Several of you have asked why I think we should abolish the death sentence. This is exactly what I wanted—you’ve played right into my hands… ha ha ha…
But I suppose that it’s truly an issue that needs a defense. So let’s see what happens.
The main thrust of my argument comes from consistency. I am adamantly opposed to abortion, ergo (now there’s a good rhetorical word for ya!) I find it inconsistent to continue to support a death sentence. We argue from life; a pre-born child is alive, is a human being, and thus we cannot end its life. How is it that this does not apply at the end of said life? We are ending a life. We are ending a human being.
But wait! You say. That man or woman has committed a horrible crime; otherwise, he or she wouldn’t be subject to a death sentence in the first place. Indeed, I say, indeed. That man or woman has committed a horrible crime. He or she has raped and killed to such a degree that he or she is no longer fit for life on this earth, lest he or she continue to be a menace.
I would go further.
The reality of hell is more than a player here—that man or woman’s crime is part of what has merited him or her a permanent stay in the living fire. When we sentence a person to death, we sentence them, in an overwhelmingly majority of cases (barring some death row conversions) to hell. Plain and simple.
I know that this does not consider God’s sovereignty. But allow me that it is entirely inappropriate to consider ourselves agents of God’s sovereignty in regard to who lives and dies.
29 comments:
However, the same argument could have been used with the old testament saints as well, but they were told to shed a man's blood if he had shed the blood of another man. So (at some point in history) God actually commanded the death penalty right?
Good point Mr. James
Yes, the death penalty was proffered in the Old Testament, however, it was decreed to display God's ultimate righteousness. To show us that perfection cannot stand imperfection. That in order to avoid corruption of the perfect, we must remove all that is imperfect. It is more of a refining experience that God is looking to put us through. It forces us to look for grace and mercy because without it, we are lost. And in that instance of being lost, we are redeemed by Christ's death for He was the only One that could bear the weight of that sin and still see the gates of Heaven.
So to end my somewhat incoherent rambling, God's command of the death penalty or of any law is to push us towards grace and faith. The law was prophetic of the Gospel message - I know because I am a jew and Paul tells us in Galatians. Plus I'm a jew and we know everything!
I was thinking the Old Testament would be a necessary part of this discussion, and i should have included it in my post.
Yes, at some point in history God commanded the death penalty. I'm not sure of the precise theological language to express what i want to get across here, so let me just say that the disciples are never commanded to kill, but rather to love.
i know this is painfully obvious, and i'm not trying to be banal or to make anyone else appear so, but i do want to say that Jesus seemed to have ended the era of death penalties, so to speak, with his own death, and turned OT laws on their heads by fulfilling and clarifying and qualifying them with His own laws. See the Sermon on the Mount for my prime example.
Also, God chose the Israelites as His own instrument in the Old Testament, and sanctioned their action in the world with prophets, written law, and divinely appointed leaders.
The US government, or any government, for that matter, does not fit this description. Governments are not sanctioned by God for the destruction of human life.
I don't know if I'd agree with that last statement, though I don't know if I'd necessarily disagree either... Ok, so if you meant this statement to be inclusive only of the death penalty/abortion issue, then read no further. I took it as a pretty large blanket statement that was all-encompassing.
"Governments are not sanctioned by God for the destruction of human life."
Let's see a couple of thoughts played out. Note that these thoughts are not comprehensive and are just basic thoughts with probably LARGE inferences, however, humor me.
There's a few examples I could use but I think the necessary ones are that of Assyrian and Babylonian captivity. God expressly used these captivities to chastise the Jews. Many Jews died during these captivities which leads one to believe, logically, that a God who is omnipotent/omniscient sanctioned their deaths.
But aside from these two major instances, you have the occassion of war. God is not anti-war and is not government specific in who can declare war. Righteous war is a necessary "evil" so to speak and there are deaths that coincide with such a war. Thus, those deaths can be deemed "sanctioned" by God. It's the natural outcome of His commission. The prime example of this is WWII. Millions of people died during this time. I think it would be hard to argue that God was opposed to the Allied Power's military opposition to the Nazis. Yet innumerable people died in this war. This brings me back to my original point, I'm not so sure that, "Governments are not sanctioned by God for the destruction of human life."
Although governments may not be "sanctioned by God for the destruction of human life" they may be appointed to carry out God's justice (Romans 13). A critical question may be "Does God consider it just to end a person's life on earth based on their character or deeds?" If He does then it would be quite appropriate for a government to carry out that penalty. Unfortunately, I do not feel I have the knowledge to answer such a question.
I don’t think one can argue against the death penalty by noting Jesus’ commandment to love and not to kill. The death penalty or any other penalty should not be carried out in hatred. The opposing facet of capital punishment is mercy. But how much mercy is appropriate in the judicial system?
I think we have to differentiate the command for the death penalty in the Law and God's using of the Babylonians and Syrians as agents of his wrath on Israel. The first appears to be a condition of covenant blessing on Israel, in other words it contributed to their holiness as God's chosen nation. The other empires were not any more blessed for destroying Israel or even sanctioning capital punishment, rather under a curse. They remained outside of God's covenant. Still they we sanctioned by God for the destruction of Israel.
Therein lies, I believe, the major point. God did command the death penalty, but only within His covenant community. Israel was more than just a nation, they were God's covenant people. The death penalty was not an issue of best criminal policy, it was an issue of communal sanctification. If you remember, murder was not the only crime punishable by death... adultery, false prophecy, and disobeying your parents all also warranted capital punishment. It was a matter of the chosen community of God remaining pure in the eyes of God. The purpose of the death penalty is only understood appropriately in that context, which is one of the many reasons (theological or not) why I personally do believe that it is not necessary or even proper today. And that's just looking at the Pentateuch. The entire breadth of Scripture even furthers the argument against the death penalty.
if I'm understanding everyone correctly I seem to be the only one in favor of the death penalty. I understand your answers to the OT question (I was surprised and a little disappointed that you didn't even give it mention in your post Jared, tsk tsk) but I think the best one came from Shaun who said that the command to kill a killer came to God's chosen people.
However, God's chosen people were also a theocracy, their government and their people and their religion were all the same. So, necessarily any command to the government would also be a command to the people and a command of the religion. So to say that any command was a command just to the God's people may be a bit misleading, because all commands were ways for the governing authorities to establish justice and keep order within the society. Which is why I would think that the death penalty would carry over to our society and all others (the idea that we would be ultimately sending them to hell may be a little weak and probably shouldn't have a place in this particular discussion).
I also think that there seems to be a general idea that somehow the death penalty is an end in itself and not a means to an end. Wouldn't the death penalty be better understood as a deterrant rather than simply the ultimate punishment? In other words, our government saying "we take this crime seriously and are willing to punish it in the harshest of ways" would hopefully make a majority of would-be criminal think twice.
Also this idea that Jesus came and told us that we should "love and not kill" is a little troublesome to me. Not because I want to kill anyone and not love them but because you seem to be causing Jesus to make the law say the opposite of what it said before. He would thus seem to be the One Who changes the law and not the One Who fulfills it.
Finally, what about the fact that governments are supposed to maintain order and in fact Romans 13:4 says "For he [the governing authorities] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong... he is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Is it justice that a man who travels the country raping and killing small children, dismembering them and eating parts of their flesh should get the same punishment as the man who kills his wife in the heat of passion during an intense argument? It would seem to me that our government should be able to differentiate between the two crimes and punish them both with equal justice.
Don't have much time Chuck, but here are my abbreviated thoughts..
1) The death penalty, at least in the United States, has not served as a deterrent to crime, specifically homicide.
2)In Jesus, as well as the New Testament, we see the completion of the Old Covenant which resulted in many reversals. (not eye for and eye, but turn the other cheek; Peter eating unclean food; etc.)
3)Must a government kill for justice to be served?
and finally..
4)The OT law called for capital punishment for adultery and blasphemy, was it justice that they recieved the same punishment? Was it unjust? Either way, does it help the case for the death penalty?
Shaun
1) I imagine that you're saying that because murders still happen, but that would be impossible for either you or I to prove. How is it that you know that realizing the government would kill them hasn't stopped people from committing murder?
2) You are exactly right, and those things about OT law which have "changed" were explained in the NT along with an explanation of the new understanding, such an understanding has not been given for Gen. 9:6
3) No, a government must not kill for justice to be met. If a person steals he should be imprisoned, if a person jay walks he should get a ticket, if a person crosses the border of a sovereign nation illegally he should be sent back to his home country. All justice is not killing but that does not mean that all killing is not justice. What about my two for instances which I gave earlier? About the man who commits heinous acts of murder again and again and the man who commits a horrible crime of passion, if they receive the exact same punishment has justice been met?
4) After reading your comment again I imagine that this point was in reaction to my for instance. If it is then I don't think I see the connection. But I suppose the simple answer to your question is "yes". Whatever I believe I have to believe that whatever God has commanded is just. Prima facie I would say that the commandment against adultery was social "another man's wife" (cf. Lev. 20:10) and the command to shed a man's blood for retaliation is theological "for in the image of God has God made man" So I think here is where your distinction between societies would be different. But that's only a surface critique I'll look into it more.
also, the command for capital punishment was given to Noah (i.e., pre-Moses) thus seeming to make the command more universal than if it only applied to Israel.
1) I am saying that, specifically in the US, states which have the death penalty (and use it actively) show no greater decrease in their homicide rate than states without it. So, the threat of the death penalty in those states have not produced a greater fear of punishment and a reduction in crime.
2)There is indeed no explicit passage reversing Gen. 9:6, but I'm certain if you read through Law, you will find a great deal of rules we don't keep that have not been explicitly reversed in the NT.
3) I think that was the point of my comment on...
4)There is a definite distinction you are making between a more heinus crime and crime of passion. This creates a hierarchy of crime in which the top is worthy of death and the ones on the bottom are not. Yet, in Scripture, disobedience (which we would certainly place nearer to the bottom) and murder (closer to the top) both recieve death. My point is that there is an even greater chasm between disobedience and murder than two varying types of murder and no distinction in punishment is necessary for justice to be served. (Granted they used the death penalty for all) In the same manner, when speaking of two different types of murder it seems that justice can equally be served with the same sentence. (i.e. life in prison w/ no parole) I don't know if that makes sense. I think it just seems that you're saying the death penalty is necessary for justice to be served. I don't think that is the case.
alrite, on issue #1 - the deterrent effect of capital punishment - i found an article written at Emory University's law school. Here's the link. I have not yet had a chance to read it but the title of it suggests to me that it is on point
Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? Evidence from a Post-Moratorium Panel Data
http://www.economics.emory.edu/Working_Papers/wp/Dezhbakhsh_01_01_paper.pdf
by the way, pulling from their abstract, they found that the death penalty suppresses the homicide rate. in fact, they specify that implementation of the death penalty results in 18 fewer homicides (plus or minus 10). Look the article over, I'm sure there are some very insightful points/facts contained within.
http://www.economics.emory.edu/Working_Papers/wp
/Dezhbakhsh_01_01_paper.pdf
sorry, I have to do it in pieces because I'm not smart enough to figure out how to turn it into a hyperlink.
Sahun you say that you don't think a person has to be killed in order for justice to be met, unfortunately God disagrees with you.
Of course that is a tongue in cheek way to say that at some point in history God said that if a person takes another man's life he should be put to death and at no point in subsequent history has he said "just kidding". Certainly there is an emotional side which both you and Jared are appealing to, but if we take away all things which have an emotional side we don't like then there are some other Christian beliefs that I would probably like to change to make a little more palatable.
I did make an unfortunate mistake and you were right. I tried to make a distinction between a man who killed in a crime of passion and a man who killed simply because he's sick and twisted, the Bible does not make this distinction. Perhaps a better example would be the man who commits grand theft auto three times (the "three strikes" rule in California), are you honestly telling me that these two people should get the same penalty?
By the way you made a claim of fact: "So, the threat of the death penalty in those states have not produced a greater fear of punishment and a reduction in crime." And I'm sure that there is some sort of source for this claim but you did not cite it, I would like to examine the source(s) myself to see what they say.
Good article dnoodlzt.
Sorry, one last thing, you said that if I went through the law I was see other laws which we don't keep which have not been specifically overturned. Two things: 1. Does that mean it's ok? 2. More importantly, which laws do you think they are? They could not include the food rules or those laws specifically explained by Jesus in the Gospels. I'm not sure that there are so many laws that we should be following but we actually see no reason to follow, and those that we may cite as such would probably have an explanation for why we don't.
(apologies for not citing these earlier)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file
=/chronicle/archive/2000/09/22/MN11028.DTL
http://www.ncadp.org/fact_sheet5.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/deterrence
.html
http://www.ocadp.org/educate/15reasons.html
http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/document.do
?id=52307CBF32759A5580256F850047C02F
[NOTE: These are articles, other peoples interpretation of the data they observed. The US Department of Justice's website does not make getting raw numbers easy.]
This next statement is definitely biased, but I find it interesting, not suprising though, that dnoodlzt's article was written by economists. The death penalty, when expedited, is much more cost efficient than life sentencing.
Also, yes. I think that if the law states "three strikes and you're out" then justice is being kept when the law is being upheld. The penalty is not exactly the same. There are multiple chances for rehabilitation and reform in the GTA and none in murder. (By the way, California has and uses the death penalty... so there is a greater possible punishment.)
I have also been thinking about the Genesis 9 passage. I wonder if this is so much a passage for capital punishment (being as there was no government yet) as much as a "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword"* statement. I say this because the structure of the statement is almost like a proverb or psalm. It seems less like a command "If a man kills another man, you (being a man) must put him to death" than "kill and you'll be killed" with the reasoning being that all man is in God's image. I think the language is just remarkably similar to Jesus'* who was certainly not saying that in the same manner in which a person kills, so must he also be killed. He was saying that sowing violence upon others reaps violence upon yourself, more or less. I guess to sum this clutter up is think Gen 9:6 is more about reaping what you sow than a command to kill the killer.
*Matthew 26:52
unfortunately there is absolutely no reason, contextually, to read it that way. The Lord gives the command to Noah in the midst of other commands: Don't eat meat with blood in it, be fruitful and multiply, etc. He puts a theolgical explanation behind it: "For in the image of God has God made man." We must be careful not to read more into a text simply because we would like to get rid of what it says, right?
i'd like to start by going back to what i said at the beginning and try to clarify what i meant a bit. Allow me to quote myself, if i may be such an egoist:
"Also, God chose the Israelites as His own instrument in the Old Testament, and sanctioned their action in the world with prophets, written law, and divinely appointed leaders.
The US government, or any government, for that matter, does not fit this description. Governments are not sanctioned by God for the destruction of human life.
And yes, i am here only talking about the death penalty (for the sake of limiting discussion).
I think Shaun echoed my meaning here(even if he didn't know it himself) when he said:
"God did command the death penalty, but only within His covenant community."
My problem with using Old Testament law and stories and events and arguments is that i just can't see how it translates to our time circumstance. The breakdown for me occurs at two points, one being that Jesus has come and qualified the old laws, and two being that we are not a covenant nation.
True, Assyria and Babylon were used of God for the destruction of human life, and true, they were not covenant nations. But they were unwitting instruments of the Lord. "The blow must come to Israel, but woe to him through whom it comes."
And as for my example of Christ commanding his disciples to love and not kill, as several have commented on, i wasn't using that as a hippie tree hugger save the whales argument, but rather as a note that nowhere in the New Testament are we instructed to end a human life. Nowhere does Jesus even so much as hint that we should be involved in such a method of justice. When Peter defends his Lord's life with his sword, he gets a sound rebuke and Jesus puts the man's ear back on. Again, this is not meant to be an emotionally charged feel-good argument, but rather just pointing out New Testament evidence.
Romans 13, which Ryan brought up, is one of the very few passages the NT gives us concerning government. Governments are certainly appointed for dispensing justice. However, what i meant by "sanctioned" above was that there is no specific instruction from God for the specific action of carrying out the death penalty. Now please don't take that sentence for more than it's worth-- of course the Bible is not an exhaustive legal code, nor does it intend to be. I think though that from the other evidence we are pointed away from the death penalty.
Is this making sense? It's hard to read everything together in this little box.
I think there is reason, to read it in such a manner.The change in caedance and genre alone in those verses sets it apart in some manner. It is in the midst of commandment but there are many instances where genre is mixed. I believe that I can soundly stand on my previous statement with one addition.
When read in the context of salvation-history, I the most important issue in verses 4-7 clearly becomes the idea of blood. There are definite typological implications beginning with the blood here. This is the first time that "shed blood" is used in Scripture. When Cain murdered Abel, it said he killed him not "shed his blood". There is definite pointing here toward the blood of animals (:4) and the shed blood of man (:9) both of which are used later in Scripture as means of forgiveness and sacrifice. You can shed the blood of animals, just not eat the meat with blood still in it, you however cannot even shed the blood of man. There already seems to be a priority given to Christ's blood over the animals blood (as we later see explicitly in Hebrews). It points strongly towards temple sacrifice and ultimately Christ's (the Son of Man) shed blood.
I think it is too simple a reading of the text to narrow it down to kill the killer. The more I read into it the more I believe that to be the case. In abstracting the text from the entire scope of salvation-history, we both lose its greater theological importance.
(At this point, I have to say that these are not merely my ideas, but the reflections of Augustine, Luther, Gaebelein, and mostly Calvin.)
"On the whole, they are deceived (in my judgment) who think that a political law, for the punishment of homicides, is here simply intended." John Calvin on Genesis 9:6
[to be fair, John Calvin did not appear to be against capital punishment, he just stated that this was not the verse's intent.]
Jared, you published your comment as I was typing mine. Good points!
My comment was in response to Chuck's.
[For the record, if my comments seem harsh, they are not intended to be... I can't control my tone on this thing]
Alright, this is now the 25th comment and no ground has been gained, I am not bowing out of the conversation with the knowledge that neither point of view will be changed. My last word on the subject is this: what you have is the idea that we should love people and therefore we cannot punish them with death and that it is immoral and wrong to do so. What I have is God saying directly not only that it's ok but that it's a command. Now even if I were to concede to your reading on Gen. 9:6 (which I do not) I have so many other verses which directly and indirectly gives warrant to p unish a man in this way. Here is a list of verses that I've seen people uses just in a cursory study of the subject:
Ex 21:12; Num. 35:16-21, 31, 33; Acts 25:11; Rom. 13:4; and 1 Peter 2:13-14.
What Jesus and the NT do when a law has been misunderstood or misused is to show where it has been misused and what the proper understanding is, you do not have that.
Finally, the story about Peter in the garden doesn't do anything for your point, I am not saying that some kind of vigilante justice is ok and that anyone who see any wrong doing is allowed to kill the wrong doer, I am saying that the state has the right to dispense justice and that the justice previously prescribed by God for a murderer is death. Also you say that no where is a Christian commanded to end a human life to which I say: 1. Please see previous point, 2. Why would Jesus explain something which is clearly explained in the OT and which He doesn't see any further need for explaining?
Finally, I find it interesting that you would use John Calvin, a strong proponent of captial punishment. Anyway like I said, this is my final word on the subject, how about a new post?
well since I sufficiently displayed that I possess nowhere near the intellectual abilities of the merry few on here, let me end w/a few hippy dippy, possibly salient points, and continue to reinforce my lack of intellectual prowess.
(as a contextual note, i was an avid proponent of the death penalty but am no longer - prior to this post.)
1. We are told that the foundation of all things is love. Love is the tie that binds and the power that saves. Ok, so...
2. My understanding of Jesus' presence and influence on OT law is that he perfected it (no longer needing an annual blood sacrifice & bridging the personal gap between God & man). In perfecting the law,He in essence embodied the law. Also, Jesus spoke and displayed that gracy/mercy overcomes unrighteousness. Ok, so...
3. Though it may have been/still is the righteous duty of those who call upon YHWH (especially my people), to put to death those the law commands us to put to death, grace/mercy allows us to seek another avenue to pursue righteousness. Perfection in accordance with the law should still be sought - they are God's attributes - however, actually obtaining perfection is not needed. Ok, so...
4. The law is still the law. It should still be revered. HOWEVER, because Jesus died/rose again, there is no need to administer the law in the manner which Israel previously utilized it. We can now afford all grace/mercy without the need to exact such a high pennance. Ok, so...
5. (last point) Following this to the logical end, the presence of grace/mercy should act as an obstacle to those looking to administer the death penalty. This is the ultimate removal of opportunity for someone's sins to be forgiven. I think, as a God-fearing Christian, you need to think about that. If God/Jesus thought it best to supply grace/mercy, shouldn't we?
p.s.- i didn't read this after i wrote it so if it doesn't make sense, sorry it wasted your time.
Ok I know I said that my last comment was my last word on this subject but what can I say? I'm a dirty wretched liar. I do have a question though: The three here that have been calling for mercy have been using the mercy of God as their measuring point. I'm wondering if that's the correct view of this subject. First it assumes that one cannot believe that God is merciful and gracious and still believe in the death penalty, which completely discounts the history of the church and Christian society. But more importantly, if I understand the Gospel correctly, God has taken someone wretched and unclean, in fact, His enemy and made them clean and when they deserved Hell He gave them heaven. If I use this same logic for a murderer then wouldn't it be even more merciful to look past their sin and not punish them at all? Or even better, wouldn't it be better if we picked someone else in our society who had not committed a crime and sent them to prison in their stead?
I don't believe that mercy is the attribute of God which the state is entitled to mimic. Yes I am supposed to as a Christian because I have been freely given and freely I will give, but the state doesn't have the luxury. Which is why Paul, in the midst of a culture which was the capital-punishment capitol of the world said that the government is an agent of God's wrath, His wrath and not His mercy.
Am I sad that murderers may receive the just punishment for the crime and go to Hell? Absolutely I am. But if I believed that should deter the state from capital punishment then I would also have to say that we should empty out all the prisons, because certainly prisoners can receive better ministry outside of prison rather than in it right?
I wanted to end my personal commenting on this topic because I honestly feel like in 28 comments no one has said anything different than they did in the first 4 comments. But, here I am again reminding everyone that the government is not Christian, it is not called to hand out mercy and grace, it is called to give out justice and wrath, the mercy and grace part is our job as individual Christians and the church.
By the way, if we're worried about the government killing people who may go to Hell, then should we fight wars? Should police carry guns? Should we even have an army at all?
Well I suppose I should clarify a few things...
I used John Calvin in my argument because he was not against the death penalty. The overarching topic was the death penalty yes, but he was used as an argument against that specific verse (Gen. 9:6) being used to support it. The same with all of the church figures I referenced...
I believe that if a government has within it's laws a death sentence, then it is just when the death sentence is issued. In that sense, where it exists it is not my purpose to fight the death penalty. What I don't believe is that it is the best method and more importantly that it is the method MUST (although I am very tempted to write, "even should") support...
My logic has never been, "if God shows mercy, then shouldn't we". I agree with that statement but find it irrelevant to the argument at hand. Mine is A)it's not a Scriptural mandate and B) (at least in the United States) it has not served as a deterrent to homicide therefore C)I am confused as to why the church today (specifically in America) is so inextricably tied to it...
The history of the church has not always been in favor of it. Origen, Justin Martyr, and Clemente were not in favor of it. The church did not, apparently, become a major moving proponent of the death penalty until it became tied down to the state. (In other words, the great blunder of Constantine) Hence we see Augustine, Aquinas, and even Calvin in favor of the death penalty...
Perhaps that is what troubles me the most. I really could not give a crap what the government does. But the fact that the Church (the agent of the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth) has made it a point not merely to be okay with a government that utilizes the death penalty, but an active agent in promoting it. As a church, by and large, we have voted for it. We have picketted in favor of it. I just don't get it...
Finally, I think I nothing against war when the war is just (as according to Augustine's principles for a just war). Unfortunately, I can recall no wars in my lifetime that have met up to that criteria. (Unfortunate because I can recall war, not because we havent had the opportunity fight a just one.) My critique of the Church would remain the same. How can we as a Church be such avid supporters of war? How is it right that we get such satisfaction when the old red, white, and blue bombs Iraqi military headquarters, even if it's the "right thing to do"? Have the lines between country and Kingdom become so blurred?
ok, so this is probably the absolute last thing i'll post on here.
isn't it somewhat vexing that we are able to separate humanity from government? aren't we the ones with which the government is comprised? since people/Christians are making the laws/administering the laws, then are we not responsible for the results?
i don't think you build this cart blanche wall between execution of law and the creation of that law. it's human on both sides. i think government is inextricably linked to humanity, thus it is inextricably linked to Christians.
just a thought.
Post a Comment