The Wages of Sin)

In my last post I examined each of the categories of sin for which God prescribed a death penalty. During my study I noticed a pattern that the death penalty seemed to be associated with sins that particularly defied the purpose of life, which purpose is to cultivate our souls into ones that can receive paradise. When a person detaches themselves from that divine purpose, they are no longer participating in life as it is intended, and God has the right to rescind that gift of life.

But even as I drew those conclusions, I knew there was an important issue to address. I saw how this line of thinking could be used to justify a whole slew of harsh and merciless policies. At the end of the day, all sin is an act of rebellion against God’s plan for us. All sin is contrary to the purpose for us being here. So, wouldn’t that justify the death penalty for all sin? Well, according to Romans 6:23, yes: “For the wages of sin is death.” It does not say only certain sin, it seems to mean all sin.

Furthermore, I can say from my own experiences that as I have been convicted of my own sins, I have felt that any penalty that God chose for me would be warranted. Be it death or be it hell, if God were to call for it, I could not say that He was unfair in so doing. I was very grateful to receive mercy instead, but I wasn’t entitled to it.

So yes, the death penalty can be argued as the just response for every sin that there is. Does that mean I would support a nation carrying out executions for every stolen library book, every angry insult, and every lustful thought? Well, no. That conclusion would be an incorrect interpretation of scripture. It would be focusing on just one aspect of the gospel, while ignoring all others.

Balance of Purpose)

Let us not forget, the whole point of my last post was that the death penalty could be justified for those who were no longer in agreement with the purpose of life, which purpose was to cultivate our souls to be fit for heaven. But we are imperfect beings, and all of us sin. To kill us all at the first offense would also frustrate the purpose of mortal life by cutting short our opportunity to repent and cultivate our souls. There clearly ought to be a threshold. Lesser sins, though still deserving of death, should have that penalty deferred so that there is a chance for repentance, while those who more seriously detach themselves from the purpose of life could still face immediate judgment.

And where should that threshold lie? How should we be able to tell when someone is in enough rebellion against the purpose of life to warrant death? These are questions that I do not need to answer. It is not in my jurisdiction. Life is created by God, and it is up to Him which penalties should apply to which violations. This is one of the reasons that the law was even given to Moses: so that God could answer these questions and His people would not have to make imperfect judgment calls of their own.

In summary, there is a justification for the death penalty for any sin. God would be justified wherever He applied that penalty, even for the most minor of offenses. It would be justified, but it would not be ideal for the accomplishment of His purposes. Wisdom therefore requires a threshold to allow both an opportunity for repentance and preservation of the natural order. It is God’s prerogative, and God’s prerogative alone, where that threshold should then be set.

Acknowledging the justification for the death penalty is not a carte blanche invitation for human authorities to kill all sinners. It does mean, though, that God has a field of choice in where to place the bounds of mercy and justice. He may even set one bound at one time, and adjust it at another, and that would be acceptable and appropriate. Which, of course, God appears to have done. He assigned the death penalty for adultery under the Law of Moses, but in the case of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus chose to extend mercy instead. Did something change? We will turn to that question in our next post.