Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 426 | Should Christians Support the Death Penalty?

Episode Date: May 25, 2021

Today, we're discussing the death penalty. What biblical cases are there for and against it? --- Today's Sponsor: Annie's Kit Clubs has the perfect subscription box for your boys & girls: The Young Woodworker's Club and Annie's Creative Girls Club. Kids develop actual skills, mastering real-world building or new crafting techniques! Go to AnniesKitClubs.com/ALLIE to save 75% off your first shipment! --- Buy Allie's book, You're Not Enough (& That's Okay): Escaping the Toxic Culture of Self-Love: https://alliebethstuckey.com/book Relatable merchandise: https://shop.blazemedia.com/collections/allie-stuckey

Hey guys, welcome to Relatable. Today we are finally going to talk about the death penalty. I've been wanting to talk about this since January. Well, I haven't been wanting to talk about it because it's a very sad subject to me. I don't like thinking about it. I don't like talking about it. But it is a very contentious ethical, moral, and theological issue that I think is important for us to be able to confront biblically and be able to talk about not just in the secular political sense, but. but also with fellow believers with whom we disagree. This conversation was brewing back in January pretty heavily, especially in Christian circles, due to the executions of several black Americans that some people claimed were innocent or just claimed should not be executed. The Trump administration actually reinstated

the federal death penalty after several years of it not being instated. There's been a lot that we've had to talk about since December. So I just haven't been able to sit down and organize all the research that's required for it. And even today, we're not going to be able to get into every single argument for and against the death penalty. I really want to focus on whether or not there is a biblical backing for it or whether it is categorically, biblically and morally wrong. This is a subject that I have been doing a lot of reading on, a lot of research. In fact, when people were talking about it the most online, I didn't really talk about it that much.

I was doing a lot of research because I knew what I thought that I believed, but I hadn't really done a whole lot of reading into it. And so, like my husband can tell you, I was up probably until like two or three a.m., one of the nights that all these conversations were going on online, just really. reading this ethics book, this Christian ethics book that I have trying to understand all the different perspectives. I've done a lot of considering of both sides, a lot of thinking, a lot of scouring the scriptures, a lot of praying. This is something I really don't want to be wrong on. We're talking about human beings made in God's image. We're talking about people's lives.

We're talking about human beings being killed by the state. I mean, it's literally a matter of life. and death and also just from like a conservative perspective thinking about like how much power do I want to give the state to be able to do these kinds of things literally execute no pun intended these kinds of things it's not something that I feel the urge or the need to fall one way or another on in order to fit in with fellow conservatives or Republicans or Christians I know lots of conservative Christian Republicans who are anti-death penalty and many who are pro-death penalty. So I really have felt total freedom in studying this issue and coming back and coming to a sound conclusion based on the facts and based on the best theological arguments that exist.

I thought this was interesting. According to Gallup in May 2020, a record low of 54% of Americans said that they believe in the death penalty or said that they believe that it's morally acceptable. In October, 2018, 49% of Americans, also a new low, said they believe the death penalty was applied fairly. The 2019 National Survey found that a record 60% of Americans favored life imprisonment over the death penalty, which Gallup called a dramatic shift from prior years. So that's interesting. I'm not sure, honestly, though, that we could say with a straight face that our society has become more immoral, like more serious about the sanctity of life, more compassionate in recent years. and yet support for the death penalty has waned.

And so it's just an interesting question. Like what's behind that? Like what moral direction, ethical direction is the country actually going in? And we won't really get to answer that question thoroughly today. But it is something to think about. The resource that helped me the most that a lot of this episode is based on is that Christian Ethics Book that I mentioned, Ethics for a Brave New World by John and Paul Feinberg.

I highly recommend ethics for a brave new world. if you are a part of women's book club with me on Facebook. We read Brave New World a couple months ago. Very disturbing, but they have created this long, thick ethics book on it that helps you break down all of the issues that come up in Brave New World, but from a biblical perspective. It was not the only resource I consulted, but it helped me the most navigate the different stances and weigh them against scripture. Let me tell you up front, at least part of my belief

based on what I've read. It's a little nuanced, if you will. There is not from what I can tell any biblical basis for the belief that the death penalty is categorically immoral or unchristian. Scripture just does not support the idea that Christians must be against the death penalty or that the death penalty is in general, unjust or cruel, or that the need for the death penalty ended with Jesus' crucifixion. We will go through these points today. There may, however, be more compelling, political or practical reasons to oppose the death penalty.

Perhaps you believe our justice system is simply unfair. It gives favor to the privileged at the expense of the underprivileged. Maybe you don't like the idea of the state having the power to kill. Maybe it's a cost issue for you. If you're more libertarian-leaning, it costs too much taxpayer money. Maybe you're concerned with the racial disparity in the death penalty that you believe to be caused not by disproportionate crime and homicide rates, but actual bias in the justice system against black people.

Perhaps you are concerned that the risk of potentially executing even one person who did not actually commit the crime in question is just too high for you to morally, ethically accept. these are all, in my opinion, totally valid and very reasonable concerns. And we're going to go through some of them today using the best arguments that we have available. But I am first and primarily concerned with the arguments that the death penalty is as a rule immoral, not pro-life, and unbiblical. I disagree with that assessment entirely. First, let's start. with the charge that the death penalty is unbiblical. I watched one video of a pretty, you know, a pretty known commentator making this claim.

And what I thought was interesting was their use of Bible verses to support their view, totally decontextualized, one, which didn't actually surprise me because this person does not believe in the inerrancy or even the, it seems, the moral authority of scripture. And yet, to make their point in an effort to convince Christians, they isogetically pulled verses out that they hoped would bolster their views, but it didn't. It just didn't logically. I didn't find the video compelling or interesting. However, I could see how someone who maybe doesn't know a whole lot about the Bible or is unsure about what the Bible says could hear that kind of argument and

agree with it because it sounds good. Like, it sounds right. And it sounds social justice. It feels good. Plus, that's the popular progressive belief nowadays. Abortion is good or at the very least necessary and the death penalty is bad and never necessary. So if you're coming into a video like that and you just want someone to confirm your bias, then someone kind of de-contextualizing a bunch of Bible verses that they don't actually believe in the authority in and sprinkling it into their argument may be compelling to you. But I don't want to deal with those kinds of arguments. I think that's probably the most popular kind of argument that I've seen from professing Christians about or opposing the death penalty, but those aren't even really worth dealing with because

there's so many fundamental problems with their reading and interpretation and application of the text. So that kind of argument is weak, but there are a lot stronger arguments, I think. Like, I think that there are some really interesting and compelling and intellectual, intelligent, biblical arguments that we should absolutely give airtime to appreciate and then try to break down. So there are four big arguments that thoughtful Christians typically employ when they're arguing against the death penalty. The first one is inconsistency of biblical application. So this argument asserts that Christians who support the death penalty based on the Old Testament

law given to Israel do so for murder, for example, but not for the other crimes for which God commands the death penalty to be dealt. And so for those people who say, well, yeah, you know, we shouldn't ban the death penalty because, look, the Old Testament law requires the death penalty for certain crimes. So people who Christians who oppose the death penalty will say, okay, well, do you also support the death penalty for witches, for adulterers, for anyone who strikes their mother or father? Because God did, like those things were punishable by death in ancient Israel, but most Christians today would say that they don't support the death penalty in these cases. And so the opponent to the death penalty would say why? Why, if you were using the Old Testament law

as your basis for saying that the death penalty should be used today, would you decide that it should only be applied to those who are convicted of murder and not the other crimes that God prescribes it for? And beyond that, why say that this Old Testament law is binding today, but not. God's laws for Israel against eating shellfish or mixing fabrics, for example. This argument also points out that these were all laws God gave ancient Israel as his covenant people who were living in a theocracy. We don't live in a theocracy today and there is no command for us to form a theocracy, no precedent set in the New Testament for us doing so. So we don't need to abide by the laws for ancient Israel, including any law that mandates

the death penalty. So that's one argument that Christians have. against the death penalty. The second argument that thoughtful Christians make is that the law of Christ supersedes the law of Moses and that the law of Christ does not include a mandate for the death penalty and actually does away with the need for it. So whereas the Old Testament says, eye for eye and tooth for tooth, Jesus, the argument goes, brought a new law. And we see in Matthew 538 through 48 that Jesus tells us not to resist our enemies, not to retaliate, but to offer them the other cheek to strike after they've already struck one. We're told even to give more to the one who has taken from us, to love our enemies, to show mercy to those who hurt us. So how possibly

could the death penalty fit into that? This argument also points to warnings in the New Testament against revenge, such as Romans 1219. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave to the leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written. Vengeance is mine. I will repay, says the Lord. So the New Testament shows that God is against retribution. He's against revenge. He's against repaying evil with evil.

And Christians are rather to pursue reconciliation and restoration. This, the argument, goes, rules out any justification for capital punishment. The third big argument made by Christians who oppose the death penalty is like. the second that the emphasis on grace and mercy in the New Testament supersedes any emphasis on punishment. So we see examples of God showing mercy even in the Old Testament to murders, like Moses and David. According to the law of Israel, both of them were deserving of the death penalty, David for orchestrating murder and for adultery. Now only did God not allow him, or Moses, who also killed someone, to be put to death, he used them an incredible.

and huge ways. He calls David a man after his own heart. He showed special favor to them. The book of Hosea is about Hosea showing his wife, Gomer, Grace over and over again after she commits adultery. And this is often used as a depiction of God's relentless love, his forgiveness, his welcoming back of his people after they rebel and repent. So Christians who oppose the death penalty would say this shows that even if it's a permissible punishment, even in the Old Testament, it's not a necessary punishment. And in light of Jesus's emphasis on mercy and forgiveness and restoration, we should choose these options. We should choose restitution and grace every time over execution. They may also point to the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8.

A crowd was about to stone her for the act and Jesus stops them and causes. And cause it. them to drop their stones and walk away by saying he who has not sinned, let him be the first one to cast a stone. Jesus then tells the woman he does not condemn her. He tells her to go and sin no more. So Jesus, they would say, chose mercy. He could have chosen the death penalty, which was prescribed for her crime, but he didn't. So they say we should do the same thing. We should follow Jesus's example in this way. And then there is the argument that the Bible, or the biblical standard for the death penalty in the Old Testament, even though it was applied to more crimes than just murder, was higher than we have today in that the standards were

more difficult to reach. And because we don't have those same standards in the United States, because we're living in a non-theocracy, we shouldn't have the death penalty because they obviously like our standards are not matching up with God's qualifications for prescribing the death penalty. David Llewellyn scholar says that there are five aspects of the mosaic application of the death penalty. Deuteronomy 174 says guilt must be absolutely certain. So not like here where it is just beyond a reasonable doubt. Deuteronomy 1915 says there must be more than one eyewitness to convict. Deuteronomy 1916 says that, that anyone who gives false testimony in court is to have done to him what would be done to the one

who is being prosecuted. So if someone were on trial for murder and someone lied in their testimony to make them seem guilty, that false witness was to be executed. Deuteronomy 17, 8 through 9 says undecided cases would defer to legal experts in the United States. The system, in our system, a jury must decide. And then also, So number five, the death penalty was mandatory for the crimes for which God prescribed it if the person was found guilty. That's Exodus 2112. So this goes back to the first point. If we are really going to justify the death penalty by the Old Testament law, then shouldn't we apply it as the Old Testament law required. So these are all the big arguments that Christians who oppose the death penalty on biblical grounds make. They may have other reasons like racism in our justice system or something like that.

that, but using scripture, these are the grounds they usually stand on when it comes to denouncing the death penalty. They don't regard, for example, Genesis 9, 6, or Romans 134 as prescribing the death penalty necessarily, and certainly not for us today. So I think these are all very compelling arguments. And if I were to stop right there, maybe a lot of you would be convinced or you'd be solidified in your stance against the death penalty. But we have to take a look at those arguments that I've read, And we have to look at the arguments to the contrary, and then we can discuss it. So in response to the argument that those who support the death penalty demonstrate an inconsistency of biblical application when it comes to the Old Testament law, well, God demands the death penalty

for murder before he demands the death penalty for murder plus other crimes for ancient Israel. So God's demand of the death penalty, a life for a life, actually predates the giving of the law through Moses. This is a command given to Noah in Genesis 9, verse 6. Whoever sheds the blood of man by man shall his blood be shed for God made man in his own image. And the reason that this particular part of the covenant that God makes with Noah is so significant and why it is argued that it still applies today is because it gives us a why that transcends time. So why demand life for life execution for murder because God made man in his image. This verse tells us why. That is God's reason for demanding the death penalty when it comes to murder. Because of what is

established in the first chapter of the Bible that man, unlike any other creature that God created, is created in the image of God, which means we have the capacity to make rational moral choices. But it's not just that because, of course, there are people who, because of some kind of disability, don't necessarily have that capacity. Even they are made. All people are made in the image of God. We are still image bearers of God because we have a soul that lives forever. Eternity is written on our hearts.

We have an eternal destiny that's determined by Christ. And no other creature, no other kind of creature on earth does. therefore we as humans have value above every other creature we have the authority the obligation to steward the earth unlike any other creature we have responsibility in redemption unlike any other creature this is what it means that god created human beings differently than anything else in all creation and because of that because we were made in his image and because of the value that god associates with his image bearers, he declares, according to this passage, that the only just an acceptable punishment for purposely taking the life of an image bear is to take the life

of the one who took it. It shows just how much he values human beings, that it would take the execution of another human being, another image bear to make up for it. And because this is, this precedes the law of ancient Israel, and because it's predicated on something, we still know to be true that we are all made in God's image, you could certainly say that the death penalty for murder is something that God still considers just today. This was a command that was at the time given to everyone who lived because Noah and his family were the only ones who were alive.

It was prescriptive given the translation in the context, not just predictive. And the fact that the death penalty is demanded at all in the Old Testament, both here and later in the official giving of the law to Israel. And because we know that God is the great I am, who therefore does not change, we cannot say that the death penalty is categorically unmerciful or unjust or biblically wrong. That would be saying that God is, not just was, but is unjust and unmerciful and wrong because he does not change.

Again, there may be arguments for why we in America today should not use the death. death penalty, but one of them is not that it's unbiblical or not pro-life. To say that as a Christian that executing a convicted murderer is not pro-life would, again, be saying that God is not pro-life. But considering that God regards babies in the womb as people with purpose, as we see in Jeremiah 1 in Psalm 139, and says that child sacrifice is worthy of death in Leviticus 20, he obviously thinks that the execution for murder is just, but murder of children is not, obviously. It's honestly kind of even hard for me to understand someone's mentality that would equate those two things or who amazingly think that killing babies in the womb should be a legalized

choice, but the death penalty for murderers should be abolished. And then they have the audacity to say that people who are against killing babies and support the death penalty for murderers are the ones who lack compassion. By the way, just a quick aside, potassium. and chloride is used both to stop the heart of a baby in the womb who is being aborted at a certain stage and in lethal injection executions. So people who are for abortion are literally for the death penalty for babies. That's wicked. In response to the other argument, that the law of Christ supersedes what's commanded in the Old Testament, even that which predates the establishment of

Israel and its laws. Jesus clearly does tell us in Matthew 5 that we are to love our enemies. The argument by those who oppose the death penalty is that you can't love your enemies and execute them. Well, if you go back in that same chapter, which we always look at every verse in context, in verses 21 through 22, Jesus points out not just the seriousness of murder, but also of malicious anger, hatred in your heart that he says is actually akin to. to murder. He says these sins are liable to hell. So obviously, when it comes to murder, Jesus is absolutely for it and promising retributive justice, at least eternally, when it comes to unrepentant murderers and hateful people. Now, that verse alone does not support the death penalty,

but read in light of a passage like Romans 13, which says the government is an institution, instituted by God to carry out his justice against the wrongdoer, his wrath against the wrongdoer here on earth, it's hard to rule out the possibility that God would be for a kind of retributive justice for a murderer that includes the death penalty. Plus, when we look at the context of Matthew 5, we see that when Jesus tells us to turn the other cheek, he is talking about our interpersonal relationships. If you try to apply this phrase, turn the other cheek to governments, then logically you are arguing that the state should never punish anyone for anything, that you should just be able to

steal and kidnap and rape and torture and plagiarize without any official repercussions. Like surely that's not what you mean and surely that's not a society that would please God because it would result in the oppression of the most vulnerable of the weakest in our society, something that we know that he hates. surely that's not what God means when he says the governments are supposed to execute justice on his behalf in Romans 13. So my question is, why would Matthew 5 mean a prohibition of the death penalty, but not prohibition of other kinds of punishment if you are going to apply, turn the other cheek, not just to interpersonal relationships, but to anything the government is allowed to do?

The answer is it doesn't. It's not talking about how the government should order society. It's talking about what you personally as a disciple of Christ are now called to do. That also includes Romans 12, 19 through 20, which tells us that we are not to take vengeance upon ourselves, but are rather to be kind to our enemies and trust God. That does not mean, it cannot mean logically or biblically that God is condoning an unjust government that allows anarchy and violence to rule at the expense of those who can't defend themselves. In response to the emphasis on mercy that we see in the stories of David, Moses, Gomer, these are absolutely examples of God extending grace. Grace means unmerited favor. So God

can do what he wants to do. He can give grace when he wants to give grace and where he wants to give grace. There are lots of other cases where God does not extend grace. He punishes the wrongdoer. He does not command his people to make exceptions when he is giving the law to Israel, but he, because he is God, does make exceptions when it means his glory. For example, God gave Moses grace for murder by allowing him to live. He did not give him grace when he struck the rock twice. He didn't allow him to see the promised land. So the cases in which God shows grace to murderers or evildoers don't serve as the rule.

They are never offered as examples on which we are supposed to build our penal codes. and they don't supersede Genesis 9, which again is predicated on an eternal truth that we are all made in his image. But let's talk about this example in John 8 of the woman that's caught in adultery who was almost stoned for her sin before Jesus intervened. Is this an example of Jesus in his new law doing away with the death penalty? The truth is Jesus is not attempting in this case to do away with the death penalty. That's not what this passage is about. It's an important passage, but it's not about that. He actually doesn't question if you read the passage, the justice of the death penalty.

What he's questioning is the authority of those who are about to execute the death penalty. In other words, he was pointing out the discrediting, disqualifying nature of hypocrisy as he does continue. to the religious leaders throughout the Gospels, the problem with the Pharisees was not that they were too faithful to the law, or that they were too holy, or that they took God's commands too seriously, is that they appeared to keep the law externally, but inside they were filled with unrighteousness, with self-glory, with arrogance, with pride, with hate, and they were without a love for God and the compassion for others to which God calls his people. They ignored the heart of the law, and instead they used superfluous.

official obedience to make themselves superior to everyone else. God hates that kind of pride and hypocrisy. He says so throughout the Old Testament prophets. He says so in the form of Jesus in the Gospels. This is another example of that, not a statement about the legitimacy of the death penalty. The fact is, the people who were about to stone this woman were hypocrites because they, in this very instance, were actually breaking the law. The law required, according to, Deuteronomy 22, 22 through 24, that both adulterers, man and woman, were to be tried and executed. Guilt had to be established by two to three eyewitnesses, says Deuteronomy 176 through 7.

The witness's motives must be pure, as Exodus 23, 1 through 8 says. So when Jesus says, you who are without sin be the one to cast the first stone, he's not talking about he who is without sin in general, since that would again negate any and all punishment for any law-breaking ever since we are all sinful. It actually makes more sense that he's pointing out their sinfulness and hypocrisy in this case because they were not abiding by the Old Testament law, which disqualifies them from inflicting punishment. So when Jesus tells this woman caught in adultery, no one here condemns you and neither do it. Well, I condemn you.

He is actually conforming once again to mosaic law. The word condemn is a legal word that means to convict. He tells her to go and sin no more, which is another indication that he is emphasizing, not flouting the law. So this is a story that serves as a depiction of what pleases God. Obedience done from a sincere, obedient, submissive, pure, heart. He hates hypocrisy. Jesus was showing that where there is hypocrisy, there is injustice. And where there is injustice and hypocrisy on the side of the accuser, there is relief for the accused. It's a mistrial.

It doesn't mean that she was actually innocent, that she hadn't done any wrong, but that her punishment was not going to be just according to God's standards. And so she got another chance. But Jesus tells her to use this chance to repent from sin. I do believe that he paid attention to her and used her situation as an opportunity to teach this lesson and to spare her from unjust death, and that that is merciful and shows us the pure and the loving heart of God. But this is not a story that indicates the biblical necessity for a government to do away with the death penalty. We just don't see that kind of substantiation here. The law of Christ in the New Testament does, give us new commands for how to live as a church. We are no longer bound to ceremonial law,

not because God changed or because it doesn't matter, but because ceremonial law was used to set Israel apart and make them clean before God. Then when Jesus came, he became our righteousness, setting us apart and making us clean before God through his sacrifice. We don't have to offer animal sacrifices or burnt sacrifices anymore because he became our sacrifice. He became are cleansing once and for all forever. But Jesus not only affirms the moral laws of the Old Testament, he doubles down on them. So he says, don't murder, but also don't even be angry in your heart towards your brother. He says, don't commit adultery, but also don't even lust. Don't even look at a woman with that intent and desire. He fulfills the law by getting to the heart of what God

always meant by the moral laws in the first place. They were never so. supposed to be for superficial legalism and works-based righteousness, they were always to be done by faith through a sincere love for God. So Jesus did not come and obliterate the moral code. He took the moral code to another level that is impossible to reach, by the way, without his help. He came not to say, do whatever you want to. It's fine. There shouldn't be any consequences. He says, no, do what God has told you is right. And do it from a heart that is, uh, that is in sincere and total submission to God with humility and love and grace and truth. And while I, Jesus, will become your cleansing and I will justify you through my death,

your faith in me and your justification that you've received should motivate you to obey the Lord and follow what he says is right. So there is no basis in this particular passage and from what we see in. Jesus to do away with the death penalty or that the death penalty suddenly becomes null in void or something that a government should not or cannot use, especially when it comes to the Genesis 9 directive, especially when it comes to those qualifications of it being a convicted murderer that is put to death. This passage in John 8 does show us a lot. And yes, we do see so much mercy and grace coming in the form of Jesus.

Christ that we can learn from. We do learn about forgiveness, but that does not mean that a government is to neglect, especially in light of Romans 13, is to neglect their role to execute God's wrath on the wrongdoer in a way that is proportional and good and just and right. Okay. Next argument in response to the argument that the biblical standards are not met today in our justice system for the death penalty because we don't live in a theocracy. And therefore, we do not and cannot possibly have the proper parameters in place to be able to justify or justly issue execution. So my response to that is, yes, we do not live in a theocracy.

So we don't have the exact same process. But that does not necessarily rule out the legitimacy of the death penalty altogether. You could say, based on these, that we need to reform our system to match. Israel's exactly. Maybe you would say that. And I'd be open to that. That would mean that we're living in a the bureaucracy. That would just mean some reforming that would make it more difficult to issue the death penalty. But to simply say, because our regulations don't match those of the Old Testament law, that the death penalty is immoral per se, doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I would be for more consistently applied and even stricter standards across the board. But I don't see how this

point eliminates the possibility of a just justice system issuing the death penalty. But because we are not ancient Israel, we are not a theocracy, and because we don't apply the ceremonial laws, we also are not obligated to apply the death penalty to all the crimes that God applied it to in the Old Testament. I think that we can look at those crimes and see, wow, God really hated that and still does, but a democratic society is not obligated to establish the death penalty for those crimes like striking your mother or father or witchcraft in the same way that I think there's more of a moral imperative to establish the death penalty for murder based on the reasoning that we see in Genesis 9 about people being made in God's image. And then we have the whole

Romans 13 argument for the biblical justification. for the death penalty. Romans 13 3 through 5 says this, 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. Now obviously, we know there are bad, corrupt governments, probably definitely more bad ones than good ones. The command here in this chapter is actually twofold. It's not just to us, it's also to governments, that governments are to be God's servant

in subject to him and his definitions of evil and good, justice and injustice. And also for us, as Christians, to do everything we can to be in subjection to the government, as long as that does not cause us to sin since, as we see here, God's authority is actually higher than the government's authority. But this passage is clear that as God's servant, a government is not just allowed to, but actually commanded to bear the sword and carry out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. This is the New Testament, God through Paul, speaking to Christians in Rome. Now, some scholars don't see that phrase bear the sword as an explicit mention of the death penalty or condoning of the death penalty, but many scholars do, considering Paul's Jewish background and his mention of a

lethal weapon here. But at the very least, this passage authorizes punishment on those who do wrong according to God's definition of wrong. And as I've already argued, that certainly cannot rule out biblically the death penalty for murder. Now, as for the other concerns about our system in general, racial disparities, socioeconomic disparities, the possibility of an innocent person being put to death, that I completely understand. That trips me as well. These are all legitimate concerns. I am totally willing to talk about regulatory changes that make the doling out of all punishments, but particularly one as serious as the death penalty, as clear and as consistent as possible. But for those who go further and actually say that the

death penalty is immoral because justice should always be restorative rather than retaliatory or that it's cruel and unusual or that it doesn't serve as any deterrent. On these things, I just, I can't agree on those arguments. Justice systems can have four functions. Restoration, rehabilitation, that's one, restitution, two, deterrence three, and retribution. Four, I would also add to that protection of the community five. But in this ethics book, they give these four reasons. And so if you are someone who says rehabilitation, restoration is always, should always be the goal of the justice system, then obviously you would see execution is wrong. If restitution, paying back the victim or the victim's family or society

is always the goal of a justice system, then you would see execution is wrong. If deterrence is the goal, the prevention of future crimes by teaching the perpetrator and other potential crimes that there or criminals, that there are consequences to your actions, then you would say, if that's your goal, that you would say the death penalty is ineffective because there's no proof of their deterrence. If deterrence is what you are saying, you're trying to do in a justice system and the death penalty does not accomplish, doesn't accomplish deterrence, you might point to the 1990s when executions dropped off. And the states with the death penalty had a higher murder rate than states that didn't in Canada. They abolish the death penalty in the 70s and murder

rates continue to decline. The final purpose of a justice system, one might say, is retribution. Now, the so-called criminal justice reformers or criminal justice advocates, they typically say that this is not the purpose of a justice system. Retribution is punishment for something done that is wrong. It doesn't necessarily matter if it fits the other qualifications. It's punishment. We see retributive justice throughout scripture and God's execution of justice in the Old and New Testament. And we even see that in the eternal sense that he promises separation from wrath upon unrepentant, unsaved sinners forever. So God roots retribution for murder in particular in his care for image bearers and in demonstration of the value of,

of the victim. And if retribution is a purpose, then the death penalty is absolutely, according to the Bible, justified, at least in the case that God says is commanded because of the value of the human victim, which is murder. Most people actually, like I said, that criminal justice advocates don't think that retribution should actually be a part of a justice system. but most people, even the most progressive social justice advocates, believe in retributive justice. When they see fit, everyone has this sense that people who do wrong should be punished for their crimes.

People on the left have no problem with retribution when it comes to, for example, a white police officer killing a black person, for example. But for whatever reason, in some other cases that go along a different narrative, they're not okay. with retribution, they would say retribution is bad, it's vengeful, it's unjust. That would be a kind of partiality and a kind of secular progressive social justice, which actually doesn't align with any kind of real justice. So it's just not accurate to say retribution is unjust or wrong. Sometimes it is absolutely called for. We all know, God knows, that it's a necessary goal.

a necessary goal, not the, but a necessary goal in some cases of a justice system. And it should be distributed in a way that is truthful, proportionate, direct, and impartial. Rehabilitation and restitution may very well be options where possible. When, for example, it's well established that this person has turned from their ways and will lead a better life. And the crime they originally committed was not something like premeditated murder or similarly. a violent crime that violated an image bearer. And I'm actually for these kinds of people when they get out of jail to have all of their rights restored.

But rehabilitation and restoration is not always possible and not always preferable. Punishment may need to be harsh based on the crime. And this person could put the community at risk if released, depending on the kind of crime that they committed and where they are in the process, in the process of rehabilitation or incarceration. And the safety of innocent people must be prioritized over so-called restitution when there is a risk there. The death penalty may also be used as deterrence.

There has never been a study that shows that the death penalty does not determine her, just that it may not. there has never been a causal relationship that's been established between these two. You could argue that the fact that the death penalty is given unreliably and inconsistently in the U.S., that people aren't scared of it and therefore it's not a deterrent, or that they trust that social justice activism of the public is going to help them avoid it. But the question is, the question that has to be asked is what stops any of us? from committing a crime. There may be lots of reasons, lots of different reasons,

but it's impossible to know why someone who does not murder chose not to murder. How could you ever know why someone who was considering murdering someone decided not to? Was it the possibility of the death penalty or was it the possibility of life in prison or was it something else? The evidence of whether the death penalty is an effective deterrent is inconclusive. And therefore, the argument that we shouldn't have it based on the conclusion that it's definitely not a deterrent just isn't a good one in the same way that you can't say that it definitely is. Now, for those who say that there are disparities between races and socioeconomic classes, first I would say remember disparities by themselves don't prove discrimination and injustice. But I still believe that said,

I believe that it's worth noting these disparities and reforming if it is found through evidence that bias is coming into play to cause these disparities. I am absolutely on board with reforms that make our justice system uniform for all races, for all classes, for all people, and for the standards to be as consistent and as strict as possible when it comes to proving guilt and issuing consequences, especially the death penalty. But my position is simply that I say, see no argument that the death penalty for premeditated murder that is proven with evidence in a fair trial with an impartial judge and jury beyond a reasonable doubt is immoral or unbiblical in any way. When you read about some of the heinous crimes committed by some of the people who were executed

federally this year, it's really hard to see any other punishment except the death penalty as just. The woman who lured a pregnant mother and then killed her and cut her baby out, the man who murdered his toddler daughter whom he'd repeatedly horrifically abused over the short years of her life, and then killed her by slamming her head into the dashboard until she died after he had tortured her in a variety of ways. I mean, this was a baby girl that this man ruthlessly murdered. And the fact that you had people, not just saying that this man shouldn't receive the death penalty because the death penalty is wrong, but going so far as to actually try to make him seem like some sort of victim because of his race, that's what happens when you have a reprobate mind.

You have a heart of stone and a brain of mush and you can't see things clearly. I think we're obligated to be able to see things clearly. I think the Bible helps us do that. So I am willing to debate the death penalty on all kinds of grounds. I really am. Like I said, I feel free to change my mind. but I cannot, there is not any basis from what I can see that the government cannot justly or biblically dole out the death penalty in some cases. You have to be able to define justice as God defines it, which is we've talked about so many times is truthful, proportional, direct, and impartial. If you can't define that, if your justice is marred,

with secular social justice, which is partial and circumstantial. If you don't even believe in an absolute right and wrong or objective truth, then I don't want to debate with you on this. Like, if you're trying to come up with an argument from the Bible against the death penalty and you don't even believe in the authority or inerrancy of the Bible, you don't even know how to read your Bible systematically or how to apply the Old Testament and wet it with the New Testament, then this conversation is an interesting for me to have with you. But for the people who have all kinds of nuanced contentions with our death penalty and with our justice system in the United States, I think that that is a flourishing debate absolutely that we can have. Again,

I don't believe that there is any biblical reason that we can exclude the possibility of the death penalty for murder, especially because of the reasons that God gives for the death penalty for a murder that predate the law that he gave to Israel and also the responsibility that he gives the government in the New Testament. I hope that I at least gave you some food for thought in helping you determine what is the most biblical and just in a logical position. I know some of you are still going to disagree with me and that's okay. But you guys have been asking me for my thoughts and research on this.

And so I tried to give you the most thorough response and explanation that I could. So thank you guys so much for listening or watching. We will be back here soon.