and a conservative case for capital punishment: archive.newsmax.com/commentmax/get.pl?a=2000/10/26/083901

Paul Dewet

What I find interesting in the article- actually both articles, is the reference to the acceptance of Christianity and full repentence by the prisoner when their suffering becomes imminant. Many probably do offer up “true” and “heartfelt” conversions and confessions, and many probably don’t.
Its a wonderful thing to know that as a child of the Heavenly Father, that if we do such a thing, as break one of his Laws, and end up being punished so- that we do have that priveledge to confess and recieve his forgiveness. That is the wonder of it. A totally perfect person, who has maintained a spotless life- feels they have no need to speak to their beloved Lord before passing the curtain- whereas, a person who has fallen, lower than the lowliest, through fear, and hopefully some understanding, comes to the Lord and begs for his forgiveness.

Shouldn’t we all be that way? Are we not all lowly sinners?

Sometimes- humility is the hardest thing to aquire… and the most beautiful thing to achieve.

A lowly prisioner- knowing he is going to suffer death, realizes this- and if he is truly penitent, and has converted, realizes that he is going to the Father, and that the Father, loves him as much as the rest of his children.

At least- that is my hope and faith.

..So back to work on humility…:P

J. C. Wolfgang A. Mozart

I think you have indirectly made the point I was trying to make when I said “capital punishment seems to me, to be man enacting harsh punishment on man”. I feel that, in a society where God is not at the center of a functioning legal system it is very much man punishing man. When God was central to Israel’s legal system, God could, and did, call upon capital punishment to see justice done. When we remove God from the legal system, the debate becomes simply a matter of whether the state should kill it’s citizens or not.

Simon Kennedy, VIC

In response to Simon’s comment that “capital punishment seems to me, to be man enacting harsh punishment on man”, may I say that God was the One who instituted capital punishment (Gen. 9:6).

The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Ex. 21;12); kidnapping (Ex. 21:16); bestiality (Ex. 22:19); adultery (Lev. 20:10); homosexuality (Lev. 20:13); prostitution (Lev. 21:9) and rape (Dt. 22:24,25), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. For instance, David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life (2 Sam. 11:1-5, 12:13). Ultimately, each and every sin we commit should result in the death penalty (Rom. 6:23), yet, thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Rom. 5:8).

God allows capital punishment. But at the same time, God does not always demand the death penalty when it is due. What should a Christian’s view on the death penalty be, then? We must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard than He or be more kind than He. God has the highest standard of any being since He is perfect. Therefore, he loves to an infinite degree and has mercy to an infinite degree.

We must also recognise that God has given the government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances – for example, for being a homosexual or prostitute in today’s Australian society. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, we should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes.

Glenn Timmins, Vic.

Fair point. Of course the possibility of convicting an innocent person for any crime is an inherent part of living in a fallen world. If complete foolproof convictions are to be demanded, we would have to dispense with the criminal justice system altogether. That is why we speak of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in reaching a verdict in modern legal cases. Absolute certainty can rarely be achieved.

But it appears that I need to pen another piece, this time dealing with the non-biblical arguments in this debate.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I would loathe to be in the position of sending an innocent man to the gallows because of an imperfect criminal justice system. There have been plenty of “cut and dried” convictions for murder that were overturned much later because new evidence had come to light.

Capital punishment was a common occurance in 17th century England where simply an act of theft was sufficient to send a man to the gallows. I believe that the actions of Christian reformers led to the eventual phasing out of hanging.

Lennard Caldwell, QLD

As to Paul and Roman capital punishment, bear in mind the historical setting of Romans 13:1-7. Paul was writing this epistle under the reign of Nero, hardly a friend to the new faith. So he counsels his listeners to submit to the ruling authorities, since they are delegated by God. Of course elsewhere we learn that when state edicts run counter to what a believer must do – or not do – then disobedience is appropriate, although with the willingness to accept the consequences.

So yes Paul here is telling believers in Rome to submit, and to accept the laws of the law, including such things as the death penalty – even for crimes other than murder. Later in church history when believers were able to participate in the political process, they then of course could work to change laws, including what was subject to the death penalty, and so on.

Some might say that capital punishment is not made explicit in the text, nor in 1 Peter 2. But the use of the word “sword” tells us that at a bare minimum, the state has divine authority to use force to maintain the good and punish wrongdoing. But since the same term is used of death earlier in this epistle (Rom. 8:35) and is used of execution in Acts 12:2 and Rev. 13:10, it is quite reasonable to assume that Paul supports this understanding here.

Recall that God has given both the church and the state their own differing set of roles and responsibilities. Believers have duties and obligations to both, as Jesus instructed us in Mark 12:17. So again, while I as an individual believer may seek to forgive and offer grace to a murderer, the state has its own divine obligations in relation to the murderer. The state may take into consideration any calls you may give for clemency, but it still must implement justice, which includes punishment for evil.

Again, to confuse the believer’s Christian ethic with the state’s ethic is to invite trouble. Imagine if the state simply forgave and pardoned every criminal. Chaos would ensue. But God ordained the state to maintain both order and achieve justice. So the state cannot do what an individual Christian might do.

As to your last remark, I am not quite sure what you mean, and I am not aware of anyone calling on God or the state to “bring vengeance”. In Romans 12 Paul makes it clear that individual believers cannot enact vengeance nor engage in personal retaliation, such as becoming a vigilante. God is the God of vengeance, and the state is given the role to carry out God’s vengeance and punishment on the wrongdoer. To support the state in this activity does not seem to be wrong.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch