Jesus and the death Penalty?

[Zaac]

Actually, NO LAW was in place beforee Moses, so God treatment for murder still binding to us under the new Covenant!

What do you mean no law was in place before Moses? If there was no law, how did Adam and Eve sin?

 

[Zaac]

If you can't see that there is a great difference between the ethics of Jesus and those of parts of the OT, I don't know what else to say. Did Jesus affirm "an eye for an eye", or did He not?

I think people just don't want to see that there is a glaring difference between what Jesus prescribed and the theme that continued in the NT with the completed law and what was done in the OT.

we can accept that there is no need to sacrifice animals anymore. But we can't wrap our minds around God not telling the Gentiles to punish unto death in the completed law.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I think people just don't want to see that there is a glaring difference between what Jesus prescribed and the theme that continued in the NT with the completed law and what was done in the OT.

we can accept that there is no need to sacrifice animals anymore. But we can't wrap our minds around God not telling the Gentiles to punish unto death in the completed law.

I'll tell you what the problem is, pure and simple: the fleshly desire to take vengeance in to our own hands and kill somebody instead of letting God be God and decide when a person's life should come to an end. That is why people want to continue to selectively use OT laws, and notice I said selectively. And notice I said "our own hands" instead of "their own hands", as I, too, have had to battle the desire to see murderers fried.

 

[Zaac]

I'll tell you what the problem is, pure and simple: the fleshly desire to take vengeance in to our own hands and kill somebody instead of letting God be God and decide when a person's life should come to an end. That is why people want to continue to selectively use OT laws, and notice I said selectively. And notice I said "our own hands" instead of "their own hands", as I, too, have had to battle the desire to see murderers fried.

Yes indeed. That's why I have stressed in this thread that Scripture says you break one, you break them ALL.

As Christians, all we need do is place our own names in the stead of the one we're okay with equally sinful men killing and see if we're STILL okay with it.

God says 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,”[a] says the Lord. Romans 12:19

How can we be okay with someone being punished to death for breaking the same law that we all break?

 

[Judith]

I fail to see how Jesus's teachings can be reconciled with "eye for an eye".

Jesus is OT Jehovah so He gave the eye for an eye teaching.

 

[canadyjd]

Agreed on the attitude part.

So does the government have the authority to implement the death penalty?

Secular authority, yes. Biblically, I believe Jesus changed the criteria for implementing the death penalty in John 8 concerning the woman caught in adultery.

When Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", He was referring to the O.T. command for implementing the death penalty (Deut. 17:5-7). In that passage, you find that 2 or 3 witnesses are necessary to implement the death penalty, and that the witnesses are the first to cast the stones. Jesus changes that requirement for execution from "2 or 3 witnesses" to "He who is without sin among you..."

The reason for the change is obvious. Among the commands for implementing justice was the command not to show bias (Deut. 16:19) "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe..."

When they brought the woman caught in adultery to be executed, they didn't bring the man which was required by the law (Deut. 22:22) This violated both Deut. 16:19 (forbidding bias) and Deut. 22:22 (commanding the man to be stoned to death as well as the woman).

Jesus could have demanded the man be brought with the woman, and they both be stoned to death. That would have been a clear statement of the continuation for the death penalty among Christians.

Instead, He changed the requirements... essentially limiting the implementation of the death penalty to God alone... "He who is without sin among you" God alone has the wisdom and perfect judgment to implement the death penalty at His choosing.

Christians are commanded to imitate the perfect patience of Christ when dealing with the worst of sinners. (I Tim. 1:16) Support for the death penalty is contrary to that command, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Jesus is OT Jehovah so He gave the eye for an eye teaching.

And revoked it in the NT.

 

[Judith]

And revoked it in the NT.

I am unfamiliar with that passage. Please provide text.

 

[canadyjd]

...."Israelites" were not even a discernable people-group when the injunctions in Genesis 9 were given.

That is true. Neither were there "governments" to impose the death penalty. Just Noah, his sons and their families. You are not saying we should seek our own revenge are you?

Gen. 9 is probably a reference to the ancient near east practice of the "blood avenger" where a man could hunt down and kill someone to avenge the death of a near relative.

Many death penalty supporters point to Gen. 9 the ultimate statement of the sanctity of human life where God is giving an unchangeable command... if someone kills another, then that person's life must be taken in return.

But the reality is, scripture doesn't support that view, IMHO. Prior to Gen. 9 and the Law, Cain killed Abel and God showed mercy on Cain. God did not require his life. Before the Law, Moses (who wrote Gen.) murdered the Egyptian and God did not require his life in return. David (after the Law) had Uriah the Hittite killed (murdered) so as to hide his adultery with Bathsheba. God did not require his life in return. Paul had Christians killed, and God did not require he be killed in return.

If Gen. 9 is an unchangeable command, then God would have had all of these people killed by "man." He did not. He showed mercy instead.

In the Law, God have specific rules for implementing the death penalty. Christ changed those rules in John 8, removing the implementation of the death penalty from the hands of biased men forever, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

I am unfamiliar with that passage. Please provide text.

John 8, please see my previous post #326.

peace to youraying:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

John 8, please see my previous post #326.

peace to youraying:

You beat me to it, but I was also going to say Matthew 5:38-39.

 

[Don]

Secular authority, yes. Biblically, I believe Jesus changed the criteria for implementing the death penalty in John 8 concerning the woman caught in adultery.

When Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", He was referring to the O.T. command for implementing the death penalty (Deut. 17:5-7). In that passage, you find that 2 or 3 witnesses are necessary to implement the death penalty, and that the witnesses are the first to cast the stones. Jesus changes that requirement for execution from "2 or 3 witnesses" to "He who is without sin among you..."

The reason for the change is obvious. Among the commands for implementing justice was the command not to show bias (Deut. 16:19) "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe..."

When they brought the woman caught in adultery to be executed, they didn't bring the man which was required by the law (Deut. 22:22) This violated both Deut. 16:19 (forbidding bias) and Deut. 22:22 (commanding the man to be stoned to death as well as the woman).

Jesus could have demanded the man be brought with the woman, and they both be stoned to death. That would have been a clear statement of the continuation for the death penalty among Christians.

Instead, He changed the requirements... essentially limiting the implementation of the death penalty to God alone... "He who is without sin among you" God alone has the wisdom and perfect judgment to implement the death penalty at His choosing.

Christians are commanded to imitate the perfect patience of Christ when dealing with the worst of sinners. (I Tim. 1:16) Support for the death penalty is contrary to that command, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

Here's where I disagree with you: I don't believe Jesus changed anything in that passage. He merely pointed out to them they weren't following the law.

And this is where I think some folks misunderstand some things, but I'm not going to communicate this well, so please try to understand: 1 Tim 1:16, for example, ends with the statement "believe on Him to life everlasting." There is a distinction between the things of heaven and the things of this earth. We are to show mercy and grace to the extent possible; but some things that we tend to use as examples of how to act, are actually speaking of the eternal.

I hate that we have to find ourselves in a position to decide what to do with someone who might be a threat to others, no matter what we do to try to dissuade or encourage that person otherwise. But there's a reason God has given the government as a sword.

 

[Judith]

John 8, please see my previous post #326.

peace to youraying:

Thank you. I have now looked at your example. First we need to be honest with the text. There is no place that says Jesus revoked the death penalty.

Now if I may let me give a little information as to what is going on. As you know the Jews (religious leaders) were trying to trap the Lord. They knew the law, but not the law Giver. They thought Jesus was like them. However Jesus not only gave the law but was subject to it.

If you study the OT adultery called for the death penalty. These Jews bring this woman to Jesus and ask what to do with her. Now here is the problem. If we approach the bible with a personal bent, God can blind us to believe the lie (2thess. 2:11) just like He did with these religious leaders.

Look at the passage again. Jesus did not tell them to set her free, but He told them to obey the law and stone her. He had to because that was the law. Yes He also said him who is without sin cast the first stone, but if they had been willing to obey the law they would have known there was no such provision and went ahead and stoned her. They disobeyed the law because of their own guilt and blindness.

Now when Jesus asks the woman where is your accusers and she says there are none then He says neither do I condemn you go and sin no more He was again following the law. Jesus not only did not condemn her but He could not condemn her because he was also under the law and the law required two or three witness of the crime and Jesus had not witnessed her crime. He was not revoking the law but obeying the law.

So you see the death penalty was not revoked but rather preserved.
We also know that the Lord did not revoke the death penalty because of Mat.5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Revmitchell]

Secular authority, yes. Biblically, I believe Jesus changed the criteria for implementing the death penalty in John 8 concerning the woman caught in adultery.

When Jesus said, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", He was referring to the O.T. command for implementing the death penalty (Deut. 17:5-7). In that passage, you find that 2 or 3 witnesses are necessary to implement the death penalty, and that the witnesses are the first to cast the stones. Jesus changes that requirement for execution from "2 or 3 witnesses" to "He who is without sin among you..."

The reason for the change is obvious. Among the commands for implementing justice was the command not to show bias (Deut. 16:19) "You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe..."

When they brought the woman caught in adultery to be executed, they didn't bring the man which was required by the law (Deut. 22:22) This violated both Deut. 16:19 (forbidding bias) and Deut. 22:22 (commanding the man to be stoned to death as well as the woman).

Jesus could have demanded the man be brought with the woman, and they both be stoned to death. That would have been a clear statement of the continuation for the death penalty among Christians.

Instead, He changed the requirements... essentially limiting the implementation of the death penalty to God alone... "He who is without sin among you" God alone has the wisdom and perfect judgment to implement the death penalty at His choosing.

Christians are commanded to imitate the perfect patience of Christ when dealing with the worst of sinners. (I Tim. 1:16) Support for the death penalty is contrary to that command, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

Here is what happens when you begin with a presupposition and try to build a doctrine on it. No where in John 8 does Jesus say anything about changing the death penalty. These men brought this woman for the purposes of trying to trip Jesus up. He did not let them do it. There was no man brought as well. So there could not be a case made that she had done anything.

Jesus showing compassion and grace to one single woman does not declare "no more death penalty, thus saith the Lord!" Let's use some reason here.

 

[Zaac]

You break one, you broke them all. ALL guilty. All equally deserving of death.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

I'd say He revoked the death penalty in Matthew 5:38-39. So much for those who say there is no difference in OT law and the NT ethics of Jesus.

 

[Yeshua1]

And revoked it in the NT.

He revoked ONLY the dealth penaltities that were given by Him under the Law, when isreal was under Old Covenant, but now in the NC, He still ahs in place penalty of death for murder, as that predated OT Law!

we cannot execute criminals by ourselves, that is not allowed by God, but he delegared right to the state for that!

 

[Yeshua1]

You break one, you broke them all. ALL guilty. All equally deserving of death.

Spiritual death, NOT physical death, as even in the Law, God made a difference in how punishment was applied, based upon the crime done!

 

[Zaac]

He revoked ONLY the dealth penaltities that were given by Him under the Law, when isreal was under Old Covenant, but nowin NC, He still ahs in place penalty of death for murder, as that predated law!

SMH. There should be NOTHING as confusing as what you just wrote. :laugh:

God instituted a death penalty. But HE is the only One capable of making the righteous judgment to pass such a sentence. As such, post OT and Him literally telling the Israelites when and who to kill, there has not been any directive from God giving man the right that He claimed for Himself.

 

[Yeshua1]

SMH. There should be NOTHING as confusing as what you just wrote. :laugh:

God instituted a death penalty. But HE is the only One capable of making the righteous judgment to pass such a sentence. As such, post OT and Him literally telling the Israelites when and who to kill, there has not been any directive from God giving man the right that He claimed for Himself.

Did God command the person who murdered should be putto death before the Law was given?

Yes, so the Cross undid the penalties under OT Law to stone persons for various other crimes, but the one to execute murderers still enforced, as it was pre Law!