A Reconsideration in Light of Micah 4:5, Acts 15,
the Noahide Laws, and the Error of Historicism
The modern theonomic movement, deeply influenced by figures such as R.J. Rushdoony, Gary North, and Douglas Wilson, more or less seeks to apply Old Testament law as the foundation for Christian governance. Rooted in Dutch neo-Calvinism, particularly through the multi-disciplinary thought of Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and Herman Dooyeweerd, theonomy envisions a world where civil society is governed by biblical law. Many within the movement frame this vision within postmillennial eschatology, believing that Christ’s rule will be realized through the gradual application of biblical law across all nations.
However, this movement is built on a fundamental misunderstanding of how biblical law was intended to function—both in ancient Israel and in the eschatological vision of the prophets. The theonomic assumption that Old Testament law is universally applicable ignores crucial distinctions made in both Jewish tradition and the New Testament, especially in passages like Acts 15, which clarify the role of Gentiles in relation to Torah. At the heart of this misunderstanding is the failure to properly interpret Micah 4, particularly Micah 4:5:
“For all the peoples walk, each in the name of its god,
But we will walk in the name of the Lord our God forever and ever.”
(Micah 4:5, NASB)
This passage, situated within Micah’s vision of the future, does not depict a world where all nations are politically subjected to biblical law, as theonomy assumes. Instead, it affirms a pluralistic order in which nations retain their distinct identities while voluntarily coming to Zion to learn from Judaism as the revelatory vehicle of divine wisdom. This raises the symbolic versus realized nature of Zion—whether it refers to earthly Jerusalem or to the Heavenly New Jerusalem where the nations are transformed by the gospel’s eschatological fulfillment.
Where theonomy collapses the distinction between Israel and the nations, Micah 4 clarifies that the nations have distinct paths toward divine wisdom, and their relationship to Torah is through instruction, not theocratic enforcement. Even more critically, theonomy’s project is deeply entangled with modernist assumptions about history and governance. While theonomists claim to reject secularism and return to a biblical foundation, they paradoxically rely on the tools of modernity—particularly historicism, rationalist legal frameworks, and post-Enlightenment political models—to justify their vision. In this sense, theonomy represents nothing less than Christendom redux, an attempt to reconstruct an idealized biblical order while unwittingly participating in the very modernist frameworks it claims to resist.
Judaism, Not Israel, as the Mediator of Divine Wisdom
One of the major unexamined assumptions of theonomy is its treatment of Israel as a political model rather than a covenantal-religious one. But Israel, in the biblical sense, is not an ethnos in the modern sense but a covenantal elect community defined by its adherence to divine revelation. It is Judaism—Torah and its revelatory transmission—that shapes how the nations relate to God.
This is where gene pool diversity plays an important role. Many assume that “Jew” or “Israel” refers to a fixed ethnic identity, but Second Temple Judaism did not operate with such rigid ethnic categories. As Jason Staples argues, “Israel” in the Second Temple period was not merely an ethnic designation but an eschatological expectation of restoration, as had happend with the Idumeans (Edom) including the return of the northern tribes and the inclusion of faithful Gentiles under the covenantal umbrella. Mark Nanos further clarifies that Paul did not see Gentiles becoming Jews but rather saw them as “righteous among the nations” who could relate to the God of Israel without undergoing full Torah observance.
This distinction is crucial: The nations are not transformed into Israel; they are grafted in as nations. This resolves the supersessionistic double-bind, whereas Judaism provides the legal and revelatory framework through which they relate to God, but they are not subject to full Torah observance—only to the moral principles embedded in the Noahide Laws.
Thus, Micah 4 does not envision a world where all nations become Israel, but a world where they maintain distinct identities while drawing wisdom from Judaism. Theonomy fails because it collapses this theological distinction into a political project, assuming that biblical law was meant to be imposed rather than taught. Or perhaps their right because Israel as their view of the ‘national ethnic’ identity failed by the destruction of the temple.
Christ as the True Fulfillment of the Law and the Nations’ Hope
The theonomic movement’s greatest theological misstep is in treating Christ primarily as a lawgiver in the mold of Moses, rather than recognizing the fullness of His kingship as the crucified and resurrected Lord. Jesus’ fulfillment of the Torah is not legalistic reconstructionism but eschatological renewal. As Hebrews 8 makes clear, the old covenant—including its civil ordinances—has become obsolete in light of Christ’s priestly mediation of the new covenant. The kingdom of God is not realized through a theocratic legal order but through the transformative reign of Christ, which is already inaugurated in His resurrection and will be consummated in His return.
Acts 15 was not merely a practical ruling for first-century Gentiles—it was a theological declaration that the nations’ participation in God’s kingdom does not come through Mosaic legislation but through faith in Christ’s kingship. This does not mean law is irrelevant, but that Jesus Himself is now the lawgiver, and His commands—rooted in love of God and neighbor—supersede the nationalistic legal codes of ancient Israel.
Thus, theonomy misplaces the locus of Christ’s kingship, grounding it in Old Testament jurisprudence rather than in the universal lordship of Christ, which transforms nations through gospel proclamation, not an unrealist theocratic enforcement and categories of a Christian nation.
Theonomy and the Error of Historicism
Despite its claims to be returning to biblical foundations, theonomy is deeply entangled in modernist assumptions about history and law. Brad Gregory, in The Unintended Reformation, argues that Protestant movements—by breaking from ecclesiastical authority which Judaism should represent, not Rome (his camp), and embracing sola scriptura—unknowingly paved the way for secularism. Theonomy doubles down on this trajectory, insisting on a biblical legal order while framing that order in modernist terms. It treats the Mosaic law as a rationalist legal code, applicable in all times and places, rather than as a covenantal system uniquely tied to Israel’s history and its light ot the nations.
Similarly, Charles Taylor, in A Secular Age, describes how modern thought is shaped by an “immanent frame,” where political and social progress replaces divine intervention. Theonomy assumes that biblical law can be re-enacted within this immanent frame, contradicting the deeply eschatological nature of biblical law in both Jewish and Christian tradition.
Thus, again theonomy represents a modern Christendom redux, an attempt to resurrect an idealized biblical order while operating within the very modernist framework it claims to resist.
Theonomy as a Reactionary Historicism and the Loss of Eschatology
Theonomy, for all its claims to biblical primitivism, is ultimately a reactionary historicism—a Protestant inversion of the same impulse that led Rome to develop its sacramental synthesis of nature and grace. Just as Thomistic theology sought to integrate history into a coherent system of divine governance, theonomy seeks to resolve history through legal imposition, treating the Torah as a static constitutional framework rather than a covenantal relationship unfolding toward eschatological fulfillment.
This is precisely where theonomy fails to grasp the eschatological tension of the New Testament. The biblical narrative does not envision a progressive establishment of the kingdom through human law but the in-breaking of divine rule in an apocalyptic event—Jesus’ resurrection and His future return. Paul’s gospel, as scholars like Mark Nanos and Jason Staples have demonstrated, remains thoroughly Jewish in its eschatological expectation: the nations are not politically assimilated under Torah but called into covenantal relationship with the God of Israel through faith in Christ. Their ethical obligations are not those of a reconstructed Israelite polity, but of the Noahide framework, a moral law that transcends any particular national structure.
Where postmillennial theonomy sees history as the gradual transformation of society through legal dominion, Paul sees history as the arena of divine patience until the final eschaton. This is not a question of mere dispensational divisions—it is a fundamental misreading of how biblical prophecy functions. Theonomy assumes that history is the mechanism of the kingdom rather than its stage. It turns the gospel from an eschatological proclamation into a legal-political project, effectively collapsing Christ’s future rule into an immanent political order.
This is the great theological failure of theonomy—its eschatological horizon is replaced with a legal-political construct that mirrors medieval Christendom rather than the Jewish apocalyptic hope. Instead of waiting for the city whose builder and maker is God (Heb. 11:10), it seeks to build that city through human governance. But as Paul warned in Galatians 4:25-26, the Jerusalem below—the city that still operates within a system of legal justification—is in slavery, while the Jerusalem above is free. Theonomy does not recover biblical faithfulness—it re-imposes the very kind of legal framework that the New Testament declares fulfilled in Christ and awaiting final consummation.
Thus, theonomy is not an alternative to modern historicism—it is a Protestant form of historicism, a misreading of history as the location of the kingdom rather than the stage of its ultimate revelation. It is not a recovery of biblical law, but a distortion of biblical eschatology. It fails to see that the Torah points forward to Christ, and Christ points forward to the final renewal of all things, not the mere reconstruction of a political order that history itself will render obsolete at His return.
Theonomy misunderstands biblical law because it misunderstands biblical eschatology. It assumes the kingdom is realized through legal dominion rather than through the unfolding of divine action. While Christ’s reign is already inaugurated, the kingdom is not yet fully manifest—it awaits its consummation in the eschaton. Jewish eschatology, both in the Second Temple period and in rabbinic thought, maintains that the kingdom is established not by legal enforcement but by divine intervention. Theonomy collapses this eschatological tension, replacing the already/not yet with an immanent legal-political order. But the kingdom comes not through law but through resurrection, restoration, and Christ’s return.
Conclusion: A Call for Theonomists to Reconsider Their Assumptions
Theonomy misunderstands both Torah and eschatology, collapsing the distinction between Judaism as the mediator of divine wisdom and Israel as a political entity. A proper reading of Micah 4, Acts 15, and Christ’s fulfillment of the Law reveals that:
1. The Torah remains centered in Judaism, not universally imposed as a political system.
2. The Noahide Laws provide the moral foundation for the nations, preserving religious and legal pluralism.
3. The law is fulfilled in Christ, who governs not through a theocratic state but through His Spirit-empowered kingdom.
If theonomists take Scripture and history seriously, they must abandon their attempt to universalize Torah and instead embrace the biblical vision of covenantal distinction—one that respects the role of Judaism as the divine mediator while allowing the nations to walk their own God-given paths under Christ’s kingship.
Sources
Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.
Gregory, Brad S. The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society. Harvard University Press, 2012.
Nanos, Mark D. The Mystery of Romans: The Jewish Context of Paul’s Letter. Fortress Press, 1996.
Staples, Jason A. The Idea of Israel in Second Temple Judaism: A New Theory of People, Exile, and Israelite Identity. Cambridge University Press, 2021.
Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age. Harvard University Press, 2007.
