Death to Paul?

Doesn't Gen. 9 apply? That was God's standard before the Law, wasn't it?

peace to youraying:

 

Then wouldn't that mean your sentence of death to Paul would be in opposition to the will and purpose of God for Paul's life? Wouldn't you be going against the will of God?

peace to youraying:

 

Is the Will of God in contradiction to the Word of God then?

peace to youraying:

 

Gen. 9:3-6 "Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is its blood. And surely I will require your lifeblood from every beast I will require the life of man. 'Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man..."

God is distinguishing from animals and human beings. Animals are given for food, people are not to be killed because they are made in the image of God. To emphasize the point, God warns of reprisal against anyone who kills another human being.

There are no governments at this point. There are 8 people on the planet (Noah, his sons and their spouses) This, then, cannot be seen as authority for a government to seek the death penalty, since there is no government. It is probably a reference to the ancient near East practice of the "blood avenger", who would seek to kill someone that took the life of a relative (even by accident).

Does this passage mean God will make certain that every person who takes a life will be killed by someone else? If that were true, you would have an "absolute" statement, which would give credence to the claim that Gen. 9 sets a standard for the death penalty. You would expect God to uphold that standard in all cases.

But God doesn't kill Cain for the murder of Abel (prior to Gen.9). God doesn't kill Moses for the murder of the Egyptian (prior to the Law). God doesn't kill David for the murder of Uriah (after the Law). God doesn't kill Paul for the murder of Christians (after the coming of Christ).

So Gen. 9 should not be seen as an absolute statement, establishing the death penalty, but a general statement of the importance of human life that is created in the image of God. That is the context. We shouldn't read into the text a command for a modern version of the death penalty for Western society. At best we can see a support for the ancient near East practice of the "blood avenger".

Rom. 13 is a warning to Christians not to rebel against the Roman government (probably for high taxes (v.6) and/or taxes that supported pagan temples. The phrase "for it does not bare the sword in vain" is a reference to authority, not execution. Execution for rebellion was by crucifixion, not by the sword. Check any source on imagery of New Testament Greek and you will see the "sword" in this case as a reference to authority. The context is clearly one of establishing the authority of the government.

Does that mean Christians should support the death penalty if the government is using it? No. We are never required to support something that is contrary to the commands of Christ. We are to obey God rather than man. No where did Jesus Christ tell His followers to seek or support the death of anyone. In fact, in many places, the opposite attitude is commanded. We are to pursue sinners, even the worst of sinners, with mercy, compassion and love.

Romans 13 must be seen for what it is in context. A warning to Christians not to rebel against the government. You shouldn't read into the text a command to support a modern Western idea of the death penalty.

Back up just a few verses to Romans 12:17 "Never pay back evil for evil to anyone.... (v.19) Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, 'Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,' says the Lord. (v.21)Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." This certainly rejects the notion Christians should use the concept of "blood avenger" that is found in Gen. 9.

Consider what God's Word tells us in I Tim. 1:16. Paul states he was shown mercy by God so that the "perfect patience" of Jesus Christ would be an example to future believers. Paul was a murderer of Christians. Jesus expects believers to have the same kind of perfect patience with the worst of sinners that He demonstrated with Paul. Seeking or supporting the death of someone is contrary to the "perfect patience" of Jesus Christ which we are to immulate. It is, therefore, unChristlike to support the death penalty.

The issue of self-defense is getting off topic. Please feel free to start a thread on that subject.

peace to youraying:

 

It is very interesting that when asked generically if they support the death penalty, posters respond "yes" at nearly 80%. They then give all the usually reasons why, citing Gen.9, and Rom.13., what about the children? What about the victims? What about justice?

When we asked them to apply their own passionately held standards to the Apostle Paul, who was a murderer of Christians, they wimp out and refuse to vote. Only 1 death penalty proponent had the courage of his/her convictions and voted "yes".

Why the none participation? You don't like the question? Oh, that's not fair? But God says don't show partiality in justice. Why does it matter who he is? He was directly responsible for the deaths of innocent men and women.

Or, is it simply because, as Chrisitans, in your hearts, you know you are wrong? Yes, that must be the answer.

You can't apply the death penalty to Paul because you know it is contrary to the Will of God. God used Paul, a murderer of Christians, to spread the gospel. How can you vote to kill him, knowing what you now know? You can't. You can't vote to apply the death penalty to Paul because you know it would be wrong.

If it is wrong to seek the death penalty for Paul, then it is wrong every time. I Tim. 1:16

It is unChristlike to support the death penalty.

peace to youraying:

 

I appreciate your willingness to look further. May God bless your study of His Word.

peace to youraying:

 

And so we continue to disagree.

peace to youraying:

 

Why? Is it stirring the conscience of some of the pro-death penalty folks? I hope so. Why is it so hard to vote to kill Paul when he obviously deserved it based on his own statements? If we can answer that question to ourselves, we may learn something important.

BTW, thanks for voting.

peace to youraying: