~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~

Because of recent events surrounding the execution of Karla Faye Tucker in the state of Texas this month, I thought it would be timely and beneficial to write on the subject of capital punishment. Mrs. Tucker was the first woman to be executed in Texas since the days after the American Civil War in the 1860's. For this as well as other reasons, the usual groups opposed to the death penalty were vocal and visible in their protest of her execution. But because Karla Faye was also an evangelical Christian, there were some unusual voices among those pleading with Texas Republican Governor George Bush, son of our former president, for her life. Evangelical Christians and their leaders have been quite strong in the past in their support of the death penalty for murder. It was a surprise to many to see Pat Robertson, head of the Christian Broadcasting Network and "The 700 Club" and Jerry Falwell, founder of the "Moral Majority"political organization and influential television pastor and leader, on network television programs acknowledging that they also had sought to persuade Governor Bush to grant Karla a reprieve. Moments after her execution, a spokesperson on Jan and Paul Crouch's Trinity Broadcasting Network announced Karla Faye's death and thanked everyone who had prayed for her deliverance.

To tell you the truth, I found this rallying around Karla Faye and calling for her clemency troubling. It's not that I desired her execution or was glad when it was carried out, but how could those who are otherwise supposedly solidly in favor of the death penalty all of a sudden seek an exception to be made in her case? Her conversion was evidently genuine, at least according to the estimate of those who had spoken with and observed her first hand. But to plea for her reprieve seemed not only hypocritical (we want the death penalty until it effects one of our own or someone we love) and inconsistent, it seemed to undermine the very values we purport to uphold. It made me wonder on what grounds these men had based their support for the death penalty in the first place. If these had been sound, the death penalty should have been upheld even in the case of someone who had repented after being convicted of their crime. Capital punishment is either right or wrong, and if right, it shouldn't make any difference whether the murderer was a Christian before, during, or after the crime. Is capital punishment right? If it is right, why is it right, and if it is wrong why is it wrong? To say it is right, but it shouldn't be carried out in Karla's case because she was now a Christian seems to show that many people's thoughts about it, including Robertson's and Falwell's, are muddled at best and based on emotion, not reason. We have come to the place in our society where everyone has an opinion about everything whether he knows anything or even cares to find out anything about it or not, and that regardless of this his opinion is just as valid as anyone else's. Most people, including Christians, have strong opinions about things without ever having made much of an effort to discover whether they are consistent with reason or principle. Christians should base their opinions on any subject on the Bible if they really believe, as they claim, that it is God's Word; but so often they do not. They are for it or against it based on however they feel about it or however it may affect them, and thus they may waver between one viewpoint and another depending on the circumstances. That is how Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell looked in this case. In an interview I saw on a television news-type program, Jerry Falwell admitted he had no real basis, no rational account, he could give for his actively seeking a reprieve for Karla except that he "just had a gut feeling about it," he "felt like the Holy Spirit spoke to him to do everything he could to save her." This was based solely on his perception of Karla Faye on taped television interviews in which he "looked into her eyes" and "her spirit bore witness with my spirit that she was a true believer." Only her lawyers contested her execution on legal or ethical grounds regarding her crime. The ones I am talking about were moved strictly by the fact that she was a Christian and could do a lot of good helping others turn from a life of drugs and crime if she were permitted to serve a life sentence. This seems to me an entirely insufficient grounds for making an exception of the death penalty in her case. I'm sure, at least I think I am, that most of Robertson's and Falwell's followers and supporters believe as I do, but how many were influenced by their leadership in this case? Where does this leave us as far as our stand on the death penalty in the future?

Public opinion in this country and even court decisions regarding the death penalty has gone through great changes in recent decades. In the 1960's and 70's, the majority of Americans opposed it. In 1967 abolitionist took advantage of this climate and introduced several law suits against executions which succeeded in retarding capital punishment. There was not a single execution in the U.S. for the ten years between 1967 and 1977. The backing away from capital punishment was evident not only in our country but in most Western industrialized nations as well. Most of these, like Great Britain in 1969, have banned the death penalty altogether. In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled that the states' death penalty laws as they stood were unconstitutional on the grounds that they violated the eighth and fourteenth amendments, particularly the prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments." The court left open the possibility of reconsidering their opinion if the states should mend their laws concerning it. In 1976 the Supreme Court upheld executions in several states under their new laws. Executions in the U.S. were on the wane before 1972, as is evident from the following figures:

Years Executions

1930-34 776

1935-39 891

1940-44 645

1945-49 639

1950-54 413

1955-59 304

1960-64 181

1965-67 10

1967-77 0

By far the great majority of Americans-75-80%-now favor the death penalty for certain murders. Between 1977 and 1995, 300 people were executed in the U.S. The "comeback" of execution was a reaction to what most people feel was a period of too much laxness in punishing criminals brought on by liberal psychological theories of behavior that view the criminal as a victim of society who needs "treatment" or "rehabilitation" rather than "punishment." But the fact is that public support of execution is probably "soft," a reaction to lenient policies rather than a serious thinking through of the issues.

Before 1972 eleven states had outlawed the death penalty. Most of the 39 states that permitted it favored the electric chair or the gas chamber as the mode of execution. Since the 1970's, 38 states have reenacted laws permitting the death penalty. Most of have adopted lethal injection as the means, although some allow alternatives such as electrocution or gas.

I have read some articles and heard some statements to the effect that "pro-life" Christians, those vehemently opposed to abortion as I am, are inconsistent if they do not also oppose the death penalty. But there is no inconsistency at all-we are opposed to putting to death the innocent, but we are not opposed to execution of the guilty. It is interesting as well as glaringly inconsistent and hypocritical to see so many like Bianca Jagger, rock singer Mick Jagger's former wife and leader in Amnesty International, strenuously fight for Karla Faye's and other convicted murderer's lives while at the same support the murder of innocent pre-born children. And I personally think it is somewhat inconsistent for those who are opposed to abortion to avidly support war and a Christian's involvement in it. Most of those whose lives you must take in war are no more guilty of a crime worthy of death than you are, and through "lateral damage" of bombs and gunfire, many thousands of lives of "innocent civilians" are unintentionally taken also. But this is beyond my present subject.

Before one settles in with his opinion on capital punishment he should first consider the arguments for and against it. Our biases may not be fully overcome in this way, but at least we will understand the opposite side and have a better foundation for our own beliefs. We will take these arguments up in the process of time, but first and foremost for the Christian in deciding any issue is, "What does God's Word say about it?" And not an isolated verse here or there but the whole of Scripture rightly interpreted. Non-Christians may content themselves in arguments concerning deterrence, cost comparisons, the United States Constitution, etc., but these are entirely secondary as far as the true Christian is concerned. Whether it is popular, politically correct, cost-favorable, a deterrent to murder, or not-if God's Word teaches it, then he must be for it; he must not be found to oppose or be wiser than God.

Opposition to the death penalty comes from a number of groups of people as well as individuals who do not always agree in their reasons nor use the same arguments. Many of their arguments have nothing to do with the Bible or Christianity, though some may cite verses of Scripture they think suit their purposes. On the other hand there are many Christians who sincerely oppose the death penalty on what they believe at least to be moral as well as Scriptural grounds. We will not take the time to identify each of these groups, neither will we be able to cover all their arguments, but we will include the most common ones.

Larry Rice, an evangelical, full gospel minister, carries on a worthy work among the poor with missions and help centers in a number of Missouri cities including St. Louis, Jefferson City, Springfield, and Joplin. He also has a small network of small television stations throughout the state which carries mostly religious and family programming. Larry is staunchly opposed to the death penalty, calling it on his broadcasts and in his newsletters "state-sanctioned murder," "legalized murder," and "murder by the state." I received a copy of his tabloid style publication several months ago, and most of the articles were devoted to opposition to the death penalty. The main Scripture text he used was Exodus 20:6, "Thou shalt not kill...," as though the taking of human life at any time by anyone, including the state, was absolutely prohibited. I was dumbfounded at this, especially since no justification for this interpretation was offered. When we consider the context of the Sixth Commandment, it is apparent that God was forbidding murder, not capital punishment by the state. Continuing from Exodus 20 to follow the text and the words the Lord gave to Moses on Sinai, we come to chapter 21 and verses 12-14 which read:

"Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death."

God goes on in the Law He gave to Moses to prescribe the death penalty for a whole host of other crimes besides murder. Nave's Topical Bible lists adultery (Lev.20:10; Dt. 22:24), incest (Lev.20:11-12,14), bestiality (Ex.22:19; Lev.20:15-16), sodomy (Lev.18:22; 20:13), promiscuity (Dt.22:21-24), rape of an engaged virgin (Dt.22:25), perjury (Zech. 5:4), kidnapping (Ex.21:16; Dt.24:7), a priest's daughter who became a prostitute (Lev.21:9), witchcraft (Ex.22:18), offering human sacrifice (Lev.20:3-5), striking or cursing father or mother (Ex.21:15,17; Lev.20:9), disobedience to parents (Dt.21:18-21), theft (Zech.5:3,4), blasphemy (Lev.24:11-14,16,23), Sabbath desecration (Ex.35:2; Num.15:32-36), prophesying falsely or propagating false doctrines (Dt.13:1-10), sacrificing to false gods (Ex.22:20), refusing to abide by the decision of a court (Dt.17:12), treason (1 K.2:25; Est.2:23), sedition (Acts 5:36-37).

The modes of execution God prescribed were burning (Lev.20:14; 21:9), stoning (Lev.20:2,7; 24:14; Num.14:10; 15:33-36; Dt.13:10; 17:5; 22:21,24), and hanging (Dt.21:21-23). A man was not to be executed on the testimony of less than two witnesses (Num.35:30; Dt.17:6; 19:15).

Someone might respond that all this is found under the Law of Moses that God gave to the nation of Israel alone. I agree that we should not conclude that all nations should exact the death penalty for these crimes, but my point is simply that execution of criminals is not "state sanctioned" or "legalized murder" as many abolitionists contend. It was sanctioned by God Himself in at least the case of one nation, Israel, and if any other nation chose to follow this example and execute persons committing these crimes, it would not be murder. Great Britain executed people for no less than 208 offenses up until the early 1800's.

One cannot dismiss the death penalty as belonging only to the Law of Moses. God first instituted capital punishment for murder in Genesis chapter nine after the flood before Moses, the nation of Israel, or even Abraham the founding patriarch existed:

Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 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. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it." Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: "I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you and with every living creature that was with you-the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you-every living creature on earth. I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth." And God said, "This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth." So God said to Noah, "This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth." The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth. (Genesis 9:1-19)

We have quoted the whole passage because the context of the highlighted verses (5 and 6) in which God first instituted the death penalty is important. The death penalty was part of the covenant God made with Noah and his sons after the flood. Those who would argue, rightly, that we are no longer bound by the Mosaic Law, including the commandments to execute those guilty of the 22 offenses we cited, cannot say the same thing about this covenant God made with Noah. Clearly it pertains not only to Noah and his three sons, but "with your descendants after you" (v.9), "for all generations to come" (v.12), "between me [God] and the earth" (v.13). Shem, Ham, and Japheth were Noah's three sons, "and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth" (vv.18,19). Chapter 10 lists the early nations that came from these three sons and concludes: "From these the nations spread out over the earth" (v.32). Not only does each nation owe its origin to Noah's three sons, each individual, regardless of race or ethnicity, can trace his origin to them, too. We are all their descendants. The command, therefore, "And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man, Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man," pertains to all men, all nations that descended from Noah and his sons after the flood is still in effect today.

Each part of this covenant is still in force. God has permitted us to eat the animals in addition to plants (vv.2,3), which he originally gave to man for food in the garden of Eden. Israel was forbidden under Moses to eat certain animals, but this was never binding on the Gentile nations. But one of the few things specified in the first church council at Jerusalem that Gentile believers must not do was to partake of the blood of animals (Acts 15:20,29). God's promise in this covenant never to destroy the earth again with water and the corresponding sign are still very much in effect. The sign-the rainbow-is a universal sign, appearing all over the earth, signifying that this covenant is in effect for all people all over the world for as long as it stands (vv.11-17). If the promises and provisions of this covenant have never been rescinded but are still in effect, then so is capital punishment, the command that whoever sheds man's blood, by man, not by God, must that man's blood be shed.

What led to this institution of the death penalty after the flood? The sixth chapter, citing conditions that prevailed in the world before the flood, tells us:

The Lord saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. The Lord was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the Lord said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth-men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air-for I am grieved that I have made them."...Now the earth was corrupt in God's sight and was full of violence. God saw how corrupt the earth had become, for all the people on earth had corrupted their ways. So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth."(Genesis 6:5-7,11-13)

Some argue that the reason God sent the flood was to preserve the human race in a redeemable condition. They identify the "sons of God" in Genesis 6:2,4 as fallen angels who cohabited with women and produced a hybrid race of giants (v.4). This may be true; nevertheless, it is still holds that the main reason God sent the flood was as judgment on the world for its wickedness. And the only sin that is specified is violence which would of course include murder. Murder was rampant before the flood; this is what led God to institute the death penalty for murder after the flood.

How did murder become so widespread before the flood? For the answer, we must go back a few chapters earlier where we read of the first murder committed in the world:

Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of the Lord I have brought forth a man." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to the Lord. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." Now Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let's go out to the field." And while they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him. Then the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?" The Lord said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth." Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment is more than I can bear. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me." But the Lord said to him, "Not so; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the Lord put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him. So Cain went out from the Lord's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden. (Genesis 4:1-16)

God treated this first murderer with what can only be said is characteristic of Him, His first inclination, mercy, despite Cain's complaint, "My punishment is more than I can bear!", the cry of practically all scoundrels and criminals regardless of how horrendous their crime or how light their sentence may be. God's words, "Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground," is the fundamental justification for the death penalty for murderers. Regardless of whether it is a deterrent to murder in society (abolitionists constantly deny that it is, compared with life in prison without parole) or any other consideration or argument that can be raised against it, capital punishment is the proper punishment for murder for the simple reason that it is just. It is what the murderer deserves. The blood of murdered victims cries out for justice. It is true, God did not at once require Cain's death, but banished him to a sort of life imprisonment or rather life banishment. But in what followed here we see something quite common with men of all ages-the mercy and longsuffering of God is counted as laxity toward sin. Instead of used for repentance and reformation of life, more often it is abused in improving wickedness. What should be the occasion of man's salvation becomes the means of greater damnation.

The unintended effects of God's leniency toward Cain may be seen not many generations afterward:

Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech. Lamech married two women....Lamech said to his wives... "...listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times." (Genesis 4:17-19,23,24)

Most commentators are agreed that Lamech's words after he committed murder amount to a boast. He killed a man and boasted about it. Cain's murder of Abel led subsequently and progressively to the violent murderous culture for which God sent the flood. God's institution of the death penalty after the flood was intended to establish justice but also curb the violence.

Larry Rice claims that Jesus did away with the death penalty when He died on the cross. But not only is there no real Scriptural evidence for this, there is enough that this is certainly is not the case. In Acts 25 we read of the apostle Paul's trial before the governor Festus. Paul had been rescued by the Roman guard near the Temple in Jerusalem from certain death at the hands of an angry Jewish mob. They were falsely charging Paul with desecrating the Temple and blasphemy. In his defense before the governor Festus, Paul said,

When Paul appeared, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many serious charges against him, which they could not prove. Then Paul made his defense: "I have done nothing wrong against the law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar." Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, said to Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me there on these charges?" Paul answered: "I am now standing before Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried. I have not done any wrong to the Jews, as you yourself know very well. If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" After Festus had conferred with his council, he declared: "You have appealed to Caesar. To Caesar you will go!" (Acts 25:7-12)

According to what Paul said here, not only was the death penalty still in force after the death of Christ-and he, above all people would have known if the abolition of the death penalty were a fruit of the atonement, seeing he himself more than any other New Testament writer is the source of our doctrine of the atonement-it was a just penalty. Paul not only upheld the death penalty in principle, he did what many have seemed unable to do-apply it without exception or consideration of how fond of or close he might be to the offender, even if it were himself.

After laying out in detail his understanding of the gospel which he preached, Paul concludes his epistle to the Church at Rome with a series of directives for practical day to day Christian living, among them these instructions on how believers should act toward the civil authorities:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. (Romans 13:1-5)

Governing authorities, Paul says, are established and instituted by God. No one can rebel against them without rebelling against God and reaping judgment from God as a consequence. Earthly rulers are God's servants, agents of His wrath for punishing those who do wrong. We must submit to them not only for conscience's sake but also out of fear of punishment. But what I wish to stress most because it is the most pertinent to our subject is that these earthly rulers who are God's servants, agents of wrath for punishing wrongdoers "bear the sword not in vain." Of course the soldiers who acted as policemen bore swords, but that is not who Paul is talking about here. It is the rulers themselves. "Bearing the sword" here is a figure of speech for the authority to punish. And what is a sword used for? Only one thing-death, execution. Wielded against foreign enemies it was an instrument of killing in battle; wielded against domestic enemies, wrongdoers, it was for execution:

It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. (Acts 12:1,2)

In the very book in which the apostle Paul most thoroughly lays out his theology of the gospel, including his doctrine of the atonement and its effects, he upholds the death penalty, which is not only meted out by the state but is ordained by God. He knows of no abrogating of the death penalty by the death of Jesus Christ. And to call capital punishment state-sanctioned or legalized murder in the light of such clear God-ordained authority is irresponsible.

As for Scriptures which are cited by abolitionists in favor of their position, none of them would carry the same weight as the ones I have cited on the subject for the simple reason that the ones I have cited specifically address the subject of capital punishment while the ones abolitionists cite only indirectly if at all address it. It is a sound principle of Bible interpretation that a teaching merely implied in Scripture may be considered Biblical when a comparison of related passages supports it. In other words, even if there are no Scriptures that directly address a certain subject, if it can be shown that the Bible teaches a principle that may include the subject under discussion, we may take this as the teaching of Scripture on that subject. But when the Bible specifically addresses a subject like the ones I have cited on capital punishment, this takes precedence over anything argued from verses that may imply something regarding it.

One verse that abolitionists use is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," a rough quote of Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 7:12). The argument offered is that you would not want to be executed for murder, so you should not want to see others executed for it either. Sometimes the challenge to advocates of the death penalty is, "What if it were your brother or son (or sister or daughter) being executed?" The implication is that this would change your tune; you might be in favor of the death penalty, but surely you wouldn't if it were your loved one who was sentenced to die. This is in fact what we are addressing in this article. If the principle of the death penalty is right, then it would be inconsistent and even unjust to insist on it being enforced except in the case of someone you loved. To be consistent and just, we must not seek an exception to the death penalty in the case of ourselves or a family member. Some I suppose would consider this unnatural, even weird, but is it? Of course if it were my brother or son who had committed murder and was sentenced to die I would feel a lot different about his execution than I would someone I have never known. I would grieve over the loss more personally and deeply. This would only be natural. But it does not follow that I should be opposed to the death penalty in their case. Paul put it very well in Acts 25:11, "If I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die." We should all be of the same frame of mind, and if we would not refuse to die if we were guilty, we should not demand that a loved one be spared. Therefore, there is no violation of the Golden Rule at all in supporting the death penalty. We might not want to die or see our loved ones executed, but we should not refuse it if we or they deserve it. Besides, whatever we think of the Golden Rule, it would not nullify the plain statements of Paul upholding the death penalty. If we believe Scripture is equally inspired in all its parts as the orthodox doctrine of inspiration states, we cannot reconcile apparent Scriptural discrepancies by, in this case, pitting Jesus against Paul and concluding that what Jesus said, since He is the Son of God, takes precedence over what Paul said or vice versa. Many, I believe wrongly, often set aside what Jesus said in the Gospels as not pertaining to us because it was "under the Law" and therefore more severe than what the epistles say "under grace," but even this argument wouldn't work here. In this case, what Jesus said "under the Law" would be less severe than what Paul said "under grace."

Some might asked, "Would you 'pull the switch' (a hold-over from the days of the electric chair) on your loved one who was guilty of murder and being executed?" Of course not, and no rational person would expect me to; neither would it be valid to insist that everyone who upholds the death penalty be able to perform the duty of an executioner. Personally, I wouldn't want to perform this duty, as I doubt anyone else would, but I believe I could if I had to. I would be performing a public service with which there is no blame attached whatsoever.

Abolitionists often refer in some form to Romans 12:17-20-

Do not repay anyone evil for evil....Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 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." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Those opposed to the death penalty say it is simply revenge, which is forbidden in our text. It is true that many probably support the death penalty because they are motivated by revenge. But this does not change the fact that capital punishment for murder is justice. Justice and revenge are not the same. Punishment meted out by the state that fits the nature of a crime is justice, not revenge, which is a personal "get even" spirit. We might well support the death penalty because it is just without being guilty of the baser motive of revenge. Further, abolitionists note that instead of taking revenge, we are to "leave room for God's wrath," that God will deal with the murderer and therefore the state should not. Often they claim that when the state executes a criminal, it is usurping the place of God, doing what only He has the right to do. On the same television interview show that featured Jerry Falwell, a pastor in Texas who had talked with many prisoners on death row quoted Job 1:21, "The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away." He remarked, "The Lord gives life and the Lord takes it away; but now it seems the Lord gives life and the state takes it away." But as we have seen, God commanded in the Noahic covenant that the murderer's blood must be shed by man. And in the Mosaic Law, it was the community or state that must put to death those God said were worthy because of their crimes. We saw the same thing in Romans 13-the civil rulers are God's agents in punishing wrongdoers, "bearing not the sword in vain." And again we see what we have noted, that a passage that some might think implies a thing cannot take precedent over a passage that clearly addresses a subject. Verses 17-21 of Romans 12, which we just quoted are the last verses in chapter 12, leading right into chapter thirteen which begins immediately with the admonition that believers must be subject to the civil authorities who have the authority to execute criminals. There is no way Romans 12:17-21 could negate this or legitimately be interpreted as contradicting it. Besides, if we must leave capital punishment up to God, we might just as well argue that any punishment for crime is up to Him as well and do away with the entire criminal justice system including police, the courts, and all jails and prisons. This would neither be Christian nor sane.

It might be argued that capital punishment, instead of being revenge, is actually the means of preventing personal revenge, people "taking the law into their own hands." Society through the state carries out justice in executing the murderer.

Some argue in one form or another but not necessarily from Romans 17:17 and 21 that capital punishment is attempting to "repay evil for evil" or "overcome evil with evil" instead of "overcoming evil with good." But this merely assumes that the death penalty is evil, that is, in the moral sense. Capital punishment, imprisonment, even spankings, as well as all punishments are physical evils, but not moral ones. Their design is good even if they are in themselves evil, that is, they inflict pain or discomfort. They are designed to administer justice and modify behavior even if they don't always succeed in doing so. The design and effect of capital punishment is good even if it is a physical evil. We would rather not see anyone executed any more than we want to see people incarcerated or give our children spankings, but they are necessary "evils" whose purpose and design as well as, hopefully, their effects, are good.

Paul quotes Proverbs 25:21,23 in Romans 12:20, "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink...." In this he echoes another saying of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount sometimes cited by abolitionists, "Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39). Assuming that this saying is to be taken seriously and that it applies to us (there are many who, wrongly, I believe, deny this), it would not have any bearing on the subject of capital punishment. Again, one cannot take a verse that may merely imply something and pit it against or use it to nullify verses that clearly state a thing. Whatever Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount concerning showing mercy, it could not possibly be meant to overthrow justice or punishment of evil doers by the state. Some argue that Jesus' command to "turn the other cheek" was not intended to forbid self-defense in the case of a genuine assault upon one's life but the returning of an insult. "Smiting on the cheek" is a "slap in the face," an insult, not an assault designed to inflict real bodily harm or take one's life. In the case of the latter, one might be perfectly justified in exercising whatever force is necessary to prevent being maimed or killed without violating Jesus' command here at all. Others argue that Jesus' words apply only to personal relations, not civil proceedings or the actions of nations in war. Some say it would apply if one were stricken while preaching the gospel or because he was doing some other work of the Lord or because he was a Christian, but not to a mugger or thief who attacked you as a random victim. In any case, whatever one's view of this command of Jesus, it would not negate capital punishment by the state. If returning good for evil were necessary for the state, then there could be no prosecution of criminals at all and society would be in a greater mess than it now is. Instead, civil rulers are God's servants, agents of His wrath, authorized by Him to punish evil doers. The Sermon on the Mount did not overthrow civil government in these good enterprises.

Sometimes abolitionists argue that capital punishment violates the many Scriptural admonitions for us to be merciful. We are not showing mercy as Jesus taught us when we support the death penalty, they argue; therefore, it is not Christian. While it is true that we must show mercy, this does not mean that mercy has nullified justice. And we are not necessarily being unmerciful when the state executes murderers. After all, we are affording the murderer far more mercy than he did his victim or victims. He sent them off to the next world without any preparation or warning for no crime or wrong worthy of death. On the other hand, we arrest the murderer, put him in a nice jail or prison where he is adequately fed and cared for, including medical attention if he needs it, and give him the right to seek counsel (and provide him a lawyer at taxpayer expense if he is too poor) and defend himself against his accusers in a court of law where he is entitled further to a fair trial by a jury of his peers and even the right to appeal his conviction and sentence if it goes against him and seek spiritual counsel and plenty of time to prepare his poor soul for the next world should his sentence actually come to be carried out (which, more often than not, isn't)-all things which he denied his victim or victims. I'd say that all of this is quite compatible with mercy, especially in the pursuit of justice. Abolitionists argue that it would be far more in keeping with mercy to give the murderer life imprisonment without parole than execute him. This may be true, but think of the murderer (if the "no parole" stipulation is enforced, which, more often than not, isn't) lounging around in prison eating what he likes, working out and playing basketball in the gym, enjoying a spring day out in the yard, going to classes, watching color TV and listening to his stereo, being visited by family and friends, even enjoying "conjugal visits" from his spouse while his poor victim lies in a grave and his spouse, children, and parents are grieving without their husband or wife or daddy or son. Is this justice? That's the question we must ask ourselves as well as showing mercy to the murderer. Justice as well as mercy must be sought, and capital punishment as it is now applied and enforced by the law is in no wise incompatible with either.

We will continue our discussion next time with more arguments against the death penalty. Until then, God bless.

Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center

Background from Greenfield Graphics.