I know that I said I was done with the YouTube debate, but I felt like there were a few questions that warrant attention. Not that they were good questions, just that they warrant attention.
“I have a quick question for those of you who call yourselves Christian conservatives. The death penalty: what would Jesus do?”
This question doesn’t look so bad at first, but there is a somewhat clear confrontational tone taken from the beginning. “Those of you who call yourselves Christian conservatives …” he said, not “The Christian conservatives.” There’s a questioning of the validity of the claim right there.
But, of course, that might just be a anti-deterministic bent of the questioner.
More importantly, the question is an unanswerable trap. I think that Gov. Mike Huckabee answered it brilliantly, but I’ll get back to that in a moment.
First, I want to deal with an ongoing problem in trendy Christianity. It’s very popular to get into one little slogan and recite it over and over ad nauseum, as if that was the entire Bible in one phrase. There are 260 chapters in the New Testament alone, and some of the Old Testament’s 929 chapters deal with Jesus, as well. No single catchphrase is going to sum up His entire thought process.
Still, it’s popular to do. It’s also a favorite passtime of unbelievers, who like to think that they can trip up Christians by asking about one phrase out of the Bible and stating that it doesn’t fit with some other teaching.
In this case, of course, the best answer is probably: I don’t know. He never said.
If you’re like most people, you’ve probably already raised up to tell me where I’m wrong. After all, Jesus spoke about capital punishment.
Except that He didn’t.
Jesus had two interactions with capital punishment, but it’s very wrong to interpret much of a general rule from the incidents.
The first incident, the one to which everyone loves to refer, is the story of the woman caught in adultery, whose sentence under the law of the day was death. It’s presented in John 8:3-11 (quoted from the New International Version, courtesy of BibleGateway):
3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11“No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
Certainly, Jesus is not averse to commuting a death sentence. But there is a lot that we don’t know in this situation. Most of it, we don’t know because there is no reason to believe that Jesus was making a profound legal statement here. If we are to generalize from this incident as a broad legal principle, then the message would seem to be that there is to be no punishment in a physical sense, and so we should turn everyone loose, and simply encourage everyone to abandon sin.
Clearly, that is not the point Jesus was trying to make. Rather, this has more to do with spiritual judgment and condemnation. Most of the Old Testament consists of stories about the physical world which convey truths about the Kingdom of God. The error is assuming that these show us exactly what to do, in the sense that we should do the same things. That is the popular mistake made here.
Jesus did not follow this up with saying that the government should never punish crime anymore. He told one woman to go, and not to sin anymore.
Being God, He has many advantages over the rest of us — and certainly the government — in judging this case. He knows, for example, the state of the woman’s heart. He knows what would happen in the event that she is freed. If anyone has the ability to ensure that all judges are omniscient, then I’m perfectly willing to support surrendering all judicial decisions to the determination of omniscient people.
Jesus didn’t speak much about government policy. He talked about how we, the people who believe in Him and His Father, should act. This does present a very important challenge to those of us who call ourselves Christians when it comes to politics — we like to think that the government is a Christian.
It’s not.
Jesus’ other interaction, of course, was at Calvary. His own crucifixion. At that time, He could have spared the thief who was crucified beside Him, but He chose not to do so. Does that imply an endorsement of capital punishment? I would say, no more so than sparing the adultress indicates rejection of it.
We should not try putting words into God’s mouth.
How we apply our faith to politics becomes very tricky, and a minefield of potential catastrophe. I, for example, am supposed to turn the other cheek when someone strikes me. Were the nation, however, to turn its collective cheek when struck (say, by the Japanese Navy at Pearl Harbor), then thousands of people can be killed. This does result, in not too long, in a world ruled exclusively by those who are willing to attack. I don’t think that I like that world, do you?
It’s also not what Jesus ever said.
In Romans 13:1-5, Paul writes something about this concept. (Quoted from the New International Version, courtesy of BibleGateway):
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is 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. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
There are exceptions noted in other places, but those don’t deal directly with this point. The language of these verses shows that we are talking about governments doing things that I am not permitted to do. The government bears a sword, Paul wrote in verse 4, to be an agent of wrath and bring punishment on the wrongdoer. This certainly seems to suggest that punishment (and war, but that’s another subject) remains a valid endeavor for the government.
The United States is one of very few governments ever really to try to merge Christian principles with governance. This presents a great many challenges. We don’t know the answers to all of them. It certainly seems clear that a government should protect life and the basic rights of persons as fellow inheritors of the image of God. It also seems clear that proper stewardship of Creation is appropriate. What about idolatry? Is that good grounds for legislation? What about marriage? Mercy? Observing the Sabbath? It’s not that easy to apply the principles that directly.
Presented with this question, Gov. Huckabee and Rep. Tancredo had very little chance of getting the answer right. Whether they did or not, we don’t really know. Gov. Huckabee spoke about the need for prayer and consideration of each case, because he knew that wrong decisions were too terrible to contemplate. When pressed, Gov. Huckabee was as right as possible when he said, “Jesus was too smart to run for public office.”
Indeed, He was.
Justice, vengeance, mercy, wrath, grace, and punishment all factor into our instructions regarding the response to wrongdoing. The government has a particular set of challenges. I believe that Paul clearly leaves room for the government to punish by execution. Of course, we then have to deal with the people imposing punishments, their attitudes and motives, and the system of justice itself.
Ultimately, we don’t know what Jesus would do. He didn’t tell us. That’s why we’re supposed to think, study, and pray — rather than trying to pin major decisions into 30-second sound bites.
December 4, 2007 at 9:47 am
You make a strong case for the validity of the death penalty. Your use of Scripture is honest and fair. I would, however, respectfully disagree with your conclusion. The over-riding ethic of Jesus is to love and promote abundant life. It’s hard to love someone we kill. It’s also hard to promote abudant life for someone whose life we’ve ended. No doubt, Biblical teaching allows for state-sponsored capital punishment. I just believe it is contrary to the pro-life stance of Jesus.
December 4, 2007 at 11:55 am
I think that your position is perfectly valid, too. In fact, I’m not a strong supporter of capital punishment. I go back and forth … right now, I’m opposed to it not so much on Biblical grounds as on the “I don’t trust juries that much” standard. In a country where people can win millions of dollars for pouring coffee on themselves, I’m not at all sure about letting juries sentence people to death … but that’s another story.
Vigilantism and hatred are clearly out of line. I think that any Christian who takes to those — including enjoying the idea of executions — is clearly in error.
I’m not sure that it’s out of bounds for governments. just like questions about war, governments have different commands than we do.
That being said:
“It’s also hard to promote abundant life for someone whose life we’ve ended.”
… I think that your point is irrefutable. This is reason number 24,692 why I’m glad that I’m not a governor.
December 5, 2007 at 3:22 am
It is tough issue. I tend to agree with Wickle on the “trust juries”… sorry, I really don’t trust my “peers” not to be idiots, a lack of trust that is back-uped by many stupid verdicts.
I support it to a very certain extent… I believe if there is not a true life sentence (no parole, not getting out until you die), then the death penalty is the next best thing in certain cases. I think there are some people who simply should never be let loose on society again.
“Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and render unto the Lord that which is his”… Okay, I may have messed up the quote some, but I have the basic idea. I always think about that when questions such as these come up.
I think there is a big difference in what one belives/lives their life and then also upholding laws as a servant of the government.
As we are not a theocrasy, I think it is crazy to ask such questions regarding faith, as they ultimately don’t matter.
The only question that matters to me is this (or variations of it): If the duties of your office confilcts with your religious beliefs, what do you do?
December 5, 2007 at 11:27 am
Would you agree though that a criminal who admits his crime and his literally found with blood on his hands should be put to death and stop being a tax burden?
December 5, 2007 at 12:22 pm
I think that there is an extent to which the question could even be valid, since the President does help shape policy. And to that extent, it’s legit. But the question requires a lot more time to answer than a TV debate allows … the relevant question for the Presidential debate, of course, was, “What is your position on the death penalty.”
But that lacks the trend-appeal of doing it the way it was asked.
And what could be more important in a Presidential primary than being trendy?
December 5, 2007 at 12:29 pm
TRM - The truth is, I’m okay with that.
I’m not sold on capital punishment, but really more out of concern about juries. I shed no tears, for example, over the execution of Saddam Hussein or any of the Nuremberg convicts. I’m certainly not a strong anti-capital punishment person. I have concerns, but they’re more practical than ethical. Usually.
I’ll leave it at that for the moment.
December 5, 2007 at 1:02 pm
Jesus, appearantly was not against capital punishment
I am thankful of that. (the cross & salvation) that is
December 5, 2007 at 4:54 pm
My opinion about this question hinges on recognizing that Jesus and the Father are one and according to John 1:1-5, Jesus has existed and been one with the Father (has always been “God”) since the beginning. God himself had to make these types of decisions. He was the one who had to decide the penalty for Cain when he murdered Abel, there was no other judge or jury. And He himself gave the Israelites the laws for their conduct in society and the punishment for breaking those laws. As you start to read these laws, beginning in Exodus chapter 21, God himself gave the penalty of death many times for breaking these laws. So, as a theological question, I do not think that Jesus is opposed to the death penalty as a function of government. Now, does this mean that we should give the death penalty? God, himself, gave us a new covenant so that we are no longer under the law, these penalties no longer apply. But even in that new covenant, there is still a death penalty. The wages of sin is still death… But then this new covenant takes care of our spiritual punishment, not the physical consequences of our wrongdoing… So where does this leave us in regards to civic decisions?
Yep. I agree. The best answer probably is “I don’t know.”
If someone with better biblical understanding could help me out with this, I would enjoy reading it.
Most certainly, there was no way that Gov. Huckabee could even begin an answer to this question (provided he could even give one) in the short time given in the middle of a presidential debate. I, too, think he answered wisely.
December 5, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Thanks for your answer, Karen. I think that there is a lot of room for Christians to be on either side of the issue, and you spell it out pretty well.
December 5, 2007 at 11:35 pm
It appears that Jesus would support the death penalty.
Some of your other thoughts and concerns are reviewed, below.
2) Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, 10/7/2000, “At no point, however, does Jesus deny that the State has authority to exact capital punishment. In his debates with the Pharisees, Jesus cites with approval the apparently harsh commandment, He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him surely die (Mt 15:4; Mk 7:10, referring to Ex 21:17; cf. Lev 20:9). When Pilate calls attention to his authority to crucify him, Jesus points out that Pilate’s power comes to him from above-that is to say, from God (Jn 19:1 l).Jesus commends the good thief on the cross next to him, who has admitted that he and his fellow thief are receiving the due reward of their deeds (Lk 23:41). ”
“Paul repeatedly refers to the connection between sin and death. He writes to the Romans with an apparent reference to the death penalty, that the magistrate who holds authority does not bear the sword in vain; for he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer (Rom 13:4). No passage in the New Testament disapproves of the death penalty.”
“Turning to Christian tradition, we may note that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church are virtually unanimous in their support for capital punishment, even though some of them such as St. Ambrose exhort members of the clergy not to pronounce capital sentences or serve as executioners.”
“The Roman Catechism, issued in 1566, three years after the end of the Council of Trent, taught that the power of life and death had been entrusted by God to civil authorities and that the use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to the fifth commandment. ”
“Summarizing the verdict of Scripture and tradition, we can glean some settled points of doctrine. It is agreed that crime deserves punishment in this life and not only in the next. In addition, it is agreed that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death.”
“The Catholic magisterium does not, and never has, advocated unqualified abolition of the death penalty. I know of no official statement from popes or bishops, whether in the past or in the present, that denies the right of the State to execute offenders at least in certain extreme cases. The United States bishops, in their majority statement on capital punishment, conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime. Cardinal Bernardin, in his famous speech on the Consistent Ethic of Life here at Fordham in 1983, stated his concurrence with the classical position that the State has the right to inflict capital punishment.
“Pope John Paul II spoke for the whole Catholic tradition when he proclaimed, in Evangelium Vitae, that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral (EV 57). But he wisely included in that statement the word innocent. He has never said that every criminal has a right to live nor has he denied that the State has the right in some cases to execute the guilty. ”
(”The Death Penalty: A Right to Life Issue?” at http://pewforum.org/deathpenalty/resources/reader/17.php3
NOTE: although Dulles makes palpable errors of fact and logic within the sections “The Purposes of Punishment” and “Harm Attributed to the Death Penalty”, it is, otherwise, a solid historical treatment of the Church and the death penalty)
11) “St. Thomas Aquinas quotes a gloss of St. Jerome on Matthew 27: “As Christ became accursed of the cross for us, for our salvation He was crucified as a guilty one among the guilty.” “If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins and crucified among thieves.” ” That Christ be put to death as a guilty person, presupposes that death is a fitting punishment for those who are guilty.” Prof. Michael Pakaluk, The Death Penalty: An Opposing Viewpoints Series Book, Greenhaven Press, (hereafter TDP:OVS), 1991
13) God, through the power and justice of the Holy Spirit, executed both Ananias and his wife, Saphira. Their crime? Lying to the Holy Spirit - to God - through Peter. Acts 5:1-11. By executing two such devoted Christians for lying to Him, does the Holy Spirit show confirmation of His support for His divinely instituted civil punishment of execution for premeditated murder or does it show His rejection of capital punishment? And read all of Revelation.
14) Jesus “You have heard the ancients were told, ˜YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT MURDER” and “Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court”. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, “Raca”, shall be guilty before the supreme court and whoever shall say, “You fool”, shall be guilty enough to go into fiery hell.” Matthew 5:17-22. Should any explanation be necessary, Jesus is saying that even as execution is the required punishment for murderers, as per the Old Testament, He tells us that those who speak ill of others and have hatred in their heart shall suffer in hell. Not only does Jesus never speak out against the civil authorities just use of execution for murder, He prescribes a much more serious, eternal punishment for those who hate and speak ill of others. And what price does God exact for any and all sin? Death. (Romans 5:12-14)
15) Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, “You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?” Jesus answered, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above.”(John 19:10-11). “Jesus reminds Pilate that the implementation of the death penalty is a divinely entrusted responsibility that is to be justly implemented. Prof. Carl F.H. Henry, 45th Annual N.A.E. Convention, “Capital Punishment and The Bible”. Jesus confirms that the civil authority has the lawful right to execute Jesus, and others, and that this right has been given to that authority by God.
16) Biblical scholar Dr. Baruch Levine ” . . . pronouncements about divine behavior (in the Hebrew Bible) correlated in the judicial context to attitudes toward death as a proper punishment. Quite clearly, the New Testament carries on the earlier mentality.” As Jesus described in the Sermon on the Mount, “Obedience will be rewarded with life; disobedience will be punished with destruction. A God who rewards with life and punishes with death is One whose laws provide for death as a judicial punishment.” “Capital Punishment,” p 31, What the Bible Really Says, ed. Smith & Hoffman, 1993.
17) Biblical scholar Dr. Carl F. H. Henry “The rejection of capital punishment is not to be dignified as a higher Christian way” that enthrones the ethics of Jesus. The argument that Jesus as the incarnation of divine love cancels the appropriateness of capital punishment in the New Testament era has little to commend it. Nowhere does the Bible repudiate capital punishment for premeditated murder; not only is the death penalty for deliberate killing of a fellow human being permitted, but it is approved and encouraged, and for any government that attaches at least as much value to the life of an innocent victim as to a deliberate murderer, it is ethically imperative.” Twilight Of A Great Civilization, Crossway, 1988, p 70,72.
19) Quaker biblical scholar Dr. Gervas A. Carey. A Professor of Bible and past President of George Fox College, wrote a landmark essay on the death penalty entitled “A Bible Study”. Here is a synopsis of his analysis: ” . . . the decree of Genesis 9:5-6 is equally enduring and cannot be separated from the other pledges and instructions of its immediate context, Genesis 8:20-9:17; . . . that is true unless specific Biblical authority can be cited for the deletion, of which there appears to be none. It seems strange that any opponents of capital punishment who professes to recognize the authority of the Bible either overlook or disregard the divine decree in this covenant with Noah; . . . capital punishment should be recognized . . . as the divinely instituted penalty for murder; The basis of this decree . . . is as enduring as God; . . . murder not only deprives a man of a portion of his earthly life . . . it is a further sin against him as a creature made in the image of God and against God Himself whose image the murderer does not respect.” (p. 111-113) Carey agrees with Saints Augustine and Aquinas, that executions represent mercy to the wrongdoer: “. . . a secondary measure of the love of God may be said to appear. For capital punishment provides the murderer with incentive to repentance which the ordinary man does not have, that is a definite date on which he is to meet his God. It is as if God thus providentially granted him a special inducement to repentance out of consideration of the enormity of his crime . . . the law grants to the condemned an opportunity which he did not grant to his victim, the opportunity to prepare to meet his God. Even divine justice here may be said to be tempered with mercy.” (p. 116). Essays on the Death Penalty, T. Robert Ingram, ed., St. Thomas Press, Houston, 1963, 1992.
20) Protestant scholar Rev. Reuben Hahn (Mt. Prospect, Ill.), “God, Himself, instituted the death penalty (Genesis 9:6) and Christ regarded capital punishment as a just penalty for murder (Matthew 26:52). God gave to government the legitimate authority to use capital punishment to restrain murder and to punish murderers. Not to inflict the death penalty is a flagrant disregard for God’s divine Law which recognizes the dignity of human life as a product of God’s creation. Life is sacred, and that is why God instituted the death penalty. Consequently, whoever takes innocent human life forfeits his own right to live. (Human Events, 3/2/85). Church of England Bishop the Rt Rev Jonathan Gledhill, said that anyone who deliberately murdered another human being “immediately forfeited his or her right to life”. This was in a discussion regarding the recent execution of Iraqi dictator and mass murderer Saddam Hussein. “Saddam ‘forfeited right to life’ says Bishop”, THE TELEGRAPH (London), 1/2/2007).
21) Charles W. Colson, Founder, Prison Fellowship : “It is because humans are created in the image of God that capital punishment for premeditated murder was a perpetual obligation. The full range of biblical data weighs in its favor. This is the one crime in the Bible for which no restitution was possible (Numbers 35:31,33). The Noahic covenant recorded in Genesis 9 (”Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. “Gen 9:6) antedates Israel and the Mosaic code; it transcends Old Testament Law, per se, and mirrors ethical legislation that is binding for all cultures and eras. The sanctity of human life is rooted in the universal creation ethic and thus retains its force in society. The Christian community is called upon to articulate standards of biblical justice, even when this may be unpopular. Capital justice is part of that non-negotiable standard. Society should execute capital offenders to balance the scales of moral judgement.” From “Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement”, by Charles W. Colson., a former opponent of capital punishment. He is spiritual advisor and friend to numerous death row inmates and the Founder of Prison Fellowship, the largest Christian ministry serving incarcerated prisoners.
Full statement www(DOT)prisonfellowship.org/article.asp?ID=523
22) The movie Dead Man Walking reveals a perfect example of how just punishment and redemption can work together. Had rapist/murderer Matthew Poncelet not been properly sentenced to death by the civil authority, he would not have met Sister Prejean, he would not have received spiritual instruction, he would not have taken responsibility for his crimes and he would not have reconciled with God. Had Poncelet never been caught or had he only been given a prison sentence, his character makes it VERY clear that those elements would not have come together. Indeed, for the entire film and up until those last moments, prior to his execution, Poncelet was not fully truthful with Sister Prejean. His lying and manipulative nature was fully exposed at that crucial time. It was not at all surprising, then, that it was just prior to his execution that all of the spiritual elements may have come together for his salvation. It was now, or never. Truly, just as St. Aquinas predicted, it was his pending execution which finally led to his repentance. For Christians, the most crucial concerns of Dead Man Walking must be and are redemption and eternal salvation. And, for that reason, it may well be, for Christians, the most important pro-death penalty movie ever made. A real life example of this may be the case of Dennis Gentry, executed April 16, 1997, for the highly premeditated murder of his friend Jimmy Don Ham. During his final statement, Gentry said, “I’d like to thank the Lord for the past 14 years (on death row) to grow as a man and mature enough to accept what’s happening here tonight. To my family, I’m happy. I’m going home to Jesus.” As the lethal drugs began to flow, Gentry cried out, “Sweet Jesus, here I come. Take me home. I’m going that way to see the Lord.” (Michael Gracyk, Associated Press, Houston Chronicle, 4/17/97). We cannot know if Gentry or the fictitious Poncelet or the two real murderers from the DMW book really did repent and receive salvation. But, we do know that St. Aquinas advises us that murderers should not be given the benefit of the doubt. We should err on the side of caution and not give murderers the opportunity to harm again. Indeed, as Dr. W.H. Baker confirms in his On Capital Punishment (Moody Press, 1985), biblical text finds that it is a violation of God’s mandate not to execute premeditated murderers - and nowhere does the text contradict this finding.
24) Sister Helen Prejean: “It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find a biblical proof text in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even Jesus’ admonition “Let him without sin cast the first stone”, when He was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) - the Mosaic Law prescribed death - should be read in its proper context. This passage is an entrapment story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about capital punishment . Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking.
Misuse and misunderstanding of John 8:7 is quite common. See Forgery in the Gospel of John
www(dot)religioustolerance.org/john_8(dot)htm
26) Scholar Dr. Jacob J. Vellenga, former Associate Executive of the United Presbyterian Church (USA): “The opposition to capital punishment is not based on Scripture but on a vague philosophical idea that the taking of a life is wrong, under every circumstance, and fails to distinguish adequately between killing and murder, between punishment and crime. The argument that capital punishment rules out the possibility of repentance for crime is unrealistic. If a wanton killer does not repent when the sentence of death is upon him, he certainly will not repent if he has 20-50 years of life imprisonment. The sentence of death on a killer is more redemptive than the tendency to excuse his crime as no worse than grand larceny. Mercy always infers a tacit recognition that justice and rightness are to be expected. The Holy God does not show mercy contrary to his righteousness but in harmony with it. That is why the awful Cross was necessary and a righteous Christ had to hang on it. That is why God’s redemption is always conditioned by one’s heart attitude. The Church and individual Christians should be active in their witness to the Gospel of love and forgiveness; but meanwhile wherever and whenever God’s love and mercy are rejected, as in crime, natural law and order must prevail, not as extraneous to redemption but as part of the whole scope of God’s dealings with man. No matter how often a jury recommends mercy, the law of capital punishment must stand as the silent but powerful witness to the sacredness of God-given life. Active justice must be administered when the sacredness of life is violated. Life is sacred, and he who violates the sacredness of life through murder must pay the supreme penalty. It is significant that when Jesus voluntarily went the way of the Cross He chose the capital punishment of His day as His instrument to save the world. And when He gave redemption to the repentant thief He did not save Him from capital punishment but gave him paradise instead. We see again that mercy and forgiveness are something different from being excused from wrongdoing. A synopsis of “Is Capital Punishment Wrong”, p. 63-72, Essays on the Death Penalty, ed. T. Robert Ingram, Houston, 1963, 1992.
28) “While the thief on the cross found pardon in the sight of God. ‘Today you will be with Me in Paradise - that pardon did not extend to eliminating the consequences of his crime. ‘We are being justly punished, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds’. (Luke 23:39-43)”. Neither God nor Jesus nor the Holy Spirit nor the prophets nor the apostles ever spoke out against the civil authorities use of executions in deserving cases - not even at the very time of Jesus’ own execution when He pardoned the sins of the thief, who was being crucified along side Him. Indeed, quite the opposite. Their biblical support for capital punishment is consistent and overwhelming. Furthermore, Jesus never confuses the requirements of civil justice with those of either eternal justice or personal relations. Charles Colson accurately recognizes this fact in stating that” it leads to a perversion of legal justice to confuse the sphere of private relations with that of civil law.” All quotations from Charles Colson’s “Capital Punishment: A Personal Statement”.
8) “Catholic scholar Steven A. Long says in “Evangelium Vitae, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Death Penalty” (The Thomist, 1999, pp. 511-52), “It is nearly the unanimous opinion of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church that the death penalty is morally licit, and the teaching of past popes (and numerous catechisms) is that this penalty is essentially just (and even that its validity is not subject to cultural variation).” Most recently, Avery Cardinal Dulles says both Scripture and tradition agree “that the State has authority to administer appropriate punishment to those judged guilty of crimes and that this punishment may, in serious cases, include the sentence of death” (First Things, May 2001). Moreover, Cardinal Dulles admits that opposition to the death penalty in Europe since the Enlightenment has gone hand in hand with a decline of faith in eternal life. In the nineteenth century the most consistent opponents were groups hostile to the churches.” “Anglican theologian Oliver O’Donovan has noted that the moral-theological tradition of the Church is “almost unanimously permissive of the death penalty” (”The Death Penalty in Evangelium Vitae,” in Ecumenical Ventures in Ethics, p. 219).” (”Capital Punishment, Justice, and Timothy McVeigh”, Keith Pavlischek. The Center For Public Justice, May 21, 2001, www(dot)cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$444
29) Protestant scholar and journalist Rev. G. Aiken Taylor states, “Most Christians tend to confuse the Christian personal ethic with the requirements of social order. In other words, we tend to apply what the Bible teaches us about how we - personally - should behave toward our neighbors with what the Bible teaches about how to preserve order in society. And there is a big difference. Capital punishment is specifically enjoined in the Bible. ‘Who ever sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed’ (Genesis 9-6). This command is fully agreeable to the Sixth Commandment, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ (Exodus 20:13), because the two appear in the same context. Exactly 25 verses after saying ‘Thou shalt not kill’, the Law says, ‘He that smiteth a man so that he may die, shall be surely put to death’ (Ex 21:12).” See also Leviticus 24:17 and Numbers 35:30-31.(TDP:OVS, pg. 84,1986) Biblical teachings regarding personal conduct, civil government and eternal judgement and relations are often taken out of context, thereby replacing one duty or instruction improperly with another.
30) Biblical scholar Lloyd R. Bailey. The Bible clearly asserts, from beginning to end, without any reservation, that righteous judgement includes the execution of a murderer. In the case of murder, the biblical materials offer the clearest and most sustained justification for the death penalty. The purpose of capital punishment is justice - deterrence is irrelevant. A person who takes a human life, without proper sanction, forfeits any right to life - no alternative is allowed and the community must not be swayed by values to the contrary.
Listen carefully to the Bible as the Word of God rather than seek to improve upon it by means of human values. However meritorious mercy may be, however abundantly evident it may be in God’s own dealings, murder was an offense for which mercy and pity were not allowed and for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden. The sentence is set by God’s torah and a judge cannot have discretion in this matter. Murder is something utterly on its own, nothing can be compared to it.
It should not be overlooked, in seeking to discover the ‘mind of Jesus Christ’ on the issue of murder and its punishments, that He goes beyond torah to the statement that even verbal abuse makes one deserving of ‘the hell of fire’. Far from releasing believers from prior law, Jesus was a ‘hard liner’ who made things even tougher, stating that He has come not ‘to abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them.’, offering even stronger interpretations than in the original (Matthew 5:17-22). Indeed, Jesus admonishes the Pharisees not to misuse torah for their own ends, but to honor God and torah. And of all the text in the Bible, which one does Jesus select to emphasize that crucial point? ‘HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, LET HIM BE PUT TO DEATH’ (Matthew 15:1-9).
All interpretations, contrary to the biblical support of capital punishment, are false. Interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda. As the ancient rabbis taught, “Do not seek to be more righteous than your Creator.’ (Ecclesiastes Rabbah 7.33.). Dr. Lloyd R. Bailey, Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says, Abingdon Press, 1987: An approved synopsis.
This book is mandatory reading for those who wish to undertake a thorough and accurate look at this often misused and misunderstood area of concern and debate.