The current controversy over whether execution by lethal injection represents a humane and painless death reminds me of a story my late grandmother told me a long time ago. During the Second World War many of her villagers in Serbia were executed at the hands of local warlords. One of them, a cynical doctor, was known to enjoy killing his victims with a saw. Inducing a prolonged and torturous death by sawing off his head, he would whisper as if soothing a dying victim: “Do not fear, the doctor will do it softly”.
At this moment, the US Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of whether death penalty by lethal injection is in tune with the US Constitution. Executions across the country, in all of the states, have been temporarily put on hold. Meanwhile, a debate on the character of the penalty, supposed to be the most civilized and dignified form of involuntary euthanasia, is taking place at different levels.
Advocates of this form of death penalty argue that those who are killed by lethal injection do not suffer at all, and that their departure looks more like gentle drifting into a deep sleep. This is achieved, they say, thanks to the administration of a three-part chemical cocktail: the first one inducing sleep, the second one paralyzing the muscles, and the final introducing massive cardiac arrest. Apparently, a person undergoing execution is not at all aware of the moment of his death. According to the comments of its proponents, this is a very kind death for those deserving to die.
However, something went wrong in the execution of Angel Nieves Diaz in Jacksonville, Florida, on December 13, 2007 which called for a quick suspension of all executions in the USA. He seemed to have suffered a slow and agonizing death that lasted for 34 minutes, during which time he remained conscious but unable to communicate his agony. Jonathan Groner, a professor of surgery at the Ohio State Medical School, said that on the basis of the results obtained from the autopsy it is very likely that “he was tortured to death.” Opponents of execution by lethal injection have since argued that execution by lethal injection should be outlawed because it violates the constitutional ban on “cruel and unusual punishment”.
Apparently, in the USA, the death penalty is currently not under investigation, but only the method of its administration. Once this is resolved by the Supreme Court, it is very likely that the executions will continue.
I would like to suggest that the underlying issue in the case of the lethal injection goes beyond the question of whether our most benevolent style of execution measures up to its claims. For it does not make a difference from an ethical, moral and spiritual standpoint whether execution is performed by crucifixion, drowning, burning at the stake, beheading, electrocution, firing squad, lethal injection, or even hugging or kissing. It still remains a forced, involuntary and imposed death: a cruel and ugly thing. Killing anyone softly, whatever the circumstances and reason, does not upgrade execution to a more advanced institution. The more gently it is administered, the more sinister it becomes, almost resonating the sadistic soothing voice of a Frankenstein doctor from the Balkans – “No worries mate, we’ll do it lovingly!”
Opposing the death penalty in all of its facets should not mean that one denies a government and its institutions of justice, the right to prosecute and punish criminals by pursuing the full measure of the law against them. There are individuals who have committed, and there will be more in the future who will commit, the most despicable criminal acts against another fellow human being, or society in general. They certainly must be called to account. Society needs to be protected from them. But the main question in the pursuit of justice for those who have been cruelly wronged and victimized is not whether we have developed perfectly sophisticated and gentle execution mechanisms. Instead, we should ask if there are better ways which should replace retributional and avenging justice with those that are redemptive and restorative.
In societies that take pride in their adherence to the principles of democracy and spiritual rootedness in Jesus of Nazareth, the search for a better way should become a priority. Our understanding of the supremacy of God’s revelation through Jesus ought to lead us into understanding that the ultimate inspiring insights to shape our societies should not be the ancient “eye-for-an-eye” practices, but rather Jesus’ humanism that teaches us to seek justice through the instruments of repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation.
These are not abstract spiritual categories regarding the salvation of souls alone, but also the superior and applicable principles needed for the formation of an ever more humane society, should we take Jesus seriously. Enlightened by his character that inspires every follower of Jesus to love his/her neighbor and reject sin rather than the sinner, we should begin to see that legalized killing – even of the most deserving murderer – is not Jesus’ way of appeasing justice, and that the death penalty carried out in any manner still bears the stamp of a barbarian vengeful killings and tribal reprisals which were never of a divine design. And to keep on excusing it on account of Old Testament practices – as if those would make it right – would in our time meet Jesus’ reproach: “It was because of the hardness of their hearts that Moses allowed them to do so, but because of me you should know better.”
Rather than holding onto the cynical practice of placing inmates sentenced to die on death rows for ten, fifteen, twenty and more years as they wait for their execution, a dignifying and ethically superior way would be to transform all that time, energy and material means into a form of intentional and formative educational punishment – morally and spiritually redemptive, potentially transformational and prospectively restorative.
Tihomir Kukolja, Houston TX, USA, January 15, 2008
16 Comments
Is it ok to kill for a noble purpose? Are there noble killings?
I take it you oppose death penalties on moral grounds. If so what do you do with the 105 death penalties God gave in the OT to His people?
I do not oppose it in theory but I could not vote in jury to support it in the instance of the accused because most evidence is circumstantial and rarely do we have 2-3 credible eye witnesses. In the OT the witness had his credibility tested and if proved he was guilty of perjury then the penalty that would have fallen on the accused fell on the accuser.
John – But what about thousands killed by Israelites in the Old Testament, including children and women? What was their guilt? Only because they did not belong to the chosen people?
Tihomir – The Old Testamtn talks about thousands killed, most of them very brutally (without the help of painless modern technology), in the name of God. Killers believed God had told them to do so. If you oppose death penalty, do you oppose the will of God as reveled in the Bible?
The Canaanites had passed their probation and the only way that God could prevent Israel from backsliding, intermarrying, etc., was to start with a clean slate. They did not obey God and many Canaanites remained and Israel backslid.
]
I have no problem with God having those whose probation had closed die at the His hand or that of Israel or other supernatural means, which did happen. They were not killed simply because they were not Israelites. Many Israelites died with the 105 death penalties and remember 2 of Aaron’s sons died for making strange fire and Achaan touched the sacred ark and died on the spot.
If there were truly innocent redeemable people then they will be saved. An early death is not the worst thing.Jesus suffered it and innocently.
You misquote me when you write I oppose the death penalty. Read it again and know where I stand. It is just that the circumstances today are so iffy that I could not know for a certainty that someone is guilty to should be put to death. If there is a lingering question then jurors are instructed to vote not guilty. That is where I would be.
Gentlemen, you have gone somewhat away from the main theme, but not completely. Considering the killing accounts from the pages of the Old Testament, many of those would for sure qualify today as genocide.
Let me set a platform on which I am trying to build my understanding of Christian ethics.
What about taking God’s revelation as progressive throughout human history, not in a sense that God changes but rather that He speaks to changing human race defected by sin, cultural and other limitations, biases, hardness of its heart, even stupidity and bound to twist around event the best of God’s intentions. So that throughout the human history we have been having serious problems with understanding his will, except through the most radical revelation demonstrated in His Son, Jesus Christ. In other words, our human history needed a culminating revelation of Jesus, as the Father’s final revelation and reference point to human race, in order to place all the preceding and following revelations in the right perspective. This is why Jesus could claim about every single thing “You were told… but I tell you..”.
This leads me to a conclusion that the entire Old Testament experience, practices etc should be read through Jesus’ spectacles and not the other way round. Therefore we should interpret Jesus through the incidents and accidents of the Old Testament, but rather the Old Testament should be examined and interpreted through Jesus.
I must admit I have a problem with certain offensive portions of the Old Testament, such as the cases of genocidal behavior of the chosen people, supposedly commissioned by God. But I deal with them by admitting to myself that they are offensive and hard to understand. Then I look at Jesus and say to Him and myself: “Lord, whatever I know about you tells me that there is nothing genocidal about you and the Father.” In short, I do not tend to take everything in the Old Testament at their face value. I am trying to read the OT pages through the eyes of Jesus as their final authority. And there is more than enough about him in the Gospels and the New Testament pages to go around.
So, it is from this perspective that I like to see the issues related to capital punishment. The issues of ethics and morality are much clearer from the perspective of Jesus than from the practices recorded in the Old Testament. And as I behold the character of Jesus I do not see in him anything that would authorize any human being or human system to take a life of another person.
Of course, Jehovah of the OT was Jesus of the NT so when He says “I change not” does that mean what He said?
I think so.
We can choose to chalk up things that are unpleasant to us as a poor revelation or make it “supposedly.”
I think that opens a very dangerous door.
I don’t find that consistent with the Scripture. It almost reminds me of the Ostrich sticking its head in the sand, pardon the expression. And Christ did not every single time say, “You were told, but I tell you. . . ” seems oversimplified.
I have looked for those references and I cannot find them. I find the words but not as you have quoted them. If you could share those with me perhaps I can better understand where you are coming from.
Since you feel God did not authorize man to kill any other man, does that mean God did not kill Aaron’s sons who offered strange fire? And will He kill the lost at the end?
Do you view an abortion as killing?
Where does this philosophy take you?
I take it you are a teacher.
More on the subject: http://thatperspectives.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/lethal-injection-on-trial/
We learn ethics and grow morally stronger by beholding Jesus Christ then by following the letter of the Law, including the entire Old Testament spectrum. A follower of Jesus learns to know what is morally and ethically sound not so much because the Law and the Old Testament have defined so well, but because in Jesus he has received the will of God displayed in the most graphic way. I like the following statement (despite the author) “The heart of New Testament ethics is Christ Himself in all that he was, said and did. He is the good Shepherd, the Light of the World, the Way, the Truth, the Life, the Wisdom of God, the Bread of Life, and the Word. He is all those things and more which Judaism traditionally ascribed to the Law of Moses.” (Robert D. Brinsmead, The Heart of the New Testament Ethics, Verdict, January 1982.) Thus, in Jesus Christ, rather then in the Law / Old Testament, one receives the ultimate moral enlightenment and education.
From this perspective one can say that Jesus’ authoritative statements “You were told… but I tell you” apply to much more than just those few incidents listed in Matthew chapter 5. In fact they apply to the entire spectrum of human behaviour/ethics placing Jesus’ authority above the authority of the Old Testament. Following the principles of Jesus’ ethics does not make it easier on us. It teaches us, however, to be more honest to ourselves and God, and to understand better the holistic nature of morality.
For example, learning ethics on the basis of the letter of the Law, easily creates moral hypocrites who are over-religious in some areas, while completely blind elsewhere. This is why today we have so many Christians around us who may quite as well be very devout Evangelical fundamentalists, justifying preemptive wars, torture of war prisoners, racial segregation, social programs that make rich even richer and the poor ever poorer, etc etc, while at the same time they are completely oblivious about their duty towards our environment, peacemaking, reconciliation, the poor and otherwise unfortunate. But by beholding Jesus our duty towards our neighbors becomes much more clearer, and we find less excuse for the pursuit of selective morality. It was on such basis that most of the social reformers throughout the history pursued different kinds of moral reforms. Had they based their understanding regarding the nature of social evils on the Old Testament concepts alone, the so called first world countries would very likely still have major problems with slavery, child labor, racial segregation, etc…
The best of human beings has so much residual sin and we are all so steeped in sin that we can no longer see the perfection God planned for the world and His creatures and which He envisages will return when He “Create[s] a new heaven and a new earth where righteousness dwells.”
We all forget that the due “wages of sin is death,” and that, as far as the law of God is concerned, “He that is guilty in one point is guilty of all.” So God is entitled to bring judgment upon us at any time but in His covenanted long-suffering love, He mercifully prolongs our days to give us opportunity for redemption.
Why do we so easily criticize God for visiting summary judgment on those OT parties that so steadfastly defied His laws. They pursued His people but also pursued personal wickedness in sexual depravity, offering their own babies as sacrifices, and generally pursuing their own interests at whatever cost to others.
OTOH we readily forget that a more pervasive theme of the OT is that of God’s longsuffering love in the face of persistent rebellion. This was not only so for Israel, as shown by Gen 15:16 for instance where it says, “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.” So God persisted with redemptive opportunities for centuries until He visited His judgments on nations.
The culpability of those He judged elicits Jesus’ agonized cry, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem! How often would I have gathered you as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings and you would not.”
So, while it may appear that God issues summary justice, the evidence shows Him to be slow to anger. Never the less people persist in their wrongdoing simply because God’s judgment is not executed speedily. (Eccl 8:11)
So where does that leave us in relation to capital punishment?
We are no longer in the situation where God speaks directly or through the Urim and Thummim on the High Priest’s vestments. Mistakes will sometimes be made so it seems to me that ideally capital punishment is off limits. And when governments think they have the right to take life to protect their citizens we yield to their judgment but reserve the right to protest and agitate for change.
And, finally, we recognize that the final judgment is in God’s hands and this life is temporary at best and a better life is promised where
justice reigns.
Jesus came to seek and to save that which was lost. He came, not to condemn the world but to provide redemption for the guilty.
John, well said. The supreme authority of God to give and take life should not be questioned. But neither should we today presume lightly that, under God’s authority or because of it, we or our human institutions have right to kill other people. Too many innocent people have paid by their lives, and too many serious criminals walk free.
John, your commentary, like many other Christian commentaries, start with a preposition that since God is the one speaking in the Bible, it must have been by God’s direct order that many were killed in the Old Testament times, including the whole groups of people, children, women… It seems that this was ok then since God was directing the actions of his people, while today the same would be wrong because the current governments are not in direct communication with God? Did I understand your argument right?
I would like to pursue the principles of Protestantism that everything needs to be subjected to critical testing, including the literal understanding of the Scriptures. The key of hermeneutics to be applied here is very crucial indeed. For me this is Jesus of Nazareth. That means that Jesus Christ is the measure of the real God. All other revelations, including those recorded in the Old and New Testaments, need to be checked against the Revelation of God as it is in the person of Jesus, as revealed in the Gospels.
Tihomir, I am having difficulty whit what I perceive you are trying to write.
You are suggesting, I believe, that when Christ said, “You have been told… but I tell you”, that what Christ, as Jehovah, in the Old Testament said, was replaced by what he said in the New Testament?
I do not believe what Christ said in the New Testament replaced what He said in the Old Testament for that would contradict that God never changes.
I see his reference to the OT as an endorsement of what was said and what He said in the NT as an expansion of what was given in the OT.
John, let me put my arguments this way.
While it is true that the covenant of grace liberates a person from the claims of the law, it never produces a morally indifferent believer. Nor does it encourage new creative ways of sinning whereby one would sin more abundantly in order that “grace may increase”. At their fundamental levels the Old Testament ethical expectations are not different from those of Jesus of the New Testament; for a vice will never become a virtue, nor will decency ever turn into corruption.
However, there is a difference. Beholding Jesus sharpens one’s moral perception by making it more focused, refined and honest. Thanks to Jesus Christ, the final revelation and declaration of God to man (Hebrews 1:1.2.), in Him we receive not only a complete redemption, but also the clearest interpretation and incentive for continuous and deliberate moral renewal. Since Jesus is also the Law of God Incarnate, as soon as He becomes accepted as the Lord, He also becomes one’s authority in all matters of human moral conduct.
Thus the key question is not if there is a contradiction between Jesus of the New Testament and the Lord of the Old Testament, but does Jesus, as revealed in the Gospel, removes the cloud and the veil of unclarity that does exist in the Old Testament, if taken out of the context of the revelation of Jesus.
I like the Paul’s statement in 2. Corinthians 3:14-16. ” Their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read. It has not been removed, because only in Christ is it taken away. Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts. But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.” (NIV)You do not go from a shadow to the real thing, only to go back to its shadow.
The redeemed will be overcomers (over sin) and will be commandment keepers… I think for me to come to your position you are asking me to delete the first part of the description of those who are saved. Can’t and won’t do that. But you are always free to believe anything you like. We can still be friends who do not agree.
I am not able to replace the law with Christ. I am able to amplify it through the life of Christ. The law is a description of God, ultimately coming down to Loving God and our neighbors as ourselves.
Do the wicked die? If so, how and is it consistent with your view that capital punishment is wrong? By the way the destruction of the wicked is the ultimate capital punishment from which none are revived. To take the position that there was confusion in the OT with Christ serving as Jehovah is to charge Him with duplicity. Can’t do that.
Being against the capital punishment does not necessarily mean that someone is denying God his supreme right to be a righteous God who at times has to take away the lives of some people or even groups of people. His judgments are totally based on objectivity. I believe in the final judgment, whatever form and shape it takes. But this should not necessarily mean that we should be given authority to deprive other people of their lives so lightly. Governments, movements, armies, criminal groups, individuals have claimed – supported by different political, national, religious and other materialistic ideologies – almost divine attributes in their treatment of those who are not in agreement with them, acting as if the lives of people are ordinary and disposable commodities. I have no problem whatsoever with God having the supreme authority in the matters of life and death, but would never entrust a man with such authority.