It seems that every day, when we pick up the newspaper, or turn on the news on the TV, the lead story of the day is that someone has been shot or stabbed. Whether it be from a robbery, or gang violence, every day someone is losing their life at the hands of another. Why is that? What are the causes of such an increase in violent crime? Sociologists will quickly say the economic conditions are a major contributing factor to the crime rate and to a certain extent this is true, others will speak of the influence of the media on the minds who view the violence on TV and in the movies, and undoubtedly this too is a major contributing factor. But the real reason that violent crime has risen drastically lately is that we as a society, have abandoned a biblical philosophy of the value and purpose of life. Life is no longer considered a gift from God, but but a brief section on a metaphysical time line that man possesses do do with whatever he or she so desires. If we bring a life into existence that we do not want, we abort it. If life is filled with too much pain and suffering, we "mercifully" kill it. If someone exists that we don't like, we shoot them. After all, the current philosophy of life states, life is for me to live however I choose and I should have the right to do whatever I choose to do. Since, in our humanistic society, God does not even exist, or if He does He certainly is not sovereign, then society is free to determine their own set of do's and don'ts. And if God does not exist, then there is no such thing as sin. The effects of this thinking is reflected in our renaming of our prisons. They are no longer called jails or penitentiaries, but "correctional institutions". A criminal goes there, not because there is a crime to be paid for, but to be rehabilitated into society. In this day we no longer punish the criminal for what they have done because if it is not sinful, there is no need for punishment. If the criminal is not responsible for their actions because of their economic background, or their mental condition because of this wonderful thing called temporary insanity, then it would be inhumane to punish them. This philosophy violates a biblical principle that sin, when committed warrants punishment. In this paper, we want to examine the argument for capital punishment for capital crimes.

There are three main arguments in objection to the use of capital punishment. The first, and probably the most important, is the issue of deterrence. Those who oppose the use of capital punishment will cite statistics that seem to indicate that capital punishment is an ineffective deterrent to crime. Therefore, with no pragmatic value, we should refrain from using such a barbaric act of punishment. While we will yet examine this argument in more detail, let me say first of all that this argument is of little to no relevance concerning the morality or immorality of capital punishment. This issue in not whether it deters crime or not, but whether it is a just punishment for the crime committed. If the argument for deterrence was applied to our penal system as a whole, we would be forced to suspend any type of punishment, or shall I say corrections, for the crime rate is continuing to rise and little, if any corrections are being made to the criminal.

Even though deterrence is not the issue, let us examine it for a moment anyway. Understand that statistics can be made to prove just about anything, and in this issue there have been statistics put forth by both sides "conclusively proving" their points. Without trying to be funny or sarcastic, I would like to share one statistic that is undeniable. Any criminal who has received capital punishment for their crime has never been a repeat offender. I wish we could say the same about the rest of our criminal justice system.

It is actually impossible to measure the deterrent value of capital punishment. How can a test be devised that can accurately measure something that never happened? Tests can only be accurate in measuring that which has taken place, not that which is probable or possible. Despite this, I find a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1971 very interesting. They surveyed 99 criminals that had committed an unarmed crime. Now I make no boast as to the significance of this study, certainly 99 people does not qualify as a definitive work, but the results do provide a basis for the deterrent value of capital punishment. Of these 99, 50 responded that they had committed an unarmed crime because of the death penalty being in effect. Had it not been for the death penalty, they probably would have taken a gun with them to their crime. Of the remaining 49, 10 said that no mater what the law stated, they would have killed someone if necessary. We see that roughly 90 % of those who committed a crime were somewhat to strongly deterred by the death penalty from committing a possible capital crime. To further support the deterrent value, these figures are given into evidence:

The second objection is that capital punishment violates Jesus' command to forgive. The argument proceeds that the concept of an eye for an eye is an Old Testament regulation, but in the New Testament we find the directive of Jesus to forgive and leave vengeance to Him. While there is a certain amount of truth to this argument, it can not be extended into the area of civil justice. This argument is only true in the realm of personal justice. In fact, it is absolutely impossible to apply this directive in the area of a capital crime. In the area of granting forgiveness, we must ask the question, who is to forgive. Biblical forgiveness can only be enacted by two persons: first, God, who can forgive man's sins against Him, and secondly, the offended party in a case of a sin between 2 men. But in the case of a capital crime, the offended is dead and unable to grant forgiveness. Now it is absolutely certain that God can forgive a murderer, but God's forgiveness does not necessarily eliminate the consequences of the sin that has been committed. 2 Samuel 12 is a perfect example. David has sinned with Bathsheba and now Bathsheba is with child. David attempts to cover his sin by having Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba have marital relations with his wife so that he might think the child belongs to him and not another. When this plan failed, David orders Uriah to be put at the front lines and the rest of the army is to retreat, leaving Uriah literally as a "dead duck". David is now, not only guilty of adultery, but of murder also. At least 9 months transpire in which no one is the wiser concerning David's sin. The child has been born to Bathsheba who is now the wife of David. All is fine, at least until Nathan, the prophet of God comes on the scene and pronounces David as guilty. Verse 9 continues,

"Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? Thou hast killed Uriah, the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon. Now therefore the sword shall never depart from thy house; because thou hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife. Thus saith the Lord, Behold I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun. For thou didst it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun."

"However, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die."

The third major argument against the use of capital punishment is the possibility of executing an innocent person. Certainly that is a legitimate concern. Since we do not have a perfect judicial system, how can we take the risk of taking an innocent person's life, the argument continues. While this argument is a legitimate concern, it is not a logical argument. If the system of declaring a person innocent or guilty is amiss, you change the system of declaring guilt, not the consequences of the guilt. Simply because the law may be misapplied, you do not throw out the law. In fact, if we take this argument to its logical conclusion, we can not inflict any punishment upon any criminal for fear of convicting an innocent person. As stated earlier, the only real question is, "Is capital punishment a just punishment for capital crimes?".

Before we look at the specific arguments supporting the use of capital punishment, we need to set a basis of Bible interpretation known as the doctrine of progressive revelation. By this we mean that God did not, all at once, reveal the totality of his mind concerning the affairs of men, but, over a period of time, progressively gave bits and pieces of it to men. For example, Adam received but 2 commandments to live by: be fruitful and multiply and, do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Abraham did not receive all of the Old Testament, nor did Moses. The Apostle Paul did not receive all of the New Testament. God, through time and through different men, communicated what man needed to hear for the day in which he lived. Consequently, today we have in our possession the complete mind of God that is necessary for the day in which we live and we are held accountable to know and understand all that is given to us. However, those who lived in Old Testament times could not be held accountable for revelation they had not received. Paul indicates this in Romans 5 where Paul writes about the time from Abraham to Moses where sin was in the world but the law had not yet been given. Men, because they were sinners by nature, died, but the condemnation of the law could not be held against them for they were unknowing of it and had no way of knowing of it.

The most important element of progressive revelation though, is that the first revelation given about any subject in Scripture stands as foundational to the understanding of that subject throughout the rest of the Bible. Therefore it is always helpful for us to understand the first reference to any subject in Scripture. Concerning capital punishment, we find its first mention in Genesis 9:6. Here we find the institution of capital punishment. Now some may say that this is Old Testament stuff and not for today, but I remind you that this is not just Old Testament, but foundational. And while it is true that it is Old Testament literature, it is also that which is given before the Law of Moses. This is a commandment, not given specifically to Israel, but to the world at large.

The situation is this. The command to fill the earth has been obeyed but unfortunately the world was not filled with righteous people, but with unrighteous. Because of man's wickedness, God institutes His own world-wide act of capital punishment, taking the lives of everyone but 8 souls, of which was Noah and his family. These 8 are told to repopulate the world. Without the instigation of some new regulation for living, this commandment would have been terrifying to Noah, for the basic disposition of man had not changed while confined on the Ark, he was still a sinner by nature. If two sinners, who originally populated the earth, would produce an earth filled with unrighteous men that God would need to destroy it, what might 8 sinners do? The results would be identical unless some way of controlling sin were to be added. And so God delegates authority to man to execute capital punishment on capital offenders, for we read in Genesis 9:6,

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Now to the objection that this is not a commandment binding upon Christians today, let me share with you four reasons why it is binding. First, look at verse two of this passage. God says that there will be a natural fear of man placed in animals. Apparently up to this time there was no such fear, which may help explain how the animals came to the ark. Now we ask, is that dread of man still residing in animals today. The answer is a definite yes!

The second reason is found in verse three. Here God, for the first time, permits man to eat meat in his diet. Up to this point in time, man was a vegetarian, but now he is allowed to consume animals for his nourishment. Is man yet permitted to eat meat today. Of course he is.

The third argument for the continuance of this commandment is found in verse 11 and following. We read,

"And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations: I do set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be a seen in the cloud; And I will remember my covenant , which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

Now, we have seen that three of the provisions of the Noahic covenant are still operative today. Logically, does it seem reasonable that the fourth provision, the provision for capital punishment might still be in effect? Not only is it logical, but necessary. Again, the reason for the requirement of capital punishment is that man was made in the image of God. Is man today, still made in the image of God as he was then. I sure hope so. Therefore, it is yet necessary that this provision of Noah's covenant be effective today.

We now move from the Noahic covenant to the Mosaic covenant. We find here that not only was capital punishment still in effect for capital crimes, but now a broader list of sins are included as worthy of this punishment. Without enumerating each verse of Scripture, the Mosaic Law requires the death penalty for the following offenses:

Let us examine some New Testament writing to see what becomes of Old Testament regulations. We look first to the Gospels. In Matthew 5:21 Jesus says,

"You have heard it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council, and whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

Next we look at John 8. Often this passage is used a "conclusive proof" that Jesus had abolished the death penalty. In actuality, this passage is one of the most conclusive proofs of Jesus' insistence on it. The story is familiar, of a woman who was taken in adultery, in the very act as the Jews claimed. She was brought to Jesus to see how He would deal with her. If He would convict her and sentence her to death, as the Mosaic Law prescribed, He would lose His followers. If He did not follow the Law, they could rightly accuse Him of being a sinner. In their own minds, these Jews thought they had Jesus trapped. After persistent badgering, Jesus responded, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." It is very important to understand what Jesus is saying here. If we misinterpret His words, we will come to a false conclusion on this issue. Notice that Jesus never said that it wrong or immoral to cast a stone at her. In fact, He said just the opposite, He commanded them to stone her, at least those who were without sin. This condition that Jesus applies is a condition that these Pharisees should have been able to comply with for it does not mean that they were to be sinless in nature, but without unconfessed and unforgiven sin before God. Because of this condition they were unable to participate in her stoning. We need to question why they were not without sin. Jesus had written something on the ground. Scripture does not tell us what that was, we can only speculate. May I suggest that it had something to do with exacting justice and righteousness, for the Mosaic Law said that if adultery was committed, both the male and the female were to be brought to the leaders and stoned. Singling out just the woman, and allowing the man to go free (after all, she was caught in the very act, so should the man have been also) would have been a perversion of justice and her accusers and executioners would be then guilty and subject to the same punishment as they inflicted on her. No wonder they all left, it was to save their own skins. Now had the punishment of stoning been immoral, Jesus would have been guilty of commanding the Pharisees to do that which was immoral. As God, it is impossible for Jesus to do this. So we see Jesus was actually putting His stamp of approval on the death penalty. The question then might be asked why Jesus, Himself, did not execute the woman. The answer is that the Law also requires two or three witnesses to convict her and there were now, no witnesses. It was legally impossible for Jesus to condemn her, even if she may have been guilty. Another possible reason is that these charges that were brought against her were totally fictitious. Or maybe Jesus was reverting back, not to the Law of Moses, but to the foundational basis of capital punishment, and if so, this crime was therefore not a capital crime. In any case, there is no reason to conclude that Jesus abolished the death penalty here.

One other passage in the Gospels is needed to be examined. It is found in John 19:7-11. Here Jesus stands before Pilate being accused by the Jews as one who claimed to be God. Under the Mosaic Law, this was a capital offense and required capital punishment. Pilate was troubled by this accusation and began to question Jesus as to His identity. When Jesus refused to answer him, Pilate responded,

"...knoweth thou not that I have the power (literally "authority") to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?

"Jesus, answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

We shall now look briefly at two passages from the Apostolic literature, literature that is without a doubt, binding upon the church today. First we examine Acts 25:11. Here the Apostle Paul is being tried before Festus for a crime he has not committed. He appeals to Caesar and then states,

"For if I be an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die..."

One other passage is found in Romans 13.

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers 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: For he is a 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 a minister of God..."

There are two primary benefits of exercising capital punishment from a biblical perspective. First is the area of deterrence. These passages speak of the effect of capital punishment in deterring crime: Ecclesiastes 8:11 and Deuteronomy 19:15-21. One other passage is worthy of our examination. Deuteronomy 17:12-13 states,

"And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt put away evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously."

The second benefit is that our justice system will operate properly. Listen to what one writer says about the issue.

"The failure of the state to always administer justice is no excuse for abolition of capital punishment. For example, some say that they favor abolition on the grounds that the lack of justice in the present American jury system makes proper administration of the death penalty impossible. In the light of the purpose of government, there is more at stake than the possible miscarriage of justice. If the system is not working properly, it needs to be reformed, but to do away with a necessary law on the basis of the failure to enforce it, properly perpetuates more than a miscarriage of justice, it does away with justice all together. The laws of the concept of justice in modern thinking is partly the cause of the increase in crime. In the light of biblical teaching on the sinful nature of men and the current increase in crime, it is frightening that people should be thinking of measures that relax the laws and even do away with some such as capital punishment. The nation is reaping the harvest of permissiveness and the loss of biblical justice.- Proverbs 14:34"

When God came to Abraham and told him of his plan to demolish the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham interceded on behalf of the people of the cities, asking that if 50 righteous people could be found if God would not spare the whole city. Abraham's request was not that the unrighteous would be spared but that the righteous would not perish with the wicked. In conclusion he asked, "Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?". In the same manner it is absolutely necessary that all the judges of the earth today, also do righteously.