capital-punishment, Ethics, Jurisprudence

Should we Abolish the Death Penalty? Biblical Arguments

This is more of the religious arguments surrounding the Death Penalty from this conversation:

https://spirited-tech.com/2022/06/27/should-we-abolish-the-death-penalty/

MM said:

The woman caught in adultery:

Yes, it is true that people doubt whether this story belongs in the Bible, who wrote it, where it should go in the Bible, etc. I am not a Biblical scholar, and I will assume that neither are you. If I’m wrong, I apologize. Both of us could send each other articles supporting our position on this, but I think that’s a bit beside the point. I for one am content to accept what the Church teaches– I trust biologists to teach me about biology, cooks to teach me how to cook, and the Church to instruct me in religious matters. Therefore I believe that this parable does belong in the Bible and is in exactly the right place. (Incidentally, I found a lengthy article by Edward Hills, who originally studied with Van Till, explaining why he believed it did belong in the Bible. ) At any rate, even if we were to say that it doesn’t, it does not follow that it is false. It is quite reasonable for there to be true stories about Jesus that aren’t in the Bible. In one of the gospels (John I think) it says something to the effect of “I am not writing every story about Jesus down because it would fill more books than would fit in the world.”  This idea is not my own, but I can’t provide the source because I no longer know where I found it. At any rate it’s not exactly a novel idea.
About the Sermon on the Mount and “punishment should fit the crime”– this is certainly a just and reasonable principle. But, like many things, it is not meant to be followed to the letter. If, after all, we took it to its logical conclusion, not only should murderers be executed, but rapists should be raped, someone who burns a house should have his own house burnt down, someone who tortures someone should be tortured. Even if this might be just, that does not mean we can or may do it. Certain acts are too degrading to be permitted, regardless of the perpetrator and what he or she has done. (I am curious, too, how far you advocate lex talionis– do you believe in an actual eye for an actual eye? A hand for a hand?) It is clear to pretty much everyone that we can’t just rape someone because they did it. Not only would it be fully immoral, it also makes a terrible excuse. “We did it because they did.” You say (quote, from Dr. Greg Welty) “the OT itself forbids taking vengeance by any means.” Don’t you see that the death penalty, at least the way it is currently applied, is, like it or not, simply taking vengeance? If you ever take a second and read what victim’s families, judges, correctional officers, etc., have to say about executions you’ll see that it is very much vengeance language.  IF executions were correct, they would have to be carried out sorrowfully, as a solemn duty– not gleefully and with insults. (I am not saying this is always the case, but pretty much every time someone expresses pleasure.)
About Genesis 9:6–
I think this doesn’t really help your case. “Whosoever sheds man’s blood” It does not say “whosoever other than the government.” Then you say “…is to point to the unjustified taking of human life.” i.e., murder. Exactly. There is no such thing as the justified taking of human life. (There’s self defense, but the goal is technically not to take life,  but to defend life, so–) We can argue that this only applies to the killing of the innocent. But there isn’t actually any basis for this claim in this verse. Indeed, in the quote you go on to say– “Therefore, to murder a human being is to murder someone who is more like God than any other creature on the earth. The murder of another human being is therefore a kind of attack against God himself, for it is an attack against his representative on the earth, an attack against the “image” of himself that he has left on the earth. …” I couldn’t agree with this more– except that I believe it also extends to murderers. 
 

I think it is a gross insult to God, a grievous sin, to dare to presume that we have the right to kill one of his children. I see no way this could be acceptable. It is the image and likeness of God we are dealing with here. Perhaps it is just to execute someone — after all we’re all worthy of death, being sinners — but we are simply not worthy to carry out the punishment. That is God’s place, not ours.

 

VincenttheFakeGregBahnsen said:


 I for one am content to accept what the Church teaches– I trust biologists to teach me about biology, cooks to teach me how to cook, and the Church to instruct me in religious matters.

This is only true, insofar, you believe the church is a reliable source for truth. I maintain the Catholic church isn’t a reliable source on issues of faith and morals. The onus would be on you to demonstrate we should trust the Catholic church on these matters. Secondly, even under Catholic authorities the death penalty isn’t invalid. Thirdly, it seems your position goes beyond the teaching of the church because you maintain it was always wrong to execute someone, but this isn’t Catholic thought on the matter. In that regard, you are at odds with the RCC.

Therefore I believe that this parable does belong in the Bible and is in exactly the right place. (Incidentally, I found a lengthy article by Edward Hills, who originally studied with Van Till, explaining why he believed it did belong in the Bible. ) 

I am not saying it doesn’t belong, but the Church doesn’t maintain that it is original. In fact, the Church has spent the last 100 years allowing textual critical opinions into the Church. There is no connection between being Catholic and maintaining that passage is original.

Edward Hills’ position was taken in defense of his KJV onlyism. But I doubt that you would maintain that position. 

It is quite reasonable for there to be true stories about Jesus that aren’t in the Bible. In one of the gospels (John I think) it says something to the effect of “I am not writing every story about Jesus down because it would fill more books than would fit in the world.”  This idea is not my own, but I can’t provide the source because I no longer know where I found it. At any rate it’s not exactly a novel idea. 

The issue I would take with this position is that it may be correct, but we are not in a position to know whether it is or isn’t. We shouldn’t forget that one of the articles I sent argued that your interpretation of the passage isn’t necessarily correct. The theonomic interpretation maintains that Jesus didn’t wish for them to be stoned because it doesn’t fit the OT requirements for stoning. This is seen from the fact it doesn’t have both parties and it doesn’t have two witnesses. 

About the Sermon on the Mount and “punishment should fit the crime”– this is certainly a just and reasonable principle. But, like many things, it is not meant to be followed to the letter. If, after all, we took it to its logical conclusion, not only should murderers be executed, but rapists should be raped, someone who burns a house should have his own house burnt down, someone who tortures someone should be tortured.

This actually what I was stating wasn’t true. I agree and maintain that the principle behind the “eye for an eye” is that punishments should fit the crime, but it never meant that the same action must be done to the offending party. The idea is more akin to that a rapist should be punished accordingly. He shouldn’t only receive a month in jail. God thought that it was fair to have people executed for murder. 

You say (quote, from Dr. Greg Welty) “the OT itself forbids taking vengeance by any means.” Don’t you see that the death penalty, at least the way it is currently applied, is, like it or not, simply taking vengeance? If you ever take a second and read what victim’s families, judges, correctional officers, etc., have to say about executions you’ll see that it is very much vengeance language.  IF executions were correct, they would have to be carried out sorrowfully, as a solemn duty– not gleefully and with insults. (I am not saying this is always the case, but pretty much every time someone expresses pleasure.) 

Firstly, the OT operated on a restitution system. This involved vengeance, but not at any cost. Vigilanteism isn’t a valid method of justice. Furthermore, we do have a duty to execute murderers for their crimes. I find no inconsistency and it is a sad thing when someone is executed, but there is a sense of joy in justice being fulfilled. 

I think this doesn’t really help your case. “Whosoever sheds man’s blood” It does not say “whosoever other than the government.” Then you say “…is to point to the unjustified taking of human life.” i.e., murder. 

This ignores the rest of the verse:

Whoever sheds human blood,
By man his blood shall be shed,
For in the image of God
He made mankind.

The “By man his blood shall be shed” is being ignored to make a true, but corrupted point. Man doesn’t have the right to take human life, unless divinely sanctioned. God has the rights over humans and can revoke our right to live for one of our deeds (ie murder). God uses man as his image-bearers to present this will on earth and when we allow these people to live we are acting against God’s command. We need to subjugate our feelings and moral beliefs to that of God’s will.

MM said:

1. Yes, it would be up to me to prove that we should believe the Catholic Church. But that would turn this into a different argument rather distant from what we were talking about. If you want to have an argument debating the theological soundness of the Catholic Church, we can do that, but I think it would be easier as a separate argument. However: in the Catechism (which for the Catholic Church is authority that must be obeyed) it says : “Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.” Therefore, the Church clearly states the death penalty is invalid. I thought there was an extra sentence stating that in rare cases it may be permitted if it is required for the protection of the general public, but I don’t see this so I can’t guarantee it. Second, I do not necessarily maintain that it was always inadmissible to execute someone. It is possible that there have been cases in the past where no other option was available. (For instance, it might be permissable to execute a dangerous serial killer if you had no secure jail to put him in.) This is really a form of defense and therefore permitted. In the past, this was more likely as we did not always have secure detention facilities. This does not mean that all executions before a certain date were just, it just means some of them could perhaps have been justified. What I am saying, and have been saying all the time, it that in our day and age there is no excuse and no justification for executions in the US.

2. As a general rule, most Catholics believe in the woman caught in adultery. In fact, it was the gospel reading just yesterday. This doesn’t mean the Church doesn’t allow study and inquiry into the Bible; we are always happy to learn more. As far as I know, all Catholic Bibles include the story, although some will place it in brackets or supply footnotes explaining the controversy around it. (As for Edward Hill, my including the reference to his article had nothing to do with whether I believed in other beliefs of his.)
3. Of course, we can’t know for certain. I stated it as a possibility. But this is not something we can find out for certain in a short time. I agree, there are various interpretations of this passage. Even assuming, though, that Jesus only objected to the stoning because the requirements were not met doesn’t negate my position. It would simply provide no evidence for what Jesus would do in a different case where the requirements were met. Furthermore, I don’t think this argument holds up to a lot of scrutiny — for instance, they could easily have produced the other party if Jesus had asked and there could easily have been enough witnesses.
4. If “punishment should fit the crime” literally, but this means something of similar gravity as opposed to the exact same thing, why isn’t this clearly expressed? Why doesn’t it say “(however many) coins for an eye, imprisonment for a tooth?” or something like that? Also, it is quite possible that someone would deserve such a punishment — but that doesn’t mean we should administer it. God is a God not only of justice but of mercy.
5. I don’t think it’s exactly accurate to say the Old Testament operated on vengeance — strict and literal justice, maybe, but “vengeance” is usually reserved for God. At any rate, I suppose if executions were moral, one could have a sense of joy in the fact that justice was being done. But the mere fact that the idea of being pleased at someone’s death automatically makes me recoil and seems warped is a good reason to pause and examine capital punishment to see if it’s really “justice” or permitted.

6. This is reasonable at first glance, but it doesn’t ignore the fact that in that case the executioners would technically also have to be executed and there would be no end. And again, this is an Old Testament commandment. Many Old Testament commandments are a sort of “safe-guard” for the children of God until He comes himself as the Son to give them the new law. It’s like Jesus’ reversal of the permission to divorce — as he says, now that he is there, this is no longer permitted.

VincenttheFakeGregBahnsen said:

Therefore, the Church clearly states the death penalty is invalid. I thought there was an extra sentence stating that in rare cases it may be permitted if it is required for the protection of the general public, but I don’t see this so I can’t guarantee it. 

Many Catholics debate whether the death penalty is invalid. The Catholic Catechism isn’t necessarily defined as dogma, but as doctrine. Catholicism does have the teaching of the magisterium and etc that may imply such, but that is highly contentious and in my opinion, contradicts Catholic teaching from other times.

Second, I do not necessarily maintain that it was always inadmissible to execute someone. It is possible that there have been cases in the past where no other option was available. (For instance, it might be permissable to execute a dangerous serial killer if you had no secure jail to put him in.) This is really a form of defense and therefore permitted. In the past, this was more likely as we did not always have secure detention facilities. This does not mean that all executions before a certain date were just, it just means some of them could perhaps have been justified. What I am saying, and have been saying all the time, it that in our day and age there is no excuse and no justification for executions in the US. 

This is a respectable position. The only thing I might state is that we must not confuse belief and entailment. My point was your arguments entailed that the death penalty was invalid in every circumstance. This is different from you believing that, even though I was curious if you did.

To your second point, I was just explaining why I differ from Dr. Hill. 

I agree, there are various interpretations of this passage. Even assuming, though, that Jesus only objected to the stoning because the requirements were not met doesn’t negate my position. It would simply provide no evidence for what Jesus would do in a different case where the requirements were met. Furthermore, I don’t think this argument holds up to a lot of scrutiny — for instance, they could easily have produced the other party if Jesus had asked and there could easily have been enough witnesses. 

I think the issue with this response is that it concedes that this doesn’t truly tell us whether Jesus was against the Death Penalty. It only shows in this case it wasn’t his intention. As for the reason the man wasn’t provided, I actually think that he was a part of the group persecuting Christ and was being protected by them. 

If “punishment should fit the crime” literally, but this means something of similar gravity as opposed to the exact same thing, why isn’t this clearly expressed? Why doesn’t it say “(however many) coins for an eye, imprisonment for a tooth?” or something like that? Also, it is quite possible that someone would deserve such a punishment — but that doesn’t mean we should administer it. God is a God not only of justice but of mercy. 

God is a God of mercy, but that has a context as well. He is also the judge of all the world that has allowed these governments to form and commanded them to enforce his will. The point is that it is a stylistic choice on Moses’ part to explain clan politics. It was never considered to be literal, but the notion behind such continues to this day.

To your fifth point, you may repulse at the idea, it just doesn’t bother me. I think if someone raped or murdered someone close to me, I would want a pound of flesh. I agree, that stating the law operated on vengeance isn’t necessarily true, but it does hold to the retributive theory of justice. 

This is reasonable at first glance, but it doesn’t ignore the fact that in that case the executioners would technically also have to be executed and there would be no end. And again, this is an Old Testament commandment. Many Old Testament commandments are a sort of “safe-guard” for the children of God until He comes himself as the Son to give them the new law. It’s like Jesus’ reversal of the permission to divorce — as he says, now that he is there, this is no longer permitted. 

I sent an article defending the continuing relevance of the OT law and the NT life. Secondly, the executioner didn’t unjustly take human life. So, he has been commanded to take life. So, it seems you are ignoring clarification the OT has already and reading these things wooden literally.

One thought on “Should we Abolish the Death Penalty? Biblical Arguments”

  1. Pingback: Should we Abolish the Death Penalty? Practical Arguments - The Council

Leave a comment