The Bible clearly teaches the concept of capital punishment. It is taught in all three dispensations. Prior to the Law of Moses (Genesis 9:6); during the Law of Moses (Exodus 21:12,14,15,16-17); and during the New Covenant that we live under today (Acts 25:11; Romans 1:32; 13:1-7).

"Paul is saying that if he had in fact committed a capital crime, he did not seek to escape the supreme penalty. It is noteworthy that Paul clearly presupposed that some crimes are in fact worthy of death".

In addition, in such a case Paul would not even protest (you would not have found Paul protesting outside a penitentiary when an execution was scheduled), Paul would have allowed the state to execute him, if he had committed such a crime. Clearly, Paul would have protested, if capital punishment was a sin!

13:1 "Higher powers": Are the governing authorities, those who are in high positions. Paul further states that the man who is resisting and defying lawful government is defying God (13:2).

13:3 "For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil": Note: Government is given something by God to cause "terror" in the evildoer. The evildoer has cause to be afraid (13:4).

13:4 "He beareth not the sword in vain": "For they do not carry swords for nothing" (Gspd). Government carries the sword (with God's approval) for one purpose, to execute the criminal. It is not so much a symbol of capital punishment as it is the instrument of such.

But God has established civil government as an instrument to manifest some of His vengeance (Romans 13:4 "he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil").

If this is the case, then government could not punish anyone in any way. "Vengeance" includes more than the death penalty, it also includes such things as fines, community service, and imprisonment.

If Matthew 5:39 applied to the state and to human government then the above principle would mean the abolition of not only the death penalty, but all penalties. There would neither be police officers nor judges nor prisons of any kind.

This command was never meant to prohibit capital punishment as seen from the context. Plenty of commanded "killings" follows this command (Exodus 21:12,15-17). The killing forbidden in Exodus 20:13 is the premeditated taking of innocent human life. The NASV translates this verse, "You shall not murder". Even 21:13-14 demonstrates the difference between accidental death and a death that was planned.

People argue that Jesus taught us to "love one another" and forgive. This love ethic is contrary to capital punishment.

Yet the same "ethic" would rule out any punishment. Imprisonment would violate the same rule. If this is the case, then the Christian does not even have the right to call the police when someone is breaking into their home.

The Truth is: Jesus taught against personal retaliation (38-42); but He left civil government still intact (Matthew 5:25-26; 22:21). Paul does the same thing in Romans 12 and 13. Individuals are admonished to withhold revenge (12:17-21); and yet in the very next chapter civil government is given the right to execute God's wrath on the evildoer (Romans 13:1-7).

I do not have the right to become a vigilante or form a lynch mob, but I do have the right to call the police and have the "minister of God" punish the person who was trying to harm me.

The idea that love allows people to behave in any way they please is not Biblical (1 Corinthians 13:6). If we allow the evildoer to roam the streets and harm innocent people, does not this violate the principle, "love your neighbor as yourself"? (Romans 13:10; Matthew 22:39).

'Some of the most common concepts of punishment today fall into the category that C.S. Lewis calls "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment". These are the views that say punishment should be applied only for humane or even merciful reasons. Among these are the ideas that punishment should serve to deter further crime and that it should rehabilitate the criminal. Absent from this approach is the view that punishment should be exacted simply because the criminal deserves it, i.e. as retribution"

The Bible contains certain punishments, in which no rehabilitation is found, such as hell (Matthew 25:46). God has punished people, without any thought of trying to rehabilitate them (Acts 5:1ff).

That prison actually rehabilitates people could be seriously questioned.

It could be argued that a man facing the gas chamber has MORE INCENTIVE to rehabilitate than a man facing a life sentence.

"Professor Isaac Ehrlich, on the basis of a careful statistical study of the period 1933-69, concluded than an additional execution per year in the United States may have resulted on the average in 7-8 fewer murders. Stephen J. Knorr, in a 1979 review of literature in this area, concluded that statistical studies and tests 'have not been satisfactorily conclusive either way. The problem with the deterrent argument is that, "True justice requires a real connection between the punishment meted out and personal responsibility for the crime committed"

The real point is, we punishing one, because one committed the crime-period. The Bible does place a "deterrent factor" next to death penalty passages (Deut. 21:18-21 "and all Israel shall hear, and fear"; 17:12,13; 19:15-21; Acts 5:11).

The death penalty does deter, it deters the convicted murderer from killing again! How many crimes are committed by REPEAT OFFENDERS?

One writer argued, if our present system of capital punishment fails to deter crime, it is because of the flaws in our present legal system (Ecclesiastes 8:11) .

In addition, if one argues that the death penalty does not deter crime because people still commit crimes even with that punishment as a threat, then we had better do away with the entire legal system, for fines, imprisonment, and life sentences do not keep people from committing crimes either. The person who goes ahead and commits a crime worthy of death, all the while knowing the punishment for such a crime is a fool. Some people will commit crimes no longer what the punishment, just like some people will do things that will send them to an eternal hell, and they know it! Human stubbornness and stupidity is no reason to remove needed punishments.

"People argue that the practice of the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory and arbitrary fashion. It is noted, for example, that the southern states are responsible for two of every three-death sentences in the U.S., and that Florida, Georgia and Texas alone account for one-third of the national totals. Black defendants, it is argued, are more likely to suffer the death penalty than whites. Those who defend the death penalty point out that it is an unhappy fact that blacks commit a disproportionate number of known crimes in the U.S., including capital crimes. According to Joseph Bishop, blacks are over-represented on death row because, for a variety of reasons, they are over-represented among murderers. Yet all of the five men executed in 1981 were white. In any human society, the wealthy may be more capable of escaping the penalty of certain crimes/laws, but that is no argument for abolishing laws, prisons and capital punishment"

People argue, what if we execute an innocent man? Would not life imprisonment be safer?

But life imprisonment also carries risks, to the guards, inmates, and with parole, the innocent people in society.

Yes, it is true that we may execute a innocent man, but it is also true we may let a guilty man kill again!

The same argument backfires against all imprisonment. What if we imprison an innocent man and that innocent man dies after life in prison? The argument is not consistent: If people were truly concerned about making mistakes, NO ONE WOULD BE PAROLED! What if the criminal is not rehabilitated? There is NO GUARANTEE that any paroled person will not commit another crime.

God seems to have no problem with imperfect people executing the death sentence, because He commanded it! In fact, the Bible would argue that to suffer, allow or permit such a person to live IS THE MISTAKE ABOUT WHICH TO BE CONCERNED (Exodus 22:18).

"This question seems to assume that each person has a right to determine the exact time when he will make his final decision concerning his relationship with God and eternity. The Bible speaks otherwise, life is uncertain (James 4:13-15) and decisions about our eternal destiny cannot be delayed at OUR OWN LEISURE (Heb. 3:7). Rather than foreclosing the possibility of salvation, the reality of the death penalty forces one convicted to think about his eternal destiny and consequently can even be seen as beneficial. The death penalty reminds the murderer, in a way that life imprisonment cannot, of the grim but inescapable truth that ‘It is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment’ (Heb. 9:27).

It is a mistake to say that Jesus did not condemn (i.e. consider her actions wrong and worthy of death), the woman caught in adultery. He called her actions sin when in 8:11 He said, "sin no more", indicating that she was indeed guilty. He also did not reject stoning as the proper punishment, "Let him ..cast the first stone" (8:7).

The word "condemn" here (8:11), carries with it the connotation of imposing sentence on the defendant with a view of its execution (Mark 14:64).

"He that is without sin" (8:7), does not mean, "he that is sinless".

If complete sinlessness were required of every witness, jury member, judge, and prosecutor, no criminal justice system would be possible at all. In fact, a parent could not even discipline his or her own children. The sense is rather that these scribes and Pharisees had violated God's law in this matter. They had only brought the woman (8:3-4). God's law had commanded both parties caught in adultery to be executed (Deut. 22:22-24; Lev. 20:10). They were not without fault, they were violating the very laws that they were pretending to uphold. Far from setting aside the Law of God, Jesus demonstrates that He took the guidelines in the Law very seriously.

This is not the action of a lawful civil government:

Such a action as this in John 8 was to be taken before a duly constituted court of law, such as a panel of elders near the gate of the city, whose duty it was to hear such cases. John 8 is not an example of Jesus opposing a court of law, it is rather the example of Jesus opposing a lynch mob, who were ignoring God's laws in such cases, and who were trying to entrap Jesus with it. While upon the earth, Jesus refused to take the place of duly appointed judges and courts (Luke 12:13-14).

From their own admission, not even the Sanhedrin had the right under Roman rule to execute the death penalty. Capital punishment could not be carried out except under the authorization of the Roman Governor (John 18:31).

While we need to forgive someone who repents of a crime they committed against us, but forgiveness and mercy do not erase the physical consequences of all sins.

Nowhere does God require the civil authorities to forgive. In fact the attitude seems to be, if you do something wrong, then you deserve to suffer for it (1 Peter 4:15; 1 Peter 2:20).

Paul did not plead for mercy and forgiveness, if he had done something worthy of death (Acts 25:11). Paul does not say, "If I have done anything worthy of death, you ought to forgive me".

What about having some "mercy" on the innocent people in society? How merciful is it to turn loose repeat offenders back into the very society that they victimized? WHERE SHOULD THE MERCY BE EXTENDED? Society is crying out for mercy, "have mercy on us, protect us from the rapists, the kidnappers, the child molesters, and the murderers!"