Scott "Scumbag" Peterson Puts Death Penalty Back in the Headlines

This is another chapter in our on-going Death Penalty Debate, which begins here.

This is a response to a call for Peterson's execution by Bob Enyart, host of radio call-in show "Bob Enyart Live." Enyart's flyer is reprinted word-for-word in the left column, our response is in the right column.

Two things can be said in general.
First, most opposition to capital punishment is unBiblical. This doesn't mean that capital punishment is Biblical, only that the most popular and widely-heard arguments against it are unBiblical. Enyart rightly criticizes unBiblical arguments against capital punishment.
Second, the Scott Scumbag Peterson case is just a drop in the bucket. The purpose of this webpage is bigger than this one case. Anyone who doesn't have a direct and personal relationship to the families involved in this case shouldn't focus on the details of the Peterson case, but should be looking at the Big Picture.

What is the most Biblical argument against capital punishment? Get your Bible out and look at each of the texts in the box at right. Circle the word "blood" whenever it occurs. Now consider two passages in more depth.

The most Biblical argument for capital punishment is that the blood of Jesus cannot cleanse the land of the shedding of innocent blood, and that the blood of either a heifer (in the case of an unsolved homicide) or the murderer himself (if convicted under two or three witnesses) must be shed.
The most Biblical argument against capital punishment is that the blood of heifers and murderers does nothing to bring atonement after Christ shed His blood on Calvary. Only the blood of Christ will cleanse our land.

Here is the Big Picture: last year in the United States there were fewer than 20,000 murders that were considered "illegal" by the government. But during the 20th century, there were about that many people murdered each and every single day with the approval of the government. Four thousand unborn babies are murdered every day in America, with 8 or 9 times as many murdered in the "former" Soviet Union, and with China implementing a forced-abortion policy that probably murders even more babies. Excluding abortions, governments in the 20th century murdered an average of 10,000 people per day throughout the century. That number can be expected to increase dramatically in this century if present trends continue.

In our desire to protect ourselves from a handful of murderers like Scott Scumbag Peterson, we have created a monster and entrusted our safety to this monster. Instead of each of us hiring our own security agencies, we have a "social contract" with a monopolist who promises security, but has delivered the exact opposite. Actually, we have created lots of these monsters, who are joining together into a "New World Order." America has been transformed from a Christian Republic into a Secular Empire, and this atheistic empire is now leading the transformation of the world into a "New American Century" in which all these monsters are effectively controlled by Insiders who are at war with Christianity.

Does the Bible require us to have a monopoly of security which we call "the government?"

No.

 New Testament Support for Executing Scott [Scumbag] Peterson

 Many people who oppose capital punishment believe that it is "old testamentish" and that the New Testament did away with capital punishment because it was mean, and the New Testament is much nicer. Enyart wants to show that the New Testament is just as mean as the Old Testament.

By Bob Enyart Pastor, Denver Bible Church

“[A governing official] does not bear the sword in vain;
for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath…”  Romans 13:4

 Our analysis of Romans 13 begins here.
Question:  Do any New Testament personalities or books support execution?
Answer:     Jesus, Paul, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, Revelation, and even an angel all support the death penalty.		 The first step to understanding "capital punishment" is to grasp the distinction between "executions" and "shedding blood." The Bible does not command "executions" as a neutral, sterile, judicial "punishment." Beginning in Genesis 9, the Old Testament requires atonement. For most sins, atonement could be made by bringing an animal to the temple to shed the animal's blood. For other, more heinous crimes, atonement could only be secured by shedding the blood of the criminal himself.

Some Christians reject the death penalty for Scott [Scumbag] Peterson on the grounds that:

 Some of the grounds for rejecting "capital punishment" which Enyart lists below are faulty, some are not.
   • Jesus repealed eye-for-an-eye punishment Like divorce, the "eye-for-eye" law was given because of the hardness of Israel's heart. No serious Christian scholar would say that if I get mad at you and put a baseball bat through your car window, the Christian thing for you to do would be to put a baseball bat through my window.
   • Christians must forgive criminals Christians plainly must forgive criminals, whether or not their sins are "crimes" in the eyes of the state. My duty to forgive and the sinner's duty to make restitution are not mutually exclusive.
   • Christians should not judge  I agree with Enyart: Christians are commanded to judge.
   • Christians should not repay evil for evil Most people who want to see capital punishment want to repay evil for evil. They call this "closure" rather than that which the Bible calls closure: repentance, restitution, and restoration.
   • Only those without sin can enforce execution A misstatement of the Biblical requirement.
   • God commanded, “Thou shall not kill” But God also commanded that the blood of murderers be shed.

Read the rarely-considered New Testament passages below, and then re-evaluate these arguments against execution.

  

The Death Penalty Debate

  

Scott [Scumbag] Peterson murdered his wife Laci and their son Conner.  If given life in prison, as punishment the government would feed, clothe, educate, medicate, entertain, and legally represent him for the rest of his life.  Laci’s family would pay taxes in part, to keep Peterson comfortable, warm in winter and cool in summer.  Will that type of punishment put fear into the hearts of other would-be murderers?

 Modern prisons are a sham.

Some oppose the death penalty on practical grounds, arguing that it is not a deterrent.  However, in the late sixties, when there were an average of 6,000 murders a year, the United States Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as unconstitutional in the way it was administered.  Six years later, when it was reinstituted in the early seventies the number of average annual murders had jumped to nearly 16,000 victims per year.

 Nihilists are bent on suicide. "Capital punishment" does not deter those who do not respect any life, even their own. The number of abortions that took place last year was much larger than the number in 1973. This isn't solely because of Roe v. Wade (though that's obviously important). At that time there was a great stigma attached to out-of-wedlock births, even though there was no criminal penalty attached to illegitimacy. Today there is virtually no stigma attached to illegitimate pregnancies. That was not because of a change in the penal code. The Supreme Court has said local schools cannot teach children that God says "Thou shalt not kill." Some school-aged kids kill because it's "cool." Government-killing will not reverse this culture of death.

In countries like Saudi Arabia, which enforce a swift and certain death penalty, violent crime is rare.  Singapore and Los Angeles have equivalent populations, yet in one year Singapore had 58 murders (some followed by swift execution) while Los Angeles had 1,063.  Criminal sub-cultures like the Mafia show that the death penalty deters even career criminals, since few will ever double-cross their superiors, fearing the repercussions.

 Who wants to live in Saudi Arabia or Singapore? Who wants to live under the thumb of the Mafia??

Sure, we could live in a totalitarian dictatorship where 50% of the population are armed government thugs who monitor the other 50% of the population 24-7. Violations are instantly punished with torture and public execution. Would this deter crime? Absolutely! Who wants this? These are Christian models?

Main article: Laws of Singapore

Laws in Singapore are generally strict and aimed at instilling a self-disciplined society with restrictions and harsh punishments for example caning and execution. Even the idea has been poked fun at by its citizens by using the saying "Singapore is a fine country", whereas the "fine" actually refers to a monetary fine.

Magazines, movies and TV shows have to undergo government censorship before being released to the general public and sales of several kinds of newspapers and magazines has been banned or restricted. Various minor offences could lead to heavy fines and caning while conviction of first-degree murder and drug trafficking cases instantly leads to the death penalty.

Where does the Bible prescribe death for selling drugs? See "U.S.-Approved Mass Murder," in James Bovard, The Bush Betrayal, pp. 143-147. (more)

Others oppose the death penalty on moral grounds.  Some Christians base their arguments on statements made by Jesus Christ and therefore many listen attentively.  These arguments often intimidate good people into shying away from execution.  Many Christians claim society should forgive criminals and instruct them to “go and sin no more.”  Ideas have consequences and the popularity of this idea parallels a huge sustained crime epidemic.

 The most important idea in our culture is not "We should kill criminals." The most important idea is "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Moral absolutes. Today's students don't know whether there is any such thing as crime at all. The "crime epidemic" is a result of removing religion and morality from public schools. We have forgotten that this is the most important feature of education. Converting America into a police state and executing someone every day will not make up for secular schools and the loss of respect for life.

There is a right way to deter criminals and to end America’s crime epidemic.  Consider:

  

“Will you profane Me [asks the LORD] killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live…?”
—God, Ezekiel 13:19

 This passage is not talking about capital punishment. It's talking about prophets who destroy the hope of the Godly by assuring the evil that God's judgment will not come upon them. God judges the wicked by raising up violent armies like the Assyrians, who judged Israel (Isaiah 10:1-11). But these acts of destruction are contrary to God's Commandments, and God destroys His own executioners for their evil deeds (Isaiah 10:12ff.). Many people have trouble understanding how God could send evil and then judge the evil He sent. But this is the consistent teaching of Scripture, not that we should want to sign up for the Assyrian Army, or turn Israel into an Assyrian Police State.

Jesus affirmed the Mosaic Law and He blasted the Pharisees for opposing God’s commands:

 Enyart also opposes the Mosaic Law. He says we are not under the law. He does not agree with writers like R.J. Rushdoony and the Christian Reconstructionists who advocate government implementation of the Mosaic Law in every area of life.

Of course, one cannot faithfully implement the Mosaic law in our day without recognizing the change in priesthood that occurred with the coming of the Messiah. As Bahnsen puts it,

The Levitical priesthood, representing the Mosaic system of ceremonial redemption, could not bring perfection and so was intended to be superseded (Heb. 7:11f.,28) . . . . The former commandment with reference to ceremonial matters was set aside . . . in order that God's people might have a better hope, for the ceremony was imperfect and kept men at a distance from God (Heb. 7:18f.). [S]uch a change in stipulation is also a confirmation of the Older Testamental law as implied in Psalm 110:1,4. (Theonomy, pp. 208-209).

Of course, in a sense, all of the Old Testament Laws are still binding upon us. For example, we are still responsible to bring before God the blood of a sacrificial lamb. But we also know that that Lamb is Christ (John 1:29). It makes sense, then, to expect, for example, that most of the Old Testament laws concerning the shedding of blood find their satisfaction in Christ.

“Why do you also transgress the command­ment of God because of your tradition?  For God commanded, saying... `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’  But you say...”  —Jesus, Matthew 15:3-4
“For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men...”  [Jesus] said to them, “…you reject the commandment of God…  For Moses said, `Honor your father and your mother’; and `He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’  But you say...”  —Jesus, Mark 7:8-11

 (Leviticus 20:9) For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

One commentator writes:

The term {yekallel} signifies not only to curse, but to speak contemptuously, disrespectfully, or to make light of a person: so that all speeches which have a tendency to lessen our parents in the eyes of others, or to render their judgment, piety, etc., suspected or contemptible, is here included; though the act of cursing, or of treating the parent with injurious or opprobrious language, is what is particularly intended. He who conscientiously keeps the fifth commandment, can be in no danger of the judgment here denounced.

Jesus reaffirmed even the harshest of Israel’s capital statutes.  While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals (not from the Greek kleptes a thief, but lestes a hardened criminal).  Christ said nothing in their defense. 

  Luke does not use the word lestes, which is often translated "robber." A "thief" does his work in secret ("as a thief in the night"), a "robber" openly. Does Biblical Law call for the execution of robbers?

Christ is famous for saying nothing in his own defense. Should we conclude from this that Christ was justly executed?
One of those two mocked Christ.  In re­sponse, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said, “we indeed [are punished] justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds” (Luke 23:41). The thief only meant to say that Jesus did nothing while the criminals had done something to deserve punishment. It is wrong to press the statement of the thief into a public policy calling for the execution of robbers. That would not be upholding the Mosaic Law.

Angels in heaven agree with just execution:

  

“And I heard the angel… saying:  ‘O Lord… You have judged these things.  For they have shed the blood of saints... and You have given them blood to drink.  For it is their just due.’“  —An Angel, Revelation 16:5-6

 Blood was required in the Old Testament. Not after Christ.

God will equip the two witnesses in Revelation to execute those trying to harm them.

  

And if anyone wants to harm them, he must be killed…  Revelation 11:5

 There mere desire to kill is punishable by death? So Scott Scumbag Peterson should be executed if he merely wanted to kill Laci, whether he actually did or not? 

The rest of Revelation 11:5 -- And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. Scott Scumbag Peterson should be burned to death? With fire out of whose mouth?

Revelation penman the Apostle John also taught that you reap what you sow:

  

“...he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword.  Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”  –John, Revelation 13:10

 (Revelation 13:10) He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

If the Soviet Union had succeeded in its war against Afghanistan, and taken Afghanis captive to Moscow, should Gorbachev have been punished by being sent captive to Patmos?

Matthew 26:52
Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.

The Apostle Paul did not object to execution.  He knew and defended his rights as a Roman citizen.  Yet while on trial, he volunteered an endorsement of capital punishment to the Caesarean Governor:

 His appeal and invocation of Roman citizenship was a mistake.

(Acts 26:32) Then said Agrippa unto Festus, This man might have been set at liberty, if he had not appealed unto Caesar.

“For if I am an offender, or have committed anything deserving of death, I do not object to dying…”  —Paul, Acts 25:11

 This is a logical fallacy. Anyone confident of his innocence could say the same thing -- even someone who doesn't believe in the moral legitimacy of capital punishment.

God said, “Vengeance is Mine” showing that vengeance is inherently good.  Individuals are not to avenge themselves, but must allow God to avenge in His way:

 Vengeance taken by human beings is inherently bad.

“Repay no one evil for evil.  …do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord.”  –Paul, Romans 12:17, 19

 Study vengeance.

Look up the cross-references.

Paul instructs us not to seek our own revenge, but to “give place to wrath.”  Paul then explains that the proper channel for wrath is the “governing authorities.”  The place for wrath is government:

 Using a phrase like "governing authorities" sanitizes the evil done by those who take vengeance, because our allegiance to the State is greater than our allegiance to God. Those who take vengeance are judged. Taking vengeance is a sin. God uses sinners. Evil-doers serve God's purposes. God then judges these "deacons." God ordains evil.

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities...  For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.”  –Paul, Romans 13:1, 3

  

Godly rulers are a terror to evildoers.  God commands earthly governments to execute criminals with the sword:

  The "sword" was not a symbol of an individual penal sanction. It was a symbol of war.

“For [the governing authority] is God’s minister…  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”
–Paul, Romans 13:4

 In Isaiah chapters 10, 13, and elsewhere, God describes pagan armies as His "ministers" because they "serve" His purposes. In only a few years after Paul wrote to the Romans, God's "ministers" would invade Jerusalem and bring God's judgment.

A sword beheads; it does not flog.

 Does Enyart demand beheading rather than the electric chair? 

Paul instructs believers to “not avenge” themselves, “but rather give place to wrath.”

  

Governments are the place for wrath for they are “God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath.”  Individuals have one role, governments another.

 If I want to take vengeance on my enemy, can I hire someone to do it for me? Are individuals allowed to vote for politicians who will order capital punishment for their enemies? Do governments appear out of thin air? What is the moral distinction between "personal vengeance," a "hired hit-man," and an "elected representative?"

If I am not allowed to take vengeance, am I allowed to stand before a jury of my peers and urge them with all the passion I can muster to take vengeance for me? If I am a juror and one of my peers asks me to take vengeance for him, should I do so? If I am the king, can I take vengeance on my enemies as long as I do not do so in my "private" capacity, but only in my capacity as "the king?" If I live in a democracy am I allowed to take vengeance on my enemies if I hire a consultant, run a campaign, and get "voters" to "elect" me executioner?

The author of the book of Hebrews also supports the death penalty.  The certainty of an earthly punishment under the Mosaic Law indicates the sureness of an eternal punishment for those who reject Jesus Christ:

 Would the author of Hebrews support capital punishment under any and every circumstance?

“Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies [present tense] without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses.  Of how much worse punishment, do you suppose, will he be thought worthy who has trampled the Son of God underfoot...”  Hebrew 10:28-29

  

Execution teaches men of the certainty of God’s eternal punishment.  When government neglects the death penalty, people scoff at the second death.

 This is false. The writer to the Hebrews is urging people not to scoff at the Son, yet they had capital punishment. The Hebrews rejected the Son, but it wasn't because they didn't have capital punishment. Conversely, people who listen to the Son don't need capital punishment.
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

“Be afraid of the sword for yourselves; for wrath brings the punishment of the sword, that you may know there is a judgment.”  Job 19:29

 This passage actually teaches the opposite. Job was not worried about physical punishment.

Job 19
26And I'll see Him--even though I get skinned alive!-
27see God myself, with my very own eyes.
Oh, how I long for that day!

28"If you're thinking, "How can we get through to him,
get him to see that his trouble is all his own fault?'
29Forget it. Start worrying about yourselves.
Worry about your own sins and God's coming judgment,
for judgment is most certainly on the way."

“The righteous shall rejoice when he sees the vengeance…  So that men will say, ‘... Surely He is God who judges in the earth.’“  Ps. 58:10-11

  Psalm 58
10  The (1) righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance;  He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

Will Bob Enyart wash his feet in Scott Scumbag Peterson's blood?

If Jesus supports the death penalty, why did He say “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first,” regarding the adulteress?  She repented, and God can forgive criminals as He forgave David; yet in neither Testament did He thereby repeal the law.  Further, the Pharisees here tried to trick Jesus (John 8:6) into a conflict with Pilate since the Romans had revoked the Jews’ authority to put a criminal to death (John 18:31).

 John 8 does not support modern anti-capital punishment advocates. Nor does it support capital punishment. 
Did Jesus repeal the law in His sermon?  

“You have heard that it was said, `An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’  But I tell you… whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”  Mat. 5:38-39

  

In the Sermon on the Mount Christ spoke of individual “heart” attitudes, not governmental criminal policy. 

 So then the only people who can work for the government are those whose hearts are in rebellion against Christ.
Further, with the above construction, He did not outlaw punishment, just as He did not repeal prohibitions against murder or adultery when He said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not murder, and…’ `You shall not commit adultery...’ But I say to you…” (Mat. 5:21-22, 27-28).  

When Jesus said, “Judge not… [you] hypocrite” (Mat. 7:1, 5) He spoke to criminals.  But to His followers He commanded “judge with righteous judgment” (John 7:24) and complimented “You have rightly judged” (Luke 7:43).  “He who is spiritual judges all things” (1 Cor. 2:15) said Paul.

 Enyart is completely correct when he says the Bible does not prohibit being "judgmental." We need a more judgmental society. This is what will reduce crime, not more executions and a Police State. Being judgmental must begin the day the would-be murderer is born (Psalm 58:3).

Jesus taught: “If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him” (Luke 17:3).  Jesus authorizes you to forgive those who “sin against you,” not those who murder your neighbor. 

 Jesus doesn't just "authorize" me to forgive, He commands me to forgive (Matthew 18:35). But if I am not "authorized" to forgive Scumbag Peterson, am I authorized to execute him? Hire a hit-man? Vote for the "pro-life" candidate who promises to execute all my enemies?
Only God and the victim can forgive a murderer.  And God will forgive him only “if he repents.” Surely Enyart is not saying that if Scumbag Peterson repents the State must forgive him? If Scumbag Peterson had repented before the trial began, would any witnesses have testified? Who would cast the first stone?

The Ten Commandments do not forbid killing, but “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; Mat. 19:18).  God instructs men to punish murder (unlawful homicide) with execution (lawful killing Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12; Lev. 24:17).  So God forbade murder and commanded the lawful execution of murderers.

 The Hebrew word does not always mean "murder."
(Numbers 35:25) And the congregation shall deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the congregation shall restore him to the city of his refuge, whither he was fled: and he shall abide in it unto the death of the high priest, which was anointed with the holy oil.
(Deuteronomy 4:42) That the slayer might flee thither, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live:
(Numbers 35:27) And the revenger of blood find him without the borders of the city of his refuge, and the revenger of blood kill the slayer; he shall not be guilty of blood:

“Whoever kills any man shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 24:17) “executed speedily,” added Solomon (Eccl. 8:11).  “Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer… but he shall surely be put to death” (Num. 35:31).  Only then “all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously” (Deuteronomy 17:13).

  

And since innocent life is precious, including the lives of Laci and Conner, Scott [Scumbag] Peterson should be executed.

 Life is precious. Scumbag Peterson's life is not precious. But shedding his blood will not cleanse the land of Laci's blood.


© 2004 Bob Enyart
Denver Bible Church
PO Box 583
Arvada CO 80001

Vine & Fig Tree
P.O. Box 179
Powersite, MO 65731

 

 

 

 

 

 

The New American - The "Former" Soviet Bloc - September 18, 1995