Thru the Bible - Questions & Answers

Guest (Male): Is capital punishment Christian? Some say yes, while others say no. But what does the Bible say about this issue? Well, stay with us and find out.

This is the Questions and Answers program, a ministry of the Thru the Bible Radio Network, with our teacher Dr. J. Vernon McGee, who for over 30 years answered the questions from his listeners, providing strong biblical answers to be heard for generations to come. Today, we have two very important issues being dealt with by Dr. McGee, so let's get right to them. The first comes from a listener in Apple Creek, Ohio, who writes, "Why do you believe in capital punishment? Would you please discuss this issue?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: Well, that's what we're going to do right now, and this party apparently has heard us say somewhere along the line that we do believe in capital punishment. And I want to say that we do believe in it, and we believe that it is Christian. We believe it's a mark of a civilized society, and we believe that when criminals are not punished, that you have a barbaric and you have an uncivilized society. And we almost have that today, unfortunately.

Now, first of all, let me say this. And I wish this party had been just a little bit more specific, but I think I can give a rundown on what is in the mind of this person. I'm sure that one of the things that is in your mind is the fact that the thing that's used mostly by those who use the Bible, they say, "Well, the sixth commandment says, 'Thou shalt not kill,' and therefore, government has no right to take life." I wish that these folk would study the Word of God in the context in which it's given.

Now, the sixth commandment that says "thou shalt not murder"—and that, by the way, is a better translation: "thou shalt not murder"—and it has no reference to governments at all. The Ten Commandments are given to individuals. And it's to the individual that God is speaking there. And when he says "thou shalt not murder," he's not speaking at all to a government.

In fact, the matter is, liberalism today—of course, it's the one that's heard today, and especially in government—and they say that this means "thou shalt not kill" means that a government has no right to take a life. It hasn't anything in the world to do with government. In fact, the matter is, the punishment for breaking the Ten Commandments, and breaking this one especially—"thou shalt not murder"—was that the individual was to be stoned to death. He would forfeit his life for taking another's life.

That was the method that was used in that day. So that when you try to pull on me the sixth commandment says, "Well, it says thou shalt not kill," therefore, the government has no right to kill, it's not talking to the government. He's talking to individuals, that you as an individual have no right to murder. And if you do, the government has a right to punish you.

Now, capital punishment, these folks say it began in the days of Moses and that it's in the Mosaic law. Let me say this, that capital punishment goes all the way back to the Garden of Eden. And God said, "In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die." And the very fact that men die is the fact that God is punishing the human family for their sin. How did death come? Death came because of Adam's sin, a sin that's been made over to all of us today, and we're all in Adam because we all die. In other words, God sent the human race to the gas chamber in the Garden of Eden for sin, for disobeying him.

Now, we find that after the human race moved out of the Garden of Eden—of course, there was only a couple of them then—they began to multiply, and before long, they had a son. In fact, they had two sons. They had many other children that we know nothing about. And as a result, why, this man Cain, he killed his brother. He murdered. There was no commandment given at that time about murder given to man. God had never said that. God protected that man Cain. And what you have after that is the story of the protection of a criminal.

And this man Cain, a race came from him. And if you'll follow the story, that even one that was in his line committed a murder. And he went back and he says, "Well, if Cain got by with it, why cannot I get by with it?" And so this man Lamech, he committed a murder. And before long, you have a whole human family that is given over to violence, as it was in the days of Noah. Now, somebody says, "Well, God then didn't punish the murderers." What do you think the flood was? A flood was a judgment of God.

Now, after the flood, God says, "Now, I'm going to put into the hands of human government"—and that is the beginning of human government after the flood—and he says, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made he man." Now, human life is so precious that God says that no person has a right to take that life. And when you take that life because of hatred, because of some momentary passion, because you don't like the individual, God says that's murder. And that human life must be protected. Therefore, if anyone takes that human life, he'll have to sacrifice his own.

This idea today where all the attention is given to the criminal, what about the victim? You see, God is protecting the victim. Today, the criminal is being protected, and we hear all about his rights. And a criminal ought to be tried as a criminal and treated as a criminal. And the victim of a crime today is the one that should be protected. And so God gave to man this arm of human government to protect human life. And the way you protect human life is no one has a right to take your life unless he's willing to sacrifice his own. In fact, that's the way you and I got saved was because somebody willingly died for us that we might be saved. And God gave this to man to protect the human race and to protect mankind.

Now, you will find that the Lord Jesus lifted that commandment relative to murder to the very nth degree. He says that if you in your heart hate your brother, you're guilty of murder. You have broken this commandment. And I'm of the opinion that many of us today, if we were really tried for what's in our hearts, I'm of the opinion that most of us would be executed. But because of the grace of God, he's holding back that judgment to give us an opportunity that we might be saved. And so you and I today are to be under a human government. That human government should have the right to take human life if a human life has been taken.

That individual, and you and I are told that rulers are not a terror to good works but to evil. And by the way, that throws a new light on the police. Now, I hear a great deal about police brutality, and I think there's probably been a great deal of it in the past. But certainly today, the police seem to be leaning in the other direction. But you need to recognize that the Scripture says the rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. And who is the fellow that should look at the policeman and be afraid of him? It's the criminal.

The man that is a law-abiding citizen, that individual should not be afraid of the police. The police should be our friend. And this idea today that we are to hate the police. The police are a terror to evil works. And I take it that when a man says to me today that the police are pigs or that the police are evil, then I have to say, well, you must be a criminal because they represent the law. They are a terror to evil works. They're not a terror to good works at all. And that's the reason many of us slow down when we see that police car that's coming up back of us.

It's because we've probably been edging pretty close to the speed limit. At least we look at our speedometer to make sure that we're in that. And that, may I say to you, that's a good thing, a very good thing. They're not a terror if you're driving within the speed limit. The policeman is not interested in you. It's in that fellow that's driving down the highway probably drunk that may kill you and your family. And so he's not a terror to good works but to evil works.

And so we have here the thing now that I think has been proven in our day. When I first gave my message on capital punishment, there was a question at that time, at least those that were opposed to capital punishment say it does not deter crime. Well, when capital punishment went out, there has been an increase of crime here in California before that. We could in my neighborhood—and that isn't over 15 years ago—we lived in peace, that is, comparatively peace with our neighbors. None of them were out to kill us, at least, or to rob us.

And we could relax in our homes. And now that has been changed, that we are in a dangerous place where residents lock themselves in at night for fear of their very lives. Well, what's happened? Well, the criminal out yonder today carries a gun because he knows that if he has to use the gun, he doesn't mind murdering, for the very simple reason that all he'd get would be life, and chances are he wouldn't even get that. And so the criminal today, he doesn't mind shooting someone down.

There was a day when a robber was not apt to shoot an individual. In fact, many of them carried an unloaded gun because they knew if they were arrested for murder, they would be executed. But today, they know they're not going to be. And for that reason, why, we've seen an increase in crime. And to argue today that it's not a deterrent to crime, it's so illogical and so unreasonable and so prejudiced that to me, it's not worth even considering.

I was very much interested the other day of looking at statistics of someone who's trying to defend their position. And they were attempting to pick out certain cities in this country where crime had not increased, or murder not increased, to the extent that would indicate that capital punishment was a deterrent. But you see, they only picked out certain places and certain places.

But you can pick out the other places where murder has increased, and believe me, my neighborhood is not a safe place to walk in at night. And why? Because there is not the deterrent to crime that there should be today. And a government should be a terror to the criminal. Certainly the criminal ought to dislike the police. But the good people ought not to dislike the police. They are only a terror to evil works.

Guest (Male): Our second and final question comes from a listener in Memphis, Tennessee, who responds to Dr. McGee's comments about his participation in a citywide evangelization crusade where he worked alongside pastors of liberal churches. So this listener says, "Could you please discuss your position on separation?"

Dr. J. Vernon McGee: You say that you endorse short-term or temporary associations with those considered as liberal. May I say to you that's the crux of the whole question: with those considered as liberal. Whose judgment is it that determines whether they're liberal or not? Because today, I hear that term bandied about a great deal, and it's used rather carelessly today. And some men are spoken of as being liberal who are not liberal. And there are other men that are spoken of today as being evangelical and in my book, they're not. These terms are not identifiable. They really do not say too much.

This idea putting labels on individuals and even movements today is sort of like putting labels on empty bottles. It's a nice game if you like to play it, but the difficulty is that sometimes the label is put on a poison bottle. So I would question that. I do want to say I agree with your position, but I do not agree with your judgment. Now you give an example. When you mentioned a citywide meeting, I had a feeling that I knew what you had reference to because I used it as the illustration, and I'll come back to that.

I'm reading now the example this man gives me. He says, "I believe there are many Christians in liberal churches today." And that absolutely is true. And he says, "They should come out and be separate, but because they may still attend one, I would not disassociate myself from the individual, but would not in any way associate myself with the church as such." Well, now let me speak to that example that you've given because that lets me know your thinking. Very frankly, as I've said, I agree with your position. The scriptures that you use are the ones that I use, but certainly I do not feel as you do about that.

I'm wondering if I might give you an example and then give you my feeling concerning it. Suppose that you had a neighbor that was a member of a liberal church, but he was a brother. He was a saved man. And there came to his church one of these fundamental teachers. He was invited there, maybe by mistake. Suppose his name was McGee, and your neighbor would say to you, "One of those mossback fundamentalists is coming to my church. I do not know who invited him, but he agrees with you, and so I'd like to invite you to come over with me to hear him. He's going to be there just one night."

That, may I say, is just an example because I would go and speak in that church, I'll be very frank with you, if they let me speak and not put any strings on me. But the interesting thing is when you talk about separation today, the liberal is separated from me. I'm not separated from him. He's separated from me. Somebody said, "Didn't you come out of the Presbyterian Church?" No, it moved away from me. I didn't change. They're the ones that changed. They did the moving. I did not do the moving.

And in this particular case here, I judge you would not accept that invitation to go over with your brother and hear me speak because of the location, because you'd feel that would identify you with that church. Well, may I say to you, I don't think that it would. I go into many churches that some of them are almost contrary to the other church. But they invite me, and I go speak. But I don't feel that I'm identified with any of them just because I speak in those churches.

And now I want to speak to what I think that you had in mind by a combined citywide services and such because I've been condemned very severely by these extreme fundamentalists that I cooperated in the Billy Graham Crusade in the great outdoor coliseum in Los Angeles. When I was a pastor in downtown Los Angeles, and that, may I say, that was a long time ago. And I'm still being condemned with that. And I'll be very frank with you, if Billy Graham came to town again and wanted me to cooperate in the meeting the best I could, I'd be delighted to do it because I believe that he preaches the Word of God.

I believe that people get saved under his ministry. And I heard one of these extreme fundamentalists—he's gone to be with the Lord, so I won't give his name—make the statement one time when we had him for a meeting when I was pastor in Texas. He says, "Why, if a hound dog came to my back door barking for Jesus Christ, I'd give him something to eat." And that's my feeling about it too. But that man condemned Billy Graham a great deal and condemned me for even cooperating with him.

And I'll be very frank with you, I talked it over with Billy Graham at that time. And he said, "I know that I give some of you pastors quite a headache," but he said, "I feel that by inviting certain men," and he was inviting a very liberal man. And I have been condemned because it is said that I joined with that liberal man. I've never told this before publicly, but did you know I never have even met that man? Not interested really in meeting him, but he was a member of a committee and I was a member of the committee. And he was as bad a member of the committee as I was.

I only went to two meetings, and I understand he probably went to one. And they just didn't happen to be the same meetings. I never had an opportunity of meeting him. I would not know him if he walked in the door where I am right now. So may I say to you, when I'm condemned for cooperating with that man, you're wrong. I cooperated with a man that I believe was preaching the Word of God and people were getting saved. And I'd do that again. These verses that you've used do not apply to that situation at all, my friend.

I would refuse to go every night, year in and year out, and sit on a platform with a liberal. I'll be very frank with you, I would not do that. But actually, I don't think he and I were even present at the meetings but maybe two or three times at the same time. I never spoke to him, never met him, don't know him, don't know him, as I say, wouldn't know him if he came into the room here right now. So may I say to you, my feeling is that this matter today of separation is something that each man has to determine for himself.

I am responsible to the Lord for my conduct. And I have to turn in a report to him. I've always done that. When I was pastor of the church every Sunday night, either riding home or after I got in bed, I just turned in my report to the Lord, that I did the best I could. And I'd look back over a week, generally of failure, many failures. But I did preach the Word of God the best I could. And I do that today on radio, and I turn in my report to the Lord and tell him about it. And I'm responsible to him, but I'm not responsible to other folk.

And I assume when I hear of certain men today that cooperate with certain men and they use certain methods. I know a lot of conservative men that are using what I would consider liberal methods. But I'm not their judge. They're going to have to turn in a report to the Lord someday. I'm going to be interested in hearing that report, by the way, and see what the Lord has to say. But I'm far more concerned about what he's going to have to say to me.

So for that reason, I have to entirely disagree with your misapplication of scriptures that have no reference at all, as I see it. Now, that's in my judgment, and it's my judgment over against your judgment. And it's not a question of these scriptures, my friend, that you've given me because I know these scriptures and I believe in them. And I think that you probably are drawing the lines a little too fine for my viewpoint.

And I'm considered a mossback fundamentalist, and there are many that I do not associate with today or work with, and I go merrily along my own way. And for that reason, I feel that I'm also free to when I hear a hound dog coming barking, you know, at my door and barking the same kind of language I bark, then you know I do feed him. I'm for him. And I believe now that many of us that are believers today, they say that they're 35 percent in this country of those who are conservative.

Well, I shouldn't use that term evangelical. That certainly a broader term. And if that is true, which I doubt very seriously, but if that is true, then certainly today we ought to stand together where we can stand together. And that is around the Word of God, the inerrancy of the Word of God, the deity of Christ and his death for our sins. And actually, you don't have to agree with me about the manner of his coming again. I won't break fellowship with you. I just feel you have a right to be wrong. I don't want to break fellowship with anyone that is in agreement with me on so many things that are essential.

Guest (Male): With that, we conclude two brief questions, but two very important answers for us today. If you'd like more information on these subjects or others, contact us and request our resource catalog. We continue Dr. McGee's five-year journey through the whole Word of God during the Thru the Bible Radio program heard on this station every Monday through Friday.

To receive the notes and outlines or our resource catalog, just call us at 1-800-65BIBLE Monday through Thursday from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Pacific time. Or write to Questions and Answers in the US, Box 7100, Pasadena, California, 91109. For those in Canada, Box 25325, London, Ontario, N6C 6B1. We can also be found online at ttb.org, and you can download the notes, subscribe to our free e-newsletter, or visit our bookstore, or link to our Facebook and Twitter pages. Now, with great assurance in a wonderful God, we pray that he will answer all your questions and solve all your problems.