The other night, I heard a prominent Christian columnist on TV advocating hanging for murder. The crowd cheered.
Execution is a popular thing amongst certain sections of the public, but for my money I can’t imagine how it is reconciled with following Jesus.
In the Law, the instruction is to give an eye for an eye. Now this throws up two points.
First, it was an instruction to limit retribution. You will not take back more than was taken from you. It forbids escalation in revenge.
Second, Jesus clarified the position in the episode with the adulteress. Let him that has no sin throw the first stone, He said. Only those who are perfect are able to carry out punishment on sinners. And since none of us are perfect, it means we can’t do it.
He doesn’t excuse the sin. He tells the guilty to sin no more. But He doesn’t take their lives from them. There will be consequences for this woman; divorce, shunning, a bad reputation, but Jesus offers mercy then mercy then mercy.
And execution for murder also depends on having levels of sin, that some crimes are worse than others. Again, for Christians the idea of levels of sin are anathema; all sin is equally abhorrent to Him. So if you bring hanging in for murder, then you should be consistent and have it for parking tickets and fraud.
My last thought would be that taking the life of a criminal is to deny the possibility of redemption. Grace dictates that redemption can come to any (look at the apostle Paul!). Refusing to grant even the chance of redemption or rehabilitation is to refuse forgiveness.
Grace and peace,
Ed
July 4, 2009 at 16:30
Sounds simple enough … as long as you keep the subject in the theoretical.
But then your young daughter gets raped or murdered or killed by a drunk driver. Then what?
It was God who introduced the concept of ‘an eye for an eye.’
Why punish anyone for anything? Why not just allow everyone to do whatever they please?
Any further comments?
July 4, 2009 at 18:36
If my daughter gets raped or murdered, then the decision should not be in my hands – I am by definition incapable of rational thought on the matter. This is an emotional argument that incites revenge as acceptable.
My position is not total libertarianism, but the refusal to kill another, no matter what they have done. Jail, yes. Fines, yes. Community service, yes. Killing, absolutely not.
Grace and peace,
Ed
July 4, 2009 at 19:40
How about this:
You are the subject of a home invasion. Apparently you have something somebody else wants to have and they are willing to take a risk taking it from you. They suspect you are away from your home but you and your wife and children are home and asleep.
You wake up and realize that you are being invaded and robbed. You stay in bed and hope they will leave you and your family alone. They don’t! They can’t find whatever they are looking for and come to your bedroom to seek your assistance.
They threaten you but you don’t have what they want. You tell them that emphatically, but they don’t believe you. In order to jog your memory or otherwise convince you that they are serious about this matter they now threaten you with harming your wife and children.
(Now, these kinds of things happen all the time to innocent people by those who find it easier to take what rightfully belongs to someone else, than to earn it themselves!)
You have to now decide whether to give in to their demands, somehow, so they will go away, or whether you will oppose them and fight for your family.
What do you do?
July 4, 2009 at 21:34
And when you stand before Jesus and he asks if you used the sword?
And if you showed mercy?
And did you turn the other cheek?
And did you love your neighbour?
They can take any stuff they want – nothing justifies taking the life of another human being.
Grace and peace,
Ed
July 5, 2009 at 05:23
Yes, they can take all the stuff.
But what if they take out your child, or your wife, because you cannot or will not give them what they want? Then what?
July 5, 2009 at 07:15
What are you suggesting?
To kill them?
Are you then not the same as they are?
Grace and peace,
Ed
July 5, 2009 at 15:38
Well, I’m only suggesting that self defense and the defense of the defenseless is a moral thing to do.
The Bible is full of stories about God killing.
The notion that just because a person is against killing he then is ‘better’ than someone else is totally false.
Different maybe, but not better. We are all the same. We all stand condemned before God except for the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
This may come as a surprise to you but God is not surprised by our sinning. He knows how we are! He made us. And that is exactly the reason He made a way for us to be saved by way of a system He devised because we could not be good enough to save ourselves.
We may have small areas of goodness, like your not wanting to kill anyone no matter what, but by and large we all fall short of good enough.
The way I see it, anyway …
Blessings!
July 6, 2009 at 06:42
“The notion that just because a person is against killing he then is ‘better’ than someone else is totally false.”
But that’s not my notion at all.
Jesus said not to resist an evil person. He denounced violence, even at the point of his arrest and crucifixion, so I’m going to suggest that returning violence with violence is not the Christian way.
Grace and peace,
Ed
July 6, 2009 at 17:56
Yeah, you’re absolutely right about that, and i commend you for your stance on this issue.
I guess what I was trying to say is that the ideal is seldom easy and often the complete opposite is unavoidable.
Jesus, of course, had to be arrested, flogged and killed, in order to fulfill God ordained prophecy and to become our God ordained and promised Messiah.
I wish you well as you strive to emulate Jesus and His teachings.
The Lord blesses you and keeps you!