Bryan Fischer is a Dolt (There’s No Testament Like Old Testament Edition)

Two days running, Bryan?  You think I’m just made of screediness?

In general, we associated Good with Life, and Evil with Death.  Death, killing, violence, we cringe back in pain, in discomfort, in fear.  Christians, for example, consider themselves people of Life.  Conservative Christians, for example, talk of a Culture of Life, which usually translates into being anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, but not …

… anti-death penalty.

Christianity is not, per se, pro-death penalty.  There are many more liberal denominations that consider the death penalty wrong.  And they’re joined in that by the Catholic Church and the Quakers and so forth.

But there’s something about that whole eye-for-an-eye thing that seems to hold an amazing attraction for conservative, evangelical Christians in the US. I tend to think it’s more cultural than religious, but that doesn’t keep Defenders of the Faith from trying to create a Christian case for capital punishment

Like, say, you, Bryan.

Capital punishment was instituted by God following the flood of Noah. According to Genesis 9:5-6, God says, “From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his image.”

Here God is clearly delegating his authority to man – “by man shall his blood be shed” – to carry out the death penalty for the wanton taking of innocent human life.

Actually, God says nothing about “wanton taking of innocent human life” in this passage.  He’s not delegating authority. He’s speaking of shedding the blood of any man, whether covered by civil authority or not, and warning that to instigate violence is to reap violence.  Or, as Jesus puts it later on, “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

God himself is the one who is requiring this “reckoning for the life of man,” because the murderer has destroyed someone created “in his image.” Murder defaces and destroys the image of God, and for that God demands an accounting.

Except that it’s not a reference to murder.  And, if God demands an accounting, is it an accounting that needs must be meted out by Man?  Or, as Paul wrote in Romans 12:19-21,

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.” 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.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Which refers back to Deuteronomy 32:35:  It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them.

Prior to the flood, capital punishment was not allowed as a punishment for crime or as a deterrent for homicide. In fact, God himself declared that he would take vengeance “sevenfold” on anyone who punished Cain for his cold-blooded murder of Abel (Genesis 4:15).

It is as if God was saying, “Alright, you think capital punishment is barbaric. We’ll do it your way for 1700 and see how that works out.”

That’s a very bizarre reading of Genesis 4:10-16.  The Lord isn’t out a policy of no capital punishment; he’s being specifically merciful to Cain, who’s afraid that someone will kill him for his murder of Abel (who would do that, given that there were now just three humans alive is as intriguing a question as wondering where Cain’s wife came from in the next passage).

And so mankind did, from the days of Cain until the days of Noah. How well did this kinder, gentler approach to justice work?

It lead to vigilante justice and barbarism, as men took matters of punishment into their own hands. Said Lamech, “I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. If Cain’s revenge is sevenfold, then Lamech’s is seventy-sevenfold” (Genesis 4:23-24). So vigilante justice, without God’s authorization, was almost immediately exercised for non-capital offenses.

Again, a very odd interpretation of an odd passage.  Lamech is Cain’s great-great-great-grandson (Cain having somehow founded a city and sired several generations).  Amidst the litany of begats, we have this one strange confession from Lamech who — in vengeance, or in self-defense? — has killed a couple of people (presumably also close relatives).

There’s certainly no indication in Genesis that a lack of capital punishment is leading to widespread violence.  If there is violence, it is the result of humanity’s sinful nature, the narrative would seem to say (esp. on Cain’s side of the family tree).

And by the time Noah arrived, the lack of a system of justice had so contributed to social deterioration and the collapse of character that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and…every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5). There was nothing for God to do but wipe everything out and start over.

We’ll skip past the scriptural weirdness of the “sons of God” taking the “daughters of humans,” or any discussion of the heroic Nephilim, instead, we segue on to Noah.

But God’s lament about how nassssty humanity has become doesn’t mention a system of justice or capital punishment or lack thereof.  God didn’t regret not instituting capital punishment; He regretted creating humanity altogether, and so resolved to wipe them out (along with, for some reason, all the  animals and birds and so forth).

(Note: I’m treating the text as-is, as thought it were, in fact, the dictation of God.  Not so much because I believe that’s the case, but because that’s the approach that you claim to take.  I’m not arguing whether the inerrant, literal truth of the Bible is fact or fiction, but whether, if you consider the Bible as literally true, it supports the position that you think it does, Bryan.)

It was much like finding an 18-month old carton of cottage cheese in the back of a refrigerator when the power’s been out during the heat of summer. There’s nothing to salvage. You have to dump the lot and start with a fresh container. This was the story of the flood.

Yes. Though it’s odd that, somehow, God changes His mind when faced with Noah … and somehow makes that scoopful of cottage cheese okay to save in a multi-cubit-long piece of Tupperware.

So God established a new rule following the wild, wild East of the pre-flood days. From now on, God said, murder will be dealt with through capital punishment.

See above. God says no such thing.  God says that any killing is wrong, not just extrajudicial killing, and will result in more killing.  “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed.”

This standard is re-established in the Ten Commandments, where God succinctly commands, “You shall not murder” (Exodus 20:13).

Yup.

Of course, apparently, God doesn’t mind some murders.

The King James version, “Thou shalt not kill,” has led some to erroneously believe that God was prohibiting killing of every kind, but he most certainly was not. The Sixth Commandment is specifically a command against cold-blooded murder. Killing in self-defense, war, and as punishment for murder are not only permitted but prescribed in the Scripture.

Ah.  And here’s where we go all Old Testament, as they say.

In fact, on the next page on the book of Exodus, in chapter 21, there are six specific crimes for which capital punishment is the prescribed penalty.

Actually, let’s look at those.  Since, presumably, Bryan, if you think capital punishment is okay because God says it is in the Old Testament, then presumably those cases where He dictates it are also okay for you:

1. Anyone who intentionally, deliberately, kills someone.
2. Anyone who attacks their father or mother.
3. Any kidnapper.
4. Anyone who curses their father or mother.
5. Anyone who, in the course of fighting, hits a pregnant woman who then has a miscarriage such that the baby dies.
6. Anyone who owns a bull that they know has a habit of goring people and who, not penned up, kills someone.

So I guess the obvious question, Bryan, is do you believe in the death penalty for these crimes?  If not, why not?  Use both sides of the paper if necessary.

But wait, Bryan, there’s more.  There’s a whole laundry list of capital crimes in the Old Testament.  They include (and this is just a fraction of them):

1. Deut. 22:13-25: Death to a woman found not to be a virgin at marriage; death to adulterers (man and woman both); death to a man and woman who have sex while she’s betrothed to someone else … but only if they are in a city where she could have cried for help, so if they are in the countryside, just the guy gets executed.
2. Leviticus 20:  Anyone who sacrifices their children to Moloch; anyone who curses their parents; adulterers; if a guy has sex with his father’s wife (both man and woman die); if a man has sex with his daughter-in-law (both die, too); male homosexuality (I know this one’s your favorite, Bryan); if a man marries both a woman and her mother (all of them die); bestiality (both the person and the animal get killed); mediums and spiritualists.
3. Leviticus 34:13-22: Blasphemers; “Anyone who takes the life of a human being.”
4. And a (heavenly) host of others.

So, aside from Teh Gayz (though Leviticus only specifies male homosexuals), do you agree with all of these death penalties? Is that how American law should read?

As an aside, it’s worth noting that the death penalty was mandated for participation in the slave trade: “Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:16).

In other words, if the United States had simply followed the standards found in Scripture, slaves never would have appeared on our shores, slavery never would have been an issue, and the Civil War would never have been fought. Then, as always, the Scriptures show us the way forward not just personally but politically as well.

That’s actually kind of interesting, Bryan.  Looking at a variety of Bible translations of that passage, it’s an even mix here whether we’re talking about kidnapping or slaving.  The particular translation you’ve chosen, Bryan (NASB) is the one most in line with savery.

On the other hand, arguing that Old Testament scripture makes it clear that slavery is unlawful and immoral and against the will of God is, honestly, Bryan, a bitter laugh-and-a-half.  The OT is full of rules and regulations about slaves and slavery and how to fit the institution and individuals into society, e.g.,  Exodus 21:2-11, Exodus 21:20-21. Leviticus 25:44-46.

I’m sure you’re aware that many Christian pastors and priests and reverends of the antebellum South quoted Scripture vigorously to defend their holding of slaves.  It’s  more than disingenuous of you to claim that slavery caused such pain in this nation because folks weren’t following the Bible.

Capital punishment is reaffirmed by the Apostle Paul in the book of Romans as the antidote to vigilante justice and social chaos. He tells us in Romans 12:19, “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.’” How does the Lord exact vengeance? As Paul immediately goes on to say, through the instrumentality of the state. Civil government has been invested with God’s own authority to execute justice, including capital punishment. Government “does not bear the sword in vain,” Paul says in Romans 13:4. A sword, of course, was an instrument of lethal force.

Wow.

Romans 12 is a remarkable chapter. As noted above, Romans 12:9-21 are all about avoid getting your soul all grubby with hate and anger and vengeance.

Considering all of that as a prelude to “oh, and the government can kill people it doesn’t like, and that’s all cool” shows an astonishing disregard for Paul’s actual words.

In fact, looking at Paul’s actual words, vs. your clip job, Bryan, is much more educational:

¹ Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. ²Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. ³ For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. ⁴ For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. ⁵ Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

⁶ This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. ⁷ Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It’s a bit strange of a passage — and one might be tempted to think that Paul snuck it in there to disarm accusations that he, or Christians in general, were a threat to the civil order.  Regardless, Paul is not explicitly calling out capital punishment here, but any use of force (the sword) to establish civil order and obedience to the law.

(As a side note, Bryan, what would you say to your Tea Party buddies about verses 6-7?)

And for what purpose does civil government bear the sword? Paul immediately explains: “For he is the servant of God, and avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4).

Which doesn’t say anything about capital punishment (though it does seem to address the Romans 12:19 piece).

It bears emphasizing that capital punishment is thus not just an Old Testament concept, but is reaffirmed as a principle of justice under the terms of the New Covenant in Christ.

Now, hold up there, buckaroo.

You’ve focused solely on one passage, one fraction of a chapter, in one of Paul’s epistles … and one, that, in fact, doesn’t even touch on capital punishment as a topic.

That’s hardly a reaffirmation of how Death Row is an affirmed “principle of justice under the terms of the New Covenant in Christ.”

Perhaps we should consider Jesus in this equation.

I’m no Bible scholar, but it seems to me that any time the Gospels touch on civil authority and executions, it’s not portrayed in a positive fashion.

• Herod orders the slaughter of the Innocents.  He’s the civil authority, presumably he has the right to do so.  Presumably this is a Bad Thing.
• Herod (his son) orders the arrest and execution of John the Baptist.  Not quite acting as “the avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer,” wouldn’t you say?
• The Roman authorities, at the urging of the Jewish religious leaders, order the execution of Jesus. While arguably what prophecy declared must happen, it certainly would not be considered just or righteous act from the civil authorities by any good Christian.

And here’s two more examples:

• Stephen, one of the Apostles, is accused and convicted of blasphemy, and is stoned to death, the first martyrdom mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. It’s a righteous ruling based on Levitican law, but not what most Christians would consider righteous in and of itself.
• An accused adulteress is brought before Jesus, to trap him into agreeing that she should be stoned to death (per Leviticus 20, though nobody seems to be suggesting that the dude involved should be stoned).  Jesus turns the capital crime on its head — and says ““Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Jesus refuses to condemn her.

Paul may natter on about how cool the civil authorities are, but an examination of the Gospel (and Acts) presents a negative view of the state (or social-religious) power to kill.

Solomon adds an important word of wisdom, on the subject of deterrence. Many argue – falsely it turns out – that capital punishment is no deterrent at all. Well, it certainly deters the murderer from killing anybody every again, which sounds like deterrence to me.

Deterrence usually refers to deterring others, Bryan … but, yes, killing someone prevents them from ever killing again.

But the Scripture indicates that unless capital punishment is carried out in a timely manner, it not only loses its deterrent force but actually makes things worse instead of better. “Because the sentence against an evil deed is not executed speedily, the heart of the children of man is fully set to do evil” (Ecclesiastes 8:11).

Keeping murderers and serial killers alive on Death Row for a decade or more has no deterrent effect whatsoever, and yet that’s what we’re doing. According the Bureau of Justice, the average time between sentencing and execution in America is now up to 169 months, or just over 14 years. This is up from 50 months in 1977.

By the time the sentence is carried out, the public – and potential murderers who might have had some sense scared into them – have forgotten all about the crime. There is simply no connection in the public mind between crime and capital punishment.

The lengthy time it takes from conviction to execution certainly impacts the deterrent effect of capital punishment.

But, Bryan, why are there these delays?  I mean, it’s not like there’s a law that says, “And after conviction, you have to wait for 14 years.”

That time period is taken up with both direct appeals of the case, and automatic appeals / reviews.

It’s a funny thing, Bryan … we really don’t like to take a chance that an innocent might be executed due to error or malfeasance.  It does happen, you know. So the legal process provides for appeals against any sentence, based on a variety of legitimate criteria.  And most jurisdictions have a series of automatic appeals / reviews in capital cases.

Because, Bryan, as a society, we really want to be sure we’re right before we kill someone. Because if we’re not, it’s murder, morally if not legally.

What would Jesus do, do you think, Bryan?

Contrast this, for instance, with the fate of the conspirators who worked together to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. He was assassinated on April 14, 1865. The plotters had been apprehended, tried, and hung by the neck til dead by July 6, a scant 83 days later.

Have you actually studied the history of Lincoln’s assassination, Bryan?  The trials (and executions) weren’t quite mob rule, but the next best thing to.  I’d hardly hold it up as a model of sober, considered jurisprudence.

According to an article by Billy Hallowell on The Blaze, …

Yes, Bryan, citing Glenn Beck’s personal news site is just the thing to convince us of what you say.

… there still is a significant residue of Judeo-Christian morality left when it comes to the death penalty. Gallup found in 2010 that 64% of Americans support the death penalty while just 29% oppose it. This is an encouraging result, given the relentless brainwashing from the left to convince us otherwise. (It’s worth noting that as recently as 1995, the split with 80-16 in favor of executing murderers.)

You know, you could just cite Gallup. (And in 1967, the majority were actually opposed to the death penalty.)

And, of course, I would contest whether this actually reflects Christian morality, or something darker and more bloody.

Bizarrely, in 2004 fewer people who went to church weekly favored the death penalty (65%) compared to those who never went (71%). This is likely due to the way in which the gospel of Christ has been feminized by the modern church, all its firm edges sanded off in order not to offend. It’s sobering to think that people outside the church have a more biblical view of justice than those inside the church, which certainly is an indictment of the teaching coming from America’s pulpits.

Y’know, Bryan, I just love the way you think.  If folks favor your belief, then obviously it’s “Judeo-Christian morality.”  If actual church-going Christians are less enthusiastic, then it’s obviously some sort of sobering plot by those liberal bastards who are feminizing Jesus.

No doubt if they really oppose you, it’s blasphemy, and they ought to be stoned. Ahem.

Critics argue that capital punishment demonstrates a low view of the value of human life. It’s exactly the reverse. It is imposing the death penalty that enables a culture to declare its highest regard for life. With the death penalty, society says that human life is so valuable that if someone takes a human life without just cause he must forfeit his own life in return.

“We had to destroy the village in order to save it” went out with Viet Nam, Bryan.  Declaring a value for some ideal of human life by ending other human lives (even ones we find reprehensible) is hardly a rational argument.

Justice truly is, as the book of God’s truth says, “Life for life.”

Deuteronomy 19:21: Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

Matthew 5:38-39: You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.

I know which Scripture I’m more inclined to try to follow, even though I know I’ll fall short.

I don’t claim to be selfless enough to not want a murderer at least put in prison to prevent him from killing again.  My concern for my loved ones, and my neighbors, dictates doing what’s necessary to protect them against those known to be predators.

But justice demands we only punish and restrain as much as is necessary.  Capital punishment, even in an idyllic, perfect world (which this isn’t, see below) is not that minimum necessity.

*     *     *

It’s worth noting (once I get out of proof-text mode) that I’m not necessarily averse to capital punishment on principle.  I think there are crimes that warrent it, and I consider it, in some ways, both a safer and less cruel punishment than life behind bars.  Perhaps it’s my universalist streak, but I tend to think that, for some folks, the sooner they meet their Maker, the better.

My objections to the death penalty are not philosophical, but practical: I have zero faith that all, or even most, of the folks on Death Row actually deserve to be there.  There have been too many statistical studies showing that minorities and other “undesirables” are much more likely to be condemned to death for the same crime as a majoritarian accused (in most cases, a white man).  And there have been, even more damningly, too many cases were condemned prisoners were positively exonerated of their crimes — and far too many of those cases showing prosecutorial malfeasance in order to score a guilty verdict.

That fourteen years delay before execution, Bryan? It’s a feature, not a bug.

I am possibly willing to allow the death penalty with the studiously minimized possibility (even if it can never be zero) of an innocent mistake being made.  That’s the way humanity bounces.  But there’s too many indicators that the mistakes that are made are far too large in number, and too many of them are definitely not innocent.  Whether I argue from Scripture or from some pragmatic valuation of human life, it’s just not the right thing to do.

Unless you’re Old Testament-obsessed, Bryan. In which case, sure, it makes sense.