Last week we took issue with a local editorial concerning Susan Smith and capital punishment. Frequently, it is the case that society’s liberals (which includes most college professors and newspaper editors) oppose using the death penalty under any circumstances. They are not, however, the only ones who protest its use. Surprisingly, many offer religious objections.
One such individual is Philip Morgan, an Episcopal priest, who wrote a guest column for the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette last December 25th (cute timing, huh?) on the occasion of a recent execution. By the end of his first paragraph, the reader knows where he stands since it ends with the words “state-sponsored killing.” State-sponsored? Sounds like a phrase that should accompany a jogging marathon or a turkey giveaway.
“I believe that most of us would agree that the killing of one person by another is wrong,” writes Mr. Morgan, “yet many people do not hold to that viewpoint in matters of capital punishment” (all quotations are from page 3C). “Most of us” does not include Jack Kevorkian, Planned Parenthood, or abortion doctors, but even if the statement is true, what is the relevance? If the authority is “most of us,” then does it really matter if we are inconsistent (in his eyes)? If most of us “feel” that killing is wrong and that killers should be put to death, why complain? If we base our ethics on what the majority thinks, then we just have to live with the results.
But one would think that an Episcopal priest might be more interested in what the Bible teaches as a source of authority for right and wrong than what the majority thinks. After all, the majority of people shall be lost; only a few will be saved (Matt. 7:13-14). Killing someone who is unworthy of death is murder, and murder is wrong. Murder is not wrong because I think so or because the majority of people think so; it is wrong because God thinks so.
The Law of Moses allowed for the possibility of accidentally killing someone. But there are two instances in which God authorized killing. The first was for committing a capital offense (which included murder, rape, incest, kidnapping, homosexuality, bestiality, idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, and about twenty more crimes–see Nave’s Topical Bible 1087). God also authorized killing in war(Deut. 7:2). When any of these three situations arose in the Old Testament, God did not regard them as “murder.”
If God did not regard it as inconsistent for a murderer to be killed, then perhaps this Episcopal priest should re-examine his own views and quit making accusations against those who are in agreement with God in this matter. Of course, today we are not under the Old Testament but the New. Have things changed? Accidental killing still occurs; God does not specifically authorize war today as He did when He punished the Canaanites for their sins; but capital punishment is still the right of the state.
This civil authority is specifically called “God’s minister.” If we do evil, we ought to “be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil” (Rom. 13:4). Mr. Morgan writes his entire column without ever once referring to this passage of Scripture, which settles the whole controversy. Under the New Testament system the state (civil government) has the right to execute evildoers, and it is not murder when they do so any more than it was under the Law of Moses. Is it killing? Yes. Is it murder? No. It is clearly authorized by God through the Holy Spirit-inspired words of the apostle Paul.
Morgan also never mentions Gen. 9:5-6, which explains why God authorizes capital punishment, nor does he discuss Ex. 20:13, as was done above. For someone who is supposed to know the Scriptures, it is amazing that he omits all of the crucial passages on the subject.
“Love is the Answer,” as the once popular song agrees. But what Jesus taught in Matt. 5 is not in the context of murder. Our Lord is not advocating chaos nor attempting to render the civil government powerless. He is teaching that we should not be motivated by revenge on a personal level. The one who leaps from this thought to anti-capital punishment reaches an unwarranted conclusion. It is evident from what Paul wrote in Romans 13 that Jesus was not denouncing the death penalty nor transcending it.
Another argument the Episcopal priest makes against executing criminals is that there have been numerous incidents of the innocent being put to death. Such atrocities do happen–two examples come to mind: Naboth (1 Kings 21:1-14); and our Lord Jesus Christ. God is painfully aware of what false witnesses, liars, and whipped up emotions can cause. He knows that even honest mistakes can be made. But these possibilities do not negate the need for justice. An entire system can not be thrown out because of occasional imperfections. Having watched the innocent Lamb of God be crucified, the Father had ample time to change His mind about capital punishment. He did not do so.