Okay, folks, good to see so many of you here.
My name's Tom Schmidt.
Welcome to Trinity Baptist Church's Adult Sunday School.
We are in the midst of a series talking about Christianity and life,
if I'm not mistaken, also after that.
Why don't we open in prayer, and then we'll begin.
Father in heaven, we thank you for this opportunity to come together,
to hear from your word, to hear from your wisdom.
Lord, we know that you commanded us, thou shalt not murder.
And Lord, we hold that command dearly,
and we ask that you would give us wisdom about what that means.
In all circumstances and in all ways,
in extreme circumstances and in everyday circumstances.
We pray that you would illuminate us, give us understanding,
and that you would guide us in our time this hour together.
And we pray this in the mighty name of Jesus.
Amen.
So, like I said, today we'll be talking about capital punishment.
Capital punishment, it's the technical term for the death penalty.
This is when someone who's convicted of, in this day and age, a terrible crime,
is actually put to death legally by the state.
Most countries have abolished this practice.
The United States remains, though, a minority who still holds to the practice of capital punishment.
This used to be the norm.
You know, you go back even 100 years ago, 200 years ago,
and capital punishment was all over the place.
And sometimes people were executed for what we would consider extremely minor crimes.
But that's not really the case today, especially in the United States.
But still, I just wanted to give you some statistics.
I found in my quick internet research that since the 1970s, in the United States,
1,641 men and women have been executed in the United States.
Typically, it's a little bit less than 30 people a year.
Last year, it was about one every other week is being executed in the United States.
But this varies by state.
Connecticut does not have the death penalty.
There's some states that do have it but effectively don't use it.
And then there are a few states that use it quite a bit.
So most of these are coming from a handful of states.
This brings up a question, though, that I know you're all thinking about is,
what should Christians do regarding the death penalty and capital punishment?
What is our role?
What does the Bible have to say about it?
Is this something that is permissible but should be avoided at all costs?
Or is it something that's inherently immoral and wicked no matter the circumstance?
Or is this just retribution for a heinous crime?
Related questions.
Does it deter future crime?
Does it give respite and relief to the victims?
Or is this something that just glorifies violence, is always sinful, is just begetting wrong?
Is this something that was maybe allowed under the Old Covenant in the Old Testament?
But in the New Covenant, in the New Testament, should always be held as immoral.
This morning, I'm going to try to chart out as well as I can two different perspectives on capital punishment, on the death penalty.
So we'll be doing sort of like a dialectic point-counterpoint kind of thing.
This is in part because, this is a very hard question, Christians have traditionally, there's two main camps.
And these camps, and I don't want to say pro-death penalty because that means like people are rooting for it.
I guess what I mean is like it's permissible versus it's never permissible.
And these two camps go way back in the church.
Even to very, very early church times, there's been these two different ideas.
So I'm going to try to present these two sides as well as I can for you.
And we're going to first look at biblical passages and what the Bible has to say.
Then we'll consider some philosophical and theoretical objections to both sides.
Some things that people often bring up.
And then we will try and draw some lessons that we all can take, regardless of where we happen to fall.
Some lessons that we can draw from this debate over capital punishment and the value of a human life.
Sound good?
Okay.
Let's get started.
The first time God directly addresses, I guess I could say the second time.
We'll get to that first passage in a little bit.
But the first time that God directly addresses something that might be explicitly related to capital punishment is in Genesis 9, 6.
And this is after the flood of Noah.
Noah and God is giving Noah and his family permission to eat from the fruit of the earth and also from wild animals.
And God says this,
Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed.
For God made man in his own image.
This feels like a very broad statement about the value of human life.
That if someone were to kill another person, that person is made in God's image.
And that the person who committed that crime should also have their blood shed.
At least that's how some people interpret the passage.
So for those who are on the sort of capital punishment is permissible,
they go to this verse as a foundational verse.
Because it's before the Mosaic Law.
Some people hold those kinds of commands in even higher esteem.
It's pre-Old Covenant.
And it seems to be sanctioning the taking of someone's life if they have taken another person's life unjustly.
There is, though, some pushback to this.
If you are familiar with Old Testament commands like this and discussions like this,
this also could just simply be read as a proverbial saying.
That, yeah, I mean, if you go around killing people, you're probably going to get killed.
That's how other people interpret this.
That this is what goes around comes around.
And there are biblical cases where there are statements like this that should be interpreted in a proverbial sense.
But there are some other passages that also help contextualize this.
One is controversial in its own, in a different way, which I'll talk about in a moment.
But some people point to John chapter 8.
This is a famous story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.
And I just want to read it.
I'm sure you're familiar with it.
But I want to read this because it's so powerful.
This is in John chapter 8.
Early in the morning, Jesus came again to the temple and all the people came to him.
And he sat down and taught them.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery.
And placing her in the midst, they said to him,
Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
Now, in the law of Moses, he commanded us to stone such a woman.
What do you say?
This they said to test Jesus that they might have some ground to bring against him.
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them,
Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.
And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.
But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones.
And Jesus was left alone with a woman.
And Jesus stood up and said to her,
Woman, where are they?
Has no one condemned you?
And she said, No one, Lord.
And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you.
Go, and from now on, sin no more.
Here we have a woman who is charged with a capital crime.
And Jesus seems to forgive her.
And he's even put on the spot where they're trying to get him to condemn her to death.
And he refuses.
He doesn't say that what she did was okay.
He says, Go and sin no more.
He clearly thinks that adultery is wrong.
So some people go to this verse to show that Jesus did not approve of the death penalty.
As I said, we're going to be going point, counterpoint, point, counterpoint throughout this class.
So there is some responses to this.
One is that this, of course, does not have to do with murder, like Genesis 9-6 spoke of.
It has to do with adultery.
And then secondly, there is also that question, as some of you might know,
of whether this story should be in the New Testament.
Usually in our Bibles, it's bracketed because some manuscripts omit it.
We can talk more about that if you're interested.
I think the best way to interpret this story is that there is some evidence that Jesus actually did do something very much like this.
And regardless if it was in the Gospel of John or not, it's something Jesus actually did.
So we still can learn from this.
We could talk more about that.
But there's a second counterpoint to this Genesis 9-6 passage.
And that is even earlier in Genesis.
This is in Genesis chapter 4 with Cain and Abel.
And that terrible story.
Cain and Abel, they're the children of Adam and Eve.
And Cain is jealous of Abel and he kills him.
Matt.
I just wanted to say another counterpoint on the woman taken in adultery.
Is that just like Jesus said on another occasion,
who made me judge over you with regard to inheritance?
That Jesus was not in a judicial position.
And that often people were trying to push him.
That's good.
Yes.
In a way that he was told to do.
That's a good point.
We're going to touch on that later on.
That idea that some people will bring up is that there's a big difference between your role as a regular Christian in the world
compared to if you're appointed in a political office.
And Matt, you're getting at that.
That Jesus could have one interpretation of John 8 is that Jesus was not in a position of political power.
And so he was like, I don't have authority over this matter.
Okay.
So a counterpoint to Genesis 9-6 is that Cain murders his brother Abel unjustly.
And God, of course, knows about this.
And in Genesis 4, verse 9,
the Lord says to Cain,
Where is Abel your brother?
And Cain said,
I do not know.
Am I my brother's keeper?
And the Lord said,
What have you done?
The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.
So we have that blood was shed.
Genesis 9-6 says the blood of Cain should be shed.
What does God do?
Well, he says,
Cursed are you from the ground which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength.
You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.
And Cain said to the Lord,
My punishment is greater than I can bear.
You've driven me today away from the ground.
And from your face I shall be hidden.
I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.
And whoever finds me will kill me.
And then the Lord says,
Not so.
If anyone kills Cain,
vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.
And the Lord put a mark on Cain,
lest any who found him should attack him.
And Cain went away from the presence of the Lord
and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
God doesn't kill Cain.
He has mercy on him.
And Cain is actually worried other people will kill him.
And God says,
No, no, that's not going to happen.
I'm going to put this mark on you.
Sometimes we hear that term mark of Cain.
It's used in a very negative sense.
But it looks like it's a protective mark on Cain.
At least that's one way to interpret it.
So I hope you see the counterpoint going on here.
Is that an example of murder,
the first murder that's quite near the passage in Genesis,
the actual execution is not carried out.
We've got more verses to go through, folks.
Another one is Exodus chapter 21.
This is in the Mosaic law,
when Moses is giving commandments to the Israelites.
Exodus 21 verses 14 through 24.
The law, the Mosaic law says,
If a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning,
you shall take him from my altar that he may die.
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
That phrase, you shall take him from my altar,
what that meant is that in the ancient world,
people, altars, holy places,
sanctuaries were viewed as areas where you could go and receive reprieve,
where if you were convicted of a crime or if someone was hunting you,
you could go into this sanctuary and stay there,
and people couldn't harm you.
And people apparently would try to do this in God's temple.
And what God says here is that if someone willfully attacks another person
to kill that person by cunning,
then you are even allowed to drag him away from my altar
in order to put him to death.
That's what the purport of the law seems to be.
And then it emphasizes several verses later
that the standard of God's justice is this eye for eye,
tooth for tooth kind of manner,
that the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak.
If you murder someone, you should have your life taken.
Well, that does seem very clear
about how capital punishment is permissible.
But then we come to Jesus again.
Jesus shows up again.
This is the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5.
If you have never read the Sermon on the Mount
with an eye towards the Ten Commandments
or to the Book of the Law, please do so
because you'll see Jesus constantly hearkening back
to the Ten Commandments and other policies in the Mosaic Law.
And he sort of expands upon these principles.
And in the Sermon on the Mount, he said this,
you have heard that it was said,
an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
He's quoting from that passage we just read.
But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil.
If anyone slaps you on the right cheek,
turn to him the other also.
If anyone would sue you and take your tunic,
let him have your cloak as well.
If anyone forces you to go one mile,
go with him two miles.
Give to the one who begs from you
and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Those who oppose the death penalty
point to this verse as answering this one.
And they will often argue that this was part of the Old Covenant.
It is not part of the New Covenant.
That Christians are called to surpass those things.
And in fact, if we keep reading what Jesus has to say,
he says, you've heard that it was said,
you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.
But I say to you, love your enemies
and pray for those who persecute you
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.
For if you love those who love you,
what reward do you have?
Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
Now, Jesus was not talking about eye for eye
or tooth for tooth here,
but we could apply that same logic and say,
doesn't the nations run after the death penalty?
Shouldn't Christians be beyond that?
Shouldn't we love people more than that
and not put people to death
because they're in God's image,
because we recognize that?
We're going to continue with our point
and counterpoint here.
Thus far, we've been talking about
some Old Testament passages
that appear, at least from some perspectives,
to support capital punishment,
to support the death penalty.
And we've been looking at
two New Testament passages from Jesus
that have some pushback to that
and then another Old Testament passage
that provides some pushback to this.
Now we're going to switch things
and we're going to look at
a New Testament passage
that seems to support capital punishment
and then we'll look at
an Old Testament passage
that seems to not.
So we'll start in Romans 13.
This is Paul's letter to the Romans,
chapter 13.
This is such a wonderful epistle of Paul
and in chapter 13,
he starts dispensing some moral advice.
The whole letter up to this point
is theological.
It's sort of this systematic theology
of explaining our salvation in Christ.
But towards the end,
Paul starts giving some practical exhortations.
And he says this,
he says,
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.
If I pause here for a moment
before continuing,
this is an important theological claim,
especially when Christians
are considering what the role
of the government is in our lives.
And Paul says that
in some way,
human governing authorities
have been appointed by God
and we are to submit to them
and not resist them.
Now, this brings up
all sorts of other questions
about unjust government
that we're not talking about
in this class,
but let's continue.
Paul explains,
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,
the governing authority,
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,
the Christian,
must be in subjection
to the government,
not only to avoid God's wrath,
but also for the sake
of conscience.
For because of this,
you also pay taxes.
For the authorities
are ministers of God,
attending to this very thing.
And he concludes,
pay to all what is owed to them,
taxes to whom taxes are owed,
revenue to whom revenue is owed,
respect to whom respect is owed,
honor to whom honor is owed.
This passage brings up
a lot of questions
about how we are to engage
with the government.
What do we do
with an unjust government?
What do we do
when we're in a democracy
where we somehow elect
our officials?
How does this all relate?
These are great questions,
but they're beyond the scope
of our class today.
We are focusing
just on capital punishment.
And this comes up
in verse four,
where Paul says,
the governing authority
is God's servant
for your good,
but if you do wrong,
be afraid,
for he does not bear
the sword in vain.
That phrase,
bearing the sword in vain,
is old time talk
for the death penalty.
That's what the Romans did.
And believe me,
if you know ancient history,
the Romans loved killing people.
They killed a lot of people.
They did it for fun.
They literally did it for fun
in the gladiatorial contests.
You could be executed
for quite a bit of,
a lot of things.
And Paul says,
they don't bear the sword in vain.
People point to this passage.
Those who argue
in favor of the death penalty
point to this passage
that Paul here
is sanctioning
the use of capital punishment,
but only from
the civil authorities,
not from the church,
not from personal vendettas,
not from a Christian perspective
in the sense of you
acting in the name of Christ,
but only if you are appointed
into some kind of
governing role
that gives you
that sort of permission.
This gets at Matt's comment earlier,
where there's some perspectives
on Jesus,
is that Jesus was not
in that civil authority,
and that's why he eschewed,
he eschewed the death penalty.
Well,
interesting argument.
make some good points,
but let's go
to another passage.
This time in the Old Testament.
This is Isaiah
chapter 2,
and this is a prophecy
about what is to come
in the latter days.
Isaiah says,
It shall come to pass
in the latter days
that the mountain
of the house of the Lord
shall be established
as the highest of the hills,
and shall be lifted up
above the hills,
and all the nations
shall flow to it,
and many peoples
shall come and say,
Come,
let us go up
to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house
of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us
his ways,
and that we may walk
in his paths.
For out of Zion
shall go forth
the law
and the word of the Lord
from Jerusalem.
He shall judge
between the nations
and shall decide disputes
for many peoples,
and they shall beat
their swords
into plowshares
and their spears
into pruning hooks.
And nations
shall not lift up
sword against nation,
neither shall they
learn war anymore.
This is this
beautiful prophecy
of the end times
when Christ returns,
some people also
interpret this
as the age of the church
when all people
are streaming
towards the God of Israel
like we see today.
And it's a beautiful passage,
and what is the marker
of this end time
is when the law
of the Lord
goes forth
and what happens?
People beat their swords
into plowshares.
They take their weapons
and they turn them
into implements
for harvest
and for getting fruit
from the land.
Plowshares,
of course,
are those pieces
of metal
and plows
that furrow
the land
so you can plant crops
and grow
and feed people.
And people point
to this saying,
okay,
what we should be
aiming for
is not living
in this fallen world.
We should be aiming
for this kind of world
that Isaiah
is talking about.
And that's what
Christians should be
living for
and living in
because we live
in this sort of
here but not yet
stage of life
where we should be
trying to bring
the kingdom of God
on earth
and a marker
of that is beating
our swords
into plowshares.
So we should not
be party
to bearing the sword
in vengeance
against people
even if we are
part of the civil
authorities
is how the argument
goes.
Okay.
Before I turn
to some
thoughts,
philosophical
reflections
and theological
reflections
on these sort
of points
and counterpoints,
let me pause
and just see
if there's any
questions
before we turn
the page
and go.
Richard.
So in a general
way,
a more general
way,
I think
the saying
of Jesus,
the one saying
apparently
that the liberals
think is authentic
give back to Caesar
what belongs
to Caesar
and to God
what belongs
to God
has a bearing
on this subject
too.
Though Jesus
is not talking
about the death
penalty,
he's talking
about the next
thing worse
to death
and that's taxes.
Yeah,
so Jesus
has that
famous
passage
where he's
asked if we
should pay
taxes to Caesar
and they're
trying to
catch him
in this
because they
know that
if he says
no,
they can
charge him
with insurrection
against the
Romans.
If he says
yes,
then they
can go
to all
the other
common folks
and say,
look how much
he hates
you,
he wants
you to
pay these
taxes.
Aren't
they,
isn't he
terrible?
So it's a
lose-lose
situation.
Jesus,
classic Jesus,
comes up
with his
genius
response
where he
has them
get a
coin
that shows
Caesar's
face and
he says,
whose face
is this?
Well,
then give
to Caesar
what is
Caesar's
and give
to God
what is
God's.
But the
principle
behind that
could,
could be
used to
say,
yeah,
the civil
authorities
are in
charge of
life and
death and
Jesus is
giving them
that authority.
You could
make that
argument.
I'm sure
people have.
This is why
this is such
a thorny,
such a thorny
question.
Well,
let's
look at
a few
things here.
One is,
I want us
to remember
that there
is a
difference
between
thinking
that something
is illegal
and immoral.
immoral.
So,
it is
possible
for
Christians
to hold
a position
where they
think that
something that
is immoral
should be,
in some
circumstances,
not illegal.
That's one
thing to
consider.
So,
for instance,
lying,
Christians'
view is
wrong,
but,
you know,
do you think
the government
should pass a
law saying
you can never
lie to a
family member
or you go
to jail,
that would,
most Christians
would be like,
I don't know if
that should be
part of the
civil law.
You can't lie
to the
government,
though.
it's true.
It's true.
So,
there is a
difference between
something being
illegal and
something being
immoral.
Those don't
necessarily,
they're not
necessarily
inherently linked.
Obviously,
there is a
connection between
those,
but it's not
inherent that
one follows the
other.
Another thing
to remember
is that there
is a difference
between the
church and the
state.
So,
just because
you think the
state should be
able to do
something doesn't
mean you think
the church should
be able to do
something and
vice versa.
So,
there are people
that,
and this is
fortunately very
common,
where very few
people think the
church should put
people to death
and there are
people who think
the state should
be allowed to,
but there's many
instances like this
where people think
something is not
the state's business
but it's the
church's business
and vice versa.
So,
that's another
thing to keep
in mind.
There's a
difference between
church and state,
there's a difference
between illegal and
immoral.
Another,
another thing to
keep in mind is
that there's a
difference between
something that is
technically permissible
and something that
you think should,
should just never
happen in our day
and age.
change.
So,
let me give you an
example.
It is not
contradictory to
argue that,
yes,
in theory,
the death penalty
can,
there are
circumstances where
the death penalty
could be permissible,
but in practice,
it should be illegal
in the United States
or in whatever
country you have.
death penalty is not
a contradictory
position.
You can hold that
position where you
can think,
yes,
it's not that it's
always in every
single circumstance
impermissible or
immoral,
but I just think it
should be illegal in
our country.
So,
this is sort of the
reverse of the first
thing I said,
that something might
be permissible morally,
but you just think it
should be illegal.
So,
you might think that,
yes,
the death penalty is
not inherently wrong
in all circumstances.
I can imagine some
extreme circumstances
where it would be okay,
but I still think it
should be illegal in
this country.
That's,
that's another valid
position.
Are you following me
here?
Okay.
So,
those are some things
to keep in mind.
What I want to do
now,
though,
is go through
issues that
people have
with capital
punishment,
objections that
they've brought up,
and then I want to
go through
issues that people
have with not
having capital
punishment,
and issues they
have brought up,
and then we'll
conclude with some
lessons for us
as followers of
Jesus.
So,
problems with
capital punishment.
These are
frequent arguments
that people make
who want to
abolish the death
penalty.
One is that
it is not
an effective
deterrent,
that many
arguments in
favor of the
death penalty
argue that
it deters
crime,
that it
frightens
criminals,
and there
is evidence
that it
doesn't,
and that it
has no
deterring effect,
that when people
commit crimes,
they're not
thinking clearly,
when they are
thinking clearly,
they're so beyond
the pale that
they don't care,
they're so arrogant
they think they'll
never be caught,
and that it's not
an effective
deterrent.
That's one
argument against
it.
Another is
inconsistent
application.
If you go and
you look at
death penalty
cases,
you'll probably
be horrified
at sometimes
when person
A gets
sentenced to
death for
some crime,
like they're
part of a
bank robbery
that goes bad
and their
partner kills
someone,
but then they
get sentenced
to death
because they
were considered
part of this
murder,
versus someone
who does
something so
much worse
and gets 20
years in prison.
And this
feels unjust.
It feels
that it is
not,
the weight
of this
is inconsistent
and that in
order for
something to
be just,
we have to
have consistency.
So a second
argument is
inconsistent
application.
A third
argument is
racism.
That the
United States
has a history
of racism
and of
racist
application
of laws
and you
can look
at the
death penalty
and make
arguments that
this is still
affecting our
sentencing of
criminals,
that white
people get
off more
frequently than
someone convicted
of a similar
crime who's of
a different
ethnic group,
especially
African Americans.
So we've
got not
effective
deterrent,
inconsistent
application.
We have
the racist
implications,
especially in
our country,
there's more
though.
One is
financial cost.
It costs a
huge amount
of money to
put someone
to death
and it's
cheaper to
give them
life in
prison and
that saved
money can
go to
preventing
further crime
or rehabilitating
criminals or
to the families
of victims.
That's another
argument.
Yet another
one, that
the death
penalty
inherently
glorifies
violence.
If you
have a
violence
problem in
your society,
this argument
would say
the wrong
solution is
more violence.
The better
solution is to
end violence,
to stop
doing that.
Notice that
this argument
is beyond
circumstances.
This kind
of argument
applies sort
of everywhere
in every
context.
Here's another
one, wrong
convictions.
You can't
undo a
death penalty.
Once it's
carried out,
it's over.
And this
means that
if someone is
wrongfully
convicted,
there is no
possible, and
then that
sentence is
carried out,
there is no
possible retribution
or restitution
that can be
given to that
person who
suffered that
wrong conviction.
Typically,
people who are
wrongly convicted
are the most
vulnerable,
they're disabled,
or they don't
have financial
means to
defend their
crime.
So they're
the ones
that are
the most
at risk
of this
kind of wrong
done to
them.
And there
are cases
of this.
I'm an
ancient historian,
so there's
a terrible
story that
Constantine,
the first
Christian emperor,
his son
betrayed him
and did
something horrible,
and so
Constantine had
his own son
executed and
then found out
later that his
son was
innocent.
Horrible,
horrible thing.
And that
has happened
in modern
times.
Okay,
another argument.
The death
penalty does
not allow
for the chance
of repentance.
It cuts
short the
ability for
the criminal
to repent
of their
wrong.
And,
of course,
in the United
States,
typically,
it takes
decades,
certainly
years,
but even
more than
a decade
for a
death sentence
to be carried
out.
But in
other countries,
like in
China,
it's very
quick.
And this
does not
allow for
repentance.
final argument,
there's a
lack of a
chance for
reconciliation.
You're
cutting short
the ability
for this
person to
repent of
their crime
and to be
reconciled with
the families
of the
victim.
And there
are stories
of the
opposite
happening.
For instance,
that serial
killer,
son of Sam,
he was like
New York City
or New Jersey
serial killer,
he's in
prison for
life,
he's been in
prison for
quite some
time,
apparently has
become a
Christian.
I don't,
you know,
we can't see
people's hearts,
but he
apparently has
become a
Christian and
has been
reconciled with
one of the
mothers of
his victims,
in large
part due to
his conversion
and his
repentance.
And that's a
beautiful thing.
I mean,
if that is
true,
the angels
are singing
in heaven
over that.
But if
he had
been executed
right after
he was
convicted,
that never
would have
happened.
And it
would have
been gone.
So those
are arguments
against capital
punishment that
you get in
both Christian
and non-Christian
perspectives.
Some of
those are
very common
to Christians
like the
lack of
repentance,
but some
of these
are consistent
from even
non-Christian
perspectives.
Okay,
let's move
to problems
with not
having the
capital
punishment
or arguments
against
abolishing
the capital
punishment
or arguments
in favor
of the
death
penalty.
So one
argument is
that many
of the above
issues like
cost,
inconsistency,
being ineffective,
it being
applied in
a racist
manner,
these are
fixable
problems.
These are
not inherent
problems.
They're fixable.
We should
identify these
problems and
strive to
fix them.
And once
we have
then they're
no longer
issues.
Another
argument
regarding the
lack of a
chance for
repentance is
that perhaps
it encourages
repentance.
There's nothing
like facing
your last
hour to
encourage
repentance.
And if any
of you have
ever been in
a situation
where you
fear for
your imminent
death,
you will
understand this,
where there
is very little
greater motivation
that you're
about to
meet your
maker than
to know
you are
about to
meet your
maker and
to try
and repent
from your
sins.
So that's
one argument.
Here's
another
argument.
And this
is an
argument in
favor of
the victims.
This argument
goes that this
is the most
merciful tactic
for the
victims,
for the
family members
who suffered
at the
hands of
a terrible
criminal.
that even
in life
sentences,
victims often
live in
constant fear
of this
perpetrator
escaping.
And
victims often
have to
attend
grueling
parole
hearings.
Every five
years they
have to
show up
and they
have to
make this
plea why
this person
shouldn't
be released.
They often
anticipate this
with much
trepidation
for months
beforehand.
And there
are cases
where people
have been
sentenced to
life in
prison without
parole.
So they're in
some maximum
security place
where there's
no chance
of escape
and there's
no chance
of parole.
people.
But it
has happened
in the
past where
states say
life without
parole is
unjust,
it's cruel
and unusual
and they
retroactively
allow for
the chance
of parole
and then
someone gets
out only to
commit the
same murders
again.
And that
has happened.
So the
argument against
that is that
life in
prison is
not actually
life in
prison because
we have
these examples
of people
getting out
or people
continuing to
commit their
crimes in
the prison
against officers
or guards
or other
prisoners.
So here's
a final point.
And this
isn't so
much in
favor of
the death
penalty at
all times in
all civilizations.
It's just a
point about
it.
And it
sort of
pushes us
to consider
extreme
circumstances.
And what
we think of
extreme
circumstances,
it turns out,
might actually
be normal
circumstances for
most people.
Not for us,
but for most
people throughout
history.
So if we
look at the
human condition
throughout
history,
it turns out
that most
humans,
for most of
human history,
cannot
afford or
even have
the ability
to have
prisons.
For instance,
if you can't
make metal,
it's very hard
to have a
prison.
And if you
live in a
remote village
or you're a
hunter-gatherer
group of a
couple hundred
people,
what do you
do when
someone commits
a horrible,
horrible,
horrible crime?
You have no
ability to
incarcerate them.
If you have
no ability to
maintain some
kind of exile
policy,
they can just
walk back.
And if
they've
repeatedly
committed
horrific
things,
these poor
people don't
really have
many options.
They can't
imprison someone,
they can't
afford guards,
they're living
their subsistence.
And so the
argument goes,
if someone
keeps murdering
someone, then
they should be
put to death.
There's no
other choice.
You can't
exile them,
you can't
imprison them,
you can't
do these
things.
And actually,
this is
perhaps one
of the
motivators
behind some
of the
Exodus laws
because we
are dealing
with a
society that,
when the
Mosaic law
was given,
that is kind
of like one
of those
societies.
They're not
quite that
extreme.
They could
temporarily
imprison people
temporarily.
They did have
access to
metal to
make chains
and bars
and stuff,
but this
is extremely
expensive.
Clearly,
they couldn't
do it for
very long
or for
very many
people.
On the
other hand,
though,
this argument
can be
turned because
the argument
could say,
yes,
okay,
in those
situations,
capital punishment
might be
appropriate,
but that's
not what
the world
we live
in today.
And that
might explain
some of
these rules,
like in
Exodus or
even in
Romans.
Remember
that even
in the
time of
the Roman
Empire,
prisons did
not exist.
They had
jails.
They had
temporary
holding cells,
but they
didn't really
have prisons
like we have
today.
They couldn't
afford to
take thousands
of people and
just guard
them.
So that's
why they
had slavery,
because they
would make
them slaves.
That's why
they made
them work
in the
mines.
They put
them on
ships.
They would
exile them
to islands
because our
ability to
imprison people
is something
that really
only modern
civilizations
have been
able to
develop.
And those
options were
not long-term
viable options
in the past.
Okay, let's
conclude with
some lessons
we can draw
from this.
Number one,
the Bible is
clear that
the crime of
murder is
worthy of
death.
It is
worthy of
death.
However,
so are
all sins.
So are
all sins
in God's
eyes.
Here's
another
lesson.
It is
right.
It is
right for
someone to
be justly
punished for
their sins.
That is
appropriate.
But what
does
Deuteronomy
32 say?
What is
Romans 12,
19?
Right before
Paul said
that passage
in Romans
13,
he quotes
from Deuteronomy
chapter 32
where God
says,
vengeance
is mine.
It is
mine to
repay,
says the
Lord.
So it
is right
for someone
to be
justly
punished for
their sins,
but vengeance
is not
ours,
it is
God's.
He is
the one
who makes
these
decisions.
Okay,
another
lesson.
Romans 12,
19.
Oh, I
agree.
I totally
agree.
Absolutely.
I agree.
But I'm
focusing on
the principle
behind it
that,
and I'm
also quoting
from Deuteronomy
32 where
there is
this broader
kind of
application.
However,
it's still
squishy because
this is
said in
Deuteronomy
32 in the
context of
God giving
laws about
how people
are to
carry out
his
vengeance
on the
criminals.
Okay,
let's go
on.
remember
that in
the face
of crime,
the Lord
is merciful.
Micah 7,
18,
the Lord
delights in
mercy.
He delights
in being
merciful.
This isn't
something he
says,
well, I
guess we
have to
go easy
on him.
He delights
in being
merciful.
And then
lastly,
remember
what our
Lord said
on the
Sermon
on the
Mount.
He said,
you know,
remember
you've
heard,
thou
shalt not
murder,
but I
say to
you,
anyone
who
hates
his
brother
is
guilty
of
murder.
So in
some
sense,
we are
all
guilty
of
the
blood
of
our
brethren
in
our
hearts.
And
these,
I
noticed
that none
of these
lessons that
I've
articulated
come down
one way
or the
other
necessarily,
but they
are things
that we
as Christians
should all
hold and
consider as
we are
struggling
with this
issue of
capital
punishment.
Murder is
worthy of
death and
execution,
but so
are all
sins.
It is
right for
someone to
be justly
punished for
their sins,
but ultimately
vengeance is
God's.
It is
right for
someone to
be justly
punished,
but remember
that the
Lord is
merciful.
He
also is
merciful on
victims as
well,
not just
criminals.
And
remember
that
from the
Lord's
perspective,
we are
all guilty
of murder
if we've
hated someone
in our
heart.
That's the
biblical
standard.
These are
things we
should always
consider when
we consider
things like
the death
penalty.
Okay, we
have about
five, six,
seven minutes
left for
questions.
Matt.
I would
request that
somebody read
numbers 35,
33 through
34.
Numbers
35?
35,
33 through
34?
35,
33,
okay.
Oh, sorry,
I'm at
numbers 33.
This is
where technology
is not
faster.
Okay, so
you shall
not pollute
the land in
which you
live, for
blood pollutes
the land,
and no
atonement
can be
made for
the land,
for the
land, for
the blood
that is
shed in
it, except
by the
blood of
the one
who shed
it.
You
shall not
defile the
land in
which you
live, in
the midst
of which
I dwell,
for I, the
Lord, dwell in
the midst
of the
people of
Israel.
Okay.
Yeah, do
you have
thoughts, Matt?
Could you
just read the
first verse
again?
Yeah, you
shall not
pollute the
land in
which you
live, for
blood pollutes
the land, and
no atonement
can be made
for the land,
for the blood
that is
shed in
it, except
by the blood
of the
one who
shed it.
So, by
the way, I
don't think
the Bible is
totally clear
about whether
we should
practice the
death penalty
in the United
States today
or not.
But it
seems to me
that that is
the strongest
passage in
the Bible,
supporting the
idea that the
death penalty
is just.
And I
just suggest,
in addition to
the two
possibilities you
mentioned, that
we shouldn't
practice the
death penalty,
that the
death penalty
is permissible,
a third
position would
be, you
know, the
death penalty
is just.
And if we
don't practice
that, you
know, we're
falling short.
Yes, yes.
Thank you.
This whole
passage, actually,
if you go
even a few
verses earlier,
he says, if
anyone kills
a person, the
murderer shall
be put to
death.
Period.
So, yes,
there are many
people make
that argument,
Matt, in
favor of
capital punishment.
Ivor.
When they
have a lot
of evidence
for the guy
who's caught
in the act,
I think, in
my opinion,
that's the
only time
they should
ever do
the death
penalty.
That gets
to the
biblical idea.
In fact,
the verse I
just read
continues, I
think, getting
at what you're
saying.
It says,
if anyone
kills a person,
the murderer
shall be put
to death on
the evidence
of witnesses,
but no
person shall
be put to
death on
the testimony
of one
witness,
which there's
this very
high evidentiary
standard that
was demanded.
And I'm
not a lawyer,
so some
of you may
be, but we
have this
beyond reasonable
doubt standard
in the United
States when it
comes to
criminal cases.
But you
could, in
theory, imagine
an even higher
standard where
you demand that
even if certain
evidence is
removed, it
still meets the
bar of beyond
reasonable doubt,
which this
sort of gets
at.
Even if you
remove some of
the witnesses,
there'll still be
another witness.
Giovanni.
Yeah, so,
for example,
I think that
the Bible
does not
also explicitly
abolish, for
example, slavery.
On the contrary,
it has a lot
of regulations
on slavery
in the Old
Testament,
and also in
the New Testament
because they
did about it.
But the
Bible has
the seed,
which is the
dignity of
human life
that leads
to a
eventual
slavery.
So, I
wonder if
that would
be a
model to
think about.
Very good.
It does
have some
kind of
permission to
it, and
even some
kind of
regulation to
it, but
if we should
strive for,
as the gospel
rolls into
the world,
societies
that
progressively
abolish
the capital
fund.
I agree.
Yes, Giovanni,
that is a
very good
articulation.
If we take
the example
of slavery,
like you
said, the
Old Testament
appears to
permit it,
but the
seeds are
laid for
considering all
humans equal
in the eyes
of God,
and that
seed blossomed
into abolition.
You could
make the
same argument
for the
death penalty,
that the
death penalty
was permitted,
but the
seeds are
planted to
abolish it.
You could
also make
a contextual
argument,
if you
wanted to,
based on
ancient
societies and
modern societies
and things
like that.
So there's
multiple ways
you can get
at that.
I guess the
question that
remains is,
at which
point of
history are
we right
now?
Yes, I
know, are
we at the
holy mountain
stage where
we're beating
our swords
into plowshares?
I know.
Next week,
we're talking
about warfare,
and we're
going to see
that the
early church
was extremely
pacifistic,
that Christians
were not to
conduct warfare.
But then,
once there was
a Christian
emperor,
they started
thinking,
well, wait
a second
here,
we're going
to rethink
this.
Their context
changed,
and they
rethought
things.
And that
is different
than what
you're talking
about,
because it's
worldly context
instead of a,
but context
really does
matter in
some of
these questions.
Okay, let
me conclude
in prayer,
and then we
got to get
upstairs.
Father in
heaven, this
is a hard
question, Lord.
We pray, Lord,
that none
of us would
find ourselves
in a situation
where we have
to make these
kinds of choices,
but we pray,
Lord, that you
would give us
wisdom and
discernment about
capital punishment,
that you would
help us to be
bearers of your
spirit and your
gospel to this
world, both your
justice and
mercy.
We pray, Lord,
that in
disputable
matters we
would honor
our brothers
and sisters
who think
differently,
that we
would love
them and
care for
them and
respect them.
And, Lord,
in view of
your mercy,
Lord, we
pray for
those who
are on
death row
right now in
this country.
We pray that
they would
come to know
you, and
we pray for
those who
they harmed,
that you
would bring
mercy and
peace,
to their
lives, and
much assurance
through your
Holy Spirit.
And we pray
this in the
name of
Jesus.
Amen.
All right,
thanks, folks.
Thanks, folks.