Part 1 - Capital Punishment
In recent weeks the issue of whether it is right for a person to take another person's life in any situation can be justified. The news has been filled recently with the trials of Kyle Rittnehouse and the killers of Ahmed Arbery. Prior to that were other high profile cases of lives that were taken which caused widespread rioting in the US.
All of these issues go to the central issue of the sanctity of life and the question: "when is it morally permissible (if ever) to take another human life"?
It is a polarizing issue and unfortunately it has also become a political one. The political climate has become so charged that people on one side or another of the issue have ceased to look at the issue objectively.
The responsibility of the Christian is to look at these issues through the lens of the Bible and not through that of any particular political party.
What does the Bible say about the sanctity of life?
_-_James_Tissot.jpg "Brooklyn Museum – The Ear of Malchus (L'oreille de Malchus) – James Tissot [from wikipedia]") |
| Brooklyn Museum The Ear of Malchus (L'oreille de Malchus) James Tissot |
There are also a number of times in the Old Testament where capital punishment is prescribed by God Himself for certain crimes.
For instance, in Deuteronomy 17:1-7, God commands the Israelites to stone people to death if they have done "evil in the sight of the LORD" (NASB).
There are a number of other crimes which God makes punishable by death.
Doesn't this in and of itself mean that the Bible condones capital punishment?
For the answer we must understand that for the Israelites at this time there were three types of law: Moral Law, Ceremonial Law, and Civil Law.
In a nutshell, Moral Law is immutable and is the same for all people at all times and in all situations. The Ten Commandments is the best example of Moral Law.
Ceremonial Laws are religious law and have to do with the relationship of the Israelites to God HImself. The sacrificial system is a good example of Ceremonial Law. Ceremonial Laws in the Old Testament all point to the coming of the Messiah in the New Testament. This is the law Jesus was referring to when he said he came to "fulfill the law" (Matthew 5:17).
The last kind of law is Civil Law. These are not unlike our civil laws today and can change based on time and circumstances. For instance, civil law changed when the Israelites changed from being governed by the judges to having a king. Civil law which was put in place in the Old Testament was never established to be Moral Law and be the same for all peoples at all times and in any situation.
In addition to the types of laws discussed above, there is also a significant difference between a "command" and a "commandment". A commandment is a command that is given which should be obeyed by every person at all times and in all situations - for instance, the Ten Commandments.
A command, then, is a specific command given to a specific person or group of people at a given time and for a specific reason. This is analogous to the difference in me telling my 14 year old "don't hit your brother" (a commandment) vs "mow the lawn" (a command). It is common for people to mix up the two and to use one as the other whenever it suits their purposes.
What About Commands to Kill (or not to kill) in the Old Testament
First of all, we must address the fifth commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13). The word interpreted as "kill" in the King James Version is interpreted as "murder" in most others. This is an important distinction and there is little doubt that the latter is the correct interpretation considering the situations in upcoming days and years where God commanded the Israelites to kill.
The interpretation of "You shall not murder" leaves open the possibility of killing for other reasons (e.g. self defense).
Whether or not you agree that God should or should not have given the command for the Israelites to kill various peoples in the Old Testament (a subject for a different post), it cannot be denied that each of these instances were "commands" and not "commandments" and they were certainly not laws of any kind. This precludes the possibility that any of these commands can be used as justification for any kind of killing in the modern day.
There is no commandment or Moral Law (the only kind of law from the Old Testament which is still applicable today) which provides for murdering anyone. Additionally, Old Testament revelation ended with the prophet Malachai (400 BC) and the New Testament ended with the various epistles (50 - 70 AD). According to the prophet Daniel, there can be no new revelations whereby any new commandments could be given (Daniel 9:24)1.
What does "murder" mean?
Numbers 35:9-29 gives a pretty good definition of murder. Remember that this is civil law and not moral law and is given to the Israelites only. The penalties described in this passage were not given to all people at all times which is clear from the text itself.
The bit we are interested in which describes what should be considered murder is:
"15 These six cities shall be for refuge for the people of Israel, and for the stranger and for the sojourner among them, that anyone who kills any person without intent may flee there.
16 “But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 17 And if he struck him down with a stone tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 18 Or if he struck him down with a wooden tool that could cause death, and he died, he is a murderer. The murderer shall be put to death. 19 The avenger of blood shall himself put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. 20 And if he pushed him out of hatred or hurled something at him, lying in wait, so that he died, 21 or in enmity struck him down with his hand, so that he died, then he who struck the blow shall be put to death. He is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
22 “But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or hurled anything on him without lying in wait 23 or used a stone that could cause death, and without seeing him dropped it on him, so that he died, though he was not his enemy and did not seek his harm, 24 then the congregation shall judge between the manslayer and the avenger of blood, in accordance with these rules."
Clearly, the difference in a murder and a "manslayer" is intent. If you read the entire passage you will find that merely not intending to kill someone does not absolve them of responsibility for their actions, they just cannot be killed for it by the "avenger of blood" as long as they reside in the sanctuary city until the current high priest dies.
From this passage we see that the definition of murder given by God here is very much similar to our modern sense of the word. Interestingly, manslaughter, also is defined similarly to the modern definition of the word.
What about killing in self defense?
Exodus 22 describes a person's right to self defense:
2 If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no guilt for bloodshed on his account. 3 If the sun has risen on him, there will be guilt for bloodshed on his account... (NASB)
Verse 3 is a bit ambiguous, but the way I would paraphrase this (in keeping with the sanctity of life espoused elsewhere in the Bible) "If someone breaks into your house you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself, but if you wait until later, seek him out and kill him, then you are guilty of murder".
I interpret it this way assuming (as is specifically stated in other translations) that the thief has broken into the house at night and surprised the homeowner, vs someone broke in and stole something and the homeowner found out about it later and sought the perpetrator out and killed him.
The former is self-defense and the latter is not.
In the New Testament (Luke 22:36), we see Jesus commanding his disciples to sell their cloak and buy a sword (if they don't already own one). This is in the Garden of Gethsemane just before Jesus is betrayed and arrested.
Importantly, these weapons were only for self defense. In verses 49-51 of that same chapter we find Peter cutting off the ear of the slave of the high priest (an offensive gesture since the slave was unarmed) and Jesus rebuking him and then healing the ear.
We also find that Jesus teaches his disciples to "turn the other cheek" when being wronged by someone else (Matthew 5:38-40). Note the difference in that here, he is talking about non-lethal offenses vs the situation in the garden later.
Clearly, both the Old and New Testaments grant a person the right to kill in self defense, but only when faced with a lethal threat, but not when in a non-lethal situation. Life is precious and should only be taken as a last resort.
It is left to the reader to apply these principles to modern day events (Rittenhouse and Arbery) to determine which killing (if any) was Biblically justified due to self-defense.
I might also add here, that being legal does not make an act moral and vice versa. Whether or not the current US law allows it, the Biblical record is pretty clear on which acts are morally acceptable.
What then about capital punishment?
An argument can be made that capital punishment is the justifiable killing of a person who cannot be rehabilitated. It could be considered self-defense as the government is taking someone who cannot be rehabilitated and preventing them from ever taking another life.
As much as this kind of punishment is considered "justice" by a large number of American citizens, in fact, it seems clear that this is much more about "revenge" than justice. Simply removing the perpetrator from active society (incarceration) removes the threat. Capital punishment in this case seems to fit well into the category outlined in Exodus 22:3 "if the sun has risen on him, there will be guilt for bloodshed on his account".
In fairness, Exodus 22:3 is talking about theft and not murder, but I think the principle still applies for the following reason.
In Romans 12:17-19, Paul, referring to Deuteronomy 32:35 ("vengeance is mine, and retribution"), instructs Christians to "never take your own revenge... but leave room for the wrath of God" (NASB).
For the Christian, in a situation other than protecting one's self, family, or others from immediate lethal harm (self defense), the question when considering capital punishment must be: "Who is beyond redemption"?
The movie "Unforgiven" outlines the moral conundrum for Christians particularly well:
The Schofield Kid: It don't seem real. How he ain't gonna never breathe again, ever. How he's dead. And the other one, too. All on account of pulling a trigger.
William Munny: It's a h*** of a thing, killing a man. You take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
William Munny: We all have it coming, Kid.
Moses and Paul were both murderers and God forgave them and used them both in mighty ways. There are other modern day examples of very similar conversions (See Nicky Cruz from the book The Cross and the Switchblade).
A bit less dramatic, but for equally as unlikely instances of the power of the saving grace of Jesus Christ, one need look no further than Kanye West, Alice Cooper, and possibly even Marilyn Manson. These people were high profile anti-Christians whom many in Christian circles would have considered beyond redemption.
According to the Bible (Old Testament and New) we humans have no right under God (other than self defense as defined above) to deprive another human of the chance to hear and respond to the gospel message of the saving grace of Jesus Christ regardless of what atrocities they may have committed.
In Part 2 we will discuss how this applies to the case of abortion.
-
24 “Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the wrongdoing, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for guilt, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy Place.
This verse is speaking about the results of the coming (and subsequent death) of the Messiah. Later, it goes on to specify exactly when the Messiah would be "cut off" (martyred)..See How Do We Know Jesus is the Messiah? for more information.
Of specific interest to this discussion is "to seal up vision and prophecy". That means that the death of Christ (around 33 AD) ends the giving of any new prophetic gifts leaving only those who were alive at the time of His death to finish writing down the prophecies they had been given.Anyone who says they have a "new revelation from Christ" is a false prophet.
No comments:
Post a Comment