Does the New Testament Ban the Death Penalty?

Source

Introduction

Many arguments have been made against the death penalty. One common argument is whether or not capital punishment is "humane." I deal with that question in another article. In this essay I consider arguments made by opponents of the death penalty (DP) while invoking the New Testament (NT) for support. While not every opponent of the DP invokes the Bible, some that do say that the DP is retaliation, an act of vengeance that is incompatible with the NT ethic of mercy and forgiveness. The argument goes something like this:

It's no more right for the government to take a life than it is for a person to do so. The Bible explicitly prohibits vengeance. Christianity is first and foremost an ethic of love and toleration. Love demands forgiveness. We can see this in Jesus’ command that we forgive one another. He told us not to be judgmental and to those that were going to stone the woman taken in adultery, he challenged only those without sin should cast the first stone.

A Response from the Unconvinced

Opponents of the DP offer explanations for several biblical verses dealing with forgiveness and reconciliation. However, they leave unexplained those areas where the Bible sanctions the use of force against wicked men. Furthermore, opponents proceed as if the Old Testament (OT) operates on a different ethic than does the NT, with the OT prescribing wrath, vengeance, and judgment, and the NT prescribing peace, reconciliation, and nonjudgmentalism.

It does not.

The ethic of the OT and the NT are one ethic. Granted: God's self revelation of his character is fuller at the end of the Bible than at the beginning. But the Bible prescribes both mercy and judgment in both testaments. Those that say that the NT does not teach judgment conveniently pass over passages that support the state’s role as a terror to evil doers (like Romans 13:3-4, for example).

Some opponents of the DP have invoked several phrases from the Bible that they claim support their position. So, instead of providing a coherent doctrine, opponents of the DP have provided a set of slogans. Some of these phrases are

  • Judge Not
  • Don’t Cast Stones
  • Turn the other Cheek
  • Don’t Exact Vengeance
  • If You Live By the Sword, You Die By the Sword

Judge Not

The passage in Matthew 7:1 which says “Judge not that ye be not judged” should get an award for being one of the Bible verses most abused in application. Jesus was telling the Pharisees not to judge in their current condition; he was not forbidding the condemnation of wrongdoing.

First, Jesus states the principle in Matthew 7:1

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Then, in vss. 3-5 Jesus gives an example clarifying the context of the statement:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

A specific group is being addressed in this passage—hypocrites. Jesus is saying, “hypocrites, don’t you judge.” But note that they are not hypocrites because they judge, they are hypocrites because they judge wrongly. Note also the example that Jesus gives is of a man who is trying to correct a condition in someone else when he suffers the same shortcoming.

For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again (Matthew 7:2).

This intuitively makes sense to all of us: how can the man who is having an affair counsel another man to stop having one? If you do such a thing you also are judged by the same standard that you mete out to others.

The passage is not teaching that you never judge. Note that the instruction at the end of the illustration is to “cast the beam out of thy own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” Furthermore, Jesus also said in John 7: 24 to “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” So there is a judgment to be made, but it is not the judgment of the hypocrite (judging according to “appearances”); it is the judgment of the righteous. Jesus even praises Peter in telling him in Luke 7:43, “Thou hast rightly judged.” Finally, there are several other passages where judging is either expected or praised (Luke 12:56-57; John 5:45; Rom. 3:19; 1 Cor. 2:15; 1 Cor. 6:2-5).

A second problem with opponent’s use of the “judge not” passage is that Jesus was talking to individuals, not rulers. Citizens while in their occupation as law officers have powers in those positions that I do not have as a citizen. I can’t go to a judge, get a court order, forcibly enter a residence not mine, put a gun in a man’s face and tell him to surrender. But under some conditions, a law enforcement officer can. So we recognize that law officers have some powers in their capacity as civil servants that I lack.

Finally, opponents apply the passage arbitrarily. Certainly, opponents are not suggesting that we never make judgments on any acts of wrongdoing. It seems that using it for just the DP and not, say, imprisonment, is selective. Judgment is essential to all of life. If we do not judge, there is no moral discernment. When we say that the Nazis were wrong, we are judging. When we say that South African Apartheid was wrong, it’s a moral judgment. Opponents need to apply the principle in a more general way and stop applying it selectively.

Don’t Cast Stones

Another issue often raised by opponents relating to “judge not” is “casting stones.” The phrase “casting stones” comes from the passage in John 8 in which a woman was forcibly brought to Jesus and accused of adultery. Jesus, addressing the crowd of witnesses said “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her (John 8:7).” No one ever did come forward to accuse her and she was, apparently, released unharmed.

The argument by opponents is that “we can’t cast stones (that is, accuse others) because there are times when we've been wrong too.” The problem with this interpretation is that Jesus is not teaching that no one should ever judge or punish wrongdoing because the accusers have also sinned in the past. That this is not the correct interpretation of the passage should be obvious from the discussion about not judging. In the “judge not” passage, the “hypocrite” was told to first remove the beam from his own eye so that he could help his brother.

In the “casting stones” passage, Jesus was simply restating the legal principle that the person that was privy to the crime, but was not a part of the conspiracy was the one “without sin.” Such a person was to cast the first stone (see Leviticus 24:13-4; Deut. 17:7) There is no reason to believe that Jesus is speaking of “sin” in the universal sense since there is a specific sin on the table, namely, adultery. When Jesus says to the woman “where are those thine accusers (vs. 10)?” is Jesus’ reference here universal or specific? I don’t think Jesus is asking her “is there anyone here that has ever seen you do something wrong?” He’s speaking of those that might accuse her of the specific crime of adultery. She responds that there is no one to accuse her. Besides, the casting of stones (the death penalty) was not administered because of the universal condition of sinfulness, but because of a specific crime that warranted death.

We should expect Jesus, the man that said “I am not come to destroy [the law and the prophets], but to fulfill (Matt. 5:17)” to prescribe the Mosaic Law in a legal matter involving a crime. Jesus tells the people that those that sit in “Moses seat” should be obeyed (Matthew 23:2-3). Jesus also tells the man that he healed of leprosy to fulfill the Mosaic requirement by showing himself to the priest and giving the gift (Matt. 8:4). Furthermore, Jesus chastised the Pharisees, apparently because they were neglecting their parents in not obeying the Mosaic law (Mark 7:9-13). Jesus taught men to keep the law, saying that those that do the commandments and teach others to do them “shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).”

Another misconception by opponents with this passage is that Jesus forgave the woman. But that's an assumption, one not grounded in the text. The woman does not ask for forgiveness and nowhere does it indicate that Jesus offered her forgiveness. Jesus said that he did not condemn her based on the truth that the law did not condemn her. This passage has nothing to do with the forgiveness of sin, but rather the condemnation of criminal behavior. Jesus told her “go and sin no more (vs. 11).”

Dr. Alan Keyes and Barack Obama Debate the Death Penalty & Abortion (2004)

The New Testament and the Death Penalty

Does the New Testament of the Bible Support the Death Penalty?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Not Sure
See results without voting

Turn the Other Cheek

Another passage often ripped from its context is the phrase “turn the other cheek,” the passage in Mat. 5:38-39 which says,

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Some opponents will say that we must not use the DP but must “turn the other cheek.” The problems with the use of this verse in this context is that opponents selectively use this only to apply to capital punishment; they don’t use it for all crimes. Do opponents want us to “turn the other cheek” when it comes to employers denying a job based on gender, pro life demonstrators that obstruct a woman’s entrance into an abortuary, or teacher-led prayer in schools?

Opponents sometimes portray Jesus as revealing a radical ethic when he tells people to turn the other cheek. But this was not a new ethic; it was an old one, as old as the Levitical Code. Both the OT and the NT taught that men should not to seek personal revenge. It is Leviticus 19:18 that says

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Furthermore, Solomon said in Prov. 24:29

Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work.

Jesus is giving an individual ethic of forgiveness and a method for handling problems. Sometime we have to bite the bullet in order to improve relations with others. Turning the other cheek will often do that. However, this does not apply to those areas that are beyond our obligation to forgive. If a person is physically assaulted, he should forgive the assailant for the wrong done to him. At the same time, that victim should fully cooperate with authorities so that the assailant can be punished by authorities, discouraging or stopping him from harming others the way they harmed him.

Finally, Jesus is talking to individuals, not officials. Jesus is not giving an ethic for government when he says “turn the other cheek.” It’s not the state’s role to forgive, but to punish, to act as a terror to evil doers (Romans 13:3-4). The government is not to "turn the other cheek" by releasing murderers, rapists, or kidnappers.

An Act of Vengeance

Since 9-11 much has been said about whether or not governments should pursue vengeance against their enemies. Some opponents say that government should not pursue vengeance because vengeance belongs to God. Rather, governments should seek to reform and reconcile with its foes. Very often, the passage given is the one in Romans 12:19 which reads:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Opponents are right when applying this passage to individuals. We should not seek retaliation for the personal wrongs we experience.

The passage follows by saying “but rather give place unto wrath.” What does “give place unto wrath” mean? The next chapter (Romans 13) tells us. The proper “place” for wrath is civil government which calls the government “a revenger to execute wrath upon them that doeth evil (Romans 13:4).” So the state is the proper place for wrath and its role, in part, is to terrorize those that do evil.

In a society where elected officials provoke more terror against praying school children than they do jihadists, you’ll have innocent people fleeing: schools, buses, cafes—to escape bombings and shootings. But if government will do its job and pursue the terrorists and invoke terror on them, then the terrorists will be doing the fleeing: fleeing to another country, or to a cave somewhere in Afghanistan.

The civil authority acts as a terrorizing agent against “evildoers.” While in our individual capacity we are called upon to forgive and show mercy, the government has no such responsibility. There simply is no role for the state to forgive wrongdoing. Rather, it's to use the sword on those that would terrorize the innocent.

Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword

A further objection to the DP by opponents comes from Jesus’ admonition to Peter when Peter used a sword to cut off Malchus’ ear (John 18:10). Jesus told Peter that “those that live by the sword die by the sword.” Opponents have interpreted this as Jesus’ chastising Peter for using violence. On this point, I’d agree with them. However, keep in mind that Jesus is talking to Peter who is not a state official. This advice is sound: if you live a violent life, you are likely to die violently. Consider the gang member or thug in organized crime. When people get involved in these cliques, their chances of dying a violent death go up.

Jesus’ words can also be taken as a truism. As a general rule, those that live by the sword do die by the sword. Soldiers, for example, use deadly force and often die by deadly force. The same can be said for police officers. But when speaking to Peter, Jesus is not speaking to a public official. In fact, Jesus never condemns a peace officer for being a peace officer. Jesus praised a centurion for his faith, saying that “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” But Peter was not a soldier or a peace officer. So there's no conflict with Romans 13 which sanctions a state that imposes terror on evil doers.

Conclusion

In conclusion, opponents of the DP lack a solid defense from the NT for their position. Passages that discourage retaliation and vengeance are given to people in their individual capacities. However, at the same time the state bears the responsibility to pursue those that terrorize the innocent. The state should pursue such people, and in some cases, kill them.

More by this Author


Comments 20 comments

Sanxuary 3 years ago

Its always about learning the lesson and learning the guide lines. Why is murder wrong? Because it is stealing the time allowed on Earth for us to make a decision to grow and mature spiritually. Stealing someone's time from them is not good. Then there is the abomination or pretending to be something you our not. If you no longer have a soul, then God really will not miss you. When you have stolen the time of others you probably have no soul worth saving on Gods terms. If you can stand before the judge and take full responsibility for a serial killer and any future actions they may take. Then you may take that person home and if the person kills someone, you can die with that person. I do not think very many people are willing to do that for a killer. I can tell you that I would put my life on the line if I saw someone being killed however. I bet any innocent people who perished at Sodom and Gomorrah are impressed that the story is still being told today. Then again God may have never saw anything worthy of being called his creation living there.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 4 years ago Author

dbrown,

Thank you for this very thoughtful reply. As for the death row captain, implementing the death penalty would be a very traumatic event and I think we would not want people who have no feeling when putting someone to death. In some ways your story is refreshing: this man has a soul and he apparently cares about people.

Trauma affects different people in different ways. Our national history is replete with soldiers who come back from war and have a difficult time readjusting to normal life after having to do horrible things abroad. Some don't make it; the horrors of war gnaw at them within.

However, I do think that both the death penalty and war are inevitable and are necessary for civilization to continue. In the Old Testament, the Israelites had rules about the men that would go out and fight in the war. Not everyone was "drafted." Men who were just newly-married were not to go out and fight. Those that were naturally fearful or timid were also not enjoined to fight. Perhaps the man you mentioned should not have been in this particular occupation.

As for judges, police officers, and congressmen, yes, they do these things and sometimes they get caught; sometimes they don't. But that can be said about any segment of society. Sometimes the perp gets away with the deed; sometimes he doesn't.


dbrown 4 years ago

I watched a program last night about two young men that murdered three people in Conroe, Texas. Subsequent to being found guilty in separate trials, one of the murderers was given the death penalty and the second was given life. In Texas, there is not a penalty such as life without parole. A life sentence is defined as not less than 25 years.

The program called, "Into the Abyss", interviewed a Chaplain assigned to the ever infamous "Walls" Unit in Hunstsville, Texas; a death row Captain at the same unit; each one of the family members involved; the convicted and the family members of the convicted.

The most compelling of the interviews took place with the death row Captain. He was sitting in the living room of his own home dressed in civilian clothes. He was a large man, as it seemed, that could barely speak in efforts to control the tremors in his words. He was terrified.

The man spoke of procedures and schedules, last showers, last meals and last words. He reported processing death for over 125 death row inmates in his career. He wasn't an old man, perhaps in his 50's. He reported times that two or three death row convicts were processed for their respective demise a week.

The gentleman's last execution was that of a woman, the only woman that had ever been executed to that date in the state of Texas. The Captain processed that woman as he would any of his other death penalty recipients. But somehow her death effected the prison guard. He reported hallucinations, sweating, and tremors. Even in the interview you could see the distress on his face and hear it in his speech. The man quit his job immediately, giving up all of his pension.

I felt for him.

I really dont care one way or the other about the death penalty. It doesn't effect me because I am not a killer or a robber or anything that would put me in that place. What I worry about most is trusting that our judicial system is of sound ethical position to issue a death penalty.

Are we sure that our judges haven't murdered; that our police officers haven't robbed; that our congressman havent't raped?


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 4 years ago Author

The thrust of my article was to counter a misunderstanding often made by liberal Christians that the death penalty is allowable under the Old Testament economy, but the coming of Christianity negates this prior system. My point is that it does nothing of the kind. I believe both Old and New Testaments have to be taken together and, when you do that, there are no passages in the New Testament that remove the penalty of death for serious crimes. Romans 13 (in the New Testament) speaks of the state as bearing the "sword" and that state agents are "revengers" who execute "wrath" on "evil doers." When it comes to criminals, the state's role is primarily retributive.

As for your question, I don't have sufficient knowledge to answer it. My simplistic answer is that if they don't believe in God, they should. Communist states can't be held up as a model to which we should aspire. Throughout the world, many people have rejected the Marxist prison-states for believe in God and freedom.


Saleemayoub profile image

Saleemayoub 4 years ago

If I correctly understood your article,it is for the daeth penalty in compliance with religious teachings. My question is what those who do not "believe" in any religion such as the communists or Bhudists usaully do to deal with their own criminals? Thank you for your patience.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 4 years ago Author

Saleem, thanks for reading, but I'm not sure that I understand your question. Could you possibly rephrase it?


Saleemayoub profile image

Saleemayoub 4 years ago

I read this hub after I noticed it on the list of related hubs.I cannot say I know much about the OT or the NT because I am of a different faith.

But I have a question. What other nations who subscribe to other ideologies or faiths do in this regard, such as Japan, China and India? They also have crimes and criminals and all that stuff.

They also have the similar questions to those you have.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 5 years ago Author

Mrs Dee, thank you for your encouraging words. Best wishes on hubpages.


Ms Dee profile image

Ms Dee 5 years ago from Texas, USA

Excellent essay! Laws do not mean anything without a penalty or penalties. I see in the experiences/stories told in the Bible that God has given the responsibility to rulers--the state--to uphold the laws by carrying out their punishments. This is a carrying out of God's vengeance for breaking His laws; for example, do not murder. Thanks for this post showing how little evidence there is from the NT for opposing the DP!


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Good one.

~:}


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 6 years ago Author

OD

Tablet form? What did you want to do, take two tablets and call the doctor?!


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Thou shalt not kill.

We might have the exact wording of the commandment, but we don't have it in tablet form.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 6 years ago Author

Thanks for reading lionswelp. Couldn't agree more...


lionswhelp profile image

lionswhelp 6 years ago

Bibowen,

Good subject. Nations have their own governments to deal with those that commit crimes. Judges decide if death is needed according to the offense by the perpetrator. This is good to keep people safe from those that would wreak havoc among a civlized population and is surely needed at times. The DP discourages crime against humanity. God Almighty expects us to use force to meet force from people that commit them. Even God Almighty will execute judgement on the unrepentant, Psalm 149:5-9;125:4-5; 110:5-6; Revelation 20:11-15, Romans 13:1-5.


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 6 years ago Author

Lest,

Did you have a point by listing each of these offenses (BTW, thanks for the list)? The point of my essay was that the death penalty is not nullified by the NT; the essay was not a vindication of each OT offense and its corresponding punishment. Thanks for reading.


Lest 6 years ago

The Bible requires death penalty for the following sins:

Failing to circumcise - Gen. 17:14; Ex. 4:24,25.

Eating leavened bread during feast of unleavened bread - Ex.

2:15,19.

Smiting Parents- Ex. 21:15.

Kidnapping - Ex. 21:16; Deut. 24:7.

Murder - Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14,20,23; Lev. 24:17,21; Num. 35:16-34; Deut. 19.

Cursing Parents - Ex. 21:17; Lev. 20:9.

Negligence with animals that kill - Ex. 21:28-32.

Witchcraft - Ex. 22:18.

Bestiality - Ex. 22:19; Lev. 18:23-29; 20:15,16.

Idolatry - Ex. 22:20.

Making holy anointing oil - Ex. 30:33.

Putting holy anointing oil on strangers - Ex. 30:33.

Making the holy perfume - Ex. 30:38.

Defiling the Sabbath - Ex. 31:14.

Working on the Sabbath - Ex. 35:2.

Eating the flesh of the peace offerings in

uncleanness - Lev. 7:20,21.

Eating the fat of sacrifices - Lev. 7:25.

Killing sacrifices other than at the door of the tabernacle - Lev. 17:1-9.

Eating blood - Lev. 17:10-14.

Incest - Lev. 18:6-29; 20:11-22.

Eating sacrifices at the wrong time - Lev. 19:5-8.

Consecration of children to idols - Lev. 20:1-5.

Spiritualism - Lev. 20:6,27.

Adultery - Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-30.

Sodomy/Homosexuality - Lev. 20:13.

Relationship with a menstruous woman - Lev. 20:18.

Whoredom - Lev. 21:9; Deut. 22:21,22.

Sacrilege - Lev. 22:3.

Refusing to fast on day of atonement - Lev. 23:29.

Working on atonement - Lev. 23:30.

Blasphemy - Lev. 24:11-16.

Failure to keep the Passover - Num. 9:13.

Presumptuous - Num. 15:30,31.

Gathering firewood on the Sabbath - Num. 15:32,36.

Failure to purify self before worship - Num. 19:13,20.

False prophecy - Deut. 13:1-18; 18:20.

Leading men away from God - Deut. 13:6-18.

Stubbornness and rebelliousness - Deut. 21:18-23.

Gluttony - Deut. 21:20-23.

Drunkenness - Deut. 21:20-23.

Backbiting - Deut. 17:2-7.

False dreams and visions - Deut. 13:1-18.


creativeone59 profile image

creativeone59 6 years ago from Gold Canyon, Arizona

Thank you for true word of God, but you know, sometimes we will be judged for his words and we have to stand on his word, no matter how mean people can be to us. I don't believe in killing, this changed in the new testament to vengeance is mine. God said it and I believe it. thank you for sharing a Godly and positive hub with us. Godspeed. creativeone59


quietnessandtrust profile image

quietnessandtrust 7 years ago from Carbon Canyon, California

Yeah man, I know it is not the states job, should have mentioned that.

I was just pointing it out is all, because God is for sure a just Judge.

He takes no hogwash from anyone. He is patient to though.

I think the church as a whole would be a lot better off if she did what Messiah said and purged out people who were acting immoral instead of just turning away and ignoring it in the name of tolerance or seeker friendliness.

Take care and beware!


Bibowen profile image

Bibowen 7 years ago Author

Thank you. I agree with what you say above. Not everything from the OT should apply, but certainly the OT provides the basis for the most just and humane system of law. Murderers, rapists, and kidknappers should be put to death; thieves should be made to pay back what they owe. None of these should be locked up. The prison system is based on the wrong premises. Cages are for animals, not men. Cages should be used for men only on a temporary basis; it is a loser when it is used as a form of punishment.

As for lying to the Holy Spirit, that doesn't apply to my topic since that was a divine act of God, not of man. There is no role for the state to put a man to death for "lying to the Holy Spirit."

Thanks for the encouraging words.


quietnessandtrust profile image

quietnessandtrust 7 years ago from Carbon Canyon, California

Excellent Bibowen!!! Fantastic and well written brother!!!

I believed every word of this and speak the same way as you can well imagine after seeing my posts in many a forum. :-)

We do not talk the same, but believe the same! Or so I think. :-[}

I think our jails and prisons are to much like a Disneyland and criminals do not fear going enough. I think that if we had biblical law for criminals, the crime would drop 90% perhaps. So many things in the laws of God are for the eradication of evil and are pretty much laughed at by the same people who cry about atrocities all over the land, ours and other lands!

For rape, you should die (if you rape an engaged girl that is, other severe penalties apply if they are virgins or not married or married), for stealing, you should be made to replace it 2 or 3 fold not go to jail, that good is that?, if you damage property, you fix it, kill or maim someones animal, give them 2 back etc...

One thing you did not mention is that in the NT the death penalty was enforced for lying to the Holy Spirit. Not funny! I wonder what would happen if people started dropping dead at church for certain things. For sure nobody would just come and "join the church" like it was a Netflix membership.

i do not want to pay for criminal to go to jail, I want them to work and pay for the offense with the labor and or money. Not just sit in a jail doing nothing and getting all the stuff they get for free!!! What sort of punishment is that?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working