To vote for Jesus is to vote for policies that promote proportional justice, including capital punishment...

This week, we have been addressing the issue of capital punishment. We have been asking and answering the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of capital punishment? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take?"

So far, we have looked at the arguments from those on both ends of the conversation concerning Capital Punishment. We also began to look at an event from history that has been preserved and recorded for us in a section of a letter that is found in the Old Testament of the Bible called the book of Joshua.

Upon finishing the task of dividing the Promised Land amongst the twelve tribes that formed the Jewish people, the Lord God commanded Joshua to designate cities of refuge. These cities of refuge were designed to be a place where a person could seek asylum while awaiting trial for their actions that resulted in the death of another person.

We discovered that the letters that make up the Bible makes a clear distinction between killing and murder. From a biblical perspective, there is a significant difference between a person whose actions accidentally cause the death of another, which is defined as killing, and a person who plots and plans to take the life of another, which is defined as murder. In addition, the letters that make up the Bible is also very clear about the consequences that should occur when one human being acts on a thought out plan to murder another human being.

We discovered that God’s consequence for willingly and thoughtfully taking another’s life was death. Murder, was to receive a punishment that matched the crime. Today, we call this capital punishment. We also discovered that the Lord established capital punishment to demonstrate how much He values life. God cares and values life so much that He demands the life of those who would willingly take another’s life. Because mankind is created in the image of God; because mankind was designed to represent and reflect the nature and character of God on earth; and because God values all human life; He demands the life of those who would willingly take another’s life by the act of murder.

In the book of Joshua, at this time in history, how the Lord demanded the life of those who took the life of another through the act of murder in the Old Testament was through the avenger of blood. The avenger of blood usually was the closest male relative of the one who had been slain. The avenger of blood was responsible to seek retribution, or justice, and not vengeance, for the death of a member of the Jewish people.

The avenger, however, was not expected to make the distinction between murder and an accidental killing; he was simply the instrument to execute justice and punishment upon the murderer by killing the murderer. So because of the distinction that exists between killing and murder, there needed to be these cities of refuge that would provide the opportunity to be able to determine the motivation behind the actions of the accused in the death of another human being. We see the process of how this distinction was to be made and the role that the cities of refuge played in making that distinction revealed for us in Joshua 20:4-6:

'He shall flee to one of these cities, and shall stand at the entrance of the gate of the city and state his case in the hearing of the elders of that city; and they shall take him into the city to them and give him a place, so that he may dwell among them. 'Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the manslayer into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand. 'He shall dwell in that city until he stands before the congregation for judgment, until the death of the one who is high priest in those days. Then the manslayer shall return to his own city and to his own house, to the city from which he fled.'"

Here we see the process by which the Jewish people were to maintain justice and differentiate between murder and an accidental killing. A person who caused the death of another was responsible to flee as fast as possible to one of the cities of refuge. Upon arriving at the gates of the city of refuge, the person who caused the death of another was to take ones stand and make their defense as to why their actions were accidental and without previous thought or knowledge.

Upon hearing the evidence, the Elders, who were the leaders of the city, could make an initial determination that could result in the accused being brought into the city where they would be allowed to dwell and live until they faced a trial. If the avenger of blood pursued the accused to the city of refuge, the residents were not allowed to hand them over to be killed, because enough evidence was found to warrant their asylum in the city until they stood trial. The accused would remain in the city of refuge until their trial, which would occur in the city nearest to where the crime took place. The accused would then receive a trial, where they would be able to take the stand and make a defense before their fellow Jewish citizens.

If the accused was found to have committed actions that accidentally caused the death of another, their sentence would be to remain in asylum as a resident of the city of refuge until the death of the high priest. Upon the death of the high priest, the person would then be able to return to the city in which they had previously lived. If the accused was found to have committed actions that involved plotting and planning to take the life of another human being, or murder, they were to be put to death by the avenger of blood.

Now, does that process remind you of anything? In this event from history we see the concept of proportional justice. In this event from history, we see the concept of justice based of retribution, not revenge. In this event from history, we see the concepts of legal protections for both the perpetrator and the victim of a crime. In this event from history, we see the concepts of the accused being able to confront and cross examine the accuser. In this event from history, we see the concept of witness testimony. In this event from history, and throughout the letters that make up the Bible, we see many of the concepts that form the criminal justice system that the founders established here in the United States.

And it is here, in this event from history, that we discover the timeless and true answers to the questions “What policies would Jesus promote when it comes to the issue of capital punishment? Why would Jesus take the position that He would take?” And that timeless and true answer is this: To vote for Jesus is to vote for policies that promote proportional justice, including capital punishment.

You see, to vote for Jesus is to recognize that humanity has been created in the image of God, and created for relationships and to represent Him on earth. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that  humanity has been divinely designed with a dignity of life and humanity has been divinely designed with sanctity of life. To vote for Jesus is to recognize that for Jesus, the issue is not quality of life; the issue is sanctity of life. And because of that reality; because Jesus so values human life; Jesus demands the life of the one who willingly and thoughtfully takes the life of another. You see, Capital punishment is pro-life and Capital punishment promotes the sanctity of life.

In addition, to vote for Jesus is to promote policies that promote proportional justice. To vote for Jesus is to promote policies that provide legal protections for both the victim and perpetrator of the crime. This includes the ability and opportunity for the accused to being able to confront and cross examine the accuser, along with those who testify as witnesses to a crime.  To vote for Jesus is to promote policies that are motivated by the desire to punish the evil of people by providing retribution for crime, not revenge. This includes policies that promote the paying of restitution and other means to repair and restore the damage that is done through crime.

Now a natural objection that could arise here is “Well Dave, what about forgiveness? What about grace?” My response to those objections would be this: There is a difference between forgiveness and consequences. As followers of Jesus we are commanded to forgive others. However, the message and teaching of Jesus clearly reveal that there are consequences for our selfishness and rebellion, including those actions which result in crime. 

In addition, proportional justice provides those who commit crimes the opportunity to demonstrate their repentance for their criminal actions through restitution and supervision. And as followers of Jesus, we are called to be full of grace and truth, just as Jesus was full of grace and truth. And being full of grace and truth involves lovingly holding people accountable for their actions while graciously offering them the opportunity to demonstrate life change from promoting evil to doing good.

And being full of grace and truth also involves reinforcing the reality that because the Lord so values human life; the Lord demands the life of the one who willingly and thoughtfully takes the life of another.