Even from a fiscal perspective, it is much more costly to the state to pursue and administer capital punishment than life imprisonment. Thus, the moral argument that capital punishment is necessary to keep society safe from violent offenders ultimately falls flat.
All of this brings us to the most defensible moral argument for capital punishment: retribution. Simply put, if a person takes the life of another, they surrender their own right to life. Tit for tat. If justice is a ledger, then capital punishment balances the books.
This is the primary moral reasoning for capital punishment that appears on the pages of Scripture. And I will admit, from a “plain reading” of the text, capital punishment seems like a slam dunk. But let’s take a closer look.
Capital Punishment in the Bible
The first time we see an explicit reference to capital punishment in Scripture is shortly after Noah and his family emerge from the ark following the great flood. God instructs Noah to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth,” and he tells Noah that all manner of plants and animal life are meant to be consumed for food—just not their blood.
Then God says, “From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.”
This statement is what is referred to as the Noahic Covenant, and it seems to clearly indicate the morality of capital punishment.
Some biblical scholars argue that God is not commanding capital punishment but rather merely prophesying that it will be the order of society moving forward. That might be the case. But in any event, God is at the very least acknowledging capital punishment as normative without providing any negative commentary.
Further, capital punishment is definitively commanded in the Law of Moses—and not just for murder. Under the Mosaic Covenant, God commands capital punishment for, among other things, a host of sexual offenses, kidnapping, human sacrifice and idolatry, blasphemy, witchcraft, violating the sabbath, and even cursing one’s parents.
So why don’t Christians advocate for capital punishment in all these cases today? For the same reason that Christians don’t enforce circumcision or other ceremonial requirements outlined under the Mosaic Covenant. Jesus has ushered in the New Covenant.
As the Apostle Paul says, Jesus “is the telos of the law,” meaning that he not only has ushered in the end of the Mosaic Law but is also its ultimate embodiment and fulfillment of the same. The author of Hebrews says, “In speaking of a new covenant, [God] makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.”
Paul explains that the Law was the people of God’s paidagōgos, our guardian, our tutor in the righteousness of God. “But now that faith has come,” Paul says, “we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.”
In other words, we are no longer bound to the letter of the Mosaic Law, which was given to a particular people in a particular place and time. And yet the spirit of the Law authoritatively guides our moral thinking—even if no one today would advocate for capital punishment for talking back to your mom (other than, in a fit of momentary rage, your mom).
So then why advocate for capital punishment at all? Well, because of the Noahic Covenant. As the argument goes, the Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel in the wilderness. But the Noahic Covenant was previously given to all of humanity following the flood. And while the New Testament speaks extensively about the Mosaic Covenant having been fulfilled in Christ, there is no explicit revocation of the Noahic Covenant found in the New Testament. Thus, capital punishment for murder remains a moral absolute.
Nevertheless, I question the line of reasoning that suggests the completion of the Mosaic Covenant in Jesus necessarily takes us backward to the Noahic Covenant rather than forward to something entirely new.
How does Jesus, as the embodiment and consummation of the Law, interpret it?
When we look at the nature of God’s progressive revelation on issues of crime and punishment, I believe what begins to emerge is an increasing emphasis on nonviolence and forgiveness.
God’s Bent Toward Nonviolence
One guiding moral principle throughout the Mosaic Law is lex talionis, or “eye for an eye.” In Exodus, God commands, “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”
This concept was novel in an ancient culture where retributive violence could escalate into all-out war between tribes and clans. Instead, Israel’s people were to deal with serious offenses using punishments that were never more severe than the offense.* In this way, much of the case law presented in Exodus through Deuteronomy is meant to instruct the people about how to balance the scales of justice following an offense, even a capital offense, without cultivating a cycle of escalating violence.
* Capital punishment for offenses such as blasphemy, idolatry, or cursing one’s parents might seem like exceptions to this rule. However, the fact that God commanded capital punishment in these instances speaks to severity of the offense of invoking God’s name for evil or corrupt purposes. These offenses were deemed capital crimes because they fundamentally attacked the purpose for which Israel existed as a nation—and used God’s name to do so.
