Chapter  5

Part One

The capital punishment is a criminal-policy, philosophical,(1) humanistic and social issue. These different aspects have already been dealt with in different ways. But the death penalty is also a religious issue. It is natural that the death penalty has religious points of attachment since it is dealing with morality, "sin", life and death. It touches existential questions and falls within what in technical terms is called the natural law ideology, contrary to the positivistic legal (rather closed) ideology.

Two world religions emanate from the Bible. Judaism emanates from the Old Testament, and Christianity emanates from both the Old and the New Testament of the Bible. However one views the Bible, it makes up an important cultural document that has influenced and still influences a great part of the world.

Every time and every culture has had its way to view crime and punishment. During a time the authority may consider theft of small insignificant things such an evil that it deserves death. During another time the authority may feel that a serial murderer that has tortured people to death has to be treated with care and concern. It is not wise to claim that specifically our culture is the most enlightened, humane and final. In fifty years there may be totally different values ruling and one may blush when thinking of the liberal view held by Western Europe today.

For those who, by faith, embrace a religion built on Holy Scriptures there are other prerequisites. To them the Holy Scriptures come – if respected and followed – to form a foundation that lasts despite the capricious shifts of the age.

Christianity is a religion built on scriptures.(2) It is founded on the Old and New Testament scriptures of the Bible. To the Christians who wish to take the Bible seriously – which is the classical standpoint – it does not become difficult to see the Bible’s message concerning the death penalty.(3) Here is a short exposé of what the Bible has to say concerning this topic.

As an introduction it should be mentioned that the Old Testament was the only Holy Scripture for Jesus, the apostles and the first Christians. It was the Old Testament they read, studied, sang from and believed in. The Christian Church has never abandoned the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament isn’t relevant for the Christian Church today (Col 2:16-17, Hebr 9-10), but the church has always taught that everywhere in the Old Testament there are divine principles with an eternal relevant character. We will always be able to find God’s being, his thoughts and plans also in the Old Testament. Christ himself has eternally sanctioned the Old Testament by saying that he is written about everywhere in the Old Testament, Luke 24:44-45.

"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…" (Exodus 21:23-25)

This is one of many Biblical expressions and quotes that are still living today. Since the words are often misused today it is important to know what the words meant in their original context in the Bible.

This is not a quote from a personal vendetta. It is not for individuals to do the works of revenge. The quote is found in a legal situation where a judge is at work. (Ex 21).

Sometimes the expression was interpreted literally, Lev 24:20f, but sometimes fines were imposed when somebody had caused bodily injuries, Ex 21:18-19, 27.

The "eye for an eye" principle can be seen as a legal application of "the golden rule" (Matt 7:12): "Do to others what you would have them do to you". Both principles assume that we humans are equal and should treat each other in an equal and fair manner. If we harm another fellow human we at the same time admit that – according to the spirit of these principles – that others (i.e. the state governed by law) can do the same to us.

"An eye for an eye" also means a protection for the guilty party, who should not have to worry about suffering more than the suffering he himself has caused. "An eye for an eye" thereby limits the extent of the retribution. The principle means that the punishing consequence should be equal to what the victim has suffered. It is about that a fair compensation, sanction, should be imposed. In other words, in the days of the Bible one said "an eye for an eye" just as we today say the same thing about justice or retribution. And retribution is a principle that runs through the Bible as a red thread. We find it in the Old Testament, for instance in the expression "an eye for an eye", in the New Testament (Rom 13:4, Acts 25:11), and in heaven (Rev. 6:10, 19:2).

"For the Lord is a God of retribution; he will repay in full." Jer 51:56

The principle found in the words "an eye for an eye" has always been more or less found in every legal system of every country in the world. The Biblical principle of "eye for eye" lays the foundation for the death penalty. The fundamental rule is that a life has to be paid for with a life. The Biblical expression "life for life" (Ex 21:23) often meant a death penalty, but not always (Numb 35:22-25).

According to Numb 35:31 there are criminals which "deserves to die". In the Old Testament the following crimes deserved the death penalty:

1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21).

2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15).

3. Speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17).

4. Blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16,23).

5. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).

6. Practicing magic (Ex 22:18).

7. Fortune telling and practicing sorcery (Lev 20:27).

8. Religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20).

9. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22).

10. If a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21).

11. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24).

12. The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (Lev 21:9).

13. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25).

14. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19).

15. Worshipping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).

16. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21).

17. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13).

18. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).

19. To bear false testimony at a trial (Deut 19:16, 19).

20. Contempt of court (Deut 17:8-13).

The manner of execution in the Old Testament could be stoning, burning, using a sword, spear or arrow (Lev 20:27, 21:9, Ex 19:13, 32:27, Numb 25:7-8).

Of course there is no one who claims that every age and every country has to introduce the death penalty for exactly the crimes that are described in these Biblical books written more than 3000 years ago. The most important and conclusive fact is that the Bible as a principle accepts the capital punishment as a legitimate form of punishment. The Bible gives "the divine sanctification" to the death penalty.

That God commands the death penalty is an expression of God’s holiness and righteousness. God has set certain orders. When the created man breaks these, God imposes punishment. That God uses the death penalty for crimes such as murder, assault, cursing and sexual sins, shows, not that God is mean and vicious, but that God values mankind and the eternal moral principles very highly. When a person violates or hurts a fellow man by words or acts this is something very serious to the Creator. Such things must sometimes be punished by death. 

These divine orders give safety and dignity to mankind. It shows us that God cares for us ordinary people, that He wants to protect us and that He wants us all well. Without order and without punishment we would only be creatures lacking responsibility that could do whatever we wanted to each other without being held responsible for anything. We would then live in a world that did not have any morals or ethics. Our value and our dignity would be nonexistent. We would be like animals. It is the order of things and the punishments that proves to us that God values us humans as something. If we were nothing God would not have to care for us. But now God so loves mankind and therefore the capital punishment exists as a defence, as a confirmation, as recognition of the high dignity and value of mankind. The death penalty, more than anything else, confirms that we are moral beings and as a consequence of that we can be held responsible for our actions.

Cain is somewhat of an exception in the Bible (Gen 4:1-16). Cain is not sentenced to death even though he murdered his brother Abel. But there are several circumstances, which makes this event unsuitable as a basis for the subject of the death penalty.

1) The situation at the time of the murder is unclear. Was Cain provoked or threatened? Was it manslaughter or murder? 2) In the Bible we can not find if there was anything written that forbade murder at this time. 3) The first spoken ban against murder came after ‘the flood’ (Gen 9:6), after the time of Cain and Abel. 4) We can not read in the Bible if there was any authority at this time that had the right to impose death sentences. 5) Cain was "cursed" by God for his act (v.11). This probably indicates that if there had been a direct decree against murder and a legal authority, Cain would have been executed.

We can also see that Cain is afraid that "whoever finds me will kill me." This shows that Cain seems to understand that he deserves death. But God gives Cain a "mark" so that no one who found Cain would kill him. God so wished to protect Cain from people who wished to take the law into their own hands. God did not want to see the "law of the jungle" rule, and therefore Cain was allowed to live even though "cursed" by God.(4)

We should mention that during the Old Testament times there was a legal practice using "refuge cities". These were cities where one who unintentionally had killed someone could run. By running to such a city one could avoid the death penalty (Numb 35:6, 22-25, Deut 19:1-10).

Short summary of important scriptures in the Old Testament:

Genesis 9:6

"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

These words are spoken by God. The verse does not only express an permission, but it is a command. It is the first commandment of the Bible that has a common legal character. We find in this verse a "law" draped in a poetic costume that is the basis for all coming laws concerning the capital punishment. It is a foundational principle. And it is interesting to see that the first edict of a legal character is concerning the death penalty. God wants the death penalty for murderers and the reason is clearly declared: "for in the image of God has God made man."(5) One who murders destroys the "image of God" in a fellow man and thereby commits an indirect attack on God himself.

The historical context of the verse is that humankind has been filled with violence. "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them." (Gen 6:11-13). God therefore punishes the world with a global death sentence, that which we call the flood. Violence is thereby punished with "violence". Unjust violence is met by a just "violence".

When the water had dried up, Noah and his sons are given this edict in Genesis 9:6 concerning death penalty for one who sheds blood. This means that God now somewhat delegates his punishing authority to people, so that they themselves can be judges and meet the evil violence with the sword of righteousness. Gen 9:6 therefore makes up the embryo to the coming state that is given a divine authority to practice the role of the punisher.

These verses can be seen as the foundational explaining why the Bible sets forth the capital punishment as an edict, namely that man is unique and has a value that surpasses everything else in creation. To the Christian faith the death penalty is first and foremost a concern for the human value. God has created the death penalty as a sign, a proof, of the high and divine value of mankind, and that value is based on God’s love for mankind.

According to the Christian faith there are many commandments in the Old Testament that are invalid today, for instance different commandments concerning sacrifice, food, days, times of celebration and the circumcision. These commandments were meant for Israel and were for a specific timeframe. But the commandment found in Gen 9:6 is generally applicable to its character, in the same way as the Ten Commandments are. It is an eternal principle that is brought forth. It is not that God during a certain time thought man to be "in the image of God" but then no longer had that thought. God will always consider murder a horrible act, and God’s attitude towards this will not be changed over the course of time. This commandment made by God which is found in Gen 9:6 can only lose its validity if God’s attitude towards murder changes and if man no longer is "in the image of God". In other words the commandment has an eternal character.

But are not the violent criminal and the murderer also "in the image of God"?

- In one sense, yes, but at the same time God’s image in such a person was distorted and darkened when the crime was committed that he more came to reflect the "image of the devil". According to Col 3:9-10 Christians have to strive for the good in order for them to become an "image of its Creator." It is in other words our lives, our deeds, that show how much of the image of God that we reflect. A violent criminal or murderer does not reflect God in their deeds.

That man is "created in the image of God" also means that we have part of the same reaction as God concerning violent criminal acts. God is angry when murder is committed. We are too. God desires to punish the murderer. We do too. This reaction is sound, healthy and normal, a reflection of the divine spark that is placed in mankind. In other words, the natural sense of right that we people have finds its source in Gen 9:6.

If we paraphrased and brought Gen 9:6 into our secularized society it could look something like this: "One who takes another person’s life, has forfeit his own right to life, because man has an inviolable value."

The previous verse, Gen 9:5, says: "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."

Here God gives another reason for the death penalty, namely "accounting", in this context it means retribution. God "demands" death for one who sheds blood and, according to the following verse "mankind" is supposed to fulfil this demand. It is the high value of mankind, created in the image of God, which motivated the retribution. To be created in the image of God means that mankind is the object of God’s concern. Accounting and retribution from the one who has killed has its source in God’s beating heart that cares for the victims of crime. A society without the capital punishment denies this love.

"Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death."

In other words, no one should be able to buy himself free from the death penalty. Money should not be able to save the life of a murderer. An important principle is grounded here. The principle means that everyone is equal before the law. There is no difference between the poor and the rich. No matter the wealth – a murderer shall be punished by death.

"Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it."

Every bloody violent crime that takes place shakes the heavens and the universe. It is not cold and quiet out there in the universe at that time.

There is no reason to limit this Bible verse to Israel during a certain, limited time. God is the God of all the earth, and what ever happens in a country arouses God’s reaction. In every country where murder is committed the land is "polluted"; in other words it becomes defiled before God. The text says that "atonement" can only be brought through the death penalty. In the Biblical use of language this means that God’s wrath can only be quenched and turned away when the authority of a country does its duty and executes the one who has shed blood. The perpetrator then becomes a sort of "sacrifice" whose blood pays for the evil deed. If the authority refused to use the capital punishment the wrath of God will not only be aimed at the murderer but also at the State and indirectly towards the people as a whole.

Someone may object and say that the atonement of Christ included the crimes of the violent criminals and murderers, and there is therefore no reason to have the death penalty. It is in part correct. The atonement of Christ includes the murderer. But the "atonement" of the death penalty is of another kind. When, for instance, a thief or a rapist is sentenced to prison this is a form of "atonement" for the victim of the crime and for the society, and the Christian may include – to God. The meaning is that the victim, the society and God once again have a good attitude towards the perpetrator after the punishment – an "atonement" has taken place; first there is hostility and anger towards the criminal, then the punishment, and thereafter everything is harmonious again. This is also a sort of "atonement." And – from a Christian perspective – this "atonement" is possible because of the atonement of Christ.

The one who still wishes to claim that the atonement of Christ excludes the death penalty must then also be consistent and deny all sorts of punishment, including such things as prison and fines. If Christ has taken the place of every criminal there is no longer, in a legal sense, the need to "atone" their crimes, and then no one can be sentenced to any sort of punishment since it would deny the atonement of Christ.

But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that the atonement of Christ would invalidate the laws of punishment that exist in every judicial system in the world today and that have been seen as obvious throughout history. Not even Jesus suggested such a thing.

Exodus 20:13

"You shall not murder."

Laymen and those not initiated sometimes get ahead of themselves and carelessly believe that the Bible forbids the death penalty because of this commandment. But this is a great mistake.(6) It is patently absurd that God who himself often in the Bible commands death penalty and who gave Moses the commandments in such a drastic way would contradict himself. It would mean that a confused god first everywhere in the Old Testament commands the death penalty for a multitude of crimes and then suddenly changes his mind and says: "Sorry, I did not mean it that way, I meant the opposite – you shall not have the death penalty."

Throughout Christian history the fifth commandment has never been considered as aimed at the courts or the judicial system. Neither has it been considered aimed at any nation’s defensive forces. This commandment, like the others, is aimed at man as a regular citizen of the society. And the simple meaning of the fifth commandment is that no man is allowed to take the life of another man. Other verses of the Bible say that if this happens, the man who has taken the life of another must be punished by death.

Because of the existence of the fifth commandment we are, only a few verses down, met by the following commandment: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." Ex 21:12

The conclusion is that he who breaks the fifth commandment and kills; he "shall surely be put to death."

(See also below, the comments on Mathew 5:21-22, where Jesus quotes the fifth commandment.)

Well-meaning priests sometimes try to refer to these verses in order to try to squeeze something out of the Old Testament that could be understood as a dissociation of the death penalty. But this must be rejected when examining the text. The following words are often quoted, grasped from their context,: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? … I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord."

What do these words mean? Chapter 18 of Ezekiel is about the personal responsibility: One who lives godlessly will die because of sin. One who lives righteously will live. God wants everyone to live righteously and in that way escape death – this is God’s highest desire. At the same time God wants death for the one who lives godlessly: "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood … Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head." Ez 18:10-13.

So we see that even in this context there is the threat of the death penalty. It is true that God does not wish anyone’s death. Therefore God encourages to repentance in chapter 18. For those who do not repent but become violent criminals and murderers God demands death.

In Ez 33:11 the meaning is approximately the same. Ezekiel brings a message to the exiled people of Israel concerning personal responsibility. The sin and apostasy of the people of Judah was so great that God allowed his people to be sent into captivity in Babylon. There the people realized their apostasy and confessed their sins at the same time as they despaired and only saw death ahead. (v. 10) At that time God brought the message that he did not "take pleasure in the death of the wicked", meaning the death and destruction of his people in their exile. God therefore encourages each and everyone to turn back to God in order to live. Many did this. After about 70 years in Babylon a number of Jews returned to Jerusalem. They had chosen life. 

It is thus only a lack of elementary Bible knowledge that causes some religious abolitionists to use these Bible verses negatively concerning the capital punishment.

It was a death penalty that became the instrument God used to reconcile the world (the execution of Christ) to himself. And it was a death penalty that led a converted criminal to the paradise (the thief on the cross, Luke 23:32f). This tells us that God can use everything in this existence, evil as well as good, for his purpose. In the first case an innocent man was executed, but this did not stop God’s plan. On the contrary. It was all a part of God’s plan. In the other case it was a guilty man who was executed, but this did not hinder God’s plan either.

John 7:52-8:12 (7)

Christian enemies of the death penalty often refer to this scripture about the woman who committed adultery that some wanted to stone to death, but whom Jesus set free. But that Jesus did not here attack the capital punishment as such is obvious by many reasons:

First, it was not an unconditional freedom that Jesus gave the adulteress. The event – whether it happened or not – ends with the words: "Go now and leave your life of sin." There is a serious warning implied here, a threat even: Do not do that again!

Secondly: Jesus’ mission on earth was not that of a judge. Jesus would have committed a mistake if he had sentenced the woman to death. In John 3:17 it says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world." Compare with John 12:47.

Thirdly: It is mainly through the governing authorities that God imposes the death penalty. And it is not the authorities that Jesus is representing at this time. It is only himself as the forgiving Saviour. Therefore the event is not an example of how a legal state is supposed to act. Jesus himself never put on the robes of the authority and he never walked around and sentenced people to different punishments. If he had dressed in the judge’s robe right there and then he would have had to, in the name of justice, also sentence the others to death. But to sentence sinners to death was not part of Jesus’ mission on earth.

Forth: If Jesus had imposed the death penalty it would have been, in the eyes of the Roman authority, equal to a rebellion since Rome only allowed the capital punishment to be carried out within their own judicial system. The Jews did not have the right to pronounce the death penalty. In other words, the scribes and the Pharisees tried to set Jesus up. If Jesus had said "stone her", he would have been arrested by the Romans.

Fifth: It is not possible to use the principle "If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone" (v.7) within the judicial system. Since neither judge nor juror is without guilt, trials in themselves would become impossible and no sentences could be imposed. The principle is a good rule to live by, but Jesus did not intend for his words in this context to be included in the judicial system.

In other words, the answer given by Jesus does not have any legal character or application. It concerns everyday morality between people. And this is often the case in the gospels. Jesus’ teaching and message is, as a rule, aimed at people and their everyday lives, not an establishing or denouncing of judicial legal systems. And when someone, as here, tries to force Jesus to make a statement concerning a certain legal question, Jesus refuses to answer and instead quietly writes in the sand and then he gives a moral sermon to the Pharisees and the woman.

Besides, the Christian teaching has always been that it is not until the final day that Christ will judge the people. On that day, according to the Bible, all adulterers and other "sinners" will receive their just punishment, 1 Cor 6:9-10. Here on earth the courts are the ones who give the verdicts. On the day of judgement God and Jesus will be the ones who brings the verdict. That role, that mission, was not the one Jesus had when he walked on the earth and therefore he said: "Neither do I condemn you" (8:11). If he had sentenced the woman he would have anticipated the final judgement. But the approximately three years that Jesus publicly worked here on earth was a time of mercy and love, not a time of judgement. The Christian faith would have been shaken to its core if Jesus publicly had legally judged that woman. But Jesus did not let himself get caught by the temptation to judge – the woman was let go. But one day she will also stand before Jesus.

All of this means that we can not refer to this text if we wish to have an answer concerning Jesus’ attitude towards the issue of the death penalty.

And here, finally, is a quote from the nun Helen Prejean. She is a well known abolitionist, but despite that she has courage and insight enough to write in this way about this Bible passage:

"It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital
crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one
is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew
Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even
Jesus’ admonition ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone,’ when He
was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) - the
Mosaic Law prescribed death - should be read in its proper context. This
passage is an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in
besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about
capital punishment." From the book Dead Man Walking.

There are many scriptures in the New Testament concerning love and forgiveness. Do they say anything concerning the death penalty?

To the state governed by law – no. To the Christian Church – yes. All words by Jesus concerning love, mercy and forgiveness makes it impossible for the death penalty to be practiced within the framework of the Christian Church. To a Christian, from his everyday life, the capital punishment totally goes against Christ’s message of love. It also goes against the prison sentencing and the fines. It goes against the whole state governed by law with its judges and jurors who sentence their fellow men.

But, and it is incredibly important to see and understand this, Christ’s message of love concerning turning the other cheek, forgiving your fellow man, etc. is not an issue concerning the state governed by law but us as individuals in our everyday lives. No verse in the Bible concerning love and forgiveness and not passing judgement was, by Jesus, meant for the "authority", the punishing authority, the judicial system.

Each and everyone who feels that the thief, the robber, the drunk driver, the rapist or the murderer should receive mercy and forgiveness according to Jesus’ teaching of love and therefore in no way have any form of punishment – such a person revokes Law and Order, that which constitutes the democratic civilized society. 

In the theocracy of Israel during the time of the Old Testament they did not start out from God’s forgiveness in the courts. On the contrary, there ruled an irrepressible Law, despite the fact that the message of love is also found in the Old Testament (e.g. Lev 19:18).

And when the New Testament was written – a few decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection – we find nothing in any letter of the New Testament that says that Law and Order must be abandoned or revised by the authorities because of the atonement’s message of love. The authority, with the right to punish, was completely accepted in the NT as a divine ordinance (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-14). Both Paul and Peter accepted the authority’s punishing function and role, despite the fact that they lived in a time where the punishments were many and severe and that the death penalty was very common.

We repeat: Christian ethics teach that in God’s Church mercy goes before right. A Christian is called to have as the ideal to live in reconciliation, forgiveness and love with their fellow men, even their enemies. According to Christian ethics judgement, revenge and retaliation is not allowed between people in everyday life.

But the rules are different for the authority. The heavenly ideal that the Christian Church is to strive for is not decided by God to be placed in earthly nations codes of law in order for violent criminals and murderers to receive mercy and avoid just punishment. If this happened, it would be suicide of the state governed by law.

In a functioning and civilized state governed by law mercy must not come before right. A functioning and civilized state governed by law has the right and obligation to leave out of account Jesus’ words concerning not judging a fellow man. The same goes for words concerning love and forgiveness. The authority is called by God to judge, and sometimes pass severe judgements.

Jesus’ message of love is therefore not aimed at the judging authorities. There is nothing implied in the gospels of the Bible that Jesus had any concern for the state governed by law in his teaching of love. If it had been so, that Christ’s teaching included the judicial system, every state governed by law that has ever existed throughout history would fall under the judgement, including all the "Christian" nations that ever existed. But there is no country in the world that during the course of history has interpreted Jesus’ teaching of love to also include the courts and trials and that Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and love should be written in the law concerning criminals. A sound awareness has been that this would be the end of the state governed by law and in the long run it would cause lawlessness and an increased spread of evil in the society. The foundation of the civilized society would fall apart.

The great teachers of the Bible could separate where Love belonged and where Right belonged. To them reality did not exclude either of these two great things. Here are three examples:

Moses could, in the midst of a legal context, declare: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev 19:18). But in the next chapter there are several types of death penalties decreed.

Jesus encouraged love and forgiveness between people, but at the same time accepted the punishing authority (Matt 15:3-4, 26:52, John 19:10-11).

In Rom 12:17-21 Paul speaks of the relationship between people. The text says that we must not avenge each other but give the revenge to God. Only a few verses later (Rom 13:1-6) Paul speaks of the authority, the judging authority, which on the other hand is "an agent of wrath". (v 4)

The great personalities of the Bible can both join and keep apart the Law and the Love without creating any discrepancies.

As described above the Christian Church has believed and taught throughout all times. It was not until the middle of the 20^th century that new sounds from parts of Christianity began to be heard, i.e. through different documents where one, using Jesus’ message of love as a foundation, disassociates from the death penalty. As a consequence one disqualifies the authority’s right to judge and punish. This would have catastrophic consequences to, among other things, justice, human value, goodness and the moral order in society if this new, naive, and Bible foreign view were followed.

There will always be dreamers who yearn for a society that is based on the Biblical principles such as "turning the other cheek" and "pay evil with good". These dreamers have a good heart. But if they are to be consistent they can not only use these words by Jesus in only one reference – concerning the capital punishment. They must then allow these principles to run through the entire judicial system. All criminals must then be met by only goodness and no one may even whisper the word "punishment." Such a utopian society is neither realistic nor desired here on this earth. Besides, the above quoted words belong to the same category as Jesus’ words "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matt 7:1). If this also was aimed at the judicial system it would mean that all courts of law and all trials that have ever taken place and that take place now are in defiance of Jesus.

Let us, without mercy, speak ironically about where the attitude of the dreamers could lead us: At a trial the judge calls the abused and raped woman to come forth at the same time as the criminal. After that the judge asks the man, with the woman’s consent and according to the principle of "turning the other cheek", to once again attack the woman. When the woman is once again laying there bloody and crying and shaking with fear the judge says to the man: "Go, and sin no more!" And according to the principle of "paying evil with good" the criminal walks away with a smile and a bundle of cash to his freedom, and the judge gives him a warm hug of forgiveness. Outside stands the people and they are furious, not because of the woman’s fate, but because the man even had to go to trial and they now chanting the words of Jesus "Do not judge, or you too will be judged!"

A more crazy and evil world is hard to imagine. We may have beautiful dreams about the perfect love if we want to, but in a complicated and many times cruel and crazy world those dreams are seldom made real, especially not in the legal texts.

Every time someone refers to the words of Jesus concerning forgiving and not punishing when the death penalty is discussed it is a serious and dangerous attack against that which maintains a normal, functioning righteous society. The pious, unsuspecting people, sometimes priests, who makes these statements are often unaware of the consequences of their reasoning and should therefore not be accused. Their unreflecting faith on the other hand must be condemned.

Short summary of important scriptures in the New Testament

"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ´Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.´ But I tell you … anyone who says, `You fool!´ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

Here Jesus quotes the fifth commandment and claims that he who breaks it is guilty and must be punished. Everyone was familiar with the Old Testament and knew that this meant the death penalty without Jesus having to say it. If Jesus had had another opinion concerning the form of punishment he would have had to clarify it in order for the people to understand that.

Jesus then gives a teaching about the meaning of this commandment with a deeper analysis. He does not revoke the literal meaning of the commandment (he defends its validity also in Matt 19:18) but here he brings forth the spirit of the commandment. Even a hateful and evil word – such things that usually precede a murder – aimed at a fellow man will bring a person to hell (Gehenna). If a harsh word to a fellowman means Gehenna according to Jesus, it is easy to realize that Jesus also agreed to the Old Testament’s edict of death for murder.

It should be observed that this scripture is found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ´Honor your father and mother´ and ´Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death´."

Here Jesus quotes the word about the death penalty from the Old Testament (Ex 21:17), and uses it as proof against the scribes. Thus Jesus confirms the validity of the scripture and shows that the words are not only linked to the time of the Old Testament. In this situation Jesus strikes hard at the scribes whom he claims are revoking the commandments of God in order to hold their own laws and statutes. He says to them: "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition" (v 6). And "the word of God" in the example that Jesus uses also includes the words concerning the death penalty (v 4). Jesus thereby accuses the scribes for not holding on to the simple and clear commandments about honoring the father and mother and about the capital punishment but instead soften these by making their own laws. This word is therefore a strong and clear acknowledgement by Jesus concerning the justification and validity of the death penalty.

It is obvious that if Jesus had been against the death penalty he would not have quoted this scripture and used a commandment for the death penalty as a foundation for his criticism of the scribes.

This scripture then confirms that over the Old Testament’s commandment of the capital punishment rests also the spirit of Christ.

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Here Jesus says that it would be good for one who causes a Christian to sin, be punished to death by drowning. According to Jesus such a person does not deserve to live. Jesus is not exaggerating here; drowning was not an unusual punishment in the Greek and Roman society. One can say that Jesus here accepts such a death sentence.

This scripture also shows that Jesus can speak with the same spirit of harshness as the Old Testament sometimes does.

"Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."

Here Jesus reproaches the disciple Peter who took the sword in order to defend Jesus against those who came to arrest him. But Jesus is against the use of the sword against innocent people and therefore he reproaches Peter and encourages him to put the sword back into the sheath.

There are several interpretations here. But a reasonable interpretation of the words: "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" is that it is an indirect acknowledgement of the death penalty, maybe even a direct edict. Jesus then gives his acceptance to the legal practice of the capital punishment by the use of the sword as was practiced at the time. In other words, the scripture means that if someone draws his sword and kills an innocent person, the one who drew the sword deserves to be executed by the sword himself. The commandment "will die by the sword" then becomes a reference to the state governed by law, the authority, who has the power and right to kill. This would be a direct parallel to the words by Paul found in Rom 13:4 where he speaks about the authorities who "does not bear the sword for nothing" (see the comments later on in the chapter).

If Jesus, based on this interpretation, would have used our words it may have sounded something like this: One who uses a gun and kills another person shall be executed by a firing squad!

"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him … He will cut him to pieces."

In this context Jesus starts from a time-typical situation that was familiar to everyone. Jesus takes the example from the everyday life where "a master" lets an administrator take care of the servants and to feed them at the right time while he himself goes away for some time. But if the administrator acts badly by hitting the servants and getting drunk, then he will be punished by death when "the master" comes home again. And neglectful servants shall be beaten, i.e. flogged. (Concerning flogging, see also Deut 25:2.)

This earthly picture Jesus uses as an example in order to teach about his future coming. Even if it does not describe an ordinary legal situation it is worth noticing that Jesus here speaks of both the death penalty and the flogging (common punishments of this time). He willingly uses these forms of punishments in his teaching in order to speak of the seriousness of his own future coming.

Jesus would hardly have done this if he had had a negative opinion of the death penalty.

"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me."

This is the last verse of "Jesus’ parable of the ten pounds", a parable that mainly allude at the day of judgement. Since it is a parable one has to be careful not to use definitive interpretations. But the verse is very interesting. If Jesus had been opposed to the capital punishment it would have been very difficult to understand how Jesus could have ended the parable in this way. The final verse (v 27) is about the men who did not want to have a certain man as king (v 14). These men are then faced with the death penalty, a punishment that is carried out before the king. Such collective capital punishments were not unusual at that time.

That Jesus could be hard and righteous is accordingly brought out also here. And it can be compared with the final time when certain people will suffer the fires of hell (Rev 14:9-10) before the eyes of "the Lamb", Jesus.

"But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ´This is the heir,´ they said. ´Let´s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.´ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyards to others."

Here we meet "Jesus’ parable of the tenants". A murder is committed, and those who commit this murder are killed. It seems as though the text speaks of revenge, i.e. that it is the "master of the vineyard" who commits the killing. But it may also be so that the words of Jesus indicate that the master of the vineyard makes sure that the murderers are legally tried and sentenced to death. Or one may also view the "master of the vineyard" as the authority that has the right to execute. The people are horrified over what happens in the parable, probably both over the murder and over the deeper meaning of the parable. Once again the descriptive style that Jesus uses is interesting. If Jesus had been opposed to the death penalty he would not have spoken in that way.

"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."

These words were spoken by one of the criminals who were hanging on a cross next to Jesus. The scripture clearly testifies of the legal conscience that people during all times have had. A death-sentenced criminal confesses that the flogging and the death sentence that was imposed on him were "just". And not only that, he himself felt that he "deserved" death.

"Do you refuse to speak to me? Pilate said. Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you? Jesus answered, You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."

Jesus indirectly confesses here the authority’s right to be a punishing authority and that that power comes from God. And in this case the power to sentence death by crucifixion. Even though Jesus was innocently convicted he does not question the capital punishment itself. It is not an acknowledgement either, but it comes close. It is worth noticing that Jesus does not, in any time of the gospels, criticize the diligent usage of the death penalty in his time. Not even when he stands before the power personified – Pontius Pilate.(8)

This story of Ananias and Saphira is unique in its character. It is the first and only time in the New Testament that there is such a clear description of a sort of "death penalty" within the framework of the church. God sentenced the two church members Ananias and Saphira to death because they had knowingly lied to God and to the people. Behind the lie there was greed. In this story Peter serves as the "prosecutor" and the "judge" of the church. Peter is in other words "the authority" and God’s punishment is carried out by the words of Peter. The invisible sword is lifted and Ananias and Saphira receive their death penalty.

In the New Testament there is nothing that indicates that this situation is supposed to serve as any kind of example. But it shows us two things. First, it shows that the Holy God is the same in the new covenant as he was in the old. Secondly, it shows that God also during the "age of mercy" (the time between the death of Christ and his return) sometimes can let a death penalty be imposed on greedy liars and pious hypocrites.

"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die."

Here the apostle Paul answers to a governor and is being threatened by the capital punishment. The interesting thing is that Paul does not take the opportunity to speak up against the "barbaric death penalty." On the contrary, Paul acknowledges Rome’s right to use the death penalty and also he is allowed to serve as an example of the universal legal consciousness that has existed throughout all times. Paul is really saying that each and everyone who "deserves" a death sentence should have it imposed on them, even if it would mean himself.

A similar attitude is found in Rom 1:32, where Paul writes about people who "know God´s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death." Paul is referring to the transgressions mentioned in Rom 1:26-31 and "death" is most likely referring to the physical and eternal death. But one can not exclude the fact that there is a connection to the Old Testament and Lev 20:13 where God commands the death penalty for the same crimes. A consequence of this is that Paul thereby acknowledges the law of the Old Testament and the continuance between the Old and the New Testament is kept. Paul’s words show, in any way, that God – even the New Testament God – feels that some people "deserve death", and that the death would reveal "God’s righteous decree".

Part Two continues after the footnotes ...

Footnotes:

Footnote 1. Among others the philosophers Hugo Grotius [1583-1645], Thomas Hobbes [1588-1679], John Locke [1632-1704], Jean Jacques Rousseau [1712-78], Denis Diderot [1713-84], Montesquieu [1689-1755], Friedrich Hegel [1770-1831], John Stuart Mill [1806-1873], and Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] argued in the support of the death penalty. Click here to read a defence of the death penalty by Immanuel Kant. Norberto Bobbio (abolitionist), professor of Political Philosophy and Jurisprudence: "Along the whole course of philosophical history, the general opinion among philosophers was favourable to the death penalty, starting with Plato ... If we were to base our argument on the great authorities, the abolitionists would be defeated." From the book The Age of Rights (1996), page 144.  Back. 

Footnote 2. Islam is also a religion based on Scriptures; it proceeds from the Koran. Here we do not describe the Islamic view of the capital punishment, but one should know what Roger Hood writes: "Nearly all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, for example, are adamant that the retention of the death penalty is the clear commandment of Islam." The Death Penalty, 1996, page 213. Back.

Footnote 3. When the classic attitude towards the Bible is abandoned it is much easier to abandon the defence of the death penalty, "Only when biblical literalism has been modified by modern critical methods does a different reading result, one that can bring new insights and understanding … The recent change of stance in Catholic evaluation of the death penalty may reasonably be seen as merely one of the many benefits stemming from the advent and acceptance of modern historical-critical studies." The Death Penalty – A Historical and Theological Survey, Megivern, 1997, page 14. And Harry Potter writes: "In the United States, as in England, the fact that the majority of the champions of abolition were also biblical liberals…and some were atheists such as Bentham and Shelley, put them in bad odor with the more orthodox Calvinist and Anglican clergy … Between the two sides a great gulf was fixed. Their respective approaches were irreconcilable, and their understanding of the ways of God as revealed in the Bible were unintelligible to each other." Hanging in Judgment, 1993, page 62-63. Back.

Footnote 4. Lemek had also killed, Numb 4:23, but the poetic words in this verse can be interpreted to mean that it was not out of hate but self-defence. Moses killed the Egyptian, Ex 2:11-14, but it was from self-defence when he came to the rescue of a fellow countryman. Ehud killed, Judges 3, but it was in a war situation. It was also at war when Jael killed someone, Judges 4. David did not kill Uriah himself, 2 Sam 11:15 but he planned Uriah’s death. Thereby we have examples of Israelites killing without being sentenced to death. Sometimes there are legitimate explanations to why this isn’t the case. But sometimes not. But those cases only show that not even Israel always used the legal practices as the laws and God’s commandments commanded. Back.

Footnote 5. Some try to avoid this commandment by claiming that the verse only gives a tragic foretelling of how man will act, and thereby deny that it would be a divine commandment. This is naturally untenable since the sentence "for in the image of God has God made man" then becomes impossible to explain. The word "for" means that an explanation of the commandment is coming. Back.

Footnote 6. Bible scholars are united in interpretation that the commandment has nothing to do with the capital punishment. To give two examples: The catholic commentary The New Jerome Biblical Commentary 1993, writes as a comment on this verse: "Only illegal killing is prohibited; Israel had the death penalty." (See also the commentary’s interpretation of Deut 5:17) The protestant Study Bible New Geneva Study Bible, 1995, writes: "The verb here is never applied to Israel at war, and capital punishment was already authorized. (Gen. 9:6, Lev. 24:17, Num. 35:30-34)."

When Norberto Bobbio (abolitionist), professor of Political Philosophy and Jurisprudence, once were given a lecture for Amnesty International about the death penalty and went through a number of more or less defective arguments against the death penalty he said at the end: "Let us try to give a reason for our repugnance for the death penalty. There is just one reason: the commandment not to kill. I can see no other reason. Apart from this last reason, all the other reasons are worth little or nothing, and can be rebutted with other arguments which have more or less the same persuasive force." From the book The Age of Rights (1996), page 141. And as we have seen above, not even this commandment can help Bobbio. On the contrary, precisely this commandment constitute a sort of a foundation for the death penalty to be proclaim in the Bible. Back.

Footnote 7. Before one reads this text one should be aware of the fact that this part of Jesus and the adulteress was not part of the gospel of John from the beginning. Almost all translators, bible scholars and theologians agree on this. Therefore Bible translations often put this part within parenthesis or give a note that states this. It is a fact that the text is missing in the earliest hand-written manuscripts of John. Yet the text has a strong and old tradition that gives the text a place in the gospel. But the text should not be given the same authority as other texts in the Bible. Back.

Footnote 8. On the cross Jesus says: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34). But this was not aimed at the death penalty as a form of punishment, but at the fact that he was innocent and that he was the Son of God. The Roman authority knew nothing of this. In this verse Jesus asks that they be forgiven since they are unaware of the incredible in crucifying God’s innocent Son, the Saviour. Back.

Part Two

Menu

© David Anderson 1998, 2002

http://w1.155.telia.com/~u15509119