Jesus and the death Penalty?

[12strings]

Here's the beginning from another thread:

(SOULMAN): If a man kills another the bible teaches that he should be killed.

Jesus would disagree.

So...Jesus disagrees with the bible?

I suppose the question is: "Is there NT warrant either for continuity, or for discontinuity with the Old Testament teaching of capitol punishment....(First came after the flood, based on the imago dei, then later in the Israeli Law.)

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I fail to see how Jesus's teachings can be reconciled with "eye for an eye".

 

[12strings]

I fail to see how Jesus's teachings can be reconciled with "eye for an eye".

Well, the standard answer would be that Jesus was talking about personal revenge as opposed to govermnent sanctioned punishment....

However I'd be interested to know how YOU reconcile Jesus's statements with the OT instructions for capitol punishment. They must be reconciled somehow, since they are both in scripture.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Well, the standard answer would be that Jesus was talking about personal revenge as opposed to govermnent sanctioned punishment....

However I'd be interested to know how YOU reconcile Jesus's statements with the OT instructions for capitol punishment. They must be reconciled somehow, since they are both in scripture.

A huge bag of worms if you try to reconcile everything Jesus said with OT instructions.

 

[Arbo]

What does the fact of Jesus' submission to capital punishment imply?

 

[Revmitchell]

A huge bag of worms if you try to reconcile everything Jesus said with OT instructions.

Yea it drives liberals nuts!

 

[JimmyH]

Like Abel's blood, the blood of that 8 year old boy, killed by the bombing in Boston cries out from the ground for God's retribution. Our Lord said not one jot nor one title would pass from the law until all is fulfilled.

Was all fulfilled when He said,"It is finished", or will all be fulfilled when He comes back in glory ? I don't know the answer to that but I am an advocate of capitol punishment.

 

[Revmitchell]

I fail to see how Jesus's teachings can be reconciled with "eye for an eye".

Who bases it on that?

 

[Crabtownboy]

Who bases it on that?

1. Love your enemies
2. Turn the other cheek
3. Go the extra mile
4. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What does the fact of Jesus' submission to capital punishment imply?

Exactly. And he said not a word about the two thieves executed with him.

Liberals mis-interpret the "let him without sin cast the first stone" episode. Simply put, the Old Testament's laws were not being followed by the Pharisees. Jesus stopped a murder, not a legal execution.

Everything Christ said is perfectly in line with the Bible. To say it isn't is to mislead, and strip his deity away.

 

[Aaron]

1. Love your enemies
2. Turn the other cheek
3. Go the extra mile
4. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Incarceration, fines and confiscations fall under the same sword.

Simply put, the NT states unequivocally that God established civil government for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of them that do well.

This bears repeating, and I will preface it by saying, do not be deceived (and I preface it thusly, because many are), God established civil government for the punishment of evildoers.

It is in perfect harmony with the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Revmitchell]

1. Love your enemies
2. Turn the other cheek
3. Go the extra mile
4. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

All of which have absolutely no application to this subject.

 

[Arbo]

1. Love your enemies
2. Turn the other cheek
3. Go the extra mile
4. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone

If I am not mistaken, these refer to interpersonal relationships; not to relationships between people and the governments they are subject to.

 

[Yeshua1]

I fail to see how Jesus's teachings can be reconciled with "eye for an eye".

God gave the death penalty before the law!

mankind ONLY created in omage of God, so to take that life is to take the right away from god to determinethe death date, so God requires that person to forfeit his own right to life!

paul even addresses this topic in Romans, where the state has the right to use that for extreme cases!

God though did give VERY explicit instructions on what would be considered a captial crime to be covered by it...

Would say that for the person who willfully plans and premeditates and does the murder, they have chosen to have their life forfeited!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I guess you who believe that the ethics of Jesus do not differ from those of the OT had better start practicing all of the OT ethical and moral injunctions.

 

[Yeshua1]

I guess you who believe that the ethics of Jesus do not differ from those of the OT had better start practicing all of the OT ethical and moral injunctions.

God gave to mankind kind marriage between a man and woman, and the death penalty BEFORE there was any giving of the law, or the Old Covenant!

God also forgive david and kept him from getting stonned, so not saying that all should get that pemalty, but if there are situations that fit the bill...

The Joker killer to me fits the bill!

 

[Luke2427]

I guess you who believe that the ethics of Jesus do not differ from those of the OT had better start practicing all of the OT ethical and moral injunctions.

Which ones should we discard?

All of them?

Covetousness is ok now?

Adultery?

 

[Luke2427]

Here's the beginning from another thread:






So...Jesus disagrees with the bible?

I suppose the question is: "Is there NT warrant either for continuity, or for discontinuity with the Old Testament teaching of capitol punishment....(First came after the flood, based on the imago dei, then later in the Israeli Law.)

This thinking is very, very problematic.

We don't HAVE to show continuity.

The burden of proof is upon the shoulders of those who wish to claim discontinuity.

Where did we get the idea it is ok to toss aside ANY of the OT without NT permission.

We don't need the NT to REaffirm anything.

We just embrace everything in the OT except those things the NT says we don't have to.

Everything else rolls over without question.

 

[Luke2427]

I fail to see how Jesus's teachings can be reconciled with "eye for an eye".

Jesus was correcting an interpretation error concerning the eye for an eye passage.

It never DID mean that any one person could take vengeance at his own whim. That was what many thought in Jesus' day.

The passage was ALWAYS a civil government passage. Judges were to oversee the eye for an eye enforcement.

Jesus did not say the government should stop this practice. He said those teaching it were teaching it wrongly.

We don't pursue vengeance personally. But Paul confirmed that God has not changed his mind about the role of government to pursue justice and enforce it right down to the death penalty.

The common interpretation error that leads people to believe that Jesus and Paul are saying to discard most of the OT is this: they were ACTUALLY correcting the PERVERSION of the OT faith prevalent in their day.

If you don't understand that salvation has ALWAYS been by grace through faith and that legalism was NEVER the way to God- not in the OT any more than the NT- you will think that Jesus and Paul were calling for Christians to discard most of the OT instruction.

But if you understand that 1st century Judaism was a corruption of the OT faith then you will understand that such passages from Jesus and Paul were calling for a return to the purity of AND... AND the FULFILLMENT of the OT faith.

That's what the NT is- a fulfillment of the promises and the point of the OT.

The NT does not SCRAP the OT- it completes it.

 

[Aaron]

I guess you who believe that the ethics of Jesus do not differ from those of the OT had better start practicing all of the OT ethical and moral injunctions.

Just another noncalvinist thinking