Death Penalty Question

12volt_man · Dec 11, 2005

Neverstop said:
No, I am simply not allowing earthly and unjust laws to trump my convictions from the Holy Spirit.

But you are confusing two different things. Your response to capital punishment is that you're against it because God has forgiven you your sins.

The two have not one thing to do with one another.

12volt_man · Dec 11, 2005

Rygel · Dec 11, 2005

If it wasn't something like lopping someone's head off for candid camera, I probably could.

blueapplepaste · Dec 11, 2005

To those here that are in support and say they could do it, I have this question for you:

God will judge all of us in the next life, so then, why do you feel it so necessary to judge them here on earth? Why not put faith that God will deal them and what they deserve when they die here? As God is infallable they will get what they truly deserve, and as we are not infallable, we can, and probably have committed several injustices by murdering innoncent people in the name of justice. What is so bad about locking them up for life and throwing away the key? The way I see it everyone wins. They're gone for life, no longer a threat to society. We don't have to worry about killing another potentially innoncent man. And in the end, we leave true justice in the hands of God. Why is the death penalty really necessary?

The way I see it, it's not really necessary.

praying · Dec 11, 2005

blueapplepaste said:
To those here that are in support and say they could do it, I have this question for you:

God will judge all of us in the next life, so then, why do you feel it so necessary to judge them here on earth? Why not put faith that God will deal them and what they deserve when they die here? As God is infallable they will get what they truly deserve, and as we are not infallable, we can, and probably have committed several injustices by murdering innoncent people in the name of justice. What is so bad about locking them up for life and throwing away the key? The way I see it everyone wins. They're gone for life, no longer a threat to society. We don't have to worry about killing another potentially innoncent man. And in the end, we leave true justice in the hands of God. Why is the death penalty really necessary?

The way I see it, it's not really necessary.

Because it is about revenge not justice.

MachZer0 · Dec 11, 2005

mhatten said:
Because it is about revenge not justice.

That only speaks to your viewpoint. To others, it is indeed about justice

blueapplepaste · Dec 11, 2005

MachZer0 said:
That only speaks to your viewpoint. To others, it is indeed about justice

How is locking up someone in a cell for their entire life not justice?

Yusuf Evans · Dec 11, 2005

I voted no. It may sound ironic, especially with me being a Marine, but I don't believe any man has the right to take away anohter's, all in the name of justice. When I state a Pro-life stance, that means all deserve to live, both those that are living now, and the unborn also.

12volt_man · Dec 11, 2005

blueapplepaste said:
God will judge all of us in the next life, so then, why do you feel it so necessary to judge them here on earth? Why not put faith that God will deal them and what they deserve when they die here?

Romans 13.

What is so bad about locking them up for life and throwing away the key?

I thought you said we shouldn't judge them.

And in the end, we leave true justice in the hands of God. Why is the death penalty really necessary?

Again, see Romans 13.

MachZer0 · Dec 11, 2005

blueapplepaste said:
How is locking up someone in a cell for their entire life not justice?

The penalty for his crime was death. Anything less is injustice

reverend B · Dec 11, 2005

12volt_man said:
Why should I bear any responsibility for your behavior? Why should I apologize, when you won't tell me what I've done wrong.
i was depending on your discernment. my mistake.

Since my points were all valid, I don't see the need for an apology.
how have you proved a valid point that i must be misrepresenting my ministry?

So then, you wouldn't counsel that person to behave in a manner that glorifies Christ, rather than one that brings reproach on His name?
that was the next part of what i said, you know, the part you edited out.

In other words, (a) you can't defend your opinion and (b) you know that you can't give us an example of my having done the things you say I've done.
no. people just need to go through the thread. they will read the answers. you are not able. so be it.

I didn't respond to it because it's a straw man. We're dealing with something that is a law in our country and whether or not that law is permissible for Christians.
we are in part talking about the infallibility of old testament law. this is very germaine to the discussion. that is why you have avoided answering it when it has been directed to you 4 times. the concept of it is ABSURD!

Actually, they are and I've already demonstrated how this is true.
i find your arguments unconvincing, but they have been presented. enough said.

Again, Paul's letter to the Romans, in which he describes the duty of the government, given by God, to carry out capital punishment, is found in the NT.
paul says that those in authority should be obeyed as well, without regard to what they are asking us to do. this is an impossible piece of advice, as the leader could be idi amin or ghandi, and the instruction remains the same. many scholars find romans to be necessarily pandering to the roman government for the very survival of the church. i subscribe to this theory. i know you don't. inerrancy and all that. go ahead. go off. i am a godless pagan and this proves my anti-christianity and blah blah blah.

Likewise, Jesus standing before Pilate, in which Jesus explains to him that his right to carry out capital punishment on behalf of the state comes from God, is found in the NT.
as i have said repeatedly, this is horrible interpretation. Christ tells pilate that he could do nothing if the Father didn't let him. it is Christ letting pilate know that he is a subject to God. it is not a green light on the dp. God allows a horror to take place, a terrible abomination that would tell the world how disgusting this execution is. why do you think pilate tries desperately to find a way to release Him? why is he terrified after Christ tells him that he is powerless without God allowing him to kill? he should be thrilled that God has given him his blessing on this murder, but he is not. he does not feel liberated, he feels trapped.

You haven't shown any familiarity with scripture.
too silly to respond to.

So far, you've gotten the OT and the NT confused, you claim that a literal teaching is metaphorical, but refuse to explain why you believe this, and you claim that the return of Christ, as depicted in the book of Revelation, is metaphorical but, once again, refuse to explain why you believe this.
i did explain it. the admonition to peter. you don't see it that way. cool. move on. the metaphorical nature of revelation is a commonly held interpretation, as you admitted in a previous post, and i am not going to get into the whole revelation miasma here.

Given that, how much credence am I supposed to give your claims?
none. please ignore me completely. please.

Since you still won't tell me what I've done wrong or show where I've done it, I don't know what to apologize for.

i feel only pity for you and will pray for you in my make believe ministry to my hippie God.
peace of the Lord

12volt_man · Dec 11, 2005

reverend B said:
i was depending on your discernment. my mistake.

You're insisting that I've done something that warrants an apology, but I've done nothing wrong and the fact that you can't point to anything that I've done wrong tells me that you know that you're being dishonest.

how have you proved a valid point that i must be misrepresenting my ministry?

Each of my points has been backed by scripture, where you have posted verses out of context and purposely misinterpreted Christ's teachings.

As for why I believe you should not be seriously referred to as "reverend", I've explained that to you and I stand by it. Your behavior in this post only goes to reinforce my argument.

no. people just need to go through the thread. they will read the answers. you are not able. so be it.

So then, you don't believe the Biblical admonition that we are to correct someone when we see them in error?

If you believe that I'm in error, why don't you correct me?

we are in part talking about the infallibility of old testament law. this is very germaine to the discussion. that is why you have avoided answering it when it has been directed to you 4 times.

No one is arguing that the OT law is fallible.

You're applying Israel's law to the present day United States, when we are not a theocracy and do not have those laws.

i find your arguments unconvincing, but they have been presented. enough said.

Obviously, but the fact remains that you cannot refute them.

paul says that those in authority should be obeyed as well, without regard to what they are asking us to do.

Where does Paul say this?

many scholars find romans to be necessarily pandering to the roman government for the very survival of the church.

Who, for instance?

i am a godless pagan and this proves my anti-christianity and blah blah blah.

You said it, I didn't.

as i have said repeatedly, this is horrible interpretation.

This from the same guy who told us that Jesus told His followers to "metaphorically" sell their coats and collect the money for them?

why do you think pilate tries desperately to find a way to release Him?

Maybe Pilate was only metaphorically trying to release him.

too silly to respond to.

Your theories about "metaphor" and your stubborn insistence that the book of Romans is in the OT only goes to demonstrate that you are not familiar with scripture.

i did explain it. the admonition to peter.

And I have explained why this cannot be true. You have yet to refute that explanation.

the metaphorical nature of revelation is a commonly held interpretation, as you admitted in a previous post

I did? That's odd since I've consistently taught that it is literal.

please ignore me completely. please.

I will if you will agree not to falsely charge me with the goofy things you've said about me here.

i feel only pity for you and will pray for you in my make believe ministry to my hippie God.

Thank you. And I will pray for you to my Biblical God.

Good luck with your hippie.

reverend B · Dec 11, 2005

we have finally found grounds on which we agree. goodbye.

ScottishJohn · Dec 11, 2005

12volt_man said:
How is Paul in conflict with Christ?

Was the sword an instrument of capital punishment? (Thought it was crucifiction?!) I thought the sword was a symbol of justice. Outside many courts you see the sword and the scales. I don't think you have a very strong argument in favour of capital punishment here either. (Although it makes a refreshing change from people twisting that passage to mean that all wars are justifiable!)

12volt_man said:
There are examples of God instituting the death penalty. There are examples of God carrying out capital punishment.

I think that just because God Can do it and has done it does not mean it is right for us to do. God will also sit in judgement on all of us. God is God - he has all authority, we have only what authority he gives us. I see authority given for capital punishments for certain crimes to be administered by the Levites in parts of the Old Covenant, but since the coming of Christ those parts of the Law are rendered irrelevant. Their purpose was to cover the Jews between Moses and the coming of Christ as is explained clearly in Galatians 3. In any case we do not administer those punishments in accordance withthat law so there is no consistency in seeking to use those parts of the law as a defense for capital punishment. This has been discussed in great detail on another thread if you wish to read the arguments.

12volt_man said:
There are examples of Jesus commanding His disciples to buy swords with which to protect themselves from robbers.

They turned up two swords between them, and he said that was enough - hardly a ringing endorsement of self defense! Christ states that he is fulfilling a prophesy, and if he was here advocating the use of the sword even in self defense (which is STILL not an endorsement of capital punishment) then he would clearly be contradicting himself in Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." Also in verses 38 and 39. ALSO it would contradict the actions of all the apostles who are martyred put in jail and fed to lions etc. Since there can be no contradiction, then your interpretation of the passage must be at fault: All Christ wants is for the prophesy in Isaiah to be fulfilled - Jesus must be 'numbered with the transgressors' the word transgressors in the original hebrew pasha from Isaiah 53:12 is translated as:

to rebel, transgress, revolt

1. (Qal)
1. to rebel, revolt
2. to transgress
2. (Niphal) to be rebelled against

It is more reasonable (and consistent) to suppose that Christ rather than unexpectedly embracing violence in a kind of inept fashion, is fulfilling the prophecy through symbolically arming his followers like rebels.

12volt_man said:
There are examples of the Lord being a warrior.

Where do you refer to?

12volt_man said:
There are examples of Christ bring violence when He comes again.

Yes depending on how you interpret he may be bringing violence when he comes again, how does that justify capital punishment in the meantime. Again - he has all authority, we have what authority we are given.

12volt_man said:
I do see clearly where He has commanded capital punishment

Where?

12volt_man said:
and where He has ordained the state to do so.

Not really, not a ringing endorsement of capital punishment at all. A warning to accept authority of the state, which I might add was conveniently ignored during the American Revolution.

12volt_man · Dec 11, 2005

ScottishJohn said:
Was the sword an instrument of capital punishment?

Yes.

I thought the sword was a symbol of justice.

It is.

I don't think you have a very strong argument in favour of capital punishment here either.

I'm open to correction if you'd like to tell me what you believe that passage means.

I think that just because God Can do it and has done it does not mean it is right for us to do.

But that is the whole point of God instituting the death penalty: that He has given the government that right and responsibility.

God will also sit in judgement on all of us.

Indeed, He will, but you're making the same mistake neverstop made. You're confusing God's judgement on sin with the duty of the state to pass judgement on criminals.

God is God - he has all authority, we have only what authority he gives us.

And Romans 13 shows us that He has given us the authority to carry out capital punishment.

I see authority given for capital punishments for certain crimes to be administered by the Levites in parts of the Old Covenant, but since the coming of Christ those parts of the Law are rendered irrelevant.

Remember, there were different kinds of law.

They turned up two swords between them, and he said that was enough - hardly a ringing endorsement of self defense!

But that's only a difference of degree, not fact.

Christ states that he is fulfilling a prophesy, and if he was here advocating the use of the sword even in self defense (which is STILL not an endorsement of capital punishment) then he would clearly be contradicting himself in Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

Note the key word: "persecute you".

He's talking to His followers about how they should react in the face of persecution for the Gospel, not whether or not they have a right to protect themselves from bandits.

Also in verses 38 and 39. ALSO it would contradict the actions of all the apostles who are martyred put in jail and fed to lions etc.

They were martyrs for the faith, not killed by bandits.

It is more reasonable (and consistent) to suppose that Christ rather than unexpectedly embracing violence in a kind of inept fashion, is fulfilling the prophecy through symbolically arming his followers like rebels.

So, He is arming His followers?

Where do you refer to?

Aside from the obvious verse in Revelation, remember that the Lord being a warrior, fighting for the Israelites, was a major belief in Israel.

Exodus 14:14, 15:3, Deut1:30, Judges 4:14, 2 Sam 5:24, 2 Chron 20:17-18, Ne 4:20.

Yes depending on how you interpret he may be bringing violence when he comes again, how does that justify capital punishment in the meantime.

It doesn't. That wasn't my point.

Where?

Many places in the OT for various offenses and in Romans 13.

Not really, not a ringing endorsement of capital punishment at all. A warning to accept authority of the state,

I don't believe it was meant to be an endorsement, but an explanation of the God's purpose for just governments.

ScottishJohn · Dec 12, 2005

12volt_man said:
Yes.

Prove it. I was certainly not the instrument for capital punishment for the Romans or the Jews.

12volt_man said:
It is.

So what you maintain is an endorsement of Capital Punishment could just as easily be symbolic of the justice system. You have a long way to go before you have anything like proven that this is what Romans 13 means. Given that the word translated as 'bear' Poieo has 21 different possible translations, and your argument rests on the idea that the ruler not only carries the sword but is threatening to use it, I think your argument is especially weak.

12volt_man said:
I'm open to correction if you'd like to tell me what you believe that passage means.

I think it is very simple - it is a warning that we should obey our rulers or suffer the consequences. Those consequences are symbolised by the sword. Given that a small minority of possible disobediences are punishable by death even in the Old Covenant, I think it is more consistant and takes fewer liberties to suppose that the sword symbolises ALL justice, and not just that which may or may not (depending on the justice system) be punishable by death. It is certainly not an endorsement of any specific punishment.

12volt_man said:
But that is the whole point of God instituting the death penalty: that He has given the government that right and responsibility.

No I really don't think he has - you have not proven that this is what he is doing. He has given us a resposibility to obey the Government which he says is ordained by God. He has warned us that there are consequences of not obeying the Government.

12volt_man said:
Indeed, He will, but you're making the same mistake neverstop made. You're confusing God's judgement on sin with the duty of the state to pass judgement on criminals.

NO, it is YOU who are confusing the act and consequences of God's Judgement with what he actually permits us to do. YOU are the one who is saying that because God will judge we should have the death penalty. God is going to do a great many things (and has already done a great many things) which we are not permitted to do.

12volt_man said:
And Romans 13 shows us that He has given us the authority to carry out capital punishment.

No it does not. It says God has ordained the governments and we should obey their authority. It does not say anything about what punishments are allowed and what punishments are not.

12volt_man said:
Remember, there were different kinds of law.

Yes - and the kinds of law which deal with punishments (whether those be sacrifices or the death penalty) are no longer relevant.

12volt_man said:
But that's only a difference of degree, not fact.

It makes it a pathetic gesture if the purpose is supposed to be an endorsement of violence. I believe that everything Christ did was perfect. If it were important that his diciples resist forcefully, he would have marched them to the best sword shop in town, who would have mysteriously had 11 of the best swords (and accessories) on hold behind the counter. As the word for Sword is derived from the word Machomai which can be transalted as bandit, rebel etc - I think this reinforces my interpretation and further weakens yours.

12volt_man said:
Note the key word: "persecute you".

(And ignore the key word curse?) It makes no difference, no matter how you twist and turn you cannot make this passage (and the others which say the same) consistent with the vs 38 and 39, or with your interpretation of Luke, which I believe is in error. You can be persecuted by being robbed, thrown in jail, taxed exessively, prevented from working, travelling, by being killed. Bandits can persecute you as effectively as anyone else. The literal translation of the word persecute is to make to run or flee, put to flight, drive away. Anyone who causes that action can be said to be persecuting the diciples. As far as I can see there is no clause specifically exempting bandits.

12volt_man said:
He's talking to His followers about how they should react in the face of persecution for the Gospel, not whether or not they have a right to protect themselves from bandits.

So you are suggesting that faced with Bandits the diciples should question whether they are being robbed because of their faith and then once that is established they should decide whether or not to fight? I don't see that distinction being made.

12volt_man said:
They were martyrs for the faith, not killed by bandits.

There is only ONE example of a diciple using a sword in defense and he is immediately rebuked. In all other situations the diciples use their faith as a weapon and leave whatever swords they have in their sheaths.

12volt_man said:
So, He is arming His followers?

Only symbolically. As a quartermaster he would have been demoted. Since everything Christ does is perfect, we must deduce that he was not attempting to be a quartermaster!

12volt_man said:
Aside from the obvious verse in Revelation, remember that the Lord being a warrior, fighting for the Israelites, was a major belief in Israel.

A mistaken one one amongst many mistaken beliefs. There is still no bearing between this image of the messiah and capital punishment. Again, you are mixing up the events of judgement with how we shoudl conduct ourselves NOW.

12volt_man said:
Exodus 14:14, 15:3, Deut1:30, Judges 4:14, 2 Sam 5:24, 2 Chron 20:17-18, Ne 4:20.

I don't see what bearing ANY of this has on Capital Punishment.

12volt_man said:
It doesn't. That wasn't my point.

So what WAS your point?

12volt_man said:
Many places in the OT for various offenses and in Romans 13.

There are a lot of things in the OT which are specific to that time. The death penalty is one of the puishments which we no longer need to observe - all the punishments prescribed have been swept away and replaced by the gift of Grace. If you wish to use the Old Covenant Law as an argument for the death Penalty then why enforce a piece of a whole, and ignore the rest? As shown Romans 13 does not speak to the appropriateness of the Death Penalty.

12volt_man said:
I don't believe it was meant to be an endorsement, but an explanation of the God's purpose for just governments.

I just don't think that the text can support such an interpretation.

So far your argument hinges on two doubtful interpretations of two New Testament passages, neither of which directly refer to the death penalty and the fact that the death penalty existed under part of the Old covenant, which has been replaced. The point concerning Gods right to judge, and his actions while preparing the people of Israel for the coming of Christ has no bearing on the death penalty whatsoever. It is really a very precarious argument.

12volt_man · Dec 12, 2005

ScottishJohn said:
Prove it.

Among others,

The sword - The instrument of capital punishment, which God authorizes him to inflict. - Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible, Romans 13:4

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 6 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 c revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

(6) God has armed the magistrate even with an avenging sword.
(c) By whom God avenges the wicked. - GSB, Romans 13:4

It was certainly not the instrument for capital punishment for the Romans or the Jews.

The Jews: Genesis 40:19; 1 Samuel 15:33

The Romans: Mark 6:16,27; Acts 12:2

I think your argument is especially weak.

And the fact that I've provided scripture to back up my points, while you have not, shows that your is weaker.

Given that a small minority of possible disobediences are punishable by death even in the Old Covenant,

But murder is punishable by death all throughout the Bible.

No I really don't think he has - you have not proven that this is what he is doing.

I've provided scripture that demonstrates this very thing.

NO, it is YOU who are confusing the act and consequences of God's Judgement with what he actually permits us to do. YOU are the one who is saying that because God will judge we should have the death penalty.

I've said no such thing. In fact, I've been very consistent in saying that we judge crime and carry out punishments for those crimes because God has estanblished that as the role of just governments.

To that end, I have provided scripture to demonstrate this.

No it does not. It says God has ordained the governments and we should obey their authority. It does not say anything about what punishments are allowed and what punishments are not.

There's only one thing you do with sword.

Yes - and the kinds of law which deal with punishments (whether those be sacrifices or the death penalty) are no longer relevant.

Not true. Not one place in scripture will you see that this has been overturned.

As the word for Sword is derived from the word Machomai which can be transalted as bandit, rebel etc - I think this reinforces my interpretation and further weakens yours.

I think you're confusing Machomai, which doesn't mean "bandit" or "rebel", by the way, with Machaira, which is the word Jesus uses here and refers to a real, literal sword.

In fact, it's the same word we get the word, "machette" from.

(And ignore the key word curse?)

It's not the key word. The cursing is only being done in the context of the persecuting.

It makes no difference, no matter how you twist and turn you cannot make this passage (and the others which say the same) consistent with the vs 38 and 39, or with your interpretation of Luke, which I believe is in error.

And you have not provided one verse of scripture to demonstrate your case, nor have you refuted any of the verses I've posted, other than to say, "no it isn't".

You can be persecuted by being robbed, thrown in jail, taxed exessively, prevented from working, travelling, by being killed.

But the context tells us that Jesus is speaking of being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel.

So you are suggesting that faced with Bandits the diciples should question whether they are being robbed because of their faith and then once that is established they should decide whether or not to fight? I don't see that distinction being made.

No, I'm stating outright that Jesus told them to buy swords to protect themselves with on their missionary journeys.

There is only ONE example of a diciple using a sword in defense and he is immediately rebuked.

Yes, and notice that Peter isn't rebuked for the act, itself, but for his foolishness in trying to take on a an entire squad of Roman soldiers by himself.

A mistaken one one amongst many mistaken beliefs. There is still no bearing between this image of the messiah and capital punishment. Again, you are mixing up the events of judgement with how we shoudl conduct ourselves NOW.

And, as I've already explained to you I never posted that as an attempt to justify capital punishment.

It's disingenuous on your part to ask me for verses of scripture and then set up a straw man, based on verses of scripture that you asked for, and apply them to an argument that I never made.

I don't see what bearing ANY of this has on Capital Punishment.

You didn't ask for verses that demonstrated capital punishment, you asked for verses that showed that the Israelites believed that the Lord is a warrior.

There are a lot of things in the OT which are specific to that time. The death penalty is one of the puishments which we no longer need to observe

So then, why is it repeated in the NT?

- all the punishments prescribed have been swept away and replaced by the gift of Grace.

We're not talking about grace, we're talking about the right and responsibility given to the state by God to judge crimes and carry out the punishment for them.

If you wish to use the Old Covenant Law as an argument for the death Penalty

I don't. I haven't said anything about the Old Covenant Law. That's you and neverstop who are arguing that.

As shown Romans 13 does not speak to the appropriateness of the Death Penalty.

And I have demonstrated that it does. So I guess we're at an impasse.

So far your argument hinges on two doubtful interpretations of two New Testament passages, neither of which directly refer to the death penalty

Both of the NT instances I've cited refer directly to the death penalty.

and the fact that the death penalty existed under part of the Old covenant, which has been replaced.

Again, we're not talking about the Old vs New Covenants. This is repeated in the NT apart from any discussion about the Covenants.

The point concerning Gods right to judge, and his actions while preparing the people of Israel for the coming of Christ has no bearing on the death penalty whatsoever. It is really a very precarious argument.

And, as I explained to you before, it wasn't meant to be an edorsement, only an explanation.

ScottishJohn · Dec 12, 2005

12volt_man said:
Among others,

The sword - The instrument of capital punishment, which God authorizes him to inflict. - Wesley's Explanatory Notes
on the Whole Bible, Romans 13:4

For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 6 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 c revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

(6) God has armed the magistrate even with an avenging sword.
(c) By whom God avenges the wicked. - GSB, Romans 13:4

So someone else made the same mistake based on the same logical leap that you did - so what - what you present from Wesley is a blank statement, no argument no nothing and as such holds no value. Aquinas said it meant something quite different - he was also wrong, and using scripture to justify something that it was not speaking to in the first place. I'm sure if we looked long enough we could find some lunatic that thought this passage was about aliens. Wesley writes some pretty good hymns, but I am yet to be impressed by his notes on the bible. Now if you presented an argument as to WHY we should interpret this passage as having anything to do with capital punishment at all especially considering the context of Jesus other teachings on violence and punishment, then we might get somewhere.

The word wrath in this passage is the word Orge which can correctly be translated as 'punishments by magistrates'. The word Minister is Diakonos which means 'servant' or 'one who executes the commands of another'. The word revenger is Ekdikos which means 'exacting penalty from one', and is derived from the word Dike which means amongst other things 'a judicial hearing' 'to suffer punishment' and was also the name of the Greek Goddess of Justice who was often depicted holding the sword or staff and scales. Your authorisation for capital punishment then is based entirely on the sentence 'for he beareth not the sword in vain' which appears within the context recognisable legal terms. There is no good reason to suppose that the sword appears in this passage a symbol of capital punishment as opposed to a symbol of justice, other than your desire to add to the text that which is not there, and also that which is in conflict with previous teachings such as the verses in Matthew.

12volt_man said:
The Jews: Genesis 40:19;

lets just look at that verse!

Genisis 40:19 Yet within three days shall Pharaoh lift up thy head from off thee, and shall hang thee on a tree; and the birds shall eat thy flesh from off thee.

So the sword was possibly an instrument of capital punishment under EGYPTIAN law? So what!

12volt_man said:
1 Samuel 15:33

33And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

So the Samuel killed a foreign King for killing Jews. Again this is not a very typical example of Jewish employment of the death penalty. A) because Agag was not a Jewish citizen and therefore not subject to Jewish law and B) because you know fine well that the normal method of execution under the Jews was by being stoned to death.

You have provided two examples, neither of which depict the Jews using the Sword an instrument capital punishment. Here are 8 examples of stoning being used as a method of Capital Punishment by the Jews.

Exodus 19:13, Leviticus 24:10, Numbers 15:36, Numbers 7:25, 1 Kings 12:18, 1 Kings 21:13, 2 Chronicles 10:18, 2 Chronicles 24:21.

12volt_man said:
The Romans: Mark 6:16,27;

Herod had John the Baptist beheaded NOT because he was guilty of any crime (which in itself precludes it being a form of capital punishment), NOT because it was a recognised punishment, but because his perverted and grudge holding sister in law whome he had married demanded John the Baptists head on a plate.

12volt_man said:
Acts 12:2

The passage even states that this was an act of persecution - so why are you using it as an example of justice?

We all know that Crucifiction was the method of capital punishment reserved for those who were not Roman citizens. Apart from the evidence of Christs crucifiction (along with the two theives) there is plenty of non biblical documentation to support this if you really need it. The Bible is good enough for me.

12volt_man said:
And the fact that I've provided scripture to back up my points, while you have not, shows that your is weaker.

we have both referred to the same scripture - we interpret it differently. The scriptures you have subsequently provided do not strengthen your argument in the slightest as I have shown that all of them are irrelevant by referring to what they actually say as opposed to just posting the reference.

2volt_man said:
But murder is punishable by death all throughout the Bible.

Galatians 3 specifically states that the Jews were under the law only until Christ came.

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come.

I don't see any Christians in support of the death penalty, nor is the death penalty mentioned in connection with Christians carrying it out throughout the New Testament.

12volt_man said:
I've provided scripture that demonstrates this very thing.

No you have provided an incorrect interpretation which relies on a logical leap to demonstrate why YOU believe this to be so. I have pointed out why this scripture does not mean what you say it does. YOU have provided a scripture which demonstrates that there are consequences to not obeying the government but NOT that those consequences include death.

12volt_man said:
I've said no such thing. In fact, I've been very consistent in saying that we judge crime and carry out punishments for those crimes because God has estanblished that as the role of just governments.

So if that is NOT what your argument has been WHY bring up the issue of God's judgement in the first place? What point were you making when you said:

12volt_man said:
There are examples of Christ bring violence when He comes again.

12volt_man said:
To that end, I have provided scripture to demonstrate this.

Again, you have provided one scripture which does not demonstrate this, and then a lot of other unrelated scripture.

12volt_man said:
There's only one thing you do with sword.

Rubbish. The sword is a symbol of power and justice. It is part of many crown jewels in many countries including Scotland. The sword is used to assign honors and a symbol of justice. It used to sit on a plinth at the front of some courts as a symbol of justice - but was never used in those courts for the purpose of executions. The rope sufficed.

12volt_man said:
Not true. Not one place in scripture will you see that this has been overturned.

Correct - not one, but several. Here are a few more - (I have already posted part of Galatians 3) :

Romans 3:21

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Romans 9:30

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

Romans 10:4

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Galatians 2:21

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Galatians 3:19-23

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

12volt_man said:
I think you're confusing Machomai, which doesn't mean "bandit" or "rebel", by the way, with Machaira, which is the word Jesus uses here and refers to a real, literal sword.

In fact, it's the same word we get the word, "machette" from.

IF you stop for a moment and read what I posted:

ME said:
As the word for Sword is derived from the word Machomai which can be transalted as bandit, rebel etc - I think this reinforces my interpretation and further weakens yours.

You will see that I did indeed say that the word for sword (which you point out correctly is Machaira ) is DERIVED from the word Machomai which it is anyone can see the similarity between them, and Thayer and Smith give the root of Machaira as Mache (to fight) which is in turn derived from Machomai as I correctly stated. Which WAS used in reference to bandits and rebels. The primary definition is 'armed combatants'.

12volt_man said:
It's not the key word. The cursing is only being done in the context of the persecuting.

What about 'do not resist an evil person' in the previous verses - is that not part of the context? Like I said one can twist it around as much as one likes but one gets further and further from the truth.

12volt_man said:
And you have not provided one verse of scripture to demonstrate your case, nor have you refuted any of the verses I've posted, other than to say, "no it isn't".

We have in the main been discussing the same pieces of scripture. I have provided plenty more than 'No it isn't' which is demonstrated by the length of our posts. Perhaps you should read again.

12volt_man said:
But the context tells us that Jesus is speaking of being persecuted for the sake of the Gospel.

So you are saying that Christ says we shoudl accept persecution for the sake of our faith, but resist anyone who tries to take our possessions for reasons unconnected with faith? I think scripture would disagree. Matthew 5:38-42.

12volt_man said:
No, I'm stating outright that Jesus told them to buy swords to protect themselves with on their missionary journeys.

Yet he was happy with two swords between 11? Seriously? He said nothing about protection, indeed he demonstrated exactly how they had not been in need of protection previously. He says that they must have swords to fulfill the prophecy.

12volt_man said:
Yes, and notice that Peter isn't rebuked for the act, itself, but for his foolishness in trying to take on a an entire squad of Roman soldiers by himself.

Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. 51With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

Matthew 26

52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?"

Mark 14

46The men seized Jesus and arrested him. 47Then one of those standing near drew his sword and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear.

48"Am I leading a rebellion," said Jesus, "that you have come out with swords and clubs to capture me? 49Every day I was with you, teaching in the temple courts, and you did not arrest me. But the Scriptures must be fulfilled."

Luke 22

9When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" 50And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

51But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

52Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, "Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs? 53Every day I was with you in the temple courts, and you did not lay a hand on me. But this is your hourwhen darkness reigns."

John 18

11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

I think it is pretty clear that you are mistaken.

12volt_man said:
And, as I've already explained to you I never posted that as an attempt to justify capital punishment.

So why did you post it I assumed you were posting something relevant to your argument in favour of capital punishment.

12volt_man said:
It's disingenuous on your part to ask me for verses of scripture and then set up a straw man, based on verses of scripture that you asked for, and apply them to an argument that I never made.

So what was the purpose of posting

"There are examples of the Lord being a warrior." in a thread about capital punishment?

12volt_man said:
You didn't ask for verses that demonstrated capital punishment, you asked for verses that showed that the Israelites believed that the Lord is a warrior.

Only because you had put that forward as an unexplained argument in this thread, and I wanted to know what you were arguing for.

12volt_man said:
So then, why is it repeated in the NT?

It is not. I have shown why the verses you have used do not constitute a repetition of capital punishment, unless you have more than just Romans 13?

12volt_man said:
We're not talking about grace, we're talking about the right and responsibility given to the state by God to judge crimes and carry out the punishment for them.

I am talking about Grace because Grace is why the death penalty is surplus to requirements.

12volt_man said:
I don't. I haven't said anything about the Old Covenant Law. That's you and neverstop who are arguing that.

But you said:

There are examples of God instituting the death penalty. There are examples of God carrying out capital punishment.

12volt_man said:
And I have demonstrated that it does. So I guess we're at an impasse.

Except you have not. I have offered arguments as to why bearing a sword does not translate to the death penalty. You have offered nothing other than someone else who has made the same mistake.

12volt_man said:
Both of the NT instances I've cited refer directly to the death penalty.

I have covered this extensively one refers to justice and the other to a fulfillment of prophesy.

12volt_man said:
Again, we're not talking about the Old vs New Covenants. This is repeated in the NT apart from any discussion about the Covenants.

Where is it repeated? Certainly not in either of the verses you seek to use to bolster your argument.

12volt_man said:
And, as I explained to you before, it wasn't meant to be an edorsement, only an explanation.

So God does NOT endorse capital punishment?

12volt_man · Dec 12, 2005

ScottishJohn said:
So someone else made the same mistake based on the same logical leap that you did

Given Wesley's history and standing as one of the giants of the faith, I'm more incluned to take his word over yours.

which is in conflict with previous teachings such as the verses in Matthew.

OK. What about Romans 13 do you believe contradicts what verses in Matther?

So the sword was possibly an instrument of capital punishment under EGYPTIAN law? So what!

So it shows that the Jews did know the sword as an instrument of execution.

You have provided two examples, neither of which depict the Jews using the Sword an instrument capital punishment.

First of all, we're talking about the Romans, so I'm not sure what difference that makes.

Second, you asked for examples. I gave you examples. You're free to accept them or reject them.

Here are 8 examples of stoning being used as a method of Capital Punishment by the Jews.

Is someone arguing that stoning wasn't a method of execution by the Jews?

The passage even states that this was an act of persecution - so why are you using it as an example of justice?

I'm not. I'm using it as an example of the Romans knowing the sword as an instrument of execution.

The Bible is good enough for me.

Evidently not.

I have shown that all of them are irrelevant by referring to what they actually say as opposed to just posting the reference.

No, you said. You didn't show.

Galatians 3 specifically states that the Jews were under the law only until Christ came.

And, for the umpteenth time, we're not talking about the law.

I don't see any Christians in support of the death penalty, nor is the death penalty mentioned in connection with Christians carrying it out throughout the New Testament.

It is given to the government. Christians may be a part of the government.

YOU have provided a scripture which demonstrates that there are consequences to not obeying the government but NOT that those consequences include death.

I did. You rejected it.

but was never used in those courts for the purpose of executions.

We're not talking about these courts.

Correct - not one, but several. Here are a few more - (I have already posted part of Galatians 3) :

Romans 3:21

But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.

Romans 9:30

What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; but Israel, who pursued a law of righteousness, has not attained it.

Romans 10:4

Christ is the end of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes.

Galatians 2:21

I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

Galatians 3:19-23

19What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was put into effect through angels by a mediator. 20A mediator, however, does not represent just one party; but God is one.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law. 22But the Scripture declares that the whole world is a prisoner of sin, so that what was promised, being given through faith in Jesus Christ, might be given to those who believe.

23Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. 24So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ[h] that we might be justified by faith. 25Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.

Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So you are saying that Christ says we shoudl accept persecution for the sake of our faith, but resist anyone who tries to take our possessions for reasons unconnected with faith? I think scripture would disagree. Matthew 5:38-42.

No one is talking about "an eye for an eye".

It is not. I have shown why the verses you have used do not constitute a repetition of capital punishment, unless you have more than just Romans 13?

I have cited much more than Romans 13.

Except you have not.

I have. I've offered scripture and I've offered the opinions of schoalrs much more reputable than you or I.

I have offered arguments as to why bearing a sword does not translate to the death penalty. You have offered nothing other than someone else who has made the same mistake.

Not true. I've shown numerous scriptures.

So God does NOT endorse capital punishment?

God not only endorses capital punishment, He has ordained the government to carry it out.

ScottishJohn · Dec 12, 2005

12volt_man said:
Given Wesley's history and standing as one of the giants of the faith, I'm more incluned to take his word over yours.

Reputation is just a mixture of vanity pride and misplaced faith. Wesley was a man just like many others. The fact that there is no explanation or reasonable account as to how he arrived at his interpretation which you posted (just as you have not supplied an account of WHY that sentence 'bear the sword in vain' must refer to capital punishment) is my main problem with the interpretation.

12volt_man said:
OK. What about Romans 13 do you believe contradicts what verses in Matthew?

There is nothing in Romans 13 which contradicts Matthew 5, it is in your interpretation of Romans 13 that I see the contradictions. You take Romans 13 to be a statement of God Authorising rulers to use capital punishment. You then transfer that interpretation to apply to the US saying that this means that it is ordained by God that the US should have the death penalty. By doing so you arrive at a situation where the Christian people of the US are in a situation where they are on the one hand told to bless those who curse and pray for those who persecute and turn the other cheek, while at the same time supporting the death penalty. THAT is the contradiction.

12volt_man said:
So it shows that the Jews did know the sword as an instrument of execution.

Not under their law, and one instance in history in a foreign land does not make 'familiarity'. You have found one example of a foreign power using it and somehow manage to turn that into a familiarity?

12volt_man said:
First of all, we're talking about the Romans, so I'm not sure what difference that makes.

Sorry meant Romans. Slip of the keyboard!

12volt_man said:
Second, you asked for examples. I gave you examples. You're free to accept them or reject them.

Except that what you posted were NOT examples of what you say they were. It is not a case of my accepting or not accepting it is a case of fact vs fiction.

12volt_man said:
Is someone arguing that stoning wasn't a method of execution by the Jews?

Someone is arguing that two scriptural references which provide no examples of the Jews using the sword for capital punishment somehow means that the Jews were familiar with the sword as an instrument of capital punishment. I am arguing that IF the passage in Romans 13 was to carry a meaning which spoke specifically to capital punishment then the stone which I posted 8 references for would have been a more appropriate weapon for the ruler to bear.

12volt_man said:
I'm not. I'm using it as an example of the Romans knowing the sword as an instrument of execution.

Oh execution - so you accept that the example has nothing to do with an argument concerning capital punishment.

12volt_man said:
Evidently not.

What?

12volt_man said:
No, you said. You didn't show.

What?! You posted 4 references NONE of which were what you were posting them as evidence of, and I posted them and explained why. If you disagree then

12volt_man said:
And, for the umpteenth time, we're not talking about the law.

Actually - you were talking about the law. You stated that murder was punishable by death all through the bible. Galatians 3 demonstrates that this is not so.

12volt_man said:
It is given to the government. Christians may be a part of the government.

Is there any basis to this other than your interpretation of Romans 13? Otherwise where does your assertion that murder is punishable by death all
through the bible come from?

12volt_man said:
I did. You rejected it.

Where did you prove that those consequences include death? I rejected a blank statement to that effect, I don't remember being offered any supportive argument for it.

12volt_man said:
We're not talking about these courts.

You asked what else a sword can be used for. Make up your mind.

12volt_man said:
Irrelevant. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

Oh but it does - it has everything to do with your statement which has been demonstrated to be false.

12volt_man said:
No one is talking about "an eye for an eye".

a life for a life?

12volt_man said:
I have cited much more than Romans 13.

Not in support of the death penalty.

12volt_man said:
I have. I've offered scripture and I've offered the opinions of schoalrs much more reputable than you or I.

Your argument still boils down to a misunderstanding of that one passage from Romans 13. And one quote from Wesley who demonstrates a similar misunderstanding, but now how he arrived at it.

12volt_man said:
Not true. I've shown numerous scriptures.

Scriptures which support your interpretation of Romans 13? Where?

12volt_man said:
God not only endorses capital punishment, He has ordained the government to carry it out.

Where?

Death Penalty Question

Could you personally perform the execution?

Yes

No

Maybe depending on the mode of death.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Rygel

Guest

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

Snazzy Title Goes Here

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

the purpose of life is a life of purpose

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Senior Veteran

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Similar threads