You shall not kill. The Hebrew word for “kill” is a word modern translations render “murder.” The Hebrew word can be used in contexts where one is killed intentionally or unintentionally. In Matthew 5:21-26, Jesus develops what we are to understand. The command “thou shalt not kill” is a moral failing that begins in the heart before it shows itself in criminal activity.
Consider some numbing information: some in Western society are supportive of the moral failing associated with euthanasia, otherwise known “mercy” killings. If the outcry surrounding abortion is any indication, the current outcry surrounding “mercy” killings will soon die down (pun intended). It’s a shame that so many people now recognize such killings as part of our lives. In Holland, euthanasia has been in practice for decades. In December 1998 the British Medical Journal reported that in 1995 there were 900 cases of non-voluntary euthanasia victims.
The Dred Scott case of the Supreme Court in 1857 said slaves were not legal persons. The Supreme Court, in 1973, said in effect that children in the womb are not either. It was two lawyers who defended Norma McCorvey’s right to kill her child. These lawyers, it is said, had no interest in Norma as a person (surely, they did not have any interest in any child that would be in the womb either!). They just wanted to challenge the law prohibiting killing of the innocent in all 50 states. They got their wish when in 1973 the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Satan’s work.
Some argue, in their lack of moral wisdom, the child in the womb is not viable; it may be life, but not viable life. This is man’s attempt to justify an action the Lord will never accept. “Thus saith Jehovah: For three transgressions of the children of Ammon, yea, for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have ripped up the women with child of Gilead, that they may enlarge their border” (Amos 1:13, ASV, emphasis added, RT).
The shame of it all is associated with people who have become hardened to the moral failings of society. We all have our own political interests. They are varied. We ought not to think, however, our varied political interests are an acceptable approach to the Lord as we vote one political philosophy, relegating the Lord’s holiness and virtue out of our public sector under the banner of “separation of church and state.” When a person votes into office a man or woman who compromises the Lord’s way, this is a contribution to the slaughter of the innocent. The attorneys who defended the killing of the innocent to the Supreme Court will give an account to the Lord, as those who ruled against moral virtue back in 1857. Why do we think it will be any different with our individual votes?
Capital punishment does not fall under the Lord’s prohibition, as can be seen throughout the Scriptures. Capital cases are not related to the innocent, but to the guilty. Capital cases are seen for the following crimes/sins: striking or cursing a parent; blasphemy; sabbath breaking; witchcraft and false pretensions to prophecy; adultery; unchastity (of various sorts); rape; incest; abducting people for slavery; idolatry; false witnessing; murder (N-ISBE, volume 3, pp.1052-1053).
APPLICATION. The principle of this command, in a New Testament context, is our obligation to the Lord as far greater than any obligation given to man, including the political arena as well. It is a moral outrage that any Christian would support what is inherently evil! We will answer for it. One violates the Scripture because of where the heart is. RT
etsop95 
As a society, we have a long way to go towards civility. As you discussed, abortion is a great example. Along with that, Christians should be advocating against all kinds of murder, no matter how society defines it. This is especially true of war, which is seen by many as a valid excuse to intentionally murder another human being.
While you are correct in saying that capital punish was not prohibited by the Lord, this is only true for those under the Old Testament. As New Testament Christians, the Scripture are clear that capital punishment is no longer acceptable for those who submit to the Kingship of Christ.
On what basis is this a clear teaching in the NT, Andrew, especially when in Romans 13 the Lord authorizes governments to implement it?
This is a clear teaching of the NT because the NT more often and more boldly teaches that Christians are not to murder, not to return evil for evil, not to commit any violence, and even to turn the other cheek.
On the other hand, capital punishment is a violation of the NT teaching. It is not logical for a Christian to accept Rom 12:14-21 as authoritative and to accept capital punishment as acceptable.
You bring up a new aspect of discussion: government. While God allows secular government to do whatever it pleases, a Christian in God’s Kingdom is commanded against the sinful things that a government might practice such as abortion and capital punishment, which are both forms of murder.
Back to capital punishment and the Christian… Since God commands His people not even to curse their enemy, how is it logical that Christians can be allowed to murder their enemy under the guise of capital punishment? This is neither logical nor Christ-like.
Capital punishment is murder, and the Lord authorized government to “carry the sword” (that is, execute judgment in the form of capital punishment, which you call murder), therefore the Lord authorized governments to murder.
Capital punishment is equivalent to abortion (that is, they are both forms of murder). Abortion is the killing/murder of the innocent and defenseless, and capital punishment is the same? Is this your argument?
Before I give attention to Romans 12, let me be sure I understand accurately.
Yes, God gave government “carry the sword.” But I would not call it authorized, because that implies that God approves murder. Instead, I believe it is Biblically better to say that God ALLOWS governments to carry the sword. If it is not God’s will that churches should be able to execute capital punishment, why would God give more authority to the government? I believe God’s true design for humanity is found in His Kingdom. For this reason, governments are allowed to execute capital punishment; this does not mean that God approves of it. I know this point is merely semantics. But I think it is important.
Abortion is always the killing/murder of the innocent and defenseless. As for capital punishment, it is the killing/murder of both the innocent and the guilty. Capital punishment does not have a great track record in that regard. Many people have been executed via capital punishment who were innocent. Capital punishment is against God’s design, as described in the parable of the wheat and tares. God would never want anyone to die who were actually innocent (wheat). And if God was concerned that His angels might wrongly rip out wheat, then what makes humans better judges than angels? Again, we see that many innocent people have been killed/murder via capital punishment. Such decisions were never designed to be in the hands of men.
Check out Romans 12:14-21. If these are God’s instructions for Christians, how can a Christian live out those instructions while also supporting capital punishment? There is God’s command for Christians to do good to their enemies. There is the support of capital punishment. These ideologies cannot coexist; they are opposed to each other.
I can respect the fact that “allow” is amenable more than “authorized,” but in the allowance there is authorization. A good example of that is Babylon and Nebuchadnezzar. It was the Lord who allowed, thus authorized the Babylonian king to execute justice.
It is true that it is not God’s will or desire to execute capital punishment (1 Tim. 2:4), but if it is allowed/authorized by God for government to do so, expressly stated, then to that degree, when associated with punishment, it’s perfectly moral.
You are correct about God’s true design, but those not meeting the standard of God’s true design are governed by man’s law (cf. 1 Timothy 1:9-10). Abortion by design is the killing of the unwanted, which are innocent and defenseless; capital punishment by design is not at all corresponding to abortion, rather it deals with justice; man’s failure in this area notwithstanding.
The wheat/tares parable deals with God’s ultimate judgment, and in all respects He gets it right. Just as capital punishment is contrary to the Lord’s desire, so is living in sin without regard to punishment from civil law in any regards. This does not translate to “God would never want anyone” punished to whatever degree the civil law chooses to administer it.
Romans 12 is not contrary to the idea of capital punishment, Andrew. It’s contrary to one taking personal vengeance or executing justice when there is no authorization on the *personal* level with the Lord. Consider 12:17 for a moment. Is the rendering of justice evil? If the rendering of justice is not evil, can a Christian in a man-made institution such as the Court system render that justice?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
If capital punishment is acceptable because God authorizes it to administer justice, we must consider what this means for governments. For there are many governments (even today) who commit what you and I would consider to be genocide–as those governments mass-kill many people in the name of administering justice. We may think capital punishment is well and good, but since that system has killed innocent people, God will hold such killers accountable.
I noticed that you often speak of a moral code. And the things you say are true. There is a divine moral code that cannot derive from atheism. And the same is true for governments. Though God allows governments to do their own thing, why is it that whatever they do is “moral” just because the Bible says that God allows it? Instead, I do not believe government is capable of laying down any sort of moral code for humanity. Just as abortion is an allowable sin in the eyes of the government, so is capital punishment, so is genocide. In short, if government has the authority to carry the sword, making killing by the government moral, then how can anyone criticize a government’s choice to commit what we consider to be genocide?
After all, if it is a sin for a Christian to kill, then it is also a sin for a Christian to kill even if they are wearing a badge and a uniform. To believe that both are acceptable is to believe in two systems of moral code.
I want to encourage you to not blow off the parable of the wheat/tares and Romans 12 so quickly. These are applicable passages from God that applies to this discussion. Besides, believing that Rom 12 is about “personal” justice, is reading something into the text–something that the text is not saying. Rom 12 is a universal text that applies to every Christian’s life. Romans 13:1-7 is specifically about government. In fact, if you read Romans 13, Paul is talking about a Christian’s relation to secular government. Paul shows that they are two different entities.
Lastly, if Rom 12 is about “personal” justice, then why isn’t capital punishment acceptable for the church body, if it is already acceptable for government?
Andrew, your first paragraph is exactly correct. I don’t want you to think, however (2nd paragraph) that I am arguing that what a government does is necessarily moral, only that the Lord has authorized government (conceptually) to use the form of capital punishment if it desires, or not use it at all. You are right, again, that government (man in general) is capable of laying down any sort of moral code for humanity. The moral code that he must build upon is that which the Lord has laid down already. Your last question in the 2nd paragraph is fine, it is one that needs attention.
Andrew, hypothetical: In the middle of the night, an uninvited person comes into your home with nothing but bad intentions. What will you do? Clearly, you will resist, but when you defend the life of a loved one, even if it calls for killing the violent intruder? If you do, how will the law of man look on this? Is it murder (premeditated / manslaughter) or self-defense? Is it wrong for a Christian to kill in this context when his home and family are being violated? Is this the same as murder?
Your 3rd paragraph is simply not the case. There is one moral code (God’s), and it is the Lord who said one is not to murder.
I hope I did not leave you with the impression that I dismissed your remarks on the wheat/tares; that was not my intention. You speak about Romans 12:14ff having universal application, something I did not deny, but that universal application is to be made by the individual, each one. That is all that I said. I read nothing into the text and, in fact, it does deal with personal vengeance/justice. McGarvey said the following on 12:17: “The precept bids us reject the lex talionis, and live contrary to it: it commands us to eschew both the spirit and practice of vindictiveness.” Is he wrong?
Yes, Romans 13 is specifically about the role/existence of government. Your last question is really peculiar. Do you think I am arguing or intimating capital punishment, even by implication, is a “church action”? If so, on what basis do you so judge that I have suggested this? Otherwise, I am not sure how to interpret your question to me.
Now to Matthew 13. You asserted “Capital punishment is against God’s design, as described in the parable of the wheat and tares.” Capital punishment is not be talked about in the passage; it’s clearly about God’s final judgment, something that only God can render perfectly (13:36-43).
You proposed the hypothetical situation about a home invader. I think it is good that you asked a lot of questions there. There are a whole lot of options that are open to a person in that situation. One of the things to consider is the law of man. As you might be suggesting, self defense is acceptable in the laws of man. That’s a good thing for a person to consider. For me, none of the questions you asked are as important as… What would God want me to do? Even if a Christian were to answer this question, there would be a lot of different answers. I have my own answers to an hypothetical situation like this, but since this situation is different from capital punishment, I would rather not open this can of worms. 🙂
About my 3rd paragraph… I agree with you that there is only one moral code. When I think of “one moral code,” it causes me to believe that murder and killing is always sin, regardless of the circumstance or someone’s occupation in government.
About personal vengeance, yes, I believe McGarvey is correct. However, Rom 12 is not specifically addressing that. It is not ONLY addressing that. Rom 12 seems to be addressing all forms of vindictiveness, violence, wrath, and everything in between.
I think the main instruction in Rom 12 is what it tells Christians to do. We are to do good. It is my understanding that doing good to our enemy (such as feeding them and offering peace to them) is opposed to supporting their death. I mean, a Christian would bless their [even convicted] enemy. And for a person to desire that their enemy receive capital punishment essentially condemns their soul to hell. Therefore, supporting capital punishment says, “I don’t care about whether your soul ever repents or converts. You need to die and spend eternity in hell.” This is main reason why I believe that capital punishment is overcoming evil with evil.
No, I don’t think you would support capital punishment within the church. I’m sorry if it sounded like I suggested that. I don’t think any same person would support capital punishment within the church. My point is that, it seems more logical that capital punishment would be better administered within the church than it would within government. And since most people find the idea of capital punishment within the church to be wrong, then it makes sense that it would be wrong everywhere.
Thanks for bringing up the wheat and tares again. Yes, the parable is about the final judgment. However, the final judgment doesn’t even come until the end. What is God doing while His patience is holding back the time of final judgment? God is allowing wheat and tares to live together. And that is where we are now. We are currently in the time of wheat and tares living together. The wheat and tares won’t be separated until the final judgment. To me, the parable shows that, under the New Testament times, God will not execute capital punishment. It is not until Christ returns that God will execute an eternal capital punishment on both the living and the dead. That’s my understanding of the parable. Basically, if God isn’t going to be ripping out tares (killing evil people) today, then mankind shouldn’t be doing that either.
The hypothetical gets to the issue, though. I suspect you would defend the life and honor of your family to what degree is necessary for the occasion. I further suggest, because of this context, you would be guilty of nothing in doing so. What would God want you to do? Exactly that.
Is killing sin in all regards (regardless of covenants)? If so, then you have God committing sin when He told Moses to execute justice in Leviticus 24:21, 17, or is there some limitations and parameters associated with “killing”? Were the saints under the Old Covenant not to do good to their neighbors? Murder is wrong in all regards (regardless of covenants) because it is associated with premeditation and hatred, not so with “killing.”
Romans 12 does address all forms of vindictiveness, no issue there. It gives instructions concerning how a Christian is to carry him or herself. They are to do good, even good to their enemy. It is the case they are not to pick up the sword and wield it in a vindictive way, but that does not speak to the authorization from the Lord to governments to carry the sword in a judicial manner against their citizens, if it is required or deemed necessary. Neither does it translate into “I don’t care about whether your soul ever repents or converts. You need to spend eternity in hell.”
Whether capital punishment would be better administered by the church compared with government may be a worthy discussion. It’s one that will amount to nothing in the end because the Lord gave no authorization (as you know) for the church to be engaged in any civil judicial matter; this applies to government at each layer of society.
Andrew, your remarks on the wheat/tares was good until “God will not execute capital punishment” until Christ returns; the parable deals nothing at all with judicial matter relative to civilized society, but only with regard to judgment (2 Corinthians 5:10). Wheat and tares are part of every society since the days of Genesis 3, they do not refer to a specific time in contradistinction to all other times.
You’re opposed to capital punishment based on this or that reason, okay fine. Not a problem to me. I stand opposed to your way of thinking, but I respect you in this regard as you stand opposed to my way of thinking. In this reasoning process in which we are engaged, this is why we do it – in order to see if one way of thinking can be sustained in comparison with another way of thinking. For this, I am grateful for our discussion.
If you have blog or website, even Facebook, I would encourage you to share it with others to let others know this is how people should reason with one another.
Yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I love your last two paragraphs. It is my prayer that God’s truth and His way of thinking will be revealed.