Capital Punishment, pt. 3: New Testament teachings on Civil Authority

Those who like to draw sharp distinctions between the Old Testament and the New Testament will often point to the Beatitudes.  Jesus, they would argue, is repudiating the Old Testament law of vengeance and retaliation, and replacing them with a law of love, forgiveness, and peace.

This dichotomy is not warranted.  The verses above needs more context to be understood, both within the scope of the beatitudes and within the scope of the entire scripture.

Jesus sets up a series of "corrections" to the Old Testament laws as they were understood.  Those laws are as follows: "you shall not murder" (v. 21), "you shall not commit adultery" (v. 27), "you shall not swear falsely" (v. 33), "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" (v. 38), and "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy" (v. 43).  Jesus precedes each of these laws with "You have heard it said ..."

In the case of verse 43, the "law" is clearly misconstrued -- the scripture never says to hate your enemy.  Clearly, then, Jesus is addressing not the law itself, but a particular interpretation of that law: they saw 'neighbor' in contrast to enemy, and did not understand that their enemies are to be considered neighbors as well.  If anything, Jesus is reinforcing the true meaning of that law, not abolishing it.

Similarly, verses 21 and 27 do not contradict prohibitions against murder and adultery but rather applies the laws to the human heart.  Some, seeking to justify themselves, would misinterpret and see themselves as not having broken these laws, but Jesus clearly teaches that it is the heart that matters, not just the external actions.

So when we approach Jesus' response to "An eye for an eye," we should not expect that Jesus is contradicting it.  More likely is that he is correcting a misinterpretation.  In this case, the misinterpretation is one of supporting personal vengeance. Lex talionis, is meant to be carried out by the civil authorities, but Jesus is giving instructions not to civil authorities but to individual citizens.  Likely, then, there were those who were using "an eye for an eye" to justify their own retaliation (hitting someone back, etc.) instead of appealing to the civil authorities, and it is this misinterpretation that Jesus is addressing.

[For more on this, read D. A. Carson's Love in Hard Places, Chapter 2.]

Romans 12

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. -- Romans 12:14-21 (ESV)

Some have taken the idea that, since Christians are to seek peace and not revenge, that the civil government should also be so constrained.  We should leave wrath to God, and not to the civil government, they might argue, and capital punishment is wrath reserved for God, and not men.

Once again, we need to draw a distinction between private citizens and the civil government.  Just like Jesus made a distinction in the beatitudes, so Paul makes that distinction.  In the very next chapter, Paul calls the civil authorities "an avenger that carries out God's wrath."  Thus, the vengeance of God referred to in Romans 12 in the immediate context is the civil government.

This distinction between citizens and government is something we need to continue to keep in mind.  In the current court systems, there are many factors that contribute to whether a murderer gets served with the death penalty.  I outlined six factors in a previous post.  I see it as unfortunate that one of the main reasons used to push for the death penalty is how the family and friends of the victim are affected and desire the death penalty.  This seems to imply that the death penalty should be implemented because these family members want "justice," although what it really means is they want personal vengeance.  I think that Romans 12 teaches that this kind of vengeance muddles the water between the wrath of private citizens and the civil authorities and should have no role in deciding the criminal penalties.

Romans 13

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. 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 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 must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. -- Romans 13:1-5 (ESV)

A similar passage about submitting to civil authorities is found in 1 Peter 2:13ff.

There are those who interpret Romans 13 as teaching what governments ought to do. Surely, they say, the government is not always a minister of God for good. There have been plenty of unjust governments.  Paul, then, must have an ideal government in mind, and this passage should primarily be read as a directive as to how a civil government ought to rule.  Others might say that this describes not all governments, but only just governments.  When a civil government behaves justly, one ought to submit to them, but not if they aren't ruling justly.

Both of these interpretations don't do justice to the text.  In Paul's directive, he is addressing citizens, not rulers. Moreover, Paul does not say "IF [authority] is a minster of good," but instead says "[authority] IS a minister of good."  He is assuming that, however unjust a government is, (and because of sin, the governments of Paul's time were as corrupt and immoral as they are now) they still function, in general, as ministers of good, and thus ought to be submitted to.

The favorite passage of those in favor of capital punishment is contained in verse 4: "But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."  They say that bearing the sword connotes capital punishment in New Testament times, or particularly for the Roman government, and thus capital punishment is clearly a function of civil government and ought to be exercised.

I agree with that argument to an extent. Clearly, exercising punishment is a function of the civil magistrates, and not private citizens.  There is also good reason to think that "bearing the sword" includes capital punishment.  I do not think, though, that capital punishment is primarily what is in mind. As Paul assumes the civil authority is a minister of good, Paul also assumes that the civil authority bears the sword. Paul does not say "if the it bears the sword" or "sometimes bears the sword."  So if we go from that assumption, "bearing the sword" cannot specifically mean the death penalty, for I don't think Paul is saying all civil governments exercise the death penalty.  Further, there were other means of execution besides the sword, even within the Roman government -- crucifixion, for example.

A better understanding of "bearing the sword" is that the sword is a symbol of authority and punishment in general by that authority. Roman guards would always carry swords. If you did something wrong, you know they would be after you, and you would be punished for it. This fits the context of fearing the authorities. A contemporary equivalent would be that policeman carry handguns. They don't bear arms in vain (as opposed to bearing, say, the electric chair), and that is a motivation to do good.

It is likely, though, that the authority of "bearing the sword" includes the authority of life and death.  A sword is a deadly weapon, and for a nation to bear a sword is to have authority to put a citizen to death.  At the same time, I don't think a country is required to use that authority.  One might reply, if God gives authority to a government and it refuses to use it, isn't that government not responsibly using its authority?  Why would God give authority to a country if it doesn't have to use it?  That's a worthy argument, well worth pondering, but I don't find it fully convincing, for Christians are allowed freedom in many areas.  Do we ostracize the Christian vegetarian because the scripture says we're allowed to eat meat?

Even if we grant that governments ought to use its authority over life and death, I still don't think this necessarily means capital punishment.  In my prior example of police officers carrying hand guns, they clearly wield authority over life and death.  They will shoot to kill in order to protect the lives of other citizens.  Capital punishment is not the only means of wielding deadly authority.

Worthy of Death?

"And though they found in him no guilt worthy of death, they asked Pilate to have him executed." -- Acts 13:28

"If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar." -- Acts 25:11

There are a few places in the New Testament where it talks about crimes being worthy of death.  These are often used by those in favor of capital punishment to show that Paul (and to an extent, Jesus) did not object to capital punishment because they subjected themselves to those laws.

Currently Reading According to Plan: The Unfolding Revelation of God in the Bible By Graeme Goldsworthy see related