Christians and Capital Punishment
February 2007
In January, 2004, shortly after Saddam Hussein
was pulled from a rat hole outside of Tikrit, this space carried an
article about Judgment Day and how all men
will be nothing before the Great White Throne of Almighty God.1
Here we are 3 years later, January, 2007, and
Saddam has once again made the news. Having been executed in Baghdad on
December 30, 2006, Saddam has made his first stop on the road to
Judgment Day.
It has been interesting to observe the world’s
response to the execution of Saddam and to hear the arguments being used
both for and against capital punishment (CP).
It seems that every instance of CP makes the
headlines and becomes a chance to debate the wisdom, dignity, and
justice of the practice.
That raises a serious question for Christians
who want to think biblically about these issues: what is a Christian
to think about CP? Is it biblical for the government to execute
criminals for certain crimes? What about our mandate to “forgive?” What
does the Bible say about CP and does it apply today?
To answer some of these questions let’s focus
on two issues: is capital punishment immoral, and is capital
punishment legitimate?
Is it immoral?
Some, including some Christians, argue that CP
is a moral wrong. To them, there is no crime that deserves execution and
any exercise of CP is morally wrong.
Even a casual reader of the Old Testament can
see that the OT law demanded CP for as many as twenty-one (21) different
crimes. Twenty-one!2
God demanded the death of anyone found guilty
of murder, kidnapping, disobeying parents, bestiality, violating the
Sabbath, adultery, blasphemy, incest, homosexuality, witchcraft,
idolatry, and others.3
Of those 21 capital crimes in the OT, only 3 include actual or potential
capital offenses by our modern standards. It seems that God was much
more strict than we are.
It was God who demanded CP for certain crimes.
If God commanded that certain crimes be punished by death, then the
punishing of a capital crime by death cannot be in and of itself
wrong. God cannot and would not condone or command sinful behavior.
It is much like war. God commissioned wars at
times. Therefore, war in and of itself cannot be wrong. The question is,
when is war justified? The same rings true with CP - when should CP be
used, if ever?
Is it legitimate?
We may determine from God’s endorsement of CP
that it is not wrong per se, but that does not answer the question of
whether it should be practiced today. After all, we do not live in a
theocracy as Israel did, and we are not called to establish one.
It is possible that, although practiced in the
OT, the Bible might teach that it should not be practiced today.
So we have to answer the second question, is it legitimate for today?
For this we must consult the teaching of Scripture.
The Scriptures on CP
Let’s briefly look at four passages. First,
Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood
shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man.”
You may wonder what a verse way back in Genesis
has to do with the subject of CP. The first thing to notice is that this
edict (that blood is to be requited for the act of murder) predates the
theocracy and the Mosaic law. There is no indication that this edict has
ever been repealed. The Mosaic Law did not institute CP. The
Mosaic Law gave direction to the theocratic nation of Israel on how and
when to use CP.
It is also important to notice the reason that
God gave for the use of CP; namely that man is created in the image
of God. God commanded that when someone was found guilty of murder4
he was to be executed.
Murder is a capital offense not just because it is
a crime against a creature, but it is an attack on the image of God.
God, therefore, required execution.
The reason given for CP, at least the very
first time it is called for in Scripture, is based not on theocratic law
or a covenant relationship with the nation, but on the fact that man
bears the image of God. For those who would argue that CP is not for
today, I would ask, “Is man no longer created in the image of God?”
Since men are still image-bearers of God, CP is
still a legitimate form of justice. It should not surprise us that once
our culture accepted the lie that we are products of evolution and not
image-bearers, people would question the legitimacy of CP while
defending the practice of taking the life of an unborn child for almost
any conceivable reason. The atheist/evolutionist argues that we are just
animals and we don’t execute animals for killing other animals, do we?
A second relevant passage is Romans 13:1-7.
Verses 3-4 read, “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; 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.”
This is the reason that Paul gives for every
person submitting to the governing authorities. The governing
authorities are ordained by God and no authority exists except that
authority which has been established by God. Whoever resists authority
resists the ordinance of God and will receive condemnation.
Paul then explains why governments are
instituted among men. Government is ordained by God to be an avenger and
“bring wrath on the one who practices evil.”
Paul tells us that a legitimate function of
government is to use the “sword” to execute vengeance and wrath upon
those who practice evil. The image of the “sword” is used to communicate
the legitimate function of government in executing those who practice
evil. Paul certainly does not have in mind government using the broad
edge of the sword to spank someone! The sword was an instrument of death
and in this context it certainly carries that idea.
Some object that CP is just ‘revenge.’ It is
not just revenge. It is more than that, but it is indeed
revenge. It is the God-ordained means of avenging Himself on those who
do evil. Government bears the sword on behalf of God and is given
authority to use CP to execute justice. Notice from Romans 13
that Paul clearly sees CP functioning as a legitimate deterrent. More on
this later.
A third relevant passage is found in 1 Peter
2:13-14 where we are told, “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake
to every human institution, whether to a king as one in authority, or to
governors as sent by him [the king] for the punishment of
evildoers and the praise of those who do right.” Here we are told
again that one of the purposes of government is to punish evildoers.
Peter recognizes that government is ordained by God and as such carries
unique authority and responsibility to punish evildoers. That authority
can be used to “bear the sword” (Rom. 13).
The fourth relevant passage is in Acts
25:10-11, where Paul is on trial before Festus. Paul asserts his
innocence saying, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I
ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very
well know. If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything
worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things
is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I
appeal to Caesar.”
This is a significant passage because Paul, at
that very moment, was accused of a capital offense under Jewish law
(desecrating the temple - Acts 21:27-29). Notice what Paul’s statement
teaches.
First, Paul recognized that there are certain
crimes that deserve death.
Second, if Paul was guilty of a capital crime,
he did not refuse to die. He acknowledged that the government of
Caesar’s tribunal was a God-ordained authority that could legitimately
execute him. . . if he was guilty of a capital crime, which he was not.
Paul admitted that if he had committed a capital crime, he was deserving
of death and was willing to submit to CP as a just penalty. Does that
sound like someone who thought the death penalty was not to be used
today?
Clearly CP is neither immoral nor illegitimate.
Objections against CP
Let’s deal with some common objections to CP.
1. Jesus requires us to forgive; therefore,
we should not execute criminals. This is true to a point. Jesus does
require us to forgive. However, Jesus does not require the
government to forgive. As we have seen, the government is
established to execute justice. This objection confuses the government’s
role with ours. I personally do not have the authority to execute
criminals or exact vengeance. That is the function of the government as
ordained by God. Forgiveness must be given by me, justice by the
government. If someone murders my wife, I must forgive, but that does
not mean that justice should not be exacted by the governing
authorities. The fact is that Jesus never challenged the validity of CP
(the misuse of John 8:3-11 and Matthew 5:38-42 notwithstanding).
Further, this objection proves too much. What
should we do instead of executing someone guilty of a capital crime?
Life in prison? But Jesus said we should forgive. Maybe only 20
years in prison. But Jesus said we should forgive. Even a day in
jail for killing another human being would not be “forgiving.” What if
we require people to receive counseling? Well, that is a form of
punishment and Jesus said to “forgive.” If we are going to be truly
forgiving (by their definition) we would never punish any crime.
2. It is cruel and unusual punishment.
This objection is an appeal to the language of the Bill of Rights which
was written by men who not only believed in, but practiced CP! CP is not
cruel and unusual if it fits the crime. Death for stealing a
Tootsie Roll would be cruel and unusual, death for murder is not. If the
punishment fits the crime, it is not cruel and unusual, it is just.
3. CP has never been proven to be a
deterrent to crime. If I have heard this once in the wake of the
Hussein execution, I have heard it a hundred times!
First, lets grant for the sake of argument that
no scientific studies show it to be a deterrent5,
what does that prove? It may be that the death penalty has not been used
swiftly or widely enough to act as a deterrent.
Second, CP always works as a deterrent since
it always deters the offender. In other words, dead criminals
don’t commit more crimes!
Third, the goal of CP is punishment not
deterrence! If the goal of CP is rehabilitation then it fails miserably.
If, however, the goal of CP is punishment, it seems to me that it works
quite well. Whether CP acts as a deterrent or not misses the point. We
don’t execute criminals for the purpose of deterring others. We use CP
to punish, not deter.
Fourth, people set up a false standard with
this objection. They assume that for CP to work as a deterrent would
mean that crime would cease. Since the use of CP does not eliminate
crime, they conclude that CP does not work. My response is that CP works
every time since every time the offender dies, leaving him incapable of
committing more crimes.
4. CP violates human dignity. Quite the
opposite is actually true. CP actually is an expression of our belief in
the dignity and value of human life. It is because human life is
valuable that we punish, with the ultimate punishment, those who take
that life from others. “It is specifically because of man’s value and
dignity that we punish his moral wrongdoing. We don’t punish animals for
stealing or killing (we don't punish them, we remove them for our
safety).”6 It
is because we believe in human dignity that we hold men morally
responsible for their wrongdoings. Isn’t it ironic that it is those who
believe we are no different than animals that object to the use of CP
on the grounds that it violates human dignity. Once again, we
execute for capital offenses because men are made in the image of
God, not in spite of that fact.
Using the WRONG ARGUMENT
When Saddam was hanged, the media’s debate
over CP went into hyper drive. I enjoyed listening to the debate, but
have been disappointed in the argument presented by those in favor of
CP. The argument I have heard is what I consider the worst argument of
all.
What is offered is some variation of the
following: “It was not the Americans that executed Hussein. It was a
duly constituted and established Iraqi court, not the Americans. If they
determine in their culture, according to their way of life, that that is
a just punishment, we can’t fault them.”
I cringe. That is absolutely the worst
argument for executing Saddam that can be offered! Conservatives
and Christians who support CP should never fall into the trap of
offering such a justification. They should know better!
Think about what is being said. The essence of
the argument is that the Iraqi culture determines what is right and
wrong and we have no authority to second-guess or criticize them. Do we
really want to go down that road?
Do we really believe that right and wrong are
determined by the practices of a given culture? Or do we believe that
right and wrong transcends culture? If it is morally wrong
to execute Saddam, then it doesn’t matter who does it, Iraqis or
Americans. Likewise, if it is the just thing to do, then it doesn’t
matter who ties the noose.
If the Iraqi court had determined to set Saddam
free, reinstate him as President and nominate him for the Nobel Peace
Prize, we would not be saying, “Well, it was an Iraqi court that made
that judgment and we have no right to second-guess them or criticize.”
That would be baloney!
This argument can only backfire. It appeals to
culture as the absolute moral standard. It presumes that there is no
moral law or Moral Lawgiver that transcends culture. Christians and
conservatives have no business arguing in a fashion that gives
legitimacy to cultural relativism!
Like with the Nuremburg Trials of the 1940s,
this is the opportunity to make the case for the Higher Moral Law which
is an expression of the Moral Lawgiver. There are certain things that
are right and wrong. When a moral crime has been committed, we have a
responsibility to punish that moral crime in a way appropriate to the
nature of the crime.
We should argue in this fashion:
A. We believe that all men are created
in the image of God with infinite dignity, value, and worth.
B. Men are free moral creatures who make
real moral choices worthy of either praise or punishment.
C. Saddam’s crimes against his own
people (and humanity) took the lives and stripped the dignity from
thousands of valuable human beings.
D. Since Saddam is a free moral creature
who ought to be held accountable for his actions, and not an animal, he
should, therefore, be punished. The only punishment that fits his
horrendous moral crimes is execution.
That argument is based upon the assumption of
two things: first, the value and dignity of human life, second, the
existence of a moral law that transcends culture and which requires us
to hold men accountable for their moral evils.
It is important that as Christians we think
biblically about these issues, allowing Scripture to inform our
judgments and our social positions. It is equally important that we
present our case in a way that does not undermine the foundation of our
own belief system. I hope this article has helped enable you to do both.
Without Wax -
Jim Osman
Pastor/Teacher
Footnotes:
1.
Judgment Day is archived at
www.kootenaichurch.org.
2. The Bible and Capital Punishment
by Greg Koukl available at www.str.org
3. Ex. 21:12-17; 22:18; 31:15; Lev.
20:2-15; 24:16; Deut. 13:5-10; 19:16-20.
4. By “murder” I mean “the
unjustified taking of an innocent life.” The Bible does not prohibit all
killing. There are times when taking another person’s life is justified;
for instance, war, self defense, and CP. The pro-life position is that
the unjustified taking of an innocent life is morally wrong and may
deserve CP.
5. I think that good evidence
exists that the swift and public use of the death penalty does in fact
deter crime. Scripture certainly teaches that it will - Ecclesiastes
8:11; Romans 13:1-7; 1 Peter 2:13-14.
6. Koukl. |
