Jesus and the death Penalty?

[Mexdeaf]

Not because that authority rests with God ALONE, not sinful men.

Scripture, please.

 

[Zaac]

There's the problem right there.

If it's a problem for you, then please show the rest of us where Scripture makes it clear.:thumbs:

 

[Allan]

Jesus didn't change the law nor did He adjust it, tweak it, or fiddle with it or do away with it. He wasn't being non-resistant either... he was obeying The Law. They brought him a woman caught in aduntry and asked him 'according the Law it says she must be stoned.. what do you say' (paraphrase). Jesus was here to obey the Law to the fullest (thus be without sin) and therefore fulfill the Law which God gave to man.

Now - Read the Law regarding adultry - both the man AND woman were to be taken.
*Where was the man?
*How is it that there were of the se*ual event in which they were found - in the act and if 'in the act', again where was the man?
*How come they (both the man and the woman) were not taken before the judges for a trial? especially since it was the religious teachers of the Law (those who brought her) who were being unlawful?
Just because two or three witnesses see an event does NOT mean they were to bring forth judgment themselves. Yet they ignored the trial process of The Law required!

The entire point of what Jesus said and did reflects they were sin (in fact involved in the SAME sin) and as such, because they stood in sin and were guilty of breaking the very same law they were accusing her of, they were UNABLE or Not Permitted to pass any type of judgement against her, and all those witnesses had lost any credibilty. THAT is why Jesus stated - he who is without sin cast the first the stone. If they were to go according to the Law, they were disqualified from passing any judgment and they knew it!
It is also that reason being why Jesus said to the woman "go and sin no more". IOW - You are free but if you continue in sin [most specifically this way again] you will be judged [executed].

Note He did not state you are forgiven, but what we do find him stating is she is to sin no longer.

Lastly, Jesus did not change the death penalty established in The Law. Did He not state - I have not come to destroy the Law (change it or remove it) but to fulfill it. He could no more change the Law than He could sin. The Law is Good and is a perfect reflection of the both the character and the nature of God.

 

[Zaac]

Scripture, please.

As soon as you provide the Scripture that shows that God has given man the right to take a life without Him giving the command.

Gosh Cain took a life without God giving him the command to do so and it was murder. Why on earth do we suddenly think we have the right to take a human life without God giving the command?

Scripturally, the only RIGHTEOUS killing is the one authorized by God. So once you show otherwise and it doesn't conflict with the NT teachings, then I'll give you the Scripture.

 

[Mexdeaf]

As soon as you provide the Scripture that shows that God has given man the right to take a life without Him giving the command.

Gosh Cain took a life without God giving him the command to do so and it was murder. Why on earth do we suddenly think we have the right to take a human life without God giving the command?

Scripturally, the only RIGHTEOUS killing is the one authorized by God. So once you show otherwise and it doesn't conflict with the NT teachings, then I'll give you the Scripture.

God already authorized it in the OT, and it does not conflict with NT teachings. You know that but you just don't like it, so take it up with Him.

 

[Allan]

As soon as you provide the Scripture that shows that God has given man the right to take a life without Him giving the command.

Gosh Cain took a life without God giving him the command to do so and it was murder. Why on earth do we suddenly think we have the right to take a human life without God giving the command?

Scripturally, the only RIGHTEOUS killing is the one authorized by God. So once you show otherwise and it doesn't conflict with the NT teachings, then I'll give you the Scripture.

Read the OT Law.. Hello. The Law in the Ten Commandments does not say "Thou shalt not Kill", it is more accurately translated "thou shalt not Murder".. murder- to take a life without just or lawful cause.

Note - from Apologetics Press

Capital Punishment and the Bible

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.

The Bible is the written Word of God. Within its pages, we find the wisdom of God. We find what is best for the human race—how God intends for life to be conducted. What is God’s view of capital punishment? Both the Old Testament as well as the New Testament address this subject.

OLD TESTAMENT TEACHING

Very early in human history, God decreed that murderers were to forfeit their own lives: “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he the man” (Genesis 9:6). This standard continued into the Mosaic period (cf. Numbers 35:33). As a matter of fact, the law God gave to Moses to regulate the Israelite nation made provision for at least sixteen capital crimes. In sixteen instances, the death penalty was to be invoked. The first four may be categorized as pertaining to civil matters.

1. Under the law of Moses, the death penalty was required in cases of premeditated murder (Exodus 21:12-14,22-23; Leviticus 24:17; Numbers 35:16-21). This regulation even included the situation in which two men might be fighting and, in the process, cause the death of an innocent bystander or her unborn infant. It did not include accidental homicide, which we call “manslaughter.”

2. Kidnapping was a capital crime under the Old Testament (Exodus 21:16; Deuteronomy 24:7). One movie, which was based on an actual incident, depicted the kidnapping of a seven-year-old boy as he was walking home from school. The man who stole him kept him for some seven years, putting the child through emotional and sexual abuse, before the boy, at age fifteen, was finally returned to his parents. He was a different child, and never again would be the same. God would not tolerate such a thing in the Old Testament, and much of the same would be stopped in America if such crimes were taken more seriously.

3. A person could be put to death for striking or cursing his parents (Exodus 21:15,17; Leviticus 20:9). Jesus alluded to this point in Matthew 15:4 and Mark 7:10.

4. Incorrigible rebelliousness was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 17:12). For example, a stubborn, disobedient, rebellious son who would not submit to parents or civil authorities was to be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).

The next six capital crimes can be identified as more specifically pertaining to religious matters.

5. Sacrificing to false gods was a capital crime in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:20).

6. Violating the Sabbath brought the death penalty (Exodus 35:2; Numbers 15:32-36).

7. Blasphemy, or cursing God, warranted the death penalty (Leviticus 24:10-16,23).

8. The false prophet, specifically one who tried to entice the people to idolatry, was to be executed (Deuteronomy 13:1-11), as were the people who were so influenced (Deuteronomy 13:12-18).

9. Human sacrifice was a capital crime (Leviticus 20:2). The Israelites were tempted to offer their children to false pagan deities, like Molech. But such was despicable to God.

10. Divination, or the dabbling in the magical arts, was a capital crime. Consequently, under Mosaic law, witches, sorcerers, wizards, mediums, charmers, soothsayers, diviners, spiritists, and enchanters were to be put to death (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:26,31; 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14).

The next six crimes pertain to sexual matters.

11. Adultery was punishable by death under the Old Testament (Leviticus 20:10-21; Deuteronomy 22:22). Can you imagine what would happen in our own country if adultery brought the death penalty? Most of Hollywood would be wiped out, as well as a sizeable portion of the rest of our population!

12. Bestiality, i.e., having sexual relations with an animal, was punishable by death (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 20:15-16).

13. Incest was a capital offense in the Old Testament (Leviticus 18:6-17; 20:11-12,14).

14. Homosexuality was a capital crime (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).

15. Premarital sex brought the death penalty (Leviticus 21:9; Deuteronomy 22:20-21).

16. Rape of an engaged or married woman was a capital crime in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Again, imagine what would happen in this country if rape brought the death penalty! Much of the unconscionable treatment of women now taking place would be terminated.

Capital punishment was written into God’s will for the Jewish nation in the Old Testament. The death penalty was a viable form of punishment for at least sixteen separate offenses. Some people have misunderstood one of the Ten Commandments which says, “You shall not kill” (Exodus 20:13). They have assumed that the law forbade taking human life under any circumstances. But God required the death penalty for some sixteen crimes. Therefore, the commandment would have been better translated, “You shall not murder.” In other words, the command was a prohibition against an individual taking the law into his own hands and exercising personal vengeance. But God wanted the execution of law breakers to be carried out by duly constituted legal authorities.

NEW TESTAMENT TEACHING

Moving to the New Testament, which reveals God’s will this side of the cross, the matter of capital punishment is treated virtually the same. The New Testament clearly teaches that capital punishment is God’s will for human civilization. Consider, for example, Romans 13:1-4.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
This passage clearly affirms that the state—civil government—has the God-ordained responsibility to keep law and order, and to protect its citizens against evildoers. The word “sword” in this passage refers to capital punishment. God wants duly constituted civil authority to invoke the death penalty upon citizens who commit crimes worthy of death.

For about the last thirty years, Americans have actually witnessed a breakdown on the part of judicial and law enforcement system. In most cases, the government has failed to “bear the sword.” Instead, the prison system has been overrun with incorrigible criminals. Premature parole and early release has become commonplace in order to make room for the increasing number of lawbreakers.

The apostle Paul, himself, articulated the correct attitude when he stood before Porcius Festus and defended his actions by stating, “If I am an offender, or have committed anything worthy of death, I do not object to dying” (Acts 25:11). Paul was acknowledging that the state properly possesses the power of life and death in the administration of civil justice.

Peter held the same position as that of Paul. He enjoined obedience to the government that has been sent by God “for the punishment of evildoers” (1 Peter 2:14; cf. Titus 3:1). Jesus implied the propriety of capital punishment when He told the Parable of the Pounds. Those who rebelled against the king were to be brought and executed in his presence (Luke 19:27). Compare that parable with the one He told about the wicked husbandmen in Luke 20:15-16 in which He indicated that the owner of the vineyard would return and destroy the husbandmen.

 

[Zaac]

Jesus didn't change the law nor did He adjust it, tweak it, or fiddle with it or do away with it. He wasn't being non-resistant either... he was obeying The Law. They brought him a woman caught in aduntry and asked him 'according the Law it says she must be stoned.. what do you say' (paraphrase). Jesus was here to obey the Law to the fullest (thus be without sin) and therefore fulfill the Law which God gave to man.

Now - Read the Law regarding adultry - both the man AND woman were to be taken.
*Where was the man?
*How is it that there were of the se*ual event in which they were found - in the act and if 'in the act', again where was the man?
*How come they (both the man and the woman) were not taken before the judges for a trial? especially since it was the religious teachers of the Law (those who brought her) who were being unlawful?
Just because two or three witnesses see an event does NOT mean they were to bring forth judgment themselves. Yet they ignored the trial process of The Law required!

The entire point of what Jesus said and did reflects they were sin (in fact involved in the SAME sin) and as such, because they stood in sin and were guilty of breaking the very same law they were accusing her of, they were UNABLE or Not Permitted to pass any type of judgement against her, and all those witnesses had lost any credibilty. THAT is why Jesus stated - he who is without sin cast the first the stone. If they were to go according to the Law, they were disqualified from passing any judgment and they knew it!
It is also that reason being why Jesus said to the woman "go and sin no more". IOW - You are free but if you continue in sin [most specifically this way again] you will be judged [executed].

Note He did not state you are forgiven, but what we do find him stating is she is to sin no longer.

Lastly, Jesus did not change the death penalty established in The Law. Did He not state - I have not come to destroy the Law (change it or remove it) but to fulfill it. He could no more change the Law than He could sin. The Law is Good and is a perfect reflection of the both the character and the nature of God.

In fulfilling the Law, did Jesus not make it unnecessary to do certain things?

 

[Revmitchell]

As soon as you provide the Scripture that shows that God has given man the right to take a life without Him giving the command.

End of the debate right here. You cannot support your position so as usual you deflect.

 

[Allan]

In fulfilling the Law, did Jesus not make it unnecessary to do certain things?

It was not yet fulfilled, I also note that you did not interact with ANY of what was given. The 'fact is' Jesus referred back to the law and it was the reason they could not stone her, however it does not in any way show Jesus changing, tweaking, or otherwise manipulating the Law that states as an adulterer, you were to be stoned. They did it wrongly and thus there was no charges that could stand against her so she was free to go even though she WAS guilty.

 

[Zaac]

God already authorized it in the OT, and it does not conflict with NT teachings. You know that but you just don't like it, so take it up with Him.

What Scripture shows is that HE authorized it. He has not given man the right to do so without His command.

How is a sinful man going to righteously judge to take the life of someone who has the same trespass?

 

[Zaac]

End of the debate right here. You cannot support your position so as usual you deflect.

I guess that means you don't have an answer so you deflect.

 

[Allan]

What Scripture shows is that HE authorized it. He has not given man the right to do so without His command.

How is a sinful man going to righteously judge to take the life of someone who has the same trespass?

Gen 9:6 is the first occurance.. the rest can be seen below in my earlier post where GOD gives man the authority to excute (forgive the pun) capital punishment/judgement against man

 

[Zaac]

Read the OT Law.. Hello. The Law in the Ten Commandments does not say "Thou shalt not Kill", it is more accurately translated "thou shalt not Murder".. murder- to take a life without just or lawful cause.

Yes it does say that. And when it was righteously done, it was done because God gave the go ahead. What's righteous about taking the life of someone who Scripture says in committing his sin breaks all commands as we do too?

And if we're all guilty of breaking every command, how could we righteously punish unto death?

 

[Zaac]

Read the OT Law.. Hello. The Law in the Ten Commandments does not say "Thou shalt not Kill", it is more accurately translated "thou shalt not Murder".. murder- to take a life without just or lawful cause.

Note - from Apologetics Press

So as a Christian, do you believe Jesus would still have us take the lives of people who commit these trespasses you listed?

This passage clearly affirms that the state—civil government—has the God-ordained responsibility to keep law and order, and to protect its citizens against evildoers. The word “sword” in this passage refers to capital punishment. God wants duly constituted civil authority to invoke the death penalty upon citizens who commit crimes worthy of death.

The passage clearly affirms no such thing. The evildoers are gonna protect the citizenry from the evildoers?

 

[Allan]

Yes it does say that. And when it was righteously done, it was done because God gave the go ahead. What's righteous about taking the life of someone who Scripture says in committing his sin breaks all commands as we do too?

And if we're all guilty of breaking every command, how could we righteously punish unto death?

Because the Law is speaking of specifically breaking them, and you are referrencing the spiritual aspect, in which to break one aspect of the Law is to be 'guilty' of them all.

God set up the standard, God established when and how to know it was proper. Therefore God, and God alone gave man the go ahead to execute capital punishment. Note in the Gen passage.. God gave the go ahead with no qualification of being sinless.

The Law is the same way but speaks to the exact same issue.. that IF one or more make judgments, they cannot guilty of the same crime, involved or apart of, etc.. In other words they are to give impartial judgments according to evidence and eye witness testimony.

You can bounce around all you want be the fact is, for thousands of years this is the system of justice God established. Read my earlier post as it gives you all the information you can want. Would it not be more wise to stop trying to rationalize your position even when you have proven wrong on it.

You stated there are no scriptures that man is permitted to take another man's life .. you are proven wrong.

Now you are saying 'well, it there that man can BUT no man is without sin so he isn't permitted to' (paraphrase). Yet God gave man not only the go-ahead to such but the command he must.. so if man does not do such he is guilty of disobedience toward God's own command.. which is proof you don't need to be sinless to give such judgement but that they must be done in accordance with the Law and therefore Justice defined by God.

 

[Zaac]

It was not yet fulfilled,

What do you mean it was not yet fulfilled? I'm talking about right now as the conversation is supposed to be about whether or not Jesus would endorse the death penalty right now?

His fulfilling the law made it unnecessary to do other things, so why would it not be the same for punishment unto death? I repeat, Scripture says if you break one, you've broken them all. So in keeping with Scripture, everyone here endorsing capital punishment is due to be capitally punished or else they are being hypocrites.

So are you ready to receive capital punishment fro your transgressions or does Scripture not apply to certain sins?

I also note that you did not interact with ANY of what was given. The 'fact is' Jesus referred back to the law and it was the reason they could not stone her, however it does not in any way show Jesus changing, tweaking, or otherwise manipulating the Law that states as an adulterer, you were to be stoned. They did it wrongly and thus there was no charges that could stand against her so she was free to go even though she WAS guilty.

I did not interact with any of what was given because I'm looking at the whole of Scripture. He said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

The implication is that their sin was no different from hers and thus if her sin was worthy of death, so was all of theirs. And THAT is consistent with what Scripture says in James 2 and accordingly maintains the integrity of the rest of Scripture.

Man can't righteously put to death another man who Scripture says his trespass is the same as ours. That's HYPOCRISY and Jesus does not endorse hypocrisy.

 

[Allan]

So as a Christian, do you believe Jesus would still have us take the lives of people who commit these trespasses you listed?

IAre you Jewish (I'm not)? Are you under the Jewish Civil Laws God gave to the Jewish People? If not (as I am not) then the answer is "No". However The Moral Law (10 commandments still stand) and the Jewish Law still is Good (at least that is what Paul stated via the Holy Spirit) as a 'guide' as Gentile believers to note what is good and right (and wrong) before a Holy God.

The passage clearly affirms no such thing. The evildoers are gonna protect the citizenry from the evildoers?

Really? It seems that context disagrees with you. Does not the scripture state just what it says, contrary to your personal assumptions? Yes it looks to do just that.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What Scripture shows is that HE authorized it. He has not given man the right to do so without His command.

How is a sinful man going to righteously judge to take the life of someone who has the same trespass?

If we use your criteria, the question becomes- How is sinful man going to righteously judge ANYTHING?

Jesus said we are to make righteous judgments (John 7:24) so therefore the implication is that we do have the ability to make righteous judgments based upon Scripture. This would include the death sentence.

 

[Zaac]

Because the Law is speaking of specifically breaking them, and you are referrencing the spiritual aspect, in which to break one aspect of the Law is to be 'guilty' of them all.

The Law specifically says 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. James 2:10

Sin is a spiritual issue so why would we be addressing it any other way?

God set up the standard, God established when and how to know it was proper. Therefore God, and God alone gave man the go ahead to execute capital punishment. Note in the Gen passage.. God gave the go ahead with no qualification of being sinless.

That's what I said. I just also said that after the OT, it does not appear that God was giving the go ahead for sinful men to i.e "kill all the Amorites". Before, He gave them the command to exact final judgment.

Post fulfillment of the law and taking the Gospel to the Gentiles, it does not appear that He gave man the right to punish unto death.

The Law is the same way but speaks to the exact same issue.. that IF one or more make judgments, they cannot guilty of the same crime, involved or apart of, etc.. In other words they are to give impartial judgments according to evidence and eye witness testimony.

You can bounce around all you want be the fact is, for thousands of years this is the system of justice God established. Read my earlier post as it gives you all the information you can want. Would it not be more wise to stop trying to rationalize your position even when you have proven wrong on it.

You can bounce around all you want also. But just like the rest of the church, don't be attempting to claim the moral high ground by being okay with selectively taking certain lives while feigning disdain with the taking of the lives of babies.

All the excuses in the world can be made for why they are not the same. But the confusion arises because the CHURCH attempts to say that it is okay to take one life under certain circumstances but not okay in others.

That's why it is ALWAYS so easy to tell when something is of man and NOT of God. Man authors confusion because of his hypocrisy.

God gives 100% CLARITY. And that 100% clarity says that He has NOT given people guilty of breaking all the law the right to take the life of another who is also guilty of breaking all the law.

You stated there are no scriptures that man is permitted to take another man's life .. you are proven wrong.

Nope. I said without God's go ahead. You listed OT Scripture where He was giving the command to the Jews to do those things within the Jewish people.

He doesn't do that after fulfillment of the law.

 

[Allan]

What do you mean it was not yet fulfilled? I'm talking about right now as the conversation is supposed to be about whether or not Jesus would endorse the death penalty right now?

The issue that was being discussed, that I spoke to, had nothing to do with present day.. but Jesus and woman caught in adultry.

His fulfilling the law made it unnecessary to do other things, so why would it not be the same for punishment unto death?

You don't get to pick and choose what you want, those that are no longer applicable, are so because they are no longer necessary (ie, sacrifices, symbolic aspects like what to eat, touching the dead) there are specific issues that allow us to know what is and is not.

I repeat, Scripture says if you break one, you've broken them all. So in keeping with Scripture, everyone here endorsing capital punishment is due to be capitally punished or else they are being hypocrites.

Repeating something that is incorrect does not make it correct the more you say it. The punishments given via Law (God's or man's) is NOT determined by sinlessness but justice and what establishes that.

So are you ready to receive capital punishment fro your transgressions or does Scripture not apply to certain sins?

You do the crime, you will have to pay. But again, the are proceedures that need to established in order to make the execution valid and moral.

I did not interact with any of what was given because I'm looking at the whole of Scripture.

Then you need to look more than you have because there seems to be a gaping hole here.

He said "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” John 8:7

And that passage refers directly to the fact they asked Jesus about The Law. If you are going to take the whole of scripture, then do so and not cherry pick it. You MUST take the context into account in order to note why they all left at Jesus statement. It has NOTHING to do with them not being sinless, but the fact The Law, regarding this situation, was broken not only by her but THEM. They were just as guilty of the sin being asked to be prosecuted as the woman they placed before Jesus.

The implication is that their sin was no different from hers and thus if her sin was worthy of death, so was all of theirs. And THAT is consistent with what Scripture says in James 2 and accordingly maintains the integrity of the rest of Scripture.

Wrong. You cannot pull scripture for it's context to support another scripture.. both are then out of context and support nothing. If IN it's context, it supports another, that is one thing but you are leaving the context of the passage and what was being asked of Christ for some personal visage you wish to hold. It is well and good for you, but it does not make it biblical.

Man can't righteously put to death another man who Scripture says his trespass is the same as ours. That's HYPOCRISY and Jesus does not endorse hypocrisy.

If you will take the whole of scripture then you MUST accept the FACT that God has not only given to man the authority to excute capital punishment but the command to do so. I'm sorry but the issue you have is not with men but God's own command to do so. You can hold God as a HYPOCTIC but it does not make it so.