June 15
Would Jesus support the death penalty?
By Scot McKnightPage:
- 1
- 2
Most humans conceive of the death penalty in legal terms. That is, whether one is “for” or “against” it, the argument is legal: It is just or it is unjust. Those Christians who are “for” it often contend that “life for a life” is just, while those who are against it, Christian or not, often argue that at least one reason against it is that we are not smart enough and infallible enough to take the life of another — better err on the side of mercy and caution than put to death an innocent person.
Is the death penalty Christian? Would Jesus support the death penalty?
John Howard Yoder, in a new book expertly edited by John Nugent, called The End of Sacrifice, contends that the death penalty in the Bible was not so much connected to justice as it was to sacrifice. Namely, a human was sacred since she or he was made in God’s image, and the whole “life for a life” was about expiation and not justice restored or balanced.
Yoder then adds this point: If sacrifice has realized its end, namely, has found its completion in the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ, it therefore has come to an end. The cross of Christ as the completion of all atonement has meant that the sacred act of expiation is no longer needed. Thus, he sees a redemptive trend or a salvation-historical plot that brings to end death as expiation for murder.
He argues other points:
1) That the law, even Gen. 9:6’s “by man shall his blood be shed,” is to be read like Ex. 21:24-25 (law of retaliation’s limit) — that is, as putting the limit of punishment and not as a commandment to exact the death penalty.
2) Within the pages of the Bible, and Jewish texts fill this out, most punishments were becoming fines and imprisonment and not death penalty.
3) John 8, though disputed as a text in canon but not as an event in the life of Jesus, shows that Jesus posed the death penalty over against two issues over which the death penalty fell short: the more authority of the judge or executioner and the authority Jesus had to forgive. Thus, death penalty is put in the context of expiation and not penal judgment.
4) Society has move increasingly away from the death penalty and has discerned an increasing number of mitigating factors, like insanity, etc. We do not make these judgments infallibly; our criteria are not entirely justifiable. In other words, development has led to reduction — why not go all the way and end sacrifice completely?
5) Romans 13’s sword is not about death penalty but is the symbol of judicial authority. Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 show that the lex talionis is put on an entirely different order.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
The death penalty is not a violation of scripture or the teachings of Jesus. The execution of innocent of unborn humans in the womb does violate scripture. This and other similar articles in MWR are simply an attempt to use the Bible to support flawed pacifist theology of the religious left.
In all his teachings and actions, Jesus never opposed civil authority. When Herod beheaded John the Baptist, Jesus had opportunity to visit Herod and bring John the Baptist back to life in the presence of Herod along with a severe reprimand and warning about killing innocent people, but he didn’t. Jesus would have sinned had he done this. Jesus would also have sinned if he had freed the two thieves on the cross, saying, go and sin no more.
Jesus never said that civil government has no authority to impose the death penalty on adult law breakers. If Jesus, God in the flesh, never opposed the death penalty, there really is no Bible basis for anyone, including MWR editors to promote removing the death penalty from our judicial laws.
There should be a greater concern by the New Age Anabaptist wisdom thinkers to eliminate the death penalty imposed on innocent babies in the womb who are currently on death row. These killings, using weapons and buildings of mass destruction, are violation of scripture.
-
Strange, Dale, that what you call the "flawed pacifist theology of the religious left" is so in line with the positions of the early church fathers and of the early Christian church, many members of whom were, like Jesus, victims of Roman capital punishment and would certainly not have supported it.
In his Apostolic Traditions, Hippolytus addresses conditions for baptism, and lists a series of forbidden occupations including prostitutes, pimps, actors, gladiators, and soldiers.
To the latter he states:
"The soldier who is of inferior rank shall not kill [execute] anyone. If ordered to, he shall not carry out the order. . . . If a catechumen or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected, for they have despised God."
While abortionists are not mentioned in the above, the leaders of the early church, all liberal pacifists no doubt(!), were solidly against the killing of both the unborn and the already born.
-
Harvey, Jesus I know, but who is Hippolytus? Perhaps he was an early version of Brian McLaren, Rob Bell, Jim Wallis or Tony Campolo.
Jesus commended the Roman military officer for his high level of faith. That indicates to me the centurion would be an acceptable candidate for Christian baptism and being eternally birthed into the Family of God.
I am thankful for the Bible believing people currently in the military and law enforcement. We could use more.
-
What never fails to amaze me is those who cry that abortion is murder, but the death penalty is just fine, by cracky!
-
Dale,
You can Google "The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome" for information on this respected third century theologian, then check out item 17.
-
Harvey, I spent an hour of more reading about Hippolytus of Rome as you suggested. I consider this wasted time.
The following quote from the internet source: ‘Sadly most of Hippolytus' works are lost to us.’ If you want to consider Hippolytus as reliable source of your theology, have at it. In retrospect, I am confident he could be considered as a closet New Age Anabaptist that embraces progressive theology.
Solomon authored the book of Proverbs in which he has words of wisdom on the discipline of young children who are openly rebellious of parental authority. You rejected certain verses of what he wrote and and proceeded to inject your own words of wisdom.
You embrace what some believe Hippolytus may have written. Here is item 17 which you referred to as I found it on the internet: ”Catechumens will hear the word for three years. Yet if someone is earnest and perseveres well in the matter, it is not the time that is judged, but the conduct”. End of quote. This in no way makes any common sense related to the subject under discussion.
-
Sorry, Dale, it was item 16:
16 They will inquire concerning the works and occupations of those are who are brought forward for instruction. 2 If someone is a pimp who supports prostitutes, he shall cease or shall be rejected. 3If someone is a sculptor or a painter, let them be taught not to make idols. Either let them cease or let them be rejected. 4 If someone is an actor or does shows in the theater, either he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 5 If someone teaches children (worldly knowledge), it is good that he cease. But if he has no (other) trade, let him be permitted. 6 A charioteer, likewise, or one who takes part in the games, or one who goes to the games, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 7 If someone is a gladiator, or one who teaches those among the gladiators how to fight, or a hunter who is in the wild beast shows in the arena, or a public official who is concerned with gladiator shows, either he shall cease, or he shall be rejected. 8 If someone is a priest of idols, or an attendant of idols, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 9 A military man in authority must not execute men. If he is ordered, he must not carry it out. Nor must he take military oath. If he refuses, he shall be rejected. 10 If someone is a military governor,a or the ruler of a city who wears the purple, he shall cease or he shall be rejected. 11 The catechumen or faithful who wants to become a soldier is to be rejected, for he has despised God. 12 The prostitute, the wanton man, the one who castrates himself, or one who does that which may not be mentioned, are to be rejected, for they are impure. 13 A magus shall not even be brought forward for consideration. 14 An enchanter, or astrologer, or diviner, or interpreter of dreamsb, or a charlatanc, or one who makes amulets, either they shall cease or they shall be rejected. 15 If someone's concubine is a slave, as long as she has raised her children and has clung only to him, let her hear. Otherwise, she shall be rejected. 16 The man who has a concubine must cease and take a wife according to the law. If he will not, he shall be rejected.
-
Just as the OT is clear about putting a murderer to death, it is also clear about the reason: Numbers 35 "30 Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses...for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it." Thus, as the title of Yoder's book implies, Christ's atonement was the final and complete fulfillment of the law. No more blood is required.
Those who defend the death penalty, based on the Bible, have not read the whole book.
And the context of Romans 13 makes a striking case for Christian pacifism: http://textsincontext.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/romans-13-in-context/
-
Harvey, in your June 18, 7:33 p.m. response you provided ITEM 16 that included 16 conditions for baptism, and lists a series of forbidden occupations. You specifically wanted me to be aware of item 9. Are you in complete agreement with all 16 conditions listed in item 16 above? Further, are you in complete agreement on all 43 ITEMS listed in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome? If you are, then I will respond to your comments to me above.
To Michael Snow: The blood shed by Jesus on the cross is available to all people who repent of any sin they have committed. That includes murder of any kind. In the sight of God, those people are sin free just as if they had never sinned and are birthed immediately into the family of God. This includes people in prison who may be on death row. This blood atonement as described in the Bible does not automatically free those in prison. Their sentence to die by the state is still in effect until changed by the civil authorities. Therefore, I stand behind my June 16 comments.
-
"Complete agreement" is setting the bar pretty high for anyone, Dale, but I challenge you to find even one early Christian leader who would be in DISagreement with his position regarding believers being soldiers or executing criminals.
-
The arguing that is occurring between the respondents only confirms what insightful people already know. That is, when a religion draws its inspiration and guidance from source texts that fail to present a coherent picture, then never-ending arguments will ensue. The NT and OT do not present coherent guidelines for society. Thus the combatants will wage war back and forth with the familiar armaments: Romans 13, Leviticus, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Early Church Fathers. The Sermon-on-the-Mounties will never change the minds of the Romans warriors and vice versa. None of the source texts from the other religions agree either. The Koran and the Hadith. The Hebrew Bible and the Talmud. The Upanishads and the Vedas. These texts do not cohere with themselves or others, and all of these practitioners will continue to argue. Because of this, wise people may decide to not expend too great an effort defending their point of view if that effort is making them angry and grumpy. But it may be possible to come to a mutual and beneficial understanding concerning the practical aspects of the topic: wrongful execution, diminished capacity, proportionality, application, recidivism, juvenile offenders, and effectiveness.
-
To Harvey and like minded thinkers on this death penalty subject. My one last attempt to share Bible truth on the death penalty subject
It is recorded in Gen. 18 where Pre incarnate Christ paid a visit to Abraham accompanied by two angels to discuss the future of Sodom & Gomorrah. In this meeting with Abraham, Pre-incarnate Christ revealed his decision to impose the death penalty on these two cities. He becomes the executioner who personally administers the death penalty in the form of fire & brimstone as recorded in chapter 19.
-
Going to Rev 19, Christ the King comes down from Heaven riding a white horse and administers the death penalty to many individuals. This is a coming event. An angel communicates with the fowls of the air and invites them to feast on the human and animal dead who are slain by Christ the King who is Commander in Chief of the Heavenly armies. It is all clearly stated in this chapter.Thank you MRW for this teaching opportunity to share the truth of the Bible on this subject. It saddens me to see individuals attempt to replace the truth of the Bible with flawed human thinking.
-
Dale, I appreciate any efforts to enlighten us with Biblical truths, but when it comes to us mortals taking vengeance into our own hands, I will defer to the plain teaching found in Romans 12:
17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
“If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
-
I agree with Yoder--the cross of Christ as an atoning sacrifice for sin nullifies the death penalty as the requirement that the sinner make expiation for his sin by his own death.
But Yoder is only half-right. Expiation ("you must purge the evil from among you") is not the only biblical rationale for capital punishment. The OT contains a clear-cut legal rationale for the death penalty--retribution ("eye for eye...life for life").
So, to see the cross of Christ as the end of capital punishment, one must also show how the undercuts the retributive rationale. Yoder thus provides only half the argument.
For a careful development of the full argument, how the cross undercuts both expiatory and retributive rationales for the death penalty, see Chap. 25 in my book--Atonement, Justice, and Peace: The Message of the Cross and the Mission of the Church (Eerdmans Publishing, 2012).
Comment on the blog post Would Jesus support the death penalty?
Please keep comments civil. MWR editors reserve the right to remove any comment. When posting a comment, you agree to the MWR Comments Policy. Name and comment will be posted; commenters are strongly encouraged to give their full name. Email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download