Using the Bible as Rationale for Capital Punishment
How do you--not how should you--determine what is right and what is wrong? Do you depend on your own reasoning power and on your experience? Would it surprise you that Humanist Manifesto II (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1973)--the secular humanists’ Bible--affirms “that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction” (p. 17)? There are three expressions in this brief excerpt that deserve further examination: experience, autonomous and situational. If our moral values derive from human experience, whose experiences serve as the standards by which we must live? Do we follow the experiences of the Nazis, of the communists, of Timothy James McVeigh, of the white supremacists, of the Ku Klux Klan or of other radical and destructive groups and individuals? The simple truth is: We must have standards to decide the legitimacy of experiences--our own as well as those of others.
The term “autonomous” comes from
two Greek words: autos, meaning self, and nomos, meaning law. The literal meaning of the word is
self-law. The Old Testament book of
Judges gives us insight into how people lived without God. Over and over, the inspired writer says, “The
children of
The word “situational” means that
nothing is right or wrong within itself; it all depends on the situation. Is it wrong to lie? It depends on the situation. If lying helps someone, for example, keeps
him from going to prison; then lying is good.
If lying hurts another, then lying is evil. Paul does not allow for any exceptions when
he commanded the Colossians: “Lie not one to another, seeing that you have put
off the old man with his deeds” (Col. 3:9).
Is it wrong to commit adultery?
The humanist responds: “It all depends on the situation. If you do not hurt yourself or your partner
or someone else, then adultery is not wrong.”
And who, dear friends, knows when a given act will hurt the perpetrator
or his partner or someone else? The
answer is very plain: God alone knows and he said more than three thousand
years ago: “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex.
If you are a Christian or claim
to be a Christian, how do you decide right and wrong, or is it possible to make
such a decision? I almost never do what
I am about to do: recommend books that will aid you in making decisions about
right and wrong. Dr. Virginia Gow, a
mental health specialist and an educator, wrote a book with the title, Yes,
I have raised the question about
right and wrong because of an article in The Tennessean (Thursday,
Parham also makes a logical blunder when he says we would have to stone people to death if we follow the old covenant. Were all of those people who were killed under the Jewish covenant stoned to death? The prophet Elijah took a sword and cut King Agag in pieces. It would have been fairly difficult to electrocute people during the Jewish covenant since electricity had not been discovered. Nor could the Jews have used lethal injections. Parham says the public would have to use stones if they were to follow the Old Testament method of killing people. One hesitates to call a scholar’s writing and reasoning silly, but Parham’s article makes absolutely no sense. It flies in the face of the Bible’s implicit and explicit teaching.
Parham refers to Romans 13, which most New Testament scholars--at least, the ones with whom I am familiar--use to authorize capital punishment under the new covenant. Romans 13:1-7 outlines the duties of Christians toward civil government. Verse four says concerning the ruler: “For he is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid; for he bears not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, an avenger to execute wrath upon him who does evil.” Perhaps the most significant word in this verse is machaira, translated “sword.” Parham says the “word for sword does not mean a double-edged, three-foot fighting weapon. It really means a police dagger, hardly the weapon for execution” (p. 15-A). It really bothers me to have to say this, but Robert Parham has not done his homework. From my viewpoint, that is inexcusable. You will discover that his research has been woefully inadequate as we proceed with our discussion.
It is not my practice to count the scholars on each side of a debate and decide in favor of the majority. The sad truth is that most scholars are dead wrong on many topics. For example, most evangelical scholars seem to be wrong on the Bible’s teaching on what to do to be saved. They believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. What I shall do in the next few minutes is to examine the works of several outstanding evangelical scholars concerning the word machaira, the Greek word for sword in Romans 13:4.
The Theological Dictionary of
the New Testament, edited by Gerhard Kittel and translated by Geoffrey
Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1967) is one of the
most scholarly works on the Greek New Testament in print. This great dictionary says the word machaira
originally applied to a knife that was used in killing animals for sacrifice
and for other practical activities. In
the New Testament it is used of a weapon in the accounts of the arrest of
Jesus. It was also used in reference to
violent death in war and in persecution (volume 4, pp. 524-525). Kittel gives the following example of the
word’s use. The enemies of God were not
always successful in killing God’s faithful
Dr. Everett F. Harrison,
professor of New Testament for many years at Fuller Theological Seminary in
The John MacArthur Commentary on Romans 9-16 by John MacArthur, Jr. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994) affirms that the “sword is an instrument of death.” He says the weapon “symbolizes the right of civil government to inflict punishment, including the ultimate penalty of death for crimes that deserve it.” Dr. MacArthur then quotes Genesis 9:6 where God originally instituted civil government, including the death penalty (p. 225). Dr. MacArthur also mentions Paul’s statement before the Roman governor, Festus: “If I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die” (Acts 25:11). Paul recognized that the death penalty is legitimate for those who committed offenses worthy of death.
John R. W. Stott, one of the
world’s most respected evangelicals, has written dozens of books. His books have sold in the millions. His book on preaching, in my judgment, is the
best ever written, except, of course, the word of God. Dr. Stott wrote an excellent commentary, Romans:
God’s Good News for the World (Downer’s Grove: InterVarsity Press,
1994). Please listen to Dr. Stott’s
comments on the word “sword”: “Since the
word for ‘sword’ (machaira) has occurred in the letter to indicate death (Rom.
Dr. R. C. H. Lenski was a scholarly Lutheran preacher whose commentaries are widely used in many religious communities. I have used them for many years and have profited greatly by my use of them. In his commentary, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1936), Dr. Lenski says very plainly: “Paul was writing to the Romans as a Roman citizen, hence he uses machaira, the Roman short sword, which was used for executing Roman citizens, used for executing Paul because he was a Roman citizen” (p. 792).
There are other scholarly works I
could review, but I ask you to think now of the way the word machaira
is used elsewhere in the New Testament.
The Greek word appears twenty-nine times. In some contexts, it would not be possible to
determine the exact significance of the word.
For example, Jesus uses the word for the very first time in the New
Testament in this well-known passage.
“Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I am not come to send
peace, but a sword” (Mt.
Hebrews 11 tells us of the many faithful children of God--both under the old covenant and under the new--who suffered trials “of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprisonment: they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword” (Heb. 11:36-37). The book of Revelation uses the Greek machaira four times. I shall read one verse that uses the word two times. “He who leads into captivity shall go into captivity: he who kills with the sword must be killed by the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints” (Rev. 13:10). Is there any room for doubt about the use of the word machaira? Among other things, it was used for executing criminals.
Robert Parham quotes certain nameless teachers as saying, “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” He also says that many moral arguments take an entirely different approach to scripture. Many people follow the idea: “I believe it. The Bible supports it. That settles it.” He accuses some people of finding Bible verses to support their pre-determined moral position” (p. 15-A). It is ridiculous to say: “The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it.” If the Bible says it, what you believe has nothing to do with it. When God speaks, there is nothing more to be said on any topic. God’s word settles every question. The difficulty--which all honest Bible students will have to admit--is to determine what God has actually said.
Is it true, as Robert Parham has argued, that we may search for a Bible verse to back up our pre-determined moral position? Of course, it is. In fact, that is precisely what Robert Parham has done. He has twisted a number of concepts, misunderstood and misapplied others. He apparently decided what the scriptures ought to teach on capital punishment and then aligned some verses to agree with his decision. Am I accusing him of being dishonest? Absolutely not! Tragically, honesty has nothing to do with the truth of scripture. We must have the attitude of the Bereans. “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). We must strive with all our hearts to interpret the scriptures accurately. God will hold us accountable if we fail to do so.
Robert Parham urges modern people--including Christians, I suppose--to make their “case for the death penalty with legal arguments, moral reasoning and sociological studies” (p. 15-A). If I did not honestly believe the man is serious, I would be appalled. Legal arguments have very little force by themselves. If they are not bolstered by the moral values of God’s word, they can be destructive and even diabolical. The leaders in Germany, in the former Soviet Union, in Cuba, in China and in dozens of other places have legally--at least, from their viewpoint--killed millions of people. Legality is a farce unless it has biblical values to undergird it. Any honest reading of history--either sacred or profane--will confirm that fact.
Parham recommends making our decisions about the death penalty on moral reasoning. Moral reasoning cannot be done in a vacuum. What are the principles that form the basis of moral reasoning? From a Christian viewpoint, the principles must have a moral basis. God used a moral foundation when he ordained the death penalty for murder. The murderer kills God’s image in man. If man no longer has God’s image dwelling in him, then maybe we would be justified in letting the murderer off without exacting his life for his vicious crime. But so long as God’s image resides in man--every man--then the man who murders forfeits his right to live. Men might not arrive at that position by moral reasoning. That is what God has said on the topic.
And what would sociological studies contribute to our understanding of the death penalty? Parham should know that sociology is one of the most radical of all academic disciplines. Sociologists claim that sociology is descriptive--not prescriptive. That means that sociologists tell us what we do--not what we ought to do. The science of sociology has not formed--and by the nature of the case--cannot form any foundation to judge moral values. A careful reading of any textbook on sociology will confirm what I am telling you. Sociologists, generally speaking, do not believe in absolute values. So, how could sociology make a case for or against the death penalty or for or against any other idea or behavior?
Parham pleads with his readers not to ignore the hard work of thinking deeply about how to apply biblical principles and practices. The advice is well worth considering. But do we ignore the biblical principles when we argue that the Bible authorizes--even commands--the death penalty for murder and other serious crimes? God specifically authorized the death penalty (Gen. 9:6). It was widely practiced among the Israelites--by sword, by stoning and by carnal warfare. This has been the almost universal view through the ages of those who have called themselves Christians. I do not support the death penalty because of that fact, but that fact does need to be recognized. Do liberal theologians think they are more compassionate and understanding in opposing the death penalty than are God almighty and his Son Jesus Christ in supporting it?
If you would like to challenge any idea that has ever been taught on the International Gospel Hour, you are hereby invited to do so. I am not trying to hide behind a microphone to promote what I believe the Bible teaches.
Winford Claiborne
The International Gospel Hour
Back to Home Page
Back to Transcripts Titles