Ethics of Life

Okay, folks, good to see so many of you here.

My name's Tom Schmidt.

Welcome to Trinity Baptist Church's Adult Sunday School.

We are in the midst of a series talking about Christianity and life,

if I'm not mistaken, also after that.

Why don't we open in prayer, and then we'll begin.

Father in heaven, we thank you for this opportunity to come together,

to hear from your word, to hear from your wisdom.

Lord, we know that you commanded us, thou shalt not murder.

And Lord, we hold that command dearly,

and we ask that you would give us wisdom about what that means.

In all circumstances and in all ways,

in extreme circumstances and in everyday circumstances.

We pray that you would illuminate us, give us understanding,

and that you would guide us in our time this hour together.

And we pray this in the mighty name of Jesus.

Amen.

Amen.

So, like I said, today we'll be talking about capital punishment.

Capital punishment, it's the technical term for the death penalty.

This is when someone who's convicted of, in this day and age, a terrible crime,

is actually put to death legally by the state.

Most countries have abolished this practice.

The United States remains, though, a minority who still holds to the practice of capital punishment.

This used to be the norm.

You know, you go back even 100 years ago, 200 years ago,

and capital punishment was all over the place.

And sometimes people were executed for what we would consider extremely minor crimes.

But that's not really the case today, especially in the United States.

But still, I just wanted to give you some statistics.

I found in my quick internet research that since the 1970s, in the United States,

1,641 men and women have been executed in the United States.

Typically, it's a little bit less than 30 people a year.

Last year, it was about one every other week is being executed in the United States.

But this varies by state.

Connecticut does not have the death penalty.

There's some states that do have it but effectively don't use it.

And then there are a few states that use it quite a bit.

So most of these are coming from a handful of states.

This brings up a question, though, that I know you're all thinking about is,

what should Christians do regarding the death penalty and capital punishment?

What is our role?

What does the Bible have to say about it?

Is this something that is permissible but should be avoided at all costs?

Or is it something that's inherently immoral and wicked no matter the circumstance?

Or is this just retribution for a heinous crime?

Related questions.

Does it deter future crime?

Does it give respite and relief to the victims?

Or is this something that just glorifies violence, is always sinful, is just begetting wrong?

Is this something that was maybe allowed under the Old Covenant in the Old Testament?

But in the New Covenant, in the New Testament, should always be held as immoral.

This morning, I'm going to try to chart out as well as I can two different perspectives on capital punishment, on the death penalty.

So we'll be doing sort of like a dialectic point-counterpoint kind of thing.

This is in part because, this is a very hard question, Christians have traditionally, there's two main camps.

And these camps, and I don't want to say pro-death penalty because that means like people are rooting for it.

I guess what I mean is like it's permissible versus it's never permissible.

And these two camps go way back in the church.

Even to very, very early church times, there's been these two different ideas.

So I'm going to try to present these two sides as well as I can for you.

And we're going to first look at biblical passages and what the Bible has to say.

Then we'll consider some philosophical and theoretical objections to both sides.

Some things that people often bring up.

And then we will try and draw some lessons that we all can take, regardless of where we happen to fall.

Some lessons that we can draw from this debate over capital punishment and the value of a human life.

Sound good?

Okay.

Let's get started.

The first time God directly addresses, I guess I could say the second time.

We'll get to that first passage in a little bit.

But the first time that God directly addresses something that might be explicitly related to capital punishment is in Genesis 9, 6.

And this is after the flood of Noah.

Noah and God is giving Noah and his family permission to eat from the fruit of the earth and also from wild animals.

And God says this,

Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed.

For God made man in his own image.

This feels like a very broad statement about the value of human life.

That if someone were to kill another person, that person is made in God's image.

And that the person who committed that crime should also have their blood shed.

At least that's how some people interpret the passage.

So for those who are on the sort of capital punishment is permissible,

they go to this verse as a foundational verse.

Because it's before the Mosaic Law.

Some people hold those kinds of commands in even higher esteem.

It's pre-Old Covenant.

And it seems to be sanctioning the taking of someone's life if they have taken another person's life unjustly.

There is, though, some pushback to this.

If you are familiar with Old Testament commands like this and discussions like this,

this also could just simply be read as a proverbial saying.

That, yeah, I mean, if you go around killing people, you're probably going to get killed.

That's how other people interpret this.

That this is what goes around comes around.

And there are biblical cases where there are statements like this that should be interpreted in a proverbial sense.

But there are some other passages that also help contextualize this.

One is controversial in its own, in a different way, which I'll talk about in a moment.

But some people point to John chapter 8.

John 8 · chapter mention

This is a famous story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.

And I just want to read it.

I'm sure you're familiar with it.

But I want to read this because it's so powerful.

This is in John chapter 8.

John 8 · chapter mention

Early in the morning, Jesus came again to the temple and all the people came to him.

And he sat down and taught them.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery.

And placing her in the midst, they said to him,

Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.

Now, in the law of Moses, he commanded us to stone such a woman.

What do you say?

This they said to test Jesus that they might have some ground to bring against him.

Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.

And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them,

Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.

And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.

But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones.

And Jesus was left alone with a woman.

And Jesus stood up and said to her,

Woman, where are they?

Has no one condemned you?

And she said, No one, Lord.

And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn you.

Go, and from now on, sin no more.

Here we have a woman who is charged with a capital crime.

And Jesus seems to forgive her.

And he's even put on the spot where they're trying to get him to condemn her to death.

And he refuses.

He doesn't say that what she did was okay.

He says, Go and sin no more.

He clearly thinks that adultery is wrong.

So some people go to this verse to show that Jesus did not approve of the death penalty.

As I said, we're going to be going point, counterpoint, point, counterpoint throughout this class.

So there is some responses to this.

One is that this, of course, does not have to do with murder, like Genesis 9-6 spoke of.

It has to do with adultery.

And then secondly, there is also that question, as some of you might know,

of whether this story should be in the New Testament.

Usually in our Bibles, it's bracketed because some manuscripts omit it.

We can talk more about that if you're interested.

I think the best way to interpret this story is that there is some evidence that Jesus actually did do something very much like this.

And regardless if it was in the Gospel of John or not, it's something Jesus actually did.

So we still can learn from this.

We could talk more about that.

But there's a second counterpoint to this Genesis 9-6 passage.

And that is even earlier in Genesis.

This is in Genesis chapter 4 with Cain and Abel.

Genesis 4 · chapter mention

And that terrible story.

Cain and Abel, they're the children of Adam and Eve.

And Cain is jealous of Abel and he kills him.

Matt.

I just wanted to say another counterpoint on the woman taken in adultery.

Is that just like Jesus said on another occasion,

who made me judge over you with regard to inheritance?

That Jesus was not in a judicial position.

And that often people were trying to push him.

That's good.

Yes.

In a way that he was told to do.

That's a good point.

We're going to touch on that later on.

That idea that some people will bring up is that there's a big difference between your role as a regular Christian in the world

compared to if you're appointed in a political office.

And Matt, you're getting at that.

That Jesus could have one interpretation of John 8 is that Jesus was not in a position of political power.

And so he was like, I don't have authority over this matter.

Okay.

So a counterpoint to Genesis 9-6 is that Cain murders his brother Abel unjustly.

And God, of course, knows about this.

And in Genesis 4, verse 9,

Genesis 4:9

the Lord says to Cain,

Where is Abel your brother?

And Cain said,

I do not know.

Am I my brother's keeper?

And the Lord said,

What have you done?

The voice of your brother's blood is crying to me from the ground.

So we have that blood was shed.

Genesis 9-6 says the blood of Cain should be shed.

What does God do?

Well, he says,

Cursed are you from the ground which has opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.

When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield to you its strength.

You shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.

And Cain said to the Lord,

My punishment is greater than I can bear.

You've driven me today away from the ground.

And from your face I shall be hidden.

I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.

And whoever finds me will kill me.

And then the Lord says,

Not so.

If anyone kills Cain,

vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold.

And the Lord put a mark on Cain,

lest any who found him should attack him.

And Cain went away from the presence of the Lord

and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden.

God doesn't kill Cain.

He has mercy on him.

And Cain is actually worried other people will kill him.

And God says,

No, no, that's not going to happen.

I'm going to put this mark on you.

Sometimes we hear that term mark of Cain.

It's used in a very negative sense.

But it looks like it's a protective mark on Cain.

At least that's one way to interpret it.

So I hope you see the counterpoint going on here.

Is that an example of murder,

the first murder that's quite near the passage in Genesis,

the actual execution is not carried out.

We've got more verses to go through, folks.

Another one is Exodus chapter 21.

Exodus 21 · chapter mention

This is in the Mosaic law,

when Moses is giving commandments to the Israelites.

Exodus 21 verses 14 through 24.

Exodus 21:14–24

The law, the Mosaic law says,

If a man willfully attacks another to kill him by cunning,

you shall take him from my altar that he may die.

Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

That phrase, you shall take him from my altar,

what that meant is that in the ancient world,

people, altars, holy places,

sanctuaries were viewed as areas where you could go and receive reprieve,

where if you were convicted of a crime or if someone was hunting you,

you could go into this sanctuary and stay there,

and people couldn't harm you.

And people apparently would try to do this in God's temple.

And what God says here is that if someone willfully attacks another person

to kill that person by cunning,

then you are even allowed to drag him away from my altar

in order to put him to death.

That's what the purport of the law seems to be.

And then it emphasizes several verses later

that the standard of God's justice is this eye for eye,

tooth for tooth kind of manner,

that the punishment should fit the crime, so to speak.

If you murder someone, you should have your life taken.

Well, that does seem very clear

about how capital punishment is permissible.

But then we come to Jesus again.

Jesus shows up again.

This is the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapter 5.

Matthew 5 · chapter mention

If you have never read the Sermon on the Mount

with an eye towards the Ten Commandments

or to the Book of the Law, please do so

because you'll see Jesus constantly hearkening back

to the Ten Commandments and other policies in the Mosaic Law.

And he sort of expands upon these principles.

And in the Sermon on the Mount, he said this,

you have heard that it was said,

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

He's quoting from that passage we just read.

But I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil.

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek,

turn to him the other also.

If anyone would sue you and take your tunic,

let him have your cloak as well.

If anyone forces you to go one mile,

go with him two miles.

Give to the one who begs from you

and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.

Those who oppose the death penalty

point to this verse as answering this one.

And they will often argue that this was part of the Old Covenant.

It is not part of the New Covenant.

That Christians are called to surpass those things.

And in fact, if we keep reading what Jesus has to say,

he says, you've heard that it was said,

you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.

But I say to you, love your enemies

and pray for those who persecute you

so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.

For if you love those who love you,

what reward do you have?

Do not even the tax collectors do the same?

Now, Jesus was not talking about eye for eye

or tooth for tooth here,

but we could apply that same logic and say,

doesn't the nations run after the death penalty?

Shouldn't Christians be beyond that?

Shouldn't we love people more than that

and not put people to death

because they're in God's image,

because we recognize that?

We're going to continue with our point

and counterpoint here.

Thus far, we've been talking about

some Old Testament passages

that appear, at least from some perspectives,

to support capital punishment,

to support the death penalty.

And we've been looking at

two New Testament passages from Jesus

that have some pushback to that

and then another Old Testament passage

that provides some pushback to this.

Now we're going to switch things

and we're going to look at

a New Testament passage

that seems to support capital punishment

and then we'll look at

an Old Testament passage

that seems to not.

So we'll start in Romans 13.

This is Paul's letter to the Romans,

Romans 13 · chapter mention

chapter 13.

This is such a wonderful epistle of Paul

and in chapter 13,

he starts dispensing some moral advice.

The whole letter up to this point

is theological.

It's sort of this systematic theology

of explaining our salvation in Christ.

But towards the end,

Paul starts giving some practical exhortations.

And he says this,

he says,

let every person be subject

to the governing authorities

for there is no authority

except from God

and those that exist

have been instituted by God.

Therefore,

whoever resists the authorities

resists what God has appointed

and those who resist

will incur judgment.

If I pause here for a moment

before continuing,

this is an important theological claim,

especially when Christians

are considering what the role

of the government is in our lives.

And Paul says that

in some way,

human governing authorities

have been appointed by God

and we are to submit to them

and not resist them.

Now, this brings up

all sorts of other questions

about unjust government

that we're not talking about

in this class,

but let's continue.

Paul explains,

for rulers are not a terror

to good conduct,

but to bad.

Would you have no fear

of the one who is in authority?

Then do what is good.

And you will receive his approval.

For he,

the governing authority,

is God's servant

for your good.

But if you do wrong,

be afraid.

For he does not bear

the sword in vain.

For he is the servant of God,

an avenger,

who carries out God's wrath

on the wrongdoer.

Therefore,

one,

the Christian,

must be in subjection

to the government,

not only to avoid God's wrath,

but also for the sake

of conscience.

For because of this,

you also pay taxes.

For the authorities

are ministers of God,

attending to this very thing.

And he concludes,

pay to all what is owed to them,

taxes to whom taxes are owed,

revenue to whom revenue is owed,

respect to whom respect is owed,

honor to whom honor is owed.

This passage brings up

a lot of questions

about how we are to engage

with the government.

What do we do

with an unjust government?

What do we do

when we're in a democracy

where we somehow elect

our officials?

How does this all relate?

These are great questions,

but they're beyond the scope

of our class today.

We are focusing

just on capital punishment.

And this comes up

in verse four,

where Paul says,

the governing authority

is God's servant

for your good,

but if you do wrong,

be afraid,

for he does not bear

the sword in vain.

That phrase,

bearing the sword in vain,

is old time talk

for the death penalty.

That's what the Romans did.

And believe me,

if you know ancient history,

the Romans loved killing people.

They killed a lot of people.

They did it for fun.

They literally did it for fun

in the gladiatorial contests.

You could be executed

for quite a bit of,

a lot of things.

And Paul says,

they don't bear the sword in vain.

People point to this passage.

Those who argue

in favor of the death penalty

point to this passage

that Paul here

is sanctioning

the use of capital punishment,

but only from

the civil authorities,

not from the church,

not from personal vendettas,

not from a Christian perspective

in the sense of you

acting in the name of Christ,

but only if you are appointed

into some kind of

governing role

that gives you

that sort of permission.

This gets at Matt's comment earlier,

where there's some perspectives

on Jesus,

is that Jesus was not

in that civil authority,

and that's why he eschewed,

he eschewed the death penalty.

Well,

interesting argument.

make some good points,

but let's go

to another passage.

This time in the Old Testament.

This is Isaiah

Isaiah 2 · chapter mention

chapter 2,

and this is a prophecy

about what is to come

in the latter days.

Isaiah says,

It shall come to pass

in the latter days

that the mountain

of the house of the Lord

shall be established

as the highest of the hills,

and shall be lifted up

above the hills,

and all the nations

shall flow to it,

and many peoples

shall come and say,

Come,

let us go up

to the mountain of the Lord,

to the house

of the God of Jacob,

that he may teach us

his ways,

and that we may walk

in his paths.

For out of Zion

shall go forth

the law

and the word of the Lord

from Jerusalem.

He shall judge

between the nations

and shall decide disputes

for many peoples,

and they shall beat

their swords

into plowshares

and their spears

into pruning hooks.

And nations

shall not lift up

sword against nation,

neither shall they

learn war anymore.

This is this

beautiful prophecy

of the end times

when Christ returns,

some people also

interpret this

as the age of the church

when all people

are streaming

towards the God of Israel

like we see today.

And it's a beautiful passage,

and what is the marker

of this end time

is when the law

of the Lord

goes forth

and what happens?

People beat their swords

into plowshares.

They take their weapons

and they turn them

into implements

for harvest

and for getting fruit

from the land.

Plowshares,

of course,

are those pieces

of metal

and plows

that furrow

the land

so you can plant crops

and grow

and feed people.

And people point

to this saying,

okay,

what we should be

aiming for

is not living

in this fallen world.

We should be aiming

for this kind of world

that Isaiah

is talking about.

And that's what

Christians should be

living for

and living in

because we live

in this sort of

here but not yet

stage of life

where we should be

trying to bring

the kingdom of God

on earth

and a marker

of that is beating

our swords

into plowshares.

So we should not

be party

to bearing the sword

in vengeance

against people

even if we are

part of the civil

authorities

is how the argument

goes.

Okay.

Before I turn

to some

thoughts,

philosophical

reflections

and theological

reflections

on these sort

of points

and counterpoints,

let me pause

and just see

if there's any

questions

before we turn

the page

and go.

Richard.

So in a general

way,

a more general

way,

I think

the saying

of Jesus,

the one saying

apparently

that the liberals

think is authentic

give back to Caesar

what belongs

to Caesar

and to God

what belongs

to God

has a bearing

on this subject

too.

Though Jesus

is not talking

about the death

penalty,

he's talking

about the next

thing worse

to death

and that's taxes.

Yeah,

so Jesus

has that

famous

passage

where he's

asked if we

should pay

taxes to Caesar

and they're

trying to

catch him

in this

because they

know that

if he says

no,

they can

charge him

with insurrection

against the

Romans.

If he says

yes,

then they

can go

to all

the other

common folks

and say,

look how much

he hates

you,

he wants

you to

pay these

taxes.

Aren't

they,

isn't he

terrible?

So it's a

lose-lose

situation.

Jesus,

classic Jesus,

comes up

with his

genius

response

where he

has them

get a

coin

that shows

Caesar's

face and

he says,

whose face

is this?

Well,

then give

to Caesar

what is

Caesar's

and give

to God

what is

God's.

But the

principle

behind that

could,

could be

used to

say,

yeah,

the civil

authorities

are in

charge of

life and

death and

Jesus is

giving them

that authority.

You could

make that

argument.

I'm sure

people have.

This is why

this is such

a thorny,

such a thorny

question.

Well,

let's

look at

a few

things here.

One is,

I want us

to remember

that there

is a

difference

between

thinking

that something

is illegal

and immoral.

immoral.

So,

it is

possible

for

Christians

to hold

a position

where they

think that

something that

is immoral

should be,

in some

circumstances,

not illegal.

That's one

thing to

consider.

So,

for instance,

lying,

Christians'

view is

wrong,

but,

you know,

do you think

the government

should pass a

law saying

you can never

lie to a

family member

or you go

to jail,

that would,

most Christians

would be like,

I don't know if

that should be

part of the

civil law.

You can't lie

to the

government,

though.

it's true.

It's true.

So,

there is a

difference between

something being

illegal and

something being

immoral.

Those don't

necessarily,

they're not

necessarily

inherently linked.

Obviously,

there is a

connection between

those,

but it's not

inherent that

one follows the

other.

Another thing

to remember

is that there

is a difference

between the

church and the

state.

So,

just because

you think the

state should be

able to do

something doesn't

mean you think

the church should

be able to do

something and

vice versa.

So,

there are people

that,

and this is

fortunately very

common,

where very few

people think the

church should put

people to death

and there are

people who think

the state should

be allowed to,

but there's many

instances like this

where people think

something is not

the state's business

but it's the

church's business

and vice versa.

So,

that's another

thing to keep

in mind.

There's a

difference between

church and state,

there's a difference

between illegal and

immoral.

Another,

another thing to

keep in mind is

that there's a

difference between

something that is

technically permissible

and something that

you think should,

should just never

happen in our day

and age.

change.

So,

let me give you an

example.

It is not

contradictory to

argue that,

yes,

in theory,

the death penalty

can,

there are

circumstances where

the death penalty

could be permissible,

but in practice,

it should be illegal

in the United States

or in whatever

country you have.

death penalty is not

a contradictory

position.

You can hold that

position where you

can think,

yes,

it's not that it's

always in every

single circumstance

impermissible or

immoral,

but I just think it

should be illegal in

our country.

So,

this is sort of the

reverse of the first

thing I said,

that something might

be permissible morally,

but you just think it

should be illegal.

So,

you might think that,

yes,

the death penalty is

not inherently wrong

in all circumstances.

I can imagine some

extreme circumstances

where it would be okay,

but I still think it

should be illegal in

this country.

That's,

that's another valid

position.

Are you following me

here?

Okay.

So,

those are some things

to keep in mind.

What I want to do

now,

though,

is go through

issues that

people have

with capital

punishment,

objections that

they've brought up,

and then I want to

go through

issues that people

have with not

having capital

punishment,

and issues they

have brought up,

and then we'll

conclude with some

lessons for us

as followers of

Jesus.

So,

problems with

capital punishment.

These are

frequent arguments

that people make

who want to

abolish the death

penalty.

One is that

it is not

an effective

deterrent,

that many

arguments in

favor of the

death penalty

argue that

it deters

crime,

that it

frightens

criminals,

and there

is evidence

that it

doesn't,

and that it

has no

deterring effect,

that when people

commit crimes,

they're not

thinking clearly,

when they are

thinking clearly,

they're so beyond

the pale that

they don't care,

they're so arrogant

they think they'll

never be caught,

and that it's not

an effective

deterrent.

That's one

argument against

it.

Another is

inconsistent

application.

If you go and

you look at

death penalty

cases,

you'll probably

be horrified

at sometimes

when person

A gets

sentenced to

death for

some crime,

like they're

part of a

bank robbery

that goes bad

and their

partner kills

someone,

but then they

get sentenced

to death

because they

were considered

part of this

murder,

versus someone

who does

something so

much worse

and gets 20

years in prison.

And this

feels unjust.

It feels

that it is

not,

the weight

of this

is inconsistent

and that in

order for

something to

be just,

we have to

have consistency.

So a second

argument is

inconsistent

application.

A third

argument is

racism.

That the

United States

has a history

of racism

and of

racist

application

of laws

and you

can look

at the

death penalty

and make

arguments that

this is still

affecting our

sentencing of

criminals,

that white

people get

off more

frequently than

someone convicted

of a similar

crime who's of

a different

ethnic group,

especially

African Americans.

So we've

got not

effective

deterrent,

inconsistent

application.

We have

the racist

implications,

especially in

our country,

there's more

though.

One is

financial cost.

It costs a

huge amount

of money to

put someone

to death

and it's

cheaper to

give them

life in

prison and

that saved

money can

go to

preventing

further crime

or rehabilitating

criminals or

to the families

of victims.

That's another

argument.

Yet another

one, that

the death

penalty

inherently

glorifies

violence.

violence.

If you

have a

violence

problem in

your society,

this argument

would say

the wrong

solution is

more violence.

The better

solution is to

end violence,

to stop

doing that.

Notice that

this argument

is beyond

circumstances.

This kind

of argument

applies sort

of everywhere

in every

context.

Here's another

one, wrong

convictions.

You can't

undo a

death penalty.

Once it's

carried out,

it's over.

And this

means that

if someone is

wrongfully

convicted,

there is no

possible, and

then that

sentence is

carried out,

there is no

possible retribution

or restitution

that can be

given to that

person who

suffered that

wrong conviction.

Typically,

people who are

wrongly convicted

are the most

vulnerable,

they're disabled,

or they don't

have financial

means to

defend their

crime.

So they're

the ones

that are

the most

at risk

of this

kind of wrong

done to

them.

And there

are cases

of this.

I'm an

ancient historian,

so there's

a terrible

story that

Constantine,

the first

Christian emperor,

his son

betrayed him

and did

something horrible,

and so

Constantine had

his own son

executed and

then found out

later that his

son was

innocent.

Horrible,

horrible thing.

And that

has happened

in modern

times.

Okay,

another argument.

The death

penalty does

not allow

for the chance

of repentance.

It cuts

short the

ability for

the criminal

to repent

of their

wrong.

And,

of course,

in the United

States,

typically,

it takes

decades,

certainly

years,

but even

more than

a decade

for a

death sentence

to be carried

out.

But in

other countries,

like in

China,

it's very

quick.

And this

does not

allow for

repentance.

final argument,

final argument,

there's a

lack of a

chance for

reconciliation.

You're

cutting short

the ability

for this

person to

repent of

their crime

and to be

reconciled with

the families

of the

victim.

And there

are stories

of the

opposite

happening.

For instance,

that serial

killer,

son of Sam,

he was like

New York City

or New Jersey

serial killer,

he's in

prison for

life,

he's been in

prison for

quite some

time,

apparently has

become a

Christian.

I don't,

you know,

we can't see

people's hearts,

but he

apparently has

become a

Christian and

has been

reconciled with

one of the

mothers of

his victims,

in large

part due to

his conversion

and his

repentance.

And that's a

beautiful thing.

I mean,

if that is

true,

the angels

are singing

in heaven

over that.

But if

he had

been executed

right after

he was

convicted,

that never

would have

happened.

And it

would have

been gone.

So those

are arguments

against capital

punishment that

you get in

both Christian

and non-Christian

perspectives.

Some of

those are

very common

to Christians

like the

lack of

repentance,

but some

of these

are consistent

from even

non-Christian

perspectives.

Okay,

let's move

to problems

with not

having the

capital

punishment

or arguments

against

abolishing

the capital

punishment

or arguments

in favor

of the

death

penalty.

So one

argument is

that many

of the above

issues like

cost,

inconsistency,

being ineffective,

it being

applied in

a racist

manner,

these are

fixable

problems.

These are

not inherent

problems.

They're fixable.

We should

identify these

problems and

strive to

fix them.

And once

we have

then they're

no longer

issues.

Another

argument

regarding the

lack of a

chance for

repentance is

that perhaps

it encourages

repentance.

There's nothing

like facing

your last

hour to

encourage

repentance.

And if any

of you have

ever been in

a situation

where you

fear for

your imminent

death,

you will

understand this,

where there

is very little

greater motivation

that you're

about to

meet your

maker than

to know

you are

about to

meet your

maker and

to try

and repent

from your

sins.

So that's

one argument.

Here's

another

argument.

And this

is an

argument in

favor of

the victims.

This argument

goes that this

is the most

merciful tactic

for the

victims,

for the

family members

who suffered

at the

hands of

a terrible

criminal.

that even

in life

sentences,

victims often

live in

constant fear

of this

perpetrator

escaping.

And

victims often

have to

attend

grueling

parole

hearings.

Every five

years they

have to

show up

and they

have to

make this

plea why

this person

shouldn't

be released.

They often

anticipate this

with much

trepidation

for months

beforehand.

And there

are cases

where people

have been

sentenced to

life in

prison without

parole.

So they're in

some maximum

security place

where there's

no chance

of escape

and there's

no chance

of parole.

people.

But it

has happened

in the

past where

states say

life without

parole is

unjust,

it's cruel

and unusual

and they

retroactively

allow for

the chance

of parole

and then

someone gets

out only to

commit the

same murders

again.

And that

has happened.

So the

argument against

that is that

life in

prison is

not actually

life in

prison because

we have

these examples

of people

getting out

or people

continuing to

commit their

crimes in

the prison

against officers

or guards

or other

prisoners.

So here's

a final point.

And this

isn't so

much in

favor of

the death

penalty at

all times in

all civilizations.

It's just a

point about

it.

And it

sort of

pushes us

to consider

extreme

circumstances.

And what

we think of

extreme

circumstances,

it turns out,

might actually

be normal

circumstances for

most people.

Not for us,

but for most

people throughout

history.

So if we

look at the

human condition

throughout

history,

it turns out

that most

humans,

for most of

human history,

cannot

afford or

even have

the ability

to have

prisons.

For instance,

if you can't

make metal,

it's very hard

to have a

prison.

And if you

live in a

remote village

or you're a

hunter-gatherer

group of a

couple hundred

people,

what do you

do when

someone commits

a horrible,

horrible,

horrible crime?

You have no

ability to

incarcerate them.

If you have

no ability to

maintain some

kind of exile

policy,

they can just

walk back.

And if

they've

repeatedly

committed

horrific

things,

these poor

people don't

really have

many options.

They can't

imprison someone,

they can't

afford guards,

they're living

their subsistence.

And so the

argument goes,

if someone

keeps murdering

someone, then

they should be

put to death.

There's no

other choice.

You can't

exile them,

you can't

imprison them,

you can't

do these

things.

And actually,

this is

perhaps one

of the

motivators

behind some

of the

Exodus laws

because we

are dealing

with a

society that,

when the

Mosaic law

was given,

that is kind

of like one

of those

societies.

They're not

quite that

extreme.

They could

temporarily

imprison people

temporarily.

They did have

access to

metal to

make chains

and bars

and stuff,

but this

is extremely

expensive.

Clearly,

they couldn't

do it for

very long

or for

very many

people.

On the

other hand,

though,

this argument

can be

turned because

the argument

could say,

yes,

okay,

in those

situations,

capital punishment

might be

appropriate,

but that's

not what

the world

we live

in today.

And that

might explain

some of

these rules,

like in

Exodus or

even in

Romans.

Remember

that even

in the

time of

the Roman

Empire,

prisons did

not exist.

They had

jails.

They had

temporary

holding cells,

but they

didn't really

have prisons

like we have

today.

They couldn't

afford to

take thousands

of people and

just guard

them.

them.

So that's

why they

had slavery,

because they

would make

them slaves.

That's why

they made

them work

in the

mines.

They put

them on

ships.

They would

exile them

to islands

because our

ability to

imprison people

is something

that really

only modern

civilizations

have been

able to

develop.

And those

options were

not long-term

viable options

in the past.

Okay, let's

conclude with

some lessons

we can draw

from this.

Number one,

the Bible is

clear that

the crime of

murder is

worthy of

death.

It is

worthy of

death.

However,

so are

all sins.

So are

all sins

in God's

eyes.

Here's

another

lesson.

It is

right.

It is

right for

someone to

be justly

punished for

their sins.

That is

appropriate.

But what

does

Deuteronomy

32 say?

What is

Romans 12,

19?

Right before

Paul said

that passage

in Romans

13,

he quotes

from Deuteronomy

Deuteronomy 32 · chapter mention

chapter 32

where God

says,

vengeance

is mine.

It is

mine to

repay,

says the

Lord.

So it

is right

for someone

to be

justly

punished for

their sins,

but vengeance

is not

ours,

it is

God's.

He is

the one

who makes

these

decisions.

Okay,

another

lesson.

Romans 12,

Romans 12,

19.

Oh, I

agree.

I totally

agree.

Absolutely.

I agree.

I agree.

But I'm

focusing on

the principle

behind it

that,

and I'm

also quoting

from Deuteronomy

32 where

there is

this broader

kind of

application.

However,

it's still

squishy because

this is

said in

Deuteronomy

32 in the

context of

God giving

laws about

how people

are to

carry out

his

vengeance

on the

criminals.

Okay,

let's go

on.

remember

that in

the face

of crime,

the Lord

is merciful.

Micah 7,

18,

the Lord

delights in

mercy.

He delights

in being

merciful.

This isn't

something he

says,

well, I

guess we

have to

go easy

on him.

He delights

in being

merciful.

And then

lastly,

remember

what our

Lord said

on the

Sermon

on the

Mount.

He said,

you know,

remember

you've

heard,

thou

shalt not

murder,