We have opined before at length about the neo-Lutheran anemia with regard to the First Use of the Law (the civil use, or: the Curb). We have also noted how the late reformed theologian Dr. Greg Bahnsen saw the arms of the American Lutheran church body windmilling back in the 1970s, already off balance with regard to crucial questions about God’s Law—proving that we were set on this course more than a generation ago.
Seminex may have kept the LCMS confessing that Scripture is the Word of God, but we have stumbled when Satan has spoken the Word to us (cf. Luke 4:9-11), insisting that we give weight to the Gospel without corresponding weight to the Law.
As we of the Old Lutheran Synod seek to provide resources and seek a corrective to neo-Lutheran antinomianism, Bahnsen is again our friend. Below is a section from his chapter on Penology from Theonomy in Christian Ethics (3rd Ed. 2002 Covenant Media Press, pp. 424-428, emphases original), teaching on the Christian requirement which is civil punishment.
The Necessity of Punishment
In the scriptural outlook civil punishment is needed (1 Tim. 1:9-10) in order to protect the godly (Prov. 12:21; Ps. 125:3) and to destroy the wicked (Ps. 101:8). The rationale behind it, then, is that evil must be rooted out (Prov. 2:21-22; Deut. 17:12, 19:19). As an indirect result of this, punishment becomes a deterrent to crime in others (Prov. 21:11; Deut. 17:13; 19:20). The design of the penal sanctions in God’s law, then, is not the rehabilitation or amendment of the criminal. Instead of being pragmatic, the punishment was to fit the crime. Thus man is said to be punished “according to his fault” (Deut. 25:2), “according to his wickedness” (2 Sam. 3:39), “according to his ways” (Jer. 17:10; Ezek. 33:20), “according to the fruit of his doings” (Jer. 17:10; 21:14). This comes to expression in the civil realm as just recompense (Heb. 2:2), as in the lex talionis (Ex. 21 :23-25; Lev. 24:19-20; Deut. 19:21). Consequently the death penalty is to be viewed as the appropriate response of the magistrate to violations against the purity of the God-man relation (e.g., idolatry, witchcraft, etc.), the sanctity of life and its sources (e.g., murder, adultery) or authority (e.g., striking one’s parents). In the areas of theft and property damage, then, full restitution or compensation is the standard of punishment (e.g., Ex. 21:22; Lev. 24:21). An insolvent debtor would not be thrown in prison (a punishment extraneous to biblical law), for that serves no dictate of justice; instead the man was allowed to work off his debt.
Not only was punishment according to an equitable standard in the Older Testament, but such punishment (in order to remain just) had to be certain (Prov. 11 :21) and without mercy or pity to the criminal—no matter who he was (Heb. 10:28; Deut. 19:13, 21; 25:12; cf. James 2:13). Offenders were not to be helped, justified, or praised (2 Chron. 19:2; Prov. 17:5; 28:4; Isa. 5:20; 26:10; Mal. 3:17). The nations need leaders who will not praise wickedness but rebuke it (Prov. 24:24-25). And even the altar (which was to be undefiled: Num. 19:20; Ezek. 5:11; 23:38; Zeph. 3:4) could not protect those who had murdered with guile (Ex. 21:14; cf. 1 Kings 2:5, 28-31, 34). All those who committed capital crimes (as defined in God’s law) had to be executed or else the magistrate would have been sinfully judging against the victim and in favor of the offender; this is the sign of wicked judgment. Hence the ruler was prohibited from respecting persons or showing mercy to criminals. Luther has properly commented:
For in this case a prince and lord must remember that according to Romans 13 he is God’s minister and the servant of his wrath and that the sword has been given him to use against such people. If he does not fulfill the duties of his office by punishing some and protecting others, he commits as great a sin before God as when someone who has not been given the sword commits murder. If he is able to punish and does not do it—even though he would have had to kill someone or shed blood—he becomes guilty of all the murder and evil that these people commit.
(Against the Robbing and Murdering Hordes of Peasants)If he (God) will have wrath, what business do you have being merciful? … What a fine mercy to me it would be, to have mercy on the thief and murderer, and let him kill, abuse, and rob me!
(Open Letter on the Harsh Book Against the Peasants)
The civic punishment upon a man’s crime could not be eliminated even though he was required to make atonement and find God’s ultimate forgiveness by means of sacrifice for sin (cf. Lev. 4-6). Social restitution (the penal sanction) was not incompatible with being forgiven by the trespass offering (Lev. 6:4-7; Num. 5:5-8). Therefore, the civil punishment was required to be executed upon every criminal unconditionally—without consideration of his status, without mercy, without cancellation through atoning sacrifice. Such are the demands of justice in the realm of civil judgment; a crime always receives what it, with respect to the context of social life, deserves as equitable for the nature of the offense.
Divine Desert in Punishment
We are to understand the prescription of the death penalty on the basis that such a civic punishment is what the crime warrants in God’s eyes. And God’s standards are not subject to a popular vote or alteration by human opinion. When God says homosexuality (for instance) warrants capital punishment, then that is what social justice demands; that is how heinous with respect to social relations the crime is in God’s judgment. Those who are put to death according to the law of God are described in Deuteronomy 21:22 as ones who have “committed a sin worthy of death.” The God-given authority of the law is established in the penalties incurred by its violators. Hebrews 2:2 declares that the word of the law is unalterable. Such is the logic of ethics. If some action is ethically good or right, then the change of time will not per se alter the rightness of that action. That which is morally binding has an absolute character about it: it is a standing obligation. This verse also affirms that “every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense,” that is, an equitable punishment or appropriate penalty. Those crimes which are punishable by death according to God’s law receive a just recompense. The converted criminal who was crucified at Christ’s side recognized that he received just retribution for his crime under the sanctity of justice; he asserted, “We die justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds” (Luke 23:41).1 Even the Gentiles know the judicial commandment of God that they who commit certain things (homosexuality in particular) are “worthy of death” (Rom. 1:32).2
Knowing that God’s standard of righteousness (which includes temporal, social relations) is as immutable as the character of God Himself, we should conclude that crimes which warrant capital punishment in the Older Testament continue to deserve the death penalty today. So we ask ourselves at this point whether there is any agency in the New Testament era that has the right to carry out God’s sentence upon such criminals. Romans 13:1-4 (cf. Prov. 21:15) answers the question; Paul definitely places the right of punishment, even capital punishment, in the hands of the civil magistrate (an avenger who brings God’s wrath upon one who practices evil). The civil leader “does not bear the sword in vain”; this reference cannot possibly be restricted to lesser forms of punishment but expressly authorizes the most extreme penalty: death. The “sword” properly symbolizes the death penalty (cf. for what the “sword” represents: Matt. 26:52; Acts 12:2; Heb. 11:37; Rev.13:10; Ulpian, Digest 1.18.6; Tacitus, Hist. 3.68; Dio Cassius 42.27). Therefore, civil magistrates today are under obligation to execute all those who commit capital crimes as defined by God’s authoritative law. Paul’s word in Romans 13 is sufficient to demonstrate to us that the magistrate does have the obligation and authorization to inflict the death penalty upon certain violators of God’s law.
- Although these criminals who were crucified with Jesus have come down to us through history designated as ”thieves,” the language and context of the gospel passion narratives indicate that they were more than mere robbers. According to Arndt and Gingrich, κακοῦργος (cf. Luke 23:32-33, 39) is a “criminal” or “evildoer,” one who commits gross misdeeds and serious crimes. ληστῆς (cf. Μatt. 27:38, 44; Mark 15:27) basically meant “robber” or “bandit,” but its meaning had been expanded to signify “revolutionary” or “insurrectionist” (when John 18:40 is compared with Mark 15:7 we can sec this point; it is further implied in Matthew 25:55). The two criminals who were crucified with Christ were guilty of serious crimes, even murder or insurrection. (See “malefactor” in Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1961), p. 686. ↩︎
- John Murray correctly comments on this passage that “death” cannot be reasonably restricted to temporal death; cf. The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, Vol. II, ed. F. F. Bruce, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publish ing Co., 1965), p. 51. It is important to note that temporal death is the primary and obvious referent. Other allusion to the “second death” is built upon the primary allusion and comes in by inference. The Gentiles know God’s ordinance making particular crimes (notably homosexuality) punishable by execution, although one can hardly keep from going on to see that eternal death is also involved. ↩︎
Posts in this same vein:
Issues with Sodomy
On Sodomites Axiai Thanatou
Are All Sins Equal to God?
Of Specks and Logs
Rewriting History
Wounds From a Friend