Should Murder (including Abortion) be Punished by Death? (Joe Morecraft)

Bullinger Defends Calvin on the Execution of Servetus

Henry Bullinger, in defense of a work of John Calvin on punishing heretics, wrote to him the following words of encouragement—including agreement with Calvin's support for the execution of Servetus, who was guilty of vile blasphemies:

I know that many have wished that you had not defended this principle; but many also thank you, and among others our church. Urbanus Regius has long ago proved, in a work of his own, and all the ministers of Luneberg agree with him, that heretics, when they are blasphemers, ought to be punished. There are also many other pious men who think the same, and consider that such offenders ought not only to be silenced, but to be put to death. Do not repent therefore of what you have done: the Lord will uphold your righteous efforts. I know that your disposition is not cruel, and that you will favour no barbarity. Who knows not, that a boundary must be set to things of this kind? But how it could be possible to spare such a man as Servetus, that serpent of all heresies, that most obdurate of men, I see not.[1]

[1] Cited in Paul Henry, The Life and Times of John Calvin, the Great Reformer: Volume II, trans. Henry Stebbing (London: Whittaker and Co., 1849), 234.


    
    

Quotable Theonomy: On Criminalizing the Promotion of Heresy (William Farel)

"If the Pope condemns the pious for heresy, and furious judges unjustly execute on the innocent the penalty due to heretics, what madness is it thence to infer that heretics ought not to be destroyed for the purpose of aiding the pious! As for myself, since I read that Paul said that he did not refuse death if he had done anything to deserve it, I openly offered myself frequently prepared to undergo sentence of death, if I had taught anything contrary to the doctrine of piety. 

"And I added, that I was most worthy of any punishment imaginable, if I seduced any one from the faith and doctrine of Christ. Assuredly I cannot have a different view with regard to others from that which I
entertain respecting myself." 

-- William Farel, in a letter to John Calvin

Cited in Henry M. Baird, History of the Rise of the Huguenots of France: Volume 1 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1896), 211.

Note: we do not necessarily endorse all of the theology of those quoted in the Quotable Theonomy series

Prison: Man's Inhumanity to Man (Ken Talbot)

Samuel Rutherford on Civil Sanctions against Heretics

Below are a couple Samuel Rutherford quotes on civil sanctions for heresy. Taken from his book A Free Disputation against pretended Liberty of Conscience. 

"All the question is concerning the imperated acts and these external, that is not touching opinions and acts of the mind, but that which is visible and audible in these opinions, to wit, the speaking, professed holding of them, publishing, teaching, printing, and known external persuading of others to be of our mind.... It is clear the question must be thus stated, for all the laws of the old Testament (which we hold in their moral equity to be perpetual) that are touching blasphemies, heresies, solicitation to worship false Gods and the breach of which the Godly Magistrate was to punish, command or forbid only such things as may be proved by two or three witnesses, and which husband and wife are not to conceal, and from which all Israel must abstain for fear of the like punishment. Deut. 13.8, 9, 10, 11. Deut. 17. 5, 6. Levit. 20. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. But opinions in the Mind, acts of the understanding, can never be proved by witnesses and such as neither Magistrate nor Church can censure." Free Disp. Ch. 4, 46, 47.

"These are of a wide difference, [for civil rulers] to kill blasphemers, and false teachers for spreading heresies and blasphemies; and to compel them by war, and fire and sword to be of our Christian religion." Free Disp. Ch. 4, 53. 

     
   

David Dickson on restraining Heretics

The following by David Dickson was originally posted by Daniel F. N. Ritchie at the Confessional Puritan Board:

For albeit the only way to bring Religion in request among Heathen Nations and Strangers to the Covenant of promises, be that way which the Apostles did follow, preaching the Gospel to all, and receiving such as embraced the Gospel into Church-fellowship, yet the Magistrate having Civil Dominion over the Heathen Idolaters, may after information of them by the Preachers of the Gospel brake their Idols and abolish them, and restrain them from doing contempt unto the true Religion, or abusing of the Sabbath, as the Fourth Command of the Moral Law doth give warrant; yea, and may compel them to use Means whereby they may be instructed in the true Religion. 

Again, let him know there is a difference between dealing with Pagans and strangers from the Common-wealth of Israel, and dealing with those who have given up their names to Christ, have entered in Covenant with God, and by Baptism have consecrate themselves and their Children unto the Faith, Worship and Obedience of God, and do profess the Christian Religion, and yet go about by their Errors and Practices to corrupt and over turn the true Religion and Faith of others among whom they live: For, such may and should be not only instructed by Sermon, Conference and Dispute, but also punished by the Civil Magistate for their deceiving of the people, and troubling the Flocks of Christ, Deut. 13 and Rom. 13. 

If he pretend, that Church-censures & civil Punishments can serve for nothing but to make Men Dissemblers and Hypocrites in the matter of Religion, which is most odious in the sight of God and wise Men, let him know that every Hypocrite shall bear his own iniquity: Ecclesiastick Censures and Civil Punishments concern the Words and Deeds of the outward Man, that they may be ordered so as Religion and the Peace of the Kingdom may not suffer detriment. If any Man say and do that which is right in Hypocrisy & Dissimulation, the Society wherein he liveth is safe; but for His Hypocrisy, let the Dissembler answer to God for it. And yet it is not to be presumed, that all who by Censures, and fear of civil Punishments do forsake Error and embrace Truth, are Dissemblers and Hypocrites in so doing, because they are Means appointed of God for curbing and reclaiming erroneous Persons, wherewith He giveth His Blessing when it pleaseth Him. For by Censures and civil Punishments, the allurements which have enduced them to Error, are cut off, such as are Applause of Men, vain Glory, worldly Advantage, sensual pleasure, and such like, wherein the Erroneous have been taken as in an evil Net, which being broken, the ensnared Captive may come freely off his Error, and embrace the Truth, and take in good part of the Censures and civil punishment which drew him out of the Snare unto the right way: As we are assured by the Prophesie of Zechariah, chap. 13.6. And one shall say (to wit the converted sectary) what are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. But whether by those means the erroneous by reclaimed heartily in Dissimulation, respect must be had to God’s Commands and His People’s Good, by curbing of Vice and Error, according as God hath given power to the Church and to the civil Magistrate, Rom. 13.3.4. who is appointed the Minister of God for the People’s good. 

David Dickson, Therapeutica sacra: shewing the method of healing diseases, concerning regeneration (2nd edn, Edinburgh, 1697), pp 613-14.

In Family we Live (Ken Gentry)

Francis Cheynell: Teaching Damnable Heresy a Capital Crime

"He that by seducing seeks to thrust men away from the belief and worship of the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, doth deserve to be punished for his very attempt and endeavour to subvert souls, though he doth not prevail with one soul to depart from God. Because he hath sought to thrust thee away from Jehovah thy God. Deut. 13.10. The very murtherous attempt to killing a soul by abusing and Ordinance of God, corrupting of Religion, telling lyes in the name of the Lord, fathering our own damnable lyes upon the holy Spirit, is a Capital crime. [...] Christians are in a worse condition then the Jews were, if men may seduce our wives and children into such opinions and practices as will certainly undo their souls to all eternity, and we must only intreat [sic] them not to seduce our friends to Hell, and the Christian Magistrate hath no power to punish these Soul-murthering seducers."

Francis Cheynell, The divine trinunity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: or the blessed doctrine of the three coessential subsistents in the eternal Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct subsistences, or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead, acknowledged, believed, adored by Christians, in opposition to pagans, Jews, Mahumetans, blasphemous and antichristian hereticks, who say they are Christians, but are not (London, 1650), pp 479-80.

originally posted by Daniel F. N. Ritchie at the Confessional Puritan Board

Biblical Stoning: "Barbarism," or Righteous Punishment?

Public stoning contrasts with the genocidal state that would
commit private executions behind closed doors or in far
away concentration camps. Need we look further than the
private twentieth-century genocides?

by Steve C. Halbrook

(Excerpt from Chapter 23 of God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws)

Stoning (as a punishment by the state for crimes worthy of death) is an act almost universally despised today.  Gary North writes:    

What we find in our day is that Christians despise biblical law almost as much as secular humanists do. … The very idea of execution by public stoning embarrasses Christians, despite the fact that public stoning is by far the most covenantally valid form of execution, for God’s law requires the witnesses to cast the first stones, and it also requires representatives of the entire covenantal community to participate directly, rather than hiding the act in a sanitary room in some distant prison.  The Bible is clear:  “The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.  So thou shalt put the evil away from among you” (Deut. 17:7).[1]

While some may misunderstand biblical stoning to be an indiscriminate act of mob violence, Jean Kellaway, in The History of Torture and Execution, says this regarding stoning in ancient Israel:  “There is a danger in viewing historic laws with modern attitudes, heightened by the risk of mistranslation and misinterpretation.  In defense of ancient Israel’s laws, it should be stressed that the courts demanded overwhelming levels of proof before pronouncing the death penalty.”[2] 

The incredulous statement, "You want to
go back to stoning?!" is premised on a silly,
superstitious evolutionary assumption.

Not only this, but capital crimes are offenses against the entire community, since such crimes can bring God’s judgment on it.  Therefore, stoning is a logical method of execution, since it—unlike most other execution methods—is carried out by members of the community. 

Stoning carried out biblically is attacked for being primitive and barbaric. But the argument that such stoning is primitive is based on a humanistic, evolutionary assumption—an assumption implied in the incredulous objection, “You want to go back to stoning?!”  It is an evolutionary assumption in either a moral or technological sense. 

It is an evolutionary assumption in a moral sense in that it assumes man has morally evolved to the point that the death penalty is now immoral—especially in such painful death penalties as stoning.  It is an evolutionary assumption in a technological sense in that in our evolutionary mindset, we tend to relate basic elements such as stones to so-called primitive caveman times.  Only “primates” resort to basic elements when they could instead make use of great technological achievements developed over the course of evolution.  So in the case of capital punishment, methods should conform to technological innovation.

Neither of these assumptions are rational.  The assumption from moral evolution cannot object to stoning in the past, since according to the moral evolutionary philosophy itself, past stonings were moral acts by the standards of natural selection at that point in time.  And the assumption from moral evolution cannot object to stoning in the present, since an always changing, evolutionary law lacks any objective moral basis for judging stoning to be wrong at the present time.  And who’s to say that sometime in the future, stones might be morally okay to use again?  Evolution might reveal that stones were really okay to use all along—we were just not evolved enough in our thoughts to see it.

Regarding the argument from technological evolution, we must ask that, in regards to state-sanctioned executions, why prefer sophisticated technology over basic technology?  Technology has given the state such methods of “efficient” mass killings as gas chambers and nuclear missiles.  It has also given the state brutal methods of killing through the use of biological and chemical weapons, as well as doctors brutal methods of infanticide from within the womb.

We are not without stoning in our day, but
have replaced the biblically prescribed
method of stoning with "technologically
advanced stones" in everything from death
penalties to total warfare.

And, it must be further noted that technology has not replaced stoning, but only given us a different form of it, and on a much wider scale.  While the biblically prescribed method of using natural stones against convicted criminals is no longer used, we now use “technologically advanced stones” in everything from death penalties to total warfare.  Hurling stones with the hand has been replaced by hurling stones (bullets) through the barrel of a rifle, or by hurling boulders (bombs) from cannons and airplanes.  (This, by the way, “shows the madness of our times: we drop nuclear bombs on others, and attack stoning.”[3])

One of the great blessings of biblical law is that it does not hand the state carte blanche over life and death.  This is especially the case with biblical stoning.  When one is convicted in a court of law of a crime punishable by stoning, the public carries out the execution.  (Hence the balance of powers in executions: the state authorizes, the people execute: no pretrial mob violence, no secret state-sanctioned gas chambers and mass graves.)  Mitigating the state’s power to take life mitigates the state’s power to take life arbitrarily; execution by the public reminds the state that its trade isn’t primarily in death, but in justice.  And, stoning carried out by the community deters the state from creating a professional class of bloodthirsty executioners.[4]

Public stoning contrasts with the genocidal state that would commit private executions behind closed doors or in far away concentration camps.  Need we look further than the private twentieth century genocides?  Gulag survivor Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, for example, writes of Communist Russia’s custom of “hiding executions in cellars under cover of night and of shooting the victims in the back of the head.”[5]  Former Hitler-youth and German soldier Hilmar von Campe writes that “most Germans did not know of the Holocaust until after the war.”[6]

Stoning also reminds society of the seriousness of state-sanctioned executions.  Unless a society is so depraved that it enjoys watching deaths—at which point it would be on the road to collapse anyway—the public and participatory nature of stoning teaches society to not be indifferent to state-sanctioned deaths.  We need look no further at the human tendency to condone deaths committed out of sight than abortion. 

Stoning people to death was part of the mob
violence during the secular humanistic
French Revolution.

Abortion is easy for many to accept because they cannot see what happens to the unborn child—out of sight, out of mind.  So public stoning can help keep society from easily tolerating unjust capital punishments.  Further, public stoning deters criminal acts.   People—particularly participants in the stoning—see firsthand what could happen to them should they commit a capital crime.

Public stoning has an important sobering effect.  Not only does it remind citizens of the death they could face for committing heinous crimes, but it reminds them of God’s final judgment.  As Gary North writes, “Public stoning forces citizens to face the reality of the ultimate civil sanction, execution, which in turn points to God’s ultimate sanction at judgment day.” [7] 

Every instance of public stoning then reminds unsaved citizens to repent and turn to Christ, else they will suffer an eternal death penalty much worse than stoning.  But not only does public stoning remind citizens of eternal damnation, but of the inevitable victory God’s people will have over evil and death itself, due to Jesus Christ.  Again, North: “Stoning … faithfully images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Gen. 3:15).”[8]

Because of the public nature of stoning, those sentenced to death are able to address the public prior to their execution.[9]  Thus in cases where the Bible’s strict due process is followed[10] and yet an innocent man is nevertheless stoned to death, that man can publicly proclaim his innocence and even indict those responsible for his unjust death.  The impact such an outcry can have on the community can pressure the state to be very cautious in whom it sentences to death, and can deter future malicious witnesses.

Stoning wasn’t unique to Israel.  Humanists who decry stoning sanctioned by biblical law conveniently ignore stoning carried out by other ancient civilizations.  Consider Greece:

The Pharmakoi—persons considered worthless by Greek communities—were kept in Athens and other cities at public expense and used as sacrifices for annual events.  “In Athens one of these was celebrated in the middle of summer, when two men were led out and stoned to death as scapegoats for the wrongs of others.  If one of these Pharmakoi were to be killed, he would first be paraded around the city, in order that he should drain off the impurities of others and take them upon himself; he was then slain in a ceremony in which the whole population took part.”  That was in the city which is hailed above all others as the birthplace of democracy.[11]

This incident, carried out in Athens—the darling of democratic humanists—is democratic humanism taken to its logical conclusion.  These stoning victims did not commit any crimes but the majority nevertheless singled them out as inferior and worthy of death.  This is the logical and inevitable outcome of rejecting God’s will for the will of the people.  Stoning in Athens cannot be compared with stoning in biblical law because Athens sanctioned stoning of the innocent, while biblical law sanctions stoning for those guilty of criminal offenses (as determined by God) proven in a court of law under the testimony of at least two credible witnesses.  Athens was a depraved society on the road to collapse, while the Christian theocracy is sustained by a godly—albeit imperfect—society. 

This "shows the madness of our times: we drop
nuclear bombs on others, and attack stoning."
--Daniel Ritchie

One might think that the real problem of secular humanists with stoning is not stoning itself, but with stoning sanctioned by the Bible.  Strangely, secular humanists appear to have no problem with certain modern-day stoning riots.  And when mobs of Palestinians attack Israel’s military with stones, a “barbaric tactic” becomes “heroic.”  Whether or not Palestinians ever successfully stone a superiorly-armed Israeli soldier to death is beside the point; stoning is stoning.  And do we really think there would be a secular humanist outcry if an Israeli soldier was actually stoned to death?  Perhaps instead they would consider the assailants to be heroes. 

Secular humanists have historically employed stoning; the difference between biblical law and secular humanists is that biblical law only permits lawful stoning, while secular humanists prefer unlawful stoning.  For instance, mob violence in support of the French Revolution included the stoning of people to death.[12]  The early secret police for the Soviet Union, the Cheka, also stoned to death some of their victims.[13]  One tactic by Soviets was to use a piece of rock to dash out the brains of those who survived being shot.[14]

Should an abortion procedure ever be invented that is comparable to stoning—say, if a doctor injects the womb with a lethal chemical that, with a similar velocity to thrown stones, attacks the unborn child from several directions simultaneously until the child dies—would the secular humanist condemn this?  Of course not—he would adamantly defend this procedure as another liberating breakthrough for “womens’ rights.” 

Excerpt from the (Lord willing) upcoming book, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws: Biblical Theocracy, Justice, and Slavery versus Humanistic Theocracy, "Justice," and Slavery by Steve C. Halbrook.  Copyright © 2010 by Steve C. Halbrook.  Based on the master's thesis, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws

---

     [1] Gary North, Victim’s Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 273.    

     [2] Jean Kellaway, The History of Torture and Execution: From Early Civilization through Medieval Times to the Present (London: Mercury Books, 2003), 17.

     [3] Daniel F.N. Ritchie, e-mail message to author, June 9, 2010.  

     [4] As Gary North puts it, “The Bible does not allow the establishment of a professional, taxpayer-financed guild of faceless executioners who, over time, inevitably either grow callous and impersonal toward their awful (full of awe) task, or else grow sadistic.”  Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 45.

     [5] Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago:1918-1956: An Experiment in Literary Investigation, Thomas P. Whitney, trans. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers Inc., 1973, 1974), 300.

     [6] Hilmar von Campe, How Was It Possible? The Story of a Hitler Youth and a Vital Analysis for Today’s Times (Top Executive Media, 2006), 36.

     [7] North, Tools of Dominion, 44.

     [8] Ibid.

     [9] Ibid., 45.

     [10] Conviction can only be on the testimony of 2-3 witnesses, and witnesses themselves are threatened with the same punishment as those they testify against should they be found to bear false witness (Deut. 19:16-19).  Hence those who are false witnesses in a trial where the accused, if found guilty, would be stoned will themselves be stoned if exposed.

     [11] Otto Scott, “The Great Christian Revolution: Part One,” The Journal of Christian Reconstruction, ed. R.J. Rushdoony, vol. 13, no. 2 (1994): 5.  Scott cites Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. 6, 848.

     [12] See Joseph J. Ellis, American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson (New York: Vintage Books, 1998), 130 and Frank McLynn, Napoleon: A Biography (NY: Arcade Publishing, 2002), 56.

     [13]  Sergey Petrovich Melgounov, The Red Terror in Russia (Westport, CT: Hyperion Press, Inc., 1975), 178. 

     [14] Ibid., 78. 
   

The Justinian Code's Law against Graven Images of Jesus

Justinian I, Eastern Roman Emperor

Contrary to the American church's idolatrous reliance on graven images of Jesus, the Justinian Code (529-533) took the matter very seriously, as those guilty of creating such images were "subject to a heavy penalty."

Whether or not such a sin should be punished by the state, it is a breath of fresh air to see a culture take graven images of Jesus seriously. Below is the law as the Justinian Code states it:

TITLE VIII.

No ONE SHALL BE PERMITTED TO CARVE OR PAINT THE IMAGE OF OUR SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST UPON EARTH, STONE OR MARBLE.

1. The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian to Eudoxius, Prætorian Prefect.

As it is Our diligent care to guard in every way the religion of the Celestial Divinity, We specially command that no one shall be permitted to trace, carve, or paint the image of Christ the Saviour either upon the earth, upon stone, or upon marble placed in the earth, but it shall be erased wherever found; and anyone who attempts to violate Our laws in this respect shall be subject to a heavy penalty.

Given on the twelfth of the Kalends of June, during the Consulate of Hierius and Ardaburius, 427.

(From THE CIVIL LAW INCLUDING The Twelve Tables, The Institutes of Gaius, The Rules of Ulpian, The Opinions of Paulus, The Enactments of Justinian, and The Constitutions of Leo: Translated from the original Latin, edited, and compared with all accessible systems of jurisprudence ancient and modern. By S. P. SCOTT, A. M.)

see the entire code

For a biblical case against attempted images of Jesus, see Are Pictures of Christ Unbiblical, by Brian Schwertley

There is no Place for Prisons in the Model Hebrew Republic

(photo by Valerie Everett)

by Randy Pope
Modest Clothing Distributors

The news is constantly filled with reports of prison overpopulation. Due to tightening budgets cities like Akron must find ways to decrease their prison population. In 2010 Akron spent approximately $260,000 on reentry programs in an effort to relieve government of the responsibility of supporting so many prisoners. These reentry grants, as well as the normal costs for housing prisoners is money collected from Akron taxpayers. There must be a better way to deal with crime. 

The justice system is the name society gives to the system used to deal with criminals. What is just about the method used in Akron today? Justice is an appropriate payment, or in this case punishment, for something. If one of the ladies at church accidentally breaks one of your casserole dishes, you may choose to “pardon” her, and not require payment for your dish. That is a choice you are free to make. But, assume for a moment that this woman gives you a paper bowl out of the church cabinet, which was purchased with tithe money that you provided, in an attempt to “make things right.” Has justice really been served by this gesture? Yet that is an exact parallel to the modern “justice” system in Akron. 

A thief may be apprehended, and sentenced to prison for his actions. The stolen money or items may never be returned to the victim of the robbery. Then, on top of that, society adds another victim to the crime when the taxpayer is forced to pay to house and feed the perpetrator in prison, not to mention all of the other perks prisoners receive. Then consider the practice of imprisoning a murderer for life. That is equivalent to giving the victim a styrofoam bowl to replace her casserole dish. Do you really think that satisfies the requirements of justice?

Many will not care whether justice is satisfied or not. None of what follows will matter to them. There is a society that models true justice. It is found in the Hebrew Republic of the Old Testament. Crimes that violate the image of God, like murder and adultery require death to satisfy justice. Crimes that violate property require restitution. This pattern satisfies justice for the victims of crime, and does not create a second victim by requiring taxpayers to care for criminals for long periods of time (ie. the life of the prisoner). 

Finally, there is a principle in the law of the Hebrew republic akin to the “three strikes and you're out” laws that are being passed in many states in the United States. The habitual criminal under Hebrew law was also to be executed. If many (the burden of proof in the Hebrew system of justice is high to avoid executing innocent men) violent criminals are executed upon conviction, and non-violent, repeat criminals are executed, the burden of a large criminal population is drastically decreased. 

There is a better way to deal with the criminal element in society. People will have to get over their hatred of everything Biblical. It is the Hebrew Republic of the Old testament that truly satisfies justice, and protects the rest of society from evil doers.

This article was originally posted at Examiner.com