Is this true?

[BelindaP]

It's not as inconsistent as it sounds. Ananias and Sapphira were killed to make a point to the new church, that the Holy Spirit was not one to whom one should lie. There are also other unknown things about Ananias and Sapphira. But, I don't want to derail the thread with a discussion of those.

I'll just reiterate that I go back and forth on capital punishment myself. I haven't been firmly convicted one way or the other yet.

 

[IamRedeemed]

I agree with you. It is a struggle for most of us. I know there is nothing in the
Word that tells us to house them, feed them, and sustain them for life either.

We are all subject to the law. Even as believers. Hopefully as
believers, we would not be in a position to be judged by
the law for lawless deeds.

If we as the beloved of God are even subjected to the government
of man, why then would or should we expect the government of
the lawless to rule under the law of God's grace when God is
not even allowed in the courtroom or in our public schools?

It's not as inconsistent as it sounds. Ananias and Sapphira were killed to make a point to the new church, that the Holy Spirit was not one to whom one should lie. There are also other unknown things about Ananias and Sapphira. But, I don't want to derail the thread with a discussion of those.

I'll just reiterate that I go back and forth on capital punishment myself. I haven't been firmly convicted one way or the other yet.

 

[Albion]

All the examples given so far are OT though. If you read the NT much more is spoken of mercy than judgement.

Excuse me, but I was responding to the event in the Bible which YOU chose and said that it spoke volumes to you.

Now, apparently it no longer does.

So OK, let's turn to the replacement "speaks volumes" and see what it shows us.

When the woman caught in adultery was about to be stoned. Jesus said to carry out the punishment the person should be himself without sin and when no man was left standing Jesus himself was the only one qualified to stone her. And yet he said, neither do I condemn you. This speaks volumes, God chose not to enforce the punishment that the written law required. He forgave and instead offered mercy and not judgement.

Jesus was talking about "FORGIVENESS" for sin there, not criminality prosecution.

Do you have any reason to think that Jesus would have taken it upon himself to execute the woman? Of course not. He was, as a human, obedient to the government, and unlike your first example of God the Father in the Garden, not about to do anything like striking her dead regardless of the crime or sin.

Albion you keep refering to whether it is right because the governement allows it.

That's because this is what we are talking about--Capital Punishment. Withouht government, we can't discuss Capital Punishment. We are not speaking of any individual taking it upon himself to kill anyone he thinks has offended him or anyone else.

Well that for me doesn't cut it.

I know that. All I can do is show you that the Bible does not give us any reason to think that Capital Punishment is wrong. However, I find it hard to follow your logic when you first cite God as not killing Cain, saying this speaks to you, then saying that you want NT example instead, and then when someone (else) gives you one or two examples, you say that this doesn't matter since it was God doing it, not the state. Well, what did your example of GOD not killing Cain "speak volumes" to you about, then, or the example of Jesus (who was/is God) and the woman at the well that you turned to next?

The authorities also make it legal to do many other evil things and stay on the side of man's law and yet violating God's law.

And that means...what? We're talking about Capital Punishment as permissible, not evaluating on this thread all the "other evil things" that governments can and often do engage in.

Well, of course, I don't know anyone who says that everything the government does is right. What I am saying is that it has the right of Capital Punishment. It has a Godly role to play in the maintenance of the social order and that the Bible does not deny the death penalty to the state.

 

[SolomonVII]

As a last resort, as a method to rescue a society from impending chaos, the death penalty may be the least offensive means to bring this about. it is after all, a better option than open insurrection or warfare.

But in the interests of being as fully committed to life as possible, there are other means rather than the death penalty to protect society at large from the very violent.

Unfortunately, too many of the most violent are re-entering society at large to re-offend again.
And even in jails, too many of the most violent are allowed to carry on their campaigns of violence against those who are merely criminal, thereby perpetuating their cylce of violence with those who eventuallyt will be released.

So until problems such as that are dealt with properly, the death penalty will maintain its current levels of popular support among conservatives, or even those not so conservatively inclined.

 

[Cromwe11]

Yes, but God could have imposed the sentence Himself. The fact that He chose not to do so speaks volumes to me.

Actually, it is largely because of the fact that there was no law that Cain was not sentanced to death. To my knowledge there is no record prior to the flood that God ever imposed a punishment on anyone for anything except for Adam, Eve, and the Serpent. In the case of Adam and Eve, I don't actually believe it was a punishment per say, so much as simply the natural consequence of their choice.

After the flood God gives to Noah the covenant which allows the establishment of human governments and allows for punishment of crime. Divine law was still not given until Moses though.

The specific reason why God gave Noah the right to establish governments was to protect the righteous from the wicked.
In the pre-flood world there was nothing in place to prevent the strong from preying on the weak, and to prevent the wicked from preying upon the righteous. The result was that eventually, Noah and his family were the only good people left on earth, and had God not stepped in, they would have perrished and goodness would have been completely gone from among mankind. That is what happens when there is no government and no law.

 

[kasprinkle]

I am a strong supporter of the death penalty. I think there are some things so awful that they make you have to give up your "Human Club Card".
That being said, I'm relatively new here; came here in the midst of alot of anger and turmoil on the forum. I'm totally impressed with the level of agreeable disagreement on this thread. This is a loaded issue, but the discussion has not decended into personal insults...awesome!

 

[ChristianCenturion]

I wouldn't say that I necessarily 'support' the death penalty as much as I can see it being a legitimate consequence that the citizens of a country support-in-whole for heinous or repeated violent crimes.

Would I prefer it to be removed as one of the legitimate possible penalties?
I probably would prefer it to be removed. My Catholic brethren have outlined a compelling argument for life with regard to this topic that I respect and can agree with.

But there again and if it were 'dependent' on my opinion, I would also prefer our entire incarceration system to be overhauled even to include the alteration of its foundations. Our overpopulated prison system churning out repeat offenders and hardened 'professional' criminals seems to be what the current system produces by increasing amounts each year.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Excuse me, but I was responding to the event in the Bible which YOU chose and said that it spoke volumes to you.

Now, apparently it no longer does.

So OK, let's turn to the replacement "speaks volumes" and see what it shows us.



Jesus was talking about "FORGIVENESS" for sin there, not criminality prosecution.

Do you have any reason to think that Jesus would have taken it upon himself to execute the woman? Of course not. He was, as a human, obedient to the government, and unlike your first example of God the Father in the Garden, not about to do anything like striking her dead regardless of the crime or sin.



That's because this is what we are talking about--Capital Punishment. Withouht government, we can't discuss Capital Punishment. We are not speaking of any individual taking it upon himself to kill anyone he thinks has offended him or anyone else.



I know that. All I can do is show you that the Bible does not give us any reason to think that Capital Punishment is wrong. However, I find it hard to follow your logic when you first cite God as not killing Cain, saying this speaks to you, then saying that you want NT example instead, and then when someone (else) gives you one or two examples, you say that this doesn't matter since it was God doing it, not the state. Well, what did your example of GOD not killing Cain "speak volumes" to you about, then, or the example of Jesus (who was/is God) and the woman at the well that you turned to next?



And that means...what? We're talking about Capital Punishment as permissible, not evaluating on this thread all the "other evil things" that governments can and often do engage in.

Well, of course, I don't know anyone who says that everything the government does is right. What I am saying is that it has the right of Capital Punishment. It has a Godly role to play in the maintenance of the social order and that the Bible does not deny the death penalty to the state.

Albion,
you misquoted me, previous posters mentioned OT examples, I did not. I used the example of the woman because within the law, which the Jews followed and was allowed under Roman Governing at the time. Jesus could have stoned her and enforced the law. The men there were about to stone the woman and were within the law. The fact Jesus did not take her life speaks volumes to me. He forgave her and gave her another chance.

Being involved in prison ministries, I saw a different side to what society has written off as animals and saw hurting, abused people in many cases. Does that excuse their crimes? Absolutely not, but is capital punishment morally right? I believe it is not.

There are many arguments for and against the death penaly, but the bottom line is not whether the death penalty is allowed under law as you keep reinterating but is it right before God?

In my opinion it is not our place to take a mans life, for that life was breathed into him by God and it is God who will make that call not me. I believe in harsher reforms within the penal system but not death.

We do not have the death penalty in the UK, in fact few first world countries do now, so it is not an issue for me. However if we did, I would certainly lobby our government to change this. There is nowhere written in the NT that says a Government should use Capital Punishment as part of law and order.

What I am saying is that it has the right of Capital Punishment. It has a Godly role to play in the maintenance of the social order and that the Bible does not deny the death penalty to the state.

I am interested in the above quote, so can you provide scriptual proof that the government has this right?

 

[TexasBluebonnet]

Just wanted to add my voice to this. Yes, I support the death penalty and yes I am a Conservative Christian American. So...I guess I fall into that statistic, huh?

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Albion,
you misquoted me, previous posters mentioned OT examples, I did not. I used the example of the woman because within the law, which the Jews followed and was allowed under Roman Governing at the time. Jesus could have stoned her and enforced the law. The men there were about to stone the woman and were within the law. The fact Jesus did not take her life speaks volumes to me. He forgave her and gave her another chance...

I don't believe the above is a correct statement.
The account in John 8 doesn't say that the woman was brought before the Sanhedrin, the man that was 'with her' was mysteriously missing, and we know that Jesus was not the Sanhedrin.

In fact, the account in John 8 specifically says the intent of bringing the woman before Jesus was to trap, test, or tempt Jesus (depending on what translation you prefer).

 

[Albion]

Albion,
you misquoted me, previous posters mentioned OT examples, I did not. I used the example of the woman because within the law, which the Jews followed and was allowed under Roman Governing at the time. Jesus could have stoned her and enforced the law. The men there were about to stone the woman and were within the law. The fact Jesus did not take her life speaks volumes to me. He forgave her and gave her another chance.

I don't believe that I quoted you at all, but yes, it does appear upon looking back that it was another poster who raised that particular point about the OT. The fact that Jesus did not kill the woman, of course, doesn't add anyting to a discussion of Capital Punishment one way or the other.

Being involved in prison ministries, I saw a different side to what society has written off as animals and saw hurting, abused people in many cases. Does that excuse their crimes? Absolutely not, but is capital punishment morally right? I believe it is not.

I am just going by the Biblical standard which I think was once the focus of the discussion. Individuals can well have a personal or practical reluctance about Capital Punishment, and that is fine with me. I even made the point before anyone else. But as to whether it is moral or not, we have only the Bible to decide that for us.

There are many arguments for and against the death penaly, but the bottom line is not whether the death penalty is allowed under law as you keep reinterating but is it right before God?

Yes. It has been taught in the Church for two thousand years, and some of the greatest theologians have reiterated the justness of Capital Punishment. The OT prescribed the death penalty in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. In the New Testament, which seems to have become the last line of defense for opposition here to the Death Penalty, we have John 19: 10-11, Acts 25:11, and Romans 13:3-4.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

I don't believe the above is a correct statement.
The account in John 8 doesn't say that the woman was brought before the Sanhedrin, the man that was 'with her' was mysteriously missing, and we know that Jesus was not the Sanhedrin.

In fact, the account in John 8 specifically says the intent of bringing the woman before Jesus was to trap, test, or tempt Jesus (depending on what translation you prefer).

Adultery was punishable by death, stoning for the worst cases. It formed part of Jewish law, and allowed under Roman law. The Pharisees and scribes were part of the Sanhedrin and should have taken her to the ecclesaistical court. Jesus was teaching in the temple courts at the time and yes they saught to trick Him as they had failed the day before.

Interestingly this woman was caught during the last day of the festival where much drinking and feasting would have been going on, which no doubt some of these religious folk were involved in and the absence of the male, well my feeling is that he was someone important, maybe one of them and they let him go. Remember she was caught in the act so 2 people were discovered. And death could be awarded as a punishment without mercy, if there were 2 or 3 witnesses (see Hebrews)

But anyway Jesus, this friend of prostitutes and sinners would he uphold the law given by Moses in which case they would have argued who was he to judge or would he as a self procalimed teacher, come out with some new law. Either way would be wrong so hence was a trap. Jesus knew this so didn't seek to denounce the law but instead places a caveat on administering justice.

Jesus could have said, take her to the court and let it be decided under the testimony of witnesses. But he didn't he asked that if they were without sin to cast the first stone. When they had left, only Jesus fulfilled the criteria but he said neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more and he let her go.

So provision under the law of both of the church (Mosaic law) and state (Roman governship) allowed the woman to be put to death. Jesus released her from that because he moved on the consciences of those present and requested that the first stone be cast by a man with no sin. Since there were no accusers she could not be brought to trial and therefore not be stoned.

This is the verse that speaks to me. The law allowed death but Jesus by removing her accusers (any witnesses) acquitted her.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Albion, you said

Excuse me, but I was responding to the event in the Bible which YOU chose and said that it spoke volumes to you.

Now, apparently it no longer does.

So OK, let's turn to the replacement "speaks volumes" and see what it shows us

This is the part I meant about misquoting as I did not say these things, I believe Belinda did. But hey not a problem, once a thread goes on a few pages unless I reread, I lose who said what to, so no matter.

I am just going by the Biblical standard which I think was once the focus of the discussion. Individuals can well have a personal or practical reluctance about Capital Punishment, and that is fine with me. I even made the point before anyone else. But as to whether it is moral or not, we have only the Bible to decide that for us.

I asked 'Can you provide a moral example from the bible then that upholds this position?' and you gave some examples. So let's look at one of them....

In John for example Jesus says the authorities are not guilty for carrying out the sentence but the people are. The ones who sentenced Jesus to death were the Jews the Romans simply carried out the punishment.

10 "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

This is what I have been trying to get across. The authorities administer justice, but who decides guilty or not guilty? We do. A man is tried by a jury of his peers, they decide if he lives or dies, the state carry out the wishes of the people.

Jesus said they were guilty. So there you have it morally wrong.

The Jews tried him for a crime, that under their law was punishable by death, Rome disagreed but went along with it.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Yes. It has been taught in the Church for two thousand years, and some of the greatest theologians have reiterated the justness of Capital Punishment.

Not factually true,The official teachings of Judaism approve the death penalty in principle but the standard of proof required for application of death penalty is extremely stringent, and in practice, it has been abolished by various Talmudic decisions, making the situations in which a death sentence could be passed effectively impossible and hypothetical. "Forty years before the destruction" of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD, i.e. in 30 AD, the Sanhedrin effectively abolished capital punishment, making it a hypothetical upper limit on the severity of punishment, fitting in finality for God alone to use, not fallible people.

The Lambeth Conference of Anglican and Episcopalian bishops condemned the death penalty in 1988.

The Catholic Church denounced it under Pope John Paul

The methodist oppose it.

I could go on but you get my point.

 

[Albion]

This is the part I meant about misquoting as I did not say these things, I believe Belinda did.

I understand, but you said that I had misQUOTED you. The only quote in that is "speaks volumes" which was taken from what Belinda said.

But hey not a problem, once a thread goes on a few pages unless I reread, I lose who said what to, so no matter.

So true.

I asked 'Can you provide a moral example from the bible then that upholds this position?' and you gave some examples. So let's look at one of them....

In John for example Jesus says the authorities are not guilty for carrying out the sentence but the people are. The ones who sentenced Jesus to death were the Jews the Romans simply carried out the punishment.

10 "Do you refuse to speak to me?" Pilate said. "Don't you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?" 11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

This is what I have been trying to get across. The authorities administer justice, but who decides guilty or not guilty? We do. A man is tried by a jury of his peers, they decide if he lives or dies, the state carry out the wishes of the people.

But you overlooked the part I've highlighted for us in red. Here Jesus is clearly saying that the power to execute criminals is from God. That answers the question, "Is it moral?"

Jesus said they were guilty. So there you have it morally wrong.

Jesus was saying that they were prosecuting an innocent man (the "handing over.")

THAT is the part of this for which they were guilty, not for administering the death penalty itself.

He'd already identified Capital Punishment as being a responsibility given to men from God, so that is where Jesus teaches that the death penalty is moral.

The Jews tried him for a crime, that under their law was punishable by death, Rome disagreed but went along with it.

I notice that you did nothing with the other verses I gave you. Let's look at them also, shall we? After all, you asked for them: "so can you provide scriptual proof that the government has this right?"

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Adultery was punishable by death, stoning for the worst cases. It formed part of Jewish law, and allowed under Roman law. The Pharisees and scribes were part of the Sanhedrin and should have taken her to the ecclesaistical court. Jesus was teaching in the temple courts at the time and yes they saught to trick Him as they had failed the day before.

Interestingly this woman was caught during the last day of the festival where much drinking and feasting would have been going on, which no doubt some of these religious folk were involved in and the absence of the male, well my feeling is that he was someone important, maybe one of them and they let him go. Remember she was caught in the act so 2 people were discovered. And death could be awarded as a punishment without mercy, if there were 2 or 3 witnesses (see Hebrews)

But anyway Jesus, this friend of prostitutes and sinners would he uphold the law given by Moses in which case they would have argued who was he to judge or would he as a self procalimed teacher, come out with some new law. Either way would be wrong so hence was a trap. Jesus knew this so didn't seek to denounce the law but instead places a caveat on administering justice.

Jesus could have said, take her to the court and let it be decided under the testimony of witnesses. But he didn't he asked that if they were without sin to cast the first stone. When they had left, only Jesus fulfilled the criteria but he said neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more and he let her go.

So provision under the law of both of the church (Mosaic law) and state (Roman governship) allowed the woman to be put to death. Jesus released her from that because he moved on the consciences of those present and requested that the first stone be cast by a man with no sin. Since there were no accusers she could not be brought to trial and therefore not be stoned.

This is the verse that speaks to me. The law allowed death but Jesus by removing her accusers (any witnesses) acquitted her.

I believe the above would be a better revision than the previous "The men there were about to stone the woman and were within the law."

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

But you overlooked the part I've highlighted for us in red. Here Jesus is clearly saying that the power to execute criminals is from God. That answers the question, "Is it moral?"

I disagree, Jesus is talking about the fact that he had submitted to the Fathers will that he be tried for a crime he did not commit, before a cowardly judge who found no basis to convict him but was scared of the Jews who wanted conviction under their laws, Pilate had hoped a good whipping would have pacified the crowd but they wanted him tried by Rome, far crueller than their methods, plus it was not lawful for them to carry it out during their feasts so Pilate was used by them but still it was part of God's plan.

God had appointed Pilate for that time as part of his plan. It does not say that God favours the death penalty at all. Pilate did not want to kill him and makes that clear. Jesus is saying its all part of the plan and those who found me guilty and handed me over to you are the guilty ones.

Happy to look at the other scriptures if you like.

 

[PenelopePitstop2]

Albion,

Happy to talk through the other NT scriptures but before that can you answer the other parts I posted in reply please. I am intersted in your interpretation of these.

Also,
since nations vary in their view on this, in fact no EU country along with many other countries and also some US states don't carry out the DP any longer. Which authorities are God ordained in their views of this punishment? Seems to me if you cimmit the same crime whether you die o not depends simply on where you live, how is that moral?

Also you haven'y answered that most modern day theologians are now against this.

 

[Albion]

11 Jesus answered, "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin."

I disagree, Jesus is talking about the fact that he had submitted to the Fathers will that he be tried for a crime he did not commit, before a cowardly judge who found no basis to convict him but was scared of the Jews who wanted conviction under their laws,

That is to agree with me, not to disagree, I'd think.

Pilate had hoped a good whipping would have pacified the crowd but they wanted him tried by Rome, far crueller than their methods, plus it was not lawful for them to carry it out during their feasts so Pilate was used by them but still it was part of God's plan.

God had appointed Pilate for that time as part of his plan. It does not say that God favours the death penalty at all.

Well, yes it does, but if you still doubt it, read the entire passage. In vs. 10, which I gave you in the beginning at your request, we find that the words in red are qualified so that there is no question about this. Pilate says "Don't you realize that I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?"

THEN, we read "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above" in verse 11.

This means that the power specifically includes the power of execution, the part about it coming from God aside, as important as that still is.

Happy to look at the other scriptures if you like.

Well, that is why I offered them, because you asked.

In Romans 13:3-4 we read, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong...Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. Bur if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, and agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

The italicized words leave no doubt about the power being from God to the state and that it includes executions.

In Acts 25:11 we read, "If however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuset to die. But if the charges brought against me by these Jews are not true, no one has the right to hand me over to them. I appeal t Caesar."

Again, the power to execute is a "given" and is connected to the state.

Now, this is the Conservative Christian position. It has been the position of the Church throughout the ages, so that establishes it as the conservative position at the least. Now that we also see that it is in keeping with scripture, it is undeniably the Christian one. But also, we can appreciate anyone wanting to limit its use for practical reasons such as you've brought to our attention. That is fine. In fact, I have no exceptional opposition to doing without the death penalty altogether, which is a POV not shared by all the supporters of Capital Punishment, as we have seen here.

However, that is quite a separate question from "Is it moral?" It is moral, but if we as a society choose to do without it for any reason, that doesn't make it immoral, just something moral that we choose not to administer at this time and considering whatever circumstances we cite, just as was the case with Pilate who had the right to execute Jesus, but wanted not to do so.

 

[Cromwe11]

A couple of important points about the woman caught in adultery

#1, first the Law required that BOTH the man and the woman stand accused. To accuse the woman without the man was basically like trying someone for murder without a body.. it was a conspicuous breech of justice.

#2, the Law requiring death for adultery was part of the Mosaic covenant which mandated death for a number of crimes and was specific to Israel, not to any other people. This covenant had specific religious importance and the severity of the penalties involved were part of that. This covenant was coming to an end when Jesus arrived, thus the penalties of law under that covenant were no longer valid.

The death penalty for murder, on the other hand, was established by God's covenant with Noah which applies to ALL nations and is the basis for all human government.