This post serves to critique Reggie Kidd's article Theonomy and Pauline Theology.
Honestly, I believe this article sorely misrepresents theonomy. I cannot tell if it was done intentionally or unintentionally, but what Kidd essentially does here is build a straw man and then tear it down.
In the Introduction, for instance, the only attempt to define theonomy is done by referencing Richard Pratt who vehemently opposes theonomy in the book cited. But should theonomy be defined by those who oppose it?
Also, in the section of the article called Paul’s Use of the Law, Kidd states:
Greg Bahnsen, one of the most prominent theonomists, has claimed that Paul's negative pronouncements on the law are aimed at those who abuse the law by attempting "to utilize the works of the law as a basis for saving merit" (Bahnsen 1985, 183). Yet however true these statements are, there is another situational sense in which the law has ended which Bahnsen fails to account for. The law has also ended as a barrier between Jew and Gentile.
So he agrees with Greg Bahnsen’s words but objects on the basis that Bahnsen did not go further to address his concerns. In other words, the attack is not against what Bahnsen says but against what Bahnsen does not say . . . in this one isolated quote. Perhaps if Kidd had done a little more research, he would have found Bahnsen’s earlier work where he already addressed this very issue at length. In Theonomy in Christian Ethics, Bahnsen states:
The ceremonial observations no longer apply, but their meaning and intention have been eternally validated. The earlier sacrificial ritual was a foreshadow pointing to Christ (Heb. 10:1), and no repetition of a mere shadow can amount to the substantial reality! That which is the foundation of the new economy, in which the outward performance of the ceremonial ritual is not observed, is the obedience of Christ (cf. Heb. 10:8 f.). His obedience makes it no longer necessary for us to obey the ceremonial law in the way which the saints living in the period ofexpectation did. Ephesians 2:14-16 says that Christ has put the principle of commandments contained in ordinances “out of gear.”3 Christ has broken down the barrier between Jews and Gentiles of which the dividing wall in the temple was the symbol. It should be quite clear that the law which represents enmity and separation between Jews and Gentiles is the ceremonial law, for the moral law does not distinguish between these groups (all men are responsible to the moral law and are condemned under it: Rom. 1-3). (pg. 207-208)
After seeing that Bahnsen did not “fail to account for” the law ending as a barrier between Jews and Gentiles, I was left wondering if Kidd really disagrees with Bahnsen on this point, since their two positions do not seem that different.
Kidd states in the Introduction, “the penal sanctions of the Mosaic law, according to theonomists, are still binding today.” Then, near the end, the point of Kidd’s article begins to emerge:
Both theonomists and other reformed scholars believe that the moral law continues into the present age and the ceremonial law has been abrogated by the coming of Christ, since He has fulfilled those aspects of the law in His priestly ministry. The point of discussion is over how the judicial law should be applied to the present age. It is important to realize that the Mosaic law "was accommodated to the people of God in their particular redemptive-historical setting" (Pratt 1990, 345).
. . .
For instance, In 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Paul addresses a situation where a man is living with his father's wife. According to Old Testament law, the man and the woman should receive capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10). However, this was not recommended by Paul. Rather, the proper punishment of this crime for Paul is excommunication (vv. 2, 13). Furthermore, Paul's statement in verse 13 is a quotation of a formula found in Mosaic penal sanctions (Deut. 17:7, 12; 12:19; 19:21, 21:21;
Dennis Johnson has noted that "in the Deuteronomy contexts this formula, whenever it appears, refers to the execution of those deeds 'worthy of death': idolatry, contempt for judges, false witness, persistent rebellion towards parents, adultery, and kidnapping" (Barker 1990, 181). These crimes were to be punished by purging the offender from the covenant community through his execution. Johnson continues, "Paul applies the same terminology to the new covenant community's judging/purging act of excommunication-- a judgment that is both more severe (since it is 'handing this man over to Satan,' an anticipation of the final judgment), and more gracious (since it envisions a saving outcome to the temporal exercise of church discipline, which may bring about repentance that will lead to rescue from eternal judgment)" (Barker 1990, 181-182). Therefore, it may be safely said that the proper application of those capital offenses of the Mosaic law are properly applied in the church today as excommunication.
Yes! This is very true. Dennis Johnson correctly points out the church’s responsibility to “purge the evil person” by way of excommunication. What I do reject, however, is the false dichotomy erected between this position and that of theonomists. Does Kidd think theonomists want pastors to stone even their guiltiest congregants? Responding to Dennis Johnson’s Reformed Critique, Bahnsen has already given an Informed Response in Westminster Seminary on Penology:
In his essay, Johnson later observes Paul’s use of the expulsion language found in some Old Testament penal passages, “Put away the wicked from among yourselves” (1 Cor. 5:13). Johnson notes that here excommunication is the ecclesiastical expression of that objective. But is this in any way contrary to what one would expect based upon a theonomic perspective on ethics, though? Not at all; it rather is exactly what the position would entail. The church – the covenant community – is unquestionably supposed to seek to remove wickedness from its midst (as the law requires), and the manner in which that is accomplished within the church is excommunication. Those observations tell us nothing of Paul’s views (positively or negatively) about whether, or the way in which, the civil state should seek the objective of putting away evil from its midst. Johnson recognizes that it does “not necessarily” follow from this passage that excommunication has replaced the Old Testament civil sanction, and he is correct.
His further comment that the Old Covenant community had a political order with “authority to purge the community” through the use of capital punishment is not relevant to any argument against theonomic ethics… (pg. 126-127)
What exactly is the difference, then, between the view given by Kidd and that espoused by Bahnsen and other theonomists? When it comes to 1 Corinthians 5, I cannot see any light between the theonomist view and that of this article or, for that matter, my own view.
It is my conclusion that in a fair article the author would have done enough research on both sides of this issue that he would not have to take the anti-theonomy side’s word for it. With respect, Kidd’s bias against theonomy seems to stem largely from his ignorance on the subject. It is doubtful that, in reality, Kidd and Bahnsen would disagree on much at all.
Kidd states in the Conclusion:
As we walk in the Spirit, we fulfill the law. This does not mean that the Mosaic law no longer applies to the Christian as a rule of life. Rather, it means that the law can no longer condemn us (Rom. 8:1) because Christ has satisfied the demands of the law in His life and paid for our sins on the cross, and He has sent us the Holy Spirit, by whom we are empowered to fulfill the law (Rom. 8:2-4).
As before, I see nothing here with which to disagree nor anything that is fundamentally opposed to theonomic doctrine.
No comments:
Post a Comment