The Death Penalty at the Heart of God

[Jefferson]

The Death Penalty at the Heart of God

This is the show from Thursday June 20th, 2013

Summary:

The death penalty is at the heart of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

What Does the Bible Say About the Death Penalty? Since 2001, search engines like Google have typically ranked our BEL article as number one out of millions for the words: God death penalty. Since 2002, Justice Antonin Scalia's related article at First Things ranked in the top 10 for nearly a decade but never beat out this article which appears over at TheologyOnline.com.

Question: Do any New Testament personalities or books support execution?
Answer: As shown directly in the verses below, Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation, and an angel all give strong support for the death penalty.

Those who oppose the death penalty on moral grounds often intimidate good people into shying away from support for execution. Many Christians claim society should forgive criminals and instruct them to "go and sin no more." Ideas have consequences and the popularity of this idea parallels a huge sustained crime epidemic...

...

The death penalty was not a maximum penalty, nor was it optional. As the Lord said:

• 'Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death... So you shall not pollute the land where you are; 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.' Num. 35:31-33

Did God change this law in the New Testament? Consider that Jesus supports the death penalty in Matthew and Mark, and so does John in Revelation, and Paul in Acts and Romans, as does the book of Hebrews.

Jesus Supports Capital Punishment

Jesus affirmed the Mosaic Law even to the keeping of the "least of these commandments" (Mat. 5:17-19). He blasted the Pharisees for giving their own ideas precedence over God's commands:

• "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mat. 15:3-4
• "For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men..." [Jesus] said to them, "All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother; and 'He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say..." Mark 7:8-11

Jesus reaffirmed the capital statutes of God's law. Not only the murderer (Rev. 13:10; 1 Tim. 1:8-9; Rom. 13:4), but even the one who curses a parent must be put to death (Ex. 21:17 and Lev. 20:9) just as God commanded. God's commands to execute the one who strikes or curses a parent are the death penalty statutes that liberal Christians are the most embarrassed over. However, Christ was not at all embarrassed over His Fathers commands. Jesus repeated these commands without caveat or reservation.

Laying aside the commands of God has its consequences. In America, murder has become the number one cause of death among young black males, and suicide is the number three cause of death among all teenagers. There is a death penalty when children disrespect their parents. If Jesus' telling of God's command is ignored, countless children will die terrible deaths at the hands of other children and by their own hands. On the other hand, if God's command were enforced, rather than ridiculed, the shedding of innocent blood would virtually disappear in our land. God's wisdom would save thousands of children. man's wisdom destroys them.

While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals2 next to Him. Christ said nothing in their defense, or against their crucifixions. One of those two mocked Christ. In response, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said of their punishments, "we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong" (Luke 23:41). What did this forgiven criminal, this newly justified man, say about the death penalty? Bottom line: the criminals were getting their just punishment. The dying criminal knew the truth, as he said, "we indeed" are "justly" punished.

Paul Supports Capital Punishment

The Apostle Paul did not object to the death penalty. He knew his rights as a Roman citizen and defended them. Yet while on trial, he volunteered the following endorsement of capital punishment to Porcius Festus, Governor in Caesarea:

• "For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying; but if there is nothing in these things of which these men accuse me, no one can deliver me to them. I appeal to Caesar." Acts 25:11
• Then Festus, when he had conferred with the council, answered, "You have appealed to Caesar? To Caesar you shall go!" Acts 25:12

Vengeance is inherently good. God said, "Vengeance is Mine." Individuals, however, are not to avenge themselves, but are to allow God to avenge in His way:

• Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. Rom. 12:19 (see also Lev. 19:18)

While Paul instructs people not to seek their own revenge, but to "give place to wrath." Paul then explains that the proper channel for wrath is the "governing authorities." The government is the "place" for wrath and vengeance:

• Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities... For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Rom. 13:1, 3

Godly rulers are a terror to evil doers. Note that God's two witnesses in Revelation "tormented those who dwell on the earth" (Rev. 11:10).
God through Paul specifically commands earthly governments to execute criminals with the sword:

• For [the governing authority] is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Rom. 13:4

A sword is not used for scourging but for killing.

Paul instructs believers to "not avenge" themselves, "but rather give place to wrath." Governments are the place for wrath for they are "God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath." Individuals have one role, governments have another. Individuals do not avenge themselves, the government does. Believers forgive3, governments execute. So, if the governing authorities are to obey God, they must not bear the sword in vain but execute wrath on the criminal, for they are God's minister to avenge and bring terror on him who practices evil. Thus God commanded execution in large part to meet out vengeance against capital criminals.

...

Today's Resource: Check out the Government Department at our KGOV store or just call 1-888-8Enyart (836-9278). You just migh love our classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar and our videos, God and the Death Penalty, Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs. And then there's our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy trilogy on how to fix America's failed Christian political strategy.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I don't think the point of the Mark passage was necessarily to say the death penalty should still be applied in that particular case. The point was that the Bible clearly commands honoring parents, yet the Pharisees did not honor that command.

Frankly, I don't want to live in a nightmare society where we execute mass numbers of our population. I don't have an issue with the death penalty as such, but only for murder or other similar crimes, and even then, the judge had better be sure enough to sign his own life away if he makes an error in judgment. Judicial killing isn't a joke.

I take it you support the homosexuality and blasphemy death penalties being applied in the moderate era as well?

The radical theocrats should go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other radical Islamic country. Just go. I usually say that its the neocons and not the social conservatives who are the biggest enemy to freedom in America, but wanting to commit near-genocide at home is pretty darn close...

 

[Bradley D]

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7).

One problem with the death penalty is that there are too many persons on death row being found innocent through DNA.

God does not accept the death of an innocent person.

"Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked" (Exodus 23:7).

 

[chrysostom]

why should an unborn baby get the death penalty?

 

[Huckleberry]

I don't think the point of the Mark passage was necessarily to say the death penalty should still be applied in that particular case. The point was that the Bible clearly commands honoring parents, yet the Pharisees did not honor that command.

So He was accusing the Pharisees of not enforcing a law that He didn't think should be enforced? :idunno:

Frankly, I don't want to live in a nightmare society where we execute mass numbers of our population. I don't have an issue with the death penalty as such, but only for murder or other similar crimes, and even then, the judge had better be sure enough to sign his own life away if he makes an error in judgment. Judicial killing isn't a joke.

If you have a justice system that is fair then you could make jaywalking a capital crime and not expect to have to perform mass executions. People can reasonably be expected not to put their own neck in the noose. All you need do is make sure your criminal justice system doesn't run around putting nooses on people's necks (make sure your system isn't broken, as I'll concede ours is). If you have that, then you needn't shy away from the death penalty and can freely consider what crimes require it.

[Let me be clear that my point is that we should fix the system before we start fiddling with the death penalty or you're just making it worse.]

 

[Granite]

This is such a perversion that I can't even shake my head.

Uh...happy summer, everyone.

 

[Brother Vinny]

This is such a perversion that I can't even shake my head.

Because baseless assertions are part of a well-balanced breakfast.

 

[This Charming Manc]

Because the only man righteous enough to condemn choose not to.

Because baseless assertions are part of a well-balanced breakfast.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Because the only man righteous enough to condemn choose not to.

You don't see me condemning anyone, do you?

 

[This Charming Manc]

I may be wrong but I thought you were giving a granite a hard time.

You don't see me condemning anyone, do you?

 

[Brother Vinny]

I may be wrong but I thought you were giving a granite a hard time.

Not for the sake of giving him a hard time, to be sure. (Besides, he has me on ignore. I can call him the living embodiment of the antithesis of Wheaton's Law and he'll not read a word of it.)

Wouldn't you agree, however, that it is poor sport to make an assertion without backing it up?

 

[This Charming Manc]

I think sometimes you are so far away from the basis of you opponents argument, that there is no point of reference to start a constructive debate.

However you still wish to show you abject disapproval of the argument being presented. I feel like that often here.

I find Granite interesting he has rejected Christ, but has a far better understanding of the heart of the Christian God which revealed in the gospels than many professed Christians on here.

Not for the sake of giving him a hard time, to be sure. (Besides, he has me on ignore. I can call him the living embodiment of the antithesis of Wheaton's Law and he'll not read a word of it.)

Wouldn't you agree, however, that it is poor sport to make an assertion without backing it up?

 

[Brother Vinny]

I think sometimes you are so far away from the basis of you opponents argument, that there is no point of reference to start a constructive debate.

However you still wish to show you abject disapproval of the argument being presented. I feel like that often here.

I find Granite interesting he has rejected Christ, but has a far better understanding of the heart of the Christian God which revealed in the gospels than many professed Christians on here.

I find Granite most fascinating. Pity he's closed me off, though.

 

[Christian Liberty]

So He was accusing the Pharisees of not enforcing a law that He didn't think should be enforced? :idunno:

Christ also hadn't died yet, so people were technically still under the law. So it may well be that Israel was still supposed to have that Law at that particular time. It doesn't follow that that law should still exist under grace.

That said, the POINT of the passage seems to be, the Bible says to Honor Your Father and Mother, and the Pharisees created a tradition that did not allow for doing so under certain circumstances. I think Jesus was making a moral point, not a legalistic one.

If you have a justice system that is fair then you could make jaywalking a capital crime and not expect to have to perform mass executions. People can reasonably be expected not to put their own neck in the noose. All you need do is make sure your criminal justice system doesn't run around putting nooses on people's necks (make sure your system isn't broken, as I'll concede ours is). If you have that, then you needn't shy away from the death penalty and can freely consider what crimes require it.

I'm not against the death penalty per say. Find me a system that works 99.9% of the time (I know 100% is unrealistic, but it had better be close if you're going to kill people) but I still think that's draconian for things like cursing your parents, stealing, certainly jaywalking, exc. For murder or rape I would support it under ideal conditions, but not for smaller things. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

Israel was unique since it was a theocracy. Under God's Law ANY sin is worthy of death. That doesn't necessarily mean execution, although under theocratic Israel I believe it meant execution in more cases in order to make a point as to how wicked we truly are.

[Let me be clear that my point is that we should fix the system before we start fiddling with the death penalty or you're just making it worse.]

I certainly hope so.

This is such a perversion that I can't even shake my head.

Uh...happy summer, everyone.

Yeah, pretty much. Remember that not all Christians are theocrats. Just saying...

 

[Huckleberry]

Christ also hadn't died yet, so people were technically still under the law. So it may well be that Israel was still supposed to have that Law at that particular time. It doesn't follow that that law should still exist under grace.

Unbelievers are still under the law for righteousness. That leaves every reason to allow for capital punishment in a secular system.

That said, the POINT of the passage seems to be, the Bible says to Honor Your Father and Mother, and the Pharisees created a tradition that did not allow for doing so under certain circumstances. I think Jesus was making a moral point, not a legalistic one.

Absolutely, yes. Still He must obviously have been firmly in favor of that law or He would not have used it to make that point. Nor would He have given Israel that law in the first place (people seem to forget that part).

I'm not against the death penalty per say. Find me a system that works 99.9% of the time (I know 100% is unrealistic, but it had better be close if you're going to kill people) but I still think that's draconian for things like cursing your parents, stealing, certainly jaywalking, exc. For murder or rape I would support it under ideal conditions, but not for smaller things. The punishment needs to fit the crime.

Agreed, though I suspect we'll disagree on what punishment fits what crimes.

And no, I don't mean executing jaywalkers. :shocked:

Israel was unique since it was a theocracy. Under God's Law ANY sin is worthy of death. That doesn't necessarily mean execution, although under theocratic Israel I believe it meant execution in more cases in order to make a point as to how wicked we truly are.

But just as all sins being worthy of death did not result in a Mosaic law assigning all crimes the death penalty, we should be aware many crimes that we today do not see as worthy of death nonetheless were. This should at least cause one to pause and consider who is wiser, man or God. At least we should approach the question of the death penalty from a humbler place.

I certainly hope so.

Absolutely. Like you, I simply don't trust the current system to wield the death penalty justly. It already doesn't. Executing those few that you do after two or three decades entirely defeats the point, robs the death penalty of any effectiveness at all is essentially renders the killing of a human being pointless. We drag our feet for decades and then kill for nothing. That's almost as bad as executing an innocent person, in my opinion.

 

[Lighthouse]

Frankly, I don't want to live in a nightmare society where we execute mass numbers of our population. I don't have an issue with the death penalty as such, but only for murder or other similar crimes, and even then, the judge had better be sure enough to sign his own life away if he makes an error in judgment. Judicial killing isn't a joke.

Huckleberry already explained this, but I'm going to reiterate: if a justice system is just then there is not execution of mass numbers of the population, because those who fear [in a respectful manner, as we should fear God] the just and righteous penalties will not transgress the laws that would lead to those penalties in the first place.

And I agree with you that a judge should recognize that his own neck is on the line if he sentences an innocent to death.

I take it you support the homosexuality and blasphemy death penalties being applied in the moderate era as well?

First off, Jefferson merely copied and pasted the information Bob put up on his own site, which is the point of the threads in this particular sub-forum, so the show [and the subject of said episode] can be discussed.

Secondly, Bob and Jefferson both agree with me that blasphemy laws were for Israel alone.

The radical theocrats should go to Iran, Saudi Arabia, or any other radical Islamic country. Just go. I usually say that its the neocons and not the social conservatives who are the biggest enemy to freedom in America, but wanting to commit near-genocide at home is pretty darn close...

Care to explain how advocating the death penalty for the same crimes as God is advocating "near-genocide"?

 

[Nick M]

This is such a perversion that I can't even shake my head.

Uh...happy summer, everyone.

You have many dumb posts, but this one is exceptionally bad. Well done, moron.

 

[Nick M]

"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7).

That has nothing to do with the government executing murderers, adulterers, rapists...

One problem with the death penalty is that there are too many persons on death row being found innocent through DNA.

How is that a problem with the death penalty? Isn't that a problem with the justice system? Bad detective work, bad juries.

God does not accept the death of an innocent person.

The discussion is not about innocent people you weak kneed sissy girl.

 

[This Charming Manc]

That has nothing to do with the government executing murderers, adulterers, rapists...

oh ofcourse no respect for the words and example of Jesus, why doesn't that surprise me nick?

How is that a problem with the death penalty? Isn't that a problem with the justice system? Bad detective work, bad juries.

because the death penalty makes bad justice unfixable.

The discussion is not about innocent people you weak kneed sissy girl.

If its about the death penalty then it is, bad verdicts which can't be reversed are one of the main arguments against the death penalty you blood thirsty retard.

Nick I would prefer to continue the conversation in civil tone, but as you set the tone I thought id continue

 

[jamie]

Because the only man righteous enough to condemn choose not to.

Jesus had no choice but to send her away since there were not two witnesses to accuse her. Jesus followed the law, he didn't subvert it.