Posted on 07/07/2005 2:07:10 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Does Scripture support the practice of capital punishment? Christians are divided in their answer to this question. However, in the current debate over the death penalty, many arguments commonly used to oppose it have been superficial. Consider six examples.
Argument 1: “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”
This question carelessly equates the act of murder with the punishment of the murderer. Murder is a crime again humanity. Capital punishment is a God-ordained function of human government. In Genesis 9:6 God said, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made Man.” The phrase “shed man’s blood” is a euphemism for death. The first use of it in this verse refers to murder. The second refers to punishment of the murder. The state of Texas, for example, did not murder Karla Tucker. It punished her for being guilty of murder. Further, the purpose of capital punishment is not simply “to show that killing people is wrong.” It is just punishment of those convicted of a heinous crime. If it functions as a deterrent against murder, then society receives an additional benefit. But even if it does not successfully deter, the demands of justice alone require capital punishment in cases of premeditated murder. Clearly, some killing is unjust, and this we call “murder”; other killing is not, and this we might call “self-defense” in some cases, “just punishment” in others.
Argument 2: “The sixth commandment says, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Certainly this makes capital punishment wrong.”
The sixth commandment, recorded in Exodus 20:13, is properly translated, “Thou shalt not murder” (Exodus 20:13). In the next chapter, God makes it clear that this command was not intended to prohibit the taking of all human life in any and every circumstance. Exodus 21:12 records God’s instruction, “He who strikes a man so that he dies, shall surely be put to death.” In this verse, like Genesis 9:6, the first act is murder; the second punishment.
Argument 3: “Those who appeal to Old Testament standards are guilty of inconsistent application of the Old Testament.”
Since later O.T. legislation given to Israel required capital punishment for adultery, incest, rape, striking or reviling a parent, and sexual promiscuity, it is argued that those who only apply it to murder are guilty of arbitrary and inconsistent use of the O.T. There are also many detailed regulations in the Mosaic law that we do not practice today. What gives the proponents of capital punishment the right to apply the Old Testament to this subject and not to others?
Most students of Scripture recognize that parts of the Old Testament are not directly applicable today. This is especially true of many of the detailed regulations given to Israel to guide them as a nation in the Promised Land. The ordinance of Genesis 9:6, however, was not given to Israel. It was given prior to Moses and based on creation, not culture or national identity. The fact that God gave this law to Noah as an ordinance for life in the post-flood world, and that he based it on his creation of humans in his image, argues compellingly for its continued application. Another standard for determining continuation of an Old Testament law is whether the New Testament reinforces it. In the case of capital punishment, Romans 13:1-4 offers this reinforcement.
Argument 4: “The law of Christ is love and it rules out capital punishment.”
In the New Testament, believers are commanded to love their enemies, not execute them (Matthew 5:38-45). Jesus taught non-resistance, not revenge. Christians are commanded to forgive as Christ forgave. Capital punishment, it is argued, is not forgiveness and should not be mandated by those under the law of Christ. This argument carelessly equates retributive justice with personal vengeance. Jesus is not teaching about how government should respond to law breakers. If Jesus’ teaching was meant to be applied to criminal justice, it would rule out all punishment, produce chaos in society, and contradict clear biblical teaching about government being established by God to punish evildoers (Romans 13:4; I Peter 2:14).
Also, those who say that retributive justice contradicts forgiveness have misunderstood biblical forgiveness. God forgave us not because he was big-hearted enough to overlook our sin, but because Jesus was willing to bear the retributive justice our sin deserved in his death on the cross.
Argument 5: “Jesus said, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone ...” (John 8:7).
Next to, “Judge not lest you should be judged,” these are the most commonly abused words of Jesus. Yet if Jesus meant that no one who commits sin is qualified to judge anyone else, all criminal justice is wrong because no human is sinless. Furthermore, Jesus’ words would then cancel out the instruction in Romans 13 about the God-ordained role of government to punish evildoers. In John 8 Jesus is questioning whether the accusers of the woman caught in adultery are “without fault” in relation to the specific case they presented to him. The religious leaders were testing Jesus to see if he would follow the law. Jesus was exposing their failure to meet the qualifications of the law as witnesses in this case. Jesus said nothing about capital punishment.
Argument 6: “The Bible emphasizes mercy.”
In Scripture, it is argued, there are examples of God mercifully sparing the lives of intentional murderers (e.g. Cain, Moses, and David). In some cases the murderer went on to live a productive life of service to God. Since God extended mercy to murderers, we should not withhold mercy from our fellow humans convicted of murder. Feinberg responds to this argument saying, “Some reject retribution on the ground that the New Testament portrays God as a God of love, mercy, and forgiveness. However, God practiced retribution in both Old and New Testament times. In fact, sometimes, as in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5) and Herod (Acts 12:20-23), God directly killed people in response to crimes we would not consider capital offenses. Moreover, if God did not practice retribution, no one would suffer eternal punishment for rejecting Christ, but of course, that contradicts biblical teaching” (e.g. Rev. 20:11-15).
“As to the cases of Cain, Moses, and David, they are exceptional cases where God extended his grace. There are many Old Testament examples where God did not extend grace, but punished the evildoer; so these cases cannot be the norm, nor do they overturn the injunction of Genesis 9. Moreover, the decision to extend mercy in these cases was God’s, not society’s. Unless told otherwise, the state is to follow the general rule to mete out retributive justice.”
Conclusion:
Unfortunately history as well as current events reveals abuses of the death penalty (e.g. discrimination against the poor and minorities, inequities in due process, and error in conviction). These inconsistencies must be corrected. However, abuses do not warrant elimination of the penalty. Instead, they call for revisions in the judicial system. Biblical evidence supports the continued use of capital punishment in cases of premeditated murder (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-4). Scripture emphasizes that life is precious because humans are made in God’s image. Therefore, those who willfully take the life of another must forfeit their own. This is a punishment that fits the crime.
Yes.
Now that we've established the fact that the taking of a human life is relative to the situation, I have a question about capital punishment.
Since laws change from country to country, and even state to state...how is this justified...or is this too relative?
Another instance, with reference to warfare, is the collateral death of innocent people due to, say carpet bombing at 30000ft, the same as throwing a grenade into an occupied building, shrapnel hitting a bystander?
How does one tell, if the laws of your country are good, or if a war is good?
I see you are at it again. Why do you quiz others on their beliefs, when your beliefs have no solid foundation?
Where Southern Baptist stand:
On Capital Punishment
June 2000
WHEREAS, The Bible teaches that every human life has sacred value (Genesis 1:27) and forbids the taking of innocent human life (Exodus 20:13); and
WHEREAS, God has vested in the civil magistrate the responsibility of protecting the innocent and punishing the guilty (Romans 13:1?3); and
WHEREAS, We recognize that fallen human nature has made impossible a perfect judicial system; and
WHEREAS, God authorized capital punishment for murder after the Noahic Flood, validating its legitimacy in human society (Genesis 9:6); and
WHEREAS, God forbids personal revenge (Romans 12:19) and has established capital punishment as a just and appropriate means by which the civil magistrate may punish those guilty of capital crimes (Romans 13:4); and
WHEREAS, God requires proof of guilt before any punishment is administered (Deuteronomy 19:15?19); and
WHEREAS, God's instructions require a civil magistrate to judge all people equally under the law, regardless of class or status (Leviticus 19:15; Deuteronomy 1:17); and
WHEREAS, All people, including those guilty of capital crimes, are created in the image of God and should be treated with dignity (Genesis 1:27).
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention, meeting in Orlando, Florida, June 13?14, 2000, support the fair and equitable use of capital punishment by civil magistrates as a legitimate form of punishment for those guilty of murder or treasonous acts that result in death; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge that capital punishment be administered only when the pursuit of truth and justice result in clear and overwhelming evidence of guilt; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That because of our deep reverence for human life, our profound respect for the rights of individuals, and our respect for the law, we call for vigilance, justice, and equity in the criminal justice system; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we urge that capital punishment be applied as justly and as fairly as possible without undue delay, without reference to the race, class, or status of the guilty; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call on civil magistrates to use humane means in administering capital punishment; and
Be it finally RESOLVED, That we commit ourselves to love, to pray for, and to minister the gospel to victims and perpetrators of crimes, realizing that only in Christ is there forgiveness of sin, reconciliation, emotional and spiritual healing, and the gift of eternal life.
Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
***
***
3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Not at all. It's man's choice. To have, or not to have? That's a tough question. Not all states believe that it is a deterrent to murder. But those that do have capitol punishment are justified by both God and man.
John 19:10-11 (NIV)
10 "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?"
11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."
So it becomes obvious that Jesus himself subscribed to capitol punishment or he wouldn't have allowed himself to be crucified under the law. His crime was blasphemy, against which he had no defense. For indeed, He was/is/ever shall be the Son of God and one with the Father of us all.
And we continue to 'render to Ceasar,' not only in financial support of government, but to the rule of law -- and to God, that which is God's.
Re: Carpet bombing? Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden. To reduce the final number of dead by shortening the wars. At least that was the rationale. Did it work? Odds are, yes. Was it justified? If it worked, and we trust that it did. Remember, we didn't strike first. War is hell.
But what of terrorism? This will bring all those choices and decisions down to a personal level. Only then will you see the wisdom in 'capitol punishment,' else those crazy cultists will be using your head for a soccer ball at some point.
While I would classify myself as a death-penalty opponent, I believe that this proclamation from the Southern Baptists make some excellent points.
I accept the idea that some crimes are so heinous that death is a fitting punishment but I don't have a lot of faith in the justice system that let OJ walk properly administering it.
You are missing the point...
The reason for capital punishment was the safety of the innocent...
In primitive societies, that meant the clan leader could exile or kill a troublemaker-- i.e. one who killed another (to stop the alternative, which was a blood feud between families) or to punish a major theft (horsetheives were hung in the west, for example, because if you stole a man's horse, he might very well die of starvation if he was far from home, or because he needed the horse to plow his fields ).
In more advanced societies, they didn't have jails, and to feed a person for years was expensive...so again they cut off a hand in warning or killed them; this allowed "normal" people to be safe from theives.
In all these times, one alternative for a thief was to flee to another place, and he could start over...
Now we have lots of food, so saying we can't afford to house a murderer until he dies of natural causes is not true...we can afford it...
So the only argument is that killing a murderer will discourage more murderers..and many argue this is not true...
The reason JP2 opposed the death penalty was that most countries could afford the humane alternative to execution: I.e. jailing until death. This would allow a murderer to repent his sins, and many potential murderers would rather face execution than face life without parole.
One big argument for the death penalty in the US is that the damn judges let these people go...and they commit more murders.
But one big argument against the death penalty is that some of the worst murderers get away with it, and only some poor druggie high on meth like Tammy fae tucker gets to be killed...
This argument could be equally applied to any penalty. Your position embodies the logical error of using the better to oppose the good. Reform deficiencies in the system, but don't remove justice simply because the application can be flawed (as is always true of human action).
That is only one reason for capital punishment. And remember the "innocent" include prison guards and personnel, as well as other inmates who may come in contact with homicidal criminals.
So the only argument is that killing a murderer will discourage more murderers..
This is wrong. First the individual executed is very effectively "discouraged." Others may or may not be deterred. Let's say one person is deterred, then a very useful social function has been served. As it is impossible to prove one way or the other, the potential social benefit of deterrence should take precedence over a murderer's forfeited claim to life.
But one big argument against the death penalty is that some of the worst murderers get away with it, and only some poor druggie high on meth like Tammy fae tucker gets to be killed...
As I mentioned above, this is arguing the better against the good. Reform the system to make it more uniform, but don't restrict justice simply because perfection is not to be found in this life. And, please, Tammy Fae Tucker was a vicious murderer, not just "some poor druggie high on meth."
I must be quick, for I'm sleep deprived.
To my knowledge, Jesus didn't make any effort to, at the least, plead for the two thieves lives to be spared.
Just a thought. Now..I...muussst...zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yep!!!!!!
It also seems obvious that the power (choice), to free Jesus or not, was not in the hands of Pilate, but in God's hands. I don't think Pilate had the choice, because God knew how it was allsupposed to turn out.
What about bad guys in wars? Are their wars and collateral damages ok or murder.
Have all wars been justified? Is a war over some other countries property/rewources etc, justified?
It sometimes helps to answer my questions. Besides, it gives people a chance to answer different kinds of questions, and, I'm guessing, it's one of the things God put me here to do....otherwise, I'd be doing something else.
Anyway, they are all beliefs....not facts
Thanks for posting this.
1 -- "What about bad guys in wars?" -- (Define 'bad guys'.)
2 -- "Are their wars and collateral damages ok . . . "
3 -- " . . . or murder.
4 -- "Have all wars been justified?"
5 -- "Is a war over some other countries property/rewources etc, justified?"
Thanks.
That might be true if we qualify it as any reversible penalty. The death penalty is not reversible, however, Soviet era posthumous rehabilitations notwithstanding.
Bad guys depends on what side one is on...it's relative.
I'm trying to figure out when taking a human life is ok...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.