A Scriptural View of Capitol Punishment and Civil Disobedience
(Two issues that need each other to reach a satisfactory conclusion)
Two position papers in one by Jon Marsden
There is a lot of killing in the Bible. Even from the very beginning when Cain kills Abel, God’s created, His image bearers are killing each other and being killed by their creator. So what does the bible have to say about the role of justice in killing? If someone murders one of my children, do I have the right to retaliate? Is the justice department justified in sentencing a murderer or rapist to the electric chair? While the old testament may seem to suggest the rightness of capitol punishment, does the new testament share this view? I believe that a close look at the scriptures can point us to an answer that not only purveys true justice, but also allows societal interpretation in order to ultimately bring glory to God.
Genesis 9:6 (ESV) “Whoever sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”
The stage is set and the standard declared. It is clear that if you kill that you should be killed. There is no gray in this black and white statement. Only nine chapters in and we know what to do with murderers. While we do not know where this would inevitably stop (if a man kills a man, then a man should kill him but now that man has killed a man so another man should kill him and so on...) we at least know where to start. If this isn’t clear enough, we get it again in Exodus 12:12 (ESV) “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death...” and again in Leviticus 24:17 (ESV) “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.” and in Numbers, and in Deuteronomy, we can’t help but see how God feels about what to do with those who murder.
The sixth commandment (do not murder) seems to stand in stark contrast to this idea. Isn’t murdering a person the same as murdering the person who murdered the person? Has a murdered murderer been murdered by a murderer murdering to avenge the murder committed by the murderer? Okay, I am taking it a bit too far, but I think the question lies in the word Murder. The Hebrew term used here is ratsakh. It’s meaning is broader than the word we use for murder and is never used when describing the kind of killing we see in war. It refers more to human death caused by carelessness or negligence. So if we are to look at the subject of capitol punishment from an old testament standpoint, we will have to look at killing apart from murder. They are not the same. We do not see God murder, however we do see him kill. Assuming the authority is law paradigm, we know that God’s laws are always consistent with his character and must then conclude that there are times that killing is permissible.
The laws that God gives to Moses at Sinai provide explanation to God’s intention in the idea of permissible killing. These laws were to help govern Israel in the promised land and thus were situational in accordance with relevant issues that the nation would face. They were in effect civil laws, designed to work in the nation of Israel at that specific time in history. They were never meant to be instituted in other cultures or even other time periods, rather, they were designed to promote the purity and well being of God’s chosen people. This old testament event, provides the groundwork for what we see Paul speak of later on in the new testament.
Romans 13:1-14 (ESV) Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
Most people have heard that Christians are to be subject to authority, but we get uneasy at the idea of it going further than imprisonment for stealing, or fines and community service for alcohol use as a minor. The idea that resisting authority is to “resist what God has appointed.” doesn’t sit well with most of us and always brings up thoughts of tyrannical governments, Stalin and Hitler. But this wasn’t written to a culture in the midst of intense persecution and obvious tyranny. The most probable source of strife in the church in Rome was the integration of Jewish Christians into the mostly Gentile Christian congregations... cultural diversity. So let’s not get sidetracked on a very different subject and see ourselves to be in a very similar situation to that of the Christians in Rome.
The Roman officials were not all Christian. The laws were not all based in Judaea-Christian ethics and the people of Rome shared a variety of different belief systems with the worship of many different Gods being common. So it is in this setting that Paul states plainly that one should follow the law, for to follow the civil laws was also to follow God’s law. So the idea of submission to the law of God is expanded into the civil laws in the specific time and place in which you live. Not that these laws should not be looked at critically, tested and changed accordingly, but that as long as they are active, they should be followed. Apparently, Jesus felt the same way about civil law. In John 19:11, After Jesus was betrayed and delivered to the authorities, he says; “You would have no authority over me at all unless it had been given you from above. Therefore he who delivered me over to you has the greater sin.”
Both the old and the new testament have examples of the validity of the use of death as a punishment with the only caveat being the institution of a non-tyrannical civil government. Therefore in the setting I know best (USA) I agree with the government’s proper use of the death penalty and I believe that both the old and the new testament agree with the idea of capitol punishment... at least in places where the governing authorities deem it culpable.
But now let’s look back at the big question that I asked the reader to submerge earlier in this essay. Isn’t it unsafe to simply accept that what the government says is the word of God? Does the bible teach that civil disobedience is a sin? What if the authorities are in direct conflict with what we know to be true in the scriptures?
Acts 5:29 (ESV) “We must obey God rather than men.”
Again, for a proper understanding of this statement by Peter, we must take it in context. The Sadducees had Peter and the Apostles arrested for speaking in the name of Jesus. The apostles had been performing many great works and were spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The scriptures speak of the “many signs and wonders” that were done by these men, and now they were being held captive for the message they were propounding and the works that they were doing. They were faced with a decision of following civil law or following the command of Jesus to fulfill the great commission. In this case, the right thing to do was pretty black and white, and Peter proclaimed the truth boldly. In response, the authorities had them beaten and released, charging them not to continue doing and saying the things that they were doing and saying, and of course, they again disobeyed the authorities and kept about the father’s business.
The old testament is also full of stories such as these. Daniel, not bowing down to worship the king, but instead worshiping the one true God. Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who were thrown into a furnace for not bowing to worship a golden statue and even the three wise men who followed the star to find the promised savior and disobeyed the king by not returning to tell him where they found Jesus. Incidents where black and white is very black and white and the choice is between following a directive from the word of God or an opposite command from an earthly law source that was obviously the direct opposite of right and good. Could it be that these are the only cases in which the ideas expressed by Paul in Romans 13 are deemed inappropriate?
I think the answer lies in the systems within the government that allow or disallow reform. Historian and moralist Lord Acton’s most famous quote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” We see this repeatedly in the history of the kings of the nation of Israel as time after time we see them being evil in the sight of the Lord. The idea of accountability lies only within the prophets who advise the kings. History here saw these prophets often ignored and even at times put to death as the kings avoided accountability from God. In the new testament Paul’s words in Romans 13 can be seen as a warning to authority as well as a plea to follow that authority as though it was from God. The charge to officials is that they are appointed by God and that they should not be “a terror to good conduct”. Officials are “God’s servant(s) for your good.”
If the structure of the government supports the idea that officials are servants of God for the good of the people, than there would need to be a system by which these men could be held accountable, both to the word of God as well as the people that they govern. If the system of accountability were being eliminated or had never been established, the possibility for that system to be in direct opposition to God greatly increases. It is in these situations that acts of civil disobedience may be appropriate, whether it be on the state level, national level or even within the structure of your place of occupation (although you should expect to lose your job if you do choose this route!)
As I wrote this essay, I became quickly aware that the idea of capitol punishment opened up questions about other ethical topics that would need to be discussed in order to better come to a conclusion that was acceptable. The one most closely related and needing discussion in order to accept the conclusion that was reached about capitol punishment was the idea of civil disobedience, which would need to be explored since the strongest argument for the permissibility of capitol punishment was that of following the civil laws. What if these laws were created by lawless tyrants? What if justice in the area in question was no longer just? What then of Capitol punishment. Therefore, the second topic had to be discussed at further length in order to bring proper closure to the first. In conclusion, the Bible seems to suggest that capitol punishment is permissible and even supported by scripture as a means of enforcing the laws of civil government. However, in the case of a governmental system that is in direct contrast to the will of God, the civil government should be disobeyed and the capitol punishment standards of that particular culture may no longer be culpable.
No comments:
Post a Comment