Faith and Justice: Debating the Death Penalty in the Orthodox Tradition

In debates about the death penalty, set against the background of Orthodox tradition, vivid and fateful arguments are voiced, where religious heritage is closely intertwined with the responsibilities of governing society. Authorities relying on sacred texts and church tradition point out that even in the Old Testament there existed a legal and moral basis for the application of the ultimate punishment. The absence of explicit indications of its abolition in the New Testament is seen as evidence of the continuity of ancient traditions that support the necessity of severe justice.

Opponents of this position are subjected to harsh criticism: some proponents of the death penalty argue that the reluctance to apply strict punishment indicates an insufficient level of faith and conscience. Moreover, the historically established system of thought suggests that a ruler, having received a divine mandate, is obliged not only to govern people but also to actively oppose those who threaten public order and spiritual purity. Such thinking is reflected in norms prescribing harsh measures against heretics and apostates from the Orthodox faith—measures that are perceived as a protective barrier against the spiritual decay of society.

Thus, the issue of applying the death penalty in an Orthodox context is not merely a legal discussion but a collision of ancient traditions, religious conviction, and contemporary understanding of state responsibility. Despite conflicting opinions, the debate remains vibrant and striking, prompting deep reflection on the role of faith in legislation and social morality.

What moral and religious foundations can justify the application of the death penalty in the name of the Orthodox faith?

Some advocates for applying the death penalty in the name of the Orthodox faith base their arguments on norms historically contained in the Holy Scriptures and church tradition, as well as on the concept of a divine mandate given to worldly rulers.

Firstly, an argument grounded in biblical heritage is presented: the death penalty was recognized as an acceptable measure of punishment even in the Old Testament, and there are no explicit indications of its abolition in the New Testament. One source notes:
"The special measure of punishment—the death penalty—was acknowledged in the Old Testament. There are no indications in the New Testament Holy Scriptures, nor in the Tradition and historical heritage of the Orthodox Church, that it should be abolished." (source: 1086_5426.txt)

Secondly, there is a position based on ecclesiastical authorities. For example, one source states that some Orthodox believers feel it is their duty to defend the application of the death penalty, with its supporters claiming that those who oppose it are devoid of true faith and conscience. Specifically:
"However, there is still another reason why many Orthodox people today consider it their duty to defend the death penalty. ... Moreover, Archbishop Nikon (Rozhdestvensky), who was a persistent opponent of L. Tolstoy even in those times, asserted that those who oppose the death penalty are people without faith, and therefore without conscience, without honor..." (source: 1228_6136.txt)

Finally, there is a more specific religious justification linked to the fight against heretics and apostates from the Orthodox faith. According to one quoted text, the sacred civil rules contain norms stating that individuals who, despite having received holy baptism, renounce the Orthodox faith or propagate heresy are subject to the death penalty:
"In the sacred rules relating to civil laws concerning unbelievers and heretics, it is stated as follows: those who have received holy baptism but have renounced the Orthodox faith and become heretics… are subject to the death penalty. If a Jew dares to corrupt the Christian faith, he is to have his head cut off. And if Manicheans or other heretics… let them be cut by the sword; and he who knows of this and does no