death penalty?

[Gold Dragon]

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

A few posts above I acknowledge this verse. But it is not Christ saying or modeling any behaviour. So while ithere may be some validity in saying that it is unbiblical not to want to seek the death of a murderer, it is completely false that this is unChristlike.

 

[Su Wei]

Not really. The death penalty as a deterrent seems to have little or no effect. (Except, of course, to make sure the person executed can't commit another crime.) It's only really effective is preventing violations of minor laws. A death penalty for jaywalkers, for example, would probably be a very effective deterrent.

thanks for responding, rsr!
you may have missed the part where i quoted:
"that all Israel may hear and fear"?

It's interesting that the American missionaries that come by to my country will ask about a certain announcement airlines make on all in-coming flights to Singapore.

In flight announcements will tell every passager that Singapore carries a death penalty for the possession of drugs. (I think anything above 50g.)
People carrying sleeping pills break out in cold sweat. :laugh:


And, i've heard it said more than once that if they had Singapore laws in their part of America, they wouldn't have all the problems they were facing.

rsr, the prison system wasn't God's design? How much tax payers' money does it take to house a person for the rest of his life?

And we carry out the punishment swiftly. from sentencing to execution- two weeks. How long does it take in America?

 

[Su Wei]

Don't confuse sin and crime.

Yup! Exactly!:thumbs:

 

[standingfirminChrist]

In cases of accidental murder, God set up six cities or refuge. If one who had committed murder, one could run to one of those cities to seek shelter. Judges in the city would hear his or her case and then rule if it was accidental or self defense. If it was judged either of the two, they could stay. Those who had not killed in self defense or accidental were not permitted to stay in these cities.


Abner, after killing Asahel, went to one of those cities for refuge. Unfortunately, he stopped at the gate and was taken aside by Joab and Abishai and they killed him.

David, said when he heard that Abner was slain, 'Died Abner as a fool dieth.

God allowed even a murderer who had accidentally killed to be put to death by the 'avenger of blood' if that one did not make it safely into one of those six cities. The avenger of blood was always a family member.

Now, many of you know I have a convicted killer in the family. My foster brother, back in the early 80's shot and killed a woman for 50 dollars to support a drug habit. Instead of being given the death penalty by the judge, he was given life pluse 54 years. Joe will never get out of prison.

While there, Joe was convicted of another murder behind bars. He was then sentenced to death and was moved to death row. Had Joe been put on death row after the first murder, many from both families would have not had their hearts torn so when he was sentenced for the second murder.

This month, I had a cousin shot and killed by her best friend. My cousin was 6 months pregnant and the baby was delivered by Caesarian section. Baby Hailey has had several heart attacks and her kidneys have shut down since the tragic event of her mother's death.

I could not seek the death penalty of the girl who shot my cousin, but I cannot blame any of my family who decided that they should be an 'avenger of blood' and seek the death penalty. God allows that, I believe.

Punishment for sin will be given in heaven, but punishment for crime must be dealt with here on earth. This is why God set up authorties such as judges and magistrates.
.................................................

One more thing, David wrote in the Book of the Psalms, 'Forever, O Lord, Thy Word is settled in heaven.' And Jesus said in the New Testament, 'Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.'

 

[I Am Blessed 24]

And, i've heard it said more than once that if they had Singapore laws in their part of America, they wouldn't have all the problems they were facing.

rsr, the prison system wasn't God's design? How much tax payers' money does it take to house a person for the rest of his life?

And we carry out the punishment swiftly. from sentencing to execution- two weeks. How long does it take in America?

Points well taken!

 

[Marcia]

I'm pretty close to you on this topic Marcia. I have heard good arguments pro and con the death penalty from both biblical and secular sources. And I agree, Gen 9:6 is pretty difficult to argue against.

And yet throughout the OT, we often see the theme of God wanting showing grace and give chances to those who deserved death. ie. David and Uriah, Nineveh, Israel's repeated idolatry and even Sodom in God's conversation with Abraham in Gen 18. <snipped for brevity>

Hi, Gold Dragon! I do see what you are saying. However, I also believe that God's grace is balanced equally by his wrath on sin and his clear commandments in the Bible to take life in certain situations (and not just in the covenant with Israel).

 

[Marcia]

For someone to claim to be pro-life, and I'm certain most of us would make that claim, and narrow that to unborn children only is not a supportable Christian position. The broader perspective, the sanctity of human life, is to support and respect the right of all human beings to live. We are all precious in God's sight. After all, He sent His son to die for all of us. How can we put someone to death that Christ died to save?

Then, using your logic (to be pro-life means one must be opposed to the death penalty), God is not pro-life.

It all depends on what is meant by pro-life. You define it here to include opposition to the death penalty. But I define pro-life as recognizing the sacredness of life, and part of that recognition entails God's view of the sacredness of life as given in Gen. 9.6, in which God deems murder an attack on the image of God in man and therefore the consequence of that attack is death.

God took many lives in the OT, including those of young children. He commanded people to go and take those lives. God is the one who determines when life begins and when it ends, and he apparently gave man the right to end life in certain situations (Gen. 9.6, in the death penalty laws given to Israel, and I believe implied in Rom. 13).

I agree there are arguments against the death penalty, but too often those against the death penalty seem to ignore or to dismiss what I set out here in this post.

 

[canadyjd]

What about Gen 9.6?

I have addressed Gen. 9 before, but I am happy to do it again. The context of Gen. 9 is to emphasize the difference between animals and human beings. Animals are now given for food, but human beings are made in the image of God, and therefore must not be killed. To emphasize the point, God says He will require the life of a person who kills another human being.

This is not an absolute statement. This is not the establishment of the death penalty. There was no "government". There are 8 people on the planet (Noah and his family). Gen. 9 is probably a reference to the ancient Near East practice of the "blood avenger".

If Gen. 9 were an absolute statement, (establishing the "death penalty") you would expect God to make sure every person who comitted murder to be killed by someone else. God did not require the life of Cain for the murder of Abel. (before Gen. 9) God did not require the life of Moses (prior to the law) for the murder of the Egyptian. God did not require the life of David for the murder of Uriah (after the law). God did not require the life of Paul the murderer after the coming of Christ.

Gen. 9 cannot be seen as an absolute statement concerning the establishment of the death penalty, especially in light of the New Testament commands concerning a Christian's attitude toward the worst of sinners.

I don't "seek" the death penalty and I think it should be given only under certain circumstances (in fact, the death penalty can be required only in certain cases prescibed by law), but I can't think of anywhere in the Bible Gen 9.6 was abrogated.

Even if you held that Gen. 9 established the death penalty, and then God elaborated the death penalty in the giving of the Law, you must see that Jesus repealed any authority men had in administering the death penalty in John 8.

When Jesus says "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", He is changing the standard for administering the death penalty. Deut. 17:6-7 commands the death penalty be administered by the two or three witnesses (they throw the first stones).

That standard is changed to "He who is without sin among you" administers the death penalty. That means the death penalty can only be rightly administered by God and Him alone.

I Tim. 1:16 specifically tells us to have the same kind of "perfect patience" with the worst of sinners that Jesus had with the murderer Paul. That is the attitude Jesus has commanded us to have. To support putting someone to death is the opposite of having "perfect patience".

Based on God's Word, I can confidently say that it is unChristlike to seek or support the death penalty.

peace to you, Marcia raying:

 

[Marcia]

If Gen. 9 speaks loud and clear, how can you be "on the fence"?

I guess I am on the fence (btw, before I was a believer at different times in my life I was both anti and pro death penalty) because of the troublesome applications of the death penalty in this country. It just remains a fact that if you have enough money for a good lawyer, you tend to get better representation and thus have a better chance to fight the death penalty (assuming the prosecutor is asking for it, which can only be done in certain cases prescribed by law).

Having been a paralegal who used to read and write a Summary of Facts of death penalty trials (and non-death penalty trials) for lawyers in the Atty General's office in GA, I saw cases where indigents did not receive a really quality defense. This was not true in all cases, of course, but it was true in many.

So that makes me somewhat on the fence about it, though theoretically, I see biblical support for it.

 

[Marcia]

[/font][/color]

Even if you held that Gen. 9 established the death penalty, and then God elaborated the death penalty in the giving of the Law, you must see that Jesus repealed any authority men had in administering the death penalty in John 8.

When Jesus says "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", He is changing the standard for administering the death penalty. Deut. 17:6-7 commands the death penalty be administered by the two or three witnesses (they throw the first stones).

That standard is changed to "He who is without sin among you" administers the death penalty. That means the death penalty can only be rightly administered by God and Him alone.

I Tim. 1:16 specifically tells us to have the same kind of "perfect patience" with the worst of sinners that Jesus had with the murderer Paul. That is the attitude Jesus has commanded us to have. To support putting someone to death is the opposite of having "perfect patience".

Based on God's Word, I can confidently say that it is unChristlike to seek or support the death penalty.

peace to you, Marcia raying:

I have to disagree that John 6 or i Tim 1.16 have anything to do with abrograting the death penalty.

As I'm sure you know, most experts do not believe the woman taken in adultery story was in the original manuscripts, though most believe it is a true account. That is at least a half-strike against it as far as using it as something to abrograte the death penalty.

Secondly, the woman was brought before Jesus unfairly, not according to Jewish law, and that is what Jesus at least in part points out. The men who brought her did not bring witnesses and did not bring the man in question. So they were not doing this according to the law.

Furthermore, the Jews did not have the legal right to stone her in the first place. I think Jesus used this situation to show them their own sin and to forgive the woman but not to abrogate the death penalty, which the Jews at that point did not have the right to enforce anyway.

The 1 Timothy passage has to do with sinners and not necessarily criminals. If we were to apply this generally, then we should forgive all criminals and advocate to let them out of prison. Why stop at the death penalty? I don't see this passage as having anything to do with the death penalty.

As always, I enjoy discussions with you candyjd! I usually agree with you, but not on this one. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[rsr]

And, i've heard it said more than once that if they had Singapore laws in their part of America, they wouldn't have all the problems they were facing.

Could be. But different ones, no doubt.

The U.S. is really, really trying to enforce draconian laws. There are now more than 2 million Americans in jail or prison, largely because of the so-called War on Drugs.

How much tax payers' money does it take to house a person for the rest of his life?

A lot. Is justice purely a matter of economics?

And we carry out the punishment swiftly. from sentencing to execution- two weeks. How long does it take in America?

Too long, in many cases.

 

[Blammo]

Although I support the death penalty for murderers, I can't help but wonder, would I be willing to "pull the trigger"? How about you, would you be willing to "pull the trigger"?

 

[ituttut]

Had it not been for the death penalty Christ whould not have been crucified.
No death no salvation.

Amen, and Amen!

 

[canadyjd]

I have to disagree that John 6 or i Tim 1.16 have anything to do with abrograting the death penalty.

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.

The 1 Timothy passage has to do with sinners and not necessarily criminals. If we were to apply this generally, then we should forgive all criminals and advocate to let them out of prison. Why stop at the death penalty? I don't see this passage as having anything to do with the death penalty.

The context of I Tim. specifically includes "murderers" and "those who kill their fathers and mothers". It also includes Paul's statement that he was the worst of sinners. We know from other statements of Paul that he killed Christians (or at least had them killed).

The teaching of I Tim. 1:16 is clear. Jesus showed mercy to Paul as an example to future believers. The example He demonstrated is "perfect patience" to the "worst of sinners." This includes (in context) murderers.

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.

As always, I enjoy discussions with you candyjd! I usually agree with you, but not on this one. :smilewinkgrin:

And I have always appreciated your sound biblical approach to all the issues under discussion. :thumbs: That is why I am confident that as you study this issue more in depth, you will agree that Jesus commands a very different attitude than most people have accepted.

peace to youraying:

 

[ituttut]

Oh, but the issue is about government.. the governments are the only ones that have the right to put anyone to death.... if individuals were to do this, it would be murder.

God gave government the right.

Difficult to see how people miss this little fact

 

[Salty]

No, not until it is given out equally. Too unfair to those of color and the poor. If it is given out equally then yes.

I agree the death penalty should be given out equally!!! It is totally unfair that 95% of all people given the death penalty are MEN!!!

Hey, I have an ideal, how about just giving the death penalty to those who are quilty of their appropriate crime ie murder.

Salty

 

[ituttut]

It is Christ in plain language that gives us the authority for the death penalty. His Word is in the Bible, but we choose to refuse Him when it doesn't fit our purpose. Dissenters are welcomed over here on this side of God.

Shouldn't we take a little time in His Word to see what He wishes us to see ? It seems some have read av1611jim's post on page 4, and still do not see.

God has never rescinded this directive for man to kill (anything) that sheds the blood of man. This is not a directive to just Israel, God's people, but to all nations that are to come. This has been put on par with what was given at the beginning for us to be fruitful and multiply on this earth. When one, or something ends the life of a human by murder (the intention is to do so), they are to be killed, for the life they took cuts short the work that was accomplished in the first directive.

Only God has the right to take a life, and only God can direct to whom He chooses to carry out His Orders.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

For an excellent sermon on the six cities of refuge and the death of Abner, click here

 

[thjplgvp]

Romans 13:3 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:

After reading all the posts I would ask this question. What do you suppose the word terror means in the above passage? A quick reading of its usage in the Old and New Testaments might reveal abject fear and disillusionment at ones current position before the law. What might generate this great terror? Perhaps the death penalty. How is it that David had many put to death and yet God God called David a man after his own heart? May I remind you of the last commands given by David to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:5-9 how that Solomon mixed mercy with justice but in the end some were executed for their actions.

To deny government the one excercise that binds their God given responsibility to bring fear into the lives of those deserving is to turn lose the violent element of society on the innocent. prison is not a deterent to extreme crimes loss of life is. To remove the death penalty is to place the burden of the condemned on society. The execution of those deserving is both a justice and a mercy. A justice to the perpetrator and a mercy for it will bring him into direct understanding that eternity is to be his end therefore he is to prepare for that trip also it is a mercy to those who would have had to contend with the results of the criminal being released into society.

How man parents have asked why pedophiles or murderers were released back into society and their loved ones were now the victims when had justice been carried out properly their families would have been left to suffer when they should not have.

We do not cancel the system because of mistakes we work at making the system better. For each injustice shown where an innocent went free you can show the inverse where one who should not have gone free did. That argument is invalid.

Thjplgvp

 

[Magnetic Poles]

How man parents have asked why pedophiles or murderers were released back into society and their loved ones were now the victims when had justice been carried out properly their families would have been left to suffer when they should not have.

Simple answer. You don't release them.

We do not cancel the system because of mistakes we work at making the system better. For each injustice shown where an innocent went free you can show the inverse where one who should not have gone free did. That argument is invalid.

Thjplgvp

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