Should Christians Support the Death Penalty for Murder? – Part 2

Part 1 of this article can be found here.

ACTS 25:11

Another relevant passage for our purposes, albeit a less important one than the texts we have already looked at, is Acts 25:11. In this verse Paul says to the Roman procurator Festus: 

“If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death.”

Three alternative interpretations

There are three alternative ways in which we could interpret what Paul says in this verse.

Interpretation (1): Paul is saying that if he has done anything for which he deserves to die according to Roman law, then he isn’t seeking to escape death.

Under this interpretation, Paul’s focus is not on whether or not God says that he deserves to die. Instead, he is simply looking at things from the perspective of Roman law.

Interpretation (2): Paul is saying that if he has done anything for which he deserves to die according to God, then he isn’t seeking to escape death.

Under this interpretation, Paul’s focus is not on whether or not Roman law says that he deserves to die. Instead, he is looking at things from God’s perspective.

Interpretation (3): Paul is saying that if he has done anything for which he deserves to die according to Roman law and according to God, then he isn’t seeking to escape death.

Under this interpretation, Paul is looking at things both from the perspective of Roman law and from God’s perspective.

Any of these interpretations could be the correct one, although (3) is probably the most natural, followed by (1) and then (2).

If (2) or (3) is correct, then Paul is saying that if God’s standpoint is that he deserves to die, he is not seeking to escape death. This strongly implies that capital punishment is sometimes acceptable in God’s sight. And it probably implies too that there are times when it is not just acceptable but should happen.

If (1) is correct, and Paul is just talking about whether or not he deserves to die according to Roman law, things are less clear. Nevertheless, the fact that he says “I do not seek to escape death” most naturally suggests that he believes that there were times when Roman executions were in line with the will of God.

Summing up

There are admittedly uncertainties about how we should interpret Paul’s words in this verse. But we can say two things.

First, on balance, what he says here counts against the view that capital punishment is always wrong.

And second, what he says also fits a bit better with the view that capital punishment should happen at times than with the view that it is just an optional punishment.

DOING GOOD TO THOSE WHO TREAT US BADLY

So far we have looked at biblical passages that support capital punishment.

However, we also need to look at some passages that are often said to show that this punishment is not God’s will today.

One common argument appeals to the teaching of Jesus on doing good to those who treat us badly.

For example, in Matt 5:38-41 He says: 

“38 You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40 And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41 And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”

The argument

The argument goes along these lines:

The big ethical principle in the teaching of Jesus is love, radical love that is expressed even by doing good to those who treat us badly. To inflict the death penalty is a severe way of responding to those who do wrong, and it is not possible to reconcile this kind of punishment with a desire to love wrongdoers.

The response

This is actually a weak argument, and there are a number of points to make in reply:

(1) To use Jesus’ teaching about doing good to those who treat us badly as an argument against capital punishment is to compare apples with oranges. A personal response to a wrong we have suffered is a very different thing from the nation state’s response when a citizen commits a serious crime.

When Jesus tells us not to retaliate against those who treat us badly and to do good to them, He means this quite literally. It is true that there are exceptional situations when acting to bless people who mistreat us will actually cause more harm than good. But as a general rule, if someone treats us badly we should aim to act in ways that bless them in return.

However, it should be obvious that it would be wrong for the state to follow this sort of principle. The state is hardly supposed to go out of its way to bless and benefit criminals! Instead, there is a consensus – rightly, of course – that the state needs to inflict punishment of some sort on those who commit serious crimes.

So it should be clear that Jesus’ teaching about doing good to those who treat us badly is not a comment on how the state should treat criminals. And this should make us cautious about using what He says in passages like this one to draw conclusions about capital punishment.

(2) We need to take account of all biblical revelation on the nature of God.

Scripture reveals God to be not only a God of great love but also a God of severe judgment. For example, Jesus Himself teaches repeatedly on the horror and reality of hell (e.g., in Matt 5:22, 29-30; 18:8-9; Mark 9:43-48).

So it simply won’t do to build a picture of the nature and will of God from a select group of biblical texts. Instead, we need to take account of the whole Bible. And if we do this, we find that it is often His will to inflict severe punishments.

(3) We need to take especial account of what Paul writes in Romans.

In Rom 12:19-20 he teaches about non-retaliation and doing good to those who treat us badly: 

“19 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.’ 20 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.’”

What Paul says here closely mirrors what Jesus says in passages like Matt 5:38-41.

Yet Rom 12:19-20 is followed almost immediately by Rom 13:1-5, that we looked at above, which teaches about the state being God’s instrument of punishment. And, as we saw too, v. 4 of this passage seems quite strongly to imply that the state has the right to inflict capital punishment at times.

Given that Paul’s teaching on non-retaliation and blessing enemies doesn’t contradict the state’s right to inflict capital punishment, there is no need to think that Jesus’ teaching on non-retaliation and blessing enemies contradicts this either.

Summing up

What Jesus says about the importance of loving enemies should therefore not lead us to think that it is wrong for the state to execute murderers.

THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY

Another argument used by those who say that capital punishment for murder is wrong today appeals to the account of the woman caught in adultery that is found in what is commonly referred to as John 7:53-8:11.

The argument

The argument goes along these lines:

In this biblical passage we find Jesus superseding the instruction to put adulterers to death as found in the Law of Moses. Because He did this, it makes sense to think that He would have had the same attitude to those who were guilty of murder. Even though the OT prescribed a death sentence for murderers, Jesus brought a new principle that abolished capital punishment of any kind.

The response

This is another weak argument, and there are a couple of points to make in reply.

(1) To begin with, it is questionable how much authority this story actually has.

Although the story is commonly regarded as one of the best known Bible passages today, it was almost certainly not originally a part of John’s Gospel:

First, the vocabulary and style of this passage show some differences from the rest of this Gospel.

Second, if we remove it, the transition from 7:52 to 8:12 is a good one.

Third, it is not in our earliest surviving copies of John.

And fourth, it is not even in our earliest surviving commentaries on this Gospel. In the extensive commentaries on John by Origen (lived late 2nd through mid 3rd century) and by John Chrysostom (lived mid 4th through early 5th century) the commentators show no knowledge of this passage at all!

New Testament textual analysts today – including very conservative scholars – are therefore widely agreed that this passage was not in the original text.

If this story wasn’t originally part of the Gospel, that doesn’t prove that it shouldn’t be regarded as Scripture. Potentially God could have inspired the story as Scripture and later caused Christians to include  it in the Bible.

This does seem rather doubtful, however. It just seems strange for God to create an add-on in this way. If He wanted it to be part of Scripture, why would He not have made it part of the original text?

We do better, then, to think that this story should not be regarded as a part of the Bible.

On the other hand, however, it is very difficult to believe that what this story teaches is misleading or even that it has no positive value. Throughout church history probably a majority of Christians have, in good faith, had copies of John’s Gospel that included this passage. Surely God wouldn’t have let that happen if this passage was harmful. Besides, countless Christians have testified that He has spoken to them through the passage.

To cut a long story short, we do best to conclude that this passage stems from a historical event in Jesus’ ministry and that it contains very good Christian teaching.

Nevertheless, it should probably not be regarded as a genuine part of the Bible, so its value for deciding on matters of capital punishment today is limited.

(2) Even more importantly, it is essential to recognise that this story specifically concerns Jesus’ attitude to the death penalty for adultery. So, regardless of how we interpret the story, it is unwarranted to conclude from it that Jesus would have been against the death penalty for murder.

Old Testament teaching that adulterers should be put to death originates in the Law of Moses, which the NT tells us was temporary (Gal 3:23-25). By contrast, OT teaching that murderers should be put to death originates, as we have seen, in Gen 9:5-6, a passage that apparently gives principles that will last as long as this earth does.

Summing up

The story of the woman caught in adultery should therefore not lead us to think that it is wrong today for the state to execute murderers.

EZEKIEL 33

Another common argument against capital punishment today appeals to Ezek 33:11, where God tells the prophet Ezekiel to say to the people of Judah: 

“Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?”

The argument

The argument goes along these lines:

In this verse God says that He gains no pleasure from the death of those who do evil, and that He wants them to turn from their evil and live. Here God is giving a principle that goes deeper than the earlier OT commands to inflict capital punishment. He is saying that in fact His higher purpose is that wrongdoers should not be put to death but that they should be given a chance to repent. And this surely includes murderers. So Christians today should follow this principle by rejecting capital punishment in all circumstances.

The response

This is another weak argument, and there are a few points to make in reply:

(1) To begin with, there is a minor point. The death in view in this verse is not the death penalty administered by people but a death that God himself will inflict. And it probably refers both to physical death and also punishment after physical death.

These differences mean that we should be cautious about using what this verse says to draw firm conclusions about capital punishment today.

(2) Next, there is another relatively minor point. In this verse God isn’t saying that He prefers the wicked not dying to the wicked dying. Instead, He assumes that being wicked and dying naturally go hand in hand, and He is saying that He prefers people not being wicked to the wicked dying. We could paraphrase God’s words in this verse as: “I would much rather that you are not wicked than that you are wicked and die.”

(3) Third, we must take care not to read too much out of what this verse tells us.

It is true that in the verse God says that He wants those who are already wicked to turn from their wickedness and so avoid His punishment. So at first sight this might seem to suggest that it is not His will for murderers (who are obviously already wicked) to be put to death, but instead that He wants them to repent and so avoid His punishment.

It is quite right to say that in this verse God is giving a general principle that He wants wrongdoers to repent and so avoid His punishment. However, crucially, it is unwarranted to claim that this principle is the whole story on the issue of sin and punishment. There could potentially be other relevant factors as well, even some that are in tension with this principle.

As it happens, we know that there is at least one other factor in tension with this principle. We know that the time came shortly after Ezekiel prophesied, when God’s patience with Judah ran out and He destroyed Jerusalem by the hands of the Babylonians. So, even though God’s will expressed in this verse is for people to repent and avoid His judgment, we know that this isn’t the whole story, since He later acted to stop people having the opportunity to repent.

In other words, we know that a time came later when God decided that inflicting punishment was more important than allowing people the opportunity to repent, which was a situation that was an exception to the principle of Ezek 33.11.

Therefore, given that we have this exceptional example of where God chose punishment over mercy, it is not difficult to think that there could be yet another exceptional circumstance in which He, at least usually, chooses punishment over mercy, i.e., the death penalty for murder. So we could potentially say that the general principle in this verse is that God wants people to repent and avoid punishment, but that in cases of murder something else takes precedence, which is that murderers should suffer the death penalty.

In short, it is reading too much out of this verse to claim that it shows that the death penalty for murder is wrong. The verse gives a general principle that God wants wrongdoers to repent and avoid punishment, but we know that this principle isn’t the whole story on the issue of sin and punishment.

Summing up

Ezekiel 33:11 is therefore not strong support for the view that capital punishment for murder today is wrong.

SUMMARY

Let’s now draw together what we have found.

We have seen that Gen 9:5-6 gives an instruction that people who commit premeditated murder (and possibly some lesser degrees of killing too) should be executed by human beings. However, we have also seen that there seem to be exceptions to this principle in the Bible itself.

We have found that Rom 13:1-5 quite strongly implies that the nation state has a God-given authority to use capital punishment at times. And we also saw that this passage most naturally suggests that the state should use capital punishment rather than just may use this punishment if it wishes.

We have found that Acts 25:11 provides some weaker support for capital punishment.

Finally, we have seen that Jesus’ teaching on doing good to those who mistreat us, the story of the woman caught in adultery, and Ezek 33:11 provide no convincing reason to oppose the death penalty for murder today.

HOW DO WE SEEK TO APPLY GEN 9:5-6 TODAY?

Of the passages we have looked at, Gen 9:5-6 is by far the most important, because it specifically says that murderers should be executed. On the other hand, however, we mustn’t forget about the exceptional examples of Cain, Moses, David and Saul.

So what should we do today? Is it more important to follow what Gen 9:5-6 says? Or should we be more influenced by these exceptions?

We should surely follow Gen 9:5-6. This passage contains a specific instruction given by God, something that He actually tells human beings of all following centuries to do. We should therefore support the death penalty for premeditated murder, and possibly for some lesser degrees of killing too.

Of course, in many parts of the world the death penalty is not used. Where this is the case, Christians should speak out in support of this punishment for murder.

However, we should also speak out just as strongly against bias in enforcing the death penalty. In some places where capital punishment is used, people’s ethnic group or financial status can increase or decrease their likelihood of being executed. This is an appalling injustice.

Finally, as we saw in Rom 13:1-5, it is the state that has been given the task by God of inflicting capital punishment. Christians must never take matters into their own hands to try to enforce this punishment when the state fails to execute as it should.

See also my articles:

The Justice and Mercy of God

American Christians and Gun Control

Does the Oral Contraceptive Pill Cause Abortions?

How Seriously Should Christians Take Warnings of Climate Change?

Should Christians Support the Death Penalty for Murder? – Part 1

One area of controversy among Christians concerns the death penalty, also known as capital punishment.

Some say that today it is God’s will for those who are guilty of murder to be executed by the nation state, while others say that this is not His will.

As always, when thinking about a moral issue, we must turn to the Bible to see what it has to say. Scripture is The Manual for the Human Life, and what it teaches is key.

GENESIS 9:5-6

The most important biblical passage on this topic is Gen 9:5-6, which reads as follows:

“5 And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. 6 ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.’”

(Scripture readings in this article are from the English Standard Version except where otherwise stated.)

The setting

The first thing we need to consider is the setting of these words.

We have just been told in chapters 7 and 8 of Genesis about the flood that came on the whole earth. The flood has now subsided and there are eight people left alive, Noah, his wife, his three sons and his three daughters-in-law.

Then, in Gen 9:1-17 God speaks to Noah and his sons:

·       He tells them to have children and fill the earth (v. 1).

·       He says that they have authority over animals, including the right to eat them (verse 2-3), although they mustn’t eat their blood (v. 4).

·       He speaks the words quoted above (verses 5-6).

·       He repeats His instruction to populate the earth (v. 7).

·       He says that He is making a covenant with Noah and his sons, their descendants and all animals that He will never again destroy the earth by flooding it (verses 8-11).

·       He says that rainbows are a reminder of His covenant never again to destroy the earth with a flood (verses 12-17). This covenant is described as “everlasting” (v. 16).

Enduring principles

There are good reasons for believing that verses 5-6 contain principles that continue to be valid as long as humans live on this earth:

(1) There is not the slightest hint anywhere in verses 1-17 that a time would come, while this earth still survives, when any of the principles outlined in verses 1-17 would become obsolete.

(2) The context of verses 5-6 strongly suggests that the principles in these verses continue to be valid. Verses 1-17 are a unit that consists of God’s message to Noah and his sons. In verses 8-17 God is clear that the covenant with people and animals will last as long as the earth does. So, given that verses 1-17 are a unit, it would be surprising if anything in verses 1-7 did not also last as long.

In view of these two points, it makes sense to think that verses 5-6 contain principles that continue to be valid today.

It is crucial to understand that this passage is very unlike the Law of Moses in this respect. The Law that God gave Moses at Sinai had a limited shelf-life (Gal 3:23-25).

By contrast, the instruction given to Noah and his sons in Gen 9:5-6 was given to the whole human race that then existed, long before Israel even came into being. And, as I have just noted, there are good reasons for believing that this instruction will continue to be valid until this earth is destroyed (2 Pet 3:10-12).

So what God says in Gen 9:5-6 applies to human beings of all centuries and races, including everyone alive today.

Two potential interpretations

For our purposes, the meaning of the first words in v. 6 is what is most important: 

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

There are two alternative ways in which these words are commonly interpreted:

Interpretation (1): God is giving a command that if a person kills someone, that person should be put to death by other human beings.

Although the Hebrew is better translated into English as “by man shall his blood be shed” rather than as “man must shed his blood,” this Hebrew can easily be understood as a command. We find the same sort of grammatical construction, for example, in the Ten Commandments. For instance, “You shall not steal” is a command not to steal.

Interpretation (2): God is not giving any instruction to put a killer to death. Instead, He is referring to a troubling state of affairs where killing someone frequently leads to another killing in revenge. If someone kills, all too often that killer is himself killed by another person. So God is indirectly warning people not to kill, since it could end badly for the killers.

So, which of these interpretations is correct? Are there clues in the passage itself that can tell us?

Indeed there are. There are two very strong reasons for believing that the first of these interpretations is the correct one, that God is giving an instruction that people who kill humans should be put to death by humans.

The implication of v. 5

First, we need to take account of what God says in v. 5.

In the first part of this verse, He says that He will require a reckoning from every animal and from man “for your lifeblood.” “For your lifeblood” must mean “for killing a human.” There is nothing else it could mean. And this is made even clearer in the final part of this verse, where instead of a reckoning “for your lifeblood,” the reckoning is “for the life of man.”

So God is saying that if an animal or a human kills a human, God will require a reckoning from the killer.

Let’s think first about what this reckoning is in the case of an animal that kills a human.

Well, the reckoning can’t be about punishment before or after death, because animals are not moral creatures that commit sins. The only thing that the reckoning could be is the physical death of the animal. God is implying that human beings are so valuable in His sight, that if an animal kills a human, it is fitting that that animal is killed.

And God is surely not implying that He will kill the animal Himself. It is a fact that animals which kill humans ordinarily continue to remain alive.

So God surely means that if an animal kills a human, He wants other humans to kill that animal.

Importantly, however, in v. 5 the situation of animals that kill humans is parallel to the situation of humans that kill humans. God simply says that He will require a reckoning from a man or animal that kills a human. There is no suggestion that the type of reckoning depends on whether it is an animal or human that kills.

So, given that the reckoning in the case of killer animals is their physical death at the hands of human beings, most naturally we would expect the reckoning to be the same in the case of killer humans too. This is where our train of thought should have reached by the time we finish reading v. 5.

So when we then move on to v. 6 and immediately read, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,” it is extremely difficult to believe that this is supposed to be understood in any other way than as an instruction to put to death human beings who kill a human. God has just said that we should kill animals who kill a human, and He has just put killer humans and killer animals in parallel, and the first part of v. 6 can easily be understood as a reference to capital punishment, so this is surely what He means.

The logic of verse 6

But there is another very strong reason for believing that “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” refers to capital punishment: the logic of v. 6.

Note that in the text “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed” is immediately followed by “for God made man in his own image.” This means that being the image of God is the reason why “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

If we suppose that interpretation (1) above is correct, and that this passage is referring to capital punishment, the logic of v. 6 makes perfect sense. The reason why capital punishment should happen is because man is made in God’s image. Human beings are so valuable that if a person kills a human there should be a terrible price to pay.

However, if we suppose that interpretation (2) above is correct, and that this passage is simply making a gloomy prediction that killing will often be followed by more killing in revenge, the logic of v. 6 makes no sense at all. Why would being the image of God be the reason why killing will often be followed by revenge killing? There is no reason why.

Surely, then, the logic of v. 6 must mean that this verse is referring to an instruction God gives: if a person kills a human, other people should kill the killer.

Summing up the principle

In view of the combined weight of the above two points, we should have no hesitation in saying that in Gen 9:5-6 God is giving a command that people who kill human beings should be put to death by humans.

And, as I have already noted, this is a principle that has applied since the days of Noah, and that will apply right up until the time the present earth is destroyed.

Varying degrees of guilt

Gen 9:5-6 doesn’t mention any exceptions to the principle of capital punishment for killing a human. It simply states that a person who kills a human should be put to death.

Nevertheless, the Bible often allows for unexpressed exceptions to things, and it would be a big mistake to understand this passage to be teaching that capital punishment should always be carried out when a human kills a human.

Those who kill a human being have enormously varying degrees of guilt that attach to what they have done. At the lowest end of the spectrum, someone could accidentally kill a person without it being their fault at all. A bit further along the spectrum, a killer might be only slightly negligent. Further still, someone else could be moderately negligent, and another person could be grossly negligent but without having had any intention to kill. Even further along the spectrum, someone might lose their temper and decide on the spur of the moment to kill. And at the highest end of the spectrum are those who commit murder after cold and calculated premeditation.

Gen 9:5-6 is certainly not suggesting that killers who are at or near the lowest end of the spectrum should suffer capital punishment. In the Law of Moses commandments are given that are specifically designed to protect people who have killed someone accidentally (e.g., in Num 35:6-34; Josh 20:1-9). This proves that the instruction in Gen 9:5-6 was never intended to apply to all killers.

Exactly how far along the spectrum a killer needs to be before this instruction does apply will be open to debate. But this passage must be giving a principle that those who commit premeditated murder should be executed. To deny this would be to remove all meaning from what the passage has to say.

Biblical examples of murderers not being executed

Although Gen 9:5-6 gives a principle that those who commit premeditated murder should suffer the death penalty, we mustn’t ignore other biblical passages that are in tension with this.

There are examples of murderers who are not executed:

(1) In Gen 4:8 we read about how Cain murdered Abel.

Yet afterwards God actually protected Cain from being killed by other people (Gen 4:15).

(2) In Exod 2:11-12 we are told how Moses murdered an Egyptian.

It is true that this Egyptian had been mistreating a Jew. But it was still a premeditated act, and it is doubtful that we are supposed to think that this was a just killing. And God, of course, went on to use Moses greatly despite what he did at this time.

(3) In 2 Sam 11:1-18 we read about how David committed premeditated murder in an attempt to cover up an extra-marital affair.

David paid a high price for this sin. Yet God forgave him (2 Sam 12:13), and he continued to be Israel’s anointed king in His will.

(4) In Acts 7:54-8:1 we learn how Saul of Tarsus played a part in killing the Christian martyr Stephen.

There is a big question about how much Saul realised that what he did at this time was wrong, although it was certainly an appalling act. But Saul – later known as the apostle Paul – went on to be used so much by God that he ended up writing a large part of the New Testament!

These examples are all in tension with the principle in Gen 9:5-6, and we mustn’t ignore them.

How do we reconcile all this?

How, then, are we to reconcile Gen 9:5-6 with these other biblical texts?

There are a few points to make here.

First, as regards the killing by Cain, this murder took place before the instruction to Noah and the future human race about capital punishment had been put in place.

Second, in the cases of Cain, Moses and Saul, it is not entirely clear that these killings should be classed as simple premeditated murders.

Third, as I will go on to talk about later in this article, capital punishment is something that should be carried out by the nation state, yet in all four of the above examples it really wasn’t practical for this to happen. The nation state seems not to have existed in the days of Cain. Moses fled from the Egyptian state in which he lived. David was the king of the Jewish state, and it seems strange to imagine him pronouncing a death sentence on himself. And Saul was supported by the Jewish rulers under Roman occupation.

Fourth and most importantly, God has the right to make exceptions to a principle that He has given. Unless a principle is so tied up with His good nature that He can’t break it, He can make exceptions to it if He wishes. And there seems to be no good reason for thinking that the principle of Gen 9:5-6 is one that God could not overrule at times.

I will come back to Gen 9:5-6 later in the article.

ROMANS 13:1-5

Another very important passage on this topic is Romans 13:1-5, where Paul writes: 

“1 Everyone must submit to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist are instituted by God. 2 So then, the one who resists the authority is opposing God's command, and those who oppose it will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have its approval. 4 For government is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, because it does not carry the sword [machaira] for no reason. For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong. 5 Therefore, you must submit, not only because of wrath, but also because of your conscience.” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

In this passage Paul refers to the governing authorities of the nation state (or in places where no nation state exists, something similar to the nation state). Since he is writing to the Christians in Rome, uppermost in his mind must be the Roman rulers of his day.

One of his main points in the passage is clearly that rulers of the state have authority from God to punish wrongdoers.

Carrying the sword

In v. 4 Paul says that wrongdoers should fear the government, since “it does not carry the sword for no reason.”

It should be obvious that the reference to carrying the sword in this verse has to do with the state’s God-given authority to punish people. The context makes this very clear, and I am not aware of anyone who would deny it.

Nevertheless, the precise meaning of carrying the sword here is disputed.

Many say that in this verse the sword is simply a symbol of the state’s authority to punish wrongdoers. In their view, “because it does not carry the sword for no reason” just means “because it does not have authority to punish for no reason.” Under this interpretation, Paul would not be implying anything about what sort of punishments the state has the right to inflict. So he would not be implying that the state has the right to use a literal sword in capital punishment.

This, however, is a poor explanation of what Paul means. In fact, he seems not only to be saying that the state has authority to punish, but also to be implying that it has the right to perform capital punishment.

The Greek word that Paul uses for sword here, machaira, is used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to people being literally killed (e.g., in Acts 12:2; Rom 8:35; Rev 13:10). In Acts 12:2 it is used specifically to refer to an execution, as it probably is in other NT texts too. Besides, killing with the sword was a common method of Roman execution.

It is very difficult to believe that Paul would say that the state has the right to punish, would use a word that often referred to a major way in which the state in his day did punish, yet would also not be implying that this kind of punishment is legitimate. If this were so, we would have to say that the way Paul has worded things is very misleading.

However, instead of thinking that Paul has written carelessly, it is much easier simply to conclude that he is implying that the state has the right to use capital punishment.

Objection 1

Some object to this conclusion by arguing in the following way:

Most punishments the Romans carried out were not capital punishment. If Paul’s reference to the sword is a reference to capital punishment, then he is referring only to a small part of Roman punishments. This looks strange in a general passage on punishment. So we do better to think that Paul’s reference to the sword here is just a general symbol of the state’s right to punish and has nothing specifically to do with capital punishment.

This is a weak argument, and it can be answered as follows:

First, Paul is speaking very briefly in this passage, so there is no surprise that he would want to keep his description of how the state punishes concise.

Second, we can easily understand Paul to be implying that the state has the authority to use capital punishment, and thereby also to be implying that it has the right to inflict lesser punishments too. If he had mentioned only a low-level punishment, his readers might have wondered if the state also has authority to inflict high-level punishments like capital punishment as well. But mentioning a high-level punishment makes it obvious that it also has authority to inflict low-level punishments.

Third, the sentence in v. 4, “For government is God's servant, an avenger that brings wrath on the one who does wrong,” most naturally refers to a variety of punishments anyway.

This objection is therefore a weak one.

Objection 2

Sometimes those who object to the view that Paul is endorsing capital punishment in this passage use the following argument:

In Paul’s day, the Romans sometimes executed people when it could not possibly have been the will of God for them to be executed. So in this passage Paul would hardly be supporting the right of the Roman state to execute.

This argument fails completely, and it can be answered as follows:

First, Paul is speaking very briefly in this passage and giving general principles, without going into exceptional situations. It is very easy to understand him to mean that the state has a God-given authority to punish only when God agrees that that punishment is justified, while also understanding that sometimes the state would abuse its authority to punish.

Second, we need to take account of lower-level punishments that would not have been the will of God:

There is no doubt that in this passage part of what Paul is teaching is that the Romans have a God-given authority to inflict low-level punishments. And Paul must have known that they sometimes abused their authority to inflict these low-level punishments. Yet he chose not to mention this abuse.

So, potentially, exactly the same could be true of capital punishment too. Paul could (a) be teaching in this passage that the Romans have a God-given authority to inflict capital punishment; (b) have known that this authority was sometimes abused; (c) have chosen not to mention this abuse.

This objection therefore completely fails.

Summing up

In conclusion, then, this passage is quite strong support for the view that the nation state has a God-given authority to use capital punishment at times.

And the way that Paul says that carrying the sword is a function of the state’s authority more naturally suggests that there are times when the state should use capital punishment rather than just may use this punishment if it wishes.

Part 2 of this article can be found here.

See also my articles:

The Justice and Mercy of God

American Christians and Gun Control

Does the Oral Contraceptive Pill Cause Abortions?

How Seriously Should Christians Take Warnings of Climate Change?