How do you feel about capital punishment?

This is interesting. Read Charles Colson's view on Capital Punishment:

http://www.pfm.org/PrisonFellowship/ChannelRoot/Issues/CapitalPunishment/Capital+Punishment+A+Personal+Statement.htm

She Eagle --

I can appreciate your passion, but my call is
for biblically-based laws before anyone is
killed by the state. If it follows biblical prin-
ciples, I would have nothing to say.

My stance has nothing whatsoever to do with
forgiving a murderer, rapist, etc. I am all for
justice. Bbut justice does not include the
murder of innocents, while the real murders go
free, because we have not followed biblcal
mandates and/or have thrown away DNA
evidence.

This is what I have done in the past, which is
only sort of relevant to this thread The pilot of
the plane which killed my first husband also
died. I was advised to sue his estate. I
refused, choosing rather to choose the insur-
ance and leave him and his family out of it.

The two drunk drivers who hit my son, one
of which slammed into his car at a stop light
and pushed him under a pickup truck,
because that driver was drunk and going
(as an officer estimated) 92 mph down a city
street marked 35 mph. I coopereazted with
the police and insurances and let them
prosecute him.

Tthe man who abused my daughter and her
son: I supported my daughter when she took
him to court.

I believe our God when He said, "Vengeance is
mine; I will repay." Ii also believe in following
His laws rather than my own, especially when I
am angry and seeking vengeance.

Okay, go ahead & paste it up here.

Click to expand...

I think this is the verse (from the Gospel of John)

8:1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].

8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Click to expand...

is anyone without sin? can any of us cast the first stone?

InHim: Finally! You posted some Scripture! (Even though irrelevant to capital punishment, E for effort & a star! See, Helen, it worked. )

Don't know if this is what PTW was looking for.

how is it irrelevant to capital punishment?

the woman was going to be stoned to death because she had broken the law and Jesus said that anyone who was without sin could stone her - given that no one is without sin it appears that no one has the authority to put another to death if they break the law.

what is it in that verse that doesn't relate to capital punishment?

[ October 24, 2002, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: InHim2002 ]

If you murder somebody for capital punishment and that person does not accept Jesus, they will go to hell. If that person is imprisioned for a life term and over the years as is common to many repents and accepts Jesus Christ as their saviour they will be with Him in Paradise.

Which would God want? Someone sent straight to hell or somebody bought with the blood of his Son?

I watched the program last night about the
execution of Karla Faye Tucker. I will say
this for the U.S. system: the inmates on death
row have plenty of time there to make their
peace with our God, if that is their intention.

One of the things Americans fuss about is all
the time people spend on death row: the number
of allowable appeals, and the expense it takes
in both the courts and the prisons as long as
these inmates are alive.

Karla was in prison for the murders she com-
mited for a long time. She was there long
enough, first of all, to get the drugs out of her
system and find out who she really was.

Secondly, someone told her about our Lord in
that prison--the first time she had ever heard
such a thing. She was there long enough to
recognize her sin and her need and to turn to
our God. She was even there long enough to
prove herself to her family, lawyer, the prose-
cuting attorney, the other inmates, and the prison
employees--including the one who oversees the
executions.

When the prison employee spoke, he said that he
had seen these death row inmates go our in all
kinds of ways: cursing in most foul language,
praying, singing hymns, and even one who died
praising the Dallas Cowboys (is that the right
team?). He said that some of the inmates, when
asked for their final words, spoke quite elo-
quently in moving speaches that touched the
souls of the hearers.

At least, in the system here, people have a
chance. They are not usually just stood against
a wall and shot, or hung without a jury and time
for consideration.

But the system is sorely flawed. I am grateful
for the professor who first encouraged law
students to get invloved with death row inmates
and for the students and following professors
who followed suit. Some innocent people have
been set free, but there remains, on death row,
people whose DNA evidence has been des-
troyed, people who were found guilty of parti-
cular crimes that others were later found guilty
of yet they remain on death row, and still others
who have not yet received help while their time is
running out.

Most disturbing is the retarded individuals who
confessed to crimes because they did not have
the intelligence or help to know what to say.
Some, it is said, were coached and promised
that they could go home if they just signed the
document--the very document of admission
to crimes they may not have even done!
People with I.Q. levels as low as in the latter
sixties have been executed, based upon their
own testimony, without proper representation.
In the U.S.A.

[ October 24, 2002, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

Originally posted by InHim2002:
how is it irrelevant to capital punishment?

the woman was going to be stoned to death because she had broken the law and Jesus said that anyone who was without sin could stone her - given that no one is without sin it appears that no one has the authority to put another to death if they break the law.

what is it in that verse that doesn't relate to capital punishment?

Click to expand...

Just because Jesus forgave the woman doesn't mean He is against capital punishment. He never said that.

He did say He came to fulfill the law - not do away with the law.

Besides, the context of this passage has to do with the Pharisees & Saducees setting a TRAP for Jesus. And He knew that.

So, if we follow your logic in using this passage to condemn capital punishment, then we must also logically conclude that since sin is forgiven, there should be no punishment by man or governments because Jesus paid the punishment for sin. Therefore, we should have no laws and no government, people should do what they feel is right in their hearts. There is no need for justice from man, because God will administer justice one day.

However, that is faulty interpretation of the totality of Scripture. We need to compare Scripture with Scripture, pretext upon pretext. II Timothy 2:15. Jesus submitted Himself to be crucified. But there were two others crucified with Him who were being capitally punished. If He were against capital punishment, why didn't He rescue them or take that opportunity to say something about capital punishment being wrong?

Our Lord did not follow through with the
stoning of the woman because if she was,
indeed, "caught in adultry," her accusers knew
the man (or men) she was with but voluntarily
left him (them) out of the accusation in order
to trap Him. The Law does not say that the
woman only should be stoned but that both
should be stoned. The people did not follow
through, to the fullest extent, what the Law
prescribed. This was the trap.

[ October 24, 2002, 10:15 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

My pastor did Jessicas funeral.

Click to expand...

Katie, thanks for sharing that. How sad.

td, a wonderful link - thanks:

From Chuck Colson's article:

But I must say that my views have changed and that I now favor capital punishment, at least in principle, but only in extreme cases when no other punishment can satisfy the demands of justice. The reason for this is quite simple.

Justice in God's eyes requires that the response to an offense - whether against God or against humanity - be proportionate. The lex talionis, the "law of the talion," served as a restraint, a limitation, that punishment would be no greater than the crime. Yet, implied therein is a standard that the punishment should be at least as great as the crime.

One frequently finds among Christians the belief that Jesus' so-called "love-ethic" sets aside the "law of of the talion." To the contrary, Jesus affirms the divine basis of Old Testament ethics. Nowhere does Jesus set aside the requirements of civil law. Furthermore, it leads to a perversion of legal justice to confuse the sphere of private relations with that of civil law.

Click to expand...

Abiyah, I'm so sorry for the pain you have had in your life. Thanks for sharing your views.

8o)

Yeah, and responses like that are what endear
you to us all, SheEagle.

8o)

[ October 24, 2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

Goodbye, Karla Faye

I believe in the death penalty. My pastor made his plea against it recently, but he actually strengthened my position. Am I happy that Karla Faye is dead. No. Do I believe that justice was served? Yes.

I would have to be an extremely cold person to listen to the testimony of a woman that was a better Christian than I am and not be moved by her situation. I pray that I will get better. She is now perfect.

At a few moments until six, when I thought she was being executed, I bowed my head with tears in my eyes asking for strength and continued faith for this sister in Christ. I asked that she might see the angels awaiting her and leave with a smile on her face as a testimony to the grace of God.

As I was praying, the Christian radio station was still advertising insurance and hamburgers and I thought this is how it is. Karla will go on to glory and we will go on with our lives. I left my truck and went into the health club and did my treadmill routine. Then I went to my temporal home as Karla was leaving for her eternal one.

Yes, I am sad, but so also are the family and friends of her victims. Her family and many friends are also sad tonight, but justice was served. From the quote that I heard of the husband of the one victim, he is probably not a Christian, and quite possibly neither was his wife. Karla had fourteen years to reflect, repent and be saved. Her victims may have been in Hell these past fourteen years. Would they have gotten saved had they lived? We don't know. Maybe not, but they would have had fourteen or more years of opportunity to be saved had they not been murdered.

I believe that Karla was justly executed. I have always said that I would give a convicted murderer thirty days with an evangelist and then I would pull the switch and pay for the electric bill myself. That was very callous, and Karla has changed that much of me. I would still do the same, but I don't think I would be as thrilled about it now. It would be one of life's necessary evils, but I would no longer relish assisting the Death Angel.

I believe in and have received the mercy of God myself many times. I did want the murderer to have a chance to receive the mercy of God before they met Him. Before Karla, it was maybe out of a sense of duty as man studying for the ministry. Now it is from a heart that wants to minister to all sinners, not just the ones not judicially convicted. Karla was right in that sinners are sinners whether or not they are incarcerated. Sin is a prison in which we are all inmates, former inmates, and sadly volunteer inmates from time to time. It is a prison from which we can only escape through death. We can escape it to enter into the freedom provided by Christ's death or we can escape the fleshly prison to only be transferred to the maximum security prison of Hell to spend eternity in solitary confinement without hope of pardon or parole.

If I were subjective about this, Karla would be alive. She indeed was not the same woman that killed those people. She was a new creation in Christ. Those who know me well know that I am usually on the side of the underdog. I am incensed at the mistreatment of the weak. I am not ashamed to cry at someone's side. Their offense becomes my offense. From the Simon Peter part of me, the new Karla would have seen me at her side with sword drawn to protect her.

But, the Paul side of me would have concurred with the following verse and Romans 13 and said that innocent blood had been shed and the State must not have pity or compassion on her to spare her.

Deut 19:13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee. (KJV)

2347 chuwc (khoos); a primitive root; properly, to cover, i.e. (figuratively) to be compassionate: KJV-- pity, regard, spare.

If profession or possession of Christianity spared you from the State's right to execute wrongdoers, then all would become Christian as all currently seek insanity pleas. There would be no justice at all, albeit we currently do not have complete justice. Some that are guilty go free and some innocent die.

Putting everyone in a deep dark hole for life is not merciful. Men were meant to be free and life in prison may be far crueler. Besides, society and the family of the victims must live in fear of their escape and is in a sense held hostage by the "lifer". They become hardened. After all, what are you going to do put them in prison if they decide to kill a guard or fellow prisoner? It provides no closure for the family of the victim. They will never get over their loss, but knowing the person is still alive while their loved one is dead only slows, if not halts the process of healing. This is not mercy for them.

I deeply regret that Karla became the woman that she was the last fourteen years after her crime that led to her death. She ministered so well to us and I could see her reaching many souls if she would have been her new self sooner and lived. This is a rebuke to the Church that we did not reach her or the others in prison sooner. We can only be grateful for God's mercy that she finally found Him and is at rest now.

Goodbye, Karla Faye, your candle burned out just a short time ago, but we pray that the light we received from you never does. May we be as inspired as truly dead men and women walking knowing that the curse of death will execute us one detained sooner than we may think. May we redeem the time as you did and spare many your fate and a fate worse than death.

God help us!

I think there are some things that maybe could be clarified here:

1. Abortion is not capital punishment. The baby has never done anything! There is no way it can be defined except as murder.

2. The laws about stoning, etc., were for the theocracy of Israel. The Bible makes that very clear. They are not universal biblical laws from God the way capital punishment and the Ten Commandments are.

3. As long as man is created in the image of God, capital punishment is commanded by Scripture.

In the long run, my personal belief is that God is still in control. Yes, some innocent people have been executed, but innocent of the crimes charged, not innocent period! And God allowed it, for reasons of His own. He could have prevented it, but He didn't.

So as long as He has commanded capital punishment for the murder of another human being (first-degree, to use our definition), then we need to obey, regardless of how flawed the legal system, and, actually, regardless of how we feel about His commandment! He did not say anything along the lines of "this I command as long as you have a good legal system." Therefore whatever system we live under, I do believe it is right for us to obey to the best of our ability. And we also need to do the best we can to correct the flaws which do allow those not guilty as charged to be executed.

1. Abortion is not capital punishment. The baby has never done anything! There is no way it can be defined except as murder.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Yet Western nations think nothing of murdering millions of innocent babies through abortion each year but jump on a big band wagon about "human rights" against the death penalty for convicted murderers. It's an "in Your Face" to Holy God & His Laws...murder the innocent & spare lives of the guilty.

My comment about capital punishment /abortion was meant to try and show that. Apparently no one got it.

David killed Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11) - no death penalty for him. Moses killed the Egyptian (Exodus 2: 11-14) - no death penalty for him. Saul of Tarsus (later to become the Apostle Paul) killed (Acts 8:1, Acts 9:1)– no death penalty for him. Cain killed Abel (the first murder) - no death penalty for him (Gen. 4: 15-17).

Can anyone help in explaining why these men were not given the death penalty? Thanks!

latterrain77

Originally posted by latterrain77:
David killed Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 11) - no death penalty for him.

Click to expand...

He was the king; it would have thrown the kingdom into absolute turmoil as they were in a time of war. However the death penalty WAS carried out -- on his son. God did it.

Moses killed the Egyptian (Exodus 2: 11-14) - no death penalty for him.

Click to expand...

He was under sentence of death by the Pharaoh. However, what Moses did was NOT 'first degree' murder. He killed defending another person. This is quite different, as also recognized by the Bible.

Saul of Tarsus (later to become the Apostle Paul) killed (Acts 8:1, Acts 9:1)– no death penalty for him.

Click to expand...

Saul was acting under the authority of the religious leaders and thus this was not considered first-degree murder.

Cain killed Abel (the first murder) - no death penalty for him (Gen. 4: 15-17).

Can anyone help in explaining why these men were not given the death penalty? Thanks!

Click to expand...

This happened before the death penalty was commanded by God. That came after the Flood.

Originally posted by Preach the Word:
Where do you stand?

Click to expand...

I oppose capital punishment because I don't trust this society to use it wisely.

Eric

Hi Helen. Thank you for your comments. Do you really believe that David’s son (Absalom) paid the price of the death penalty for a murder that was committed by David? I’m not comfortable with this idea – not only because the Bible does not say this is the case (Absalom died in battle when he rose up against his father in a failed political coup) but also because all proponents of the “death penalty” believe that it can ONLY be performed against the one who commits the crime (it can’t be carried out against a relative of the killer).

Moses did not kill the Egyptian in “self-defense." The Egyptian, smacked (smited) a Hebrew (Exodus 2: 11). This did NOT give Moses the right to kill the Egyptian. There is no suggestion from the Biblical text that the Egyptian was “murdering” the Hebrew. Indeed, it would appear that Moses himself recognized that what he was about to do (murder) was “wrong” as he “looked in all directions” to be certain that he was not seen carrying out the deed he was going to commit (Exodus 2: 12). This was NOT a case of so-called “justifiable homicide” on the part of Moses. It was pure murder – and even the Hebrews themselves believed this concerning the killing of the Egyptian by Moses (Exodus 2: 13-14). Moses even went so far as to “bury the body” secretly (Exodus 2: 12). Little did he know that there were witnesses to the killing (Exodus 2: 14) and this is why he FEARED (v14).

Saul did not have authority to murder, even under the guidance (if he was) of the religious rulers as you mentioned. This would be the modern day equivalent of a “posse” or “lynch mob” and killings under both would be considered murder. In Saul’s day, only Rome had the authority to kill (by government authority). Religious Rulers did not have such authority, which vested entirely in the Roman government. That is why the same Religious Rulers had to go to Pilate when they wanted to execute the LORD.

Cain murdered Abel. You seem to suggest that because LAW was not given concerning this first murder, that judgment could not be rendered as a result. Actually, GOD himself DID provide a judgment concerning Cain’s murder of Abel. Cain specifically feared the death penalty (Gen. 4: 14). In response to the death penalty concern posed by Cain in Gen. 4: 14 - GOD said, “…Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him..” (Gen. 4: 15). Does this mean that pursuing a “death penalty” agenda could result in a SEVEN fold judgment against those who seek it?

In trying to find a Biblical solution to the death penalty question, I’m loathe to reach a conclusion based on emotion, without first finding harmony to the plain statements made in the Bible. Accordingly, I'm looking forward to the thoughts and conclusions of others. To that end, I thank you again Helen for sharing your terrific thoughts.

latterrain77

I don't like to 'waste' a lot of space with quotes, but I think it is important here, so I've left the whole original and inserted some responses.

Originally posted by latterrain77:
Hi Helen. Thank you for your comments. Do you really believe that David’s son (Absalom) paid the price of the death penalty for a murder that was committed by David? I’m not comfortable with this idea – not only because the Bible does not say this is the case (Absalom died in battle when he rose up against his father in a failed political coup) but also because all proponents of the “death penalty” believe that it can ONLY be performed against the one who commits the crime (it can’t be carried out against a relative of the killer).

Click to expand...

No, it was not Absalom. It was the baby son born to David and Bathsheba before Solomon, (2 Samuel 12). The result of that adultery paid the penalty. The baby, in this sense, was a 'type' of Christ -- the innocent taking the penalty for the guilty by God's hand.

Moses did not kill the Egyptian in “self-defense." The Egyptian, smacked (smited) a Hebrew (Exodus 2: 11). This did NOT give Moses the right to kill the Egyptian. There is no suggestion from the Biblical text that the Egyptian was “murdering” the Hebrew. Indeed, it would appear that Moses himself recognized that what he was about to do (murder) was “wrong” as he “looked in all directions” to be certain that he was not seen carrying out the deed he was going to commit (Exodus 2: 12). This was NOT a case of so-called “justifiable homicide” on the part of Moses. It was pure murder – and even the Hebrews themselves believed this concerning the killing of the Egyptian by Moses (Exodus 2: 13-14). Moses even went so far as to “bury the body” secretly (Exodus 2: 12). Little did he know that there were witnesses to the killing (Exodus 2: 14) and this is why he FEARED (v14).

Click to expand...

Allowing Bible to interpret Bible, please refer to Acts 7:23-29 and Hebrews 11:24-27. In addition, the word used for what the Egyptian was doing to the Hebrew is 'nakah', used over 500 times in the Old Testament and at least one hundred of those uses are "kill" or a variation of the word.

A few of the times this same word is used is are in bold below, just to give a very small sample:

The Lord said to Moses, "Treat the Midianties as enemies and kill them, because they treted you as enemies when they deceived you in the affair of Peor and their sister Cozbi, the daughter of a Midianite leader, the woman who was killed when the plague came as a result of Peor."
Numbers 25:16-18

Goliath stood and shouted to the ranks of Israel, "Why do you come out and line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not the servants of Saul? Choose a man and have him come down to me. If he is able to fight and kill me, we will become your subjects; but if I overcome him and kill him, you will become our subjects and serve us."

So the prophet said, "Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you." And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.

So I think, when we see actual word used, it is clear that the Egyptian was not simply smacking the Hebrew a few times, which Moses had undoubtedly seen many, many times before, but the Egyptian was rather striking the man in such as way as to possibly kill him or with actual intent of killing him. Moses buried the body of the Egyptian because, just as in the time of American slavery, killing a slave was no big deal, but killing a slave-owner was a capital offense.

Saul did not have authority to murder, even under the guidance (if he was) of the religious rulers as you mentioned. This would be the modern day equivalent of a “posse” or “lynch mob” and killings under both would be considered murder. In Saul’s day, only Rome had the authority to kill (by government authority). Religious Rulers did not have such authority, which vested entirely in the Roman government. That is why the same Religious Rulers had to go to Pilate when they wanted to execute the LORD.

Click to expand...

This was a time of many small insurrections in the area of Israel against the Roman government. So although the technical law was that only the Roman government could legally execute a man, those who helped put down insurrections by whatever means generally got a blind eye from Rome. The Pharisees and others therefore appealed to the technicality when wanting Jesus dead because the crowds had been cheering Him so strongly just days before, and crowds can be unpredictable. However this technicality did not stand in the way of the stoning of Stephen by these same Pharisees and their followers, possibly including the high priest (Acts 7).

However, when I looked this up just now, I realized something -- Saul was 'breathing murderous threats' towards the Christians and had letters of authority to arrest them and bring them to Jerusalem, but we have no evidence of him ever actively contributing to the death of anyone; even at Stephen's stoning he only held the cloaks of those doing the actual stoning.

Cain murdered Abel. You seem to suggest that because LAW was not given concerning this first murder, that judgment could not be rendered as a result. Actually, GOD himself DID provide a judgment concerning Cain’s murder of Abel. Cain specifically feared the death penalty (Gen. 4: 14). In response to the death penalty concern posed by Cain in Gen. 4: 14 - GOD said, “…Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him..” (Gen. 4: 15). Does this mean that pursuing a “death penalty” agenda could result in a SEVEN fold judgment against those who seek it?

Click to expand...

Whatever the general way of dealing with murders was BEFORE the Flood, it was only afterwards that God told Noah that anyone killing another human being would have to pay with his life. Cain was not talking about the 'death penalty' by the way, for there was none. Cain was talking about revenge from others for what he had done to his brother, who was, by that time, the head of a very large family, since cities were already being built! You will notice, as well, that later in chapter 4, Lamech is boasting about killing several young men and has no fear of reprisal. There is no evidence of the establishment of capital punishment before the Flood.

In trying to find a Biblical solution to the death penalty question, I’m loathe to reach a conclusion based on emotion, without first finding harmony to the plain statements made in the Bible. Accordingly, I'm looking forward to the thoughts and conclusions of others. To that end, I thank you again Helen for sharing your terrific thoughts.

Click to expand...

Thank you. If you want my emotional response, then like everyone else I would only want the death penalty for someone who murdered maybe someone in my family or something as bizarre as 9/11 or the sniper killings. But these emotional responses are dependent upon our knowledge of and intimacy with the victims, right? That is why it is so important that God Himself simply set down a law for all people regarding the sanctity of human life in general. He not only ordered capital punishment for murder, He gave the reason, which still exists today -- because man is made in the image of God.

Hi Helen. Thank you again for your reply. Whether it is David’s son Absalom or the child born to David & Bathsheeba who died – the result is the same. You can’t have a “death penalty” paid for by a relative of the actual killer. It was David’s murder so ONLY David (not his relatives) could pay the price. The idea of executing a “substitute” for a capital crime is non-existent in law. Even the most ardent death penalty proponent would not argue for “substitute relatives” being put to death in place of the actual killer in matters of capital crime. David murdered Uriah the Hittite. 2 Samuel 12: 9 clearly say’s this. David did not endure the “death penalty” for this murder. Why?

Letting the Bible speak for itself, the very Exodus 2 text in question concerning Moses says flatly that Moses “killed” the Egyptian (Exodus 2: 14). I see no room in the wording - or the text itself to suggest that this was anything other than what it says.

As I previously mentioned, Moses did this in such a manner as to illustrate that he was guilty of wrongdoing. He did NOT do this in the “open” so to speak, or for just cause, which would have been the case if the concept of “justifiable homicide” were evident. That is why Moses looked about in every direction to see if any were watching (Exodus 2: 12) BEFORE he killed the man, and why he then buried the body in the sand to “hide” it afterwards (Exodus 2: 12). Egyptian and Hebrew burial procedures were entirely different than this. This manner of burial illustrates “covert activity” – as the Bible flatly says this burial was (Exodus 2: 12).

When the “law” found out about this murder, the death penalty for Moses was sought (Exodus 2: 15). But it never occurred, as Moses fled into exile – which is more the equivalent of a prison sentence. Moses murdered the Egyptian – no death penalty for Moses. Why?

I’m quite certain that the Roman government alone had the authority to execute. The lynch mob that killed Stephen and others – with Saul of Tarsus among them – did NOT get the nod of approval from Rome for this and other murders. They may have “gotten away with it,” but at no time did Rome ever dilute their authority in such matters. Saul murdered and did not get the death penalty. Why?

You are correct that Cain was concerned about revenge from others for what he had done to his brother. And what revenge was Cain worried about? Being slain – the death penalty. This is crystal clear from Cain’s comments to GOD in Genesis 4: 13-14.

“Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me.” Genesis 4: 13-14 (bold is mine).

So, Cain was worried about the death penalty when he advised GOD of his concern. As a result, in the very next verse, GOD described what he would do to those who would exact such a judgment (death penalty) from Cain. GOD quite clearly said that if ANYONE killed Cain as a result, GOD would exact sevenfold punishment because of it (Genesis 4: 15), GOD was PROTECTING Cain from the death penalty!

You are correct when you say, “….that God Himself simply set down a law for all people regarding the sanctity of human life in general.” So, if this is your position, then why would this not extend to ALL human life? (no matter how depraved). Does it only extend to "some" human life? Whatever may be your answer to this question, the Biblical examples that we have been discussing all resulted in NO DEATH PENALTY for the killers. I need to know why this is so, in order to find the Biblical solution to the question concerning the death penalty.

So, for the time being, I’m left without a pure solution. The Biblical illustrations (above) seem to suggest no death penalty. Your excellent comments are terrific food for thought Helen. However, it requires some massaging of the Biblical text to reach the conclusions presented (i.e. substitutes from the family of the killer to be executed instead of the killer himself, calling a murder a “justifiable homicide” when no such language is in the text, giving Religious Rulers execution rights in an Era when the strict Roman Government firmly maintained exclusivity to such power, making GOD’s plain statement about the Death Penalty concerning Cain “irrelevant” in our day and age because the “law” was not yet given, etc).

Still, I’m extremely thankful to you Helen for sharing your thoughts as I’m still struggling with the issue. GOD willing, I hope to dedicate more study time to search for Biblical harmony in the inerrant Scriptures concerning the subject. Thank you again Helen. As always, your thoughts and comments are much appreciated.

latterrain77

[ October 27, 2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]