What Does The Bible Say About Capital Punishment?

When one hears of tragedy like the recent massacre in Aurora, Colorado, a feeling of anger often rises. We sometimes ask, "Where was God? Where is his justice?" While God will have his day of judgment in the future, what are we, as human beings in this temporal world to do? Many, like myself, say justice for the society is to be found in capital punishment (hence forth CP). I am aware that other Christians strongly disagree. I argue that CP is the more Biblical position.

The first mention of CP in the Bible is in Genesis 9:6, which reads, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." When we see words like "so", "thus", "for" or "therefore", it is telling us why something is there for. Genesis 9:6 tells us that we capitally punish those who commit capital crimes because we are made in the image of God. In other words, a direct attack on humans is an indirect attack on God himself. Since the imago dei is what gives us value, and that value is being attacked, it seems that the criminal has forfeited his right to what makes him valuable as well. Hence, CP for capital crimes are just.

In the New Testament, we read in Romans 13:3-4, we read, ^"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." For those who would like to dismiss the Genesis passage by simply saying that those were Old Testament days, and we live in the New Testament age, that will simply not work because capital punishment is used as an instrument of justice in Romans. If it is just that good people are commended, then it is just that bad people are punished. Since CP is in Romans use of instruments of punishment, then it follows that CP is a just and not unjust use of punishment.

My case rests on these two passage. They provide not merely a Biblical point of reference, but a moral one, and since God's moral nature does not change, we can expect the moral commands to never change either. This ought to be decisive enough. Some may object that more scriptures are needed, that we ought base our theology on a handful of scriptures, and not just a few. But how many times does God have to say something to make his intentions clear and for us to believe it? With these two passages, which are very clear indeed, this is all that is needed.

To strengthen my argument, I want to look at some objections from other people. In the ICOC, Douglas Jacoby is a well respected intellectual, so I have decided to look at and respond to some of what he has put out in public about CP which seem to be on the opposing side of what I believe the Bible has to say.

In addressing CP in general for modern application, Jacoby writes, "...today there is no more 'church state.' Politics and Christianity do not mix. Not practically, and not theologically. So I do not think the scriptures directly address the situation you refer to." How then does Jacoby view Romans 13? God is using government as his instrument. God is forcing the mix. And as I have argued before, Politics and Christianity do indeed mix, can mix well, both practically and theologically. 

In answering the question as to whether it is wrong to kill another for killing, Jacoby responds, "...while the New Testament recognizes that the governments of man may enforce capital punishment (see Romans 13:4) it is difficult to build a NT doctrine on an Old Testament law." I wonder what Jacoby means by doctrine. Is there a doctrine about lying? No, and there are not multiple passages about lying because God's intent is not ambiguous. Whatever Jacoby may mean doctrine, what can be said about the passage in Genesis and Romans that wouldn't make the morality of CP obvious? Whether or not you can build a "doctrine" on it, whatever that may mean, the teaching on the subject is crystal clear.

He then writes, "Though I am wary of supporting the death penalty -- because of inconsistency and slowness of application not to mention the irrevocability of a wrong decision (I wonder, what punishment is revocable?)-- I am afraid this issue will remain  in the minds of most believers  a matter of opinion." Why should the practical matter of how one goes about executing justice (in this case CP) have any bearing on the moral question? The question was whether or not it is wrong to execute CP. While I do share Jacoby's concerns,  they are reasonable ones, the question is one of principle, one of morality. And, in principle, the answer is Biblically clear: CP is just. If there is a problem with the system, then you fix the system, you don't abolish the instrument of justice. And is this to remain a matter of opinion? I don't see why it should. What did our Lord teach that can be reduced to a matter of opinion?

Jacoby then issues this challenge, "I would however like to point out a major inconsistency among proponents of the death penalty. The same OT law that stipulates execution for murder also requires execution for adultery. But who favors that? Certainly not most death penalty advocates. The OT required the death penalty for many crimes and offences (sic)...Do you see the difficulty here? Where do we draw the line? Why favor a death penalty for murder (based on the OT law) while rejecting a death penalty for other capital crimes in OT law?" I do not see any difficulty here. Why? Because Jacoby isn't comparing like with like. The passage in Genesis pre-dates the Mosaic Law, so saying the Law was done away with would not apply to the Genesis passage. It was not a command given as a law, but as I already explained, there is moral reasoning behind it, and that will never change so long as we are created in God's image. Also, when proponents of CP talk about its justification, it is usually in the context of capital crimes. Assume for the sake of argument that this challenge is taken anyways. The difficulty in drawing the line does not mean there is no line at all. Sure there may be unjust uses of capital punishment, but how does it follow that because we don't know in how many places to exercise this punishment, that we do away with it? That is like saying, because we don't know if we should put 16 year old in Juvie with other adolescents or an adult prison, that we should therefore not put him in prison at all. Jacoby's challenge seems to assume the justice of CP anyways! But if it is just, then our question is answered. And finally, also assuming for arguments sake that Jocoby's challenge gets off the ground and succeeds in showing an inconsistency, that is all it proves. That the person is inconsistent. But what does that have to do with whether or not Christians should be for or against CP? This is simply an ad hominem fallacy. For these reasons Jacoby's challenge simply does not go through.

In another entry about CP, Jacoby comments, "Although the N.T. acknowledges the death penalty's use by the state (Romans 13:3-4), we find no explicit doctrine of capital punishment. This means that for Christians the Bible neither commands nor condemns it." I suppose it is now crucial that we know what is meant by "doctrine" (maybe somebody would like to forward him this article to find out?) because, as I have argued, Romans 13 and Genesis 9 make it quite explicit whether or not Christian's can be for CP.

In the same entry, Jacoby does give us some points to consider, points number one, two and three being relevant to this discussion. Point number one reminds us that God and God only has the right to take life. That is correct. Why? Because this life is not ours. It is God's, rightfully. However, as point two points out, God may extend that right to us. Also, once a person has forfeited his right to life, there would be nothing wrong thus to take his life. So a Christian can still be consistent there.

And finally, Jacoby cites Matthew 5:39-45 and concludes from it, "...Christians are forbidden to kill." This is taking the message of Jesus famous sermon out of context (credit to the following explanation goes entirely to Donald Sunukjian). What is the context? Context begins at verse 20. Jesus' thesis here is, "...unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." But the Pharisees and the teachers were the most righteous people around! How is it possible to surpass them? Jesus gives us six examples of how it is done. Notice how he starts off these examples: verse 21, "You have heard that it was said...", verse 27, "You have heard that it was said...", verse 31, "It has been said...", verse 33, "Again, you have heard that it was said...", verse 38, "You have heard that it was said...", verse 43, "You have heard that it was said...". After Jesus tells us what has been said, in every single instance he follows it with, "But I tell you...". So there is a comparing and contrasting. He is comparing the teaching of the Pharisees and teachers of the law with his own teaching.

So what has been said? In every example, Jesus is citing an Old Testament passage. Then, he goes on to explain what God's intent was in applying these passages. In all the examples (excluding the fifth to avoid question-begging) he not once abolishes these laws. What is happening then is that the Pharisees and teachers were taking these OT passages and abusing them. Jesus is correcting those abuses. With these corrections in mind, we now know how to surpass the Pharisees and teachers in righteousness, since we now know what God meant. So what did God mean when he said, "Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth"?

What this means is that the degree of punishment cannot go further than the degree of provocation. It was a just restrictive law in a barbaric world. For example, in Genesis 4:23, we read, "Lamech said to his wives, 'Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.'" There was an escalation beyond the degree of provocation. That is like stabbing a guy for punching you. Obviously the punishment did not fit the crime. And into that world God says, "No, you will not do that. Eye for eye, tooth for tooth." This was meant to be a law that was restrictive and just.

We see this played out in Deuteronomy 19:16-21, which says, "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime,the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time.The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother,then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you.The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you.Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot." Judges, who have no stake in the case, who are objective and not tainted by passions, can look into the case and make a decision. This is what our modern day Court Judges do. The principle of lex talionis was meant to be a principle for the judicial system. It was meant to be exercised in a court of law.

So how was it being abused by the Pharisees and teachers of the law? We see how by the contrast that Jesus gives. He says, "If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." A strike on the right cheek is a backhanded strike. That sends a message of contempt. Of dislike. Of disrespect. A blow to the left check is designed to do damage, not a backhand. This is a personal one on one encounter, which tells how the Pharisees were abusing it. They were taking a principle that was meant to be for a judicial court, and they were applying it for individual one on one encounters. A smack on the cheek, the taking of your tunic, the making you go a mile, these are all small individual encounters, not major court cases as God intended it to be. The Pharisees were abusing the passage in this way.

So we conclude from this that the application of lex talionis still applies. It would not make sense to have it abolished since none of the other five examples Jesus gave were abolished. Instead, they were made even more difficult. But making the principle increasingly difficult implies that it still exists. It makes more sense that the teachings were merely clarified. The implications of the clarification means there is still an enforcement of lex talionis. We resist senseless evil like Hitler and other murderous thugs, but we turn the other cheek when it comes to rude people. So in no way does Matthew 5:39-42 prohibit killing. In fact, it upholds it.

Now, I am actually against CP. I don't like its use. Who does? Who enjoys seeing the destruction of God's children? We learn in Ezekiel 33:11 that it is certainly not God. However, the moral conditions necessary to abolish CP have not been met. Until then, CP, as ugly as it is, must be upheld. God approves of it.