In the October 12, 1959, issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, Dr. Jacob Vellenga had an article defending capital punishment. In the present issue Dr. Yoder and Dr. Milligan have articles opposing it. Dr. Milligan states the question in very acceptable terms: “Is capital punishment just and right?” Since Dr. Yoder asserts, “capital punishment is one of those infringements on the divine Will which takes place in society,” the wording of the question may be sharpened this way: “Is capital punishment ever right?” Dr. Yoder seems to believe that it was wrong even in the Old Testament.
Fortunately this form of the question rules out discussions on the cost of judicial procedure, the number of states that have abolished capital punishment, the (poorly-founded) doubt that execution deters murder, and other extraneous details. The question is not whether murderers escape their penalty, but whether they should. The question is not the direction in which modern penology is going, but whether it is going in the wrong direction. The question is not the efficiency of American justice. We admit that American justice leaves much to be desired. Criminals receive too much favor and sympathy. But all such details would lead to an interminable discussion. The question is simply, Is capital punishment ever justified?
THE OLD COVENANT
Both of the opposing articles rightly center their attention on the relation of the Old Testament to the New Testament. Dr. Yoder asks whether a proper Christian understanding of any problem begins with Moses, or whether a proper approach to the Bible begins with Christ himself. To minimize the Old Testament Dr. Yoder and Dr. Milligan then press the details of stoning an adulterer, of executing an idolator, of establishing cities of refuge, of appointing a kinsman of the murdered man as the executioner, and so on.
Now, in the first place, I should like to maintain that a proper understanding of the Bible begins with Moses—not with the Mosaic law as such, but with the first chapter of Genesis. In particular, when the Old Testament lays down basic principles, such as the sovereignty of God, the creation of all things, God’s control over history, the inclusion of infants in the Covenant, or other matters not explicitly abrogated or modified in the New Testament, the silence of the latter, or the paucity of its references, is not to be made an excuse for abandoning the principles of the former. As Dr. Yoder admits, there is much more information on civil government in the Old than in the New Testament. Therefore I would conclude that the Old Testament should not be minimized.
Probably every view of the controversial question of the relation between the Testaments acknowledges that the New in some respects modifies the Old. The most obvious of these modifications is the fulfillment of the ritual by the death of Christ. The Mosaic administration was superimposed upon the Abrahamic covenant 430 years afterward and was to remain in effect only until the Messiah came. Even the animal sacrifices that had been instituted before the time of Moses were types or pictorial anticipations of the one sacrifice that in truth satisfied divine justice. To offer them now would be to imply that Christ had not yet come. Because of this, Dr. Milligan’s argument that the defense of capital punishment consistently requires animal sacrifice is invalid. What else could Hebrews chapter 9 possibly mean?
For this reason too, Dr. Vellenga’s reference to the Crucifixion as a point in favor of capital punishment is not so irrelevant as the opposition alleges, for the death penalty was not merely Pilate’s decision to be regarded as mistaken; rather it was God who had foreordained that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.
Next, if the cessation of the ritual is the most widely understood modification of the Old Testament, the increase of biblical ignorance since the seventeenth century seems to have erased from memory the point that the civil laws of Israel also are no longer meant to apply. God abolished the theocracy. Such is the teaching of Jesus in Matthew 21:33–45. The Pharisees thought that any men who would kill the Messiah would be miserably destroyed, but that God would then let out the vineyard to other High Priests and that the theocracy would continue as before. Jesus said no. The Kingdom would be taken from the Jews, the theocracy would be ended, and a new order would be instituted in which the rejected stone would become the head of the corner. So it has happened. There is no longer any chosen nation. Therefore the detailed civil and criminal code of Israel is no longer binding.
For this reason we do not have cities of refuge: police and judicial protection is sufficient. We are not required to marry our brother’s widow, because the purpose of preserving his name and tribe is no longer in effect.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT
This does not, however, and in logic cannot imply that capital punishment is wrong. Would one argue that since the Jews were forbidden to lend money on interest to other Jews, it is now wrong to obey that law and to refuse to accept interest from other Christians? This is just bad logic. At most, the rejection of the civil law as a whole would merely leave the individual details as open questions. And even one who strongly deprecates the Old Testament must in honesty admit that several of those details could be wisely adopted today. In the present depraved condition of the United States, we might even wisely execute adulterers and pornographers.
Where the opponents of capital punishment go astray is in the assumption that approval of execution depends on its inclusion in the national laws of Israel. Its inclusion there is of course quite sufficient to show the falsity of Dr. Yoder’s assertion that execution is an infringement on the divine Will. It was God who ordered capital punishment. Therefore it is entirely incorrect to say that capital punishment is an infringement of divine prerogatives; and the question, Is capital punishment ever right? must be answered in the affirmative.
Of course, this much does not satisfy Dr. Milligan. The pertinent question is, Is capital punishment ever right today?
To this question it should be replied that although the ritual and civil laws are no longer in effect, the moral law is. I cannot agree with Dr. Milligan that in the New Testament “we move to a different base for law.” The basis of moral law in all ages is the preceptive will of God. The laws against adultery and murder are not merely Mosaic enactments: they go back to creation. More to the point, capital punishment is commanded by God in his revelation to Noah, and by implication at least was applicable to Cain (Gen. 4:10, 14).
A GENERAL RULE
God’s dealing with Cain, however, indicates that it is not absolutely necessary to execute every murderer. When we say that God commanded capital punishment, the meaning is that this penalty was established as the general rule. It does not mean that there could not rightly be exceptions. Remember, the question is, Is capital punishment ever right? Therefore, the case of the woman taken in adultery has no bearing on the matter. For one thing, it should be noted that the woman was taken in the very act; but the scribes and Pharisees had arrested only the woman and not the man, whom they must also have found in the very act. Aside from Jesus’ intention to reveal the hypocrisy of the religious leaders, there may have been other reasons for not inflicting the penalty on this woman. But can this one case support a theory of civil law while all the rest of the Bible is ignored? If this were so, there would be no penalties of any sort for any crimes.
It is this point that the other two authors do not discuss. Dr. Yoder, in his second paragraph, does not want to lower the standards of justice, excuse crime, or gloss over the wrongness of wrong. But he supplies no reason for inflicting prison terms instead of execution. In fact, his argument against personal responsibility, its seemingly Freudian psychology, its placing the blame on society as a whole, would rather suggest that no penalties for any crime should be inflicted. Until the opponents of capital punishment formulate their theory of civil authority, nothing more need be said on this point.
To indicate that the many details in the two articles have not been ignored, even though passed over in silence here, I shall make mention of Jesus’ reading the scroll in the synagogue in Nazareth. Jesus stopped reading just before the clause on the day of vengeance. Dr. Milligan thinks that this is significant. No doubt it is. But it is not significant of the fact that the state should not execute criminals. It is significant of the fact that the ministry of Jesus at that time was to proclaim the year of Jehovah’s favor. The day of vengeance is to come later when Jesus shall be revealed from heaven in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not God. Such passages have nothing to do with civil government, and to press them against capital punishment is inadmissible.
Now, finally, it is our contention that the New Testament authorizes capital punishment and war as well as the Old. Dr. Milligan does not mention the power of the sword granted to earthly governments in Romans chapter 13. Dr. Yoder tries to make this power merely a symbol of judicial authority without any reference to execution. Is not this a measure of desperation? What are swords used for? Is taxation, mentioned in the same passage, also a symbol of civil authority without any reference to extracting money from the pockets of the people? No, such an interpretation completely gives away the weakness of the case for symbolism.
In other words, the opponents of capital punishment offer no theory of civil government, they seriously misinterpret the Bible, and they are in conflict with the principles of Christian ethics.
No comments:
Post a Comment