Previous | | Next | | E-Mail | | Contents | | V&FT

Q.68: Is there a principle that prohibits the Family from carrying out the command for "capital punishment?"

A.: There are a number of problems with this assumption.

". . . at the time Cain killed his brother (c. 129 A.M.), Adam and Eve would have had more than 3,000 grandchildren, and more than 90,000 great-grandchildren. Adding to this the great²- great³- and great⁴- grandchildren . . . the world's population at the time of the murder was about half a million"
(Martin Gardner, "Dr. Matrix Finds Numerological Wonders in the King James Bible," Scientific American, April, 1976, p. 174).

Second, why was Cain so worried that there were many who would kill him, i.e., carry out the required "capital punishment" against him? If all these people knew the penalty for murder, one wonders why they were ignorant of this alleged "principle of the non-participation of the family in the death penalty of its members . . ." (Rushdoony, op. cit., p. 361).

Third, this alleged principle seems to be directly contradicted by other portions of Scripture. Another Theonomic theologian, Gary North, points out the existence of a "revenger of blood" (Numbers 35:19ff.), a member of the family of the slain person, who carries out capital punishment against the murderer.

The official executioner of the family of the slain person, the avenger of blood, was permitted to slay the suspect, but not if he stayed within the walls of the city of refuge. The suspect then received a trial. If convicted of murder, he was turned over to the avenger of blood. If found innocent, the suspect could dwell safely inside the city. The avenger could only kill him if the latter ventured outside the city's protection, i.e., the actual walls (Numbers 35:27-28).
The office of the blood avenger was uniquely familistic. The ga'al was the next of kin. The same Hebrew word is also translated "kinsman" (Ruth 3:9,12-13). The ga'al was therefore the kinsman-redeemer, yet he was also the avenger of blood.
("Economic Commentary on the Bible," Number 35, in The Chalcedon Report)

. . . basic fact of Biblical Law is that the power to kill is not a family power, because coercion is not the strongest aspect of family law. The family is tied together by bonds of love; the husband cleaves to the wife, and the children obey their parents in love and duty."
(Rushdoony, op. cit., p.360).

Fourth, the notion that one member of the family cannot execute another is very plainly contradicted by Deuteronomy 13:6-11. The relevant commands read:

6. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, nor thy fathers.
9. Thou shalt surely kill him, thine hand shall be the first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

Fifth, in the latter days obedient families are said to obey the command of Deuteronomy 13 (to cut off idolaters), and in Zechariah 13:1-3 we have a prophecy of Family executions.

And it shall come to pass in that day, saith the LORD of hosts, that I will cut off the names of the idols out of the land, and they shall no more be remembered: and also I will cause the prophets and the unclean spirit to pass out of the land.
And it shall come to pass, that when any shall yet prophesy, then his father and his mother that begat him shall say unto him, Thou shalt not live; for thou speakest lies in the name of the LORD: and his father and his mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he prophesieth.

Thus we see that there was no principle against the Family exercising the power of Capital Punishment, and, as we have seen, this power remained with the Family after the Flood.

Murder, Blood, Atonement, and "Civil Government"

Many laws which are labeled "Judicial Law" or "Civil Law" are actually priestly law, or "ceremonial law." If there is any modern applicability to these laws, they are patriarchal, or market laws. They are not socialist laws.

Suppose in a fit of anger, I murder your son.

You cite Genesis 9:4-6 for the proposition that my blood should be shed:

Genesis 9:4-6 -- Blood must be shed

But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. ⁵ Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. ⁶ Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.

But suppose you don't know that I was the one who murdered your son. Nobody knows this. It's an "unsolved homicide." Should you urge your civil government -- and its Levitical priests -- to follow Deuteronomy 21:1-9?

Deuteronomy 21:1-9 -- Blood must be shed in the case of an Unsolved Homicide

⁵And 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: ⁴And the elders of that city shall bring down a heifer unto a rough valley, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: ⁷Then they shall answer and say, “Our hands have not shed this blood, nor have our eyes seen it. ⁸ Provide atonement, O LORD, for Your people Israel, whom You have redeemed, and do not lay innocent blood to the charge of Your people Israel.” And atonement shall be provided on their behalf for the blood. ⁹ So you shall put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD.

To my knowledge, no Christian advocates the literal observance of this law. Here's why.

Suppose I confess to the murder, and can supply evidence to back up my confession.

Should Numbers 35:33 be followed?

Numbers 35:33 -- Blood must be shed in cases of a Solved Homicide

³³ So you shall not pollute the land where you are; for blood defiles the land, and no atonement can be made for the land, for the blood that is shed on it, except by the blood of him who shed it.

Should my blood be shed?

Who should shed my blood?

You?

You and your neighbors?

People calling themselves "the civil government?"

People calling themselves "priests the sons of Levi?

Since I provided the evidence against myself, and testified against myself, should I shed my own blood?

What if people calling themselves "the civil government" refuse to prosecute me, or a jury of my peers refuses to convict me, but I believe my blood needs to be shed to cleanse the land (Hebrew, כָּפַר kaphar, make atonement, Strong's #3722) Should I shed my own blood? Should the victim's family shed my blood?

What if you believe that only the blood of Jesus can cleanse the land of the shedding of innocent blood (which I shed).

Should people calling themselves "the civil government" threaten to hurt you if you don't pay (be taxed) for "executioners" to shed my blood, even if you don't want my blood shed?

Suppose I murder your son and I am Jeff Bezos, the wealthiest man in the world, and I promise to become your slave for life, and pay you $100 million a year for the rest of my life out of the money I earn at Amazon.com. Suppose you want the proceeds of my forced labor more than my shed blood? Should people calling themselves "the civil government" threaten to hurt you if you don't pay (be taxed) for "executioners" to shed my blood, even if you don't want my blood shed?

These are the questions every society must answer:

• What should be done in response to a crime?
• Who should do it?
• Who should forcibly be prevented from doing it?
• Who should pay for it to be done?
• Who should be forced to pay for it?
• Who gets to do the forcing?
• Does either party (perpetrator or victim's heirs) or a third party have the moral authority to commit violence against another party who gives a different answer to these questions?
  • If you don't want your son's murderer's blood shed, can someone else shed the murderer's blood anyway?
  • Can someone else force you to pay for the shedding of your son's murderer's blood if you don't want his blood shed?
  • If you do want your son's murderer's blood shed, because you believe God requires the shedding of blood, can someone else (claiming a "monopoly of justice") hurt you if you personally cause the murderer's blood to be shed without that monopolist party's permission?
  • Can you force a third party to pay for the shedding of your son's murderer's blood if you want blood to be shed but that third party does not want blood to be shed?
  • Can I be forced to pay for the shedding of your son's murderer's blood if neither you as the victim's father nor I want blood to be shed?
  • Which verse of Scripture supports your answer?

The Book of Hebrews says that the only blood which is efficacious in the eyes of God is the blood of Jesus. Anyone attempting to obey Biblical Laws such as Deuteronomy 21 and Numbers 35 by killing either an animal or a human being is not obeying those laws, but is in fact disobeying the Covenant and rejecting Jesus as the Christ and as "the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." John 1:29

Hebrews 9

⁷ But into the second part the high priest went alone once a year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the people‘s sins committed in ignorance; ⁸ the Holy Spirit indicating this, that the way into the Holiest of All was not yet made manifest while the first tabernacle was still standing. ⁹ It was symbolic for the present time in which both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make him who performed the service perfect in regard to the conscience— ¹⁰ concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation [definitively ended, AD 70 with the destruction of the earthly Jerusalem temple].

¹¹ But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. ¹² Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. ¹³ For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, ¹⁴ how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? ¹⁵ And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

¹⁶ For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. ¹⁷ For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. ¹⁸ Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood . ¹⁹ For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, ²⁰ saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” ²¹ Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. ²² And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

²³ Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. ²⁴ For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; ²⁵ not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— ²⁶ He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. ²⁷ And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, ²⁸ so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

10 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. ² For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. ³ But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. ⁴ For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

For further reading:

• A Theonomic Argument Against Capital Punishment
• "Holy War" and "Capital Punishment" vs. Jesus
• The State: A Monopoly of Violence
• Where the Reformers Went Wrong
• Christian Anarcho-Pacifism

Previous | | Next | | E-Mail | | Contents | | V&FT