Justice is roughly equivalent to the lex talionis principle. It is why we see it arise within the theocracy of Israel under the law. The “eye for an eye” principle is what we might call, along with the Westminster Confession of Faith, a principle of general equity. General equity basically means common justice. These are principles common to all civil societies. Their manifestation within the law of the theocracy of Israel is evidence of their universal nature. As God gave to the state the authority to shed blood for those who commit violence, he did so as a principle for all civil order. And when the state fails to shed the blood of those who commit capital crimes, it inevitably leads to chaos. Without the deterrent of death, what then restrains man from carrying out his basest impulses?

God’s common grace extends beyond the role of the state in subduing civil disorder. God’s common grace has a restraining effect on the corruption of sin universally. While every man is equally totally depraved, not all men are equally corrupt. Total depravity—better called extensive depravity—means that every aspect of the image bearer has been touched by sin. But no man is as sinful or corrupt as he could be. Part of that restraint comes through the ordering of society in church, family, and state. But another reason is God’s mercy in causing both rain and sun to fall on the just and the unjust. The sun and the rain are microcosms of the greater universal blessing of God on creation. Just as he sustains the physical life of man through the sun and rain, God gives mercy to both the just and the unjust in restraining their corruption. How exactly that works on a spiritual level is not as easy to articulate as how it works on a physical level. Nevertheless, it remains a mystery to which the Scriptures plainly testify.

Yet the state, in its role as a deterrent to evil—as it punishes evil and rewards good—is an essential element in the preservation of the common order. And God is not mocked. To resist the servant of God in the civil realm is to resist God himself. And when God is resisted, whether in church or state, chaos of one kind or another ensues. To use the language of Romans 1, God turns men over to their basest desires, and that itself is an act of divine judgment.

God is ultimately the judge of all, and we will all have our day in court. It will not be pleasant for those outside of Christ. But for those who are in Christ, it will not be justice that is served on that day toward us, but mercy and divine compassion, as God beholds us in the perfect righteousness of Christ and makes the declaration that only a just God can make: We are forgiven of our sins and are righteous in his sight.

Regarding Rome and its approach to society: The Constantinian experiment has, from my perspective, totally failed. This is not to say that no good came from the church from the fourth century onward. Of course there was good. God always has a true church on earth. But in terms of the way in which the church has related to the state and society, it has been a complete failure. And I cannot comprehend why any Protestant would want to go back to that. I understand that a number of Protestants were in favor of the nationalization of Christianity. But just because our heroes of the past said something does not mean we must agree with it. And it seems to me that the Scriptures of the New Testament completely override the Constantinian experiment.

Because it did not understand the full spirituality of the church, Rome could not help but blur the clear distinctions between the mandates of church and state. Even to the present day,

Rome’s imposition of its theology on the state has caused great havoc. And while I celebrate the court’s decision concerning Roe v. Wade, before we spike the football, we ought carefully to consider the fact that many who voted our way did so on Roman Catholic principles. And while we agree with them on this particular decision, we may not be as gleeful when they seek to abolish the death penalty. In many ways, Roman Catholics throughout the country have led the way toward that end.

If we consider the problem of the penal system in America today, it will not take long to see the chain reaction this has caused. If there is no death penalty and somebody commits a capital crime, he is put in prison for life, and some are even paroled before then. This means that prisons become overcrowded, and when that happens police departments and state penitentiaries are forced to keep criminals for shorter and shorter periods of time. While this is often presented as mercy and compassion, it is really only a disguise covering the most fundamental problem of all—that we have rejected the God-mandated purpose of the state.

In a final word to those who seek the cause of regaining “Christendom”: This is why you do not want it. If the state is to establish and promote Christianity, then—since it bears the sword—it must also enforce its establishment and endorsement. If the state is not to bear the sword in enforcing its preference for Christianity, then the state is clearly operating outside its mandate. Thus, coercion in matters of religion—or the promotion thereof—without the sword renders the state impotent. But the state with the sword endorsing and establishing Christianity is called in the book of Revelation Babylon. You may think that is a rash overstatement meant merely to provoke. But one only needs to look back as far as the sixteenth century to see the way in which the state bore the sword in support of its religion.

You may say that the solution is some form of pan-Christianity—a broad Christianity, if you will, that equally promotes Roman Catholicism and orthodox Protestantism. But then you have an even greater problem. No longer is Christianity promoted by the state as true religion. As Protestants, we believe that the oneness of the church is not formed by mere external principles but is a matter of the heart as believers gather around a common doctrine and life. That kind of state religion and state-sponsored Christianity is something with which I want nothing to do. Neither should you.

Final Words About State Power and Capital Punishment

The establishment of the state is an act of divine revelation. It is revealed in both general and special revelation. In special revelation, we find it in the form of a divine oracle given in Genesis 4 and 9. In nature, it takes the form of divine justice embedded within the covenant of works.

There is no state before the fall. Nevertheless, the principle of “an eye for an eye” is already present within the covenant of works. If Adam does good, he is rewarded with eternal life; if he does evil, he is punished with death. That principle remains embedded within the natural order.

Just as marriage between one man and one woman is embedded within nature even before the fall, the creation mandate for man to till the soil and subdue the earth is embedded within the natural order. Therefore, one does not need to be present for the special revelation of the divine oracle establishing the state in Genesis 4 or 9 in order to know what the obligation of the state is. It is embedded within the natural order itself. In this way, human magistrates ought to know what they are supposed to do and what they ought not to do.

The problem, of course, is sin. Sinful magistrates often fail to carry out their divine mandate properly. Sometimes they wrongly execute the principle of “an eye for an eye” on citizens who ought not to receive such punishment. An easy example would be an Islamic theocracy executing Christians. This is not because Christianity is somehow to be favored by the state. It would be equally wrong for the state to execute an “eye for an eye” judgment on any practitioner of a religion in which there is no human-to-human harm.

There are also times when the state fails to carry out capital punishment on those who commit capital crimes. An example of this is, of course, the modern United States when it fails to execute punishment on those who commit such crimes. Once again, to borrow the language of Romans 1, the state fails to do what it ought to do, even though it knows what it ought to do by nature because it suppresses natural revelation in unrighteousness.

But it is especially heinous for those who possess special revelation—such as Christian magistrates—to fail in this regard. In such instances, they suppress not only what is known to them by natural revelation but also what is known through special revelation.

This way of thinking has the advantage of perhaps redefining the use of natural law in jurisprudence. Natural law, understood in this way—and arguably as a distinctive Protestant notion—is not something deduced merely on the basis of natural reason independent of revelation. This understanding is much more in keeping with Roman Catholicism and with the thought of Thomas Aquinas in particular.

Those states that do not care about God or special revelation are nevertheless held accountable for their failures according to natural revelation. But Protestant magistrates not only may, but must, operate with natural revelation interpreted through special revelation. In this way, their approach to legislation can never ignore or compartmentalize God’s oracle establishing the mandate of the state. They know what God has ordained in Genesis 4 and 9 and ought therefore to operate as magistrates with that mandate always in view.

This would mean that no Protestant has any excuse for opposing the death penalty in instances of capital crime. This is the logical position of Rome given its notion of natural law. The details concerning exactly what warrants a capital crime and which sub-capital crimes ought to be punished and in what manner are not fully given to us in the special revelation of God’s oracle. Likewise, the list of crimes that received the death penalty under the law of Moses does not necessarily carry over directly to all nation-states whatsoever. Which laws do and do not carry over is a matter of biblical exegesis and prudent debate for civil magistrates to consider.

Thus, what we have in the divine oracle concerning the state is an establishment of the state before the giving of the Mosaic law, and therefore it is nontheocratic in that sense. At the same time, it is not grounded merely on natural reason. Such a position establishes a firm no both to theonomy on the one hand and to autonomous natural law theory on the other.

©Jim Cassidy. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Jim Cassidy

  

  Jim is the pastor of South Austin Presbyterian Church (OPC). He previously served in OPC pastorates in Pennsylvania (Johnstown) and New Jersey (Ringoes). In his ministry he has been and continues to be committed to proclaiming Christ and Him crucified from all the Scriptures. Jim earned an MDiv at Westminster Theological Seminary as well as a PhD in Historical and Theological Studies, concentrating in systematic theology and writing on the theology of Karl Barth.

  More by Jim Cassidy ›