, the term “false friend” is applied to words that are still in common use (as opposed to dead words) but have taken on a meaning quite different from their original usage.
Language change and terminology shift doesn’t always happen slowly, and there are occasions where it can happen rapidly. My grandparents talk of a time when “cool” meant something very different than what it does today.
Theology isn’t immune to terminology shifts. “Sacrament,” “faith,” and “evangelical” all had somewhat different meanings in the past, and as language has refined and narrowed, we arrived at the understanding we have today. Language change isn’t wrong or bad. But it does behoove us to understand it.
(As an aside, the shift in language isn’t inherently sinful, but the subversion of language certainly can be. In my willingness to let language be narrowed and clarified, I am strongly against the tactic of subverting language in order to promote sinful behavior. Abortion isn’t a “reproductive right,” Homosexuals aren’t “gay,” and Transgender “women” aren’t…well…you get the point.)
I submit we in the theonomic camp are experiencing a narrowing of terms, and the results are worth examining. This shift is regarding what has been dubbed “General Equity Theonomy” and “Non-Legislative Theonomy.” In order to explain the terminology shift we will have to define terms.
General Equity Theonomy (GET)
The term general equity can often be a difficult one to define. The term itself is found within the Westminster Confession and the 1689 London Baptist Confession, both in reference to the laws of Moses in the Old Covenant:
“To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people; not obliging any other now, further than the general equity thereof may require.” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 19.4)
“To them also he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being of moral use.” (1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, 19.4)
Without getting into the debate surrounding the terminology of “general equity” I will simply give a definition of what is meant in the theonomic sense: General equity is the underlying principle in a given Mosaic law. This underlying principle is connected to a moral truth, and thus is the “core” of the law, regardless of the cultural or societal circumstances in place at any given time.
Greg Bahnsen used the example of the Parapet Law (which required a barrier to be constructed around the flat-roofed houses common in the middle eastern climate) and applied the underlying principle of the preservation of life and love for neighbors to the need for a railing around a modern swimming pool.
Another example is found in the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul was comfortable linking the need to compensate a minister in the faith by calling upon the Mosaic Law forbidding the muzzling of an ox while it treads out the grain (1 Tim 5:18). Gary North explains the concept well when he says: “The Bible’s laws, including the judicial laws, were given as a model of justice, not just to ancient Israel but as a standard for all nations. ‘General equity’ should be understood as the timeless, ethical core, not as a way to relativize God’s statutes” (An Informed Response).
All this to say: No theonomist disagrees with the principle of general equity. General equity is fundamental to theonomy, and thus it is part of the package. I’m saying this to ensure that nobody misunderstands that the disagreement between General Equity Theonomy and Non-Legislative Theonomy doesn’t rest in the principle of General Equity, but rather in how it is applied.
What makes me say this? Because I have seen more and more when someone is asked “Are you a theonomist?” the response is something like: “Well, I’m more of a general equity theonomist.” This does little to clear up the confusion, but it generally seems to stave off further questions.
The problem is those who are making this distinction often don’t define their terms.
However, after a bit of research I think I can take a fair shot at pulling back the curtain just a little.
If my understanding is correct (and I’m willing to be told otherwise) the general equity theonomist isn’t against the creation of new law. The general equity principle is the starting point for magistrates to examine and try to work with the moral principle and use it as a guideline for the creation of new laws for a given nation. For example, the parapet law could be used as the guide for speed limits, building codes, food and drug legislation, and seatbelt laws. The exact implementation might not always be the same, with allowance for cultural distinctions and customs, but the general equity must be considered in the creation of legislation.
The GET isn’t opposed to legislation being created, implemented, and enforced, so long as the principles of that legislation can be gleaned from Scripture.
Non-Legislative Theonomy (NLT)
The non-legislative theonomist perspective is different. As you can probably guess from the term itself, the NLT does not advocate for the creation of new law, but rather adjudication of case based on the existing biblical law. Rather than the magistrates examining the parapet law and saying “we can create building codes, and fine those who violate them” the NLT sees a different path. If we take God’s Law-word seriously and assume that He was not lacking in His revelation, and that He accounted for mankind’s nature in all His divine law, then the creation of new laws, is essentially saying “God, you forgot about this issue; we have to fill in the gaps you left for us.” The NLT would say that all of God’s law is perfect, complete, and adequate to suppress evil, and promote freedom and dominion.
What does this look like? Rather than extrapolating with new building codes and seatbelt laws, the NLT perspective would still rely on general equity, but by focusing on the judging of a case instead of creating law.
Consider an example: A man with an in-ground swimming pool invites his married friends from college over for dinner. They haven’t been able to catch up for a couple years, and in the meantime, they’ve had a baby. While they laugh and catch up around the meat grilling in the backyard, the toddler begins to wander. The pool has no cover, and no railing around it. It takes only a minute for the toddler to wander over, fall in, and tragically drown.
A GET might look at this terrible situation and say that the general equity of the parapet law shows the pool owner’s lack of love for neighbor and find him guilty of negligent manslaughter. The man is put in prison where he is abused by his fellow inmates and is stripped of his ability to be a productive member of society. Then there would be a flurry of laws regulating the requirements for pool coverings, minimum railing heights, approved materials and construction methods. Heavy fines are to be levied for non-compliance with the new regulations. A new committee is formed to investigate other areas of “potential negligence,” and it is discovered that many people with pools do not have latches on their yard fences, allowing possible entry and posing potential risks for drownings. More legislation is created to ensure that all fence gates have the approved latches. However, several people have defied compliance to the new regulations, so a few men are hired to go around and inspect the properties and ensure that the law is being complied with. These men aren’t doing this voluntarily though, and they need to be paid for their service. The local magistrate decides to levy a small pool tax in order to pay for the enforcement committee. If anyone is found in non-compliance by the enforcers, the taxes, or the regulations, they are subject to punishment, fines, and abuse.
A NLT would examine the tragedy of the drowning toddler, and use the general equity of the parapet law to find the man guilty of negligent manslaughter. He would be publicly executed – not for the lack of a railing around his pool, but for the death that occurred under his supervision, on his property. A notice would be posted, recommending that all pools have a sturdy railing around them. No new laws or regulations are created. All the neighbors see what happened to the man who was executed, and decide that the cost of installing a railing is really quite affordable, and within a very short period of time, all swimming pools have railings, covers, and some have even gone so far as to lock the gates of their back yards to made doubly sure that the accident can’t happen again. No legislation, no enforcement, no taxes.
That is one example, but let’s consider speed limits.
A NLT wouldn’t object to speed limits in the form of a recommendation, but with no fine or punishment attached to it if not adhered to. Drive as fast as you want, there’s nobody to stop you. But one morning a man is driving recklessly fast, loses control of his vehicle and slams into an oncoming vehicle, seriously injuring the driver. The case is brought before the local judge. The law of God is examined, and it is determined that the man who was driving recklessly needs to pay a large fine…not for speeding…but to pay for the damages caused by the reckless lack of love for neighbor he has displayed. The victim’s vehicle will be replaced, his medical expenses completely covered, and the wages lost during recovery are included. The goal is to make the victim whole again. The reckless driver is financially ruined. He sells everything he has to pay for the restitution and has to move in with a family member. The people of the region see the consequences of driving recklessly, and everyone begins to drive more slowly and carefully. In addition to instilling a sense of caution in the other drivers, it also instills a sense of confidence. Confidence that their local judge is righteous, and that if they become the victim of someone’s lack of love, they will not be unjustly treated.
The question that a non-legislative theonomist asks first is this: “Is this action immoral as defined by Scripture?” If the answer is no, then there is no possibility for a crime to have been committed, because the action itself isn’t immoral. Driving fast isn’t inherently immoral. Not having a lock on your yard fence isn’t inherently immoral. If the answer is yes, the next question is, “Does Scripture provide a civil punishment for it?” Something can be a sin, but not a crime when examined biblically. Lust is a sin but cannot be punished as a crime. Drunkenness is clearly a sin, but not a civil crime. A “drunk and disorderly” sentence doesn’t exist. What if a man carries out his lusts and rapes a woman? Scripture provides a punishment. What if a man gets drunk and attacks someone in his inebriated condition? Scripture provides guidance for bringing about a sentence. Until a man commits a crime as biblically defined, he is a free man.
My goal here is certainly not to drive a wedge between the different views amongst theonomists, but rather to explain why there might be a shift in the terminology, and to define those terms. These days it’s easy to talk over and around each other, and clearly understanding a position is always better than a vague grasp of it. To be clear, I would much prefer the GET view of things over the statist hell we currently live in, but I believe that it will lead to its own set of problems. While in the case of NLT those issues are left up to God, the One who gave the law in the first place.
Hopefully this promotes more discussion on the topic. More work needs done in building the case for NLT in order to make it a more accessible and watertight argument. The great reconstructionists of the past may not have defined things in the way I have in this article, but I am so very thankful for the work they did that made this conversation possible.
General equity is a powerful tool, let’s make sure we’re using it entirely for the glory of the Lord.
