What follows has not seen the light of days for year upon years, but in “light” of this recent post asking, Why Do We Not Have the Death Penalty, I was reminded of it once again. Therefore, I have brought it out, and spruced it up, fit for the blog. It will, at the very least, provide some food-for-thought… ENJOY!
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT – IS IT BIBLICAL?
INTRODUCTION
The ability to answer the above question should rise and fall on the credibility of the Scriptural interpretations of the pursuant after truth. This is particularly significant in this subject matter, as it is easy to be bombarded by one’s own thoughts and emotion, which can easily inform-to-uniform one’s rationale. This seems to be further encouraged as those “for” or “against” this practice, tend to be split by other factors, with even one’s political presuppositions seeming to impinge!
Therefore, in this post, this blogger will contend that Scripture does affirm that Capital Punishment is the biblical right of any government, as the God-ordained authority in civil matters, in the context where the offender has intentionally taken the life of another human being, and therefore, must accept these consequences forthwith.
To complete this proposal, this blogger will begin by defining what is meant when the term “Capital Punishment” is used in this post, highlighting why this can easily become a “hot-bed” issue that can become blurred in the Christian manifesto. This will set the table for this blogger, where in the main course, the biblical basis for holding to such a position will be affirmed, while also dealing with some areas of objection to this position, and very briefly, the why question.
This post should not be viewed as the last word on this subject, and while, in many respects it is introductory in it’s coverage, it is nonetheless categorical!
WHAT IS CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
The term and concept “Capital Punishment” (hereafter “CP“) is defined as the giving of the death penalty to a person who has been found guilty of committing a crime. This definition therefore, sets the principle of death as a means by which the offender is punished for a given offense. While this definition affirms the use of the death of penalty, it does not provide any parameters as to how and when this will be used. However, this blogger will be holding to the position that Scripture limits the use of this as a punishment, as a consequence for those who have deliberately or intentionally taken the life of another human being, which is consistent with the biblical context.
THE CHRISTIAN DILEMMA
For many in the Christian faith, all this talk about taking someone’s life sounds and seems somewhat antithetical to the Gospel message. In fact, some would say that this is a straight out contradiction, and therefore, can not be accepted, a priori. Robertson McQuilkin, speaking of CP in an American context, affirms that “most American major religious bodies have officially called for the abolition. Not only does taking a human life offend liberal sensibilities (except in the case of the unborn and those who do not have a ‘truly human’ existence), it offends New Testament ethics, according to many evangelicals.” 1 While the nexus of this comment is limited to the American scene, it is probably fair to state that this position would be widely held by the majority of evangelicals, particularly in a New Zealand context.
While this position, in some respects, reflects some important perspectives in holy Scripture, consistent with the Christian desire to save individuals from a “demonic” eternal destiny, such a perspective rebuttal is not reflective of the comprehensive teaching of Scripture, when such has been integrated. As an example, in Romans 1:18-32, certain reprobates are said to be “given up” by God. God in effect says, “they have gone too far,” and He sovereignly chooses to release them to follow the willful, purposeful, and sinful lusts of their hearts. While this statement does not directly impact on the discussion of CP, it does affirm an important theological point. In the sovereignty of God, there are times when the salvation of the individual, exemplified by such texts as the “desiring all to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), can be superceded in the economy of God, as He brings and outworks His purposes (Eph. 1:11) that bring Him ultimate glory.
The position of CP can be said to be one such example.
SUPPORTING BIBLICAL DATA
In this section, this blogger will deal with a couple of biblical texts that seem to affirm the validity of CP, which will not only declare that this is the perspective in God’s Word, but will also provide the data for why God could be guilty of affirming such a thing.
Genesis 9:6 affirms, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.” (NASB)
This verse in its historical context was given to Noah as part of a binding agreement, a covenant, that God made after the world-wide (presuppositions) flood of Genesis seven and eight. The covenant affirmation is universally accepted, as Ryrie notes, “that this verse established the principle of capital punishment is in itself not debated.” 2 What is not universally accepted, and is the point of debate, centers on the validity of this passage, as given to Noah, as being relevant in today’s context, particularly in light of the Cross. The context of this command, affirms that this was given to Noah as the then, representative head of the human race. It was not solely given to any person, nation, or community. Therefore, all humanity at the time of Noah was accountable to this prohibition.
As Genesis 9:6 makes clear, the reason why God commanded Noah to take the life of one who had taken the life of another human being, was due to the image of God inherent in mankind. This image was and is not limited to a single race or community, as this image, imago Dei, interconnects the totality of mankind, believer or otherwise. Because this image is not limited by community, the consequences of violating this are not limited, meaning all those who were born subsequently, have came under this admonition. In addition, Geisler notes a second reason for this admonition: “By the use of capital punishment men were to quell the violence and restore the order of justice. God ordained social order and peace and gave government the authority over life to ensure mankind these benefits.” 3 Therefore, there were practical or pragmatic reasons for this commandment, which this blogger will cover in more depth, shortly.
Depending on your understanding of the continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments, there is the possible charge that this statement, being part of the Old Testament, does not directly impinge on the New Testament believer. This can also be framed in light of a Christological hermeneutic, which has gained acceptance, whereby the Old Testament’s meaning is now understood through the lense of Christ, who has redefined this for the New Testament believer. The motivation for such a position is encouraged by what some view as a dichotomy between the actions of the God of the Old Testament, and the Jesus we see, in the New Testament, however, such a dichotomy is fallacious. While Christ’s words in the Sermon on the Mount may also lend credence to this position (Matt. 5:17-20), if by this language, there is a hermeneutical move, to the point of absolute redefinition (not validated by the next perspective of progressive revelation), in this blogger’s opinion, such goes too far, as such often explicates the original meaning, thereby also being guilty of the charge that such a position promotes a canon inside a canon. A better position to affirm is that while Christ and the New Testament may extend the meaning of an Old Testament passage, such a position does not negate the original context and meaning.
However, this previous point should not be confused with the principle of the progress of revelation where God has purposefully and progressively unfolded this throughout salvation history. Therefore, the question can be asked as it relates to the New Testament believer is this: Is there any passage in the New Testament that provides further revelation to the principle of CP as a consequence, as it relates to the intentional taking of another life? The simple answer is to say, “no,” there has been no further revelation in the New Testament that has superceded this command. Therefore, it would seem to be, still very much in effect.
At this stage, this blogger has not covered the Scriptures that are used by the objectors to CP, particularly from the New Testament. However, when these Scriptures are understood in their context, they do not negate a legitimate New Testament perspective that maintains the government’s use of CP, as a legitimate means of exercising its authority.
The Mosaic Law
However, it would remiss if this blogger failed to cover the other place in the Old Testament that provides subsequent revelation on the biblical use of CP, post-Noah, which are the details contained in the Law of Moses. While the commandment given to Noah, only related to those who intentionally took the life of another person created, imago Dei, in the Mosaic Code, the use of CP was further lengthened to make it legitimate for application, in response to eighteen crimes. 4
While the Law is unequivocal as to the God-ordained use of CP as a proper means of executing justice, larger trajectories, such as the direct application and place of the Law in the life of a New Testament saint play a pivotal role in applying these verses directly to a New Testament believer. This blogger holds to a more discontinuous view that understands these Laws as being specifically given to the nation of Israel, as a rule of faith, for the theocratic nation. With the coming of Christ, the Law of Moses has been superceded by the Law of Christ. Romans 10:4 affirms that Christ is the end of the Law. Galatians 3:24, 25 also affirms that the Law was a Tutor to lead us to Christ, however, now that we have Christ, we are no longer under that tutor. Second Corinthians 3:7-11 further affirms that the glory of the Old Covenant has passed away. This is due to the greater glory of the New Covenant.
Therefore, while this blogger has highlighted the affirmations in the Mosaic Law, these are not directly relevant to maintaining this position. While there are traditions that will affirm more continuity between the Testaments, if such is correct, it only strengthens the case for CP.
Romans 13:1-7
1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. 7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. (Emphasis Mine – NASB)
This is a very important verse for the position of CP, as it provides some further clarity and a more definitive basis for this position, which provides a biblical foundation to support CP as a function of an effective legislation in a given governmental structure. In effect, this passage provides the reasoning why CP is a needed policy in the governmental mandate, as they seek to efficiently, effectively and competently administer the rule of law. This also affirms that CP is a valid New Testament teaching, one that is still relevant for this day and age.
There are a number of important points that Paul, inspired of the Holy Spirit, brings out in this passage, and we will only look at a couple of these.
Paul affirms in verse one that human governments are ordained by God. God is responsible for raising them up, and establishing them. Therefore, whoever resists the governmental authority is really resisting God’s authority, as they are a minister of God (v. 4). It is in connection with verse four that Scripture provides more information on CP. These authorities do “not bear the sword for nothing.” What Paul is really saying is that the government, as God’s instrument with which to maintain law and order, has the right to use force as a means of making this happen.
The question remains as to how one is to understand the call of “not bear [ing] the sword for nothing” as it intersects with the government’s use of this in the role of law and order? Some want to say that the sword should be understood in light of statements such as, “Love does no wrong to a neighbor”, affirmed in Romans chapter thirteen, verse ten, however, this can not be substantiated by the context. In chapter thirteen, verses one to seven, the Apostle Paul is not referring to the individual believer, but to the governmental institution. Still, others affirm that bearing a sword does not necessarily refer to the use of capital punishment. They say that this verse only provides the government with the validation of using legitimate force, much like the use of firearms, in an appropriate context, in the Police today. Therefore, one should not read more into this portion of Scripture than the government’s right to keep law and order.
However, while the sword does have reference to keeping law and order, when one looks at the word “sword” in the original languages, one is given a more complete picture of what the Apostle Paul was trying to communicate. Ryrie quoting F. L. Godet has this to say in connection with this word. The term “sword”,
Denotes (in opposition to…the poniard or straightedge sword) a large knife with bent blade, like the carried by the chiefs in the “Iliad,” and with which they cut the neck of the victims, similar to our “saber.” By this expression, Paul does not here denote the weapon which the emperor and his praetorian prefect carried as a sign of their power of life and death – the application would be too restricted – but that which was worn at their side, in the provinces, by the superior magistrates, to whom belonged the right of capital punishment, and which they caused to be born solemnly before them in public procession. 5
Newell also has this to say about the context of Romans 13:4, and what this means for our practice,
To “bear” is, literally, to bear constantly, illustrated in the provincial Roman magistrates’ habitual wearing of the sword. It was also borne before them, in public processions, as a symbol of their right to punish by death. This is in accordance with God’s covenant with Noah, after the Flood, which covenant remains in force: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” Those who decry “capital punishment,” are themselves withstanding the Word of God as to the very foundation of human government. 6
In other words, Paul seems to be particularly purposeful in the terms he has chosen, which points to a specific meaning.
Nevertheless, others will argue that the “sword”, while affirming its connection with CP, and so the government’s right thereof, does so only in theory and not in practice. However, in reality this understanding does not carry much force. If one was to be consistent with this perspective, than one could claim, in the context of Romans 13, that one does not really have to pay taxes as this is also symbolic. While such a position could get a libertarian following, it seems clear that such a position is absurd and reduces language to more of a vehicle for personal vindication.
OPPOSING ARGUMENTATION
This blogger has already noted the contrasting positions of the main passages used to support CP. However, there are other passages that are used by those who reject CP. Therefore, we need to briefly answer these, highlighting why these do not teach what the opponents of CP claim, also briefly answering a more practical position.
Exodus 20:13; Matthew 5:21; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20; Romans 13:9; James 2:11…
“You shall not murder”
This verse, first affirmed in the Old Testament and confirmed in the New Testament teaches that no one is allowed to murder, as this is a clear violation of Scripture. The opponents of CP conflate the killing of a person with the act of murder. To understand what this verse is teaching, one must understand the biblical definition of the act of murder. Murder is not simply killing another person; it specifically refers to premeditated killing. When the New Testament translates this commandment, it uses the word “phoneuo” which is only ever used in the sense of murder. It is interesting to note that in the nation of Israel, when someone violated this commandment, they were put to death. If this exegesis has credence, it seems peculiar that God would command the nation of Israel to complete an act that, in other places, He has clearly outlawed!
Therefore, one is not warranted in using the sixth commandment as a refutation of CP, as this is not murder, therefore the context does not apply. In fact, what took place when this verse was violated, provides a very real picture of CP in action.
John 8:1 – 11
In this passage of Scripture, Messiah is being questioned by the Scribes and Pharisees as to how the woman caught in adultery should be handled. One must take note of the specific context to fully understand the interplay that takes place in this passage. This may be another example where a Christological redefinition is being underscored.
These so-called spiritual leaders of Israel were trying to gain a legal basis to charge Jesus. How could they do this? If Messiah was to affirm the use of stoning in this case, then He could rightly be charged of giving evidence that was contrary to roman policy. If He had refused the use of stoning in this case, then Messiah could have been accused of speaking things contrary to the Law of Moses, although the Law (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) affirmed that both parties caught in adultery were to be put to death. Nevertheless, Messiah was in between a rock and a hard place. However, He was able to extricate Himself with a wise and clever answer (an application of Matt. 10:16?), which stonewalled their refutation, without getting caught out by their scheme. This opportunity also provided Messiah with a situation where He could highlight the Pharisees and Scribes lack of spiritual authority, which is the initial focus of this interaction.
Therefore, this instance is dealing with a context that is outside what is being proposed in the context of CP. However, the response may be that Jesus’ emphasis on mercy and grace is providing a new paradigm in how to respond to those instances where CP could be enacted, which means that this historical example is paradigmatic! In some respects, there may be an initial sense of force in this perspective, however, in light of the individual interaction and redemptive significance that Jesus directed this conversation toward, in contradistinction to the civil, societal and corporate aspects and perspectives involved in the context of human governments and the outworking of the judicial rule of law, such is a wrong conclusion. Also, no one is claiming that such a “gracious” response is mandated to those guilty of premeditated murder, as those against CP, are not against such consequences as incarceration! Therefore, the question may rightly be asked as to how this verse illuminates such a context? It would be as equally wrong to apply this passage to another distinct context, that of 1 Cor. 5:1-2, where there is immorality of the most perverse sort. As verse 2 affirms, such an offense should not provoke merely a merciful, “go and sin no more” response from the leadership, but a more serious course of action, reflective of the nature of the sin and the context that has been affected by such an action!
One would affirm that responding to premeditated murder with CP recognises such factors, and responds accordingly!
Pragmatic Issues
This form of argumentation notes the frail nature of governments and the legal systems they enact. Just because there are examples of corrupt governments and possible situations where CP may be enacted on an innocent individual, it does not follow that one should therefore, cease to practice it, as such is a non sequitur. We do not refrain from placing people in confinement for rape, because there are a number of persons who have been wrongly convicted. The correct solution and response is to have governments effectively rule the law and put comprehensive legal structures in place, with the appropriate checks and balances, which progressively negate the likelihood of such mistakes, particularly as it relates to such serious and important cases!
Such a response should not be construed as lacking in empathy, but is more reflective of the biblically-based seriousness of taking a life!
THE “WHY” QUESTION
If such is true, why would God command such a thing? Many will believe that the character of Jesus, in particular, would not enforce such a perspective, which will subsequently, help to inform their presuppositions. However, to put it succinctly, why God would enforce such a process highlights the significance of being made imago Dei, with the subsequent, Creator rights over His creation, endemic in such a context! To use some modern parlance, man’s image has a copyright, and only the Creator of this image has both the right and authority to damage or extinguish this image. Therefore, premeditated killing, or murder, is such a serious offense as it extinguishes this without divine approval, which is why the consequences for such an offense, are equally serious, and in this instance, divinely approved!
CONCLUSION
In this blog-paper, this blogger has assessed the biblical validity of CP. At the outset, it was affirmed that this is something that the majority of Christianity struggles to stomach and agree with, which may very well be reflected by the responses of those who have read this post-to-date. However, this personal reality, in no way, should impact on those who are seeking to think God’s thoughts after Him, where biblical truth is based out of the text, and not a straw poll. After examining the biblical material, is the verdict clear? While this is not the last word on this subject, and those against this position have more than one trick… pony, the verdict seems decisive! If so, Capital Punishment is the God-given right of the God-ordained institution, as they administer law and order in a depraved and wicked society, where fallen humanity seem to be more than willing to go to ever-lengthening extremes of depravity, in their pursuits under the Sun.
If such is true, as a means to effectively tackle the practical outworking of total and utter depravity, the question we should be asking is this: What in the world are we thinking when we fail to follow this principle in our practice? This ain’t Kansas, anymore!
Until Next Time
I am Jonny King
FOOTNOTES
1. Robertson McQuilkin, AN INTRODUCTION TO BIBLICAL ETHICS, p 361
2. Charles Ryrie, YOU MEAN THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT…., p 26
3. Norman L. Geisler, ETHICS: ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES, p 241
4. For a list of these 18 crimes and the passages thereof, this blogger would refer the reader to, An Introduction to Biblical Ethics, By Robertson McQuilkin, pp 361, 362.
5. Charles C. Ryrie, YOU MEAN THE BIBLE TEACHES THAT…, pp 28, 29.
6. William R. Newell, ROMANS, VERSE-BY-VERSE, sourced, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/newell/romans.xiv.html
Recent Comments