Thank you for the interpretative question on Genesis 4–11, “Is Genesis 4-11 the argument for or against capital punishment?”
As one reads Genesis 4–11, the concept of “capital punishment” assumes a social order with a judge or ruler determining the guilt or innocence of a person. There would be the accuse and accuser with evidence brought before the judge. The guilt person would be punished according to the justice established by that community.
The prevalent view in Genesis 4–11 is personal justice prior to the Flood. In other words, each person did what was right in his or her own eye. Genesis 4 says this, “3 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. 24 If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times” (NIV).
God didn’t give Lamech the right to seek revenge for an injury that amounted to a murder. In Cain’s fear of being killed, it was God who will bring a seven fold judgment on the person who kills Cain. The future revenge by Abel’s wife or even of Adam and Eve’s descendant was prohibited from seeking revenge. The judgment was to be left to God (Gen. 4:13–14).
Lamech uses the excuse of a personal injury to justify murder. Thus, other individuals applied the same rule of retribution of Lamech. There was the disrespect of life and revenge was the prevalent attitude.
The text in Genesis 6 says this, “The LORD saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time” (NIV).
In Genesis 9 after the Flood, God knows the inclination of human hearts. He established social order through the accounting of a death. The murderer doesn’t walk away free. Every loss of life must be accounted for.
Genesis 9 says this, “4 But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. 6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind” (NIV).
Noah and his family were given the command to uphold justice by accounting for the loss of life. If a person was killed, the person who committed that death had to be held accountable for that death. She or he just doesn’t walk free without any consequences..
I would suggest that in the text that there is no justification for the killing of another person regardless of the offense that the other party may have committed. There is to be the respect for life since every human being is made in the image and likeness of God. However, if a person violates the sanctity of life, then that person’s life is forfeited. The family who loss their loved one will bring an accusation against the accused. Judgment will be determined whether one was guilty of taking a life wantonly. It will be most likely if the accused is found guilty that a member of the grieving family member will execute the death sentence or an appointed executioner. The ends warring family feuds. This gives rise to social order in the sense of respect for life and social justice.
Summary: Personal justice gave way to social justice after the Flood with the command to respect life because God is the giver of life. Capital punishment is commanded to end perpetual family revenge.
-Kingston