Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls: The Cheers for Death

Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls: The Cheers for Death

Last updated on: October 15, 2026 at 11:11 pm by Jeff McLain

0 Comments

Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls: The Cheers for Death 2026-10-15T23:11:53-04:00 Jeff McLain

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash. Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls: A reflection on Jesus, vengeance, capital punishment, and the church’s witness in a polarized world.

Turning an execution into a public spectacle is a disturbing expression of political power. Such a spectacle invites us to view another human being’s death not simply as a matter of justice, but as a demonstration of the state’s powerful strength and a sport for public consumption. It is the Roman arena all over again. I am particularly troubled that some who identify as followers of Jesus welcomed the proposal and have even celebrated the idea. Though it has been canceled as a livestreaming event, I still want to address the attitude that has manifested in the church of late.

To understand why this topic deserves our attention, it helps to remember that execution by firing squad is not merely a historic relic of a distant past. It remains part of the American system of capital punishment, which is gaining in popularity (and support?), and now carrying with it a history that raises difficult questions about justice, power, and the public display of death. Yet followers of Jesus advocate for something I do not believe we can argue for from the character or way of life we see in our confession of Christ Jesus.

The History of the Firing Squad

It may be surprising to learn that five states in the United States still authorize execution by firing squad: Idaho, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah. As of July 2026, Idaho has made it its primary method of execution.

I have never witnessed an execution by firing squad, and I began wondering what this method of execution has looked like throughout history.

Firing squads have a long and troubling history, particularly in military justice and wartime punishment. The practice is sometimes called fusillading, a term derived from the French word for “fire.” Traditionally, multiple shooters fire together, and procedures have sometimes been designed so that no individual shooter knows whose shot proved fatal. The condemned person might be blindfolded or hooded, although practices have varied across times and places.

Historically, firing squads have been used to execute people convicted by military courts of offenses such as desertion, mutiny, espionage, and treason. But the practice has never been confined to wartime or military justice.

During the American Revolution, General George Washington approved hundreds of military death sentences, some involving execution by firing squad. During the Civil War, both Union and Confederate forces executed deserters, sometimes before assembled troops as a warning to others.

One particularly strange episode occurred in Nevada in 1913. When prison officials could not find five men willing to form a firing squad, they had a mechanical shooting device constructed to execute Andriza Mircovich. He became the only person executed by shooting in Nevada’s history.

I find these details unsettling. We tend to think of executions as distant historical events or as practices belonging to other countries. Yet firing squads remain a legally authorized method of capital punishment in the United States.

I am not convinced we should become comfortable with this or treat it as ordinary. The history raises difficult questions about the power of the state, the meaning of justice, and what happens when taking a human life becomes an accepted instrument of punishment.

In 1960, Utah executed James W. Rodgers by firing squad. He was the only person executed by this method in the United States that year, not seven. Since executions resumed in 1977, the firing squad has remained an exceptionally rare method of capital punishment.

In 2004, Utah effectively ended the option of choosing execution by firing squad for newly sentenced prisoners. However, the change was not retroactive, leaving three men on death row with that method preserved under the earlier law.

In March 2015, Utah restored the firing squad as a backup method if the state could not obtain the drugs needed for lethal injection.

South Carolina took a similar turn in 2021, when the legislature made electrocution the default method if lethal injection was unavailable and authorized firing squad as an alternative. In 2022, Richard Moore was scheduled to be executed by firing squad, but the South Carolina Supreme Court stayed his execution before it could take place.

In 2023, Idaho lawmakers considered restoring the firing squad as a method of execution. Tennessee also considered alternative execution methods amid ongoing problems obtaining lethal-injection drugs. Idaho ultimately enacted legislation restoring the firing squad, which became its primary execution method on July 1, 2026.

Then came 2025. South Carolina executed three men by firing squad: Brad Sigmon in March, Mikal Mahdi in April, and Stephen Bryant in November. These were the first firing-squad executions in the United States since 2010.

These situations made a lot less news than the most recent plans for execution by firing squad.

Let me not get distracted, because the history of the firing squad, or the argument for or against public execution, is not the central concern of this post. The way the church, and followers of Jesus, have fought for, agreed with, and focused on the prospect of turning a modern execution into a public event is my biggest concern. The question is no longer simply how the state carries out a death sentence, but what it means when the death itself becomes something people are invited to watch and people who claim to be forgiving because they have been forgiven, become its largest advocates and celebrators.

When Execution Becomes a Spectacle

Nidal Hasan, the former Army major convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, is scheduled to be executed by firing squad on December 3, 2026.

Nidal Hasan is a former U.S. Army major and psychiatrist who was convicted of killing 13 people and attempting to murder 32 others in a shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009. Hasan admitted his role in the attack during his court-martial and was sentenced to death in August 2013. The attack, carried out against fellow American service members, became one of the most consequential acts of violence on a U.S. military installation in the era after September 11, 2001.

The news really broke when Trump approved the execution. In October 2026, President Donald Trump approved Hasan’s execution by firing squad, and the Army scheduled it for December 3. At the same time, the United States Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, announced plans to livestream the execution, a proposal that sparked considerable controversy.

The reactions crossed political, ethical, and religious lines. The proposed execution has generated renewed debate about capital punishment, military justice, and the role of public spectacle in state-sanctioned killing. Some defended the death sentence as an appropriate punishment for the crimes, while others objected to broadcasting an execution to the public. There were many concerns, including but not limited to the ethics of making a person’s death a public show, the implied power play, and the moral implications of using a government broadcast to display state-sanctioned killing.

The outcry and pushback were successful. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth initially announced plans to livestream the execution, a proposal that drew criticism from across the political spectrum. On October 15, President Donald Trump reversed that decision, announcing that the execution would not be livestreamed. He maintained that the execution would proceed as scheduled, although legal appeals could still affect the timing. There seems to be an open invitation to the family of those who suffered as well to witness this still semi-public event.

The debate raises a question that extends beyond Hasan himself: even when a person has been convicted of a terrible crime and sentenced to death, what responsibilities does a society have in deciding how that punishment is carried out—and whether it should be turned into a public spectacle?

Hear this. Hasan committed a truly evil act out of the evil in his heart. There are no excuses or positive ways to see his heinous crime. My heart breaks for the families that were affected by his murderous, treacherous, and sinful heart. However, if we are followers of Jesus, we must examine our hearts and response to this news.

Some years ago, I read Bill Kurtis’s The Death Penalty on Trial: Crisis in American Justice. Kurtis, a longtime journalist and television host, examines wrongful convictions and the failures, corruption, and injustices that can occur within the American criminal justice system. He raises serious questions about the use of the death penalty and ultimately argues that capital punishment is wrong. It is an interesting read, and Kurtis and I share a conviction that the death penalty is wrong. Though Kurtis’ argument is rooted in the corruption of a system, mine is rooted in the one who can, and promises to, reverse the corruption of the soul. My opposition stems from a deep theological commitment, not a political or systemic one. That, however, is not the focus of this post.

What I want to address is the disturbing support I have seen for President Trump’s original desire to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan. Hasan was convicted of murdering 13 people at Fort Hood and attempting to murder 32 others. His crimes were horrific, and he was sentenced to death. Yet the question of whether the state should execute him is distinct from the question of whether his execution should become a public spectacle. The absurdity that it was even considered to be public is alarming and reflects the unhealthy, narcissistic, and evil powers expressed in the current running of our democracy. I am particularly troubled by the support this proposal has received from some who identify as followers of Jesus.

As followers of Jesus, we have been commanded to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27–28). We are people who have been taught to forgive as we have been forgiven (Matthew 6:12, 14–15; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13). We follow a Savior who told us not to repay evil for evil, but to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:17–21; 1 Thessalonians 5:15; 1 Peter 3:9). We worship a crucified Messiah who refused to answer violence with violence (1 Peter 2:21–23; Matthew 26:52–54; John 18:36). To live by the sword will ultimately bring upon us the same death (Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10).

Proverbs offers us an important posture in moments like these: “Do not rejoice when your enemy falls, And do not let your heart rejoice when he stumbles” (Proverbs 24:17, NASB 2020). The passage goes on to warn that the Lord may see our rejoicing, be displeased, and turn His anger away from our enemy (Proverbs 24:18). It is a sobering reminder that even when someone has committed terrible evil, we are not permitted to take delight in their downfall.

Proverbs tells us not to fret because of evildoers or envy the wicked, because there is a future and our hope will not be cut off (Proverbs 24:19–20; see also Proverbs 23:17–18). We can trust that God sees what we cannot fully see and that evil will not have the final word.

Yet the defense and celebration of this proposed execution by some who identify as followers of Jesus is alarming. Some have not only supported the decision but have also expressed eagerness to watch. We should pause before treating the death of another human being as a spectacle. Even when the person is guilty of terrible crimes, we are not called to delight in their suffering or celebrate their destruction. We are called to entrust judgment to God and to resist the temptation to repay wrong with wrong (Proverbs 20:22; 24:29; Romans 12:17–21).

This does not mean we should abandon justice or become indifferent to the suffering of victims. It means our pursuit of justice must be shaped by God’s character and Jesus’ teachings. We can condemn evil without rejoicing in an evildoer’s death. We can desire accountability without cultivating vengeance. And we can grieve for victims while refusing to celebrate the taking of another human life. We pray and hope that these individuals will be convicted, gripped, and changed. Scripture is full of these stories, from Paul to the thief on the cross. The Spirit of God is at work; God is making all things new, and sometimes he even grips and convicts the hearts of those we may think are too far gone.

Proverbs also warns us against being drawn with partiality toward those in places of privilege and power: “Do not associate with those who are given to change” (Proverbs 24:21, NASB 2020). The following verse warns of the disaster that can come upon those who do so (Proverbs 24:22). The broader passage calls us to integrity in judgment, refusing to show partiality or to declare the guilty innocent (Proverbs 24:23–25). These warnings should prompt us to examine how readily we align with the powerful and privileged and oppress the powerless, especially when the actions we align with now conflict with the spiritual, moral, ethical, and God-honoring commitments we believe and profess.

The same chapter and book of Proverbs that calls us to rescue those being led away to death and those staggering toward slaughter (Proverbs 24:11–12) also calls us to refrain from rejoicing when our enemies fall. We cannot comfortably embrace one passage while ignoring the other. The command to rescue those facing death challenges us to consider a consistent ethic of human life, one that extends beyond the womb and encompasses the whole human lifespan. Though this verse is used in many pro-life, anti-abortion circles with which I have association, it goes beyond that. If we can affirm the value of human life before birth and treat this verse as a call to arms, then we must also reckon seriously with the value of human life after birth, including the lives of those who have committed grave wrongs. In fact, that fits the context of this verse much more accurately.

In this chapter of Proverbs, we are reminded that God weighs the heart and knows what we have seen, considered, and done in response (Proverbs 21:2; 24:11–12). We cannot claim ignorance when suffering is before us, nor can we excuse our response simply because we consider the person suffering deserving of it. Jesus clearly expounds on this teaching. In the New Testament, Jesus teaches us to love our enemies, pray for those who persecute us, and refuse to repay evil with evil (Matthew 5:44; Luke 6:27–28; Matthew 5:38–42). He warns us against hypocritical judgment and calls us to extend the same mercy we have received from God (Matthew 7:1–5; Luke 6:36–37). We are a forgiven people focused on forgiving others, and we are a saved people working to see others delivered. When Peter reaches for the sword, Jesus commands him to put it away, saying it is not the way at hand, and in doing so reminds us that his kingdom advances not through violence (Matthew 26:52; John 18:36).

Jesus’ followers are not simply asked whether someone has committed evil or deserves punishment. It is whether our response to that evil reflects God’s wisdom and the way of Christ. What do our reactions reveal about our hearts? What are we teaching others to celebrate? And what kind of people are we becoming when we find ourselves eager to watch another human being die?

None of this requires us to minimize the suffering of Hasan’s victims, excuse his crimes, or abandon the pursuit of justice. Their lives matter. Their families’ grief matters. Justice matters.

But so does the way we respond to those who have committed terrible wrongs.

If we believe that human beings bear the image of God, that mercy is central to the character of God, and that Jesus calls his followers to love even their enemies, then we have a theological reason to question the celebration of state-sanctioned killing. We should be especially wary of turning an execution into entertainment, a spectacle, or an occasion for public vindication.

The question is not whether Hasan deserves our sympathy more than his victims deserve our compassion. That is a false choice. We can grieve with those who have suffered, condemn the violence that was committed, and still refuse to celebrate another human being’s death.

Followers of Jesus should be among those willing to raise their voices when the taking of a human life becomes an occasion for public entertainment. We have a theological responsibility to ask what our words, our affections, and our public witness reveal about the kingdom we claim to follow.

We are not called merely to condemn evil. We are called to respond to evil in the way of Jesus.

I want to be clear about what I am (and am not) arguing. Hear me, please: I am not asking anyone to excuse Hasan’s crimes, minimize the suffering of his victims, or forget the families whose lives were forever changed through loss and suffering. I am asking a different question: What does our response to his impending, violent, and spectacle execution reveal about us as followers of Jesus and what we believe about dignity and the image of God? We must examine not only the state’s actions, but also the desires and attitudes we bring to them.

Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls

When I say these things, the argument is never far away: What about Romans 13 and its apparent permission for the government to wield the sword? A false dichotomy exists between opposing how a government exercises its power and remaining submissive to governing authorities. We have never understood Romans 13:1–5 as requiring blind submission. Pastors have long acknowledged that when governments command us to disobey God or abandon our faith, we must obey God rather than human authorities (Acts 5:29).

Yet we sometimes forget that Paul was writing to followers of Jesus living under Roman imperial rule, not under some ideal, God-ordained system of just government. Rome was an empire capable of brutal oppression, and Christians would eventually suffer persecution under its rulers. Paul could hardly have intended us to conclude that every exercise of governmental power necessarily reflects God’s justice.

We are citizens, not anarchists, though I wrestled with anarchism as a teenager, and submission to governing authorities does not require unquestioning trust. I can follow the law on the road, pay taxes, and obey other laws, and still want our government to be more conscientious about ethics, morals, justice, and the like. Like John the Baptist confronting Herod, we as followers of Jesus, I believe, can and must speak prophetically to those in power and in seats of privilege, challenging them with the contrast between the ways of the Kingdom and the world (Mark 6:17–18). The beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount certainly clash with the world’s way. That means justice remains a concern for Jesus’ people, even when the world around us does not care. Paul’s argument in Romans 13 is not blind trust; it is that governing authorities have a role in maintaining order and restraining wrongdoing, and that doing what is right should not ordinarily bring us into conflict with legitimate authority. Authority has an ordained role. That does not mean all authority or its ways are equal to the ways of the Kingdom of God.

At this point in the conversation, someone will always object that the government has been given authority to punish wrongdoing and that Scripture recognizes this responsibility. I understand their intent, but cannot applaud their hermeneutic. That objection deserves a serious response. If we are committed to the way of Jesus, we must engage passages that appear to challenge our convictions rather than simply set them aside. We cannot read Jesus through the lens of governmental submission.

What About Romans 13?

Defenders of capital punishment often point to Romans 13:4–5, particularly the reference to the governing authority bearing the sword. But Paul does not tell Christians they are responsible for wielding that sword, nor does his description of governmental authority establish that every punishment a government imposes is just. The sword describes the authority the state exercises, not an unlimited endorsement of everything the state chooses to do. Arguing otherwise would be stupid and ignorant. We must start with the understanding and confession that governments can act unjustly, and that is exemplified in the story of Jesus himself, who was executed by the authority of the state, which the religious used wrongly to get their desired end.

Paul knew something about God’s mercy, having been transformed from a persecutor of the church into an apostle of Christ (1 Timothy 1:12–16). I cannot reconcile an unqualified Christian endorsement of capital punishment with the Jesus who calls us to love our enemies, take up our crosses, and lay down our lives for our friends (Matthew 5:44; 16:24–25; John 15:13). We cannot make Romans 13 the controlling lens through which we interpret everything Jesus taught about mercy, forgiveness, and our treatment of those who do us wrong.

Nor can we ignore the demonstrated reality that innocent people have been executed. Romans 13:4 cannot reasonably be treated as an absolute guarantee that every government wielding the sword is administering God’s justice. We would hardly argue that North Korea, Russia, or governments like Iran that execute people for theft or drug trafficking are necessarily carrying out God’s will simply because they exercise the authority of the state. Yet too often, we read Paul’s words through an American lens, using the sword to defend punishments we believe people deserve.

Submission to government is not the same as declaring every government action righteous. And recognizing the state’s authority is not the same as insisting that Christians must celebrate or defend every use of that authority. Our allegiance is to Jesus, and we must evaluate every earthly power in light of his kingdom.

Reading the Old Testament Through Jesus

Another argument people often resort to is the Old Testament example. Yet even where particular punishments were understood as ordained by God, historical evidence within Judaism suggests that some of these penalties were more about standards and may have been practiced less frequently than we imagine. Furthermore, the Old Testament contains commands with enduring moral significance that we have largely neglected, such as leaving the edges of our fields unharvested so that the poor and the foreigner could gather food (Leviticus 19:9–10; 23:22). The Old Testament cannot simply be treated as a rulebook for modern America. God gave it to a particular people in a particular time and place, and we must read it in light of the whole biblical story. Too often, we cherry-pick the passages that support our existing convictions while overlooking those that challenge us.

However, we cannot ignore Jesus’ centrality to our understanding of God’s character, purposes, and will. In Jesus, we see God’s heart most fully revealed. Jesus challenges established understandings of power, divorce, justice, and the treatment of others, repeatedly calling God’s people beyond the comfortable interpretations they have inherited (Matthew 5:21–48; 19:3–9). Jesus’s person and posture must command our attention. We cannot gloat over the death of another human being, celebrate the cruelty of a political party, or uncritically endorse a government’s exercise of power simply because it serves our preferred vision of justice. When a government’s actions reveal the darker expressions of human power, followers of Jesus must wrestle honestly with our attitudes, allegiances, and complicity. If Jesus remains at the center of who we are as his people, then we must continually ask whether our response to wrongdoing reflects the character of the One we claim to follow. We cannot keep supporting our political parties, alliances, and voted-in leaders just because we feel loyalty. We are first and foremost called to loyalty to God’s way, words, works, and will.

These questions must be examined in our lives. We must let these questions and this examination bring us back to the heart of the matter: who we follow and what lens we see life through. How we interpret Scripture, understand governmental authority, and respond to wrongdoing cannot be separated from our understanding of Jesus. We must test our convictions not merely by whether we can defend them politically or legally, but by whether they reflect the character and way of the One we claim to follow.

Our Allegiance Is to Jesus

The execution, if it proceeds as scheduled, would be the first U.S. military execution since 1961 and the first military execution by firing squad since 1945. The United States has a complicated history of public executions, and the proposed livestream would have represented a distinctly modern form of public access to an execution. The support, gloating, and defense from followers of Jesus who have addressed this man with disdain are alarming. Though the firing square remains a historic part of our country’s legal system, its now renewed use raises difficult questions about justice, punishment, and the power of the state to take human life. The follower of Jesus cannot defend the trespasser’s evil actions, but they also cannot become a trespasser who dances on the graves of those they disagree with or feel unjustly wronged by. The church more than ever needs to wake up and be reminded of the ways of Jesus, not the ways of an American society read into black-and-white text that we want to weaponize for our political ends.

After years of wrestling with these thoughts, I am more convinced than ever that a follower of Jesus cannot minimize the evil another person has committed. To argue against the way we have used Romans 13 is not one and the same as supporting heinous crimes. Though, neither can we become people who celebrate another person’s destruction simply because we believe it is deserved or because that person belongs to a group we despise. As those who are learning to, and called to, live, love, and lead like Jesus, we cannot read teachings from Jesus that contrast and condemn the world’s way of violence while allowing its instincts for vengeance to shape our own hearts and to bring out evil celebration in us.

The church needs to recover, now more than ever, the way of Jesus rather than the ways of the political world around us. We must stop weaponizing Scripture to defend our political loyalties and allow the words, works, and way of Jesus to challenge them. Our first allegiance is not to a political party, a president, or a particular vision of national power. It is to the kingdom of God and the crucified Messiah we profess to follow.

If this post resonated, subscribe for future reflections, share it with a friend, or leave a comment. You can learn more about his journey to recover a rooted Christian way of life through the Lord’s Prayer, ancient habits, leading a quiet life, and simple Jesus communities online at JeffMcLain.com, the Lead a Quiet Life blog on Patheos, or the Discovering God Podcast.

General Christian

Politics and Religion

History and Religion

Lead A Quiet Life as Resistance

Death Penalty

Do Not Rejoice When Your Enemy Falls

Election

Forgiveness

ForgivenessDeath Penalty

About Jeff McLain

Jeff McLain is a Doctor of Ministry Student on the Lord’s Prayer at Kairos University, Director of Pastoral Ministries at Water Street Mission, and a pastor at River Corner Church. Mobilized by 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12, Jeff blogs about recovering a rooted Christian way of life through the Lord’s Prayer, ancient habits, leading a quiet life, and simple Jesus communities. You can read more about the author here.

Previous Post

October 8, 2026

ESV Large Print Thinline Reference Bible Review

True or False: The parable of the Good Samaritan is found in all four Gospels.

Select your answer to see how you score.

FALSE TRUE