The following is a paper on capital punishment that I just wrote for my ethics class.
Introduction
To gain a biblical view of capital punishment we must resist the temptation to turn scripture into a repository of timeless truths from which we can pluck applicable portions as needed. American history particularly signals this danger with the topic at hand.[1] Much of the popular theological debate surrounding capital punishment relies too heavily on a variety of overly simplistic, anachronistic, and muddled proof-texts. This harms the church and its ability to thoughtfully engage with complicated issues. Instead, we must see ourselves in the grand story of God as he renews his fallen creation and live out that reality by looking back to the story thus far and in anticipation of the end of the story ahead.[2] By tracing capital punishment as it unfolds in the Old Testament and sees fulfillment in Jesus and the Spirit in the New Testament, abolition will surface as the only appropriate Christian response to capital punishment.[3]
Setting the Story in Motion
The story begins with God and his good creation. Death has not entered the scene yet, but looms just over the horizon. God and his people, dwelling together in God’s chosen place, this is the great opening of the story that we must always begin with. The story takes a turn for the worse as humanity turns from God. But God does not end the story there with full judgment. Though punishment comes quickly for humanity’s offense, God demonstrates the coupling of his grace and justice early on in the story. Humanity surely deserves complete obliteration, but God holds back complete judgment. The promise of death to those who eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Gen. 2:17 is not fully realized yet. Death has come in human separation from God and the resulting exile, but he withholds death’s full power.
This theme continues with Cain and Abel as the first murder in the story unfolds. Cain’s murder of his brother Abel certainly leaves him deserving immediate death, but God does not unleash the full deserved punishment on him. The punishment for the crime does not, however, land lightly. Cain cries out to God, “My punishment is greater than I can bear…and whoever finds me will kill me,” (Gen 4:13-14). God marks Cain for his own protection and sends him away from his presence. This unfolding of the story amplifies the previous chapter; God’s people reject him and punishment quickly follows–exile–but its full extent is graciously withheld. Instead, the deserved punishment of death reduces to exile.[4]
The Start of the Story, Again
God’s gracious withholding of judgment does not last long. Soon man’s evil prompts God to wipe clean the known earth with the flood. Through his chosen survivor, Noah, God makes new promises that expand from the creation mandates. Echoes of Gen. 1 ring with new sounds, but among these the chiastic command to return the shedding of man’s blood upon those who shed man’s blood rests between the reverberations of “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 9:1,7). This pre-Mosaic prohibitive warning sounds as the clarion call of those who support an enduring mandate for capital punishment, and thus stands as the first murky course to navigate.
Gen. 9:6 towers as the most potent of the retentionists OT arguments, for if this text establishes the punishment of death for murderers, and if this endures through Jesus’ fulfillment of the law, then abolitionists have little ground to stand upon. H. Wayne House puts forth the most clear argument for a retentionist position based on Gen. 9:6.[5] House argues that this text is both legislatively universal in scope and prescriptive in nature. Later in the same volume, co-author John Howard Yoder counters that this text is not legislation, but rather wisdom.[6] The first problem with House is treatment of covenant language. Portions of OT literature such as these, even if they are still binding through today, must be read as stipulations of a covenant agreement, not as a treatise of jurisprudence.[7] Commentators also remain divided on the precise intent of this verse.[8] Such uncertainty should caution us from relying too heavily this verse as a proof-text, regardless of the conclusion. Though this is the first time God speaks directly concerning capital punishment, we will see later that it is clearly not the last.
Justice and the Covenant Community
Though Gen. 9:6 opens the OT’s dealing with capital punishment, the remaining OT texts concerning the issue come through the Mosaic legislation. Much of the debate focuses on the mandates contained in the Mosaic law. Though that path remains well-worn and worth traversing, we will spend much of our time examining how the covenant community integrated such mandates into the life of the community. Such an approach should not end in, “now go and do likewise,” but will hopefully prove useful for seeing continuity from creation to the new creation in God’s story.
The first recorded use of capital punishment within the covenant community occurs in Lev. 24. The son of an Israelite woman blasphemes the Name and curses as he fought with a man of Israel. The people bring him to Moses, “and they put him in custody, till the will of the Lord should be clear to them.” (v.12). The Lord speaks to Moses, commanding him to tell the people to stone the blasphemer, and ,“thus the people of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” (v.23). For a people that had received the Mosaic law with an abundance of warnings of death for various transgressions, they seem reticent to quickly enforce justice.
A similar scene unfolds in Num. 15:32-36. The witnesses of a Sabbath-breaker bring him to Moses, Aaron, and the rest of the congregation. They keep the man in custody because it was not clear what they should do. The Lord then speaks and they bring the man outside the camp and stone him. Again the story repeats, Moses and the people take no action until receiving a word from the Lord.
A different story plays out in 1 Kings 21:1-16 with the stoning of Naboth. The people know no hesitation in dealing justice as Naboth finds himself the target of false charges. King Ahab desires Naboth’s vineyard but his offers of purchase receive complete rejection by Naboth. Pouting turns to conniving as Ahab and his wife Jezebel conspire to bring false charges against Naboth in the presence of the people. The root of the entire proceedings stems from the greed of Ahab rather than a zeal for true justice.
The next scene of God’s people stoning one of their own comes in Joshua 7:1-26 with the sin of Achan. The Lord declares to Joshua that Israel has sinned by taking some of the “devoted things” that they were commanded not to take from the victory at Jericho. Careful to administer justice on behalf of the Lord, Joshua elicits a confession from Achan. Joshua metes out justice fairly, even in light of Achan’s true confession, which stands in sharp contrast to the false charges brought against Naboth. Joshua sends his messengers, confirming Achan’s admittance of guilt, and then gathers the people and stones Achan.
Two notes must be made at this juncture regarding these examples. First, where justice is administered rightly, the people do not act until receiving a word from the Lord. Caution and reticence prominently stand with proper justice. Ahab and Jezebel’s justice defy this standard with their acting apart from God’s command. Second, a pattern of pronouncement, exile, and then execution emerges.
Though the main focus must rest on the examples of justice meted out by death in the OT, a brief look must be had at a handful of examples where capital punishment is permissible, though absent. The story of Cain and Abel was noted as the first recorded murder and the first opting for life over death where death surely is the justly deserved outcome. But Cain does not stand alone as a prominent character in the story who is shown mercy. Moses slays an Egyptian, but God does not punish him. Repeating the fate of Cain, God sends Moses into exile, a continuing theme for God’s people.[9] David has Uriah killed in battle, but again, God does not punish him with death. These examples provide shocking displays of God’s mercy poured out on those who clearly deserved his judgment.
From Exile to Resurrection
Capital punishment unequivocally took place in the OT. To sweep away such precedent with the general notion that a inarticulate tone of forgiveness and mercy ring throughout the NT does violence to God’s word. To give proper credence to the united message of both testaments we must see the sweeping storyline of scripture and where capital punishment flows along in the currents of biblical history. We have traced this flow throughout the OT, but we must now look to see the course charted through the NT.
Much attention in the aforementioned debate centers on isolated scenes in Jesus’ ministry and Paul’s words in Rom. 13.[10] Often a blurry picture emerges of the continuity between testaments from both abolitionists and retentionists. By tracing contours of the OT covenant community’s embodiment of God’s justice through the ministry of Jesus and the Holy Spirit, a sharper and more colorful picture emerges of God’s vision for capital punishment.
Though the OT scenes noted above point forward to the true image of capital punishment in the death of Jesus. We cannot allow a rally cry of, “Jesus fulfills the law,” to hastily brush aside the OT. Nor can we allow the OT to become the prodigal’s older brother to the NT.
We have already noted the various interpretive options for Gen. 9:6, and, as they often do, the words and actions of Jesus shed light on an otherwise dimly muddled scene. Jesus’ betrayal in Matt. 26 in particular shines forth with multiple angles. The location of this scene must be seen as a link to both Gen. 1 and 9. As noted above, Adam and Noah receive parallel communication with the Lord, but with Noah’s new flood-free earth acting as the new garden for God’s people. Just as Adam faced a time of testing in Eden and failed, Jesus faced his own time of testing in Gethsemane but proved faithful. And as Noah received a declaration regarding life and death from the Lord in Gen. 9:6, Jesus gives his own declaration in Matt. 26:52, and it is to this that we turn our attention.
The proverbial nature of Jesus’ words in Matt. 26:52 so closely parallel those in Gen. 9:6 that the latter must be heard as resonating the same proverbial melody, but now with subtle and fresh overtones. First, both texts form a chiasm:
Gen. 9:6
Whoever sheds blood
Of man
By man
His blood be shed
Matt. 26:52
All who
Take the sword
By the sword
Will perish
Jesus clearly does not use this as a timeless truth to be upheld by courts of law. Rather, he intends to stifle any violent notions held by his disciples. Life and peace will advance his kingdom, not death and violence. Jesus will not allow any hint of Caesar’s kingdom to invade his own, though he offers himself up to the worst that Caesar can do. This is the key to link Noah to Jesus. Noah was the new Adam, saved over and against the rebellious humanity of his day. Jesus is now the last Adam, the one who saves his people by subjecting himself to the rebellious rulers of his day.
If Jesus intended to uphold Gen. 9:6, as the retentionists see him doing, there would be no need for Jesus to reprove his bloodthirsty disciple. Surely Jesus’ lifeblood holds the most value of any human as he most clearly images the Lord, and his disciple must have acted rightly in seeing his master’s life threatened. The disciple could very well have justified his action based on Gen. 9:6. But Jesus startles us as he halts such behavior by recalling this pre-Mosaic mandate, surely a dissonant chord to the ears of his disciples. Jesus shows himself here to be the new Adam and the new Noah. Just as God chartered his new humanity in Gen. 9, Jesus charters the new and final humanity in these shocking scenes.
Just as Jesus fulfills pre-Mosaic mandates, we see the three Mosaic examples noted above reach their fulfillment in Jesus as well. A detailed analysis of these fulfillments would benefit us greatly, but space does not allow for such liberty, and as such a brief flyby will suffice. Num. 15:32-36 told the story of a man put to death for gathering sticks in a field on the Sabbath. Luke 6 finds Jesus with his disciples in a field as they plucked and ate heads of grain. Jesus here fulfills the role of Moses as the one who speaks for God. The people of Israel put the Sabbath-breaker in custody since they did not know what to do, and did not act until God spoke through Moses. Jesus brings immediate certainty that life characterizes his kingdom. His reference to David affirms his authority to speak on such matters. He does not just speak on behalf of the king, he is the king, the new David.
The next fulfillment comes through Mark 14 as Jesus himself, not his disciples, becomes the target of Mosaic justice. Lev. 24:10-23 unfolded the punishment dealt for blasphemy clearly. Again, after waiting for clarity from God, the people of Israel punish the guilty with stoning for blasphemy. Just as in Lev. 24, the accusation of blasphemy follows a fight. Only here, as we have seen, the accused–Jesus–refused to fight then and now. Just as the blasphemer was brought out of the camp to be punished, Jesus was brought out to receive the true punishment.
Though appearing on some levels to be a faint picture of Mosaic justice, the story of Naboth shows a fulfillment of the ultimate miscarriage of justice. The rulers of Israel at the time, Ahab and Jezebel, found a man standing in the way of their self-serving vision of God’s kingdom. For their own selfish purposes they had men bring false charges against Naboth, resulting in his stoning outside the city. This story too sees its fulfillment in Jesus, the man standing in the way of the present rulers of Israel and their vision for God’s kingdom. He readily accepts the illegitimate verdict and bears the punishment outside the city. The death of Jesus marks out the last example of the enforcement of the death penalty by God’s people.
The Resurrection and the Spirit
The last of Jesus’ fulfillments comes in his resurrection. Jesus faces the ultimate penalty on the cross, and he defeats the ultimate enemy–death–through his resurrection. This is where Israel’s entire story sees its fulfillment, its return from exile. Adam and Eve turn from God and are exiled from Eden. Cain slays his brother and is exiled east of Eden. Moses kills the Egyptian and is exiled to Midian. Continually the people of Israel sin and are sent into exile, and even when in their land in the NT, there is still a sense of exile, as Ceasar–not God–seems to rule them. Resurrection becomes the greatest victory for Israel and their representative Jesus. All of the defeats dealt to enemies in the OT pale in comparison to the defeat of death in the resurrection.[11] But one last transgression must be dealt with after such a great victory.
The Holy Spirit acted against Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 following the victory of the resurrection, which resonates a frightening echo of Joshua and the people of Israel punishing Achan amidst celebration and victory in Joshua 7. Parallels abound in this story, and this last fulfillment serves as the final verdict for examples of capital punishment in scripture. The death penalty, once enforced by the hands of men, is now enforced by the Spirit himself. The authority to use death as a penalty now rests solely in the hands of the one who defeated the power death.
Conclusion
Considering the contour and shape of God’s story of justice fulfilled in the person and work of Jesus and the coming of the Spirit, Christians must live in light of that reality by vigorously opposing capital punishment in all its forms. In spite of the injustice of his crucifixion and through the power of his resurrection, Jesus is the only man to defeat death, and therefore the only person with authority to brandish death as a weapon of justice. For us to attempt to wield such a power amounts to scoffing at his cross and spitting on his grave. Let us anticipate the new heavens and the new earth in the final chapter of the story, where justice and life will reign in the place of chaos and death.
[1] Dale S. Recinella,
The biblical truth about America’s death penalty. UPNE, 2004, 7-16, 99-102. Recinella suggests there are parallels to be drawn from the biblical argument put forth over the past 200 years in support of slavery in the United States and the support of capital punishment, especially in southern states and the “Bible Belt.”
[2] N.T. Wright, How Can The Bible Be Authoritative?, The Laing Lecture 1989, and the Griffith Thomas Lecture 1989. Originally published in Vox Evangelica, 1991, 21, 7–32.
[3] The scope of this paper does not allow for wading through the economic, sociological, psychological, practical, and other factors in the capital punishment debate, especially as found in America. A sharp focus on the biblical theological debate will be the extent of any in-depth engagement.
[4] Contra Lloyd R. Bailey, Capital punishment. Abingdon Press, 1987. Bailey sees this scene as a straining of man’s relationship with God to its limit, not a prescription for how to treat murderers. He continues, “Beware of extracting rules for moral behavior from events in a narrative! For moral guidance, we should turn to materials that are instructional in form (e.g., the Ten Commandments, or the Sermon on the Mount),” 40. I agree with Bailey in his contextual settling of the Cain and Abel story in the midst of the story from God’s creation to his call of Abraham. But, I do not heed his warning as much as he would like. Caution should be taken as we proceed, but we will benefit greatly to not simply look to the instructional portions of scripture, but also to how the community in which they were written embodies those instructions and how God inserts himself into those stories.
[5] H. Wayne House and John Howard Yoder. The death penalty debate. Word Pub., 1991, 35-47. Also see Baker, William H. On capital punishment. Moody Press, 1985. Baker argues that authority given to the state to enforce the death penalty is implied in this passage and that a command is given here, not simply permission. 30-37.
[6] House and Yoder, 119-123. This is rather simplified and unfortunately brief summation of the opposing views.
[7] Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern thought and the Old Testament. Baker Academic, 2006, 293. He continues, “These commands of Yahweh were obligatory, as were the stipulations of the covenant, but that does not make them the legislation of a legal system. Legislation probably worked in Israel similarly to how it worked in the ancient Near East. The difference would be that the covenant and the stipulations framed the cognitive environment of Israel and therefore would have penetrated the legislative process, whatever it looked like.” 297.
[8] Claus Westermann. Genesis 1-11. Fortress Press, 1994, 466-469.
[9] Gardner C. Hanks, Against the death penalty. Herald Press, 1997, 27-28. I also owe much of my early thinking about the general shape and flow of the OT examples of capital punishment to Hanks, see 25-40. Unfortunately he does not develop the theme any further, as the rest of the book, though useful, deals predominantly with secular arguments. Also Hanks, Capital punishment and the Bible. Herald Press, 2002, 232.
[10] Rom. 13 sits prominently on both sides of the debate. Unfortunately it falls outside the purvey of this paper due to scope and space, but it deserves at least a brief mention. Both abolitionists and retentionists can hold their particular view and interpret Rom. 13 a variety of ways, as Paul makes no specific mention of capital punishment. One can vehemently oppose the death penalty and still be subject to a government that utilizes it. One can also wholeheartedly support the death penalty and peaceably live under an authority that prohibits its use.
[11] N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God. Fortress Press, 2003, 121-128.
