marc p
Intermediate Member
Psalm 63:1
Posts: 66
|
Post by marc p on Feb 10, 2007 20:12:19 GMT -8
7/28/06:
My church's discussion forum, which has seen a decline since it first began (which is part of the reason I’ve turned here in my quest for intelligent discussions), was the original place where I posted my initial thoughts (below) on this topic. You can read the entire thread here (http://www.coramdeofellowship.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=216). The conversation got a little heated, but I am dear friends with the people with whom I had the conversation, so if you do go read the whole thing and the apparent conflict makes you feel uncomfortable, I hope you'll understand that this conversation took place between people who love and respect each other and it was healthy for us to disagree and challenge each other. The original question was related a post in which my friend Dave posted a blurb from a news report that "The jury in the US trial of confessed al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui has decided he is eligible to face the death penalty when he is sentenced." Dave (screenname: poetas) then asked the question, "What do you all think?"
Here was my response:
***
I don't like this topic because it is hard, but I am glad Dave asked his question. It is time for me (and frankly, all of us) to stop sidestepping difficult issues and face them like the men and women of God that we claim we so desire to be, and because this issue is actually a matter of life and death, I will give my response (or my silence would be my hypocrisy):
What do I think about it?
I think that I want every injustice in the world to be met with equal justice. I also think that if I got that wish, mankind would be extinct. I personally do not believe the death penalty has anything to do with being like Christ. My heart is murderous, and given the right set of circumstances, I'm sure I could kill someone, but I'd be jacked up for the rest of my own life (even if that person deserved death... which we all do) and I'd probably end up killing myself, too, because of the guilt. Paul said, "...let us be imitators of Christ." Jesus said "let him who is without sin cast the first stone" to the people who caught the woman in adultery (which was a crime punishable by death under the law of the day). He also said if someone strikes you (or knocks down your world trade center with planes) to "turn the other cheek." I have a great appreciation for the cost of freedom and the rights that Americans have, but I also believe that as Christians, we do not really have any rights.... we have a responsibility to be Christ to the world... and that is all.
Do I believe justice should be served? Yes, and it will.
Should that man pay for his crimes? Yes, and he will for eternity.
Should he have to pay for them now with his own life? I do not believe there is any room in grace for me to answer that question other than "no."
Should pathological killers be allowed to continue their crimes unpunished and unstopped? NO
What should we do if we aren't going to just kill Zacarias Moussaoui, and others like him? Put him in jail.
Won't that take more of my tax dollars? yes
When will the government ever begin to use those tax dollars well? I don't know... all I know is I don't believe that killing people is ever OK.
Are my beliefs liberal? Yes
Is grace liberal? Yes
Does God give grace liberally? Yes
HERE'S THE BOTTOM LINE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED:
I believe in the sanctity of human life. I believe the Bible teaches us this. Therefore, I believe that abortion is NOT pro-life, assisted suicide is NOT pro-life, war is NOT pro-life, and the death penalty is NOT pro-life. I cannot separate one from another. I believe that the sanctity of human life is universal, and none are excluded or exempt from it. None can forfeit it. Jesus Christ alone is the judge, and He will judge the quick and the dead in the Last Day. I cannot, and will not condemn a man to death.
May God have mercy on us all.
***
So, I’m going to pass the question on: What do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:14:03 GMT -8
7/30/06:
Thanks for posting this, Marc. I'm so all over this like a..... hmmm, well, anyway, I'll be posting a reply soon. I'm excited about these kinds of dialogues- not as opportunities to brow beat each other of course, but to flex our minds in a mutually beneficial way.
Aletheia has spent some time hammering out HOW to do this, as I'm sure you have as well. For the sake of others who want to join in as well, here are some of our values that embody our desire to discuss stuff like this enthusiastically and respectfully:
We are a community that desires to grow into holistic spiritual maturity: in faith, knowledge, and love (Eph. 4:11-16, Heb. 5:11-6:3, 2 Cor. 8:7)
We are a community in which it is safe to be honest and vulnerable (Eph. 4:25, James 5:16a, Gal. 6:1-2)
We are a community that is dedicated to the discipline of listening to others (James 1:19, James 3:17)
We are a community that strives to be respectful and sensitive to others in our words and actions, even in times of interpersonal conflict (1 Peter 3:15, Phil. 4:5, Eph. 4:26-27)
We are a community that values intellectual growth and curiosity about how all things relate to our faith (Prov. 1:5, 9:9, Acts 17:11)
We are a community that holds fast to the key doctrines of Christianity, defined as the clear teaching of Scripture and in line with the famous creeds of the early Church (2 Thess. 2:15, 1 Tim 4:16)
We are community that encourages learning and healthy debate about secondary issues of Christian doctrine or practice, but never at the cost of love and respect (Prov. 27:17, Prov. 15:22, 1 Tim 1:3-7, 1 Cor. 8:1, Titus 3:9-11)
We are a community with a variety of political, theological, and social views and accept this as a strength (1 Cor. 12:4-6, Romans 14:5-7)
Be back soon.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:14:51 GMT -8
7/30/06:
I'd like to address this question with a couple sequential points, this being the first.
“You shall not murder.” Exodus 20: 13
“But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death.” Exodus 21: 14
I guess first I’d like to point out that (at least in the Old Testament) murder is not the same as killing. Only one chapter after the 10 Commandments, the Israelites are told numerous times to put certain individuals to death. Obviously, either the Lord or Moses can’t put two and two together, or there is a difference between murder and killing.
The difference, technically, could be said to be this: murder is unlawful killing. Of course, one big question is how does one determine whether a killing is unlawful or not? That’s an important question (maybe the most important one), but for the sake of the argument so far, it seems if we grant that A) God is good and there is no evil in Him and B) God indeed did instruct Moses in these things, that it must follow that an act of killing is not necessarily a morally culpable act.
The Old Testament confronts us with the idea that some acts of killing in ‘capital punishment’ and war (including the killing of children in some limited cases) were not murder in God’s eyes (see Exodus 21 and Deuteronomy 20 for many examples). On that much, are we agreed?
Before I go too much further, I must say that one might very well argue that God has changed His instructions (or, to put it better, perhaps, has changed His way of dealing with humans) with the advent of Christ. That view, which to some degree I certainly agree with, we can look at next perhaps. Suffice for the moment to say, at the very least, that at certain times and places, according to the word of God, killing was not murder, but was rather sanctioned by God.
Two crucial sidenotes:
1) we must not say, even from this view, that any acts of killing aren’t 'evil' acts. The reason is that in English it’s not certain whether one means by that that the person committing the act is evil or whether the act in itself is evil. It also doesn’t distinguish whether the act is evil in the sense of ‘imperfection’ or positively ‘evil’.
Certainly all killing, even that commanded by God, is evil in the first sense- ‘imperfection’ resulting from the fall.
This is the reason I used the term "morally culpable" above.
2) One more side-note: I don’t think ‘capital punishment’ , as outlined in the Pentateuch degrades the sanctity of life. Rather, I think it highlights the value of life- life was so important that people who threatened it must lose their life so as not to continue in their state.
Similarly, we must not think that animals used in OT sacrifices were to be slaughtered in a cavalier manner. The sacrifice of animals (and ultimately Jesus) didn’t degrade their life, but elevated the importance of it.
Likewise, the Jewish law’s mandate that murderers be subjected to capital punishment doesn’t render the murderer’s life worthless- it actually appears to have been seen as an act preventing them from a continued degradation- another lesson of the OT is that there are far worse things than death.
But I don't expect that last point to go unchallenged.
Please know that I'm not interested in only presenting one side of the argument here. For now I'm just talking Old Testament, and in hypothetical situations. I realize that determining the appropriate response to particular situations is bewildering.
But I'm trying here to undercut what I see to be a fatal flaw of thorough-going 'pacifism'- that all killing in every circumstance at any time in human history has been/ is morally wrong.
|
|
marc p
Intermediate Member
Psalm 63:1
Posts: 66
|
Post by marc p on Feb 10, 2007 20:15:35 GMT -8
10/30/06:
Josh, I hadn't thought of those points. (nor had I heard them before). I agree with you, at least, that there is very clear biblical evidence that murder and killing are not the same thing, and that God did, in some instances, command the killing of entire groups of people. My emotions revile against this, but I'm learning more and more that I've relied on my feelings for too much of my life, and what I'm really interested in knowing is the Truth.
I don't have time right now to formulate questions or thoughts in response to your post, but I will be thinking about it and hope to post them soon to further this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 10, 2007 20:16:34 GMT -8
10/30/06:
I hear you on some passages of Scripture offending our sense of justice and our emotions. Not sure there's an easy way around that, unfortunately. Your response (not relying too heavily on our 'sense') may be the only practical answer at the end of the day. But it does feel like accepting the logic of a suicide bomber.
I think where we're helped somewhat on this is when we turn to the New Testament and God's new covenant with man. That's where we find a new approach to these issues (though not necessarily pacifist).
Maybe one of the main reasons we are offended so much by Old Testament passages advocating the killing of whole people groups is because we are so conditioned by Jesus' admonition to love our enemies and turn the other cheek. I'm pretty sure most people in the ancient world wouldn't have been nearly as repulsed by such stuff as we are in the New Covenant.
I'm wondering if my point actually came out here or not. Oh well. I'm home sick today and that's about as much cogency (?) as you're gonna get.
|
|
marc p
Intermediate Member
Psalm 63:1
Posts: 66
|
Post by marc p on Apr 20, 2008 11:35:56 GMT -8
Well, a year and a half later, I'm revisiting this topic because I've had to write a paper for school on how my worldview affects what I think about current political topics. I won't post my paper here because I basically rehashed this conversation and drew some final conclusions. In the end, my view has changed and I do think that, as much as my emotions still revile against it, Scripture supports the death penalty, at least in some instances. In doing a bit of research, I came across an article entitled "Capital Punishment: Right or Wrong?" by Randy Alcorn. I found it shed even a little more light on the subject, and he brought up some really good points. You can read the article here: www.epm.org/articles/cappun.html
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Apr 21, 2008 9:08:30 GMT -8
You know, this makes me think that I never did get around to addressing this topic from a New Testament perspective.
I'm curious to look into the article you posted.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 12:20:29 GMT -8
Josh, I think that it is dangerious to cite the old testament with regards Christian morality. Much of the old law is repugnant to the grace that has been shown to us through Christ our Lord. For Example: Leviticus 19:20-22 And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him." According to the old testament if you rape a slaves wife, the slaves wife will be scourged but not put to death, and you can pay for your tresspass by sacrificing a lamb. I would argue that, that piece of theological legislation is just as relevant today as the graceless old testament passages endorsing capital punishment.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 24, 2009 12:41:10 GMT -8
I don't think the passage you are citing refers to a case of rape, but, thanks for the reminder that I haven't finished my long-dormant thoughts on this thread.
I originally meant to get on to the New Testament but it seemed that interest was waning. I'll try and get to that, because, of course, any analysis like this has to take into consideration the teaching of Jesus.
However, how can you refer to God's ordained system of justice for the ancient Israelites as "repugnant"? You said "repugnant to grace". Does that mean you don't think it was originally repugnant but now is?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 24, 2009 13:09:29 GMT -8
So, with the background laid regarding capital punishment in the Old Testament, what does the New Testament add to the picture?
The gospels don't speak to the issue overtly.
First off Jesus nowhere condemns the God-sanctioned violence of the Old Testament. Rather, Jesus speaks highly of men like Moses and David, whom we associate with some rather violent narratives.
Jesus tells us that we are to love our enemies (not incompatible with the death penalty, imo) and that we are to turn the other cheek/ not resist an evil person (which certainly does seem at first glance incompatible with the death pentaly).
When Jesus preached His Sermon on the Mount- who was his audience? Well, one could make a strong case that He was speaking to individuals and not to governmental authorities.
This is my tentative position- that Jesus is not giving advice for governments, but for his individual followers.
Nowhere does Jesus explictly condemn governments merely for using lethal force- not even during his own trial.
And note this interesting vignette from the gospels, where various people were coming to John the Baptist for his "new covenant" advice:
Luke 3:14
Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely—be content with your pay."
Note that John doesn't tell the soldiers, quit your jobs because you are required to use deadly force. If the writers of the New Testament were looking for a place to make it clear that Jesus was against the death penalty, what better place than this passage? Yet they don't, and what we're left with is the tacit implication that governmental authorities retain the potential right to kill in certain circumstances.
It would be much easier to argue from Scripture that an individual Christian shouldn't kill anyone in a private setting (even an intruder in their house) than to argue that the government may not use deadly force.
Moving on to Paul, we find the most overt passage regarding the death penalty in the New Testament.
Romans 13:1-7
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
Here we are told explicity that God approves of the use of deadly force by government authorities (even pagan ones!) in at least some situations.
This was most likely written prior to the gospels, and I'd suggest was well known among the Christians so that there was no need to repeat the sentiment overtly in the gospels.
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 24, 2009 13:16:24 GMT -8
an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life.
now, the meaning for this is the following: when a man takes out someone elses tooth, the most the man can be punished by is getting his tooth taken out. if a man kills, the most he can be penalized with is being killed. now, there can be a lesser penalty, but the limit is the above.
so, the death penalty is technically allowed by the law of GOd.
however, the story of the whore is beatutiful, and even though it was not in the original texts, i think i will use it here. what this message articulatesis that a person of sin should not punish another person to the full extant if they have sin. it is allowed, but it is not the best way of handling things.
now, Jesus said that the followers of him should turn the other cheek. this essentially means to forgive, not to let yourself die at the hands of thugs. so what he was saying was that although it is ssaid and eye for an eye, followers of him will recognize that not as permission to get revenge, for we are to forgive, but merely a limitation on pernalties.
we must remember that the laws of mosheh were a big advancement to clulture, as before that if someone took your tooth you could take their life, family, ad possesions.
for an alternative look at turn the other cheek: to backhand someone was LARGELY disrespectful at the time of Yeshua. So, Yeshua said that if someone backhanded you to turn the other cheek. if we turned the other cheek to someone who backhanded you, you are forcing them to hit you with their palm, whiich is not as disrespectful. o when you turn the other cheek, you are standing up to them and telling them: "i deserve more than the disrespect you just gave me."
it would have been a profound yet simple action in hose days.
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 24, 2009 13:28:26 GMT -8
what a repungant statement that is!
GOD handed the Torah to us, and to say that it is false is to deny the teachings (Torah means teachings, not law) of God. Yeshua was sent here to take away the penalty of the law if you broke it (which we all do): death, the curse of the law. but he NEVER did away with the law itself. "i have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill." if he was sent by God, why in all earth hell and heaven would he destroy what God set up?
by stateing that the law is against grace you are stating that God contradicts himself, for he gave both. and he did not change from law to grace either, for he is the same yesterday today and forever.
David stated that the Torah was Holy, and ps. 119, the longest chapter of the bible, is dedicated to showing how David thirsted for Gods commandments, and loved reading his Torah. THE LAST COMMANDMENT of the prophets, in malachi, was to follow the teachings of mosheh and not forget them! if you say that the law is against grace, than you are denying that the prophets were of God, for they came as messengers of God- God was THROUGH HIS GRACE trying to prevent judgement by urging his people to change their ways through the prophets. yet, even the prophets were saying that they should follow the teachings of mosheh.
mosheh quoted God in saying that the commandments were to last throughout ALL THE GENERATIONS. EVEN TH APOSTLES quoted the Torah, and Shaul said that the law is holy (Ro.) and that it is good for reprof and correction of a perrson (tim)
this post was kindof off topic and if you wish to discuss it any further, we can go to another thread dedicated to this topic. but i thought it decent to at least mention that error of that statement.
you may be able to say that we are not under the law without me busting, but to say that it is against grace is TOTALLY false, and worthy of major chastisement, whether from me now, or God in judgement later.
shalom- john.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 24, 2009 13:34:38 GMT -8
Slow down there, pardner. Let's talk through this a bit more before we bust out the chastisement
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 13:52:53 GMT -8
Let us reason further. If we are to obey the governments put over us because they are God's governments then does the concept of war crimes have no meaning? Why should we execute concentration camp guards, or even inprison them when they were merely doing their Godly duty to follow the directions of the authorities that are over them, and from the words of Christ himself, placed there by God. The same with the Soviet Soldiers who killed millions of their countrymen, surely they are not at fault, it was God's government that sanctioned the action, Same with the Holocaust, the Japanese occupation of Manchuria where there were government sponsored beheading competitions using swords against civilians. The leaders of these countries should be held to account for committing evil acts. However, the bible seems to totally absolve the individual executioners in each case because they were following the government placed over them, and to rebel against that regime is tantamount to rebelling against God. Furthermore the founding of our own nation could be seen as an affront to God. We are the sons and daughters of traitors to the British empire who took up arms against our God given masters to free ourselves. Another point in the modern World, especially with regards to America. Rome was a dictatorship, one that Christ respected the authority of, as you point out he did not condemn the death penalty even in the case of his own brutal execution. However as you point out his audience was "the people" NOT "the government" However now in America (and most of the civilized world). The government is supposed to represent the people, be it through democracy or Republicanism. As a result Jesus's teachings to the people ought to be advocated by the people (that being you and I) to effect government policy. For example the abolition of the death penalty. IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 24, 2009 14:08:24 GMT -8
Okay- thanks for the response. I'm not arguing that whatever a government does is sanctioned, as if God has granted them a blank check. No, God has only granted them the power of the sword to punish evil. That power can certainly be abused, as it was in the case of St. Paul's own execution. Might it be difficult to figure out what the legitimate uses of the sword to punish evil are? You bet. It must be done with fear and trembling... and would have to be done in such a way by political authorities who are also followers of Christ. As to whether the American revolution was justified, here's a thread on that very topic! www.aletheia.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=809
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 24, 2009 14:33:33 GMT -8
What, What, WHAT!? "it must be done with fear and trembling... and would have to be done in such a way by political authorities who are also followers of Christ." Not from a Biblical perspective. There were no Christian leaders in Christ or the Apostles time. Christians couldn't run a water faucet or lemonade stand, that alone a nation or city state. So Christ must have been talking about Pagan leaders being placed over Christians by God. If that is the case, what actual difference can be distinguished between the pleasures of Caesar and the pleasure of Hitler when it came to whom he executed?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 24, 2009 14:49:11 GMT -8
Not from a Biblical perspective. There were no Christian leaders in Christ or the Apostles time. Christians couldn't run a water faucet or lemonade stand, that alone a nation or city state. What do you mean Christians couldn't run a water faucet or lemonade stand? Christians did hold jobs and levels of authority even in New Testament times. And I think Jesus did anticipate a time when even kings would become follow him (cf. Isaiah 49:7, 52:15) I don't understand your statement about Hitler and Caesar. Could you elaborate?
|
|