Death Penalty

ISSUE #2: Could a Christian be involved in the death penalty?

Arguments in favour

Introduction

In Genesis 9:5-6 God sets out the principle that underlies the death penalty – “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

This principle applied but was abused in all ancient cultures. There was a situation of unlimited vengeance.

Therefore when God established His people as a people and gave them a Law to govern their communal life He created the very just principle of “An eye for an eye” in order to limit the punishment for crimes / wrongs done.

In this Law God then strictly specified which crimes deserved the death penalty:

1. Murder (Ex. 21:12)
2. Kidnapping (Ex. 21:16)
3. Bestiality (Ex. 22:19)
4. Adultery (Lev. 20:10)
5. Homosexual behaviour (Lev. 20:13)
6. False prophecy (Deut. 13:5)
7. Rape (Deut. 22:25)

The method of execution also varied:

1. Stoning was most common. There had to be 2 witnesses and they had to throw the first stones (Deut 17:6-17)
2. Burning was for incest and harlotry (Lev. 20:14)
3. Sword, spear, shooting by arrow (Deut 13:15; Num. 25:7; Ex. 19:13)
4. Beheading (2 Sam. 16:9).

Why these specific crimes? My understanding is that it is in order to protect the following:

• The value of human life (Gen 9:6)
• The sanctity of sex (bestiality / homosexual behaviour / rape)
• The sanctity of marriage and family as the basic building block of society (adultery)
• The people of God as a distinct people (thus false prophecy was the equivalent of treason)

 

The execution of the death penalty

The instructions involved (in a very small nutshell):

1. The nearest relative became the “prosecutor” and “executioner” – he was referred to as the “avenger of blood” (Numbers 35:19)
2. When a relative was killed by someone the “go’el” (avenger) pursued him and had the right to kill him if he had satisfied himself that certain conditions had been met. Very NB that self-defence was a ground of justification.
3. The killer could flee to certain cities of refuge where the city elders would decide if it was a case of murder or culpable homicide. They had to hear the testimony of at least two witnesses. If it was murder the killer was handed over for execution. If it was culpable homicide then the killer stayed in the city and was safe (imprisoned in a sense under house arrest). Read all about it in Deuteronomy 19.

Why is this important? Because it shows that God intended the death penalty but, in order to preserve the sanctity of human life (even that of an alleged killer), He provided (for those days) very strict limitations. This penalty fell within a legal system.

The God-executed death penalty

We see clearly that God favours the death penalty in certain instances because God Himself executes it.

In the Old Testament, e.g. Numbers 21:6-9 (the plague of snakes)

In the New Testament, e.g. Acts 5:1-11 (Ananias lying to Holy Spirit)

Jesus did not abolish the death penalty

By the time of Jesus the rights of the Jews to exercise their own legal system had been over-ruled by their Roman overlords. That is why, for example, the Sanhedrin had to get Pilate to order Jesus’ execution. They no longer had a legal right to do so themselves.

This is why, in John8:3-11, the teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus. They were trying to trap Him. If He said that she must not be stoned they would have attacked him for not upholding the law. If He said that she must be stoned, He would be inciting rebellion against the Romans and they would have accused him before a Roman judge. So Jesus does not pronounce on the death penalty, but rather turns the moment around to show the accusers the sinfulness of their own lives. My point here is that Jesus had the opportunity to declare that God abolishes the death penalty … but He did not do so.

In fact we see both Jesus and Steven falling prey to the death penalty: Jesus, legally under Roman Law and Steven illegally. So the death penalty was alive and well in Jesus’ day and yet he never spoke against it.

Responding to the argument that Jesus taught us to turn the other cheek

Yes, he did command Christians to turn the other cheek … but He never commanded the government system to devalue human life to such an extent that human blood must no longer be paid for by human blood. I have the calling as an individual follower of Jesus to exercise forgiveness and grace towards the person who has wronged me … but the government of the day has the responsibility and calling to protect the value of human life and to “avenge” the shedding of innocent blood.

This distinction is re-inforced for the early followers of Jesus by the apostle Paul who taught in Romans 13:4-5 that the governing authorities are “God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.”

Albert Barnes points out the following truth: “In Rom_12:19, vengeance is said to belong to God. Yet he “executes” his vengeance by means of subordinate agents. It is God’s role to take vengeance by direct judgments, by the plague, famine, sickness, or earthquakes; by the appointment of magistrates; or by letting loose the passions of people to prey upon each other. When a magistrate inflicts punishment on the guilty, it is to be regarded as the act of God taking vengeance “by him;” and on this principle only is it right for a judge to condemn a man to death. It is not because one man has by nature any right over the life of another, or because “society” has any right collectively which it has not as individuals; but because “God” gave life, and because he has chosen to take it away when crime is committed by the appointment of magistrates, and not by coming forth himself visibly to execute the laws. Where “human” laws fail, however, he often takes vengeance into his own hands, and by the plague, or some signal judgments, sweeps the guilty into eternity.”

Vengeance belongs to God but God has delegated that vengeance to governing authorities. What we should be opposing as Christian is not so much the death penalty as the injustices often associated with the death penalty which allows the guilty to go free and the innocent to be put to death. If a justice system is in place which cannot be trusted then we should oppose the death penalty because that is a protection of innocent blood … but if the justice system is trustworthy we should not oppose the death penalty.

Another important “argument” is this:

 When Jesus commanded his disciples to take up their swords in Luke 22:36, it was for self-defence and protection … It was more of a general warning in very dramatic terms of the dangers that lay ahead of them and not an instruction for making war or extracting vengeance. That is why He warns them in the garden, when Peter cuts off the servant’s ear and Jesus heals it, that “he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.” This is a warning not to be the kind of person who makes trouble, because trouble will come back on your head. This is a Godly principle … people should be discouraged from taking up the sword by their fear that the sword will be taken up against them.

Without the death penalty this deterrent is gone. I can live by the sword (murdering, raping, kidnapping, enslaving children as sex slaves) and never have to fear that I will pay for it with my life.

Responding to the argument that murderers, etc. should not be killed so that they can have a chance to repent and receive salvation

My response is that a person is more likely to repent and receive salvation under the fear of imminent death than they are if they get a life-sentence and with time any feelings of guilt they might have had wear off and they feel that they have received their punishment, what do they now have to say sorry for.

If a person knows that tomorrow they die, they will much sooner repent than if they don’t have the fear of death hanging over them. If we truly believe that the most important thing is their eternal salvation and not the length of their life on earth … then upholding God’s Law of the death penalty makes sense as it gives them the best possible chance of salvation.

 The Opposing View

These notes are briefer than the above, not because they are less important but because Rowan is not as copious in his note-making as Dave (who presented the above views in the debate)

1. With the death penalty debate we will either be informed by law or by grace. The Law says, “you get what you deserve, and therefore punishment is the goal”; and grace says, “you get what you don’t deserve, and therefore healing is the goal.”
2. Even in the Old testamennt we see God’s grace at work in a situation where the deeath penalty could have been applied; e.g. He spares Cain (a murderer) and King David (a murderous adulterer). It appears that God exercised the death penalty (e.g. Israelites in the desert) when people were unrepentant and denying Him; and that God had mercy when He could see that the person’s heart was repentant and “saveable”.
3. The death penalty says: “There is no more hope for you!” God’s grace allows room for repentance and new life. For example check out how God treated the murderous Saul (who became Paul) in Acts 9.
4. In grace, God allows restoration, even after judgment (e.g. David).
5. Jesus purpose was to seek, to save and to give life and not to condemn (John 3:17) This is also why He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery in John 8.
6. Mercy triumphs over judgment (James 2:15) and if we want mercy we have to extend mercy.
7. The death penalty exhibits a spirit of vengeance and we are commanded not to operate iin this spirit in Romans 12:14, 17 and 19
8. If a Christian were to be involved in the death penalty they would be making Jesus a Punisher instead of a Redeemer.

The balanced position we personally believe in

The above notes reflect only the pro-death penalty side of our debate. There is a very strong debate which also argues from a Christian / Biblical viewpoint that the time for applying the death penalty has passed. Remember it is a penalty … and therefore is time-bound and situation-bound.

Recognising that sincere Christians differ with one another we respectfully submit that the state has a right (and at times the responsibility) to use the death penalty; which right should not be opposed by Christians. Christians ought, instead, to be frantically ministering on death row to give every single prisoner the opportunity to repent and receive salvation before their execution. We ought to be ministering to victims and perpetrators of crime alike to minister forgiveness, repentance and restitution / restoration.

However, if Christians were to be running the state, we believe that the Holy Spirit would cause us to refrain from employing the death penalty in the interests of allowing mercy to triumph over judgment … and grace to triumph over Law.