| | Capital Punishment, pt. 2: The Old Testament LawTo begin our study of Capital
Punishment, we will first start with the Old Testament. We will
take a look at the first institution of the death penalty in Genesis 9,
and then address some other issues of Old Testament interpretation.
Noahide Covenant
Those who believe the death penalty is mandatory usually do not look
towards the Mosaic law to support this. Christians have generally
agreed that the Mosaic civil codes are not binding upon governments in
the present time. Most see the Mosaic laws as pertaining only to
Israel. The exception, as previously noted, are theonomists.
Support for mandatory capital punishment for murder is found in Genesis
9:6. After the flood, God tells Noah, "Whoever sheds man's blood,
by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God, he made
man." Verse 12 says that God makes a covenant with "you and every
living creature that is with you, for all successive
generations." Verse 16 says it is an "everlasting
covenant." It is noted that this covenant was made before the
nation of Israel and applies to everyone, and for all time. While
the Mosaic covenant was for Israel, and was subsequently fulfilled and
replaced in the New Testament, the Noahide covenant is for all people,
and is everlasting. Therefore, we should continue to apply the
death penalty in cases of first degree murder.
It first should be noted that verse 6 answers the question of why
capital punishment is appropriate for first degree murder.
There is a bumper sticker which asks, "Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong?"
Similarly, Derek Webb, acclaimed by many reformed Christians, sings
"Peace by way of war is like purity by way of fornication. It's
like telling someone murder is wrong and then showing them by way of
execution" in his song My Enemies Are Just Like Me.
While Derek
Webb sees capital punishment for murder as hypocritical and showing
disdain for life, this is not God's point of view. God's reason for
capital punishment is based on the value of human life as beings
created in the image of God. Because human life is to be respected,
capital punishment was to be carried out on murderers.
In the Noahide covenant, we find support for the death
penalty. But is it truly binding on all generations? Should
capital punishment be associated with the Noahide covenant, and thus be
seen as continuous? Or the Mosaic covenant, which was a shadow of
Christ is no longer binding?
While capital punishment in verse 6 is contained in the same chapter
as the Noahide covenant, I don't think it is part of the Noahide
covenant. In fact, God doesn't begin talking about establishing
his covenant until verse 8, and what he establishes is that "all flesh
shall never be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there
again be a flood to destroy the earth" (v. 11). This covenant revolves around God's promise not to
flood the earth. It is called an everlasting promise not only because it will last forever, because also because it is an unconditional covenant. God doesn't say that he'll flood the earth if people act wickedly and start murdering each other.
Noahide Laws: The basis for the Mosaic Laws
It seems to me that it is best to read the Noahide laws as the
foundation of the Mosaic Covenant rather than being distinct from
them. In the Noahide account, you have all the basics of the
Mosaic law. In Genesis 8:20, Noah makes a sacrifice of the clean
animals and the clean birds, and God forbids the eating of lifeblood in
Genesis 9:4-5. Between the two of these, you have the foundation
for the ceremonial and dietary laws in the Mosaic law. In Genesis 9:6, you have the basis for moral law (murder is wrong) and civil law (murder is punishable by death).
It should be noted that, by themselves, the Noahide laws are not fully
realized, and thus cannot really stand on its own without the Mosaic to
elaborate on it. For example, there is no distinction between first
degree murder and manslaughter. In the Mosaic law, only one of
those is punishable by death. The Mosaic law is needed to
clarify. If we insisted that the Noahide and the Mosaic laws are
separate, then we would have to insist also that manslaughter ought to
be punished by death as well.
I am thus persuaded that, as the foundation of the Mosaic law, the
Noahide laws cannot be separated from the Mosaic, and are no more
binding today than the Mosaic laws are.
Those who insist that the Noahide death penalty is everlasting and
still binding would also have to logically insist that the prohibition
from eating an animal's lifeblood is also still binding. While I've
read many Christians using Genesis 9 to say capital punishment is still
binding, I've never heard an argument that the prohibition on blood is
still in effect. Most would argue that this law was put away in the
New Testament along with all the other dietary laws of the Mosaic
Covenant.
Thou Shall Not Kill?
Much has been made of the Sixth Commandment, "Thou shalt not
kill." Those who oppose capital punishment will often point to
this as an eternal moral commandment that extends to the conduct of the
civil government themselves.
This sentiment, though, betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the
Old Testament law. Modern translations of the Decalogue read "You
shall not murder," and for good reason. The Hebrew word used in
that verse is used specifically for first degree murder. It is
not used in cases of killing animals, killing in war, man-slaughter, or
the execution of criminals. Besides that, if God had intended
"Thou shalt not kill" to prohibit the death penalty in the Mosaic law,
why would he in the same law prescribe the death penalty?
Much has also been made about "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth" (Exodus 21:24), also known as lex talionis, which is Latin for "law of retaliation." The argument goes that the only
equivalence to murder is capital punishment, therefore this is a
necessary application. If you read the following verses in
Exodus, it is plain that "eye for an eye" didn't mean the offender lost
his eye. In context, I see this as the principle of
proportionality. While
I agree that capital punishment for murder is a legitimate application
of this principle, I don't think it is a necessary one. You can
make a similar case for cutting off the hands of thieves and castrating
rapists, but few, I think, would say these are necessary
applications.
We'll come back to lex talionis when we look at the beatitudes.
|
