Capital Punishment
Many Christians advocate capital punishment as justice for murder. Typically Christians support this view by referencing the Old Testament Law which prescribes death as punishment for murder. But does Scripture really support this view? No. This view opens the door to hypocrisy and ultimately forces us to redefine Christianity for the sake of a political goal.
Does the Law really prescribe capital punishment for murder? Absolutely. That fact is not in dispute. However, the same Law also prescribes death for crimes like adultery, homosexual sexual intercourse, and disobedient children. If we are going to apply the standard of the Law, we must apply it uniformly. To do otherwise, i.e. to apply one standard to murder and another to other crimes (as defined by the Law), is text-book hypocrisy and unjust.
But is the purpose of the Law to be a foundation for civil authority? No. Paul tells us that the purpose of the Law is to declare what is sin. "Through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:20) In fact, I can think of no example in the entire Bible of the punishments indicated by the Law actually being carried out. (That does not mean they were not, just that no record is given that they were.) On the contrary, there are examples where the punishment prescribed by the Law is not carried out. David and Bathsheba committed adultery, then David arranged to have Bathsheba's husband killed in battle to cover up their adultery. Both crimes are punishable by death under the Law, yet God does not have either of them executed. They go on later to conceive Solomon, through whom one of Jesus' ancestries is traced (Matt 1:7), not to mention the royal line of Israel. So we see that the Law was not given as a basis of civil law, but as a declaration of God's standard.
We must also consider the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11). Rather than carry out the judgment of the Law, Jesus showed mercy and forgiveness. Now I have heard people say this event was a setup for Jesus, that the woman wasn't really caught in adultery and the Pharisees were just trying to trap Jesus. This seems a rather contrived interpretation, whose only purpose is to avoid the conclusion that Jesus did not support the death penalty. Certainly there are questions, such as where is the man with whom she was committing adultery? But Jesus gives no indication that He thought this was a setup. If these men were falsely accusing her, one would expect Jesus to say so. Jesus' famous response, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v 7), validates the judgment of the Pharisees. His reply implicitly authorizes those who have witnessed the crime to carry out the judgment. The "first stone" is a reference to Deut. 17:7, where the Law declares that the witness of a crime shall cast the first stone. But that verse goes on to explain the purpose of capital punishment is to "purge the evil from your midst." Jesus' statement forces us to realize that judgment carried out by sinners will not purge the evil, since the judges themselves are just as evil. (It is worth noting that the passage following this story deals with the question of viable witnesses.)
One of the foundational points of Christian belief is that no one can measure up to God's standard. Under the Law we all deserve death, not just the murderer. Therefore, if we are to apply the Law uniformly, then we would all have to line up for the executioner's chamber. To only apply that standard to a murderer is hypocrisy and to be like the Pharisees who held others to a higher standard than they held themselves. Furthermore, to deny our own guilt under the Law is to completely invalidate the Christian faith! The Christian who declares Ted Bundy worthy of death must also confess themselves worthy of the same. Jesus died on the cross because we deserved death. If we did not, then Jesus died in vain, and can therefore not be who He said He was.
Yet, as Christians, we know that we may be saved through Jesus. His blood paid the price demanded by the Law. Having been forgiven, are we not commanded to forgive others? Is this not the point of Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35? Did Jesus not tell us that "by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return." (Luke 6:38) If we are going to judge or measure others by the standard of the Law, Jesus warns us that we will be judged by the same standard. Jesus' parable warns that those who do not forgive others as they themselves have been forgiven will be "handed ...over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him."
Whatever crimes a murderer may have committed are small in comparison to the sin that we have committed before God. In fact, the James says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." (James 2:10) In other words, breaking any part of the Law is breaking all of the Law. Therefore, the murderer and I stand in equal violation before God and His Law. How, then, can I judge the murderer differently than I judge myself?
If I believe the Bible and the gospel, then I cannot avoid this conclusion. Paul called himself the most vile of sinners. If we believe the gospel then we will have the same attitude for ourselves. To do otherwise is to invalidate the gospel because we reject the truth that we are sinners as well and start down the path of the Pharisee who said, "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers" (Luke 18:11).
Having shown that to judge a murderer under the Law is either hypocrisy or an invalidation of the Christian faith, what about arguments to support capital punishment other than the Law? Surely it can be agreed that, as fallen, fallible human beings, there exists the possibility in any system of justice that mistakes will be made. In the realm of capital punishment, this means there always exists the possibility that an innocent person will be executed. A pastor once told me, in response to this point, that "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." This pastor was essentially accepting this possibility as a necessary part of doing something good.
But what is the Biblical view? Gen 18:20-32 records a conversation between God and Abraham regarding the city of Sodom. This was a wicked city of probably thousands, and God was considering wiping out the city as punishment for their sins. Abraham asks, "Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (v 23). There follows a series of exchanges where Abraham asks if God will spare the city for the sake of a small number of righteous, i.e. innocent. This small number ranges from 50 down to 10, and in all cases God affirms that he will spare the thousands of guilty for the sake of a few innocent. God's standard, then, appears to be that He will spare the guilty rather than punish the innocent. God's standard should be our standard. Applied to the question of capital punishment, we must conclude that we must spare the lives of the guilty rather than risk executing an innocent person.
Does the Law really prescribe capital punishment for murder? Absolutely. That fact is not in dispute. However, the same Law also prescribes death for crimes like adultery, homosexual sexual intercourse, and disobedient children. If we are going to apply the standard of the Law, we must apply it uniformly. To do otherwise, i.e. to apply one standard to murder and another to other crimes (as defined by the Law), is text-book hypocrisy and unjust.
But is the purpose of the Law to be a foundation for civil authority? No. Paul tells us that the purpose of the Law is to declare what is sin. "Through the law we become conscious of sin." (Rom 3:20) In fact, I can think of no example in the entire Bible of the punishments indicated by the Law actually being carried out. (That does not mean they were not, just that no record is given that they were.) On the contrary, there are examples where the punishment prescribed by the Law is not carried out. David and Bathsheba committed adultery, then David arranged to have Bathsheba's husband killed in battle to cover up their adultery. Both crimes are punishable by death under the Law, yet God does not have either of them executed. They go on later to conceive Solomon, through whom one of Jesus' ancestries is traced (Matt 1:7), not to mention the royal line of Israel. So we see that the Law was not given as a basis of civil law, but as a declaration of God's standard.
We must also consider the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:1-11). Rather than carry out the judgment of the Law, Jesus showed mercy and forgiveness. Now I have heard people say this event was a setup for Jesus, that the woman wasn't really caught in adultery and the Pharisees were just trying to trap Jesus. This seems a rather contrived interpretation, whose only purpose is to avoid the conclusion that Jesus did not support the death penalty. Certainly there are questions, such as where is the man with whom she was committing adultery? But Jesus gives no indication that He thought this was a setup. If these men were falsely accusing her, one would expect Jesus to say so. Jesus' famous response, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" (v 7), validates the judgment of the Pharisees. His reply implicitly authorizes those who have witnessed the crime to carry out the judgment. The "first stone" is a reference to Deut. 17:7, where the Law declares that the witness of a crime shall cast the first stone. But that verse goes on to explain the purpose of capital punishment is to "purge the evil from your midst." Jesus' statement forces us to realize that judgment carried out by sinners will not purge the evil, since the judges themselves are just as evil. (It is worth noting that the passage following this story deals with the question of viable witnesses.)
One of the foundational points of Christian belief is that no one can measure up to God's standard. Under the Law we all deserve death, not just the murderer. Therefore, if we are to apply the Law uniformly, then we would all have to line up for the executioner's chamber. To only apply that standard to a murderer is hypocrisy and to be like the Pharisees who held others to a higher standard than they held themselves. Furthermore, to deny our own guilt under the Law is to completely invalidate the Christian faith! The Christian who declares Ted Bundy worthy of death must also confess themselves worthy of the same. Jesus died on the cross because we deserved death. If we did not, then Jesus died in vain, and can therefore not be who He said He was.
Yet, as Christians, we know that we may be saved through Jesus. His blood paid the price demanded by the Law. Having been forgiven, are we not commanded to forgive others? Is this not the point of Jesus' parable of the unmerciful servant in Matthew 18:23-35? Did Jesus not tell us that "by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return." (Luke 6:38) If we are going to judge or measure others by the standard of the Law, Jesus warns us that we will be judged by the same standard. Jesus' parable warns that those who do not forgive others as they themselves have been forgiven will be "handed ...over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him."
Whatever crimes a murderer may have committed are small in comparison to the sin that we have committed before God. In fact, the James says, "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all." (James 2:10) In other words, breaking any part of the Law is breaking all of the Law. Therefore, the murderer and I stand in equal violation before God and His Law. How, then, can I judge the murderer differently than I judge myself?
If I believe the Bible and the gospel, then I cannot avoid this conclusion. Paul called himself the most vile of sinners. If we believe the gospel then we will have the same attitude for ourselves. To do otherwise is to invalidate the gospel because we reject the truth that we are sinners as well and start down the path of the Pharisee who said, "God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers" (Luke 18:11).
Having shown that to judge a murderer under the Law is either hypocrisy or an invalidation of the Christian faith, what about arguments to support capital punishment other than the Law? Surely it can be agreed that, as fallen, fallible human beings, there exists the possibility in any system of justice that mistakes will be made. In the realm of capital punishment, this means there always exists the possibility that an innocent person will be executed. A pastor once told me, in response to this point, that "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs." This pastor was essentially accepting this possibility as a necessary part of doing something good.
But what is the Biblical view? Gen 18:20-32 records a conversation between God and Abraham regarding the city of Sodom. This was a wicked city of probably thousands, and God was considering wiping out the city as punishment for their sins. Abraham asks, "Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked?" (v 23). There follows a series of exchanges where Abraham asks if God will spare the city for the sake of a small number of righteous, i.e. innocent. This small number ranges from 50 down to 10, and in all cases God affirms that he will spare the thousands of guilty for the sake of a few innocent. God's standard, then, appears to be that He will spare the guilty rather than punish the innocent. God's standard should be our standard. Applied to the question of capital punishment, we must conclude that we must spare the lives of the guilty rather than risk executing an innocent person.
posted by Doc @ 2:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home