FAITH & CULTURE PROJECT: The Death Penalty: Divine Mandate or Human Cruelty?

This brief essay argues for the orthodox Christian doctrine on the death penalty and justice from a biblical perspective. It defends the mandate and role of divine justice against charges of human cruelty, demonstrating the Christian’s responsibility to uphold justice while balancing mercy.

*************

One of the most debated issues both within the church and in the world—especially in recent times—is the death penalty. Sides form quickly—some maintaining that it upholds divine justice as revealed in , while others contend that it is cruel and barbaric, inconsistent with the sanctity of life. Be that as it may, what is often overlooked is that God Himself is already enforcing the ultimate death sentence. In other words, death entered the world through sin, and every one of us has been allotted only a limited number of days. We are, in a real sense, all living on death row, waiting for our appointed time.

From the beginning, God made His standard clear. In Eden, He warned Adam, “In the day you eat of it [forbidden fruit] you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:17). Death entered the world not as a social device, but as a divine decree—sin's just consequence. This principle reveals a vital parallel between God and humanity. Because we are made in His image, to murder another human being is to defy the sanctity, likeness and authority of that image. Any sin against God was worthy of death because it was an act of cosmic treason—an attempt to overthrow or “murder” the Creator Himself. For this reason, the sentence of death carries transcendent meaning. It is not the mere destruction of a criminal; it is the solemn acknowledgment that life, as God’s gift, is sacred beyond measure.

Later, after the flood, God reaffirmed that moral order: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for God made man in His own image” (Genesis 9:6). This command predates the and remains woven into the fabric of creation as a common rule for man to live by. It should, therefore, be strictly upheld and considered in force as long as creation exists. This remains true unless an explicit repeal can be found in the New Testament.

The Purpose and Meaning of Divine Justice

Supporters of the death penalty argue that it upholds justice, honors the sanctity of life, and preserves moral order. Retribution rightly understood is not cruelty but righteousness—an echo of God’s perfect justice. As observed, “What can be more immoral than to inflict suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it? And if I do deserve it, you are admitting the claims of retribution.”

To ignore this truth is to weaken society’s moral foundation. It substitutes mere sentiment for moral judgment. In the same way, pacifism that refuses to stand against evil must be regarded as a moral abdication. “Churchmen in peace and quiet pray to Heaven for the welfare of the world,” wrote , “but we soldiers and knights carry into effect what they pray for... Thus are we God's ministers on earth and the arms by which his justice is done therein.”

God ordains the sword not to glorify violence but to restrain it. Justice rightly exercised is love in action—protecting the innocent, defending the defenseless, and confronting that which corrupts and destroys the soul of man. Christians therefore must not confuse the mercy of God with permissiveness or treat passivity as virtue. “Love without power is an invitation to surrender the world to power without love,” said . True love defends; it acts; it upholds righteousness even when that requires strength.

A Common Objection to Retribution

Opponents of the death penalty often appeal to the teachings of Jesus: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ but I say to you, do not resist the one who is evil” (Matthew 5:38–39). Many interpret these verses, and others throughout the , as abolishing all retribution and even legitimizing pacifism. But Jesus was not abolishing justice—He was exposing selfish vengeance. His words temper personal retribution, not the lawful exercise of authority.

In , Paul makes this distinction unmistakable: the governing authority “does not bear the sword in vain,” for it is “a servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.” The New Testament assumes a moral state that maintains order, defends life, and punishes evil. To deny this duty is to pervert the very structure of divine justice.

The same misunderstanding often leads pacifists to condemn all war. Yet to refuse to defend the innocent is to abandon love itself. “To love a thing without wishing to fight for it is not love at all; it is lust,” wrote , “He knows that loving the world is the same thing as fighting the world.” Love for God’s creation demands moral courage—the willingness to resist evil when conscience demands it.

The Death Penalty as Deterrent

Others opposed to the death penalty, including Christians, often make their appeals to the sanctity of life in a much different way than their opposition. This usually involves the modern, secularized redefining of retributive justice; they insist that taking a life in this way diminishes the value of all human life. The complaint is that the death penalty is barbaric and neither rehabilitates the criminal, nor serves as a deterrent to the homicide rate—it should therefore be eliminated.

Although this sounds sophisticated and productive to a modern culture, it is strange how this view actually reflects a lower view of human life than what we just read in Genesis 9:6. Here we see that it is precisely because of the value of human life does God institute the death penalty. To take the life of another human being created in the image of God should carry with it the ultimate penalty. To say that the taking of human life is not worthy of the ultimate penalty is to degrade the value of human life—not to mention make light the killing of your own Creator. Clearly, this view does not take the sanctity of life seriously enough. It also assumes that mankind possesses a higher moral standard than the Author and origin of morality itself.

It should be understood that God did not institute the death penalty primarily for the purpose of deterring the act of murder (although it does for the perpetrator). It was given for the purpose of serving as justice for the crime committed—we are to enforce it whether it deters the crime or not.

The Mercy of Jesus

Another argument put forth for the repeal of the death penalty is that Jesus seems to intimate an even more merciful reduction of capital offenses in the New Testament. An example of this can be found in The Gospel According to John 8:2–12. In this account, the Scribes and the Pharisees, hoping to trap Jesus, brought to Him a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery. They informed Jesus that the Law of Moses commanded her to be stoned to death, but wanted to know what He believed should be done. Jesus, after writing something on the ground, replied by saying: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7) This verse, they believe, should eliminate the death penalty. But is this really the case?

In spite of the way this passage is commonly understood, it really has little to do with being mindful of our own sinful condition before God and need for a Savior.

In the Old Testament, in a case involving capital punishment, “him who is without sin” is in reference to the witnesses of the crime. According to the Law of Moses, the witnesses must begin the stoning, and only those not guilty of the same sin could participate. Here Jesus directs the proceedings back to His questioners. Needless to say, with this particular offense there usually were no actual witnesses due to its private nature—these types of stonings were rare even during the Old Covenant—they required details, color of bed sheets, actual intercourse versus preliminary sexual contact, etc…

Even if they had purposely set up this situation so that they themselves would have been the witnesses, they would have been disqualified as her judges through the orchestration of the act. In addition, the law also required that the witnesses stone the man she was with as well. This could have been a well-known member of the community, or even revealed the so-called witnesses to be accomplices through his identification, thus eliminating all qualified witnesses.

No matter how you look at it, this was simply a trap set for Jesus that backfired, and not necessarily an example of Jesus’ reduction in capital offenses. Had there been anyone qualified according to the Law of Moses, Jesus never denies them the right to begin the stoning, or rescinds the necessary requirement in any way.

Do We Have the Authority to Rescind the Death Penalty?

Still, some would argue that showing mercy to people does not necessarily violate the holiness of God, and in fact is the basis for our very salvation; therefore, we should extend this same mercy and become more like Jesus. Although this sounds loving and even biblical at first glance, we must keep in mind that when God extends His mercy and saving grace to others it is only through the sacrifice of our Savior that this is possible. Who are we to impose upon the Father’s use of Jesus’ sacrifice? With no explicit repeal given anywhere in Scripture, by whose authority do we disregard this mandate and extend mercy?

Even when God postpones His immediate judgments on those who have legally gotten away with murder, it is a postponement that He alone determines. It is wrong to think that we have somehow been given the same authority. Bottom line: God has given us a direct command as His image bearers to enforce the death penalty without reservation. Are we to assume that we are more loving and more capable of rendering moral decisions than He is?

How Should a Christian View War?

Another closely related issue is the question of war—which is nothing less than the death penalty on a grand scale. Back in 2003 when the broke out, I couldn’t count the number of radio stations that continually played ’s iconic anti-war song, War. “War, huh (good God y'all) What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, say it again...” This sentiment, while emotionally appealing, misses the moral difficulties of a fallen world. Jesus never called His disciples to indifference toward justice or to abandon their responsibilities to their neighbors as citizens of a moral order.

Like the death penalty, arguments drawn from select passages in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5–7) are often cited in defense of pacifism. However, these passages must be understood in light of Christ’s own declaration: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17). Fulfillment does not mean annulment. To fulfill the law means that Jesus completed its divine purpose and brought its prophetic and moral demands to their full realization. This fulfillment involves transforming external, legalistic obedience into genuine inward righteousness of the heart. Therefore, Jesus’ teaching neither annuls the moral law nor reduces it merely to an internal ethic but establishes a complete, living standard that calls for sincere, wholehearted obedience.

The principle of “an eye for an eye” was never a license for cruelty but a limit against it—a divinely instituted measure for justice. Hence, Jesus does not abolish the moral law but perfects it with mercy and truth. While He forbids vengeance born of pride, He never rescinds the state’s duty to bear the sword. “Indeed,” noted C. S. Lewis, “as the audience were private people in a disarmed nation, it seems unlikely that they would have ever supposed our Lord to be referring to war.” His teaching is clearly addressing the heart, not public justice.

When nations wage war to protect life and restrain evil, they are not contradicting Christ’s command; they are fulfilling love’s obligation. As wrote, “I am to love my neighbor as myself, in the manner needed, in a practical way, in the midst of the fallen world, at my particular point of history. This is why I am not a pacifist. Pacifism in this poor world in which we live—this lost world—means that we desert the people who need our greatest help.”

Conclusion: Love, Justice, and Power Under God

Those who oppose the death penalty are not entirely wrong in seeing that the New Testament demonstrates a reduction in capital offenses. This can be seen by the fact that the execution of justice was taken out of the hands of the theocratic state and given to the secular state. Nevertheless, while it can be demonstrated that with each covenantal dispensation God replaces more of His righteous execution of justice with His grace and mercy, it should not be taken for granted that the death penalty for murder—even on a grand scale—is one of them. Once again, this mandate is very much a part of the original creation ordinances as a common rule for man to live by.

This only makes sense when you consider what true biblical love involves, especially when it comes to loving our neighbors. The moral law of God never separates love from justice. Death and war, in their proper biblical framework, are not contradictions to love but manifestations of it under the shadow of God’s holiness. When the state executes justice, or when nations defend life against tyranny, they act as God’s instruments, however imperfectly. To refuse these responsibilities in the name of compassion is to confuse mercy with moral weakness.

From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture reveals a consistent truth: sin leads to death, justice requires judgment, and divine mercy alone provides redemption. On the cross, Christ bore the ultimate death sentence, satisfying God’s justice and offering mercy to all who believe. Until He returns to rule with perfect righteousness, it remains the duty of those made in His image to uphold truth, defend the innocent, and execute justice in His name.

If you found this book helpful, please help others to find it by leaving a rating or review.

About the Author

Roger Ball is a writer who lives on the Florida Spacecoast. He writes on Christian theology, , psychology, and culture. Contact: rogerball121@gmail.com