Is capital punishment Christian?

[Guest]

I have some problems with the whole idea of capital punishment. I didn't see any discussion of it here on this forum, so I thought I'd raise the question. Jesus said, "let him who is without sin cast the first stone." If we are to love our enemies, and do to others what we would want done to us, how can we approve of killing criminals? And then we call ourselves "pro-life"! Aren't we being inconsistent?

[Guest]

D.K.,

Have you considered Romans 13:1-4? As individuals, we are not to take revenge or punish wrongdoers, however, government is authorized by God, as His agent, to exact punishment.

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

An infant has done nothing worthy of capital punishment, so the only reason for abortion is because it's inconvenient to carry a human being to full term.

Capital punishment is killing someone who has done something worhty of death, to be carried out not by the individual Christian, but by the state government that God has appointed to these matters.

Capital punishment is commanded by God in the Mosaic Law, but abortion was not. Capital punishment is a "cap" on violence. It says that a man who has done something worthy of death has forfeited his life and can be put to death. But that's all. You can't go and kill his family and friends, etc.

If you forgive a murderer and let him go and he kills again, you have failed to protect the general public, even though you had the chance. If you give him life in prison, then you again burden the taxpayer. Now not only has the murderer taken a life, but he continues to take out of the taxpayers pockets even from behind bars. I don't see this as mercy.

An unborn child has comitted no crime wothy of death.

[Guest]

There may also be a general command to humankind regarding this in Genesis:

Gen 9:5-6
5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man's brother I will require the life of man.

6 "Whoever sheds man's blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
NKJV

This was right after the flood when there were very few humans left and it preceded the Mosaic law, suggesting that capital punishment may have not just been a law of the Israelites only, but to all mankind.

[Guest]

Very true.

[Guest]

Hi D.K.

You should also read Steve's article "On the Believer’s use of Forcible Resistance".

http://www.thenarrowpath.com/topical/De ... eForce.htm

[Guest]

I know that many of the early Church Fathers pre-Constantinian era opposed vigorously the death penalty. They stated that if we don't have even the right to sue people, we certainly don't have the right to endorse the taking of life or be involved with it. They actually used their anti-death penalty stance as proof that they had been changed internally by Christ.

Ethically, there are some serious questions that Christians must resolve. There are cases where people are exonerated by later evidence and released. Statistically there are innocent people who are wrongly incarcerated and some are on death row. They will die, innocent. Some on death row were given court appointed attorneys who were completely incompetant, a few attorneys even falling asleep during a capital case. It is also a statistical fact that people of color are more likely to receive the death penalty for the same crime as white folk.

The greatest case ever for an innocent man being put to death falsely is of course Jesus himself. The Romans used capital punishement gratuitiously. It is my belief that Jesus would probably not favor the chance of the innocent being put to death. People can say what they want about Jesus' death being part of the plan of God, but if it was not wrong to do, then why are they held accountable for Jesus' death? The fact that Jesus was crucified as a political dissident (claiming to be a king without the approval of Rome was a capital crime), and the Roman governement, in callusion with the Jewish leadership, were obviously in error to kill Jesus. When they killed Jesus, they committed murder.

When the State kills the innocent, how is it not murder? If there is one innocent person that is wrongly put to death, does that still make capital punishment okay? How about two, or five, or ten? What if you were innocent and put to death. Would you still support the death penalty?

Certainly those who commit heinous crimes need to be accountable for their actions and probably sealed away from the rest of society. What is necessary then is prison reform of some kind.

As a Christian, I don't think that I can honestly support the death penalty because it is final and complete in its totality. We are not allowed to avenge ourselves. It seems that the prophetic position of the Church would be to advise against the death penalty by the government.

I know that if you are a surviving family member who has experienced a heinous crime, such as a spouse or loved one being raped or murdered or the like, the natural sentiment is to desire the destruction of the violator. I probably would also desire that. However, the Scriptures are clear that as Christians, we must forgive. Those who harbor unforgiveness will be given over to the tormentors, Matthew 19. Is it possible to forgive and still support the killing of another human being? I kind of doubt it.

This is a very serious ethical and theological question that needs to be reflected on by the Christian community. I wish you all well in doing so.

[Guest]

Pariah,

I'm just curious. Would you say that God has changed His mind about this issue? (see Homer's post above re: Rom 13:1-4)

[Guest]

I agree Christians should not be suing people, in particular each other. I'm not sure there is an absolute proscription of it. It might be the right thing to do in the case of a person who habitually defrauded people. This, however, addresses how we are to conduct ourselves as individuals. Would you maintain that the government should not prosecute those guilty of , say, embezzeling money?

In Christ, Homer

[Guest]

It seems to me that the early Christians did not consider themselves to be charged with the duties of the government nor vice versa. The church is God's agent of mercy—"Beloved, do not avenge yourselves..."—but not because there was no wrath due to the wicked. The church was to see the punishment of sinners as God's province, not theirs—"...but rather give place to [i.e., leave room for God's] wrath; for it is written, '"Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord'" (Romans 12:19).

The church was not opposed to sinners receiving their just due for their crimes, and even prayed that God would avenge them on their persecutors (Rev.6:9-10/ Luke 18:1-8/ 2 Tim.4:14). The Christians simply knew that the execution of vengeance was not their calling. Their vocation was to turn the other cheek, to trust God for their welfare, and leave the matter of punishment to God's discretion.

Only a few verses after saying these things about us not avenging ourselves, and the need for us to leave such matters to God, Paul informs us that the civil authorities are God's appointed means of judging the wicked—at least until the ultimate Day of Judgment: "for [the civil authority] is God's servant, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil" (Rom.13:4). Thus, vengeance is God's prerogative, and he has appointed the State as His executioner.

The prickly question of the Christian's involvement in civil office or police work is a separate concern from the ethical question of capital punishment. The main point is that Paul saw no conflict between the Christian's non-participation in punishment, and the same Christian's approval of the State performing the job that God ordained it to do.

As the result of the fall, in God's governing of the world, He has two policies regarding sinners—stemming from the two sides of God's character: "Behold the goodness and the severity of God" (Rom.11:22). He extends mercy to the penitent (the agency of which is the church), and He executes wrath toward the impenitent (through the agency of the State).

The question of the rightness or wrongness of capital punishment comes down to the question of the administration of justice and proportionate punishment. While the rule for the Christian victim of crime is "do not resist the evil man," the rule for the magistrate's punishment of criminals has always been, "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe, life for life" (Ex.21:24/ Lev.24:20/ Deut.19:21). The magistrate is not to assume to himself the role of being God's agent of mercy, but rather faithfully fill that of exacting true justice. The State must not only punish, but must punish justly and proportionately.

For some crimes, the just and proportionate penalty is the death of the perpetrator, and Paul said that he did not object to this sentence being justly administered (Acts 25:11). If death is not the appropriate penalty for murder, as God repeatedly declares it to be (e.g. Gen. 9:6/ Ex.21:12/ Lev.24:17), then what is the just penalty for it? And who's standard of justice do we consult about this, once we have decided that God's standard is not applicable?

It is not helpful to say, "We should not kill the murderer, because we should forgive." For one thing, it is not the State's business to forgive criminals, lest it neglect its duty as God's avenger of wrath, and endanger the innocent citizenry whose safety it is charged to protect.

Besides, if the correct approach of the State to a murderer is to forgive, then not only is capital punishment ruled-out, but, by the same token, any form of punishment is likewise out of the question. To lock up a criminal for life, or to impinge upon his freedom in any way, is inappropriate, if he has been forgiven for his crimes. Incarceration must then be abolished, as well as the electric chair.

The unfortunate fact that an innocent man is sometimes wrongfully executed is indeed an egregious miscarriage of justice. However, for an innocent man to lose irreplacable years of his life by wrongful imprisonment is also unjust, and would be unavoidable if we imprisoned all men condemned as murderers, whose number included some who were really innocent. The problem, in such cases, is not the existence of capital punishment as a policy for deserving criminals, but the failure of the justice system to recognize true guilt or innocence at a prior stage of the process.

Such mis-trials should make all citizens very indignant. Our abhorence, however, must not be translated into the suspension of all criminal penalties, upon the mere consideration that occasionally a man may be falsely condemned, and suffer for crimes he did not commit.

In the history of this fallen world, many just people have wrongfully died—some at the hands of murderers (who later were or were not properly brought to justice), and some at the hands of courts that were either corrupt or incompetent. Many Christians, like Christ Himself, have suffered martyrdom as a result of being falsely condemned in criminal courts. This is one of the great tragedies of the effects of sin upon the world and mankind. Until only perfect human beings occupy every level of the criminal justice system, such injustices cannot be completely prevented. In the end, our hope is not in the virtue of goverrnments, but in the sovereignty of God.

We should make our appeal for the most just and enlightened procedures in the trying of those accused of crimes, knowing that, even at their best, human governments will inevitably make their share of disastrous mistakes. But I do not think that this consideration argues effectively for the government's adopting the disastrous institutional mistake of neglecting the proper and just punishment of those who have, after the best efforts to eliminate mis-trial, been found guilty of crimes for which God has prescribed specific penalties.