Monday, 09 November 2009
-
Response to Capital Punishment: What Is The Christian Stance?
As of November 5, 43 people in the United States have served the death penalty during 2009 according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Christians must recognize the importance of discussing the death penalty and the need they have for taking a biblically accurate stance on the issue as they faithfully seek the kingdom of G-D and live as a witness to a fallen world for Jesus Christ.
Christians and Killing
For us it is not permissible even to see or to hear of murder.
--Minucius FelixThere is no room for the possibility that a Christian may ever kill another human being in the teachings and example of both Christ and the early church. In fact, there is no room to claim that Christians have the right or duty to bring harm to any person who does wrong (Romans 12:17-21). The duty of the Christian is to be a good neighbor and love all people, including enemies (Luke 6:27). More precisely, the duty of the Christian is to love G-D (Deuteronomy 6:5, Matthew 22:37) which means the Christian person will obey all G-D commands (Deuteronomy 11:1, John 14:23-24, 1John 5:3), which includes loving all people (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:33, Galatians 5:14).
Bernard of Clairvaux was greatly misled when he told the Knights Templars, “The soldier of Christ is certain when he kills… He kills with Christ, for he does not carry the sword without reason. He is the servant of G-D for the punishment of evil men and the praise of good men. When he kills an evil-doer, he is no murderer, but rather, I should say, a killer of evil and an avenger of Christ against those who do evil.”
Christians and Just Vengeance
We cannot bear to see a man or woman put to death, even justly!
--AthenagorasThere was once a time when G-D allowed his people to repay wrong doings within fair limits. The scriptures most people use to support the death penalty are Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:17-22, and Deuteronomy 19:19-21. Most of these are commands for Israelites to take life for life, tooth for tooth, eye for an eye etc. These commands are restrictions that were instituted so people would not do more wrong to someone who wronged them previously. One was not commanded to return harm but rather to do no more harm than was done to them originally. More importantly, these are laws given to theocratic Israel. Theocratic Israel no longer exists. Christians are not the new theocratic Israel (Romans 10:12, 11:1-32). No longer does G-D command his people to carry out his vengeance like in Numbers 31:3 (Deuteronomy 32:34-36, Romans 12:17-21). Even Jesus did not come to bring vengeance or glorify Israel above others, as demonstrated in his teaching in the temple when reading the scroll of Isaiah 61 (Luke 4:17-19).
To be just alone is not enough because to be just means to repay like for like, but we have been commanded to far beyond this, to be kind and patient.
--AthenagorasWe live in world that has encountered Jesus Christ, his death, and resurrection. Jesus fulfilled the law (Matthew 5:17) and brought new revelation (Ephesians 1:9) while teaching and showing us how to live (Ephesians 5:1, Luke 14:27, John 14:12, 1John 2:6). What Jesus revealed to us is what our Father wanted us to know (John 14:5-14). Christians no longer are allowed to take vengeance (Romans 12:17-21). Jesus mentions the three verses used to support the death penalty in his Sermon on the Mount saying:
You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.' But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:38-40).
Jesus tells us there is a new way to react to injustice that does not bring more harm. Immediately after this, Jesus tells his followers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). Jesus’ teaching concerning enemies and wicked people are so extreme he says “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment” (Matthew 5:21-22a). The people of G-D are no longer allowed to take vengeance, cause harm, be angry with a brother or live in an unloving fashion to any person.
For the Christians have changed their swords and their lances into instruments of peace, and they know not how to fight... Nor an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, for him who counts no man his enemy, but all his neighbors, and therefore can never stretch out his hand for vengeance
--Irenaeus
The State as the Wrath of G-D
…Thou, O Ruler, has given them the power of government through thy majesty and unutterable might so that we acknowledge the honor and dignity given to them by thee, may we be subject to them without opposing thy will in anything. Grant to them, O Lord, health, peace, concord, and firmness so that they may administer without offense the government which thou hast given them! …Do thou, O Lord, direct their counsels according to that which is good and pleasing in thy sight so that they may with reverence exercise the authority Thou has granted hem, peacefully and benevolently, without violence, and thus obtain thy mercy.
--First Letter of Clement 61St. Paul claims there is a vessel for the sake of justice on Earth. G-D established the authorities to be a tool of his wrath to punish the wicked and reward the righteous (Romans 13:1-7, 1Peter 2:13-17). This is a simple and somewhat vague explanation for the purpose of rulers and authorities but it is what we are given in scripture. In the Old Testament there are accounts of G-D using Israel, various nations, and plagues to carry out his holy wrath (Numbers 16:46, 1Samuel 28:18, Isaiah 10:5). After Jesus’ death and resurrection, the government alone, on Earth, has been given this duty.
One important fact to note is that Christ is above all powers (Colossians 2:10) and all authorities exist by, through, and for Christ (Colossians 1:16, John 1:1-3, Romans 13:2, Revelation 4:11). Therefore, the Christian must always side with Jesus (and consequently the Father) before and above siding with any authorities (Acts 5:29, Jude 1:25). Both the Old and New Testaments would lead us to the conclusion that G-D does not find pleasure in the death of wicked men (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11, Luke 6:35) but also knows there must be punishment for them (Exodus 32:34, Psalm 89:30-33, Jeremiah 14:10, 2Thesselonians 1:8).
Bearing the Sword
Retribution is a disguise for vengeance.
--Oliver HolmesIt must be acknowledged that even though the state is to punish the wicked, nowhere in Romans 13:1-7, 1Peter 2:13-17 or anywhere else claiming the purpose and rights of the authorities is it written that death is a justified punishment. Romans 13:4 states "For 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.” If we assume that G-D’s wrath looks exactly like it did before Christ then it is easy to interpret this passage in a way that almost justifies the death penalty. However, we can not make this assumption because this is part of a letter written decades after the death and resurrection of Christ. Though, the real issue is not when in time this literature was written but in the usage of the phrase “bear the sword.” Fortunately, there are plenty of references to the sword in scripture that shed light on this language.
The theme of G-D’s wrath and the sword being paired together is seen several times in scripture (Job 19:29, Romans 13:4, Revelation 19:15). In Job 19:29, we see a righteous man telling his friends who desire to “hound” G-D that they should fear the wrath for it “will bring punishment by the sword, and then you will know that there is judgment.” In Revelation 19:15 it is written, “Out of his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations” in reference to Jesus in his second coming. Often in scripture, as is the case in these passages, the sword is a symbol of bringing division.
A clear use of this symbolism is found in Hebrews 4:12. “For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” We see the Word of G-D related to a sword in similar fashion in Ephesians 6:17 when Paul writes “Take the… sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”
Even Jesus spoke of swords to illustrate division in Matthew 10:34-39 when he said “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn 'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' ‘Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” It is plain to see that Jesus, the Prince of Peace, did not come to kill people or promote the use of swords for combat (Luke 22:49-51, John 18:36, 2Corinthians 10:3-5) but to call people to him by drawing a bold line in the sand between him and other loyalties (specifically the typical family unit).
Truly, the language used by Paul is the same in Romans 13:4 as it is in Ephesians 6:17. There are disputes about the author of Hebrews, but when looking at the use of sword language it is clear that the author was in line with both Paul and Jesus’ use of the same language. To conclude that the state is justified to take life as punishment based on the phrase “bear the sword” is not only a stretch linguistically but also biblically for even Christ Jesus brings a sword and yet he never brought harm to a man but instead suffered for the wicked (Romans 5:8). The death of Christ proves the problematic nature of the death penalty and how it is backwards to the ways of his kingdom (Matthew 18:23-35).
Problems with Supporting the Death Penalty for Christians
…How can we possibly kill anyone when we cannot even look on lest we are polluted with the guilt of murder and sacrilege! How can we possibly kill anyone…
--AthenagorasThe death penalty is not a necessity for punishment, if it were; nobody would be alive because all people are punished at some point in life. Non-lethal forms of punishment exist and are more than sufficient to make the wicked realize that their actions are wrong, intolerable by society, and worthy of punishment. Non-lethal forms of punishment provide opportunity for a wicked person to change the way they live. The death penalty may do some of these, but it can not do all of them. Lethal punishment disables a person from repenting and proving their repentance in society. Prisoner rehabilitation is a large issue but it is not an issue to be discussed here.
Some would argue that lethal punishment is the ultimate security for a society from wicked men. While it is true that a person can bring no harm if they are dead, it also means they can bring no good.
G-D is just (Deuteronomy 32:4, 2Chronicles 12:6, Psalm 9:16) and merciful (Nehemiah 9:29-33, Psalm 25:6, Romans 11:30). The first murder in human history takes place in Genesis 4 when Cain (a gardener) kills his brother Abel (a hunter). G-D speaks with Cain about his actions, first allowing him to fess up to his sin and then telling Cain the earth has all ready spilled the news about the murder when Cain did not reply with honesty. Verses eleven and twelve reveal the punishment G-D gives to Cain reading, “Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth.” It is interesting to note that Cain can no longer be a gardener as was intended but now he must fill the void of his brother by hunting for his food (an obvious implication). Not only that, but Cain will not die soon, instead he will live and he will wander. In response Cain cries “My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me.” Cain is not afraid that he will be killed for his murderous actions, for who would know of them outside of G-D? He is afraid of being killed as a stranger in foreign lands, which is a legitimate fear for his time. More than this, Cain is blaming G-D for his inevitable death.
G-D recognizes this and responds in mercy saying, “Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over.” Then he puts a mark of the head of Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. This is the same G-D who gave Israel the restriction commandments mentioned earlier. This event pre-dates those commands. Obviously, G-D has always been a G-D of mercy who does not delight in the death of wicked men (Ezekiel 18:23, 33:11). The punishment brought upon Cain was just and non-lethal. In fact, the punishment came with a promise that lethal action would not be brought against Cain by any other man on Earth. Obviously, G-D has love for Cain. Also worth noting is that G-D does not promise death to anyone who kills Cain but severe vengeance that is seven times worse than death. We can only assume that this vengeance occurs after death or during life on Earth, and since there was no belief in eternal life (outside of Sheol) in Jewish culture at this time we must assume G-D meant that vengeance would fall upon them during their lifetime. Also, seven represents perfection and completion so this could also translate that the vengeance brought by G-D would be perfect or complete.
Christians believe in repentance (Matthew 12:41), redemption (Psalm 130:7, Romans 3:24, Ephesians 1:7), transformation power of Christ Jesus (Romans 12:2), and for people who were once sinners to become clean (John 13:10, 15:3, Ephesians 5:25-27, 2Peter 1:9). Since no man can judge another man (Psalm 75:7, Luke 6:37, James 4:12) or know his future (Ecclesiastes 7:14), we must accept that it is possible for all people to change (Matthew 19:23-26, Acts 22:1-16). The death penalty removes this hope from society and exists as a deceptive form of control that is detrimental to humanity.
G-D is in control due to his great power (Matthew 24:30, Luke 4:36, John 13:3, 2Corinthians 4:7, Ephesians 1:18-23, 3:20). G-D will bring justice to all people (Matthew 5:1-12, Luke 6:20-26, Romans 12:19). The Christian response to all people, even the wicked, is to bestow love upon them and do good to them (Romans 12:20-21, Luke 10:25-37). It is impossible to both curse someone with death and bless them at the same time and the Christian is to only bless and never curse (Romans 12:14). Christians can have no part in the condemnation of another person (Luke 6:37) just as Christ did not condemn (John 3:17, 8:10-11). Whatever condemnation a person may bring upon them self will be dealt with in time by G-D (Genesis 18:25, 1Samuel 24:12, Psalm 9:8, Isaiah 11:4, Ezekiel 24:13-14, Romans 14:10, 1Corinthians 4:5, Hebrews 10:30) and so neither man nor states have reason to partake in such action. G-D alone is the author of life and therefore G-D alone is justified to destroy life (since he has stripped man of this right through Christ Jesus) and so we shall refrain from the temptation to take life (1Samuel 24:12, Acts 3:15, Isaiah 43:15).
How Then Shall We Live?
He never wanted us to imitate the wicked. Rather, he challenged us to lead everyone away from shamefulness and pleasure in evil by patience and kindness. We can in fact show that many who were once among you have been transformed in this way. They gave up their violent and domineering ways.
--Justin the MartyrThe church is G-D’s witness to the world (Matthew 5:13-16, 16:18) and is separate from all governments and systems (John 14:17, 15:19, 17:14-16, 18:36) but still has a duty to proclaim truth (Ephesians 4:15) and beckon governments to be as moral as possible. For all the reasons above the death penalty can not be performed justly by Christians, the Church, or the state and believers in Christ Jesus the Lord would do best to discourage the authorities or any individual from performing the duties belonging solely to G-D.
According to the scriptures, the Christian response to all people must consist of love (Luke 6:35), forgiveness (Luke 6:37), mercy (Luke 10:37), dismissing a record of wrongs (1Corinthians 13:5), and teach them to obey all Christ has commanded (Matthew 28:20). For those who follow Jesus Christ, the lover and saviour of all enemies, wicked, and ungrateful people, (Romans 5:8, Luke 6:35) there is no choice but to fully love all people. In this righteous love the permission to destroy the life of any person is nullified and to support such action would be to support a way opposite to the Lord.
1Peter 3:8-12 and 18 reads:
Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’… For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God…Micah 6:8 reads:
He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.
Punishment justly exists and is to be carried out by the order of G-D. The state is allowed to punish the wicked. The Church is not the state and can never act as the state. The argument being made here is that there is no way to justify killing a person in the name of punishment according to scripture.
-
recommend
- recs 5
-
share
-
email
- sent 2
Related Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: TheGreatBout@xanga
- Name: Travis
- Location: United States
- About Me: Seek and you will find... or something.
-
True
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 2 38 Views: 527 31286 Comments: 57 1399 View all posts by TheGreatBout@xanga
Comments (30)
There are plenty of Christians who would take the opposite position, that capital punishment is not only allowed, but the obligation of the state and its people. The same question applies to war. Evil is not to be suffered. God is a God of mercy and love, but God is also a God of justice. Murder is a violation of the fifth commandment. Killing is not. One should not be overly hasty in passing judgment on the other position. Both positions are easily enough to establish with scriptural support.
I want to recommend this entry a million times over. Seriously.
@FKIProfessor@xanga - of course. the Bible can be made to say anything. Even Hitler had the Bible and the Church on his side.
But what Jesus says is what we follow. And Jesus is all about forgiveness and reconciliation.
i love this entry.
Thank you for this entry. Christians who support the death penalty could argue with me day and night over why they support such a thing and I would still believe they are hypocrites. This entry sums my feelings on the subject quite nicely. :)
Punishment justly exists and is to be carried out by the order of G-D.
The state is allowed to punish the wicked. The Church is not the state
and can never act as the state. The argument being made here is that
there is no way to justify killing a person in the name of punishment
according to scripture.
This line is especially wonderful. I feel the entry is very poignant given that tomorrow, the DC Sniper is set to be executed. :\
I suggest reading the Old Testament carefully, where God often commanded the Israel government to kill thousands of the ungodly at once. It is impossible to say that "Thou shalt not murder" applies to the death-penalty, as God commanded war and vengeance.
I agree that in the past, when the church executed people, that was wrong. However, I believe that the government has a God-given right to execute the worst killers, and the Bible supports that.
Great post.
I do agree this is a very, very difficult problem to handle. I am naturally opposed to the death penalty. I hate the idea of killing someone, especially someone who may not be saved. How can any Christian WISH to have someone put to death? That is literally ending their chance to repent and be saved.
Although I don't totally dismiss the idea because it is true that God has given governments authority; I also recognize that most of the arguments for the death penalty are something like "The OT did it. God told them to". I think the key there is "God told them too". Something the U.S. government lacks (since I don't think they really do much of anything that God tells us to do).
Just my thoughts.
good post.
Yes. Someone who sees it [almost] my way.
God [or in my case, fate] doles out the punishment. Man has no right to punish people with death.
I'm very glad that you wrote this response, because I do not agree with capital punishment, but I never felt like there were many who agreed with me at church or in my faith community.
Great post.
@railfan@xanga - "I suggest reading the Old Testament carefully, where God often commanded the Israel government to kill thousands of the ungodly at once."
Yes, there was a time when God set laws in place for theocratic Israel to function in a more merciful way than they had before (also a more merciful way than all their surrounding cultures) and that involved taking the lives of those who do certain evils. If we point to the Old Testament we must point to the context and ask how God is making his people set apart from those who do not belong to Him. Then we must point to the New Testament and ask the question again. I firmly believe this is the conclusion we will arrive at. We must submit to revelation and remember that this is a story and there is progress.
"God commanded war and vengeance."
And yet we see nothing of this in the New Testament. That's the problem with using the OT texts to support Christian stances. Don't get me wrong, they are useful for that but they aren't a trump card by any means. There has been revelation of God in Christ since those texts and we follow Christ because he has all power and authority and is one with the Father. He tells us what the Father has for us to know. In Jesus we see no permission for war or tit-for-tat living. Jesus and Paul exhort believers to not take revenge and let God handle wicked people (sometimes with the states). God doesn't change but our understanding of HIm and His use of us does. God commanded the killing of children who talk back to their parents as well. I don't think we still operate under this law.
"However, I believe that the government has a God-given right to execute the worst killers, and the Bible supports that."
I'd agree that the state has to duty to punish the wicked, but I can't confirm that is also permission to execute. Outside of the commands for theocratic Israel to use the death penalty (because then you have to include those children who sass their folks and not just the worst killers), how would you say the Bible support this?
@deepestrecesses - I think the big thing for me is that the state does have authority, but they are also to follow the Creator. They loften don't (as you also stated). Even if they are permitted to kill, the Church would have no choice (by her nature) to plead for the lives of the guilty.
I think we need to make a distinction between in every day life, and when faced with a war, or a nation that rebels against God.
In a nation that rebels against God, eg, where 50% of the people or more start to become rapists and murderers, something has to happen, or the situation will become unbearable.
I don't think anyone has got any idea what will happen if only ONE prison filled with sexual preditors breaks down, and the prisoners escape!
What are you going to do then?
I found a great article on "Murder VS Killing".
But in short, my belief is murder is killing out of angry feelings or revenge.
Killing is the simple termination of one's life, without having a personal grudge against people.
Imagine this:
You are standing on a bridge, and the bridge collapses.
You are able to throw a rope tied on one of the bridge's pillars which is still ok.
You can throw the rope to the left of you, where one serial killer is,
or throw it to the other side, where one or two innocent civilians are.
Either way, at least one of them will die.
Will you help the serial killer, or will you help the civilians?
You have the choice; either way you will kill one of both; you are literally forced to make a second's decision, and know that the outcome will be that at least one life will be taken because you chose to...
In a same manner a war happens.
Kill, or you and your family be killed!
Here's what the article had to say:
[i]"
According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is
murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not
to murder applies to human beings, not to killing animals or plant life
for food. God gave animals to mankind for his use (Genesis 1:26-30;
9:1-4). But, this does not mean that humans have the right mistreat
animals and the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 22:6-7; 25:4;
Proverbs 12:10).
Under the Old Covenant God allowed the
Israelites to kill other humans under very special circumstances such
as punishment for certain sins, for example, murder (Exodus 21:12-14,
Leviticus 24:17, 21) and adultery (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy
22:22-24). God also allowed the Israelites to engage in warfare and
even gave them instructions about waging war (Deuteronomy 20:1-20). God
also recognized that humans might accidentally kill each other, and he
made provisions for this (Numbers 35:9-34; Deuteronomy 19:1-13).
The
primary reason God hates murder is that out of all creation, only human
are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27; 9:4-6). Even before the
codification of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the murder of other
human beings was wrong (Genesis 4:8-12; 4:23-24; 9:4-6; Exodus
1:16-17). While on earth, Jesus spoke out against murder (Matthew
5:21-26; Mark 10:17-19). We also see in the writings of Paul (Romans
1:18, 29-32; 13:8-10; Galatians 5:19-21), James (James 2:8-11; 4:1-3),
Peter (1 Peter 4:15-16) and John (Revelation 9:20-21; 21:7-8; 22:14-15)
that murder is wrong.[/i]
When it comes to murder and what is or is not murder, one needs to know where to begin. I suppose one of the logical places would be with one of the places mentioned here in this post and that is Cain's punishment for killing Abel. You might even say this is the most logical place to start, as it is the first murder.
The next logical starting place might be Genesis 9, where God tells Noah that because man is created in God's image, if someone was to shed man's blood, than by man his blood shall be shed. This verse is relevent to our discussion as it is the first time that God lays out death as an acceptable form of justice.
However, I have never been accused of being logical. I think I will instead start my argument in Exodus 20:13 (ESV) " You shall not murder."
That is kind of plain isn't it? just lays it right out. You shall not murder. However it is too simple I think. because it immediately begs the question, "what is murder?" I thought back to my days as an Administration of Justice major, and remembered the following definition of murder. "murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with intent or malice aforethought" Which begs the question, "what is malice aforethought?"
Malice aforethought, means that you had one of the following man endangering states of mind. if you have one of the five, then you committed murder. they are
1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to cause serious bodily injury
3. Intent to commit an act extremely likely to cause death or serious bodily injury with a reckless disregard for the consequences
4. intent to commit a felony
5. Forcibly resisting a lawful arrest.
That is the legal meaning of the word Murder. Only the law can come up with a few dozen words, in order to explain the 6 letter word "murder" But what is the biblical meaning of the word murder? That is afterall the standard for christians. what does God in the bible say that murder is? I am not sure that one can point to a particulary verse in the bible that says "murder is...." But what we can do, is look up some verses and decide what murder is not.
We know that God has killed humans in the defense of Israel. He did so at the Red Sea when he drowned the army of Egypt. So perhaps we have the first hint that self defense is not murder? Let's keep looking.
We know that God told Moses to attack various cities and wipe out the entire place. Men, women, children, and animals. Why? well the Bible does not say for sure, but the best guess is because the people in the promised land at the time worshiped various idols, and one of the idols they worshipped was hollow, and they would light fires in the various sections of the idol (it was a large idol) and burn different things, grain, animals, and so on. The fires would burn and heat up the whole idol. When it got hot, they would place a live baby on the outstretched red hot hands and burn the baby to death. So the guess is that God wiped out the entire place, because human sacrifice was so abhorent to God that justice dictated that the entire city be punished, as the residents of the city, were all guilty in participating in such a horrible act. God told Moses not to let anyone remain alive, so that Israel would not be tempted to follow the religon of the people.
So now we have the first hint that killing someone can be justice, but is not murder. It can't be murder, because God told them to do it, and God cannot sin. These are however Old Testament references, what about New Testament passages?
In Luke 3:14 some soldiers come to John The Baptist and ask him what they are supposed to do. John the Baptist, tells them not to extort money from anyone by threats or false accusation, and to be content with their wages. Wait a minute, wages? you mean they could keep their job as soldiers, after they were baptized? yep. No where did John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Phillip, or anyone else, ever tell a soldier to quit an army.
In Luke 22:36 Jesus tells his disciples to sell gaments and buy swords. Now I used Strong's concordance, to look up the greek word used there for sword. it is the word machaira. It has two meanings, the first is it was a sword used for sacrifices. Now Jesus was the sacrifice for sin, so I doubt that he told them to buy a sacrifical knife, as he knew there would be no more sacrifices once He (Jesus) died. So let's go to the second meaning of the word. It says that the word was used in reference to a curved blade used in a cutting stroke, or a straight blade used in thrusting. Both of these are swords of self defense.Which is a meaning that makes sense, when you look at verse 36 in context. Jesus is sending his disciples out to witness and carry Jesus' message. The roads were full of bandits and such, so Jesus is telling them to get a sword for self defense.
This is the second passage, that shows self defense is justified. I used the death of the egyptian army as my first one. The Bible talks about needing two eyewitnesses to verify a crime. I am going to tweak that a little and say that because I have shown through the use of two passages that self defense is allowed, that the case is closed on the testimony of these two verses and that a Christian is allowed to kill in self defense.
Now this post, also mentioned Romans 13. In that chapter, there is verse 4 that says the Government does not bear the sword in vain. The word for sword there, is the same word as in Luke 22:36. One more use, than the meanings that strong's gave, is that the calvary in the roman army would use this sword because it was useful in removing the head of an enemy soldier, as your horse went by. Other places refer to it as the sword used in executions. Which makes sense in the context of Romans 13. What would be the point in saying that the government did not bear the sword for killing sacrifices in vain? That would not tell me to behave. But if we say that one should obey the government and do good, because the Government did not bear the sword of execution or the sword using for removing heads in battle, then that would make me toe the line.
So, Romans 13, Genesis 9, and verses in the Old Testament where God seeks justice for sins, all point to death being a legitimate punishment for evil doers.
Luke 22:36 and the Red Sea, point to killing in self defense as legitimate. My argument is now complete. I have shown through the Bible where God, Jesus, and the Apostle Paul, have demonstrated and told us or the government to kill in certain circumstances. I submit this defense of the Death Penalty to you for your consideration.
@ProudToBeAChristianFruitcake@xanga - Great response.
"So perhaps we have the first hint that self defense is not murder?"
I don't think we can conclude this. Moses kills an Egyptian for mistreating a Hebrew slave and yet it is deemed as murder. Even then, this is not self-defense but the defending of others. We have to recognize that the action of God is just and the action of man is not always just. God can open and close waters at will while man can not.We do not get to do everything God gets to do. We get to do what God commands us to do. For Christians, that is loving enemies.
"So now we have the first hint that killing someone can be justice, but is not murder. It can't be murder, because God told them to do it, and God cannot sin."
This is the key. What our Father commands must be obeyed. If the Creator commands his people to kill then they do well to kill (as instructed). If he does not command killing then they do well to not kill. Only the Creator is able to justly say who lives and dies. When humans make that call they step outside their bounds.There could be numerous reasons for commands to kill but we also know that the God of Israel often led his people into battle peacefully. That is to say, he went before them and told them to follow. With the promised land, He told Israel they would recieve it and that it would be handed to them. There was no talk of war until Israel acted unfaithfully. All this to say killing is not the ideal our Creator has for interacting with his creation (the flood was brought about through the CReators own regret).
"No where did John the Baptist, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Phillip, or anyone else, ever tell a soldier to quit an army."
That's not an endorsement for military service let alone the killing of other people. This is not promotion for state killing either. XCCP recently did a blog concerning Christians and the military. This came up in their comments. I used a quote from Richard Hays found in his book The Moral Vision of the New Testament that states, "The role of these soldiers in the New Testament narratives, however, must be seen in proper context: precisely as Roman soldiers, they serve to dramatize the power of the Word of God to reach even the unlikeliest people… these stories about centurions cannot be read as endorsements of military careers for Christians. To be fair, however, thee is nothing within the New Testament itself that explicitly excludes or forbids such careers." Jesus' ministry was one primarily for the Jewish people so it wouldn't make sense for him to call out Roman soldiers from their military careers.
"The roads were full of bandits and such, so Jesus is telling them to get a sword for self defense."
Luke 22:36 is by no means an endorsement for self-defense of the defending of others with force or lethal action. We know this because the rest of the passage shows Jesus rebuking the using of those swords for the sake of defending others and self. SirNickDon wrote a good blog about this.
Secondly, self-defense is not the death penalty. They are completely different circumstances. While both can be revenge/vengeance under the alias of "justice," we must recognize the differences. Even if we say that Jesus endorses violent self-defense that is no endorsement for capital punishment. One situation is dealing with daily interaction amongst individuals and the other is state officiated.
Jesus is less ambiguous about how to handle injustice with his sermon on the mount in Matthew 5:38-42). He mentions the old covenant laws that allowed the Hebrew people an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth (restrictive laws) and he tightens the calling for kingdom people. He instructs that his people are not to return evil for evil. Be it murder or the stealing of life, we are not to take the same in return for the sake of justice. His examples range from legal matters, to daily interactions with the occupying athorities/military and even fellow members of (predominantly Jewish) society. These examples apply to the personal, political, legal, and the cross cultural venues of life. In other words, this law applies to all aspects of a followers life (as far as interacting with others goes). This makes life for a life action impossible for a Christian.
"What would be the point in saying that the government did not bear the sword for killing sacrifices in vain?"
I attempting to address the issue of the term "bear the sword" and how to best read it. The verses I aligned with the passage in Romans use theGreek word machaira as Luke 22:36 or rhomphaia (a longer sword for offensive action) and they all use the word in an illustrative manner. Simply because the word means sword (and we all know what swords are for) does not mean we can conclude that the state is right to kill or use the sword for it's primary function. Otherwise we must conclude that Matthew 10:34 means Jesus came to kill and we know that is contrary to his mission. Though, to give a point to your argument, some believe machaira can also mean "judicial punishment" or "war." However, translators who hold that also say that it means those things in a figurative sense. It can also deal with division (like in the examples I provided) and I believe it does. Even if it doesn't, I'm not convinced that it means the state wields capital punishment for no reason. It's possible, but given the rest of the New Testament witness, I'm inclined to also deem it unlikely.
I guess to answer your question, the point wouldn't be to say they wield the sword in vain but to say say the authorities wield the ability to divide the wicked and the good. But if I am wrong, and I may be, I hold firm that the Church has no choice but to plead for the lives of the guilty based upon the calling Jesus gives his BRide and how she is to operate in the world.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but in regards to God telling his people to go kill in the OT:
Isaiah 57:15-17 (New International Version)15 For this is what the high and lofty One says—
he who lives forever, whose name is holy:
"I live in a high and holy place,
but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit,
to revive the spirit of the lowly
and to revive the heart of the contrite.
16 I will not accuse forever,
nor will I always be angry,
for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me—
the breath of man that I have created.
I don't believe God is angry any longer. I don't believe he wants us to kill our neighbors.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Well thought out! But I still disagree. Government is supposed to be a terror to evildoers. Romans 13:3-4 says "For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer."
The sword of the avenger carrying out God's wrather, seems like a pretty strong endorsement of capital punishment to me.
I mostly agree with your distinction between Old and NT, but I still think it's too great of a u-turn to say that God says in the Old Testament not to murder but then argue that we aren't under the Old Testament, and that His commands regarding capital punishment no longer apply. Why one but not the other? If there is one thing to be gotten out of the OT, I think it is that killing a convicted evildoer is not murder, but sometimes a necessity of government.
On the other hand, things certainly are different in the NT. There is a sharp distinction between Christianity and the government. It would be wrong to have a "Christian war", or a crusade that involves killing others, but God still allows the government to fight evil, like in WWII. Likewise, we as Christians shouldn't execute heretics, but the government institution itself is separate and carries the sword for evildoers.
Edit: I did not previously note the sword comment. Jesus's mission isn't all just about bringing life, though. Revelations makes it abundantly clear that the sword is used for death of the wicked, by the hand of God (See Rev 19:15). I don't think there's any way to argue that the sword doesn't mean death, in context of Revelations, and though the post tries to maneuver around it, we still run into the fact that almost everyone will be cast into the lake of fire. Jesus does give life, but he gives death too.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Amen.
Why would a Christian NOT plead for life?
@railfan@xanga - "Why one but not the other"
Because the command to not murder is still present in the NT. In fact, it is added to (in the same fashion of adultery and retaliation laws of the old covenant). Jesus tells us not only to not murder but to not be angry at brothers and not insult because then we murder in our heart. We have to look at the story of scripture and notice movement, consistency, and change.
"If there is one thing to be gotten out of the OT, I think it is that killing a convicted evildoer is not murder, but sometimes a necessity of government"
I'm not trying to argue it being murder, just simply that it is not part of the New Testament witness. I beleive just killing exists and that it has existed in the form of capital punishment. I wouldn't say that is the most significant thing to draw from the OT but I'd say it is something you can draw the OT.
"I don't think there's any way to argue that the sword doesn't mean death, in context of Revelations,"
Well, if you take all the imagery of Revelation literally, then no there isn't. However I'm not convinced Revelation was written for the purpose of saying "This is literally what will happen in the future." Prophecy is near always communicated in poetic or figurative language be it the destruction of Israel, the coming of the messiah, or the mercy of the Father to unfaithful Israel. I don't disagree that death and hades will be destroyed but I don't think Jesus is coming back to slay the guilty and I don't think the government is ordained to do the same.
Honestly, the only leg justified capital punishment has to stand on in the New Testament is Romans 13:3-4 (at least from what I've encountered). And again, if there is justification for the state to execute the wicked in order to punish them, I see no way for a faithful Christian to be satisfied with it but instead cry out like Athenagoras and say "we cannot bear to see a man or woman put to death, even justly!" And that's what this post concerns; the Christian stance.
Paul, a hypocritcal follower of Christ said that the autorities "Do not bear the sword in vain". Does that mean they were to use the broad side of the sword as a 'paddle'? Whether I like what Paul thru the Holy Spirit is saying or not, he still said it. He also said that if 'a man does not work, neither should he eat' (II Thessalonians 3:10). Does that rule out mercy and compassion? I don't think so, but 'tough love' is a Christian reality (see John 15:1-6). 'Tough love' may take many forms and often entails penalties/fines, probation, imprisonment and in extreme cases (such as horrendous crimes, like the one in Texas at Ft. Hood), execution. When the state carries out an execution, is that murder? (I know in some minds, it is considered to be). Legal discipline should be designed to educate the community-at-large (as well as the individual criminal) that law-breaking will not be tolerated. Some people retort that capitol punishment does not restrain criminal behavior---but it does restrain at least one lawbreaker and his/her habitual criminal behavior.
Truth is paradoxical (How can God be so tender and loving & yet be angry at the same time?), which means; equally true realities often seem to be at odds with each other. It is important that we carefully sift thru seemingly contradictory principles for the purpose of coming to a balanced/ mature conclusion. We may never be able to completely understand (or even explain to our own satisfaction, let alone, the satisfaction of others ) how two seemingly opposite realities can both be true at the same time. Often, we must simply embrace both of them with the conviction that they are indeed true and that our Lord will eventually help us make sense of them and everything else. To reject the one or the other will surely cause us to be out-of-balance and blind (blind spots) to other vital truths that we need, to negotiate this very difficult thing called life. LAW--
Great post. Obviously a lot of thought and work went into writing it. I agree with your premise. I also believe that killing was wrong even before the birth of Christ. He simply explained and clarified the reasons for not killing. I suppose one could imagine this being like children who don't know that running into traffic to chase after a ball is wrong. That's why parents intervene.
Buddhism also supports your premise: "Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself." Although that statement by itself doesn't condemn the killing of others it points to a greater way of living. There are many references to swords in the Bible. These references can be interpreted in many ways of course. Weapons also exist in Buddhism. There is a story about an assassin hired by jealous priests to kill the Buddha. However as the assassin approaches the Buddha he feels a deep peace he'd never before felt, falls at the Buddha's feet and asks to be accepted as his disciple. The Buddha who was sitting in quiet meditation opens his eyes and tells the man, "You must discard the weapon with which you intended to kill and instead use the sword of righteousness to severe the roots of delusion that have been the cause of your suffering.
It is said (I believe it's from the Bible) "War begets war." Something to think about is that we went to war in Iraq in order to take out Saddam Hussein and his government yet it was the U.S. that initially propped Saddam into power, believing he would be a good puppet ruler in the region. It apparently seemed like a good idea to someone at the time but what a costly mistake that turned out to be. My point is that people on both sides of any conflict become zealously patriotic, believing righteousness is on their side yet in the case of Saddam Hussein, who threw the first punch becomes a very muddy issue.
One of the most important things to consider in any action is the law of cause and effect, alluded to in the Bible with the words "As ye sow, so shall we reap." Killing is a cause that sets a definite effect into motion.
@TheGreatBout@xanga - Let me rephrase it then. Was there ever a time in the Old Testament when capital punishment was equated with murder? If so, wouldn't God be inconsistent to call it murder and then command it?
Flip forward to the New Testament. Is there any time God calls it murder now? God hasn't changed. I would like to play offensive and ask for verses proving capital punishment is now wrong, since clearly the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" verses do not apply to it.
I like good-natured debates . It's a good way to start my mornings!
@TheGreatBout@xanga - "Honestly, the only leg justified capital punishment has to stand on in the New Testament is Romans 13:3-4 (at least from what I've encountered)."
Was Peter hypocritical or a murderer by consenting to Annanias & Saphira's death by the power of the Holy Spirit when they lied to God (Holy Spirit)---see Acts 5:1-10. Why didn't Peter plead to God for them to have a "second chance". Was he insensitive and/or cruel for saying what he did to this man & woman for their lying instead of pleading for their lives? Was he being 'unchristian' for the way he handled this situation. Is there ever a circumstance today that would justify such an attitude or response. Compassion and mercy are important components of Christian thinking, but so is a so-called 'harsh' response in circumstances that call for it & there are indeed some that call for a less than 'tender' response.----Note the effect of this 'divine' capital punishment on fellow believers and those outside the body of Christ---there was fear and awe and the body grew (if I am not mistaken) and flourished. LAW--
What about Peter's response to Simon, a new convert to Christianity, when he offered to 'buy' the gift of the Spirit from Peter after he saw Peter healing people and performing miracles: "May your money perish with you!" (some translations very appropriately, tho not 'politically correct', render the response, "To hell with your money!" [MSG]).---See Acts 8:14-23.
Or, what about Paul's reaction concerning the Judaizers when he found out what they were doing to the Galatian believers: "Let me be blunt: If one of us---even if an angel from heaven!--were to preach something other than what we preached originally, let him be cursed ['eternally condemned' --NIV]. I said it once; I'll say it again: If anyone, regardless of reputation or credentials, preaches something other than what you received originally, let him be cursed." (Galatians 1:6-9).
Now I know that these statements sound pretty rough and tough--maybe even harsh, coming from supposed Christian believers who should be more tender and gentle---maybe even pleading for mercy or a 'second chance', but these were Christian leaders dealing with issues/circumstances that called for stern--even blunt responses. Our compassion, tenderness, gentleness--even calls for mercy and' second chances' must be tempered by the circumstances. Many circumstances call for just that, but others require a forthright response, even one that might be construed as harsh or unloving. We cannot allow our lives to be ruled/dictated by our emotions or what we might think is the most loving thing to do, but by the standard of reality as it is dictated by our Lord and Master. And unfortunately, sometimes that calls for us to be straight forward, maybe even outright blunt so that people will be turned from their willfulness and determination to resist what their Lord demands.
What all this calls for is a discerning spirit and a willingness to stand firm in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And often it is neither easy nor popular!!! LAW--
@railfan@xanga - "Was there ever a time in the Old Testament when capital punishment was equated with murder? If so, wouldn't God be inconsistent to call it murder and then command it?"
Of course there isn't. Capital punishment commanded by the Creator is not murder.
"Is there any time God calls it murder now? God hasn't changed."
No. The New Testament does not call capital punishment murder. I wouldn't either. I also wouldn't say God has changed. The New Testament doesn't specifically address the standing of the capital punishment commands, however we do know that the covenenant between the Creator and his people has changed and that the law has been altered. Theocratic Israel is no longer our Father's mode of operation in the world and thus the laws that formed theocratic Israel no longer guide the children of God in the same way. God may not change, but his operations do. Again I point out the "eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" situation. This was law for theocratic Israel but Jesus tells us that we don't operate that way anymore (because we have progressed into a more merciful people as we draw closer to our Father). In similar fashion Jesus tells us to not be angry with one another and that if people take anything from us that we should not demand it back or seek revenge against those who wrong us. So, for Christians/the Church the option of capital punishment is out the window. The early church confirms that there was no support for seeing people killed, even when it was deemed justified. The only option left for justified capital punishment is with the state.
Even with the state, there is no talk from Jesus about the matter. Paul mentions the state exists to punish and reward but there is no command (like we see in the OT) to carry out capital punishment and we certainly wouldn't say that the authorities are theocratic Israel so those laws never applied to them to begin with. So now we have a state, without commands to kill, who are to punish and reward, and who are created, through, by, and for the same person who says "overcome evil with good and do not take an eye for an eye." If nothing else, it's problematic.
I'm not trying to make the case that capital punishment ought to be called murder but rather that it simply is not justified outside the direct command of the Creator and Christians should fight for the lives of all people, no matter how wicked.