Was Jesus Against Capital Punishment?
The United Methodist Church declares its opposition to the retention and use of capital punishment and urges its abolition. In spite of a common assumption to the contrary, "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth," does not give justification for the imposing of the penalty of death. Jesus explicitly repudiated retaliation (Matthew 5:38-39), and the Talmud denies its literal meaning and holds that it refers to financial indemnities.
United Methodist Church, In Opposition
to Capital Punishment
Oftentimes, when capital punishment is being discussed, Jesus’ remarks regarding “an eye-for-an-eye” are pressed into service. When coupled with the “turn the other check” passage, capital punishment abolitionists believe that they’re holding a biblical wining hand.
But is it the case that Jesus was either rejecting capital punishment or setting the record straight (i.e., that eye-for-an-eye doesn’t apply to the death penalty)? Likewise, is “turn the other check” a condemnation of capital punishment and a call to passivism?
What is “Eye-for-an-Eye?”
38) “You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.'
39) "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.
Matthew 5:38-39
In figuring out what Jesus meant, we should first see what he was referencing. The relevant passages are Ex. 21:12–36, Lev. 24:17–23, and Deut. 19:14–21. In these passages God is laying out a principle of justice: the punishment should fit the crime. This would, of course, include financial matters, as the United Methodist Church (UMC) suggests. But to say that God is only interested in justice when it comes to commerce makes God the moral equivalent of Ebenezer Scrooge.
Contrary to the claim of the UMC, God’s perfect moral character requires justice in all matters, including the most heinous crime committed against man.
Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man.
Genesis 9:6
Did Jesus Overturn This Principle?
For Jesus to reject an “eye-for-an-eye” means that He would reject the principle that the punishment should fit the crime. The question abolitionists need to answer is, “Is it your understanding that Jesus taught that the punishment should not fit the crime? Do you believe that Jesus rejected justice?” Indeed, such a teacher would be profoundly immoral, and not worthy of our attention.
Did Jesus Reject the Capital Punishment?
God established the death penalty.
Jesus is God.
Therefore, Jesus established the death penalty.
The logic of the above syllogism is inescapable. The only way around it is to show that either the major premise (first sentence) or the minor premise (the second) is false: either God didn’t establish the death penalty or Jesus isn’t God. Of course, if one takes the Scriptures seriously, then neither can be rejected.
With murder, there is one more thing that must be considered beyond just the “eye-for-an-eye” principle. As Genesis 6:9 points out, man is made in the image of God. Consequently, murder is not simply taking a man’s life—it’s destroying the very image of God. This profoundly compounds the sin.
So, the second question we must ask is, “Is man no longer God’s image bearer? Or, if he is, is it now no big deal to destroy that image?”
As with the earlier questions regarding the rejection of justice, these questions too cannot be answered in the affirmative.
What Jesus’ Words Do Not Mean?
First, what they don’t mean. Throughout the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus uses personal pronouns, such as “You are the salt of the earth,” Let your light shine,” For truly I say to you,” and, in the passage in question, “But I say to you.” This is important because it shows that He is addressing His immediate hearers and us (i.e., individuals). He is not talking to the government. Therefore, He’s not telling the government to turn the other check. Furthermore, the New Testament affirms the state’s right, as God’s minister, to execute judgment via the sword (Rom. 13:4; Acts 25:11). And since the New Testament came from Jesus, He affirms the state’s right to carryout capital punishment.
It also isn’t a call to passivism. Even the most cursory reading of the Old Testament will reveal that God isn’t a pacifist. Moreover, Jesus, who is God incarnate, instructed His disciples to arm themselves for journey (Luke 22:36). Why were they to buy a sword, even if it meant selling their garment? Answer: For self defense along the dangerous Roman highways. And, let us not forget what happened when the Temple Guard came to arrest Jesus:
50) And Jesus said to him, "Friend, do what you have come for." Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and seized Him.
51) And behold, one of those who were with Jesus reached and drew out his sword, and struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his ear.
52) Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.
Matthew 26:50-52
Jesus didn’t respond, “Hey! Where did you get that thing? How long have you been carrying that? Get rid of it before it kills us all!” Instead, he told Peter to return it to its sheath, followed by the instruction that this was an inappropriate time for its use.
There’s one other problem with the pacifistic interpretation, and that’s with its application. Let’s say someone breaks into your house and steals one of your children. Do you offer the intruder your other child as well?
What Do Jesus’ Words Mean
I’m partial to an interpretation I heard from Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. Since most people are right handed, how would someone slap you on the right cheek? He would do so by slapping you with the back of his hand. A back-handed slap is not meant to injure, but to insult. And let us not forget that when Jesus was struck by one of the temple guards, He did not turn the other cheek. Instead, He inquired as to the justice of the action (John 18:22–23).
“Turn the other cheek” is not a call to passivity, nor is it an overturning of the principle that the punishment should fit the crime (including capital punishment). It seems that what Jesus is actually calling us to do is to bear insults and to not respond in kind, just like in the verses following Mat. 5:39 where we are instructed to bear other such personal affronts.
The UMC would do well to reconsider their opposition.
posted by The Catechizer and The Deacon | 2:15 PM
5 Comments:
I have no argument that the State is empowered to use capital punishment, or even to engage in evil - the State is a human institution of an imperfect and yet to be redeemed race.
However, I emphatically object to the proposition that Christ-followers should actively support any taking of human life. Our role is to repay evil with good, to forgive our enemies, to take the high road and suffer injustice in the name of Jesus. Evil is in the world and we live beside it daily, that does not mean we should partake or condone it. Submission to the authority of the government is far different than supporting or condoning it.
To choose otherwise is to abandon your citizenship in heaven.
I agree with the catechizer's postulation(s), and I would further append that, Jesus, at times employed hyperbole to get his point across. This may perhaps be the case with respect to the expression "turn the other cheek." Moreover, if Jesus did abrogate capital punishment then he missed a perfect opportunity to communicate thusly, for during the crucifixion (a public event) he remained in this regard, conspicuously silent.
Jay, I’m assuming that you read my article and thus my argument. Given that assumption, is it your view that Jesus rejects justice? Or is it that you believe that he isn't God?
God is spirit, hence being made in His image refers to our spirit which no man can destroy.
Sue, it’s true that man cannot destroy our immaterial self, and I didn’t imply that he could. Also, although it’s true that our spirit is created in God’s image, it’s insufficient to leave it at that. The Bible doesn’t not tell us that we’re partly created in God’s image; it doesn’t divvy us up like a loaf of bread. Instead it says, “For in the image of God He made man.” God treats man as a whole, and not just as half important spirit and half unimportant matter (Gnosticism). It is because He views us as a whole that destroying that image (unjustly killing man) is a capital offense (Gen 9:6).
Post a Comment
<< Home