Death Penalty not addressed in NT?

[canadyjd]

Your references are not ignored, they just didn't mean what you want them to mean. Using your method of interpretation, there are whole new avenues of rationalization available, but I'd still have to ignore specific verses that say something different. Therein lies the rub.

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I gave you the passages and I engaged them. I showed you how Jesus was referencing the O.T. Law concerning implementation of the death penalty. I showed you the passage from I Tim. that specifically addresses the command from our Lord Jesus about the attitudes Christians should have toward the worst of sinners.

You dismissed the passages without engaging them. You claim the passages don't mean what I say they mean, but you don't engage the text to show me how I am wrong.

You are ignoring the passages.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Unfortunately, you have errors in your interpretation of John 8 and that is leading you to wrong conclusions.

If true, it won't be the first time I've been wrong. Let's see what you have....

First, let me say where you are correct. You are correct that two or three witnesses were required in the Law to carry-out a sentence of death. The Law, therefore, errs on the side of grace.

And so we agree.

But, Jesus didn't change any standard for the administration of the death penalty.

And so we disagree.

In Matthew 5, Jesus says:.....Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, ...... It appears your interpretation would run afoul of this passage....

Jesus didn't relax the commandment, He did change it, however. That is easy enough to see. What was "two or three witnesses" now is "the One who is without sin". That is clear.

Just as He changed the commandment on committing adultery to include looking after women in a lustful way (that is not "relaxing" the commandment but it is changing it), He added a condition to administering the death penalty to insure it's proper implementation.

One purpose of the O.T. Law was to insure justice was dealt out fairly and without bias. What is clear from the case of the woman in John 8, is that mankind is not able to administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way. We don't have the wisdom to take people's lives. We don't have the righteousness to take people's lives. Only God is able.

So, what happened in John 8?.....the Law required both the man and the woman to be stoned.....So, when the Scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus, their accusation of her as an adulteress carried with it their testimony that they had witnessed the act. If they witnessed the act, which they were implicitly claiming, where was the man? One cannot commit adultery by one's self. As I see it there are 3 possibilities:.... In any of these cases, there was an horrific miscarriage of the Law and justice according to the Law.

If Jesus had been following the O.T. Law, He would have demanded the man be found and brought forward as well as the woman and both to be stoned by those who witnessed the act. He didn't do that.

So, when Jesus says "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” He is saying "Let him who is without sin in this matter..." Why is this the proper interpretation? Because we know that the Old Testament requires all the people to participate in the stoning and all those people are still sinners.

This is a good try, but you are missing the point of having the two or three witnesses be the first to throw stones at the accused according to the O.T. Law.

The 2 or 3 witnesses are the first to throw stones and they are take the blood of the accused upon themselves. If they have given false testimony, they are considered guilty of murder. The rest of the people who participate in the stoning are then considered guiltless if the person is found to be innocent.

Whether anyone involved in the stoning were a "sinner" or not is not mentioned in the O.T. Law.

But Jesus brings it up here.

Obviously, you are correct that God is the only one without sin, but, as I stated above, perfect sinlessness was never a requirement to participate in corporate punishment...

Until Jesus made it so in John 8. Now it is.

Proper interpretation of the passage relies on v. 9: "But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him."

This would only be true if everyone in the crowd had witnessed the crime, and therefore everyone in the crowd had sinned "in this matter".

I appreciate your effort to engage the passage, and you make a good argument. However, I don't believe the passage supports your interpretation.

Blessings,

Thank you

Blessings and

peace to youraying:

 

[The Archangel]

Unfortunately, there are many leaps you are making here that are not supported by the text itself.

Jesus didn't relax the commandment, He did change it, however. That is easy enough to see. What was "two or three witnesses" now is "the One who is without sin". That is clear.

You are suggesting that there is a difference in "relaxing" a command and "changing" a command. This is a false dichotomy.

You are not giving the passage in Matthew (5:17-20) its due. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. So, as you are suggesting, He could not have "abolished" the death penalty. In the context, there is no difference between "relaxing" a command and "changing" it. Had Jesus "changed" it, He would have had a problem because He would have gone against what He said in Matthew, thereby creating a contradiction in His mission and the Scripture.

Just as He changed the commandment on committing adultery to include looking after women in a lustful way (that is not "relaxing" the commandment but it is changing it), He added a condition to administering the death penalty to insure it's proper implementation.

Again, you are misunderstanding the context. The context of the lust/adultery passage is the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Mount is, basically, a polemic against the Scribes and Pharisees.

It was widely known that the Pharisees, for instance, preached an outward conformity to the Law. There was no consideration in the mind of the Pharisees for internal obedience.

So, when Jesus says that lust is the same as adultery, He is not changing a commandment. He, the Author of the Law, is giving a corrective to the misguided and downright sinful understanding of the Pharisees that sought only outward conformity

One purpose of the O.T. Law was to insure justice was dealt out fairly and without bias. What is clear from the case of the woman in John 8, is that mankind is not able to administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way. We don't have the wisdom to take people's lives. We don't have the righteousness to take people's lives. Only God is able.

This cannot be the case. Are we really to think that Mankind in the Old Testament (especially Old Testament Israel) was better than Mankind in the New Testament? Why would God entrust the People of Israel to administer the death penalty? They were not righteous. If, as you suggest, Mankind is not able to administer the death penalty, we would be left wondering why God commanded it in the Old Testament.

You have a real problem here: You are suggesting a discontinuity in the "heart" of man between the Old Testament and New Testament. If, as you state, Mankind is unable to administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way, why did God command the administration of the death penalty in the Old Testament and why did Paul state (in Romans 13) that the Government has every right to execute the death penalty?

There is no difference in "righteousness" between Mankind in the Old Testament and New Testament. Therefore, it is incongruous to say what you are saying. There is an oxymoronical and contradictory approach to the nature of Mankind in the Old and New Testaments.

If Jesus had been following the O.T. Law, He would have demanded the man be found and brought forward as well as the woman and both to be stoned by those who witnessed the act. He didn't do that.

This is not necessarily the case. First, there are two things going on in the passage: 1.) Jesus is teaching and a crowd is gathered and 2.) The Scribes and the Pharisees bring the woman forward in the midst of Jesus' teaching.

Also, as the text itself tells us, the goal of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to administer justice, but to trap Jesus.

Jesus does have a real problem here:

1. Had He ordered her stoning (whether He ordered the man to be brought and stoned too is immaterial), the Scribes and Pharisees would have had a charge against Him. You see, Rome and Rome alone held the right of Capital Punishment. Therefore, it could be reported to the Roman Governor that Jesus had instigated some action usurping Rome's authority and they would have sought Him out and arrested Him, thereby allowing the Scribes and Pharisees to run things like they had been doing.

2. Had He ordered her not to be stoned (again, the man being immaterial), the Scribes and Pharisees would have turned to the crowd and accused Him of denying the Law of Moses, thereby discrediting Him in the eyes of the crowd and all the people.

That the man is not present is a tip-off that something stinks. Not to mention, the Scribes and Pharisees were known to have a horrible attitude towards women and basically treated them like animals.

In any event, Jesus' goal is not to see people stoned; His goal is to uphold the Law (something which the Scribes and Pharisees would not do, as evidenced by one party being brought to be stoned).

The woman, adultery, the missing man, etc. is not the main point of this passage. The main point of this passage is the Scribes and Pharisees being willing to brutalize the Law to serve their own sinful purposes and Jesus being the one to uphold the letter and intent of the Law.

This is a good try, but you are missing the point of having the two or three witnesses be the first to throw stones at the accused according to the O.T. Law.

The 2 or 3 witnesses are the first to throw stones and they are take the blood of the accused upon themselves. If they have given false testimony, they are considered guilty of murder. The rest of the people who participate in the stoning are then considered guiltless if the person is found to be innocent.

Whether anyone involved in the stoning were a "sinner" or not is not mentioned in the O.T. Law.

But Jesus brings it up here.

You are misunderstanding the phrase "you who are without sin." Jesus is not saying "you who have never sinned." We know this because, for instance, in sin of Achan (in Joshua 7) all Israel stoned Achan and his family. Certainly all Israel was not without sin. All Israel, though full of sinners, participated in the stoning.

Furthermore, the point of the two or three witnesses is so that the death penalty would not be administered by a he-said-she-said. In other words, being ticked-off at a fellow Israelite, a single person could not manufacture a charge which would result in the death penalty.

Having the accusers throw the first stone was a further protection against the bearing of false witness.

Even so, the accusers--the throwers of the first stones--would not have been sinless, because no one is sinless. The issue is their participation in the matter at hand. This is why, it is implied, the Scribes and Pharisees (the accusers in John 8) have sinned in the matter in that 1.) They have let the man go; 2.) They have conspired to falsely charge the woman; 3.) They have entrapped the woman. We know it is likely #1 or #3. After all, Jesus does say "Go and stop sinning," so the implication is that she is guilty as charged.

Until Jesus made it so in John 8. Now it is. This would only be true if everyone in the crowd had witnessed the crime, and therefore everyone in the crowd had sinned "in this matter".

No. My above statement should answer this too. Suffice it to say that the crowd was not the accuser. Only the Scribes and the Pharisees were accusers.

I appreciate your effort to engage the passage, and you make a good argument. However, I don't believe the passage supports your interpretation. Thank you

Unfortunately, your "interpretation" is an example of you holding a view (against the death penalty) and you are trying to conform scripture to your view. You are making contextual and factual errors as well as creating incongruities with Scripture itself.

I would suggest that you are free to argue against the death penalty, you just can't use John 8 to do so.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[NiteShift]

Jesus didn't relax the commandment, He did change it, however. That is easy enough to see. What was "two or three witnesses" now is "the One who is without sin". That is clear.

Just as He changed the commandment on committing adultery to include looking after women in a lustful way (that is not "relaxing" the commandment but it is changing it), He added a condition to administering the death penalty to insure it's proper implementation.

One purpose of the O.T. Law was to insure justice was dealt out fairly and without bias. What is clear from the case of the woman in John 8, is that mankind is not able to administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way. We don't have the wisdom to take people's lives. We don't have the righteousness to take people's lives. Only God is able.

I think you are taking away the wrong lesson from John 8.

In Luke 18, when Jesus told the rich young man, "If you want to be perfect, go and sell what you have, give money to the poor, and come follow Me."

Was Jesus changing any commandments? Did he mean that any Jew who wished to be obedient to the Law now was required to give away all that he had? No, Jesus knew that the young man, who considered himself to be righteous, actually loved his wealth more than he loved the Lord. Jesus was demonstrating this to the young man.

In the same way, those who brought the adulteress to him considered themselves to be good, and fully Right with God. He was pointing out to them what they wouldn’t admit: that they were just as guilty as the woman they wished to stone.

I don’t think it was Jesus’ intent to change Mosaic law at all, but to force them to see their own lives as God saw them.

 

[SRBooe]

Just because you say it doesn't make it true.

I gave you the passages and I engaged them. I showed you how Jesus was referencing the O.T. Law concerning implementation of the death penalty. I showed you the passage from I Tim. that specifically addresses the command from our Lord Jesus about the attitudes Christians should have toward the worst of sinners.

You dismissed the passages without engaging them. You claim the passages don't mean what I say they mean, but you don't engage the text to show me how I am wrong.

You are ignoring the passages.

peace to youraying:

Peace to you as well, and you are correct: I erased my response to you as there is no way to word it that I like.

We are not discussing the issue for two basic reasons:

1. You did not show where the verses I provided are not true and meaningful.

and

2. Others who posted after your response have already shown the error in the assumptions you made about your verses.

I take this thread as a community discussion and don't feel the need to rewrite what someone else has posted.

Peace to you, as well, brother.

 

[Luke2427]

.............................

 

[Luke2427]

Unfortunately, there are many leaps you are making here that are not supported by the text itself.



You are suggesting that there is a difference in "relaxing" a command and "changing" a command. This is a false dichotomy.

You are not giving the passage in Matthew (5:17-20) its due. Jesus said He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. So, as you are suggesting, He could not have "abolished" the death penalty. In the context, there is no difference between "relaxing" a command and "changing" it. Had Jesus "changed" it, He would have had a problem because He would have gone against what He said in Matthew, thereby creating a contradiction in His mission and the Scripture.



Again, you are misunderstanding the context. The context of the lust/adultery passage is the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Mount is, basically, a polemic against the Scribes and Pharisees.

It was widely known that the Pharisees, for instance, preached an outward conformity to the Law. There was no consideration in the mind of the Pharisees for internal obedience.

So, when Jesus says that lust is the same as adultery, He is not changing a commandment. He, the Author of the Law, is giving a corrective to the misguided and downright sinful understanding of the Pharisees that sought only outward conformity



This cannot be the case. Are we really to think that Mankind in the Old Testament (especially Old Testament Israel) was better than Mankind in the New Testament? Why would God entrust the People of Israel to administer the death penalty? They were not righteous. If, as you suggest, Mankind is not able to administer the death penalty, we would be left wondering why God commanded it in the Old Testament.

You have a real problem here: You are suggesting a discontinuity in the "heart" of man between the Old Testament and New Testament. If, as you state, Mankind is unable to administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way, why did God command the administration of the death penalty in the Old Testament and why did Paul state (in Romans 13) that the Government has every right to execute the death penalty?

There is no difference in "righteousness" between Mankind in the Old Testament and New Testament. Therefore, it is incongruous to say what you are saying. There is an oxymoronical and contradictory approach to the nature of Mankind in the Old and New Testaments.



This is not necessarily the case. First, there are two things going on in the passage: 1.) Jesus is teaching and a crowd is gathered and 2.) The Scribes and the Pharisees bring the woman forward in the midst of Jesus' teaching.

Also, as the text itself tells us, the goal of the Scribes and Pharisees was not to administer justice, but to trap Jesus.

Jesus does have a real problem here:

1. Had He ordered her stoning (whether He ordered the man to be brought and stoned too is immaterial), the Scribes and Pharisees would have had a charge against Him. You see, Rome and Rome alone held the right of Capital Punishment. Therefore, it could be reported to the Roman Governor that Jesus had instigated some action usurping Rome's authority and they would have sought Him out and arrested Him, thereby allowing the Scribes and Pharisees to run things like they had been doing.

2. Had He ordered her not to be stoned (again, the man being immaterial), the Scribes and Pharisees would have turned to the crowd and accused Him of denying the Law of Moses, thereby discrediting Him in the eyes of the crowd and all the people.

That the man is not present is a tip-off that something stinks. Not to mention, the Scribes and Pharisees were known to have a horrible attitude towards women and basically treated them like animals.

In any event, Jesus' goal is not to see people stoned; His goal is to uphold the Law (something which the Scribes and Pharisees would not do, as evidenced by one party being brought to be stoned).

The woman, adultery, the missing man, etc. is not the main point of this passage. The main point of this passage is the Scribes and Pharisees being willing to brutalize the Law to serve their own sinful purposes and Jesus being the one to uphold the letter and intent of the Law.



You are misunderstanding the phrase "you who are without sin." Jesus is not saying "you who have never sinned." We know this because, for instance, in sin of Achan (in Joshua 7) all Israel stoned Achan and his family. Certainly all Israel was not without sin. All Israel, though full of sinners, participated in the stoning.

Furthermore, the point of the two or three witnesses is so that the death penalty would not be administered by a he-said-she-said. In other words, being ticked-off at a fellow Israelite, a single person could not manufacture a charge which would result in the death penalty.

Having the accusers throw the first stone was a further protection against the bearing of false witness.

Even so, the accusers--the throwers of the first stones--would not have been sinless, because no one is sinless. The issue is their participation in the matter at hand. This is why, it is implied, the Scribes and Pharisees (the accusers in John 8) have sinned in the matter in that 1.) They have let the man go; 2.) They have conspired to falsely charge the woman; 3.) They have entrapped the woman. We know it is likely #1 or #3. After all, Jesus does say "Go and stop sinning," so the implication is that she is guilty as charged.



No. My above statement should answer this too. Suffice it to say that the crowd was not the accuser. Only the Scribes and the Pharisees were accusers.



Unfortunately, your "interpretation" is an example of you holding a view (against the death penalty) and you are trying to conform scripture to your view. You are making contextual and factual errors as well as creating incongruities with Scripture itself.

I would suggest that you are free to argue against the death penalty, you just can't use John 8 to do so.

Blessings,

The Archangel

This is tremendous work, here.

I thought I had a pretty good grasp on this text but you have made it far clearer than I once saw it.

Thanks for this tremendous exegetical work here!

 

[canadyjd]

You are suggesting that there is a difference in "relaxing" a command and "changing" a command. This is a false dichotomy.

Well, I don't think your using the word "dichotomy" correctly. A dichotomy is a false choice, if I remember correctly. I haven't given any such choice. It should be clear that Jesus can change a command without relaxing that command.

You, however, have given a false choice, imho, by saying any change in the Law is a "relaxing" of the Law and contradicts Matt. 5. An "enhancement" in the understanding of the Law is not a "relaxing" of the Law. Jesus enhances our understanding of the Law, as you stated below:

He, the Author of the Law, is giving a corrective to the misguided and downright sinful understanding of the Pharisees

In the same way, Jesus gives a corrective to the "misguided and downright sinful understanding of the Pharisees" concerning the death penalty.

This cannot be the case. Are we really to think that Mankind in the Old Testament (especially Old Testament Israel) was better than Mankind in the New Testament? Why would God entrust the People of Israel to administer the death penalty? They were not righteous. If, as you suggest, Mankind is not able to administer the death penalty, we would be left wondering why God commanded it in the Old Testament.

The same argument can be made about every O.T. commandment. If God knew that nobody could keep them, why did God give them? I'm sure you know they answer to that, to show us our need for a Savior.

When we realize we can't keep the O.T. Law, we turn to God and trust God. When we realize we can't administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way, we turn to God and trust God. We put the person in prison for the rest of their lives, knowing that God is able to take their lives at whatever moment He chooses. God doesn't need our help to take a person's life.

You have a real problem here: You are suggesting a discontinuity in the "heart" of man between the Old Testament and New Testament......

I have made no such suggestion. You have presented a strawman and knocked him down, and nothing more.

You are misunderstanding the phrase "you who are without sin." Jesus is not saying "you who have never sinned." We know this because, for instance, in sin of Achan (in Joshua 7) all Israel stoned Achan and his family.... Certainly all Israel was not without sin. All Israel, though full of sinners, participated in the stoning......

Thus, the clear change in the standard for implementing the death penalty.

Suffice it to say that the crowd was not the accuser. Only the Scribes and the Pharisees were accusers.

But the entire crowd left. For your theory to be correct the entire crowd must have been co-conspirators. Are you suggesting the entire crowd had "sinned in this matter" in some way? There is nothing in the text to suggest that, imho.

Unfortunately, your "interpretation" is an example of you holding a view (against the death penalty) and you are trying to conform scripture to your view.

You are simply in error because you don't know me.

I used to support the death penalty. I made many of the same arguments that you make. After very careful study of the scriptures, I discovered I was wrong. I changed my mind to conform to the Word of God. I've been called a "liberal sissy" ever since (but not by you:thumbs. My conscience, however, stands clear on this issue.

I would suggest that you are free to argue against the death penalty, you just can't use John 8 to do so.

Fortunately, I don't have to have your permission to use John 8 to argue against the death penalty.:smilewinkgrin:

I noticed you didn't address I Tim. 1:16.

I would like to hear your argument of how a Christian can follow the command of our Lord Jesus Christ to show mercy and perfect patience to the worst of sinners, even murderes like Paul, while supporting the death of those same people.

Blessings,

Blessings to you as well. Thanks for the civil discourse. I have high hopes for this discussion.

peace to youraying:

 

[The Archangel]

Well, I don't think your using the word "dichotomy" correctly. A dichotomy is a false choice, if I remember correctly. I haven't given any such choice. It should be clear that Jesus can change a command without relaxing that command.

You, however, have given a false choice, imho, by saying any change in the Law is a "relaxing" of the Law and contradicts Matt. 5. An "enhancement" in the understanding of the Law is not a "relaxing" of the Law. Jesus enhances our understanding of the Law, as you stated below:

He, the Author of the Law, is giving a corrective to the misguided and downright sinful understanding of the Pharisees​

In the same way, Jesus gives a corrective to the "misguided and downright sinful understanding of the Pharisees" concerning the death penalty.

The word Dichotomy means "division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups" (source). You are, I think, thinking of the logical fallacy of a "false dichotomy." As I used the word, I was intending the above definition, because you are suggesting that "relaxing" the law is not the same as "changing" the law. Relaxing the law is--ipso facto--changing the law. Therefore, to suggest, as you are, that relaxing the law is not changing the law is a false dichotomy--that you can relax the law or enhance the law without changing it.

Given the Matthew 5 passage, I don't think it can be said that Jesus can change a command, much less relax it. Again, your thinking about the situation in Matthew 5 is incorrect--Jesus didn't change or enhance the command. Rather, He corrected the Pharisees' wrong thinking that outward obedience was all that was required.

Again, the root-issue here is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Jesus was doing in engaging the Scribes and Pharisees in the Sermon on the Mount as well as other places in the Gospels.

The same argument can be made about every O.T. commandment. If God knew that nobody could keep them, why did God give them? I'm sure you know they answer to that, to show us our need for a Savior.

When we realize we can't keep the O.T. Law, we turn to God and trust God. When we realize we can't administer the death penalty in a fair and unbiased way, we turn to God and trust God. We put the person in prison for the rest of their lives, knowing that God is able to take their lives at whatever moment He chooses. God doesn't need our help to take a person's life.

You are mixing apples and oranges here. Of course no one can keep the Law and of course the Law shows us our need for a Savior. On this we agree.

However, the issue with Capital Punishment is not based solely in the Law of the Old Testament.

First, the institution of Capital Punishment is in Genesis 9 and predates the giving of the Law.

Second, the Law, was instituted for the Theocratic Nation of Israel. (And, I'll remind you, that is the context in which Jesus is engaging the Scribes and Pharisees).

Third, the Law included the Death Penalty and it was not optional. God commanded the Israelites to put certain offenders to death, after the application of what we might call due process. However, the law regarding the carrying out of the Death Penalty is not a regular, run-of-the-mill "thou shalt." Quite the contrary, the statue is given for only select high crimes. The nature of the laws concerning the Death Penalty are reactionary or punitive. The commands of the law are quite different than the commands to administer penalty. The commands to administer the penalty are not necessarily germane to what we would understand as "the Law" that shows us our need for a Savior.

Fourth, while it is true God does not need our help, He does command Israel to carry out the Death Penalty.

Fifth, when Pilate asked Jesus: Do you not know I have the authority to put you to death or set you free, Jesus did not debate with him the efficacy or morality of the Death Penalty. Actually, Jesus seems to affirm that Pilate does, in deed, have such authority and that authority has been given to him by God.

Sixth, Romans 13 clearly states Government to be a tool in God's hand to carry-out wrath on the wrongdoer up to and including "bearing the sword" which is a clear affirmation of the right of any Government to carry out the Death Penalty.

I have made no such suggestion. You have presented a strawman and knocked him down, and nothing more.

Thus, the clear change in the standard for implementing the death penalty.

I have not made any such strawman. You are suggesting that Old Testament Israel could be commanded to carry out the death penalty--and trusted to do so (since it is in the Law to carry out such punishment)--but persons in the New Testament could not be trusted to do so. The implication of your argument is that there is a fundamental difference in Mankind between the Old and New Testaments.

Further you comment "Thus the clear change..." does not seem to follow my allusion to Joshua 7 and the sin of Achan. Why would there need to be a change in standard? What about the stoning of Achan shows that the standard must be changed? Are you suggesting that Israel stoned him in error?

But the entire crowd left. For your theory to be correct the entire crowd must have been co-conspirators. Are you suggesting the entire crowd had "sinned in this matter" in some way? There is nothing in the text to suggest that, imho.

You are misunderstanding the text. You are placing the crowd in the role of the accuser. This is incorrect. The Scribes and Pharisees (who enter in at verse 3) come on the scene after the crowd is established, already being on scene. The Scribes and Pharisees are the ones who challenge Jesus on the Law, bringing the woman. When Jesus exposes their sin in the matter (an intended miscarriage of justice to trap Jesus), they--the Scribes and Pharisees--leave.

That the woman is left alone with Christ may mean either the Scribes, Pharisees, and Crowd left or it may mean only the Scribes and Pharisees left. It is absolutely immaterial either way. The crowd would have had no standing to accuse the woman (they would not have seen her in copulative action). Therefore, the crowd had absolutely no standing to accuse her. The only thing the crowd might have done was participate in the stoning (had proper due process been given her, which it wasn't). However, with the accusers (the Scribes and Pharisees) gone, they could not have participated in any stoning of any kind.

The Scribes and Pharisees alone are identified as the accusers. You are making quite a leap to suggest the crowd was also accusing her. The crowd is very immaterial to this entire event; they are merely witnesses to the drama between the Scribes, Pharisees, Jesus, and the woman.

You are simply in error because you don't know me.

I used to support the death penalty. I made many of the same arguments that you make. After very careful study of the scriptures, I discovered I was wrong. I changed my mind to conform to the Word of God. I've been called a "liberal sissy" ever since (but not by you:thumbs. My conscience, however, stands clear on this issue.

Well, I don't know you, that is true. However, it would seem that you are using this passage (and an insufficient understanding of it) to support an anti-death penalty position. I should have made sure to say earlier that you were "apparently" doing this. My apologies.

While I do support the Death Penalty (full disclosure), you will kindly notice that I have not been arguing for it from John 8. My efforts have been centered in correcting your misunderstanding and subsequent misapplication of the passage.

Besides, "The Woman Caught in Adultery" passage of John 8 is highly disputed. The Greek is not in any way germane to the Greek usually used by John. The Greek is much more formal than John's typical writing. So, while I think this passage is legitimate, it is not wise to base any doctrine or position on this passage since its originality and legitimacy is in serious doubt. To do so would be akin to advocating snake handling based on the longer ending of Mark.

Fortunately, I don't have to have your permission to use John 8 to argue against the death penalty.:smilewinkgrin:

No, you certainly do not need my permission. However, a word to the wise should be sufficient.

I noticed you didn't address I Tim. 1:16.

That's because, to my knowledge, you never brought it up in our discussion.

I would like to hear your argument of how a Christian can follow the command of our Lord Jesus Christ to show mercy and perfect patience to the worst of sinners, even murderes like Paul, while supporting the death of those same people.

Blessings to you as well. Thanks for the civil discourse. I have high hopes for this discussion.

peace to youraying:

There is a real difference in what an individual Christian can and should do and what a Government is allowed to do.

No Christian is given the right to be a vigilante. In other words, an individual Christian cannot seek vengeance. On the other hand, Government--which is God's idea--is charged with, among other things, carrying out the Death Penalty (Romans 13).

So, while we as Christians should seek to show mercy, patience, and forgiveness, this is not the same thing as a Government executing justice.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[canadyjd]

....Fifth, when Pilate asked Jesus: Do you not know I have the authority to put you to death or set you free, Jesus did not debate with him the efficacy or morality of the Death Penalty. Actually, Jesus seems to affirm that Pilate does, in deed, have such authority and that authority has been given to him by God.....

I just can't believe what I am reading. You are arguing Christians should support the death penalty because Jesus didn't object when Pilate sentenced Him to death? REALLY? That is the example you choose to use to make your case?

Let me understand this. Pilate sentencing Jesus to death is your example of how the death penalty should be administered by men and governments? And Christians should support that?

Brother, I am speachless and brokenhearted.:tear::tear:

peace to youraying:

 

[The Archangel]

I just can't believe what I am reading. You are arguing Christians should support the death penalty because Jesus didn't object when Pilate sentenced Him to death? REALLY? That is the example you choose to use to make your case?

Let me understand this. Pilate sentencing Jesus to death is your example of how the death penalty should be administered by men and governments? And Christians should support that?

Brother, I am speachless and brokenhearted.:tear::tear:

peace to youraying:

No, the example of Pilate was but one example. Why are you treating this one example as if it is the only one I put forward? Why did you not deal with Romans 13? After all, there were six examples.

But, there is a difference between how individual Christians show mercy and forgive people and what Governments do to carry out justice.

If someone is convicted of first-degree murder, a Christian family member of the murdered should (and probably must) forgive the murderer. However, the Government cannot forgo justice.

If the most valuable thing we have is life, then to demand less than the most valuable thing from the murder is to do injustice to the murdered and his or her family.

Also, though the Christian should (or, again, must) forgive the murderer, the murderer must face the natural consequences of his or her actions.

There is a great and grand difference between these two things and, I think, you are confusing them by making them one in the same.

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[canadyjd]

No, the example of Pilate was but one example. Why are you treating this one example as if it is the only one I put forward? Why did you not deal with Romans 13? After all, there were six examples.

Because your using the example of Pilate sentencing Jesus to death as a reason Christians should support the death penalty is the one that stunned and saddened me.

But, there is a difference between how individual Christians show mercy and forgive people and what Governments do to carry out justice.

I am pretty close to agreeing with this statement.

If the most valuable thing we have is life, then to demand less than the most valuable thing from the murder is to do injustice to the murdered and his or her family.

You are assuming the most valuable thing we have is life. I disagree. I say it is Christian love.

peace to youraying:

 

[The Archangel]

Because your using the example of Pilate sentencing Jesus to death as a reason Christians should support the death penalty is the one that stunned and saddened me.

While I do support the death penalty, I would never use Pilate and Jesus to "support" the death penalty. If I had to build a case for the death penalty I would go right to Romans 13. I was merely stating a fact. I think it would be ridiculous to say "Jesus was sentenced to death so you can be too." That was certainly not my intention. Again, my intention was to show that Jesus did not buck against Rome having been given the power to execute by God Himself. But, I might add, that doesn't mean they had to exercise that power in the case of Christ.

You are assuming the most valuable thing we have is life. I disagree. I say it is Christian love.

peace to youraying:

Does the Bible itself not suggest and say (outrightly) in many cases that Life is the most valuable thing we have.

If it isn't why did God demand the death penalty for murder (Genesis 9)? Why are we told to present our bodies as living sacrifices (Romans 12)? Why does Jesus say the most loving thing a brother can do for a brother is to "Lay down his life?"

Life is the most valuable thing God has given to us. Without life we could not exercise love (and I mean life in both the spiritual and physical). While love is extremely important, especially to the Christian, it is not as important as Life or, in my opinion, obedience. Of course, we can split hairs about obedience and love and how deeply they are intertwined, but that is not my intention here.

So, to encourage you, I would suggest looking at what the Bible says about life and its supreme value. After all, Jesus didn't lay down Love for His elect...He laid down His life.

Blessings,

The Archangel

PS. I must say I have REALLY enjoyed our conversation.

 

[canadyjd]

While I do support the death penalty, I would never use Pilate and Jesus to "support" the death penalty.

But that is exactly what you did.

....Again, my intention was to show that Jesus did not buck against Rome having been given the power to execute by God Himself....

And now you have done it again.

But, I might add, that doesn't mean they had to exercise that power in the case of Christ.

But they did. Isn't it more appropriate to use the death of Jesus as a case against supporting the death penalty? Certainly you agree it was a miscarriage of justice. Certainly you agree an innocent man was put to death.

I know what you are saying. God gave the Roman government (and today's governments by extention) the power of execution. But that doesn't mean Christians should support the death penalty. We are called to be different. We are commanded to love with perfect patience that leads to mercy, even for the worst of sinners. Even for murderers like Paul.

God has used evil people and governments to accomplish His purposes throughout history, just as God used ungodly Pilate to kill Jesus so as to bring about redemption for His people. But God then punished those same people for the evil they did. Let the ungodly kill. Let Christians love with perfect patience which leads to mercy.

...why did God demand the death penalty for murder (Genesis 9)?

Gen.9 is not a reference to the death penalty by governments. There was no government, just Noah and his family. Gen. 9 is a reference to the ancient near east practice of the "blood avenger". If someone was killed, a near relative could become a "blood avenger" and kill the perp. BTW, this applied to accidental death as well. That is why God established cities of refuge in Israel.

Romans 13 is a warning to Christians not to rebel against the government, most likely because of taxes (taxes were collected to support pagan temples and Christians may have refused). The "sword" is a symbol of authority, not execution. Execution for rebellion was by crucifixion. The context of Romans 13 is that Rome has authority over their lives so pay your taxes and don't rebel.

PS. I must say I have REALLY enjoyed our conversation.

As have I.

Blessings and

peace to youraying: