The biblical doctrine, which has come to be known by the name "Theonomy," refers both to a way to handle the Bible's teachings and to a response to the Bible's teachings on Christian ethics. And it has fanned the flames of controversy often among various Christian groups. Here, we will summarize the position in question thus: The theonomic rule mandates that each and every law of the Bible stated in the Older Testament remains binding upon all men, except in those cases where the Newer Testament shows them no longer in effect.

Any passage of the Bible may nullify case laws either overtly, or by logical deduction from one or more passages, or by the binding example of Jesus or His Apostles. This is sometimes called the interpretive rule of continuity because it underscores the continuing authority of God's law. And although the debate rages on, it has more to do with the notoriety of some persons associated with the position (Ad Hominem fallacy) than it does with the actual merits of the case one can make for the position from the Bible itself.

I wish to maintain that the doctrine of Theonomy follows neatly, and quite clearly, from many doctrines commonly accepted by -- or which can be shown with ease from Scripture to -- all Christian parties to the debate.

Here are a few of them.

1. God requires all nations to submit to His law. He requires national righteousness, not just personal righteousness, or that of families and churches. The Scripture says plainly, "Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin disgraces (i.e. demotes) ANY people" (Prov. 14:34).

2. Jeremiah and the other prophets railed against Assyria, Babylon, Egypt and other Gentile countries for violating God's law just as they often did Israel.

3. God only has one standard for morality. Proverbs 20:10 reads "Differing weights and differing measures, both alike are an abomination to the Lord." The New Testament phrase, "One Lord, one faith, one baptism" should leave no doubt that the New Testament agrees with the Proverbs.

4. Jesus IS (not "will be") Lord of the nations. Matthew 28 speaks clearly of his possessing all authority in heaven and in earth as the very basis for global evangelism. And he requires obedience to his one law.

5. The Scripture plainly teaches its own sufficiency: "The law of the Lord is perfect..." (Psalm 19:7). And of course, we all know 2 Tim. 3:16. Now since it is sufficient for all things God requires, and one of the things He requires is NATIONAL righteousness, it follows by good and necessary consequence that God's law represents a law-code sufficient for that task. And since the Bible offers no such comprehensive civil code in the New Testament, it follows that the law-code He requires nations to impose rests in the Older Testament (obviously not as a stand-alone reference, but as interpreted in the New Testament). Hence Theonomy. And the rejection of Theonomy therefore implies that God's Word does not suffice for man's ethical-legal needs.

6. The Bible teaches forthrightly that God's law forms the only standard of wisdom, and that God requires all men to show forth this wisdom (Deut. 4:5-8; Eccl. 12:12-14, etc). Since God has only one standard for wisdom -- the Law of the Lord -- Theonomy necessarily follows.

7. The many civil codes out there in the world, not to mention those of the past, conflict both with themselves internally (In the U.S. we have many contradictory laws on the books), and with each other. This shows the insufficiency of man's law. But the law of the Lord is perfect, and therefore, sufficient. From this, Theonomy follows of necessity. If not God's law, then whose?

8. James tells us that the law of the Lord forms a cohesive unit, so that to violate one of its principles one must violate the whole of it (Js. 2:10). From the unity of the law of the Lord, it follows that, if some of its law bind us under the New Covenant, then ALL of them do (with the exceptions noted above already). Paul quotes the case laws of the Older Testament as binding upon Newer Testament saints regularly, and without explanation or apology. "Do not muzzle the ox while it treads out the grain," (Deut. 25:4) he warned Timothy.

We all know the New Testament mandate to avoid entertaining an accusation against an elder on the first-hand testimony of but one witness (see also Matt. 18:16 on church discipline). The reason for this is that "every matter must be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Deut. 19:15) Again, Paul quotes just this Older Testament case law in 2 Cor. 13:1, "This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

9. Finally, presupposing the truth of Theonomy displays itself as the instinctive habit of every Christian who argues against abortion. They do not hesitate to imitate Paul's use of the case laws as fully authoritative when the apologetic need arises. We do this because we know that the New Testament does not suffice for our ethical needs, nor did God intend it to do so. Yet, the only way for a Christian to avoid the picking and choosing (arbitrary) game stems from a principled approach which explains WHY he behaves as he does when quoting Old Testament -- like Paul did.

Now, he might wish to avoid the debate by suggesting, "Hey, I am not a skilled theologian. I am just following Paul's lead." To which we would say, "Bravo." For it is obvious that Paul led in a Theonomic fashion, and he did so on all topics (including labor law and due process in court) just as instinctively as do Christians who heap up biblical objections to the wicked practice of abortion in our day. He never explained his proclivity to quote the case laws as binding on all men because he sensed no need. He practiced theonomy as an overt and natural expression of the Christian faith, even reproving himself from the Older Testament law when he mistakenly rebuffed the high priest harshly.

If Paul had to submit to the jots and tittles of the law, how much more ought WE to heed the holy details of the divine law? As the Lord of righteousness Himself has said it, "It is easier that heaven and earth should pass away than for a horn or flourish to pass away from the Law" (Luke 16). If you still urgently want to know what Paul's apologetic for Theonomy might have looked like had the position ever been controversial back then, feel free to scroll up for a few helpful hints on the subject.