The 6th commandment states “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex. 20:13) however killing as punishment for certain crimes has long been considered a valid exception to this commandment. Our current practice of capital punishment has Biblical roots and is thought by many to be a continuing Biblical mandate. Christians advocating against capital punishment often base this on extending other Biblical values such as loving your enemies and the necessity of a “consistent value of life” when opposing abortion. Others, most notably Pope John Paul, have pointed to traditional church teachings referring to execution only in the absence of other options and concluded that the availability of prisons (which were not around during Old Testament times) rules out the necessity of executions. Still others have pointed to the Old Testament directive to execute people for crimes no longer considered capital offenses (adultery, homosexual acts, violating the Sabbath, disrespecting your parents, etc). While this sort of logic can be compelling, it goes beyond Scripture. This is actually not necessary as a careful review of the Bible itself presents much more concrete support for the anti-execution crowd.
A key question when considering this issue is: who is authorized by God to order an execution? To begin, let’s take a look at the Old Testament instructions on execution. For capital crimes not including murder, the executioners were stated to be the “congregation” (Num. 15:35) or “the people of the land” (Lev. 20:2). These terms appear to be synonymous as the nation of Israel was a theocracy. All citizens were part of the congregation and were instructed to follow Moses and Aaron, the first high priest, and ultimately their successors. In the case of murder, the only one of these sins still considered a capital offense, there was a provision for the perpetrator to be executed by “the avenger of blood” (Num. 35:19, 21) who was a designated relative of the victim. However, even in this case, the final judgment of whether murder had been committed was the decision of the congregation (Num. 35:12, 24), effectively authorizing that body exclusively, to order an execution. The congregation, in turn, was led by the priests and ultimately by the high priest.
The priests’ conduct and lifestyle was strictly regulated to ensure their ability to intercede for all the people with God – effectively to keep the lines of communication open. This was a very unique role as the priests bore the sins of the congregation (Num. 18:23), even to the point that the high priest’s death appeared to be substitutionary atonement for those committing involuntary manslaughter (Num. 35:25, 28). The priests required regular and specific atonement in order to enter the presence of God. No others were to enter into His presence (Num. 18:22). Based on all these factors, a compelling argument can be made that God’s intention for execution was that it be an indirect judgment from God Himself through the judgment of a sinless (albeit temporarily sinless through ritual atonement) priest. Effectively, this rendered a perfect, all knowing, loving, just God as the executioner. There is no question regarding God’s qualifications to render such judgment.
Translating these Biblical directives to a secular government is an unsupportable stretch. Compared with the proscribed lifestyle of the Old Testament priests and their unique role, judges today are not God’s representatives and thus are sorely unqualified to hand down the death penalty. This begs the theoretical question (since it’s clearly illegal): if we had spiritual leaders following the directives given in the Old Testament would they then be qualified to order executions?
Christians have to reply with a resounding “no” on several accounts. First, the role of priest as intercessor and substitutionary atonement has been made forever obsolete by the permanent atonement of Jesus death – no such high priests can exist anymore. This fact alone supports the anti-death penalty argument because no one is currently qualified, nor authorized by God, to make these decisions.
An additional side point can be made that perhaps the role of the “avenger of blood” was specifically revoked in the New Testament when Paul communicated that vengeance belongs to God alone (Rom. 12:19).
Another, less concrete example arises from Jesus statement that He came to “fulfill the law” (Matt. 5:17b). The Bible states that the “wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23a). While we know that Jesus’ death fulfills this penalty for His followers by enabling them to have eternal life after death (Rom. 6:23b), might a case be made that His death also fulfilled the earthly penalty of capital punishment? This particular point admittedly requires thinking beyond Scripture but bears consideration.
A more intriguing idea is the case to be made that Jesus abolished legal execution even before His death. For this we look at the story of the adulterous woman (John 8:2-11).
In brief, the religious leaders bring a woman to Jesus who was caught in the act of adultery. They cite the Old Testament law requiring her to be put to death and ask Jesus to rule on the matter. Jesus replied that whoever among them was sinless should cast the first stone. Slowly but surely each person drops their stone and leaves. Jesus then tells the woman that He does not condemn her either and she should go and sin no more.
Many view this as a beautiful story of Jesus' mercy to a sinner convicted of, what was then, a capital crime. But beneath the surface we see a timeless story that confronts the practice of execution by highlighting its extreme shortcomings – serious flaws around corruption and bias that continue in our justice system today.
To understand this we need to examine the punishment for adultery in Leviticus 20:10. This verse clearly states that both the man and the woman were to be put to death. Upon bringing this woman to Jesus the priests stated that she had been caught in “the very act” of adultery (John 8:4). Since the act takes two, where was the man? It appears that God’s designated judges, the priests, were applying the law unequally – valuing one class of citizen over another. God did not merely imply impartiality in judgment, He directly commanded it (Lev. 19:15). These leaders were directly violating God’s laws – their judgment was affected by bias and maybe influence, as we continue to see today.
Jesus responded with a clear directive, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7). Since the Old Testament required execution, by the congregation, for adultery, this raises a very interesting question: did Jesus abolish this Old Testament law? There are Christians who would argue that He did exactly that however Jesus states clearly that He did not come to abolish the law (Matt. 5:17a). So how can His directive be reconciled with upholding the law?
First, it’s important to distinguish between the law and the punishment for breaking the law. In this case, the law stated that adultery was a sin. Jesus affirmed and upheld this law when He told the woman to “go and sin no more” (John 8:11b).
Stoning was the penalty for breaking the law. In the case of adultery, the people, under the direction of the priests, were the lawful executioners. So did Jesus change this law? His requirement was that the executioners be sinless. As the executioners were mere people, this prerequisite seems to be impossible. Isn’t adding an insurmountable obstacle to the practice of lawful punishment effectively changing the law?
To answer this we go back to the required practices for priests. Although priests were not born, nor were they permanently, sinless, the mandated practice of atonement rendered them temporarily sinless whenever they entered the tabernacle and communicated with God. Again, these practices were designed to keep the lines of communication with God clear. In the case of this adulterous woman, the religious leaders’ clearly corrupt judgment is evidence that they’ve fallen out of communication with God and were currently in a sinful state. Jesus did not change the law he merely clarified it by pointing out that due to their disobedience they were no longer qualified, under the already existing requirement, to be “sinless” judges. The brilliant irony of Jesus' directive is that it wasn't dependent on any prior sins the priests committed, rather He caught them "in the very act" (to use their own words) of willfully disobeying God's command to be impartial in judgment (Lev. 19:15). They had no leg to stand on and as scholars of Torah, they had to know this. Jesus was in fact upholding the law – the priests in this case were not.
In summary, although a number of emotional and practical appeals have been made by Christians against the death penalty, we need go no further than Scripture itself for a compelling argument against its continuance:
- The Old Testament has no precedence for execution ordered by a secular court.
- Because of Jesus’ death, priests are no longer God’s designated representatives leaving us with no qualified judges in this area.
- Jesus’ Himself rendered the priests unqualified to judge even prior to His death due to their disobedience in applying judgment.
The Bible does not appear to offer any support for our current practice of capital punishment – we’d be a better people without it.
Your comments are welcome.
Thanks for reading.
The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law. Deuteronomy 29:29
