How do you feel about capital punishment?

Just a couple of notes:

I think you misread about Moses and the Egyptian. What I was trying to show you was that the Egyptian was evidently striking the Hebrew with intent to kill according to the word used. Moses, faced with the choice of death for one of the men (for if he interfered more gently, the Egyptian could have ended up possibly either getting Moses in a heap of trouble anyway, or killing him), as the New Testament says, Moses chose to be identified with his people rather than the Egyptian court.

He had to try to hide his act, or it would have been death immediately for him.

As far as David goes, that was God's choice. As far as someone else paying the penalty, that was exactly what Jesus did, and if God chose to use a picture of that earlier to help us, or maybe just the Jews, understand what was going on, that is certainly up to Him, don't you think?

Nothing, however, changed the fact that God has ordered capital punishment for murder because man is created in the image of God. This is not a 'rule' like a scientific rule where the exceptions disprove it. This is a command from God regardless of any exceptions, biblical or otherwise.

 

The death penalty is biblical. The Bible teaches that God has given the state the authority to carry out such punishment. Granted, I am commanded, individually, not to murder by one of the Ten Commandments. Note that it says murder not kill. There is a big difference between the two. The Hebrew word is ratsach (Strong's #7523) pronounced raw-tsakh'. "To dash to pieces, i.e. kill (a human being), especially to murder: - slayer {16x}, murderer {14x}, kill {5x}, murder {3x}, slain {3x}, manslayer {2x}, killing {1x}..." Ratsach means "to kill, murder, slay." According to my Strong's Exhaustive Concordance, "The Decalogue [the Ten Commandments] gives the general principle in a simple statement, which contains the first occurrence of the verb: 'Thou shalt not kill [murder] sic. (Ex 20:13)'." Likewise, the NKJV translates the word as "murder," as does the NIV.

Furthermore, the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary defines murder as follows:

1. A person who murders another must die because he has destroyed God's "image" in another man (Gen 9:6). Human government has the right to exact the death penalty (Num 35:33; Jn 19:10f.; Rom 13:1-4).

2. Premeditated murder must be distinguished from the unintentional slaying of a man. This distinction involves three criteria of investigation: (a) a prior state of enmity (Num 35:20f.; Deut 19:11-130; (b) a search for the intended victim (num 35:20; Deut 19:11); (c) the use of a murderous instrument (Num 35:16-18). The murderer must have no provided refuge (Lev 24:17; Ex 21:12, 14), but the manslayer who kills another man unintentionally must flee to one of the cities of refuge provided for him (Ex 21:13; Num 35:9-15; Deut 19:1-13; Josh 20:1-9)."

There are six more numbered points in the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary. Each further supports the views expressed in the two quoted points above and/or explains why killing during war is not considered murder. Nowhere does this Bible Dictionary even hint that the death penalty in unbiblical.

For those who do not feel that they could be responsible for the execution of a murderer you do not have to worry about it. God has taken that responsibility out of your hands and placed it squarely in the hands of the state government. In states that have and enforce the death penalty it is of no concern to you whether or not you feel that you could ask the state to execute a murderer because the people of that state and its legislature have already made the provision for you. If that bothers you then you should: (1) Work to change the existing laws. (2)Move to a state or nation that does not have the death penalty on its law books. (3) Take up the issue the God and the Bible. Remember, this debate cannot be based on your personal feelings regarding the subject. The bottom line is what does the Word of God say about the subject. You must pass your feelings through the sieve of the Word of God; rather than passing the Word of God through the sieve of your feelings.

 

It states many times in the Old Testament that if a woman is Menstrating and sits upon a chair the chair is unclean until the evening-next day. If we are going to use Old Testament commands to back up our arguments we need to practise them in full ourselves. How many practice the above?

 

Hi Helen. Thank you again for your kind reply. I don't believe that I misread what you said. I just don’t concur.

The word used in Exodus 2 (Hebrew - “harag”) unquestionably means “to smite with deadly intent, destroy, kill, murder.” It is impossible to read this as meaning anything other than what the Hebrew word means, and what the Bible records concerning the event itself (already described in my previous posts). The same word “harag” is also used to describe “plain vanilla” murder in Gen. 12: 12, Gen. 26: 7, Gen. 27: 42 (for example).

Jesus paying the price for our sins at the cross is NOT the same thing as someone’s relative going to the “gas chamber” (or any other form of death penalty) for a crime that the relative did not commit. It almost sounds like you are advocating that a killer’s relative should receive the death penalty for a murder that they did not commit?

It is still not clear to me that GOD ordered capital punishment (though HE may have). However, the various examples that we have been discussing suggest otherwise. The typical verses quoted by those who propose the death penalty are, to my read of them, insufficient of themselves to make the case (particularly in light of the LACK of death penalty in the examples that we have been discussing). Accordingly, I feel it is prudent (and necessary) to find a solution as to WHY the lack of a death penalty for some (i.e. David, Moses, Saul, Cain) yet the call to it for others.

The topic is SO important that I feel it is imperative to give EVERY detail the highest amount of attention in order to find truth and harmony. The Bible DOES take a position - we just need to be certain our interpretation of that position is accurate, whichever side the truth falls on.

I will continue my study on the subject. Again, I thank you Helen for your input. I appreciate your thoughts and willingness to share them with me.

latterrain77

[ October 28, 2002, 05:52 AM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

So are you suggesting that we all cut the Old Testament out of our Bibles? Can you show me in the New Testament where Christ said that the death penalty must no longer be practiced? I believe that I showed you at least two New Testament passages that demonstrate that a person who commits murder must die because he destroies the image of God in another man and that God has given that authority to our various state governments (see Jn 19:10f.; and especially Rom 13:1-4). Finally, does the New Testament speak to the issue that you have raised in the above quoted O.T. passage?

[An additional thought added later:]

Jesus said in the N.T. that he came to "fulfill" the law. He did not say that he came to abolish the law. When he says "fulfill" he means that He lived without sin and kept the entire law. When He says that He came to give us a "new covenant" that does not mean that he did away with the old one. It means in addition to the old one. He simply added an additional covenant. If you doubt that consider this: It is under the old covenant that God promised that Jesus would sit on the throne of His father David. That has yet to be fulfilled. However, when He returns He will rule on the Throne of the Jerusalem! Amen.

[ October 28, 2002, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Hi Bibleboy. Thank you for your comments. I appreciate your sharing your thoughts. You mentioned, “A person who murders another must die because he has destroyed God's "image" in another man (Gen 9:6).”

Question! Should David have received the death penalty for murdering Uriah the Hitite? If your answer is yes, then please tell me WHY this did not happen (2 Samuel 12, especially verse 9).

Also, I would appreciate your answering the same question concerning Moses and his murder of the Egyptian (Exodus 2: 11-14).

Thank you Bibleboy. I appreciate your input and follow up.

latterrain77

 

Hello Latterain,

I'm shooting from the hip here (I have not studied your question in depth along with the biblical text). However, my knee-jerk response is that God still had plans to accomplish in and through Both David and Moses. Likewise, I cannot, must not, try and sit in judgment over the actions of the Lord recorded in His Holy Word. I know that He is holy and just and that all His actions are righteous. Did Moses and David murder? I think so. Why didn't they get the death penalty? I don't fully know. I'll study and get back to you.

[ October 28, 2002, 07:24 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

If we are keeping on with O/T law why do most churches not keep the Saturday Sabbath?

 

Hello Ben,

Who says that they don't? The Sabbath is a day of rest, it has nothing to with going to church for worship. Take a look at the Ten Commandments. Do you see any command to attend a worship service on the Sabbath? I bet you don't. You are chasing a poor line of argument here. What you will end up doing is denying 2/3 of the Bible. It is all 100% God's Word and applicable to our lives today. Plus, you are ignoring the two passages from John and Romans.

[ October 29, 2002, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: BibleboyII ]

 

Hi Preach The Word. Thank you for your comments on the death penalty issue. David murdered Uriah the Hittite (2 Samuel 12: 9). Moses murdered the Egyptian (Exodus 2: 14). Cain murdered Abel (Genesis 4). According to your read of Genesis 9: 6, these men should all have received the death penalty. But they didn’t. Why?

Please explain in more detail how “taking the sword” in Matt. 26: 52 translates to “murder” and the “death penalty?” In the Matt. 26: 52 example, the one who took up the sword did NOT kill anyone (John 18: 10 tells us that the one who took up that sword was Peter).

In fact, no “Capital Crime” was committed at all by Peter in this incident. Are you saying that Peter should have received the death penalty because he struck a man with his sword? If yes, then why didn’t Peter receive the death penalty for having done so? If no, then how does your read of the Matt. 26: 52 text even relate to the death penalty?

The Greek word for "sword" in Matt. 26: 52 is "machaira." It is the exact same Greek word for "sword" that is used in Matt. 10: 34. How do you reconcile the statements made by the LORD in the two verses?

Given your read of Matt. 26: 52, do you believe the LORD “knew” that Peter was walking around carrying a sword? With respect to the death penalty, what are the implications if the LORD “knew” that Peter was walking around with a sword?

Last thought; suppose a Capital “death penalty” crime is committed that does NOT involve murder? (for example, treason). Is it your position that ONLY the crime of murder warrants the death penalty – and none else? Thank you again for your comments Preach The Word. I much appreciate your sharing your thoughts on this important subject. I'm trying to find the REAL answer, and I MUST look at every angle. The issue is simply too important to do otherwise.

latterrain77

 

While Latterrain is busy working all this out, a word to BenW.

There is a stark difference between the laws God has given to all men (the law on murder,i.e. the capital punishment law and the Ten Commandments) and the laws given the Israelites for their theocracy. Best not to confuse the two. God makes the distinction pretty clear in Exodus.

As far as the Sabbath goes, you will not find the day of the week stipulated by God, only by man. The idea is to work six days and rest one, keeping the rest day holy to God.

 

As far as the Sabbath goes, you will not find the day of the week stipulated by God, only by man. The idea is to work six days and rest one, keeping the rest day holy to God.

DingDingDing!!!!! Finally, someone who has answered the question of the Sabbath satisfactorily. I've always maintained that the day we worship is irrelevant, since the days of the week were laid out by man. What God requires of us is to rest one day in seven, keeping that day of rest holy.

 

Hi Preach The Word. Thank you for your reply. You seem to agree that David, Moses, and Cain should have received the death penalty, even though they didn’t. However, you also seem to be saying that the death penalty should apply to SOME though not all?

David, Moses, and Cain never received the death penalty throughout their entire lives. David died from old age (1 Kings 2: 9-12), Moses died of old age (Deut. 34: 7), and Cain had a wife, family and lived his life (Gen. 4: 16-26). Since these Biblical examples reveal NO death penalty for the killings these men committed, how then can we build a Biblical case to support the death penalty for other men? Why would the death penalty apply to everyone else, but not to them?

Look at GOD’s statement in Genesis 4: 15 - which STRONGLY suggests that those who seek the death penalty will receive SEVEN fold judgment! If you think that Gen. 4: 15 does NOT say this, please tell me what you think Gen. 4: 15 means.

Where does it say using a sword “to take a life” in Matt. 26: 52? Should Peter have received the death penalty by virtue of merely “taking up” a sword and NOT killing with it? If yes, then why didn’t Peter receive the death penalty? If no, then of what substance does this verse have relating to our discussion of the death penalty? It appears none.

The word (“take”) in Matt. 26: 52 is the Greek word “lambano.” It mean’s literally or figuratively “to take hold of," or "to take" (i.e. to take hold of a sword). It does NOT mean “to kill” or “to murder.”

In fact, David SO lived by the sword that GOD would not allow him to build the Temple (1 Chronicles 28: 3). That was his punishment - it was NOT a call for his death through the death penalty.

Do you believe the death penalty should ONLY be applied for murder and should not be used for any other capital crime? What about treason? David joined the ranks of the enemy army of Israel (1 Samuel 27: esp. verse 8-10). Did this warrant the death penalty?

The word “sword” as used in Matt. 26: 52, and Matt. 10: 34, is the exact same Greek word “machaira" as I have previously indicated. The word means literally “knife” (what we would might commonly call a sword). Since you already admit that the word has “symbolic” (not literal) meaning in Matt. 10: 34, then why would that not also apply to Matt. 26: 52 since the words are identical and used in the same context? If I’m right, then the sword of Matt. 26: 52 cannot logically have anything to do with Capital Punishment or the death penalty or killing (not to mention that Peter did NOT kill anyone in the Matt. 26: 52 verse).

I’m still on the fence with this issue and I’m seeking to find truth through the inerrant Bible. However, it seems that those who are already completely convinced that the death penalty is Biblical, have not answered the LACK of the death penalty for David, Moses, Cain, and others who committed "capital offenses" in the Bible. We MUST look at every angle of this argument EXHAUSTIVELY to find harmony. To that end, I thank you much Preach The Word (and any others on the board who might have some ideas) for your thoughts and follow through on this topic. It is very much appreciated.

latterrain77

[ October 31, 2002, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: latterrain77 ]

 

Gen. 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

but

Ex. 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

 

As far as the Sabbath goes, you will not find the day of the week stipulated by God, only by man. The idea is to work six days and rest one, keeping the rest day holy to God.

i think the pattern was set by god's six days of creation followed by the sabbath, followed by six days, followed by the sabbath, etc. down to the present day.

 

Hello am ha'aretz. Thank you for your quote of Gen. 9: 6 and Exo. 23: 7. I appreciate your input on the subject.

Why do you think David and Moses were not held to the Gen. 9: 6 standard (assuming Gen. 9: 6 is referring to the death penalty)? It is unquestionable that GOD’s justice is equal for all men. GOD is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10: 34, Rom. 2: 11, 1 Pet. 1: 17). Could it be that David and Moses were NOT held to the Gen. 9: 6 standard so that we may KNOW the Gen. 9: 6 verse may not apply to the question of the death penalty?

Gen. 9: 6 says; “Whoso” - which means EVERYONE. No one is exempt from the statement. NONE have the right to shed blood – including the executioner! If this verse were referring to the death penalty, it would mean that when the executioner shed the blood of the killer, then someone would have to execute the executioner. Afterward, someone would then need to execute the executioner who executed the executioner. And ON and ON and ON it would go! Is the death penalty itself as wrong as the murder it is intended to punish?

Formal government did NOT exist at the time of Genesis 9: 6. Who then is the “by man” shall his blood be shed in Gen. 9: 6 referring to?

Should the death penalty only apply to murder? What about other “capital crimes.”

Finally, what are your thoughts about Gen. 4: 14-15? Do you think the “seven fold” judgment of Gen. 4: 15 means that anyone who tried to exact the death penalty against Cain (as a result of Cain’s murder of Abel) would be subject to a seven times stronger judgment? (Gen. 4: 15).

These are just some of the questions that we should look to answer if we are to find Biblical harmony on the subject. I'm still undecided on this issue but it is prudent and wise to search the details - especially given the enormity of the question at hand. Thank you again for your comments am ha’aretz. It is much appreciated.

latterrain77

 

Hello am ha'aretz. Thank you for your quote of Gen. 9: 6 and Exo. 23: 7. I appreciate your input on the subject.

thank you i've been lurking for a while, and basically keeping my mouth shut, since it's obvious that so many here know a lot more about the bible than i do. perhaps i'll come to regret my current lapse in judgement, lol

Why do you think David and Moses were not held to the Gen. 9: 6 standard (assuming Gen. 9: 6 is referring to the death penalty)?

i think gen 9:6 is a commandment to men, not to god. god is free to do as he sees fit.

It is unquestionable that GOD’s justice is equal for all men. GOD is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10: 34, Rom. 2: 11, 1 Pet. 1: 17).

i respecfully disagree, for god will have mercy on whom he will have mercy, ex 33:19. now, i agree that god will not ultimately give anyone injustice, i.e. punishment they don't deserve, but he can and does show mercy to whom he will.

perhaps men should show mercy as well, to the point of ignoring god's commands? i don't think so, for we are to obey him and not try to be more holy than god - for example, we should act like abraham with issac, and not like saul with agag.

Could it be that David and Moses were NOT held to the Gen. 9: 6 standard so that we may KNOW the Gen. 9: 6 verse may not apply to the question of the death penalty?

possibly, but i personally don't think so. the commandment that men should put murderers to death is in very clear language, imo, and is repeated many times. i think it was god's will that moses and david live. i think that if anyone had tried to kill them in an attempt to follow this command, then god would have made it known that the death penalty was not his will in this case.

i guess what i'm saying is that the law has validity because it represents god's will, and that's what really matters.

Gen. 9: 6 says; “Whoso” - which means EVERYONE. No one is exempt from the statement. NONE have the right to shed blood – including the executioner! If this verse were referring to the death penalty, it would mean that when the executioner shed the blood of the killer, then someone would have to execute the executioner. Afterward, someone would then need to execute the executioner who executed the executioner. And ON and ON and ON it would go!

ok, i think the question is how we should understand "shedding blood". i believe the recursiveness you've demonstrated above is the true problem, and not anyone's particular definiion of "shedding blood". for example, if shedding blood really only meant slapping someone with a fish, that would still lead to the ridiculous outcome of everyone on earth being slapped, just because one guy decided to do so.

the best solution here, i think, is to take "shedding blood" to mean two slightly different things in the two cases where it appears in gen 9:6. i think the two appropriate senses are "killing a man without god's permission" and "killing a man with god's permission". so, the first would obligate men to inflict the death penalty, while the second wouldn't.

Is the death penalty itself as wrong as the murder it is intended to punish?

i don't think so, as i don't think that killing in and of itself is wrong, but that disobeying god is the real issue.

the murderer kills - and this is wrong since it is not god's will.
the executioner kills - and this is correct since it follows god's will.

Formal government did NOT exist at the time of Genesis 9: 6. Who then is the “by man” shall his blood be shed in Gen. 9: 6 referring to?

the ones in charge, the husbands i suppose.

Should the death penalty only apply to murder? What about other “capital crimes.”

this commandment to kill a murderer was given to the entire human race, so we should follow it. many commands were only given to israel, so i guess we would need to analyze each case to try and determine god's will for us.

Finally, what are your thoughts about Gen. 4: 14-15? Do you think the “seven fold” judgment of Gen. 4: 15 means that anyone who tried to exact the death penalty against Cain (as a result of Cain’s murder of Abel) would be subject to a seven times stronger judgment? (Gen. 4: 15).

sure sounds like it.

I'm still undecided on this issue but it is prudent and wise to search the details - especially given the enormity of the question at hand. Thank you again for your comments am ha’aretz. It is much appreciated.

latterrain77, i agree wholeheartedly about the importance of this question. i'm pretty settled on the issue, but if i'm wrong i'd certainly like to know about it.

thanks for taking the time to respond

[ November 02, 2002, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]

 

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).

as an interesting aside, the typical orthodox jewish intepretation of this passage is that "looking in all directions" was moshe using his prophetic vision to see if any of the egyptian's descendants would ever come to god.

i don't buy it either

[ November 02, 2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: am ha'aretz ]