Does the Bible Support Capital Punishment?

Summary

Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.

Point one: in principle, a biblical case — Genesis 9 and the perfect judge

• The question posed (in the host's frame): many countries around the world have abolished the death penalty, but the U.S. remains a notable exception (as the frame has it). And the critics, named in the frame, like to point out that we're on a list that includes countries named in the frame — nations that maybe are not exactly recognized, for what we call enlightened governance. Now, in the U.S., we should note: there are concerns, that the sentencing process, for capital punishment cases, is often tainted by racism. That's the charge. As a Christian: how should we address this topic, of capital punishment? Is there any biblical support, for the death penalty? Or is capital punishment a barbaric relic of the past, that we should work to abolish? The answer: let me say: I think that Christians can have legitimate conscientious differences of opinion, on this subject. And that, you know, we have Christian liberty, to agree to disagree. But I do want to make two important points, that I hope we can all agree upon. The first point: in principle, the Bible does provide a case, for capital punishment, in certain cases. So: if you go to Genesis chapter 9, it reminds us that humans are created, in the image of God. So therefore, if someone kills someone, they're actually attacking, and attempting to destroy, God's image creature ('God's image creature', as spoken). And as a result, Genesis 9 says: if you do that, then you will suffer the same consequence. If you shed blood, in destroying God's image creature, your blood will be shed. So there is a biblical basis, on the grounds of justice, that if you kill someone, it is just, for you to suffer the punishment of capital punishment. So there's the theological basis. Of course, I would hasten to add: God is the perfect judge. He created life. He has power to take life. He can judge us. He knows the heart. He knows the circumstances. He knows any justifications, or exceptions. And so he is able to issue perfect judgment. So, in the case of a true theocracy, where God is the ruler: we can say capital punishment is just. So I do believe there's a case, for that.

Scriptures: Genesis 9

But human administration is imperfect — inequality, delay, and the innocent

• The problem is: humans are imperfect. And as you pointed out, often capital punishment is not administered properly, or correctly ('correctively', as heard). And so: some of the regimes that you mentioned — they deny human liberties; they take away human liberties; and they oppress good people. And so they use capital punishment, for evil. And so that's why we certainly wouldn't want to support that. But then, even in a just society — or a society that attempts to be just and fair, as the U.S. tries to do — many times, justice is administered unequally. So there can be racial prejudice. But I think also, one factor that's not noted as much, is: there can be disparities, due to poverty. So people that are poor — which is often correlated with race — they can't afford lawyers. They can't — they don't understand the process. They don't have the right defenses. Or they're looked down upon, because of their poverty, and social circumstances. And so there does seem to be a disproportionate application, of the death penalty — certainly with regard to people, who are poor. And then, as it's administered today, there can be an extremely long time, between the sentence and the execution. And it can seem arbitrary. It's just the luck of the draw. You go 20, 25 years, multiple appeals to different judges, different courts. And it can seem random. It's like a toss of the coin, of whether somebody's going to find a loophole, somewhere along the way, and somebody's not. So it doesn't seem fair: if people who've committed the same type of crime — and they both escape the consequences, for 20 or 25 years — that doesn't seem fair. So if the death penalty is fair, it doesn't seem fair, to do that. And then: some may even die, waiting for the death penalty. Others may get off, on a technicality, or loophole. And one is executed, the other is not, when the circumstances are the same. And so, if you're going to have that kind of system, it seems it should be fair, towards everyone. The time should be greatly limited. There should be appeals. But there should be an orderly, fair process, that's fair to the victims, and their families, as well. It's fair to a sense of justice, as well. Another danger, of course, is that no human judgment is perfect. And so: what happens, if you execute an innocent person? There have been people that at least have been suspected, that that happened. And certainly there have been many cases, where people have been on death row, for years, and finally — through new evidence, through DNA, through subsequent admission of prosecutorial wrongdoing (just wanting to get a conviction, wanting to win), or even testimony of witnesses, that either had their own agenda, of escaping justice themselves, or protecting someone else, or misunderstanding, or wanting vengeance — just cooperating with what they thought — there have been cases ('there have been k cases', as the letters stand), where innocent people have been exonerated. And of course, I think our system is designed — and I think should be designed, in terms of justice — that we'd rather see, you know, 10 people go free, guilty people go free, than one person be executed. Now, if it's a limited sentence, you might feel a little more philosophical, that sometimes innocent people do suffer. But at least there's life, after the suffering. But with execution, that's a permanent consequence, that nothing could ever compensate. So: the person that's unfairly imprisoned can be released, and can be compensated ('can become stated financially', as heard). But the person executed: nothing can be done. So that means, that our imperfect human society, we should look very carefully, at the administration of capital punishment. So I personally feel: it should be very rare, for extreme, clear crimes. Even from a point of view of justice, you might say: murder. But I would say: where there are very grossly aggravating circumstances. And which — that's usually the case, under U.S. law: there have to be some additional — not just the mere fact, of taking someone's life. But the manner, the extremity, the violation of all human standards. And, you know, usually against law enforcement, judges, and, you know, aggravated torture, etc., et cetera, et cetera. And so it should be rare. It should be limited, for the most clear cases, the most egregious cases. There should be a standard process of appeal, that's not unlimited, but it's reasonable. Long enough to ensure justice, to ensure the right decision. But yet not so long, as to be arbitrary, whimsical, and no deterrence — because, for all practical purpose, no one can foresee the consequences. So that would indicate a very strict, rare system.

Mercy inside the law itself — David, and the woman caught in adultery

• And you might say: well, in the Bible, they executed people, for all kinds of things. But I think you have to understand: the Old Testament — God was giving principles. And he was showing how wrong sin is, and how evil it is, and how it cuts off people, from God. It cuts off people, from society. And how the death penalty is just. However: even in the Old Testament, it seems that mercy was given, far more than one might expect. That just because the law, in principle, said it would be just, to execute someone: that doesn't mean, in every case — or even the majority of cases — it was always implemented. The example of King David, who obviously committed adultery — which, the penalty was death. Yet he found mercy, in God's sight. He did wrong. He suffered consequences, in his family, the rest of his life. But he did pray a prayer of repentance: Psalm 51 (named in the answer; see the note on this record), a beautiful prayer of repentance. God honored that. So even when it was justice, God himself offered mercy. We find that, in the New Testament, in John chapter 8: the woman who was caught, in the act of adultery. Again, under the law, she could be executed. It seems that was probably very rare, if it even happened, at the time of Christ. Because the Jewish religious leaders tried to catch the Lord, in that. So they said: here's a woman; she's caught, in the very act of adultery. So here, there's zero question, about guilt. So you don't have to worry about: is this unjust — you know, how do we know for sure? They said: she's guilty. And the law is clear. She deserves to die. So: what do you say? Now, if the law was routinely implemented, at that time, it wouldn't have been much of an issue. It wouldn't have been a hard question, for Jesus. Or it would have made him look bad. But obviously, they were trying to put him to the test — that he was going to give an answer, that was going to be so offensive to people, that he would lose his credibility. And of course, he wisely said, you know: whoever's without sin, cast the first stone. And so they all left, because none of them could say, they were without sin. And it was obviously a setup. Because if she was caught, in the very act: well, there's a man, that's equally guilty. So why didn't they bring him? So already, they were being unjust. But then Jesus did not say, she wasn't deserving of the penalty. But he told her: neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. So he said: it's just, that you would suffer consequences. But I'm going to offer you mercy.

Scriptures: John 8

Point two: government may, but the Christian opts for mercy

• And so here's my second main point. I do believe that, in rare cases, society does have the right, to institute capital punishment. So we might have different opinions, of: when it would be just; when it would be appropriate; what would be the right process; what is fair. Can it be implemented fairly, without discrimination, without racism, without disadvantaging the poor, et cetera, et cetera? So all those are legitimate debates. So even if we say: yes, in principle, there are some crimes deserving of death — but we still have many discussions, about what's appropriate, today, in our culture, since we're not a theocracy. But then, my second point would be: as Christians, we opt for mercy. So, while we recognize people deserving of death — and when I read of some horrible crimes, of child torture and murder, or, you know, mass murder, or a direct attack upon the fabric of our society — killing of police officers, and judges (children as a class, among the victims — see the note on this record) — and, you know, I read some of these very horrendous crimes: I say, that person deserves to die. But: if I, as a Christian, and a minister, if I'm offered an opportunity, to minister in prison, I want to do that. And I've done that, many times. And if someone is on death row, then I want to minister to them ('I want to mention them', as heard). I had a cousin, who was in church, in the early part of his life, but didn't live for God. Got involved in drugs, etc., etc. And, in rage, he killed his wife, and her mother and father. Killed three people. He was put on death row. He never was executed. He eventually died, in prison. And he did go to a United Pentecostal prison ministry service. So I hope there was a good ending. But here is a man that I would say: by the law of the state, as well as the law of God, he was deserving of death. But I personally didn't want to kill him. And I didn't want to see him executed. I wanted to see him saved. So there have been times I've gone into a prison, and I could say: this person, that I'm trying to teach a Bible study to, or that I'm preaching to, I'm praying for, I'm trying to get them to receive the Holy Ghost — they deserve to die. But I'm glad they're not dead yet. I'm glad my job is to minister the gospel. So if you're asking me: would I vote to kill them? If you're asking me: would I sign up, for the job of being the executioner — would I flip the switch, on the electric chair? I would say: no. I would say: I have a conscientious objection to that. Even though I recognize, that it would be just, for society to do this. I don't think I should participate, because I'm trying to save a life, and save a soul. Now, some would say: well, that's a cop-out. You're — you want other people to do the dirty work, but you're not willing. But I say: no. I think that's part of being a Christian, in a secular society. We recognize the secular society ('the second secular society', as heard) has certain rights, of justice. But we also, as Christians — we want to operate redemptively, within our secular society. So some Christians might conclude: well, we shouldn't have capital punishment, because all of us should have that redemptive attitude. Or because the death penalty cannot be perfectly instituted. Or other Christians might say: you know what — the Bible does support the concept. And in some cases, it's fair, and just. And, yeah, let's give them years of opportunity. But in the end, let's execute justice. So there are two different opinions. But where I personally would say, is: yes — the society — as, you know, government is instituted by God. And yes, government does have the right, to implement capital punishment, in certain circumstances. However: as a Christian, as an individual, I'm always going to pray and act, on the side of redemption, mercy, and trying to save a soul.

Scripture index: Genesis 9; John 8.