Has your opinion the death penalty changed after SC church massacre?

[JonC]

The scripture and comments that I've seen in support of it have come from the Old Testament and Old Covenant ethics. What Jesus said and did is avoided. Strange for those calling themselves Christian, don't you think?

I have seen a bit of the "eye for an eye justice" mentality also. I've also seen it justified by almost presenting the world as Israel (a skewed perspective of what God was doing in building a people separated from the world). I am, however, in favor of the death penalty for more practical purposes (and purposes I believe to be more biblical....that is purposes rooted in love for our fellow men, not hatred for the criminal). The death penalty in and of itself is not contrary to what Jesus said and avoided (and neither is God's nature as expressed in the Law). But the spirit behind much of the pro-death penalty folk, and the spirit behind much of the ancient Jewish observation of the Mosaic Law, is perhaps very foreign to what Jesus said and did.

 

[MicahJF612]

This is one of the best posts I have ever read, anywhere and on any subject. Thank you for this.

Why thank you. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Scarlett O.]

Is it out of a sense of justice? Perhaps. But consider the story of John 8, where Jesus drew a line in the sand and declared to the hypocritical Pharisees, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Clearly, our sense of justice in this case is not God's sense of justice. Where we want destruction, God seeks redemption. Consider further the case of Jonah, who was forced against his will to preach to a people who had scattered his own among the nations, not to mention exacting heavy taxes on them which crippled their internal economy. He would be justifiably angry. Yet, while he cries out for their destruction, God gives them extra time to be redeemed. So, God's justice doesn't seem to justify it.

You are going to have to find two other bible passages that you think oppose the death penalty because these to have nothing to do with the death penalty - pro or con.

[1] Jonah and Nineveh - Yes, God showed mercy to Nineveh via Jonah and Nineveh repented ..... for a short season. My Sunday School class just studied Nahum not long ago. You need to read Nahum chapter 1 where God foretold that he would eventually destroy Nineveh.

• Verse 1 says the death penalty is for Nineveh.
• Verse 3 says that God is slow to anger (and he was - he gave Nineveh a chance) and it says that God will "by NO means clear the guilty."
• Verse 14 says that God will make their grave for they are "vile".
• In chapter 3 of Nahum God tells why he is giving them his death penalty. The city is "never without victims" and murders cruelly.

So the story of Nineveh's brief season of repentance is not a compelling argument against the death penalty.




[2] Jesus and the Adulterous Woman - The law stated that a man caught in adultery must be executed and the married woman, too. The Pharisee only brought the woman. They only wanted trap Jesus, the Bible says. What WAS the trap?

"The law of Moses says we should stone her. What do you say?"

They didn't CARE what he said - They didn’t care if Jesus said [1] “Go ahead and stone her” or [2] “No, you can’t stone her.” Either way He would be breaking the Mosaic Law (in their minds only - not in actuality) or the Roman law. And they could have went running like the wind to either the chief priests and claimed that Jesus was in defiance of the Law or to Herod or Pilate or some other Roman official and claimed that Jesus was allowing them to kill their own criminals when the Romans had taken that right away from the Jews. It was against the Roman law for Jews to practice their own death penalty. The Romans did that for all.

Either way, religious authorities or political authorities would have arrested Jesus and gotten him out of their hair. They really didn't care which one.

But why did He say …. “If YOU want to stone her, the first one to do the stoning has to be a sinless man.”?

Because the first man to throw that first rock WOULD have violated the law severely!

Remember that OT law about two witnesses presenting evidence before an execution? The second part of that law said that the first persons to do the stoning of the criminal was to be the witness[es] who provided the evidence.

Without bringing the man and without have witnesses give testimony to actual details of the "crime", if one of those Pharisees actually picked of a rock and threw it at her head, that man would be in violation of the law MORE SO than they thought Jesus might have in their "trap".

Jesus wasn't teaching mercy on criminals and sinners here. He was telling the Pharisees that they were hypocrites and their trap was unlawful in the first place. And from the youngest to the oldest, they got out of Dodge quickly.

These men were NOT convicted of sin. They were fearful of being caught in their own trap.

Jesus told the woman that he did not condemn her of adultery. And he told her to sin no more. That is mercy towards sinners. We are ALL sinners and need mercy.

Jesus was not teaching a pardon to criminals for criminals acts and a mercy to criminals to the point that they do not pay consequences for their acts. Jesus was not teaching opposition to the death penalty or support of it.

 

[MicahJF612]

You are going to have to find two other bible passages that you think oppose the death penalty because these to have nothing to do with the death penalty - pro or con.

[1] Jonah and Nineveh - Yes, God showed mercy to Nineveh via Jonah and Nineveh repented ..... for a short season. My Sunday School class just studied Nahum not long ago. You need to read Nahum chapter 1 where God foretold that he would eventually destroy Nineveh.

• Verse 1 says the death penalty is for Nineveh.
• Verse 3 says that God is slow to anger (and he was - he gave Nineveh a chance) and it says that God will "by NO means clear the guilty."
• Verse 14 says that God will make their grave for they are "vile".
• In chapter 3 of Nahum God tells why he is giving them his death penalty. The city is "never without victims" and murders cruelly.

So the story of Nineveh's brief season of repentance is not a compelling argument against the death penalty.




[2] Jesus and the Adulterous Woman - The law stated that a man caught in adultery must be executed and the married woman, too. The Pharisee only brought the woman. They only wanted trap Jesus, the Bible says. What WAS the trap?

"The law of Moses says we should stone her. What do you say?"

They didn't CARE what he said - They didn’t care if Jesus said [1] “Go ahead and stone her” or [2] “No, you can’t stone her.” Either way He would be breaking the Mosaic Law (in their minds only - not in actuality) or the Roman law. And they could have went running like the wind to either the chief priests and claimed that Jesus was in defiance of the Law or to Herod or Pilate or some other Roman official and claimed that Jesus was allowing them to kill their own criminals when the Romans had taken that right away from the Jews. It was against the Roman law for Jews to practice their own death penalty. The Romans did that for all.

Either way, religious authorities or political authorities would have arrested Jesus and gotten him out of their hair. They really didn't care which one.

But why did He say …. “If YOU want to stone her, the first one to do the stoning has to be a sinless man.”?

Because the first man to throw that first rock WOULD have violated the law severely!

Remember that OT law about two witnesses presenting evidence before an execution? The second part of that law said that the first persons to do the stoning of the criminal was to be the witness[es] who provided the evidence.

Without bringing the man and without have witnesses give testimony to actual details of the "crime", if one of those Pharisees actually picked of a rock and threw it at her head, that man would be in violation of the law MORE SO than they thought Jesus might have in their "trap".

Jesus wasn't teaching mercy on criminals and sinners here. He was telling the Pharisees that they were hypocrites and their trap was unlawful in the first place. And from the youngest to the oldest, they got out of Dodge quickly.

These men were NOT convicted of sin. They were fearful of being caught in their own trap.

Jesus told the woman that he did not condemn her of adultery. And he told her to sin no more. That is mercy towards sinners. We are ALL sinners and need mercy.

Jesus was not teaching a pardon to criminals for criminals acts and a mercy to criminals to the point that they do not pay consequences for their acts. Jesus was not teaching opposition to the death penalty or support of it.

On Nahum, yes, God will enact justice in his time, not us.

On Christ, that is perhaps the most politically curved exegesis of that Scripture I have ever heard. Congratulations. You get the award for taking Jesus most out of his own context.

Christ practiced mercy towards sinners as a regular issue. He constantly redeemed those left under sin, and compassion was kind of his thing. If not, we would all be sent to hell. Let's stop and consider: Was Christ doing this to catch the Pharisee's in a conundrum? Certainly. I don't believe that what I said diverts that interpretation. But wouldn't it also fit better into the narrative of Christ to think that he was doing so out of mercy for the victim rather than to just be a smartass?

 

[Scarlett O.]

On Christ, that is perhaps the most politically curved exegesis of that Scripture I have ever heard. Congratulations. You get the award for taking Jesus most out of his own context.

How so? What did I say that wasn't the truth?

A lot of people like to interpret Jesus' words of "You who are without sin cast the first stone" as making him a pacifist and anti-death penalty.

Now that's a politically-charged exegesis if I've ever seen one.

Christ practiced mercy towards sinners as a regular issue. He constantly redeemed those left under sin, and compassion was kind of his thing. If not, we would all be sent to hell. Let's stop and consider: Was Christ doing this to catch the Pharisee's in a conundrum? Certainly. I don't believe that what I said diverts that interpretation. But wouldn't it also fit better into the narrative of Christ to think that he was doing so out of mercy for the victim rather than to just be a smartass?

You think I was making Jesus out to be a smart-aleck? You missed the entire point.

 

[TC]

My position has not changed. The government is free to bear the sword in any way it sees fit.

Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk

 

[Rebel]

My position has not changed. The government is free to bear the sword in any way it sees fit.

Sent from my LGL34C using Tapatalk

The government might be, but Christians are not.

 

[Revmitchell]

On Nahum, yes, God will enact justice in his time, not us.

On Christ, that is perhaps the most politically curved exegesis of that Scripture I have ever heard. Congratulations. You get the award for taking Jesus most out of his own context.

Christ practiced mercy towards sinners as a regular issue. He constantly redeemed those left under sin, and compassion was kind of his thing. If not, we would all be sent to hell. Let's stop and consider: Was Christ doing this to catch the Pharisee's in a conundrum? Certainly. I don't believe that what I said diverts that interpretation. But wouldn't it also fit better into the narrative of Christ to think that he was doing so out of mercy for the victim rather than to just be a smartass?

That is some pretty salty language.

 

[Zaac]

On Nahum, yes, God will enact justice in his time, not us.

On Christ, that is perhaps the most politically curved exegesis of that Scripture I have ever heard. Congratulations. You get the award for taking Jesus most out of his own context.

Christ practiced mercy towards sinners as a regular issue. He constantly redeemed those left under sin, and compassion was kind of his thing. If not, we would all be sent to hell. Let's stop and consider: Was Christ doing this to catch the Pharisee's in a conundrum? Certainly. I don't believe that what I said diverts that interpretation. But wouldn't it also fit better into the narrative of Christ to think that he was doing so out of mercy for the victim rather than to just be a *******?

Bravo! It's as though Christians out of our own sense of justice don't give a flying flip of what Jesus did before He went to the Cross, what HE did on the Cross, and what HE did after the Cross.

We take “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” and completely neglect The Cross. Everything Jesus did on the way to the Cross, on the Cross and after the Cross says grace and mercy.

Yet some of us want to make it a point to come up with a way to not show grace and mercy.

You can always tell that someone's POV is just their opinion if it causes conflict with the whole of God's word. Extending grace and mercy to our enemies and all those who have done wrong is consistent with Scripture. Choosing to endorse the taking of someone's life for ANY crime is the antithesis of what Jesus did on the Cross.

It continues to be sadly laughable how Christians can claim to be pro-life when it comes to abortion but pro-death when it comes to capital punishment.

That type of confusion and disorder is not born of God, but of man.

 

[MicahJF612]

Bravo! It's as though Christians out of our own sense of justice don't give a flying flip of what Jesus did before He went to the Cross, what HE did on the Cross, and what HE did after the Cross.

We take “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image.” and completely neglect The Cross. Everything Jesus did on the way to the Cross, on the Cross and after the Cross says grace and mercy.

Yet some of us want to make it a point to come up with a way to not show grace and mercy.

You can always tell that someone's POV is just their opinion if it causes conflict with the whole of God's word. Extending grace and mercy to our enemies and all those who have done wrong is consistent with Scripture. Choosing to endorse the taking of someone's life for ANY crime is the antithesis of what Jesus did on the Cross.

It continues to be sadly laughable how Christians can claim to be pro-life when it comes to abortion but pro-death when it comes to capital punishment.

That type of confusion and disorder is not born of God, but of man.

Can I get an Amen?

 

[The American Dream]

I am not a fan of the death penalty, but this guy needs to be executed. I have some siblings that went to Belhaven College in Jackson MS, who hated abortion. They did many things what him during college. Anyway, he goes down to Fla. and kills a Dr and I think two nurses in an aborition clinic. He plead guilty and was executed. That was justified, and so is this.

 

[MicahJF612]

I am not a fan of the death penalty, but this guy needs to be executed. I have some siblings that went to Belhaven College in Jackson MS, who hated abortion. They did many things what him during college. Anyway, he goes down to Fla. and kills a Dr and I think two nurses in an aborition clinic. He plead guilty and was executed. That was justified, and so is this.

I don't think you can redeem murder with murder. That's not the Christian way. Christ died to end that system, and now we live in one of forgiveness--so we need to forgive.

 

[The American Dream]

I don't think you can redeem murder with murder. That's not the Christian way. Christ died to end that system, and now we live in one of forgiveness--so we need to forgive.

I think you misunderstand forgiveness. It is a matter of the heart. Forgvenss does snot take someone away form the electric chair. That is not forgiveness. There is collateral damage to all sin.

 

[Alcott]

--so we need to forgive.

Forgive him? turn him loose? Perhaps ask him to please, please, not do anything else like that?

 

[Van]

Can I get an Amen?

Nope. Both the OT and the NT support the use of lethal force by governing entities. When I had a chance to vote for or against the death penalty, I voted against it, not because government should not have that power, but because the historical evidence indicated that it was imposed more on poor people and people of color.

But the majority of Californians voted for it, and so when I sat on a capital case, if we had found special circumstances, I would have followed the law and authorized the court to impose either life without parole or the death penalty.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

With this domestic act of terrorism in SC being fresh on your heart and mind, I wanted to ask about your thoughts on whether he should be executed for his act on nine church going folks?

One family member, when asked about the murders, said that while she forgave Roof, she wanted to be there when he faced God on judgement day. I do not know if she was eluding to his being sentenced to death or just facing the judgement of God. But her words caused me to think of this board and the huge divide n sides when it comes to the death penalty. And while I realize that we've hashed this out before - the death penalty - has this heinous act changed you view on the death penalty, even in the slightest way? :flower:

Why yes it has. A quick trial followed by a quick execution by hanging is the best course of action. That is for USA citizen's. For terrorists, no trial and a quick bullet in the scull....with a hollow point.

 

[The American Dream]

It s really simple folks. Forgiveness does not forgive consequences for your actions.

 

[Zaac]

I don't think you can redeem murder with murder. That's not the Christian way. Christ died to end that system, and now we live in one of forgiveness--so we need to forgive.

AMEN!!!

I think you misunderstand forgiveness. It is a matter of the heart. Forgvenss does snot take someone away form the electric chair. That is not forgiveness. There is collateral damage to all sin.

American Dream, I don't think that Micah was advocating against the government response. He's just saying that the position of the CHRISTIAN because of what Jesus did on the Cross should not be the same as the government's but one where we recommend grace and mercy as it has been shown to us by Christ.

I've often wondered how those who have been forgiven could support anything but forgiveness?

Someone might still get death because of the government, but should we, the follower's of Christ be advocating it?

 

[JonC]

I don't think you can redeem murder with murder. That's not the Christian way. Christ died to end that system, and now we live in one of forgiveness--so we need to forgive.

Sin has never been, and never will be, redeemable.

 

[Rebel]

I can understand the reasoning of those who support the death penalty. I have struggled with this issue. My flesh wants to support the death penalty. When I reflect on the life and teachings of Jesus, I cannot support it.