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.