One of the most contentious issues facing us today is that of the death penalty. There are many theologians that fight their point vehemently on both sides of the argument. I remember while in Bible College there were people on both sides of the fence and no resolution was ever reached. For many years I sat on the fence with the whole issue, but having worked through the whole issue of the law and its application today, I have come to a final decision. So in this final instalment of the role of the law, we are going to look at the issue and hopefully end off with a proper position on the subject. Some of you may be surprised with the outcome.
Mosaic Law
Throughout the Old Testament we see a very clear stance with the death penalty. It was in place and strongly enforced. Then Jesus came along. Many believe that it is at this point that Jesus abolished the Old Testament laws and the punishments that went with it. However, as we have already discovered, Jesus did not come to remove the law, but to fulfil it. As he said in Matthew 5:17-18, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets: I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” If then he did not come to destroy the law, he also did not come to destroy the consequences. As such, he would therefore have supported the death penalty.
Let us look at a simple example in Christ's life that many seem to believe proves that Jesus was opposed to the death penalty: John 8:3-11.
The Woman Taken in Adultery
Let us begin by putting this passage into context. In the passage before the one we are looking at, Jesus had spoken about being sent to earth by the Father and that the people of Israel did not know the Father, but he did. Then it goes on to talk about the unbelief of the Jewish leaders and as far as they were concerned, Jesus had deceived the people. So now, in the verses of our passage, the Pharisees and Scribes sought out to find something against Jesus, and their method was to present a problem to Jesus in a manner that no matter what way Jesus would respond, it would hurt him (at least in their eyes anyway).
So they presented to Jesus a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery and reminded him that “In the Law Moses commended us to stone such women,” and challenged him to what he would say. Now if Jesus had upheld the Law, Jesus would have been portrayed as cruel and not a man of love as he was proving himself to be, and if he made an exception to the Law, he would have been blatantly breaking the Law. Either way, his bond with the people would have been broken.
But look at Jesus' response. He bent down, wrote something with his finger in the dirt on the ground. We are not told what he wrote, but it could been something as simple as the Ten Commandments. But the Pharisees continued to press him for an answer, so he said: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” and bent down and continued writing.
There is an interesting thing to note here. Adultery is a two-person sin, yet only the woman was brought before Jesus. This in itself is already a violation of the law as Leviticus 20:10 clearly states that both parties are to be put to death, not just one.
Then, one by one, beginning with the eldest person in the crowd, people started to leave, until there was no-one left there except Jesus and the accused woman. Without any accusers, there was no required penalty. Jesus had pointed to the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and Scribes, while at the same time, showing his love to a person considered unloved. He then told the woman to go and sin no more.
This is a beautiful illustration of the grace of God, and many theologians have used it to show that Jesus was opposed to the death penalty. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let us look at another passage that shows that in actual fact Jesus supported the death penalty: Matthew 15:1-20.
Clean and unclean
In this passage, Jesus is challenged again by the Scribes and Pharisees, this time challenging him on the issue of his disciples not washing their hands before eating. Here Jesus answered: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of tradition? For God said, 'Honour your father and mother and anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.” Jesus then goes on to describe how the Pharisees allowed someone to hold back needed help for their parents by saying the dedication of their possessions, that should have been used to care for their parents, to the temple before their parents died, freed them from caring for their parents. Jesus was showing them that they had dishonoured their parents by enforcing man-made laws instead of God's Law, and the punishment in this case was that the offender be put to death. Jesus was in no way opposing the death penalty here, but could actually be seen as requiring it.
Finally, let's look at the life of Paul.
Follow me as I follow Christ
In 1 Corinthians 11:1, Paul told the Corinthian church to “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” Paul was not without sin, but he was meticulous in his service to God, and as we can see in this example, he was careful to follow the life of Christ. Therefore, if Christ had been opposed to the death penalty then Paul would have been too in his teachings. Instead when facing his accuser Felix (Acts 24), he answered “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!” Paul was willing to suffer the death penalty should he have been found guilty of anything worthy of it, and was showing that the government had the right to administer such a penalty.
Furthermore, in Romans 13 Paul states that the government are ordained by God and hold their position because God has placed them there. Irrespective of whether they are good or bad leaders. Then comes a warning: “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” (v4). Why would the government bear a sword and be called an agent of wrath if the death penalty was not to be enforced? I don't think that they are going to merely use it to smack you on the backside for doing something wrong, but rather administer something far more serious – the death penalty.
Nor is the word sword used merely as a picture to represent their authority. That point is already clearly expressed in the preceding verses. There are also no pictures used in these verses, but rather stated clear examples of the government's authority in legal words. If the sword is merely a representation, then so is the word taxes, yet taxes were as much a reality for the early church as it is for us today.
Jesus clearly supported the death penalty, and this is seen throughout Scripture. He may not have said much about it, but he certainly did not say anything against it. When he comes again, he will be coming as the judge and will execute the death penalty to its fullest (see Revelation 19).
Conclusion
The crux of the matter for us today has absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of Scripture, but rather man's carnal thinking. Man is wanting the gentle Jesus meek and mild, friend of the sinners, and not the righteous judge who overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple. Man wants a Jesus who will smile on fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, hypocrites, thieves, liars etc. and not the Jesus who will come again to judge the living and the dead and throw the devil and his followers into the fiery pit of hell.
Basically, man is wanting “another Jesus”. As Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 11:4 - “For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough”. This Jesus they are teaching is essentially an anti-Christ (anti meaning in place of or opposite to) that is not the Christ of the Bible. We should warn believers of the same teachings in the church today.
Should we therefore try to have the government enforce the death penalty. That is a tough question to answer. Over the centuries there have been many examples of the state handing down a penalty that does not suite the crime, and in some of the more communist and autocratic regimes of today, that may not be a good idea. What is needed is a balance between the severity of the crime, with the severity of the punishment. If a person takes another person's life, then it is certainly worthy of the death penalty.
I believe that it is the duty of all Christians to ensure that appropriate justice is meted out. If the penalties are not matching the crime, either by being too harsh or not harsh enough, then we need to address the situation. If the death penalty is in place, then we need to support it, and if it is not, we need to stand for it and appeal to the powers that be to enforce it.
NOTE: Please be aware that this is such a deep and strongly fought topic and this article is by no means a complete presentation of all arguments. My aim here was to present as concise an argument as possible in relation to the Role of the Law as we have already discussed.
Baruch atem b’Shem Yeshua! (Blessings in the name of Jesus!)
GW
No comments:
Post a Comment