death penalty: God's timeless standard for the nations?, The

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sep 2000 by Ballard, Bruce W

To be sure, Calvin does find many OT laws which express general equity, even some of the penal laws. The problem is that he is utterly subjective in his choice of which laws reflect equity, and how they do. Following a tradition that goes back at least as far as the first century, 14 Calvin sees the Decalogue as a summary of other, more specific, Mosaic laws. He reasonably classifies the prohibition against charging interest on loans as a species of theft. Yet he releases both Christian and non-Christian alike from this overall prohibition since "equity" no longer requires it! 15 And this, despite the fact that Jesus reiterates the usury prohibition in an a fortiori statement (Luke 6:35). Luther, who was even freer in his take on the applicability of OT laws under equity, goes the opposite direction and says that usury violates natural law, 16 indeed that usurers ought to be put on the rack and have their eyes pecked out by birds!

Two points are salient here. First, when Christians reduce the Scriptures' moral law to summary commands (like the Decalogue) plus an amorphous "equity," equity can be filled in with anything. The prevailing secular custom of the era is the likeliest candidate. This happened with usury. 17 it seems to be happening with divorce and remarriage today, even among evangelicals and other conservative Christians. So this approach wreaks havoc with Christian ethics intending to be Biblical. The instability of Calvin's approach in retaining certain Biblical laws under the aegis of "equity" is revealed by the way these laws were jettisoned by later Calvinists, also in the name of equity. 18 One of the most thorough attempts to make use of OT law for civil law, by the Puritans at Massachussetts Bay, 19 nevertheless departs from Moses' "judicials" in the name of equity. In that respect, Samuel Logan is correct when he distinguishes the Bay Colony view from contemporary theonomist views. 20 Second, since Scripture shows how much more specific natural law knowledge is in its correspondence with OT law, the havoc can be avoided both in Christian ethics and in the question of penal laws in secular states.

VII. A PARTIALLY THEONOMIC ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL

As we have seen above, when natural law morality is reduced to the Decalogue or other summary laws plus "equity," at the expense of the mass of precepts found in the OT, subjectivity and inconsistency follow, indeed must follow, as theonomist Greg Bahnsen so clearly, pointedly, and repeatedly shows.21 Again, we have also seen, in the light of both Rom 1:23-32 and OT passages concerning the nations, that the reduction of natural law in this particular way is unnecessary.

On the other hand, there is still a gap here. If non-Israelite nations drew the death penalty in the form of divinely commanded destruction by human nations in war for a preponderance of sins, we cannot simply assume that each such sin draws the death penalty in isolation, either for a nation or an individual. Indeed, when we consult Paul's list of naturally known moral principles, we find elements which did not draw the death penalty in isolation in Israel. It would be very helpful if we could somehow connect the list of capital offenses in Israel with those that reflect natural law knowledge and bring destruction among the nations. Again, in addition to Paul's list, we also have the lists in Leviticus 18 and 20, together with prophetic oracles against the nations concerning sins leading to destruction, to help us get a take on the natural law. As we might have expected, these lists do not hold the nations accountable for violating the ceremonial laws of Israel, but for moral wrongdoing, albeit in more detail than the Ten Commandments.