The Death Penalty

 

The very term “death penalty” sends cold chills down my spine.  The fact that government--any government--must send a man’s soul into eternity should cause all of us to ask ourselves if fallible human beings have the obligation or even the right to execute criminals, regardless of the nature of their crime.  It would be unchristian, insensitive and cruel to rejoice when a fellow human being has to pay for his crime by forfeiting his life.  But what you and I feel about the death penalty has little or no bearing on its legitimacy.  The real question must be: What does the word of God teach on the topic?  We may object to a particular execution, but our concern has to be what God thinks about the subject.  Does God approve of executing a vicious murderer, such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Timothy McVeigh and Charles Manson?  If Osama Bin Laden could be brought to the United States and tried for the hundreds--perhaps even thousands--of innocent people he has killed, should he be killed?  And what about the white supremacists in Garland, Texas who chained James Byrd, Jr., a black man, to a pickup truck and dragged him three miles down rural roads in the pine woods east of Jasper?  Should those vicious killers be allowed to live?

 

If you read the newspapers or popular books and magazines, watch television news or listen to talk radio, you cannot be unaware of the controversy surrounding the death penalty.  A brief review of some of the opinions of men and women who have written to the editor of The Tennessean will show conclusively just how divided opinions on the death penalty are, at least, in Tennessee.  The letters to The Tennessean prove nothing more than how deep the divisions of opinion over the death penalty are.  I shall refrain from naming any of the authors of the letters to The Tennessean.  Most of them are not scholars or professional writers, so it would be inappropriate for me to mention their names.  But I shall give the date and the page number of their articles.  Please remember that all of these letters were addressed “to the editor” of The Tennessean.

 

On Tuesday, April 3, 2001, a man entitled his article “Support moratorium on state-sponsored killing.”  The author of this letter encourages all who wear the name “Christian” to investigate the scriptures to ascertain if anything Jesus said or did would justify the death penalty.  He claims to have found nothing in the teaching of Jesus that would support executions.  He claims to have found many passages that teach the opposite.  He pleads with our legislators to enact a moratorium on executions until there has been a more thorough study of our killing system (p. 6-A).  I do not for one moment question the sincerity of the man’s opinions, but his article is shot full of logical holes.

 

A letter dated April 9, 2000, apparently pleased the editorial article board of The Tennessean.  It was awarded three stars, a sign the board thought the article was excellent.  The article has the title, “Execution makes us numb about death.”  The author of the letter moved to Tennessee from Texas.  He says the death penalty in Texas “has done nothing but insulate us a little more from the tragedy of death.”  He says we have arrived at the point where we think one more death will help solve the problem.  He concludes his article: “I just always want to care when someone dies” (p. 24-A).  Does this man’s caring extend to babies in their mothers’ wombs, infants who are killed because they are mentally or physically handicapped and old people who are no longer productive?  Are we selectively numb about killing or does all killing make us numb?

 

One letter to The Tennessean (June 4, 1997) says “Capital punishment” is “as bad as abortion.”  He correctly observes that a lot of people in the church are against abortion.  The opponents of abortion give many religious reasons for being against it.  He then asks, “What about the other kind of legalized murder--capital punishment?”  He affirms that capital punishment is a violation of the sixth commandment that reads, “You shall not kill.”  He wants to know where all the good Christians have gone.  Bible students know the difference between killing the guilty and killing the innocent.  All babies in their mothers’ wombs are innocent; murderers and rapists are not innocent.  Should anyone have any difficulty understanding the difference between capital punishment and abortion?

 

A letter to The Tennessean (Wednesday, April 30, 1997) argued that the death penalty ought to be given a proper burial.  He mentioned one religious leader who was against killing.  The religious leader, whose mother was murdered several years before, said he had learned “the miracle of forgiveness.”  The writer of the letter said that a life sentence is a greater deterrent to crime than the death penalty.  Besides, he argues, “life in prison is also much less costly to taxpayers than it is to carry out the death penalty” (p. 8-A).  One hesitates to say it, but the writer of this letter has erred in every point he made.  Of course, we have to forgive those who have sinned against us--even if the person has killed one of our loved ones--but that has nothing to do with the death penalty for murderers.  And do we base our decisions regarding punishing criminals on the cost to taxpayers?  Doing nothing might be less expensive than doing something, but what kind of message does that send to vicious criminals?

 

Is execution inherently wrong?  One three-star letter to the editor of The Tennessean (Monday, October 25, 1999) answers in the affirmative.  The writer of the letter expresses the wish that controversy surrounding the death penalty would go away, but he says it will not so long as the state of Tennessee commits capital punishment.  He affirms that the death penalty will not make our state safer, more beautiful or more moral “from the public celebration of death and the hollow lesson to our children and ourselves that sometimes it is OK to kill.”  He apparently thinks the death penalty is deliberate murder.  He calls it the most terrible crime (p. 14-A).

 

One final letter to the editor of The Tennessean (January 22, 2000) says that “capital punishment is nothing but murder.”  She asks “why one death means so much and another can mean nothing at all, except maybe to relieve pain and revenge.”  Regardless of how we describe it, the writer of the letter says, “Murder is murder.”  She concludes her misinformed and illogical letter by asserting, “Phony people with high politicians backing them up are responsible for legalized murder.  The Lord Jesus is the only one who should let someone die and take them home” (p. 8-A).

 

These excerpts I have read to you show just how emotional the death penalty is.  It is not easy to discuss such controversial subjects--whether abortion, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, infanticide or the death penalty--in an unemotional and logical atmosphere.  Most of us have already made up our minds on all of these topics, especially on the death penalty, and do not want anyone upsetting our conclusions.  What, to me, is particularly troubling is for a respected theologian to deny that we should use the Bible to justify capital punishment.  Robert Parham, Director of the Nashville-based Baptist Center for Ethics, wrote an article for The Tennessean (Thursday, April 13, 2000) on the topic, “Please stop using the Scriptures as rationale for capital punishment.”  Those who do not know the Bible might be excused for making that plea, but how can a Bible scholar be that unreasonable?  Has modern religious liberalism or postmodernism so affected some teachers and preachers that they are unwilling to accept the plain teaching of the scripture?

 

Parham affirms that Hebrew society was theocratic, not democratic.  He argues that the American government has not been given the right and the responsibility to execute people.  He wonders why the supporters of the death penalty have not spoken in favor of executing people for breaking the sabbath and parent-cursing.  His observation about the sabbath is almost childish.  The new covenant abolished sabbath-keeping (Col. 2:14-17).  And the gospel does not allow for killing parent-cursing children.  But our concern today is not what the law of Moses either authorized or forbad.  I want us to examine God’s original law on capital punishment--a law that was ordained hundreds of years before the Mosaic law was given.  As Jesus said concerning marriage (Mt. 19:4, 8), we are going all the way back to the beginning.

 

As you know from your reading of the Old Testament, God sent a flood on the entire world to remove the sin that had become almost universal.  “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence.  And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.  And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come up before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth” (Gen. 6:11-13).  Please listen to what occurred after the flood: “And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth.  And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moves upon the face of the earth, and upon all the fish of the sea; into your hands  have I given them.  Every moving thing that lives shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.  But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, you shall not eat.  And surely your blood of your lives will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man” (Gen. 9:1-5).

 

Genesis 9:6 has served throughout the ages as the biblical basis for the death penalty.  Since it was written before the Mosaic covenant was given, it still applies.  Just like the pattern God gave for marriage, this verse has no time limit.  Please listen carefully.  “Whoso shed’s man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.”  I am fully aware of the difficulty of many biblical passages--both in the Old Testament and in the New.  But the passage I have just read to you from Genesis 9 seems so simple that no one should misunderstand it.  I shall paraphrase it as follows: “If a man kills another, other men are to kill the killer.”  Virtually every modern translation renders the Hebrew almost exactly like the King James Version does.  The reason is very simple: That is exactly what the Hebrew says.

 

C.F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch, two scholarly German theologians, who lived in the latter part of the 19th Century, wrote a 26-volume commentary on the Old Testament.  Their volumes on The Pentateuch (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1888), make the following comments on Genesis 9:6: ““This was the first command,” says Luther, “having reference to the temporal sword.  By these words temporal government was established, and the sword placed in its hand by God.”  It is true that the punishment of the murderer is enjoined upon ‘man’ universally; but as all the judicial relations and ordinances of the increasing race were rooted in the family, and grew by a natural process out of that, the family relations furnished of themselves the norm for the closer definition of the expression ‘man.’  Hence, the command does not sanction revenge, but lays the foundation for the judicial rights of divinely appointed ‘powers that be’ (Rom. 13:1)” (volume 1, p. 153).

 

My favorite commentary on the book of Genesis is the Exposition of Genesis (Grands Rapids: Baker Book House) by H.C. Leupold, a very scholarly Lutheran preacher.  Dr. Leupold makes this very pertinent comment: “…This power of life and of death is bestowed upon man only in an official capacity, insofar as the governmental power is centered in him.  It has remained for the shortsightedness of our day to claim that this verse is in conflict with the basic word in the Decalogue, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’”  According to Dr. Leupold, Genesis 9:6 is “laying down principles of official conduct” (volume 1, pp. 333-334).

 

The late Dr. Francis Shaeffer, an American/Swiss theologian and philosopher, wrote a beautiful little book on Genesis in Space & Time (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1972).  His comments on Genesis 9:5-6 could hardly be simpler or more forceful.  “God commands capital punishment simply because of the unique value of that which the murderer has killed” (p. 152).  If you have any doubts about Dr. Shaeffer’s respect for human life--all human life, including that in the mother’s womb--you can discover his pro-life stance by reading his many books on that topic.  I especially recommend the book he co-authored with Dr. C. Everett Koop: Whatever Happened to the Human Race? (Old Tappan: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1979).

 

I could offer to you many scholars whose books endorse capital punishment--not because they are thrilled at the prospect of killing someone--but because they cannot get any other position from the scriptures.  My concern at this time relates to the Lord’s reason for ordaining the death penalty for murderers.  God himself said: “Whoso shed’s man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God he made man” (Gen. 9:6).  All Bible students understand the expression, “in the image of God he made man.”  They know the significance of these words from the very first chapter of the Bible: “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.  So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them” (Gen. 1:26-27).  If a person commits murder, he snuffs out the image of God in the victim.  Belief in the biblical principle of God’s image in man establishes the sacredness of all human life.  It is also the basis for executing the murderer.  Taking the life of any man--even by properly established authority--should be done only for the most serious crimes: murder, rape and betrayal of one’s country.  Dr. William Bennett’s challenging book, The De-Valuing of America: The Fight for Our Culture and Our Children (New York: Summit Books, 1992), endorses “capital punishment for major drug sellers” (p. 117).  If Dr. Bennett had limited his support of the death penalty only to those crooks who sell drugs to children, I would agree with him.  Adults can easily refuse to buy and use drugs; children may not be able to do so.  Selling drugs to children often results in permanent disability or death.

 

Before our time expires today, I believe it is in order to make some comments on the execution of Timothy James McVeigh.  In their new book, American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & the Oklahoma City Bombing (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc., 2001), Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck, staff reporters for the Buffalo News, provide an enormous amount of information about Tim McVeigh.  These men make it very plain that Tim McVeigh grew up in a normal home, with good schooling and in a good neighborhood.  I am reminded of the words of a Jewish man who attended the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the German butcher.  When the Jewish man saw Eichmann, he began to weep.  When asked why he was weeping, he said, in effect, Eichmann looks so ordinary--just like the rest of us.  Eichmann did not look like a villain.  But his heart was as evil as Satan’s.  Timothy McVeigh looks so ordinary--so all-American.  He does not look like a monster.

 

The two reporters I have mentioned--Lou Michel and Dan Herbeck--interviewed McVeigh for about seventy-five hours.  He freely admitted planning and executing his scheme to kill as many people as possible in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.  He knew there would be hundreds of people in the building, including a substantial number of children.  He apparently did not want to kill the children, but he referred to them as “collateral damage.”  He freely admitted to the two reporters that he was guilty of the most devastating act of terrorism ever perpetrated on American soil.  He does not look like a monster, but he is a monster.  He unquestionably deserves to die for robbing 168 people of God’s image and for destroying so many families.

 

Does the horrible crime Timothy McVeigh committed take away his parents’ and other family members’ love for him?  They are not trying--so far as I know--to appeal his decision to be executed sooner than later.  His life might have been spared for a longer period, but he chose not to ask for further appeals.  His parents and other family members are praying for him as he leaves this earth and enters eternity.  They are unquestionably suffering in ways most of us cannot understand.  So I ask you today to send a prayer heavenward in behalf of Timothy McVeigh’s family and for those families in Oklahoma whose lives have been altered as long as they remain on earth.  And pray for our nation that we shall in some way prevent tragedies like the one in Oklahoma City.

 

But should not the American people--especially the victims of the bombing and their families--forgive Timothy McVeigh?  The sad truth is that Timothy McVeigh has expressed no remorse and has not asked for forgiveness.  How can we forgive when he has not repented and asked to be forgiven?  God does not forgive until sinners repent and seek forgiveness in the heart of God.  Jesus prayed for those who crucified him: “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” (Lk. 23:34).  When did God forgive them?  He forgave them when they repented and were baptized (Acts 2:38).

 

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

 

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles