HOW TO BE A BETTER PACIFIST

All true Christians are pacifists. The only question is, are you as good a pacifist as you could be?

"Wait a minute," you say. "I'm no pacifist."

Ah, but you are . . . legally speaking. If you are a true Christian then you follow the Apostle Peter when he said, "We must obey God rather than man" (Acts 5:29). Now, looking back at the Gulf War, we know that this war was a war fought under the auspices of the United Nations. Its basic purpose was to protect the interests of multinational corporations in the Mideast, as well as Bush family investments. A quarter of a million Iraqi peasants, many of whom probably didn't like the tyrannical Saddam Hussein any more than we do, died as a result of U.N. actions designed, in the end, to keep oil prices down. This is simply murder in the defense of the consumerist, Secular Humanist New World Order. Astute Americans like Pat Buchanan were against the war from the beginning; other Americans have come to see it as contrary to the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Now: if you knew then what you know now, and you were called to go kill some Iraqis for President Bush and Boutros-Boutros Galli, would you kill?

Credible reports are circulating that then-governor Clinton oversaw the shipment of millions of dollars of cocaine out of a small airport in Mena, Arkansas. Suppose his drug dealing has continued while as President. Suppose further that some upstart drug dealers in Mexico have intercepted hundreds of millions of dollars of cocaine destined for America, and that this actions threatens the delicate arrangements President Clinton has arranged with the Medellin cartel, now deemed a U.S. "ally." Clinton orders you to drop a small nuclear bomb on a village in Mexico where these drug dealers are known to be hiding. Doing so will kill thousands of totally innocent Mexican peasants. Congress, meeting in closed session, has approved the action. Your challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court was unsuccessful. Will you drop the Bomb?

Theologically speaking, your answer is that of Peter: No. Legally speaking, you are a "pacifist," because you are allowing your conscience to override legitimate government orders.

The purpose of this booklet is to make you a better "pacifist," even if that will get you court-martialed or executed. Remember, Jesus Christ was executed.

Getting Through the Red, White and Blue

Most Christians do not think of themselves as "pacifists," even though the New World Order does. In this sense, they are "gentle as doves" but not as wise as the serpents in power (Mat. 10:16). Or put another way, most Christians do not think of themselves as pacifists because they think of themselves as Americans. Unfortunately, America is an anti-Christian nation. America is a Secular Humanist Theocracy. For a Christian to think of himself as an American is as senseless as a Christian thinking of himself as an Islamic Fundamentalist. The problem goes back to the origin of America. Whereas the original colonies were more or less Christian Theocracies, the formation of the Federal Government was an attempt to get away from Christian Theocracy. There may have been some Christians involved in the effort, but they were not consistent with the Scriptures.

My goal as a pacifist is to follow the Scriptures even when it contradicts the reigning mythology of America. I trust that your goal - whether you call yourself a "pacifist" or not - is the same: God before country.

Consider the following Scriptures (and their somewhat anachronistic translation) and the compare them with the Declaration of Independence (which follows the Scripture passages).

Romans 12-13 {1} I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. {2} And be not conformed to the world of the Scottish Enlightenment: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. {3} For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. {10} Be kindly affectioned one to another with brotherly love; in honour preferring one another; {11} Not slothful in business; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord; {12} Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer; {13} Distributing to the necessity of saints; given to hospitable quartering of troops. {14} Bless the "Red Coats" which persecute you: bless, and curse not. {16} Be of the same mind one toward another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. {17} Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men. {18} If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with the British. {19} Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. {20} Therefore if an enemy soldier hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. {21} Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. {13:1} Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are set in place by God. {2} Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, throwing tea into the harbor, or firing muskets upon them from behind trees, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. {3} For archist red coats are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: {4} For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. {5} Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. {6} For for this cause pay ye taxes without representation: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. {7} Render therefore to all their dues: taxes to whom taxes are due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. {8} Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. {9} For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. {10} Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

Matthew 5:38-48 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: {39} But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. {40} And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. {41} And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. {42} Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. {43} Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. {44} But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; {45} That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. {46} For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? {47} And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? {48} Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

1 Peter 2:11-24 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; {12} Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. {13} Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to king George III, as supreme; {14} Or unto parliament, as unto them that are sent by Him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. {15} For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: {16} As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. {17} Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. {18} Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. {19} For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. {20} For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. {21} For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: {22} Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: {23} Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: {24} Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.

Luke 17:7-10 And which of you, having a servant plowing or tending sheep, will say to him when he has come in from the field, "Come at once and sit down to eat"? {8} But will he not rather say to him, "Prepare something for my supper, and gird yourself and serve me till I have eaten and drunk, and afterward you will eat and drink"? {9} Does he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I think not. {10} So likewise you, when you have done all those things which you are commanded, say, "We are unprofitable servants. We have done what was our duty to do."

2 Peter 2:10-12/Jude 8-10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. {9} Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. {12} But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change; for their calamity will rise suddenly, and who knows the ruin those two can bring?

Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a crowd to do evil.

DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

JULY 4, 1776

THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF THE THIRTEEN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,. When does the Bible say it becomes "necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"? (Romans 13, 1 Peter 2) and to assume, among the powers of the earth,. Is it the Christian's goal to be "equal" with "the powers"? (Jude 8-10, 2 Peter 2:10-12, Romans 13) the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life,. Do we have a "right to life"? (Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 Peter 2:21; Luke 17:7-10) liberty,. If we have a "right" to "liberty," why does the Bible commands us to work for our slavemasters as if we were working for Christ Himself? (1 Corinthians 7:20,24; Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-24; 1 Timothy 6:1-11; Titus 2:9-10; 1 Peter 2:18-21) and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,. Are governments instituted by men? (Romans 13) deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;. According to the Constitution, the State has the power to tax, and to declare war. These powers are made "just" on the mere say-so of those who voted for the exercise of this "power to destroy"? According to the Bible, from Whom (or whence) do governments derive their "just powers"? that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it,. Does the Bible say we have a right to "abolish" the State? Do slaves have a right to "abolish" their masters? Do children have a right to "abolish" their parents? (1 Peter 2) and to institute a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.. If we were instituting a new State, upon which principles should we build? Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves. If we are suffering under harsh masters or tyrants, does the Bible say we should "right ourselves"? (I Peter 2, Romans 12, Matthew 5) by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism,. Scholars estimate that the total of taxes imposed by the British government upon the colonists was less than 5% of income. We are now taxed at a rate approaching 10 times that amount. Was the British government really the "absolute despotism" that warranted an armed revolution? it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such as been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.. Was this revolutionary killing the beginning, or the end, of a Christian nation? To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

[history of "repeated injuries and oppressions" omitted]<;AL4;FT;@Footnote>. The Declaration of Independence lists many political acts which are said to justify armed revolution. Many of these abuses are rampant in our day, yet no one who waves a flag on the 4th of July is taking up arms to spill the blood of government agents. For example, scholars have estimated that the total tax required of the colonists by the British government amounted to about 3% of income. Today, the post-revolutionary government takes 30% of income each year, and up to 90% upon death. We will shortly return to this point.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us.. Did Nero have a "warrantable jurisdiction" over Jewish converts to Christ when the Apostle Paul penned his letter to the Romans? We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connexions and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war,. What is our duty toward our "enemies?" (Matthew 5; Romans 12; Luke 17) in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies,. In Whose Name did the Apostles govern the early church? (Acts 4:7) solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE and INDEPENDENT STATES, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which INDEPENDENT STATES may of right do.. Would the BATF or the FBI be alarmed if some sizable Christian group declared that it had these powers: the power to levy war, contract alliance (with foreign nations), and challenge the authority of the Federal Reserve Board and the Interstate Commerce Commission? Did Jesus and His Apostles claim these powers? And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of DIVINE PROVIDENCE, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honour.. Is the Declaration of Independence a document that can be supported by a Christian committed to "submission to the powers" (Romans 13) and the "Ministry of Reconciliation" (2 Corinthians 5:17-21)?

* * * * The government levies a tax on you. What is your response as a Christian:
(a) pay the tax
(b) challenge the tax in court
(c) blow the IRS agent's brains out
(d) a and b

If you answered "c," you lose. Jesus says "all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew. 26:52). If human life means less to you than taxes, or less than a particular political theory, then you have missed the Gospel.

America has missed the Gospel.

Worse than that, America once had the Gospel, and threw it away. The conflict in 1776 was not a group of colonists who were told they could not preach the Gospel. It was a group of merchants who did not want to submit to the powers. They would rather destroy property and kill government agents than pay a tax one-tenth the size of the taxes we routinely pay today.

If you see the contradictions, you will be saying, "How can I become a better pacifist?". O.K., forget the word "pacifist." Just ask, "How can I be a better Christian?" or "How can I 'be at peace with all men?'" (Hebrews 12:14) (Frankly, I think our sanctification has to come to a point where we don't care what other people call us. I would rather be called a "pacifist" than an "American." At least if I'm being called a pacifist it will be because I am perceived as different from a nation of people who will kill other human beings over a relatively small amount of money. There's an ancient and very wise proverb that I just made up which goes something like this: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but emotion-laden labels are just a way of avoiding my argument.") Well, you're in luck; the Bible tells you how.

"Self-Defense" vs. Pacifism: Theory vs. Practice

I have met many a likable, patriotic Christian who, upon finding out that I am a "pacifist," immediately and in no uncertain terms told me that if his house were ever invaded by a robber who threatened his family, he would

"use self-defense"
"not hesitate to kill, if necessary"
"blow him away"
"splatter the wall with his brains"
and other more colorful phrases. (People trained in the American way of thinking love to try to shock us pacifists with tough-guy language.. Just the other day, on the local TV newscast, I heard the interview of a homeowner in a quiet neighborhood which had recently experienced unprecedented crime. He said he believed in self-defense, and in similar graphic and self-assured terms told the naive-looking female reporter he wouldn't hesitate to kill an intruder - "with remorse," he added slyly, as if to ameliorate his violent claim - "because," he went on after a well-timed pause, "I would have to get the carpet cleaned." The camera caught the face of a reporter visibly shocked at his "macho" attitude. Perhaps the interview was aired for its "freak value," but I think it also represents an attitude widely held but not frequently articulated.)

This is good American talk. This is John Wayne and James Cagney.

Unfortunately, it is also Samuel Adams and George Washington.

But is it Jesus? And when you live out this life God has given you, do you want a pat on the back and an "Attaboy!" from Sam Adams and John Wayne, or from some pacifistic wimp who got himself killed before He was 35?

And when you live out your life here in the 20th century, are you even going to get a pat on the back from Sam Adams and George Washington? When the British government began to seize the arms held by certain colonists, "Minutemen" from other colonies and other religious denominations rallied to their defense. When the U.S. government began to seize the arms held by a certain religious group in Waco, Texas, no one defended them. The government surrounded their church with tanks, pummeled them with psychological warfare techniques, and eventually burned them to the ground. Not a peep from America's tough-talkers. The taxes we pay today are ten times greater than the taxes against which Adams and Washington took up arms. The British government under George III did not legalize the killing of nearly 2 million unborn infants every year. They did not reach into the colonial schools and tell the principals that they could not have prayer, Bible reading, or even hang a copy of the Ten Commandments in the hallway. Jefferson believed that the "yeoman farmer" was the moral backbone of the New World. Our government swallows up family farms with inheritance and other taxes totaling near 90%. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson complained that the British government "has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance." If you were to personally escort Jefferson through the streets of Washington, D.C. and show him a copy of the government's budget, would he be proud of what Americans have done with what he risked his life for? Would you, who are not a "pacifist," have any kind of credible argument for why you have not taken up arms against such a Leviathan?

The whole purpose of the Second Amendment was to make sure that a government like the one we have now could never come into existence. The "right to bear arms" had nothing to do with hunters, or self-defense against robbers, muggers, and street gangs. It had to do with defense against the kind of government that creates robbers, muggers and street gangs.

What do modern patriots do? They insult pacifists, immigrants, and the "gooks" in Vietnam. They threaten violence against the innocent, and overlook all institutionalized evil that waves the red, white and blue. The Secular Humanist elite in Washington funnels billions and billions of dollars to pagan dictators across the globe; oppressive regimes that have nothing in common with the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Trillions of dollars have been spent developing ways to kill millions, most of them innocent. American tough-talkers do nothing. Especially if there's a high-paying job in it for them.

I am not advocating violent revolution, as in 1776. I am saying that violent revolution in 1776 led inevitably to violence in the streets in 1996. When you see this connection, then you become a pacifist.

Capital Punishment: The Ghost of Rome

Have you ever wondered why the U.S. Supreme Court building and other famous buildings in Washington D.C. are modeled after pagan temples in ancient Greece? What were the Founders thinking?

Not only did the Founders undercut Biblical Law Christian Theocracy as it existed in this country since the Mayflower Compact, but the Founders were big fans of Roman Law. At the time of the "Enlightenment," men and nations were throwing out Hebrew-Christian Biblical Law and replacing it with Greco-Roman Law. During the Middle Ages, it was never questioned that theologians and clergymen would have an opinion about the civil laws of the nation. It was always taken for granted that those who were trained in God's law would advise lawmakers on how to conform their legislation to God's juridical Blueprints. It is simply undeniable that religion (that is, Christianity) has in fact had a tremendous impact on law.. The best resource is Harold Berman: See Law and Revolution, 1972. Berman was long a professor of law at Harvard Law School.

But what if the theologians were mistaken?

That possibility should surprise no one. When the Greeks were converted to Christianity, they did not immediately "put to death" the "old man," and the old man promptly brought all of his Roman Law philosophies into the Church, and (when the time was ripe) influenced civil law with his syncretistic thinking. Many pagan political practices were brought into Christian culture after being baptized with the best Biblical proof text that could be mustered.. Those familiar with the work of Cornelius Van Til will nod their heads knowingly at this point. See his A Christian Theory of Knowledge, esp. ch. iv. "The Church Fathers," and ch. v, "From Sovereign Grace to Synergism." We need a book which discusses Christian lawyers in the same way Van Til discusses Christian theologians.

It will only take a few paragraphs to show you that self-defense, capital punishment, and war are all unBiblical products of Roman Law thinking.

Are you ready to become a pacifist? <@Import 010>The Shedding of Blood: Law and Liturgy

From the time of the Apostles to the time of the Reformation, two religious groups have had a great influence on law: Jews and Catholics. The influence of Jews in the Early Church is evident in the pages of the New Testament. It was not a welcome influence in the mind of the Apostles.

Modern Jews admit that their liturgical emphasis came from their captivity in Babylon. Many Catholics will admit that as the Christian church was institutionalized, it picked up much of this Jewish liturgical thinking.

While the Reformers attempted to reform many things, they did not attempt to reform the civil law, that is, while they stripped many liturgies from the churches, they did not strip Babylonian-Roman liturgies from the law. An examination of two passages will show you how contradictory their thinking is on this point.

The first passage is one that will show the pacifist side of your thinking.

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2 Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3 And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4 And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: 5 And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their word shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 6 And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: 7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8 Be merciful, O LORD, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.
Now, tell me why this passage should not be literally obeyed in our day. I assume at this point that you are sympathetic with the Theocratic ideals of the Puritans, which we today call the "Theonomy" perspective. I assume that you won't say, "Well, the Old Testament is no longer valid. We're under grace, not law."

The correct answer is, we don't shed blood after Calvary. Jesus shed the last blood.

There was a system of liturgical sacrifices that were set up in the Old Covenant under the Levitical Priesthood. These ceremonial rituals were set forth as a response to the defiling effects of sin. In the New Covenant, however, Jesus is the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world" (John 1:29). The altar and the temple are gone (Rev. 21:22). The Book of Hebrews makes this clear.

Anyone proposing that we sacrifice a bleating lamb in church when a sin has been committed would be disobeying God's Law, even if he did so while citing passages from Exodus or Leviticus. The shedding of blood has no efficacy; Christ's blood alone cleanses us from our sins.

Therefore, when the police discover a murder, but cannot convict any suspect of the crime, we are not required to shed the blood of a heifer in order to cleanse the land of the innocent blood.

Some sins, however, were so offensive to God that a mere goat or lamb could not cleanse the land. Leviticus 20 lists a few crimes which were so heinous, that one who committed them had no recourse to the lambs and goats of the temple for liturgical cleansing of bloodguiltiness. We are repeatedly told, "He must bear his own blood." We call these "capital crimes."

Should there be a punishment for these crimes: "capital punishment?"

The institutional Christian church has long said yes. If you check the great historical creeds and confessions of the church you will find Numbers 35 is the basis for saying we should shed the blood of anyone we convict of a capital crime.

<@BodyText 2>Numbers 35:3034 Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die. 31 Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. 33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. 34 Defile not therefore the land which ye shall inhabit, wherein I dwell: for I the LORD dwell among the children of Israel.

Verse 33 literally says that "atonement" cannot be made without the shedding of blood.

If you are not a pacifist, here is your position: If a murder is committed, but we cannot find the murderer, we are not obligated to shed the blood of an animal as commanded in Deut 21, because Christ is the Lamb of God, and no other blood is efficacious but Christ's. However, if we find the murderer, he must shed his blood in order to cleanse the land of bloodguiltiness.

Look at the Exposition of the Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") in the Westminster Larger Catechism. You will find Numbers 35 cited as an exception to the rule against killing. Look at any theological defense of capital punishment and see if they do not cite Numbers 35. Yet Numbers 35 and Deut 21 are saying the same thing: there must be the shedding of blood to make atonement for the crime.

The thinking behind capital punishment did not come from the Bible, it came from Rome.

War: National Capital Punishment

The thinking behind war also comes from Rome. The Bible says that Holy Wars were the execution of "capital punishment" on a national scale. Not just against one criminal, but against an outlaw nation. The Bible clearly says that the Canaanites polluted the Promised Land with their Leviticus 18-20 - type sins. The entire nation had to be dedicated to God as a sacrifice in order to cleanse the land. War in the Old Covenant was conducted by priests as a liturgical event. The objective was the shedding of blood. The pacifists says not to shed blood, but the Westminster Larger Catechism says otherwise, citing Jeremiah 48:10: "cursed be he that keepeth back his sword from blood."

We justify the existence of a Secular Humanist State by citing Romans 13 "he beareth not the sword in vain."