Rainbows and Electric Chairs:
A Christian View on Capital Punishment
Moral Philosophy — By Joe Carter on April 17, 2008 at 12:31 am Earlier this week the Supreme Court debated whether the rape of children should be punishable by execution. In deciding the case of Patrick Kennedy, a Louisiana man who raped his 8-year-old stepdaughter, the Court could determine whether the death penalty is extended to crimes other than murder. The case is also likely to reopen debates on the question of the moral legitimacy of state-imposed death. Are there any legitimate reasons for supporting the death penalty? Should child rape be a cause for execution?
Personally, I believe that the Bible not only should be our primary guide on such questions but that it also provides sufficient answers. I also believe that we should not rely on the three primary justifications given for the death penalty — deterrence, protection of society, and retribution — but should instead advocate for the Biblical model of justice.
As a Christian I believe that many human institutions, including civil government, are divinely ordained and delegated a certain degree of authority and responsibility. While ultimately under God’s control, civil government is given a degree of sovereignty over certain spheres of human existence. One of the most important areas which government is ordained is in dispensing justice.
While no government is able to carry out this task perfectly, the more it conforms its view of justice with God’s moral law the more legitimate its authority and the more just the state will be. We are able to know the moral law because it is revealed to us either through special revelation (e.g., the Bible) or through natural revelation (e.g., the natural law). For the purpose of justifying capital punishment we will turn to special revelation.
Christians often look back to the Mosaic Law when searching for justifications for capital punishment. This is hardly surprising considering that in the law God gave the Israelites, twenty-one different offenses were considered worthy of the death penalty.
The problem with this approach is that the Law of Moses only applied to Israel. Since this particular covenant was made between God and the Hebrew people, it was never universally applicable. While we might be able to discern moral truths by looking to the Law our decisions on how to apply it would be arbitrary. How would we rationalize, for example, applying the death penalty to cases of murder but not for homosexuality?
Although the Mosaic Law doesn’t provide a sound basis for a defense of capital punishment, there is a covenant that does - the Noahic covenant. After God destroyed mankind with a flood, he established a covenant with Noah, his family, and (most importantly for us) his descendants. Along with the promise that He would never destroy the earth by water again, God included this moral command:
Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. (Gen. 6:9, ESV)
This verse not only provides a moral norm for capital punishment but delegates the responsibility to mankind (i.e., government) and limits it to a particular crime (murder). This sets a very narrow range of applicability. The rape of a child is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. But in the absence of a clear Biblical mandate to expand the penalty beyond murder, I do not believe we can justify including child-rape under the crimes that deserve death.
We should also note that since this covenant is ‘everlasting’ (v. 16) and ‘for all future generations’ (v. 12), it’s as applicable today as it was in the age of Noah. Unlike the Mosaic Law, this covenant was never superseded by any later actions of God. We should also note that if we choose to ignore this command, we are choosing to reject God’s wisdom. Governments and societies, of course, may choose to rebel against God’s commands but for professing Christians this shouldn’t be an option.
Of course there may be times when the ability of the state to implement the death penalty is egregiously compromised. The problems that can occur with its application are numerous and complex so we must remain ever vigilant against its abuse. Indeed, respect for human dignity demands that we err on the side of caution to prevent the unjust killing of those falsely accused of committing murder. The legitimate objections, however, appear to associated with its application, rather than in the moral legitimacy of the death penalty itself.
Long ago, God made a promise to never again destroy the human race with a flood. When we see the rainbow in the sky we are to remember the everlasting covenant between God and “every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.” As Christians, though, we should do more than that. When we see a rainbow we should remember that we are made in the image of God–and remember too the price that must be paid when we destroy an image-bearer.
[Note: The use of the article "A" rather than "The" in the title is deliberate. While I think the position outlined in this post is a Christian view on the death penalty, I do not want to be so bold as to say that it must be the position on this issue. ]
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble itLeave a Reply
Trackbacks
Leave a TrackbackAdditional comments powered by BackType
71 Comments
ucfengr:
No, you said a Christian ruler couldn’t pass judgment; you didn’t limit it to life or death decisions. I quote “If the ruler is a Christian, yes it does. In order to know if someone deserves wrath, you have to make a judgment, and we are not called to do that. Only God can do that.”
Right, we can’t pass judgment about a person’s life. The debate is about the death penalty, not sentencing or prison. I have always been talking about death, and nothing else. What you quote me as saying above applies to the death penalty, because that is the discussion we are having. If we want to talk about sentencing and such, that seems to be a different discussion.
In order to put someone to death, we need to be able to judge a person’s life. As Christians, we are not able to do that. Only God can make judgments about the lives of humans.
So, what you are saying is that the Romans 13 doesn’t apply to Christian rulers and that’s just silly. I will expand on this a bit later.
That is exactly what I am saying. I don’t have time to lay out the argument here. Many have, and others here are pointing to it. We need to read Romans 12 & 13 together.
Some highlights from Romans 12:
Many others have refuted the Romans 13 mantra. For a through discussion, see John Howard Yoder The Politics of Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eedrmans, 1994), pp.193-211
Matt,
In order to put someone to death, we need to be able to judge a person’s life. As Christians, we are not able to do that. Only God can make judgments about the lives of humans.
How you make that leap is beyond me. The death penalty for murder is the God-given consequence for an action. The only judgment necessary is one of fact. If you take issue with our ability to judge such facts, that’s one thing, to have some kind of emotional reversion to judging a murderer as “bad” is another.
See my redux at http://www.twoorthree.net/2008/04/capital-punishm.html
In every contract there is supporting language. If as you point out, the text that covers the covenant is comprised of verses 1 through 17 (as opposed to 8-17), verse 6 is a supporting clause (most likely part of the specification of why the convenant is being made between God and Man), not the actual agreement. The actual agreement (verse 11) is reiterated and clarified in verses 15 through 17 which mention nothing about what might be the supporting clause in verse 6.
MATT: And the state is not the church, and my first allegiance is to the calling of God in the church, not faithfulness to a state.
Not to quibble, but your first allegiance is to Christ and his priorities. Yes, the church is one of his highest priorities, but I think that we should be following both his Great Commission and his restatement of the law in the Great Commandment, i.e. “love god and your neighbor” and “preach the gospel AND *teach them* all I have commanded you.”
We are to do more than just love one another and preach the gospel (the first half of the great commission) - we are to teach them how to live biblically (the second half of the great commission) in all areas of life, which includes Biblical principles of civil government.
Note that, while principles of mercy and justice exist for both individual interactions and civil institutions, I don’t think that they are, biblically speaking, identical.
For example, the bible condemns vigilante justice, but commands civil justice. With that in mind, I think it is improper to apply such scriptures as ‘turn the other cheek’ or ‘mercy triumphs over judgment’, which arguably apply ONLY to personal interaction, to civil actions.
It is clear that Paul understood that the civil authorities are anointed by God to execute justice, not primarily mercy.
Right, we can’t pass judgment about a person’s life. The debate is about the death penalty, not sentencing or prison.
No, right now the debate is about passing judgment. You seem to want to make a distinction between passing judgment on a person’s actions and sentencing him to death and passing judgment on a person’s actions and sentencing him to life imprisonment (aka the Death Penalty on the Installment Plan). I don’t see a difference. It still requires passing judgment on a person; something you say Christians aren’t allowed to do.
That is exactly what I am saying [that Christian rulers aren't bound by Romans 13]. I don’t have time to lay out the argument here. Many have, and others here are pointing to it. We need to read Romans 12 & 13 together.
So essentially you are trying to make the argument that God trusts non-Christian rulers to act as “minister[s] of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil”, but not Christian rulers. That’s just silly.
Joe, why would a non-Christian have the luxury of dismissing God’s standard of justice any more than a Christian would? Do we not all answer to the same God, “Christian” or not? Why would the earthly standard be any different than the heavenly one?
To say that God works through governments is to say that when they kill people (anyone they deem bad, or anyone they convict) seems to justify unjust violence, especially in those governments that slaughter thousands of people….
Are you saying that God is not sovereign, Matt? That things happen outside the Will of God? Does not Romans 8:28 say “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose”? Notice it doesn’t say ‘only the things Matt approves of work together for good’, it say “all things”. That means the Holocaust, Darfur, slavery, everything. God is sovereign; nothing happens outside His will.
I also disagree that we are commanded to punish evildoers in Romans 13. Read for context, Romans 12 and 13 describe how Christians should act (Romans 12) and then how Christians should respond to the ruler who bears the sword (Romans 13). The passage does not describe how Christians should be the ruling authorities or their agents.
I disagree Nick. Romans 13 does not draw a distinction between Christian and non-Christian rulers. For you to assume it does is to assume that when Paul was inspired by God to write Romans he was unable to foresee a time when Christians might be called to be rulers. I think that is an invalid assumption.
Romans 13 does not draw a distinction between Christian and non-Christian rulers. For you to assume it does is to assume that when Paul was inspired by God to write Romans he was unable to foresee a time when Christians might be called to be rulers. I think that is an invalid assumption.
One possibility, of course, is that Paul didn’t draw a distinction because Christians aren’t called to be rulers or agents of God’s wrath. But really, I think it’s more likely that Paul didn’t make an explicit distinction because he isn’t addressing the rulers in that passage. It’s clear that his audience and the ruling authorities are non-overlapping categories. Whether or not Christians might be rulers some day in the future is not Paul’s focus, and to use the passage as some sort of proof text for the responsibilities of a Christian ruler is to take it way out of context.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one, because I find your argument as unpersuasive as you apparently find mine!
Matt,
Your argument that the death penalty is in any way immoral is ludicrous. If the state has no exception in the Bible in this area, then it has no other exceptions that allow it to do what it does. If we follow your argument to its conclusion:
Arrests are kidnapping.
Taxation is armed robbery.
Eminent domain is extortion.
By advocating that police can ever justify arresting people, by your argument, you are saying that a Christian is justify the kidnapping of someone. Who cares why the cop wants to arrest them, just like who cares why the state wants to execute someone.
You are right, you can’t kill someone while forgiving them. On the other hand, you are not the government, no matter how much propaganda you have been given by public school civics classes on how “we the people are the government,” therefore this does not apply to you.
Topic already done much better at Boundless Line.
All crimes require this, if you honestly believe this. Can you honestly tell me that if you sit on a jury for a thief you are “judging their life” any less than when you do so for a murderer in a case where the prosecutor is seeking execution? Of course you can’t because the fundamental principle is the same in either case.
One possibility, of course, is that Paul didn’t draw a distinction because Christians aren’t called to be rulers or agents of God’s wrath.
So, are you saying that no Christians have ever been rulers or served in the military or police, or that any Christians that have been rulers or served in the military or police have been acting against the God’s Sovereign Will?
Bonnie Joe, why would a non-Christian have the luxury of dismissing God’s standard of justice any more than a Christian would?
I only meant that they can dismiss God’s standard for justice and still be consistent with their own worldview. Of course they will have to answer for their decision just as Christians will. But my point is merely that we don’t even have a pretense of an excuse for not being obedient.
If the Bible is subject to such wildly disparate interpretations it hardly seems useful as a guide.
A secularist would have no moral like to draw to prevent the capital execution of a child rapist let alone curtailing a multitude of liberties.
Nonsense. Please stop dealing with strawmen, and get out and meet some real secularists. I’m one, and I’d pull the switch on a child rapist in a heartbeat.
Personally, I believe that the Bible not only should be our primary guide on such questions but that it also provides sufficient answers. I also believe that we should not rely on the three primary justifications given for the death penalty — deterrence, protection of society, and retribution — but should instead advocate for the Biblical model of justice.
Except that, as this tread clearly shows, the Bible is as useless in giving guidance in this matter as is the Minneapolis Yellow Pages. Let your fingers do the walking and you’ll find the justification that you’re looking for.
Murder is a crime by a human against another human. It is a purely human concern. God can take care of himself. Only humans can implement justice for humans, because God won’t. Human history is as clear a record of that reality as you can ask for.
We execute murderers not because we devalue human life but because we value it above all else. A just society is a covenant among its members to pursue justice for each and every member of that society. We show how much we value each member of society by what price we will extract for any injustices perpetrated against them. Murder is the ultimate injustice, and we should extract the ultimate price for it. To set a lower price is to cheapen human life and human dignity. You cannot obtain justice at a discount.
Dennis Prager offers the most lucid defense of capital punishment that I have read. Note: no Biblical references required.
Doesn’t this kind of conflict with your view on free will?
Doesn’t this kind of conflict with your view on free will?
I don’t think so. It’s possible that it does, but the discussion required would be beyond the scope of this post and more than I want to go into right now.
Ephesians 2:1-5
Ephesians 4:18
I John 5:12
It seems God has already killed many sinners. They walk among us.
How you guys want to give the State power to act as God in all situations is beyond me. It proves that many Christians confuse their own personal feelings of disgust and revenge with God’s justice, and will have The State do all kinds of evil in the name of God. God certainly told the Israelites to commit all kinds of mass death and destructions on other peoples, the fact that you believe that gives you the right to do the same shows how degenerate and relativistic many of you have become.
zxkbogt ofcpjtxrn udoigfnb nckfm uhznk pcai fghs
zxkbogt ofcpjtxrn udoigfnb nckfm uhznk pcai fghs