III The Unbiblical Tendency of Unlimited Libertarianism

1. The Problem with Christian Libertarianism 

Like many political ideologies, libertarianism is ill-defined. The term is used differently by almost everyone who uses it. However, the opening sentences of Henry David Thoreau’s famous essay Civil Disobedience goes a long way in capturing the general flavor of Libertarianism: “I heartily accept the motto – ‘That government is best which governs least;’ … Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — ‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ …” (Thoreau). The second motto is that which I would define as Ultimate Libertarianism. Although not all libertarians would take it as far as this, they would still subscribe to the first motto, but with ‘least’ meaning something arbitrarily short of ‘not at all.’ 

How far short of ‘not at all’ is the theoretical problem that Libertarianism faces. That is, its problem lies in distinguishing itself from Anarchism (the idea of no government at all). This is a problem for Libertarianism in general, but I would submit, it is an even bigger problem for Christian Libertarianism. As will be seen very shortly, Anarchism is indefensible in view of the Bible; therefore, Christian Libertarianism needs to define why some government is necessary. Christian Libertarianism must not rely upon such mottos as ‘less government is better,’ since the limit of this is Anarchism. Yet another libertarian-esque motto runs ‘government is a necessary evil.’ Perhaps we might now think we have hit upon something compatible with Scripture. However, a short review of Genesis history will discover the flaw in this too. The motto of a biblical view of government might run ‘government is necessary because we are evil.’ This is precisely what I hope to derive next from the context and content of the Noahic Covenant. 

2. The Necessity of Government Predicated on Our Wickedness

Although the primary purpose of this essay is to urge fellow conservative Christians to first view politics through biblical lenses rather than American lenses, nevertheless, at least one of the Founding Fathers shared my view, and what I argue is the biblical view, of the need for civil government. Listen to what James Madison says in the Federalist Papers No. 51: 

But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. … In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

James Madison

It appears here, even if Madison was not himself an orthodox Christian, he seems to uphold the doctrine of human depravity. Upon this doctrine he recognized the need for the government in some way to control the governed. Of course, the true genius of the American system is to what degree they (the Founding Fathers) succeeded in the part about the government controlling itself. 

Passing on now from this secular source, let us see how the Bible roots the institution of the civil government in the depravity of humanity. Between the fall of our first parents in Genesis 3 and the establishment of civil government in the Noahic Covenant in Genesis 9, is a story of increasing evil and anarchy. The first step in this direction was Cain’s murder of Abel (Gen. 4:8). Next we hear of Lamech’s murder of a young man who somehow offended or struck him. Lamech then boasts in his immunity to justice (Gen. 4:24). In the beginning of Chapter 6, verses 1-4, there is what appears to be an apostacy of the followers of God (the “sons of God”) by their intermarrying with unbelievers (the “daughters of man”). This is a somewhat obscure passage that has generated a good deal of speculation, but I agree with Nehemiah Coxe’s take on the matter as just summarized (Nehemiah Coxe). Directly following this passage, we read “The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5 ESV). Because of this, God was determined to wipe out all life from the earth and would have, except that Noah found favor in His sight (Gen. 6:8). Nonetheless, a worldwide judgement still impends, but now a remnant will be saved through Noah and his ark. Surely, Noah stands as a type of Christ in this narrative. 

In order for the world to not be obliterated by God’s righteous wrath before Christ should come into the world to accomplish our redemption and the Spirit to apply it, it was necessary for the wickedness of mankind to be restrained. In God’s wisdom, He devised three mechanisms to check our evil. The first is seen in Genesis 6:3 where God puts a limit on our lifespan of about 120 years. The second is the institution of the death penalty seen in Genesis 9:3. The third check is the confusion of language at Babel in Genesis 11:7. 

This essay is particularly concerned with the second check. In it, as will be argued, is the institution of civil law and government. Now this check is ensconced within God’s covenant with Noah. So, before going into how the death penalty is the seed out of which civil government grows, something must be said about this covenant with Noah. 

3. The Noahic Covenant

The second check on our wickedness is revealed in God’s Covenant with Noah – for short, the Noahic Covenant. Covenants play a central role in the biblical narrative. A synonym for ‘covenant’ is the word ‘testament’ (although there are nuanced differences in the words as brought out in the book of Hebrews). That Christians have long viewed the major schema of the Bible as being covenantal, consider the division of the Bible into the ‘Old Testament’ and the ‘New Testament,’ or it could be said, the ‘Old Covenant’ and the ‘New Covenant.’ Many gospel rich conclusions have been reached by systematizing this approach to the Bible in what is called Covenant Theology. A great deal can be said about Covenant Theology that is beyond the scope of my argument here, but suffice it to say, I believe it is the most valid way to understand God’s dealings with humanity throughout the Bible. 

A covenant is a framework for relationship. Think of that familiar covenant between a man and woman called marriage. This covenant illustrates well the elements common to most covenants, especially with regard to God and His people. These elements include amicable and intimate personal union as well as legally binding obligations. Like marriage, most biblical covenants are designed to last until one of the parties to it dies. However, the biblical covenants go further than this and requires that the life of the party who does not live up to its obligations be forfeited. This is why they were established with the shedding of blood as a signal to the parties that the only way out was by death. The Abrahamic Covenant first involved the cutting of animals (surely a bloody business) in Gen. 15:8-10 and then the cutting attendant on circumcision in Gen. 17:9-14. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for covenant could derive from the word for cutting (Witsius). The Mosaic Covenant also was established with bloodshed in Ex. 24:3-8. Most significantly, the New Covenant was established on the blood of Jesus shed on the Cross (Heb. 9:15-22). In the same matter as these covenants, the Noahic Covenant was established with the blood of a sacrifice (Gen. 8:20). 

The Noahic Covenant is the first explicitly mentioned covenant in the Bible (although the Covenant of Works with Adam is clearly implied by the presence of all the essential elements of a covenant). Within Covenant Theology, much is said about the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and, of course, the New Covenants and this is understandable. However, I believe that more ought to be said about the Noahic Covenant than what I have run into in the course of my own reading. The part it plays in the plan of redemption is pivotal. 

Theologians often speak of the Covenant of Grace by which is meant the relational framework that God uses to communicate saving grace to His people. Over against this idea of saving grace (also called salvific grace) is the idea of common grace. This is the grace that God bestows on all people whether they are His peculiar people or not. In this sense, the Noahic Covenant is a kind of Covenant of Common Grace. Despite the thoroughly evil inclinations of our hearts, in the Noahic Covenant, God graciously promised to never judge the whole world again until the end of the world (Gen. 8:21-22), that is, until after He had completed the plan of redemption. 

As alluded to, the scope of the Noahic Covenant is universal. Hear Genesis 9:8-11 (ESV):

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, ‘Behold, I establish my covenant with you and your offspring after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the livestock, and every beast of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark; it is for every beast of the earth. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.’

Genesis 9:8-11 (ESV)

Since no one survived the flood save Noah and his offspring, this covenant is for all people. In addition, it is for “every living creature” so that the whole creation is caught up in God’s plan of redemption. 

We also know that the duration of the Noahic covenant is “while the earth remains…” (Gen. 8:22a). Since the earth remains, this covenant must still be in force. However, there are other indicators that show its applicability to our day. For one, we see its token or sign in the sky: 

 And God said, ‘This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.

Genesis 9:12-13 (ESV)

Covenantal signs serve the purpose of reminding one or both parties of the covenant what their obligations to the covenant are. Although we are incidentally reminded of God’s mercy whenever we see a rainbow, the stated purpose in Gen. 9:14-17 is to remind God of his promise to withhold utter judgement on the earth until the consummation of all things. 

Having established the scope and the duration of the Noahic Covenant, let us turn to its overarching purpose. Soon I will get to its specific purpose with regard to civil government but let me first spell out briefly its wider purpose. Remember that before the flood, the wickedness of humanity abounded to the point where the holy wrath of God could not but break forth in almost total and global judgement. The purpose of the Noahic Covenant was to prevent this from happening again, at least until God had completed all His Will regarding mankind. The Noahic Covenant achieves this by first, God pledging Himself not to judge in this way, and second, by God’s instituting checks upon the development of our evil inclinations. All this is to serve the purpose of God’s saving grace in the gospel. Although the grace immediately contained in the Noahic Covenant is common, since it applies equally to all people, nevertheless, its end is to preserve the stage upon which the drama of redemption plays out.  

4. The Connection Between the Noahic Covenant and Civil Government

So much more may be said in connection with the Noahic Covenant, but the focus now will be its connection with civil government. This connection is through the establishment of the death penalty within the Noahic Covenant: “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image” (Gen. 9:6 ESV). Although this connection is not made explicit in the immediate text, it is made implicitly by the rest of the Old Testament, and in the New Testament, the connection is made explicit. 

First, the connection between civil government and the administering of the death penalty is implied by the Mosaic Law. The Mosaic Law gives a good case study of civil law since it provides so many detailed examples. Of course, the Mosaic Law was not simply a civil law. A common and very helpful way to view the Mosaic Law is to distinguish between civil, ceremonial, and moral laws (although there is often overlap between these categories). However, among those laws that were clearly civil (e.g. Ex. 21:12-16), there are many that carry the punishment of death penalty. The administration of this punishment was a public and not a private matter (Duet. 13:9 includes “… all the people”). Perhaps a counter example could be offered in the case of the avenger as spoken of in Numbers 35:12. However, even this was not a private matter since one, the avenger was not allowed to follow the manslayer into a city of refuge, and two, the case would then be brought before the whole congregation for judgement (also in verse 12). That is, even in the case of the avenger, the whole process was regulated by the civil government. 

Even though I have furnished an example of civil laws using the Mosaic Law, let me be clear that I am not saying that the civil law contained in the Mosaic Law should be the blueprint for Gentile civil governments as some have suggested. Certainly, the wisdom of many of these laws may provide a model for equitable civil laws in many cases, but a complete mimicking is neither  warranted nor desirable. To naïvely assert that since God ordained these laws, they must be better than any manmade civil laws, is to miss the entire point of these laws. The point was not to have such stringent laws that immorality would be totally eradicated. Instead, the stringency served the purpose of bringing out more sin (see Romans 7:5-13). Thus, the exacting nature of the Law was to prove to all who sought their justification through it that they could never live up to its demands: “For by the works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin” (Rom. 3:20 ESV). 

Returning to the point under consideration, in addition to the implicit connection found in the Old Testament, the New Testament gives an explicit connection between civil government and the death penalty as instituted in Genesis 9. In Romans 13:1-7, Paul is undeniably speaking about the civil authorities and how we ought to be subject to them. The first thing to notice in this passage is the fact that Paul says that the authorities are instituted by God. When it comes to the civil authorities, where do we find the civil authorities instituted except in the Noahic Covenant? If indeed the origin of civil government is in the Noahic Covenant, then we should expect it to have the authority to exercise violence against wrongdoers. In verse 4, this is explicitly stated: “… if you do wrong, be afraid, for he [the civil authorities] 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” (Rom. 13:4 ESV). 

Now that the connection between the civil government, the death penalty, and the Noahic Covenant is established, the question may be raised asking whether the authority of the civil government goes beyond the punishment for murder. A look again at the Mosaic Law shows that the civil laws went well beyond this. Also, from Romans 13, we have no indication, indeed the opposite, that the authority of the civil government was confined to this. We should not be surprised if the authority to punish the most heinous crime, murder, should stand for the authority to punish lesser crimes too. Consider how our Lord expanded upon the Ten Commandments in His sermon on the mount (Matt. 5-7). Just as the seventh commandment used the most signal sexual sin (adultery) to synecdochally refer to all sexual sins, the Noahic Covenant established the most conspicuous civil law to imply the establishment of all civil law.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

5. The Christian’s Response to God’s Institution of Government

In view of the fact that civil government owes its institution directly to God, “… those [authorities] that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom. 13:1b ESV), does the unbounded minimizing tendency of libertarianism accord with biblical teaching? Does the attitude of suspicion towards all authority that libertarianism produces compatible with the attitude of submission towards all authority (wherever possible) that Paul in Romans 13 and Peter in 1 Peter 2 insist upon? I am certainly not implying that all aspects of libertarianism are at odds with Christianity. Indeed, many of my political views may, with justice, be labeled libertarian. However, if our attitudes are out of line with Scripture, due to the inseparable connection between our beliefs and our attitudes, then it is likely that some of our beliefs are out of line with Scripture as well. 

What I am pleading for here is that we, as conservative Christians, examine our political assumptions to verify that they are in accord with what the Bible teaches us about the civil government. Furthermore, to check the soundness of our beliefs, we need to examine the content of our attitudes. Given the purpose that God gave for civil government, to preserve the world from ruin due our wickedness so that the plan of redemption could run its course, our attitude should be full of awe at God’s wisdom and thanksgiving for His grace. This attitude should not just be for righteous governments either, but for very wicked ones like those under which Paul and Peter lived and were martyred. The reason for this is that the wisdom of God’s providence may utilize even evil governments to restrain the greater aggregate evil of its citizens. Remember this maxim: the only evil greater than an evil government is the evil of the people without government. The story of Noah and the flood proves it and if further proof is needed, a review of the Book of Judges will seal it.

Bibliography

James Madison, John Jay, Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist. New York: Barnes & Noble Classics, 2006.

Nehemiah Coxe, John Owen. Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. Palmdale, CA: RBAP, 2005.

Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience and Other Essays. New York: Dover, 1993.

Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837.