death penalty?

[thjplgvp]

MP,

Why should your and my tax dollars be spent for their crimes. That is the same as my paying for their crimes. Does not the bible say that the sins of the fathers shall not visited upon the third and forth generations?

thjplgvp

 

[Revmitchell]

http://magic-city-news.com/article_6683.shtml

 

[Jerome]

I have never advocated letting criminals out of prison or letting murderers go free with a "slap on the wrist". My concern is defining a "Christlike" attitude toward people, even the worst of sinners.

Do you really think it is "Christlike" to force someone into a cage for the rest of his life?

 

[ituttut]

Simple answer. You don't release them.


If we wrongly execute one person, that is one too many.

Is life fair? No, but we are to try our very best, and just believe what God has decreed. We make our own law, for we are not satisfied with Him.

 

[Marcia]

Posted by canadyjd:

The early church, in defining the canon under the inspiration of Holy Spirit, included the John 8 passage concerning the woman caught in adultery. Since we have no original manuscripts, I would be hesitant to reject what the early church clearly supported as authentic.

I said Jn 6 but meant Jn 8 - sorry about that.

I am putting in 2 posts notes from the NET Bible on the views on this account (although I learned about it several years ago in my Hermeneutics class, not from the NET Bible).

This entire section, 7:53-8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and
best mss and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: "the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming" (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53-8:11: Ì66, 75 Í B L N T W DQY 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53-8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the mss that include 7:53-8:11 are D Ï lat. In addition E S L 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, Ë places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, Ë after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this "floating" text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, "Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage," Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35-59, especially 41-42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (mss with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early mss of the Alexandrian texttype omit the pericope, while most mss of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that "Western mss" here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek mss are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best mss extant omit the pericope; it is found only in mss of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) 7:53 fits in the context. If the "last great day of the feast" (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in "booths" for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1-2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at "early dawn" (!Orqrou, Orqrou, in 8:2). This is the "dawning" of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus' statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman "came to the light" while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19-21).

 

[Marcia]

Part 2 of NET Bible commentary on the Jn 8 woman caught in adultery account:

Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1-11 (7:53-8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus' reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author "must" somehow work Isa 9:12 into the narrative is simply that-an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus' Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus' claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:12 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, "Reconsidering 'The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered'," NTS 39 [1993]: 290-96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of mss (Ë) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best mss do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, "Jesus and the Adulteress," NTS 34 [1988]: 24-44).

 

[Marcia]

Not only have I offered evidence supporting the possibility this account is not in the Bible (based on the earliest and best manuscripts), but even if it is included, I still maintain the other points about the woman caught in adultery: The men did not bring witnesses, they did not bring the man involved, the Jews could not carry out the death penalty themselves, and Jesus never made a statement against the death penalty - this was not the point of the account.

Posted by canadyjd:
Concerning the rest of what you said, I have never advocated letting criminals out of prison or letting murderers go free with a "slap on the wrist". My concern is defining a "Christlike" attitude toward people, even the worst of sinners. Support for the death penalty is contrary to so much of what Jesus and His apostles say to us in the N.T.

This makes it sound like anyone supporting the death penalty does not have a Christlike attitude which is (1) sort of an ad hominem, or some kind of logical fallacy, and (2) you have not shown how being against the death penalty is more Christlike with the I Tim. passage since that is not about the death penalty but rather how God showed mercy to Paul. Paul is an example of God's mercy, but that does not automatically mean we repeal the death penalty. That is your application of it but it is not in the text.

In fact, right before what you quote, Paul says in v. 8-11:

But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, 1:9 realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 1:10 sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers--in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. 1:11 This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me

This passage supports using the law against the lawless, rebellious, ungodly, those who kill, etc. This would include the death penalty.

God can forgive a murderer if they trust Christ but that murderer can still suffer the consequence of his/her actions if a death penalty has been deemed as the punishment.

 

[StraightAndNarrow]

Is this the view of the murderer?

Ask God since He is the one who commanded capital punishment.

The Bible tells us to love our enemies. Murders are terrible people, the kind of people that Jesus tended to hand around with. Where does the NT command us to have capital punishment?

 

[Marcia]

The Bible tells us to love our enemies. Murders are terrible people, the kind of people that Jesus tended to hand around with. Where does the NT command us to have capital punishment?

Gen 9.6 - I've posted on it twice in this thread and asked to see where it was abrogated in the NT. I don't think that has been shown - in fact, Rom. 13 tends to confirm it.

We don't need a commandment in the NT to have capital punishment when it was already given in Gen 9 and elsewhere and not repealed in the NT.

 

[Revmitchell]

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

MP,

Why should your and my tax dollars be spent for their crimes. That is the same as my paying for their crimes.

You pay because incarcerating criminals benefits the society in which you live.

I pay taxes to support schools, even though I have no children in this district. Mine are all adults. I pay taxes to kill people in Iraq, so I pay for Bush's war, even though I am opposed. That's how it works.

 

[Revmitchell]

It seems to me that liberal Christians believe that the state has the same duty to provide compassion and charity as the church, but when it comes to cultural morality and law, the church should have no input or influence in shaping the culture. This is a schizophrenic dichotomy if I ever heard one.

Robert E. Myer

 

[Magnetic Poles]

It seems to me that liberal Christians believe that the state has the same duty to provide compassion and charity as the church, but when it comes to cultural morality and law, the church should have no input or influence in shaping the culture. This is a schizophrenic dichotomy if I ever heard one.

Robert E. Myer

I think that Church and State should be absolutely separate. This is not saying the state provides compassion because it is churchlike, but because we are civilized human beings.

 

[canadyjd]

...but even if it is included, I still maintain the other points about the woman caught in adultery: The men did not bring witnesses, they did not bring the man involved, the Jews could not carry out the death penalty themselves, and Jesus never made a statement against the death penalty - this was not the point of the account.

There is no doubt the men who brought the woman were applying the law inappropriately. They did not bring the man. It did appear that they had brought the "witnesses". Whether Jesus would cede authority to the Romans or stick with the Law of Moses may have been part of the "trap". Their actions proved that they (along with the rest of mankind) did not have the wisdom to apply the death penalty.

The woman was caught in the act of adultery, and according to the Law of Moses should have received the death penalty. It can not be a coincidence that Jesus refers to the Deut. 17 passage. The standard He cites is clearly a different, higher, standard than that of the Law of Moses.

This makes it sound like anyone supporting the death penalty does not have a Christlike attitude which is (1) sort of an ad hominem, or some kind of logical fallacy, and (2) you have not shown how being against the death penalty is more Christlike with the I Tim. passage since that is not about the death penalty but rather how God showed mercy to Paul. Paul is an example of God's mercy, but that does not automatically mean we repeal the death penalty. That is your application of it but it is not in the text.

You know the many places in scripture where the attitude of Jesus Christ was that of mercy, compassion, patience and love with the worst of sinners. There is not a single place in scripture where Jesus tells His disciples to have any other attitude than that. Why is pointing out that fact considered to be some kind of logical fallacy or ad hominen attack?

Jesus, by example, demonstrates an attitude of love, compassion and mercy. The writings of His Apostles are full of admonitions to exhibit that same attitude of love, compassion and mercy. No where, either by example or teaching, are Christians told to seek or support the death of anyone.

The logical fallacy here is that because God will and does use men or governments to punish other men (by means of the "death penalty" or some other means), then Christians should support the death penalty. We are called to be different. We are called to demonstrate the perfect patience and love of God.

As far the I Tim. passage, do you agree that it clearly teaches that we are to have the same attitude of "perfect patience" toward sinners that Jesus had toward Paul?

You are correct in that my application of the I Tim. passage means I can no longer support the death penalty. It is logical to me that "perfect patience" is contrary to supporting the death of someone.

peace to youraying:

 

[canadyjd]

Do you really think it is "Christlike" to force someone into a cage for the rest of his life?

The conditions of prisons is a separate topic. Feel free to start the discussion in another thread.

peace to youraying:

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Genesis 9:6 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

In this verse, we see God talking to Noah and his family. This is not a statement about animals at all. Nowhere in scripture do we find God referring to animals as 'whoso'.

Romans 13:4 4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The fact that Paul wrote 'a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil', shows authorities can execute capital punishment on those that work evil.

Matthew 5:17 17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Jesus did not come to destroy the law of capital punishment, or any other law that God had set forth.

Luke 21:33 33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.

Capital Punishment is still allowed by God. Rather than question God's Word concerning that which He said is permitted, one should question that which is not permitted but still practiced by man.

Also, pray for those in authoritative positions that they may make godly rulings in cases of murder. As in Numbers 35, let them judge innocence or guilt. If guilt, let them execute judgment approved by God's Holy Word.

 

[TC]

I am for the death penalty because God commands it in Gen. 9 and upholds it in Romans 13. I would rather unjustly suffer the death penalty than to give all the murderers a free pass. The death penalty is not a deterrent now because people use the system and get years and years of appeals and such. Return to the days when the criminal gets a fair trial followed by a speedy hanging, the deterrent effect of the death penalty will return.

 

[Marcia]

The woman was caught in the act of adultery, and according to the Law of Moses should have received the death penalty. It can not be a coincidence that Jesus refers to the Deut. 17 passage. The standard He cites is clearly a different, higher, standard than that of the Law of Moses.

I disagree that Jesus repeals the death penalty here. There is no indication of that. Also, this passage is weak to support your view because there is strong evidence it was not in the original manuscript -- did you read the notes I posted on that?

You know the many places in scripture where the attitude of Jesus Christ was that of mercy, compassion, patience and love with the worst of sinners. There is not a single place in scripture where Jesus tells His disciples to have any other attitude than that. Why is pointing out that fact considered to be some kind of logical fallacy or ad hominen attack?

Jesus, by example, demonstrates an attitude of love, compassion and mercy. The writings of His Apostles are full of admonitions to exhibit that same attitude of love, compassion and mercy. No where, either by example or teaching, are Christians told to seek or support the death of anyone.

Jesus did show love, compassion and mercy, but he was about much more than that. He talked more about hell than love and never spoke against God's law. In Revelation, we read how he will come and the imagery is pretty fierce. In the gospels, Jesus told people they would be cast into outer darkness and gnash their teeth, that they would perish, that they were whitewashed tombs, that their hearts were wicked, etc. He could be loving and gentle but also showed no tolerance for sin.

His eyes are a flame of fire, and on His head are many diadems; and He has a name written on Him which no one knows except Himself.
13He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God.
14And the armies which are in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, were following Him on white horses.
15From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
21And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh. Rev 19.12-15, 21

The logical fallacy here is that because God will and does use men or governments to punish other men (by means of the "death penalty" or some other means), then Christians should support the death penalty. We are called to be different. We are called to demonstrate the perfect patience and love of God.

I do not think being patient contradicts supporting the death penalty, nor do I think this passage has to do with convicted murderers. Even if it did, we can witness to them, we can love them, we can demonstrate all that in patience, but that does not mean we ignore Gen 9.6 or other support of a death penalty. Loving men means we also recognize that murder is destruction of the image of God in man, as God himself states.

As far the I Tim. passage, do you agree that it clearly teaches that we are to have the same attitude of "perfect patience" toward sinners that Jesus had toward Paul?

1 Timothy was written to Timothy, giving him advice on leading a church. The patience is, I believe, for Timothy to remember as he deals with those in the church or those the church is evangelizing. It does not mean the death penalty is wrong. I see no application to the death penalty at all.


.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The same Old Testament being used to support the death penalty also proscribes it for a rebellious son, a disobedient wife, and for a number of other petty offenses. Take a look a the long list of OT capital crimes.

 

[ituttut]

Genesis 9:6 6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

In this verse, we see God talking to Noah and his family. This is not a statement about animals at all. Nowhere in scripture do we find God referring to animals as 'whoso'.

Right, but (anything) inserted to show how precious is the blood of man in God's sight - Exodus 21:28-29. We are to kill anything that kills man.