Jesus Christ and the Death Penalty

I suspect that most people--including your speaker--have difficulty comprehending the love that Jesus Christ has shown to fallen men. Why would he leave the glory and grandeur of his heavenly home to come to earth to be ridiculed, cursed, beaten and crucified? I know why he did it. He sought to reconcile all men to his Father in heaven. But why did he love us enough to effect that reconciliation? Jesus told his disciples: “This is my commandment, That you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:12-15). Paul does not use the word “love” in the following passage, but the words “grace” and “love” are inseparable in some contexts. “For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that you through his poverty might be rich” (2 Cor. 8:9).

Jesus not only taught us to love God, our family members, our brothers and sisters in Christ; he also taught us to love our enemies. Who can forget these words from our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount? “You have heard that it has been said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them who curse you, do good to them who hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you: that you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love them who love you, what is your reward? Do not even the publicans the same” (Mt. 5:43-47)? In view of these and dozens of other biblical passages that discuss love--God’s love, Christ’s love and our love--how is it possible for Christ to approve of capital punishment, or does he?

In a letter to the editor of The Tennessean (Wednesday, April 19, 2000), a man asked, “Would Jesus approve of state execution?” The letter writer asks one more question in his brief article, “If Jesus were alive today and everyone were voting for or against the death penalty, how would he vote” (p. 14-A)? Another letter to the same paper (Saturday, January 22, 2000) argues that the “Lord Jesus is the only one who should let someone die and take them home” (p. 8-A). The Tennessean (Sunday, October 10, 1999) published an article entitled “Clergy urged to condemn death penalty.” An organization calling itself “Abolition 2000” has sent 5,000 letters to churches asking them to speak out against the death penalty. The article pointed out that the so-called “mainline churches” generally oppose the death penalty, although an overwhelming majority of Americans support it. That shows how out of step most of the theologians in the mainline churches are. Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, supports the death penalty. One of the professors at Southern, Dr. Kenneth Magnuson, says we must “not lessen the value of human life that has been taken by excusing it and simply punishing it through a prison sentence” (p. 12-B).

These articles from The Tennessean give us some understanding of the confusion in modern times over the death penalty. I could produce dozens of theologians who support the death penalty and dozens who oppose it. But we cannot settle such serious questions by counting noses. I do not wish to over-generalize on this topic or on any other topic, for that matter, but I have concluded from my extensive reading on the topic that conservative preachers who have great respect for the scriptures generally support the death penalty and liberal theologians who have questions about the inspiration and authority of the scriptures generally oppose the death penalty. I know there are exceptions to the rule, but this seems to be true.

Before I begin an investigation of our topic, “Jesus Christ and the Death Penalty,” I shall refer briefly to Gerard Vanderhaar’s book, Beyond Violence: In the Spirit of the Non-Violent Christ (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1998). Vanderhaar is a Professor Emeritus of Religion and Peace Studies at Christian Brothers University in Memphis, Tennessee. I find many of Vanderhaar’s thoughts unreasonable and unscriptural. For example, he exalts Mohandas K. Gandhi as being non-violent. Was he non-violent as a practical matter or did he have deep convictions against violence? He knew India could not win her independence from Great Britain by engaging in carnal warfare. He could win only by the non-violent approach he followed. If Gandhi’s son had been bitten by a rabid dog, Gandhi said, he would have shot his own son to prevent the son’s suffering. That does not sound exactly non-violent. Vanderhaar quotes Gandhi as saying, “When my eldest son asked me what he should have done had he been present when I was almost fatally assaulted in 1908, whether he should have run away and seen me killed or whether he should have used physical force which he could and wanted to use, and defended me, I told him it was his duty to defend me even by using violence” (p. 12). Does that not sound to you as if Gandhi believed in the selective use of violence, especially if it contributed to his safety?

Vanderhaar asserts that “there’s no such thing as morally good violence” (p. 32). Since we are living in the very month when Timothy James McVeigh is scheduled to be executed for his having murdered 168 people in Oklahoma City, I must ask Vanderhaar and others who claim to be non-violent, regardless of the circumstances: If you had been in Oklahoma City and had known what McVeigh was planning to do, would it have been morally justifiable for the police or the FBI to have shot him to prevent the deaths of those people in the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building? Would you have killed him, if you could have, to save the lives of 168 people, including 19 children? Would Gandhi have shot McVeigh?

There is one other comment on Vanderhaar’s book that needs to be made in passing. Not one time did he mention our Lord’s taking a whip and driving the moneychangers from the temple. John records exactly what happened. “And the Jews’ passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem. And found in the temple those who sold oxen and sheep and doves, and changers of money sitting: and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables; and said unto them that sold doves, Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of merchandise” (John 2:13-16). Why did Jesus make a scourge of small cords? Was he simply using the whip as a symbol or would he have used it had the moneychangers not left? Or did he actually use the whip on the evil moneychangers?

The Old Testament has numerous examples of legal capital punishment. King Saul and the Israelite army won a great victory over King Agag and the Amalekites. But they made the mistake of sparing King Agag, the fat sheep and cattle--the very things the Lord had commanded them to destroy (1 Sam. 15:20-21). Samuel rebuked Saul and informed him that he would no longer serve as king of Israel because of his disobedience (1 Sam. 15:22-23). “Then said Samuel, Bring hither to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him cheerfully. And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. And Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so your mother shall be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord at Gilgal” (1 Sam. 15:32-33).

Do you remember the contest between God’s great prophet Elijah and the prophets of Baal? Both Elijah and the prophets of Baal asked that fire come down from heaven to consume the animals that had been placed on altars. Jezebel’s prophets cried and cut themselves with knives and lancets until blood gushed upon them (1 Kings 18:28). Their god did not respond because he was no god. Elijah taunted them: “Cry aloud: for he is god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened” (1 Kings 18:27). After Elijah demonstrated that his God was God, he said to the Israelite people who had watched the contest: “Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there” (1 Kings 18:40).

Is there any doubt in your mind that Jesus Christ knew of these Old Testament incidents? If you believe Jesus did not approve of the death penalty, how do you explain his silence on these well-known stories from the Old Testament? It is absolutely unthinkable that he did not know, since he was God manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16). Since he did know, why did he not say, “I am aware that Samuel hewed king Agag to pieces and that Elijah killed the prophets of Baal. Although these were God’s prophets, they sinned grievously by their violence”? If he thought such violence was always sinful and approved of it any way, how can we say Christ was honest and sinless? It ought to be obvious that Jesus Christ endorsed the death penalty under some circumstances.

Has it ever dawned on you that Jesus never--not even one time--criticized the teaching of the Old Testament? He disapproved of the way some of the Jewish leaders abused and misused the scriptures, but he did not question the inspiration and authority of one word of the revelation of God in the Old Testament. If the Son of God endorsed all of the Old Testament, how can we call ourselves Christians and doubt any of its teachings? I am reminded of a question raised by a radical Jewish scholar. He asked, “How can you call yourself a Christian and entertain a different view of God than Jesus Christ had?” We must have the same attitude toward the Old Testament that the Son of God so openly expressed.

But did he endorse all of the Old Testament? Did he not have some reservations about the flood, the prophet Daniel, Jonah and the big fish story, Lot’s wife and information about Abraham, David and other Old Testament characters? If he had such reservations, he never expressed them--never. The truth is: He approved of the very incidents that most liberal scholars doubt or deny.

Luke, a Greek physician and an intimate associate of the apostle Paul, tells us an incident involving two men who were walking toward the village of Emmaus. As they walked along, they talked about the things that had happened in Jerusalem, that is, the trial and the death of Jesus Christ. Jesus approached the men, but they did not recognize him. He asked them about their subject of conversation. They wanted to know if he were a stranger and did not know what had occurred. He asked them what things they had in mind. They said to him, We were conversing concerning “Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and in word before God and all the people: and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we trusted that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel: and beside all of this, today is the third day since these things were done” (Lk. 24:13-21). Jesus asked the two men, “O fools, and slow of heart to believe all the prophets have spoken: ought not Christ to have suffered these things and, to enter into his glory” (Lk. 24:25-26)? Please listen to what happened next. “And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Lk. 24:27). In the same chapter, the record says that Jesus appeared in the midst of the eleven apostles. He said to them: “These are the words which I spoke unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me” (Lk. 24:44).

Jesus mentioned three divisions of the Old Testament--the law of Moses, the prophets and psalms. These three divisions constitute the whole of Christ’s Bible--the Old Testament. He was teaching very simply and very powerfully: The entire Old Testament came from God almighty and is true in every word it teaches. Jesus had such great respect for the Old Testament that he made an argument on the tense of a verb. The Sadducees questioned our Lord’s teaching on the resurrection of the dead. He accused them of not knowing the scriptures and of not knowing the “power of God” (Mt. 22:29). He then said to the Sadducees: “But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have you not read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Mt. 22:31-32). God did not say, “I was the God of the living.” He said “I am the God of the living.” From God’s viewpoint, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are alive with him. If Jesus could teach a great lesson by emphasizing the tense of a verb, it surely shows his total respect for all of God’s word. But did the expression “the law of Moses, the prophets and psalms” encompass all of God’s revelation in the Old Testament? Most scholars--even those who have serious doubts about many Old Testament people, places and incidents--generally agree that Jesus had all of the Old Testament in mind when he referred to the law of Moses, the prophets and the psalms. A few examples from prominent conservative scholars will shed light on what I have said concerning Christ’s attitude toward scripture. Theodore Engelder, a Lutheran scholar, published a book with the title, Scripture Cannot Be Broken: Six Objections to Verbal Inspiration Examined in the Light of Scripture (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1944). Dr. Engelder mentions a number of New Testament passages that say “the scriptures must be fulfilled,” and then observes: “Scripture is clothed with the majesty of God! No, we do not worship the paper and the printer’s ink, but we do give the words of scripture, which are God’s words, the holy reverence which is their due. If bibliolatry be that, let there be more of it” (p. 391). One of the scriptures Dr. Engelder listed was Luke 24:44.

In 1969, Dr. Rene Pache, a French theologian, wrote an excellent book with the title, The Inspiration and Authority of the Scripture (Chicago: Moody Press). Dr. Pache makes a number of excellent points regarding Christ’s absolute endorsement of the Old Testament. Please listen to the main headings on that topic. “He gave a dynamic testimony to its authority and to its divine inspiration” (p. 217). “He emphasized the importance of each word of it…He often based His argumentation on a single expression of the text…He placed the text of Scripture on the same plane as His own words, divine and infallible, which themselves will never pass away…He had constant recourse to the Scriptures” (p. 218). “Christ confirmed the accounts of Holy Scripture” (p. 219).

One of the genuine classics on the inspiration of the scriptures was written by L. Gaussen, Professor of Systemic Theology, Oratoire, Geneva, Switzerland. Dr. Gaussen’s book was originally published in the early 1800’s under the title, Theopneustia: The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Incidentally, the word theopheustia means God-breathed. It is the Greek word Paul used when he wrote, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Tim. 3:16). My copy of the book has the title, The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures (Chicago: Moody Press, 1949). I shall read several excerpts from this outstanding book. Dr. Gaussen asks, “How did Jesus Christ appeal to the Holy Bible? What were his views of the letter of the Scriptures? What did he make of it, he who is its object and inspirer, beginning and end, first and last?…Among the most ardent defenders of…verbal inspiration, we know of no one that ever expressed himself with more respect for the altogether divine authority and everlasting endurance of their most minute expressions than was done by the man Jesus…When we hear the Son of God quote the Scriptures, everything is said, in our view, on their divine inspiration--we need no further testimony” (pp. 92-93). One final excerpt from Dr. Gaussen’s book will have to suffice for today. “With what reverence, with what submission does he expound the Scriptures, comment upon them, quote from them word for word! See how it becomes his grand concern to heal men’s diseases and to preach the Scriptures, as if it was afterward to die and to fulfill the Scriptures” (p. 97)!

If what Engelder and Gaussen affirm is true--and there really is no doubt about it--when Christ endorses all of the Old Testament, did he not approve of the death penalty that was extracted on a number of occasions? Are we going to accuse our Lord of not knowing his own word or of failure to point out the mistakes of Moses or of David--if they made mistakes? Contrary to what many liberal theologians and others say, Jesus believed all of the Old Testament to be God’s word. If the Old Testament ordained the death penalty--and few, regardless of their theological views would deny that fact--how can anyone say that Jesus objected to the death penalty? He loved, preached, and obeyed the Old Testament--all of it, all the time. If he ever questioned the legitimacy of the death penalty, he was negligent in failing to tell us about it.

I close today with a question: Can we have an ordered society when we fail to punish evildoers--and that includes executing those who commit murder, rape and other vicious crimes?

Winford Claiborne

The International Gospel Hour

P.O. Box 118

Fayetteville, TN 37334

Back to Home Page

Back to Transcripts Titles