If life is sacred, what

about the death penalty?

Issue article www.Christianview.org

by Philip Rosenthal

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................1

THE BIBLICAL MEANING OF 'SANCTITY' ..........................................................................................................1

OBJECTIONS..............................................................................................................................................................2
WHAT IF THE JUDGES MADE A MISTAKE? .....................................................................................................................2
DOESN'T THE NEW TESTAMENT TEACH US TO LOVE EACH OTHER AND NOT APPROVE OF SUCH HARSH PENALTIES? .........3
THE DEATH PENALTY IS VIOLENT AND CRUEL. .............................................................................................................3
THE IDEA OF HANGING CRIMINALS IN PUBLIC IS MACABRE............................................................................................4
JESUS DID NOT APPLY THE DEATH PENALTY TO THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN THE ACT OF ADULTERY. HOW CAN WE APPLY
IT?.............................................................................................................................................................................4
ISN'T THE DEATH PENALTY TOO HARSH - WOULDN'T A LIGHTER PUNISHMENT ALSO BE A DETERRENT? ...........................5
DIDN'T JESUS SET ASIDE THE LAW OF 'EYE FOR EYE' AND 'TOOTH FOR TOOTH'? (MT 5:38)..............................................5
THE LAW OF MOSES CAN'T BE APPLIED TODAY IN TOTALITY ........................................................................................5
WHAT ABOUT MERCY? DOESN'T JAMES SAY THAT MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGEMENT. .............................................6

Introduction
At about the same time as the legalisation of the killing of unborn children, the South African
Constitutional Court ruled against the death penalty as a punishment for criminals. This despite
overwhelming public support for capital punishment and opposition to abortion. At the time, some
of those supporting the abolition of the death penalty claimed to be basing their views on the
scripture 'You shall not kill'. In this way, the public voice of Christianity was weakened. Some
secular newspapers asked why Christians who opposed abortion of the unborn supported the death
penalty. Surely, they argued, if the Christian principle of the Sanctity of Human Life protects tiny
unwanted babies from abortion, it should even more protect full grown men from being hanged?
How should we answer those who ask such questions?

The biblical meaning of 'sanctity'

Before looking at the death penalty specifically, we must consider our understanding of the 'Sanctity
of human life' and the concept of sanctity. In parallel examples, the temple was 'off limits' to the
general population, but people were allowed in under restricted circumstances (priests, of specific
descent, certain days of year, after observing certain rituals). With the example of the sanctity of
marriage, 'sex' is allowed in the specific instance of a man and woman who are married - anything
else (unmarried, same gender, animals etc) is off limits.

The concept of the 'sanctity of life' has been secularised by the term 'right to life', which is a similar,
but not identical concept. The right to life is derived from the 'sanctity of life', but is only part of the
concept. Sanctity relates primarily to Gods law, whereas the 'right to life' relates primarily to the
individual (as derived from 'sanctity'. Now if one abandons the concept of the 'sanctity of life' and
replaces it with a simple right of the individual, then the boundaries of that right become difficult to
 The Sanctity of Life and the Death Penalty 2

define. People without God resort to defining it in terms of the demands of the individual (in whom
it supposedly resides). A condemned person does not want to die and so claims the 'right to life' to
escape death. The unborn, who cannot speak for themselves are unable to make any such claim - and
so the right is not considered valid.

On the other hand, the concept of the 'sanctity of life' concept reserves the right to take human life for
God alone - a curse which he inflicts on the human race as a consequence of the sin of Adam & Eve.
He is under no restriction here, except his own promises. People sometimes complain at the loss of a
loved one "How could God allow this to happen?". A sovereign God can do whatever he wants
whenever he wants - who are we to question him? God exercised his right to destroy humanity at the
flood. Considering how wicked their behaviour had become, he delegated some of his right to kill to
the civil government when Noah came out of the Ark. GE 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by
man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." In other words, the death
penalty for murder is specifically to uphold the sanctity of human life as created in the image of God.

Later, the law of Moses specifies the death penalty for numerous crimes, but in the case of murder is
singled out as different from the others. In other cases, the court had a certain discretion in terms of
the penalty applied. Also, in the case e.g.. of adultery, the guilty man could ransom himself to make
the accuser drop charges (Prov 6:32-25) In the case of murder there was not this option. If the death
penalty was not applied, the land becomes polluted with innocent blood and the community became
guilty for the murder.

NU 35:30 " `Anyone who kills a person is to be put to death as a murderer only on the testimony of
witnesses. But no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. NU 35:31 " `Do not
accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death. NU
35:32 " `Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go
back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest. NU 35:33 " `Do not pollute the
land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on
which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it.

Thus an elaborate ritual had to be performed by the elders (judges) of the nearest town to the site of
an unsolved murder in order to avert Gods judgement on the community for failing to apply his law.
(Dt 21:1-8)

The idea that the sanctity of human life protects murderers from punishment was unknown in the
pre-Christian world. It is also fairly recent in our own culture. It is I believe an mistake of
secularising the 'sanctity of life' based on Gods law into a 'right to life' based on mans will - a
problem, which I believe plagues the ideology of 'human rights' in general (compare also for example
'Freedom of expression' etc.)

So in terms of the sanctity of human life, the restriction is on the common person from taking human
life (as with the common people and the temple). Those whom God has prescribed to do it under
specific regulations and procedures (as with the priests and the temple) are authorised to do so. As
with Nadab and Abihu, judges may not use such authority ad hoc on their own initiative. And
medical doctors definitely do not have any such delegated legal authority (re: abortion and
euthanasia).

Objections

What if the judges made a mistake?

The sanctity of human life and the death penalty5.doc 29 March, 2004
 The Sanctity of Life and the Death Penalty 3

(a) A person may only be prosecuted on the testimony of two or three witnesses. Circumstantial
evidence is not sufficient to apply the death penalty.
(b) The penalty for false witness is the same as the penalty for the crime accused (in the case of
murder accusation - death).

Incidentally, the application of biblical principles could have averted the crisis of the O.J. Simpson
trial. The case rested on the forensic evidence of a scientist, who was discredited as a racist - and
accused of faking the evidence. Thus the jury found the evidence inadmissible. Had the system
applied biblical principles, the evidence for a murder trial should have been sent to two or three
independent scientists for analysis - and averted the problem.

Doesn't the New Testament teach us to love each other and not approve of such
harsh penalties?

No, the New Testament upholds the death penalty:

(a) RO 13:3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you
want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear
the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

The sword is not a knife for cutting meat or gardening. It has one purpose only - killing. The apostle
Paul says here that it is not a ceremonial ornament - it is meant to be used by the governing
authorities.

(b) RO 1:32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve
death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

(c) Lack of explicit objections to the death penalty in cases in specific trials:

Case 1: Paul AC 25:11 If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to
die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand
me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" The apostle Paul did not object to his own conviction, by
objecting to the death penalty, but only on the basis of his innocence. In fact he says he is prepared to
die if proven guilty.

Case 2: Jesus. The early church accused the Sanhedrin and Roman government of murder. While
there is much mention of Jesus innocence [Gods vindication through the resurrection], there is no
mention of any illegitimacy of the Roman use of the death penalty. In fact Jesus acknowledges that
Pilate had been given that authority by God. See JN 19:10 "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate
said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" JN 19:11 Jesus
answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the
one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

The death penalty is violent and cruel.

Argument
The pain inflicted should not be allowed in a civilised society. (This was the argument used by the
South African constitutional court in declaring the death penalty invalid.)

The sanctity of human life and the death penalty5.doc 29 March, 2004
 The Sanctity of Life and the Death Penalty 4

Answer

The bible does not condemn the inflicting of pain as a punishment. It supports flogging as a
punishment for violent crimes, but sets a limit of 40 lashes. (DT 25:2 If the guilty man deserves to be
beaten, the judge shall make him lie down and have him flogged in his presence with the number of
lashes his crime deserves, DT 25:3 but he must not give him more than forty lashes. If he is flogged
more than that, your brother will be degraded in your eyes.)

Compare this with Muslim Saudi Arabia, which recently condemned a prisoner to 1000 lashes to be
taken in sets of 50 two weeks apart.

The death penalty in the law of Moses was usually by stoning. Pagan forms of execution such as
burning or crucifixion would be considered 'cruel and degrading punishment' and are not suggested.
Death by hanging or firing squad are extremely quick and the pain would be mainly mental.

Our constitutional court argued that the long waiting period on death row should be considered
'torture' and thus forbidden. They could also have ruled on a time limit a person may remain on
death row, which would have solved this problem more simply.

The idea of hanging criminals in public is macabre.

Argument
The idea of hanging criminals in public is macabre. We can't go back to the old days (e.g.. Cape
Colony two hundred years ago) when bodies were left to rot on poles on the roadside as a warning
against crime.

Answer
Under the law of Moses, the public display of bodies of executed criminals was only allowed for one
day. DT 21:22 If a man guilty of a capital offence is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23
you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because
anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not desecrate the land the LORD your
God is giving you as an inheritance. The historical practices of letting criminals hang for long
periods in Europe and their colonies comes from the days when Europe was pagan. It is forbidden
by the bible.

Jesus did not apply the death penalty to the woman caught in the act of adultery.
How can we apply it?

The right to execute is with the state only and not with any 'kangaroo court' or mob. At the time, the
state was controlled by the Romans and under Roman law adultery was not punishable by death.
Neither did Jesus or the mob of Jewish people have any status as a judge under the Roman legal
system. Had they stoned the woman, they would have committed murder. No one has the right to
apply the death penalty on their own initiative, unless they are an appointed judge using laws made
by the state on a fair procedure. It was a similar case to the time when Jesus was asked whether
taxes should be paid to Caesar. The Jews wanted Jesus to make a political claim for his authority
while on earth - which he refused to do.

The sanctity of human life and the death penalty5.doc 29 March, 2004
 The Sanctity of Life and the Death Penalty 5

Jesus, did however in his capacity as God have the right to forgive sin - which he did. Jesus also
took the opportunity to expose the accusers lack of qualification to judge the situation (i.e. that they
had also sinned). When a judge passes judgement in court he does so in the name of the state - not in
his private capacity. We have no such right - and Jesus defused the situation by his suggestion that
the one without sin cast the first stone.

Isn't the death penalty too harsh - wouldn't a lighter punishment also be a deterrent?

"DT 19:21 Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
Pagan nations laws at the time did not have such limits. For example, under the ancient Sumerian
code, if a commoner put out the eye of a noble - he was put to death. The bible put everyone equal
under the law - no class or racial distinction was allowed.

Lev 24:17 " `If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death. LEV 24:18 Anyone
who takes the life of someone's animal must make restitution--life for life. LEV 24:19 If anyone
injures his neighbour, whatever he has done must be done to him: LEV 24:20 fracture for fracture,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured. LEV 24:21 Whoever
kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a man must be put to death. LEV 24:22 You
are to have the same law for the alien and the native-born. I am the LORD your God.' "

i.e. no double standards of law based on race or class (e.g. apartheid) and no punishment for injury
greater than the injury inflicted.

The bible sets limits around the application of the death penalty. e.g.. It cannot be applied e.g.. to
the family of the accused (as was often the case in pagan traditional African law before Christianity
came).

Didn't Jesus set aside the law of 'eye for eye' and 'tooth for tooth'? (Mt 5:38)

In the sermon on the mount, Jesus addresses the Pharisees mis-application of the teaching of the
bible. Some were using this law to justify personal revenge - which the bible forbids. Jesus affirms
the law of Moses in a few sentences earlier in MT 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the
Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them. In the verse following this
one Jesus quotes the statement 'Love your neighbour and hate your enemy'. Only the first half of this
is in the Old Testament law. 'Hate your enemy' is not in the bible - it was a misunderstanding of the
law by the Jews of Jesus day. Likewise, Jesus did not completely set aside divorce, he re-affirmed
God's original purpose in marriage, by giving the example of the union of Adam and Eve. Divorce
as authorised in the law of Moses was meant for extreme situations. Jesus said that the divorce laws
permitted in the Law of Moses were being abused. e.g. If a couple divorce so that one partner can
marry another person, then the party responsible is still guilty of adultery.
The Law of Moses can't be applied today in totality

Argument

The Law of Moses prescribes the death penalty for adultery, fornication, witchcraft, cursing of
parents, consulting the dead, idolatry, homosexuality, beastiality etc. We can't apply these today - so
how can we use the Law of Moses for modern law.

Answer

The sanctity of human life and the death penalty5.doc 29 March, 2004
 The Sanctity of Life and the Death Penalty 6

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with these laws - which God says are perfect and holy. "PS 19:7 The
law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise
the simple." The problem lies with the wicked society we live in. If we applied all of them -
probably most of South Africa's population would have to be executed.

Secondly, the danger of giving such power over the personal lives of the individual to a state led by
wicked people, is that they will abuse the power and interfere with legitimate God given rights of the
family, church and individual. In the same way that the gospel grants much greater liberty to the
individual than the individual ever had under the law of Moses, so a community impacted by the
gospel has much more responsible citizens. It can preserve social order more easily. Thus the
possibility of social order without so much legal control of everyone's life. (Unfortunately, this is
declining and will probably not last in some countries). In order to preserve e.g.. freedom of worship
to God, we stop the state from getting involved with regulating religious activities. Thus in Christian
countries e.g.. private idolatry is not regulated. This does not mean e.g.. we should allow e.g..
government idolatry e.g.. peace poles in public places or permit Satanistic worship. Non
enforcement is a way of increasing freedom, but should not be taken to mean such practices are
acceptable.

Thirdly, the gospel provides a way of curing sinful behaviour, which prior to the cross could be cured
only by the death of the sinner. Secular psychologists, who do not have the gospel, still find it
impossible to cure homosexuality. Effectively the sinner suffers the death penalty as part of Jesus
death and is thus freed from sin. Prior to the cross, there was for example no way to cleanse a
community of homosexuality, except to execute the people who practicised it. Fortunately the New
Covenant gives such an escape from a life of sin.

What about mercy? Doesn't James say that mercy triumphs over judgement.

Yes, we as individuals are called to show mercy - as is the church. When looking at biblical
commands, we must look at who they are directed to. All scriptures to do with mercy are directed at
individuals and the church - not the state. On the contrary, the civil government is an agent of God's
wrath - not his mercy. " RO 13:4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be
afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring
punishment on the wrongdoer."

So, it would be perfectly consistent for a Christian judge to sentence a man to death in his capacity as
representative of the state and then in his private capacity go and visit him in prison to share the
gospel with him, care for his needs and try to get him saved before he dies.

Please do copy and distribute this article. Comments and questions welcome.
by Philip Rosenthal
Contact Christianview.org at +27 (0)21- 6854500 or mail@christianview.org
Postnet 114, P/Bag X18, Rondebosch, 7701, South Africa
Please send us a copy of any article quoting from this and acknowledge <www.Christianview.org>.
More articles and pamphlets on issues can be found at www.Christianview.org

The sanctity of human life and the death penalty5.doc 29 March, 2004