Why I Oppose the Death Penalty: “The Talking Place: Discussing the Death Penalty” Forum on the Death Penalty, Fairbanks Alaska, March 22, 1997 – Part Three
[NOTE: I was invited to participate in a
statewide dialogue on the Death Penalty in Alaska, where capital punishment is off the
law books. The issue was heating up,
sadly because of Evangelicals in that state.
I, representative of Mennonite Central Committee Canada Victim Offender
Ministries at the time, was asked to “debate” the issue on biblical grounds
with Dr. Richard Land (read about him at: http://www.erlc.com/CC_Content_Page/0,,PTID314166|CHID600674|CIID,00.html),
then as now President
of The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern
Baptist
Convention. I said I would not take part
unless the event was changed to a “dialogue” where winners are not
declared
like a gladiatorial contest, but participants are honoured in honest
dialogue. Below is the text I first spoke from in that
dialogue, held at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and
teleconferenced throughout Alaska, including to the Juneau
legislature. I reflect on this, including inserting a
letter I wrote Dr. Land years later in seeing that his support of the
death
penalty (he is after all a sixth-generation Texan, where Texas is the
most
killing jurisdiction in the Western world) had grown to support for
U.S. Empire
worldwide capital punishment (of vast numbers of innocents) in its War
on
Terror. You may read these reflections
at: http://www.clarion-journal.ca/article.php?story=20040721064535388.
A professional video was done at the
time, which one may borrow from me.
The initial presentation is divided into Parts One and Two. There is also Part Three where I gave responses to specific biblical texts usually (wrongly, I argue) adduced in support of the Death Penalty.]
Part III
Refutations of Use of Specific Texts:
In discussing specific texts, this is not to forget the wider "face of God" arguments that set an overall picture of God that simply disallows violent responses to others according to the picture of Jesus who is the final face of God in the New Testament.
What does one do with specific textual arguments, nonetheless?
Three main bodies of material are alluded to: Mosaic Law, the Noahic Covenant, and Romans 13:1 - 7. I believe that none of these points to Christians' mandatory or permissible resort to capital punishment.
I. Mosaic Law
When the Mosaic Code is alluded to, it is argued that this penal code enjoyed divine sanction, and should therefore be incorporated into the penal codes of contemporary countries. There are several problems with this argumentation:
A. There is no obvious biblical reason for believing that Mosaic Law is any more to be used today than genocide and scorched earth policies followed repeatedly by the people of God who similarly were given, according to the texts, divine sanction. Why should the word of the LORD to Saul from Samuel about destruction of an entire people (genocide) and their belongings (scorched earth) in I Sam. 15 not be followed today? If it is said it is today morally repugnant, I say precisely. And that is again, why we are followers of Jesus and not followers of Moses.
B. We know of course that the death penalty in Mosaic Law was not limited to murder, but to a host of other offences, rebellious children. On what basis can we be selective about how we will use the death penalty?
C. The civil code of Mosaic Law is for an ancient people in an ancient time. Likewise with ceremonial law. With the end of the theocracy came an end to all such law.
Mosaic Law therefore cannot be the basis for supporting capital punishment. (John 1:17) "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." (NIV) Mosaic Law was superseded in the fuller view of God's face in Jesus Christ. That is why Jesus constantly said: "You have heard it said... but I say unto you."
II. Genesis 9
It is true that this passage has been used most to support the death penalty throughout all the ages of Christendom. To challenge it may seem impertinent or even wrongheaded. Nonetheless, I am suggesting that we must look more closely. When we do, I think that whatever else we do with the text, we may not use it to support the death penalty. This is a simple matter of doing close exegetical work on the text.
Once in a dialogue at Trinity Western University on this very passage in my home town, BC, the New Testament scholar based his entire support upon this text. In response, another New Testament scholar from Regent College raised some of the following considerations. The "for" capital punishment New Testament scholar graciously conceded at the end that he had no other biblical arguments to advance in support of the death penalty, and that he could no longer use Genesis 9 as a textual basis for capital punishment.
A prison guard acquaintance of mine, in support of the death penalty, told me with real disappointment at the end of the evening that it had been like taking candy from a baby to refute the biblical arguments in support of the death penalty. I thought so too. Here were the arguments adduced to refute the use of Genesis 9 to support capital punishment. They draw upon the work of Christian Reformed scholars who did an extensive exegesis of Genesis 9, and published their results in the Acts of Synod 1981.
1. Contextual Considerations
a) The key verse in question is Gen 9:6a: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed...." (NIV) The focus of meaning of this passage apparently is societal protection. If this is true, then already the goal of protecting society is served if a "murderer" is placed into prison. Surely the intent of the passage is fulfilled without doing the literal killing in response. We know that the intent of Paul's instruction in several of his letters to "greet one another with a holy kiss" is fulfilled in a "hearty handshake all around" as J.B. Phillips paraphrases it. This is a trivial example of how we contextualize interpretation of Scripture to extract a principle, but not necessarily to follow the "letter", which may in fact kill the Spirit!
b) Now notice verse 5: "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man." Notice that animals are to be killed, according to the text, as much as humans, for taking a life. So why this verse? Surely the issue is protection, and not a matter of divine retribution raining down on even the animals! There is clearly no solemn, divine commandment, that would slay an animal every time it kills a human. Likewise, we cannot take this passage as giving a solemn, divine commandment to kill people for killing people.
2. Dietary Considerations
How many of you have ever eaten "blut-wurst" or rare meat? You shouldn't, according to this text! Listen to verse 4: "But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it." These are the same absolute terms as verse 6. Verse 4 clearly excludes blood from the diet of all humanity. This is what "kosher" means, and millions of Jews throughout history have only eaten kosher. Again, I ask: "Do you only eat kosher meat?" Why not, if Gen. 9:6 is to be timelessly binding? The point of verse 4 is clearly the treatment of all life with respect, and therefore not to eat living flesh. But "just as this respect need not take the form of eschewing the consumption of blood (as in 'blut-wurst'), so it need not take the form of inflicting capital punishment (Acts of Synod 1981, p. 459)."
4. Historical Considerations
a) If Genesis 9:6 is to be interpreted as timeless, since it pre-dated Mosaic Law, should not Gen. 4:5 be considered that much more prior and timeless, since it is dealing with the very first murder in history according to the biblical story? And what does God do in response to the first murderer, Cain? God prohibits anyone from killing him in retaliation! The question of the "state" of course is absent in Genesis 4. But so is it in Genesis 9!
b) If it is argued that God seemingly treats something as serious as murder differently at different times, that is precisely the point: we live after the time of the revelation of God in Christ! That God in this age of grace says no to all human sacrifices, to all state killings is precisely my argument.
c) "If there be in Genesis 9:6 an inviolable and universally binding command to execute murderers, then there is in Genesis 9:1 and 7 a similar command to 'be fruitful and multiply and to bring forth abundantly on the earth.' (Acts of Synod 1981, p. 460)." We'll get to the issue yet of whether Gen. 9:6 is a command. But surely here, with reference to procreation, this is much more a blessing than a command. And do we modern Christians take from Genesis 9 that contraceptives are absolutely ruled out, or even natural methods of avoiding pregnancy, for we are "commanded" as absolutely in verses 1 and 7 as there is a "command" in verse 6, to "be fruitful and multiply". We allow that in our different historical situation, where Malthusian overpopulation threatens, the most environmentally responsible thing we Christians can do is have only a few children!
Likewise with the "command" in verse 6. It surely at the least is historically conditioned, and therefore not an inviolable, timeless, universal requirement by God.
5. Juridical Considerations
a) From a juridical point of view, if this passage is to be taken at all in that light, please note that the offence for which capital punishment is "mandated" is "shedding another's blood". Kidnapping, rape, mutiny, treason, etc. cannot be brought into view from this text.
b) i) Further, this blood-letting lacks juridical specification, if it is meant to be taken juridically at all. There is no distinction made between accidental, negligent, and willful homicide. What if, for instance, the axe-head slips off while I am chopping wood and I kill my best friend? Further, within homicide, there is no distinction made between crimes of passion and pre-meditated murder. Most who use this text to discover a "command" in support of the death penalty however ignore all those questions, and read into it the offence of first-degree murder.
ii) There is however an even greater problem with taking this text to refer to first-degree murder. And here my Acts of Synod exegetes let me down. They claim to discover in the text that what is being talked about here is murder. But there is no warrant from the text nor from the context for concluding that! The context in fact is overwhelming violence for which God is deeply grieved. God, the pre-Flood story tells us, hates violence. But he seemingly eschews violence in response to violence too, and that is clearly the import of the story of Cain. That is the timeless impact of the Cain and Abel story, that God says no to killing in response to killing! And notice that the text of Gen. 9:6, if it is to be taken as a "command", says the same thing. It says that all killing is wrong, no matter by whom. There is no more reason in this text to say that a murderer is in special view here than there is to say that a policeman or a soldier is likewise prohibited from killing.
No one believes that it is God's will that anyone who kills, all the way from accidentally to pre-meditatedly to in the line of duty for the state - anyone! - is forfeit his life. Why not? The text is surely very clear here, if this is a "command" of God?
If we turn to Mosaic Law for a commentary on this passage, we immediately have a problem: a man who beats his slave to death (or employee today) is exempt from capital punishment according to Moses (Ex. 20:13; 21:20, 21).
In summary: "An argument based on Genesis 9:6 commits one to demand the death penalty for any and every [killing] whatever the circumstances may be. [Gen. 9:6] therefore cannot be taken as a law, or as a juridical requirement. If it were so taken it would license unjust executions and subvert righteousness (Acts of Synod 1981, p. 462)."
c) It is also a curious fact that almost all who take Genesis 9:6 as a mandate for capital punishment translate the Hebrew word for "man" - adam - as "duly constituted governmental authorities". But there is no hint of this in the text at hand. Most so inclined then jump ahead to Rom.13:4 to find warrant for such an interpretation. But it is absolutely clear from the Genesis 9 context that "no state furnished with a penal code and judicial system was in existence (Acts of Synod 1981, p. 463)." What would be in the historical context here? It would doubtless be the ancient custom of the "avenger of blood" - the next of kin who pursues the killer to avenge his relative's blood. No Christian holds out for such a person today to take responsibility for killing those who have killed. Likewise, no Christian should make Genesis 9 do what it simply does not do: support capital punishment in a timeless way.
d) If Gen. 9:6 is not to be taken as a law or legal enactment, how then should it be read? The form of the verse suggests an answer. It appears in fact in many translations as poetry, typical of Hebrew wisdom literature. In fact there is a chiastic structure to the first half of the verse typical of such literature. Literally translated, the order is perfectly symmetrical:
"Shedding blood of man by man his blood will be shed." The first and last ideas match - "shedding", as do the second and second last concepts - "blood", as does the centre of the whole discussion: "man" - or "human being". Now, unless this is the one exception throughout the entire Hebrew Bible that proves the rule, no law anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible is ever given in poetic form.
We are familiar with this form from similar other biblical statements: (Matt 26:52) "all who draw the sword will die by the sword." (NIV); and (Gal 6:7) "A man reaps what he sows." (NIV). Put briefly: all such statements are descriptive of the way things happen in this world - apart from grace - but not prescriptive by any stretch of the way they ought to be in God's will. The Hebrew verb about "shedding" in the passage in fact may be understood entirely as simply descriptive or predictive, and nothing like a categorical imperative.
And that is precisely the whole thrust of my argument: yes, the world knows endless retaliation in response to killings. Remember Lamech who boasted of limitless retaliation (77 times). But as we know, in Jesus, the final face of God, in response to Peter's question about how often to forgive, Jesus said: (Matt 18:22) "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times." (NIV) Is that same number as used by Lamech just a coincidence? I think not. Jesus directly contradicts the way things are in this world, its inclination towards limitless retaliation, in favour of something world-shakingly different: limitless forgiveness. For that is the way it is when one gazes intently at the face of Jesus to get the correct picture of God.
Now do you understand why a close exegetical look at Genesis 9 leads to the concession that it simply is impossible to use it in any way as a support, let alone as a mandate, for the state to carry out capital punishment, and why my New Testament scholar dialogue partner 11 years ago had to let go of that passage in support of the death penalty?
III. Specious Arguments From New Testament Texts and Romans 13:1-7
If Mosaic Law and Gen. 9 are ruled out of consideration in the question of the death penalty, just what is left? Well, there are several attempts to pull Jesus into the discussion. I am prepared to deal with any that you may wish to raise. But I will not raise more than one myself, for in response to all of them I say the same thing: specious argumentation from the text and context themselves, not to mention that an attempt to interpret specific statements of or about Jesus in favour of the death penalty directly contradicts the entire revelation of Jesus' desire for mercy, not sacrifice, as I laid out earlier.
One example: one theologian suggests, and is actually serious, that "It is significant that when Jesus voluntarily went the way of the Cross he chose the capital punishment of his day as his instrument to save the world." Therefore, it is argued, since the Bible says that "without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins", God must have endorsed capital punishment! This is pure exegetical nonsense! If God endorsed capital punishment by this line of argumentation, then it follows logically that he endorsed as well the gruesome method of crucifixion as the means! And thankfully no modern state employs that method. That the world's greatest crime should be twisted to support capital punishment is irresponsible eisegesis (reading into the text) of the worst kind!
But there is one lingering text, and a commentary on it: Romans 13:1 - 7, and I Peter 2:13 - 17, and a few shorter texts which say nothing different from the Romans text - in I Timothy ((2:1 - 4) and Titus (3:1 - 2). For centuries the Romans text was taken to be the central teaching of the Church about the State. And therein is already the beginning of the problem! For the Romans 13 text was not the primary early Church text about the relationship of Christians to the State, but Eph. 6:12 - 20, beginning: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood...". I'll return to that later.
My Acts of Synod interpreters say: "No Bible believer would, of course, care to call into question the plain teaching of Romans 13.... (p. 463)." But that is precisely what they have done about the traditional "plain teaching" of Genesis 9, and have been successful! They should have taken a cue from their own work on re-examining Gen. 9 against the vast majority of previous or contemporary interpretations, to realize that something similar could be happening with the Romans 13 text. And there is!
My contention is that not only must the centuries-long dominant traditional interpretation of this text be challenged, but that once re-examined, it is found to be fully consonant with the "face of Jesus" I sketched at the outset.
In a small book entitled Essays on The Death Penalty [no current bibliographic information], published 35 years ago, the Editor says confidently about each of the pro-death penalty works published in the volume: "While the studies have been made independently by men who, for the most part, have never met each other, their remarkable singleness of thought can be explained by the fact that Christian doctrine does not change. Faith in Christ is truly catholic in the usual sense of that word as being of 'all men, everywhere, always.' True declaration of the Faith is not a matter of opinion, but an inescapable line of reason and experience that must follow upon the confession that Jesus is Lord." And I say, balderdash! This is in fact a remarkable boast, considering the first three centuries of the early Church knew a Church largely pacifist, and specifically excommunicated Christians who became soldiers and thereby participated in both capital punishment and war - as found in the widespread usage of the Canons of Hippolytus! What the editor shows us unknowingly is indeed a "remarkable singleness of thought" - but one based upon a post-Constantinian reading of Jesus that simply reversed Jesus' ethical teachings, especially about love of enemies! So for instance the lead essay is written by C.S. Lewis. Yet Lewis does not even mention the text, "Love your enemies", in another essay he wrote on why he is not a pacifist! Now I call that indeed a "remarkable singleness of thought", but one based upon a centuries-long rejection of the face of Jesus we see in the Gospels, upon a "scissors-and-paste" approach to Scripture, not upon a "confession that Jesus is Lord" - except Jesus as Lord of the Dark Blotches.
One Church historian, in a book entitled Constantine versus Christ (Kee,1982), indicates that there has been such a centuries-long overlay of Jesus' ethical teachings in the direction of rejection of them, that it is now nearly impossible to expect people to "see" Jesus' face right the first time in terms of his ethical teachings. For centuries, the Church has followed Jesus of the Dark Blotches, and has been unable to see Jesus' true face because of only expecting, and only viewing, dark blotches for so long. Constantine, the 4th century pagan ruler who turned the Church back to all the old scapegoating ways and State power games, in fact became "Christ" ethically to the Church! What no Emperor was able to do before him, Constantine achieved with a Judas kiss: he reversed the ethical teachings of Jesus so as to make the Church impotent and have Jesus after all bless all the same sacrificial ways that creation had known since time immemorial. Therein lies the triumph of ideology, a triumph which the vast majority of Christendom has embraced ever since. So this is what we're up against!
Historical Context
The Apostle Paul is writing a major statement about Christian belief to a group of Christians under the eye of the Emperor in Rome. Paul had never met this group of Christians, most of whom were Jewish, some slaves, and others on the margins of society in the great seat of Roman power.
Only a few years prior to Paul's writing, Emperor Claudius had had church congregations at Rome broken up and dispersed, and at the same time he had expelled the Jews en masse from Rome. This had not made the Roman government, nor the Emperor, particularly popular amongst Roman Christians.
Further, within the Jewish contingent of all first century Christian churches, there persisted a violent hatred towards Roman rule akin to the hatred the Vietnamese felt towards you Americans, or Afghanis towards the Russians.
Jewish Christian Attitudes to the State and to State Authorities
Nowhere in the Hebrew Bible is the "State" ever viewed positively. In I Samuel 8, the text makes it clear that the people of Israel turned away from God precisely in their desire to become a "nation" like other nations, and appoint themselves a King. This was a rejection of the unique role of God as their King, but also of Israel's unique peoplehood unlike other nations who relied upon violence and standing armies to be a nation.
Jewish Christians shared a general view about surrounding pagan states, the Roman occupying state most definitely, that they were largely evil. They knew Psalm 2 well that begins: "Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain? The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One." (NIV) This was always the way, Jews, and Jewish Christians, knew, of pagan states. They were opposed to God and his Messiah. The nations were compared to the sea, which "became a symbol of the seething nations of the world and of the troubled lives of the unrighteous . Perhaps this is why the apostle John spoke of the glorious new heaven and new earth as a place in which 'there was no more sea' . (from Nelson's Illustrated Bible Dictionary)" - that is, no more nations. In fact, throughout the book of Revelation, "the Kings of the nations" are the ultimate arch-rivals of the Lamb of God. And in Revelation 13, the State is seen as the ultimate Beast. And from where does the Beast arise?: (Rev 13:1) " And the dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea." (NIV) - from the pagan nations, identified supremely with the nation of Rome. So, for instance, Isaiah says, with reference to the nations: (Isaiah 57:20-21) "But the wicked are like the tossing sea, which cannot rest, whose waves cast up mire and mud. 'There is no peace,' says my God, 'for the wicked.' " (NIV)
Further, Jewish attitudes towards State authorities, and Christian attitudes towards State authorities, were extremely negative. Indeed, such authorities were actually thought to be in league with Satan. This was the idea in Eph. 6:12 - 18. Listen to verse 12: "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (NIV) Now get this!: the author of the letter to the Ephesians, likely Paul, used the identical Greek terminology for "rulers" and "authorities" as found in Romans 13, which reads: (Rom 13:1) "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." (NIV) There is something suspicious the moment Romans 13 is taken as a positive view of the State and of the governing authorities within it! Nothing seems further from the consistent mind of the biblical witness, Old and New Testaments!
The consistent biblical position is: "the primary threat to human dignity is not the impunity of individual offenders not proven guilty, but the absolute power to punish of the state itself (The Death Penalty Debate, (House and Yoder, 1991, p. 150)." A profound study on this very issue was produced recently, entitled, The Fall of the Prison: Biblical Perspectives on Prison Abolition (Lee, 1993). There is an international movement that works at this, doing a conference every two years, called: "The International Conference on Penal Abolition".
Further, until well into the third century, there was a longstanding aversion amongst Christians to the Roman system of justice as it applied to non-Romans. For Roman justice was highly punitive, retributive justice against all non-Romans, especially slaves. It was brutal - and incidentally became the inspiration, in the 11th century, of an emerging barbarity towards criminals sponsored by the Church. Over against punitive systems of the day, Jesus warns that one ought to settle quickly with one's adversary (Matt. 5:25), and Paul forbids taking cases to Roman law courts (I Cor. 6).
Finally, in the same book of I Peter that obedience to the State is encouraged, similar to Romans 13, there is a fascinating passage in I Peter 4:15: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler." (NIV) Do you notice anything incongruous in that line-up? "Murderer", "thief", "criminal" - then "meddler" or "busybody" or "gossip"?! Guess what! That unique Greek word occurring only once in the entire New Testament, translated by most as "busybody", may be translated entirely differently! Listen to the line-up in light of this allowable translation: "murderer", "thief", "criminal" - and "revolutionary"! Now that fits the context much better of Peter's earlier discussion of the State, and of his discussion of suffering at the hands of the State!
The reality is, Jewish Christians in Rome (I Peter was likely written from Rome) were sorely tempted by incipient revolutionary fervour towards the Roman State!
No wonder then, that Paul expands about a Christian attitude towards the State. In Jesus' teaching, the State is merely a special form of the neighbour that is owed certain "dues" as says Romans 13 too: including at least payment of taxes. But at the end of Romans 12, Paul, drawing on Jesus, specifically, enjoins love of enemies, saying: (Rom 12:21) "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (NIV) Then he moves on immediately to discuss a specific example of the "enemy": the State of Rome and its governing authorities. He knows that the State was seen by Jesus as a special form of "neighbour/enemy". In this case, the Roman State is in fact already Public Enemy Number One and about to become more so when Emperor Domitian only a little later in the century unleashes the first persecution of Christians.
That this passage should be taken remotely as a benign theoretical discussion about the State for the benefit of those living in modern democracies is a gross perversion of the immediate historical and cultural context of the letter written to the Romans! Paul's whole concern here is pastoral. He wants to encourage submission to the arch-enemy, the Roman State, as Jesus demonstrated in turning the other cheek when Roman soldiers slapped him, of going the second mile in carrying the Cross to his own crucifixion, of giving his extra clothes when he was stripped before his execution. Paul knew full well what kind of judgment Rome metes out to its rebels: if they could crucify the Prince of Glory, they could as easily crucify his followers! And Paul is writing to spare Roman Christians in that historical and cultural context the agony of capital punishment at the hands of Roman authorities! This is especially urgent because of the revolutionary fervour towards Rome Paul knew some in the Roman churches were exhibiting. Watch out, he warns: (Rom 13:4) "For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong [i.e. in open rebellion against Rome], 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 [namely revolutionary Christians living in Rome!]." (NIV) Then Paul gives two explicit reasons for submission to Rome, neither of which remotely are positive statements about benign governing authorities "ordained by God" and ruling God's way: (Rom 13:5) "Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment [read: "for example crucifixion"] but also because of conscience." (NIV) Why conscience? Because Jesus explicitly taught "love of enemies", and Paul specifically picks up this theme as centrepiece for God's work in Christ, the Atonement, which is an offer of reconciliation to us, God's enemies (Rom. 5:6 - 11)!
Rebellion is out in Jesus' and Paul's teaching, in favour of loving embrace even of the authorities (Pilate, Nero, Domitian, and the lesser State functionaries) whom God still loves and superintends - "ordains" - providentially, as he superintended wicked pagan King Cyrus, whom God refers to nonetheless in Isaiah as the LORD's "Anointed" and "Shepherd" - both terms reserved for Jesus! Remember Paul's words to Governor Festus and King Agrippa in the Book of Acts?: (Acts 26:29) "Short time or long-- I pray God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains." (NIV)
So Paul concludes the section under discussion with the words: (Rom 13:7) "Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor." (NIV) This is precisely how one treats the enemy, even the enemy State, in hope that the evil of the State, and the evil of the State functionaries, might be overcome with good.
This reading of the text takes into consideration the historical and cultural context, the immediate teaching of Paul about love of enemy - of State authorities included - and does not land us upon the horns of an endless dilemma concerning State authorities who do evil. It also allows full consistency with the rest of the biblical material, which relegates the State to the realm of evil and rebellion ultimately, even though superintended and ordained by God for his good purposes. But it is clear already from Paul that we do not go on sinning so that grace may abound (Rom. 6)! Likewise, we do not bless the evil of the State in naïve expectation that the State may some day get it right! Not too likely. And the Book of Revelation shows the State and its authorities consistently to be the Beast, to be Babylon, that forever rebels and wars against the Lamb.
Yet for the majority of Christians throughout the centuries, such State authorities cannot be questioned for they are "God's servants" - just as Nebuchadnezzar, pagan King of Babylon, is called "my Servant" by God (Jer. 25:9, 27:6). But God judges Nebuchadnezzar, his "servant", and pagan King Cyrus, the Lord's "Shepherd" and "Anointed" for their sins! And anyone who knows of God's "servant", Adolph Hitler, this century, surely does not need to be reminded of what evil the State (invariably!) is capable? I know what Canada does. Do you know what America does? And so we have the vast majority of Christians living under Hitler blithely accepting the authority of the State as it undertook to carry out the death penalty on a scale unrivalled in this century. And so we have the Anglican church actually (still!) allowing the King or Queen to be the head of the Church, when even a cursory reading of British history shows the British monarchy to be seething with blood-letting and treachery. (You Americans rebelled against all that, remember?) And so we have Bible-believing Americans supporting the Presidency and the "manifest destiny" of America in a way that is nothing short of idolatry. When will biblical Christians break away from that false worship of the "State"?!
So Paul sums up his ethical section of the letter to the Romans, struggling in their revolutionary attitudes towards the State: (Rom 13:9-10) "The commandments, 'Do not commit adultery,' 'Do not murder,' 'Do not steal,' 'Do not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law." (NIV) This includes love of the governing authorities even when overall the State does evil.
Therefore, it is impossible, I contend, to read this text as remotely supportive of capital punishment. The text does not mandate it for Christians to affirm, nor does the text indicate it is permissible for the State to carry out, nor that Christians ought to support, use of the death penalty. That is not even remotely in the Apostle's mind when he raised the pastoral issue of (understandable) rebellious Christian attitudes towards the enemy - the State - in this passage.
Finally, the consistent biblical response to the State instead is: the non-violent wrestling against the "principalities and powers" using other means than physical weapons (II Cor. 10:4) - or lethal injections - to overcome evil. And this includes other goals than destruction of the persons caught up in the evil. This means the fervent desire to win over even Governor Festus and King Agrippa: President Clinton and Governor Knolls; Prime Minister Chrétien and British Columbia's Premier Glen Clark. This means the consistent move - even seventy-seven times - to work at overcoming evil with good, to attempt to make the enemy a friend!
This is the face of Christ who is the face of God.
Amen!
References
Griffith, Lee, The Fall of the Prison: Biblical Perspectives on Prison Abolition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1993.
House, H. Wayne and John Howard Yoder, The Death Penalty Debate: Two Opposing Views of Capital Punishment (Issues of Christian Conscience), Dallas: Word Books, 1991.
Kee, Alistair (1982). Constantine versus Christ: The Triumph of Ideology, London: SCM Press Ltd.
The Acts of Synod 1981, "Report 31: CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STUDY COMMITTEE", Grand Rapids: Christian Reformed Church in North America, pp. 72-73, 448-91.
Comments