OT law

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCft6oKv5_E&feature=related

 

Let's see if I can interpret the eagle's words using the same method of Biblical interpretation being advocated? The eagle really didn't mean that he was "out of here" or that he was "disassociating himself from this weird, sick, show." No, he really meant that he was going to hang around and that he really loved this thread. He was just using figures of speech, not to mention the fact that he really isn't even an eagle but a turkey wearing eagle's clothing.

 

So John the Baptist was decapitated with a "figure of speech"?


HankD

 

Moral Necessity didn't get very far here with his questionable exegesis so he's left us.

 

Chrisitans are commanded to demonstrate "perfect patience" by having mercy on the worst of sinners, even murders like Paul.

Supporting the death penalty, directly or indirectly, violates that command.

peace to youraying:

 

God was NOT being too severe. God has NOT CHANGED how he "feels" about these things.

But you have to remember that even under the law, mercy was just as important in the proper execution of the law as punishment was. Jesus called it "the weightier matters of the law: justice, mercy, and faith".

 

Welcome to the BB. You are, of course, correct in your interpretation of the meaning of "sword" in Romans 13. The context is very clear.

The cross was the symbol of execution in the 1st century.

Don't take the personal attacks..... well.... personal. Some people will never strive to understand scripture in context. They have their opinion. If anyone has a different view, they will attack.

peace to youraying:

 

No, the word "decapitated" means his head was cut off and put on a platter for some sadistic woman. That is clear in the context of the passage concerning John the Baptist.

It is also clear from the context of Romans 13, and common usage of the time, that the word "sword" was being used as a symbol of authority... not the death penalty.

Crucifixion was the symbol of the death penalty in the 1st century.

peace to youraying:

 

Actually, the homos*xual community uses your method of ignoring the passages that are contrary to what they want to believe in favor of a secular view of things.

peace to youraying:

 

Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church.​

2 And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.​

Matthew 26

51 And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear.
52 Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.​

Acts 16:27 And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled.​

HankD​

 

No, No, No, What?
Without context, we will fail to understand what the Lord is attempting to tell us. In each of these passages, Jesus was directly dealing with people who were trying to circumvent the intent of the law, while claiming to be blameless by keeping the law.

The law shows us our sinfulness, yet some were trying to use the law to justify themselves.

Was a person who had never murdered another human being God-like in this regard? Jesus says not if you have had hatred toward another. This is because murder is simply an extreme manifestation of the hatred within a person's heart.

Could a Pharisee lust after other men's wives all day long and consider himself righteous if he had never acted on any of those lusts? No, of course not. An action reveals what is in the heart of man, but sin can still be in the heart even without the external manifestation.

The passage on oaths was about people trying to get out of their commitments by ascribing differing levels of obligation based on how a statement was made. We know this type of thing very well. You can't hold me to that....and certainly do not call me a liar...I never swore that I would do it...or I never promised that I would do it...or yeah, we did say that, but it is not in the contract. People were liars, yet claimed to not be breaking the law simply because they were clever in how they worded things? Is this God-like? Is this righteous? Our Lord said that it is not. Our yes should mean yes; our no should mean no.

There is a current discussion topic on the subject of divorce in which the pharisees were doing the exact same thing. They were taking a command in the law and trying to use it to argue that they were perfectly justified in their sinfulness...righteous even. Is this the will of God? Of course not.

What I am trying to say is that Jesus never changed the law in the examples you are giving. In fact, He was responding to people who were doing the very thing which you are accusing Him of: changing the intent of the law. He was confronting a group of people who were trying to use wordplay in the Scriptures to justify a position that they wanted even though it was clearly against the teaching and intent of Scripture. Jesus came to call out their hypocrisy- their play-acting that they even cared what God had to say about the subject.

As to the Passage in John, was this any different? I am not arguing with you about the passage's legitimacy. I am simply asking: Did Christ really overturn a principle that has been found throughout Scripture?

I think one is very hard-pressed to argue this point. Jesus was again in a situation where He was confronted by people who were abusing the Scriptures. They were attempting to use an adulteress to trap the Lord. They were violating the law themselves by not bringing forward the man who also would have been caught in adultery...many have speculated that the man was one of them and that they had arranged the fornication in order to trap our Lord, but this is mere speculation.

Far from arguing against the law, the Lord tells them to obey it. If they were witnesses to the crime, they had the right to demand the appropriate penalty; more to the point, they had the right to be the first ones to cast a stone at her. Jesus never argues differently. What He does argue against is hypocrisy. Will they really cast stones at a woman when the purpose is not to honor God's law, but to hinder God's Logos. The Scriptures say that the people were convicted, but of what? The conviction of the crowd (described in the text) doesn't make sense if it is supposedly due to their desire to institute a penalty that God had already ordained, but it does make sense if they were convicted of the evil desires of their heart- evil desires that made them seek the death of a woman simply to try to score points against a "religious adversary."

 

I would if I knew that a "life sentence" really meant a life sentence.

However we also have the obligation to protect the innocent.

The voting booth gives me that perogative.

Others are content to allow lust murderers of women and children to be released into our streets to kill again and again and again...

Jesus himself said that there were those worthy of death:

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.​

HankD

 

Are you seriously using Acts 12, the martyrdom of the Apostle James, as your basis for supporting the death penalty?

Christians today should support the death penalty because 1st century Christians were killed? No thank you.​

Nothing in Matt. or Acts changes the context of Romans 13. The word "sword' in Romans 13 is referring to authority.​

In fact, Matthew 26 should be taken as a command for Christians to put away their swords. We are not to participate in violence.​

Acts 16:27 is speaking of suicide, not the death penalty. BTW, Paul showed mercy and kept the man from killing himself.​

peace to youraying:​

 

We cannot decide which commands of Jesus Christ we will obey based on what a secular government does.

That is a false option. I don't advocate letting murderers, and others, go free. Life in prison without parole is a worthy sentence.

Brother, we are all worthy of death. Jesus demonstrated mercy and grace to us. We should follow His example, just as He commanded us to.

God doesn't command Christians to kill people. God doesn't need our help if He decides to tie a millstone around someone's neck and drop him into the sea.

peace to youraying:

 

Yes, He did. John 8 is very clear. Jesus references the O.T. Law concerning the implimentation of the death penalty and He changes the conditions. It is no longer the "2 or 3" witnesses that impliment the death penalty, it is the "one who is without sin..."

very clear.

No He did not. If He had told them to obey the Law, He would have demanded both the man and the woman be stoned to death. Do you disagree?

You are ignoring the very words of the passage. By telling them that the "one who is without sin" among them is the one to first cast the stone, He is referencing the O.T. Law for implimenting the death penalty, and at the same time He is changing the conditions.

Jesus reveals the inability of mankind to impliment the death penalty in an unbiased manner, which is what God ordained.

Therefore, only the "one who is without sin" can properly administer the death penalty.

The I Tim. 1:16 passage is very clear that Christians are to immulate the example of our Lord Jesus by showing mercy with perfect patience to the worst of sinners, even murderers like Paul.

To support the death penalty is contrary to that command.

Thanks for the comments

peace to youraying:

 

canadyjd , I haven't read every post on this thread, but for all of those I have read I agree with you. :thumbsup:

 

Thank you.

This is a position that I wrestled with for some time. I used to support the death penalty, but after careful study, it is clear to me that Christians should not do so.

Thanks again.

peace to youraying:

 

I would add a couple more ingredients to the stew you folks are brewing here... if permitted.

I've been teaching the Bible for a little over eighteen years now and the meat of this discussion, no matter the format, seems to always arise from a basic misunderstanding of what the Bible Jesus/God taught from. He did not have sixty-six books to teach from, rather the Bible was and I suggest still is the thirty-nine books we call the Old Testament. The remaining 27 books are the very best Life Application Commentary ever penned on the Bible.

Next we have the immutability of God. (Mal. 3:6,7a) And some will mistakenly argue, but Jesus is the God of the New Testament but when we look at John 1:1-3 we find that there is nothing that has been created that has been created that was not created by Jesus. Now hold on to the immutability of God, He never changes, and read the entire Bible from Genesis 1:1 thru the very last Amen of Revelation 22. There is a great deal of prayerful study and meditation that is needed to come to grips with this truth. There are no contradictions in the Holy Scriptures and if you have never met the Holy Spirit of God on a one on one basis, you need to do that right now.

In the end it is not a matter of what we believe is right and what is wrong! It is a very simple matter of will you submit to and obey God? Nut then isn't that all sin?

 

Everyone is welcome to add their comments, as far as I am concerned.

I disagree strongly. God didn't teach "from the Bible". God spoke His revelation of Himself into existence and has sustained that revelation (the Bible) through Holy Spirit.

The New Testament is just as much God's Word as the Old Testament. To call the New Testament "the very best Life Application Commentary ever penned on the Bible" degrades the very words of our Lord Jesus Christ and work of Holy Spirit into the same category as the work of wordly men and women.

Brother, when Christians of good conscience come to distinctly opposite conclusions on a matter of great importance (life or death), it is certainly a matter of whether what we believe is "right or wrong" as it concerns being consistent with the commands and teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Such great matters cannot be lightly regarded. Rather, we must plumb the depths of scripture with open hearts and minds and approach our Lord with fear and trembling... with reverence and awe.

peace to youraying:

 

James death: OK now that you mention it, yes, it does support the death penalty. Herod was the representative of the government and had the technical right (but not the approval of God of course) to execute those whom he declared enemies of the state.
That he was corrupt does enter into the picture of course.

But I had meant it to show that "the sword" is not always a figure of speech as you had claimed but is in fact used mostly in the normal sense - an instrument of death.

And as such, God approves of the death penalty and in fact He ordained and upholds it.

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.​

I repeat I choose to protect the innocent from those in our government which allow the bloodthirsty to roam our streets by choosing to elect those who are willing to "bear not the sword in vain".

HankD