“I certainly will require your lifeblood; from every animal I will require it. And from every person, from every man as his brother I will require the life of a person. Whoever sheds human blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made mankind.”
(Genesis 9:5-6)
The death penalty has been a topic that I have wanted to write about for a while now. My initial idea was to write two separate blogs, to make a biblical argument both for and against the death penalty, and for myself to assume a position of neutrality and let the reader see a Christian perspective from both sides of the aisle. Before diving into the research, I was honestly neutral on the topic. Actually, if anything, I probably fell more on the side of being against capital punishment. I may have even said something like “pro life from womb to tomb.” To say I was humbled by scripture would be an understatement. I had a list of notes, passages, verses, references, and talking points for each side of the argument, and I kid you not when I say that every point I had listed for the Anti side ended up with a red line being put right through them all. As it would turn out, I discovered that I was able to make an argument against the death penalty from a political and economic standpoint, but it simply did not stand up against the test of scripture, and the purpose of this site is to give the Christian perspective on issues that we may be posed with on an everyday basis. In doing that, we have to be able to build a defense that is guided by scripture and not fall into the ever so familiar trap of quoting from the book of 2nd Opinions. We always have to be ready, willing and able to set our emotions aside, and use His revelation as our level line by which we judge such contentious issues.
So let’s break into the book, starting with the quote that was used to lead off this blog from Genesis 9. Sometimes as Christians, our knee jerk reaction is to say; ‘oh God was saying this to and for a specific people at a certain place at a certain time, and we are under a new covenant in Christ.’ To which a majority of the time I would absolutely agree, but we are simply not able to use that defense in this case. Yes, we do not operate under the uniqueness of each specific code and law given to the particular people within their theocracy, and we are not obligated to persecute and enforce in the same manner, but we do carry over with us a couple of things… those rules that are reiterated in the New Testament, and God’s Moral Law which remains unchanging. The death penalty pre-existed the theocracy in the old covenant, and still applies today. In the spirit of transparency, this blog is not endorsing all of the ways the death penalty was applied to the people of ancient Israel. Capital punishment ought to be implemented strictly for murder as stated in the Noahic Covenant. Post flood, God lays out some sweeping rules that apply to the whole world (survivors of the flood). The Death Penalty is part of the Noahic Covenant, in this covenant God in black and white is setting up ground rules to all of mankind. (This is an example of a Common Grace Covenant.) He even gives a direct reason and consequence in verse 6. Prophets would come along throughout scripture to reiterate this rule. They do not only come against Israel, but to foreign nations as well. As it would turn out, justice is not a virtue that is limited to the nation of ancient Israel. With justice comes punishment. Treating people ‘right’ from a biblical perspective is not always about making someone’s bed for them, rather, letting them lay in the one they have chosen to make for themselves. We cannot simply detach punishment from justice. Perhaps we can sometimes overlook the most blatant example of this in all of scripture. Found right in the gospel message, Jesus bore the punishment for the sins of the world. God is just and unchanging, hence why He is incapable of not requiring punishment for deserving peoples. Our sins are forgiven, not forgotten.
While we are under this new covenant in Christ, it is still important to understand the fervency they had towards the death penalty in the Mosaic Law. “But if there is a person who hates his neighbor, and waits in ambush for him and rises up against him and strikes him so that he dies, and flees to one of these cities, then the elders of his city shall send men and take him from there, and hand him over to the avenger of blood, so that he may die.”(Deuteronomy 19:11-12) ‘Waits in ambush’ implies that the action is premeditated. And the city in which they are talking about is a Levitcal city in which outlaws would flee to after committing petty crimes, and/or manslaughter. These refugee cities were welcoming and protective of these incomers. But even in the circumstance of murder, those Levitical cities were to give the outlaw back over to the city in which the murder happened so that they were to face justice. Under this law there was no bail to be posted, no negotiation, and no ransoms to be paid. This command is followed with a rather profound message that highlights exactly why it is so necessary that justice be fulfilled. “You shall not pity him, but you shall eliminate the guilt for the bloodshed of the innocent from Israel, so that it may go well for you.” (Deuteronomy 19:13) What is being revealed to us is that when this crime goes unpunished, the guilt is then cast upon the entire community. When justice is not brought to the person who committed the crime within the community, the effects are felt by the community rather than the wrongdoer.
In Romans 13 we see a blatant example of lethal force by the governing body being endorsed by Paul. Paul is well aware that we are not bound by the Old Covenant, yet he goes on to say “For it is a servant 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 servant of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” (Roman 13:4) Paul says this presupposing that the governing authority in this example is enforcing and implementing these rules in a righteous manner. But notice, he doesn’t hesitate to let us know that if we rebel against the governing authority, how they are God’s anointed and as His bondservants are operating under His authority. Here is an example of what is meant by ‘does not bear the sword for nothing’… Imagine someone is chasing after a Cop with a knife, the Cop would be justified in using lethal force. For the cop has been placed in his/her role – anointed by God, and in this case assuming the role of the governing authority to uphold the good of the community. When you unjustly come against the person in that position, you have subjected yourself to the wrath of an all loving God whose duty is to protect His children. Now let’s look back at the context that Paul has set for this defense of capital punishment. “Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God. For it is written: “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” Says the lord.” (Romans 12:9) Paul is telling us that you as an individual are not to seek vengeance on your own accord, that is for God alone. Then he goes on as we just discussed to say how the government in this way is acting on behalf/appointed by God for this very purpose. What he does here is denounce vigilantism, then lets us know that vengeance is for God, and how God uses government as his operating arm to do this.
Not being able to trust such an enormous responsibility into the hands of a government which at times can prove to be dysfunctional is an absolutely appropriate gripe to have. Or even a distrust in a judicial system that can seem at times to be manipulated and flawed. All of these types of concerns are understandable, and if just one innocent person is put to death unjustly, we all agree that that is morally detestable. In saying this though, we must be careful to not throw out the baby with the bath water. When such a system starts to break, it needs reformation, not removal. For instance, when there are deficiencies in the local Police Department, Firehouse, or Emergency medical response, we do not then throw out the whole operation. Rather, we ought to invest more into them. Ensuring that they are receiving adequate funding, improving allocation of resources, receiving proper training, and making sure they are well staffed just to name a few. Kind of like how we just read in Deuteronomy 13, removal of these services does not only curse the victim, but the entire community suffers as a result.
Scripture also provides us with provisions and a general guideline to follow for the purpose of preventing that ever so tragic case of an innocent life being taken, or someone being falsely accused. “If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” (Numbers 35:30) This provision of multiple attestation before condemnation is an example of how even back then with what little technological advances they had, they were still trying to make their verdict as sure as possible before implementing capital punishment. Now are we saying that this needs to be our only provision? No, what it is being used for here is an example of how there was a focus even back then on doing everything within their power to make sure they were making the right decision. This begs the question though… What if a few people get together to conspire against one person? Scripture also provides provisions that were expressly a means of deterring such a thing from happening. Deuteronomy 19:15 reflects Numbers 35:30, then what follows is absolute justice. “If a malicious witness rises up against a person to testify against him of wrongdoing, then the people who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in the office in those days. And the judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has testified against his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had planned to do to his brother. So you shall eliminate the evil from among you. And the rest of the people will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you.” (Deuteronomy 19:16-20) Here’s an example of how this would play out; Jussie accuses Mike of assault and battery. Let’s say the penalty for assault and battery is five years in jail. Then it turns out that Jussie was being malicious and falsely accused Mike of assault and battery. Then it would be Jussie who would have to bear the punishment of five years in prison. Same example being used here but for the death penalty, if it turned out that it was proven that you were not only falsely accusing someone of murder but doing it maliciously, then it would be you who received the death penalty. This kind of provision embodies the essence that we ought to seek protections for the innocent rather than prevention of the death penalty.
Another common question you may have heard is ‘How can you possibly be Pro-Life and Pro-Death Penalty at the same time?’ There is a moral distinction to be made here, and yes, you can be both. It is a false equivalency. For starters, babies haven’t murdered anyone. Someone undergoing capital punishment requires massive amounts of justification and proof that this person acted maliciously, and unjustifiably took the life of another person. This has nothing to do with the concept of protecting innocent babies. In one case we are seeking to defend an innocent human life from unjust persecution, and in the other hand we are looking to enact justice on a guilty murderer.
The best steel man argument from scripture that can be used to refute the death penalty can be found in Matthew 5. It seems pretty convincing at first glance, but as we dive into the verse, we see how it is actually shedding light on what it truly means to properly go about ‘doing right’ by another person. “You have heard it said, ‘Eye for an Eye, and Tooth for a Tooth.’ But I say to you, do not show opposition against an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Matthew 5 38-39) In saying this, Jesus is not rejecting ‘Eye for an Eye,’ rather He is rejecting a false interpretation of it. Jesus was refuting vigilante justice. That when someone wrongs you, you should not take the punishing part upon yourself. Perhaps He knows exactly how poorly we can interpret a situation when we think we have been wronged and feel as if it is our duty to seek vengeance on our own behalf. Instead, Jesus says to be overly kind to those who have wronged you, but remember, doing right by someone who has wronged you doesn’t mean that you are to simply forget about it, but to allow God to be the one who restores justice in the situation. He will do so in the channels which He has deemed fit, which we laid out when we went over Romans 13. Eye for an Eye doesn’t mean a never ending cycle of vengeance that turns the whole world blind. It means to have balanced scales. It means proper and perfect justice. For example, if you steal and wreck my truck, you do not need to build me a new truck, rather for the scales to be properly balanced, I must be compensated an equal amount.
The ‘Separation of Church and State’ will be a blog for another time, but before we instinctively use that phrase as a means of denouncing capital punishment and other biblical doctrine, let’s make sure we understand the real meaning of that phrase. It is found nowhere in our founding documents. It is a Christian doctrine that was reiterated in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Church. It means that you guys honor God over in your domain, and we will honor God in our domain. Looking back to the Moral Argument Blog, we see how this concept of separating the two is actually impossible. Government ought to act as a means of serving and protecting the innocent while persecuting those who do wrong. Well what is wrong is rooted in an epistemology that necessitates a transcendent mind, and is not whatever we currently deem it to be. Thinking we have the ability to detach the arm of enforcement against that which is wrong from the source that differentiates what is right and what is wrong is nonsensical.
God’s love for the world is not only restorative, it is also retributive. Restoration can be brought through justice. Restorative love cannot merely be used to try and rule out a penalty. “Even while we kill and punish we must try to feel about the enemy as we feel about ourselves – to wish that he were not bad, to hope that he may, in this world or another, be cured: in fact, to wish his good.” (C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity p.120) By saying His love is primarily restorative would also be disingenuous, His love is equally retributive. If we begin to devalue the retributive side of His heart, we would be casting aside a key tenant of scripture. How we are guilty of sin hence worthy of judgment. Now as we have gone over, this justice is not lost either, instead it has been nailed to the cross.
Keeping a murderer alive does not sanctify the value of human life. Keeping a murderer alive rather belittles murder. If the punishment for murder were equal to the punishment of any other crime, that would be failing to recognize that murder is in fact the worst of the two. Society shows how bad an action is by the punishment they assign it. Murder therefore being the infamous pinnacle of all crime, ought to be treated with a reciprocal punishment. His law does not deem human life as not valuable therefore we are allowed to use capital punishment, rather, capital punishment as directed by God is proof of how highly esteemed life actually is. Being made in the image of God bestows upon us a unique dignity and value that is superior to all other creatures. We then postulate the value of someone’s life by putting to death those who dare to take it.
“To show partiality to the wicked is not good, Nor to suppress the righteous in judgment.” (Proverbs 18:5)
Inspired works include…
Biblethinker.org
Ethics For a Brave New World – John & Paul Feinberg
Mere Christianity- C.S. Lewis
NASB