By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed

The hangman’s noose, the gas chamber, the electric chair, lethal injection, a firing squad, the sword, have all been instruments of capital punishment. They do not conjure up comfortable feelings. Having to put someone to death, though government is given that right, is not a pleasurable thing. God, the one who has ordained capital punishment, has said that He takes no “pleasure in the death of the wicked” (Ezek. 18:23). Society is deeply divided over the legitimacy of the death penalty. Those who think it should be abolished argue that it is barbaric, discriminatory, and fails as a deterrent to criminal violence. We are hearing arguments that the United States is out of step with the more civilized nations of the world who have abolished the death penalty, and that its continued use is keeping America from being a human rights leader.

The highly publicized case of abortion clinic bomber, Eric Rudolph, has raised the question again. Should society put to death those who have been found guilty of murdering their fellow citizens? Is it a contradiction to say that one believes in the sanctity of human life and yet argues for the use of the death penalty? To further complicate matters, even certain religious leaders tell us that the idea of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” is antiquated and should yield to a more enlightened approach to the punishment of criminals. Those who are advocates of capital punishment are made to appear as unmerciful, backward, and unenlightened. But what is the truth? Is there any moral sanity that can guide us through the critical issues of life and death? A Christian worldview holds the keys to morally sound and truthful conclusions.

The sanctity of human life requires capital punishment (Gen. 2:17; 9:5, 6). Man has been made in the image of God. Violence in the form of murder is an outrage against God. It has been wisely noted that “murder is wrong because it is killing God in effigy.” One of the first directives given to Noah as he embarked upon a new world was the right of government to take the life of those who have shed the blood of their fellow man. The global flood of Noah’s day was brought on by the evil and violence of the pre-diluvium civilization (Gen. 6:11). God ordained capital punishment for the nation of Israel for a number of offenses (Deut. 17:12; Lev. 20:15-16; Ex. 22:19). While Israel’s law is not necessarily to be the law of non-theocratic nations, certainly it can be said that the death penalty is not inherently morally wrong. The teaching of Jesus does not set aside the Old Testament mandate for capital punishment (Matt. 5:21-22; Jn. 8:1-11). Jesus was not critical of Israel’s use of the death penalty. Murderers were to be judged according the Mosaic Law.

Human government is given the right to take human life for a justifiable reason (Rom. 13:1-7; Acts 25:11). Human government is ordained by God and its laws are to be obeyed (unless they are commands to break God’s laws). When human laws are broken, government has the right to use force as punishment. That is the significance of the symbol of the sword in Romans 13:4. Paul is affirming the right of government to take the life of a criminal. Such abiding truths as justice and personal responsibility are foundational to the case for the morality of the death penalty. Retribution and the right of government (but not individuals) to exact vengeance for crimes committed are not only right, but necessary for the protection of law-abiding citizens. The nation that forfeits its responsibility to hold people accountable for their actions in relation to its laws is committing social suicide. If someone commits a crime freely, he is morally responsible. Attempts to mitigate the crime of murder by appeals to rehabilitation, and supposed developing moral sensitivities are brutal and confused. It was Adam Smith who said, “Mercy to the guilty is cruelty to the innocent.” We should find no comfort in the arguments of legal and ethical standard bearers who tell us that violence only begets more violence. The agenda behind such a shallow bromide is not in the best interest of justice and mercy.

Are the lives of convicted criminals “more worth preserving than the lives of an indefinite number of innocent victims”? Is the purpose of the penal system to rehabilitate? Is overlooking a capital offense a loving thing? Is it possible to create a legal system that can eliminate all human error in criminal convictions? Is capital punishment an appropriate response to evil? The answers to these questions demand moral clarity, but that cannot come about until the issue of ultimate authority is resolved. Is moral law based on the opinions of man or upon the character of an infinitely wise and just God?

Dr. Howard E. Dial
Berachah Bible Church