Death Penalty

What is your view on the death penalty? Is it "cruel and unusual punishment"? If you didn't use the death penalty, how would you punish crime?

I don't think it should be a consideration. Death is death who cares if they feel a little pain as they pass into the next realm. They have far worse awaiting them in hell.

The death sentence should be carried out the day of the verdict.

A single bullet to the medulla oblongata is cheap, fast, painless, and 100% lethal 100% of the time.

And all exicutions should be public.

The death penalty is not something I have researched extensively. I do not feel that it is a "cruel and unusual punishment"; however, I have not resolved whether we should practice it or not. Those who are either for or against it, what is your biblical basis for either supporting or not supporting the death penalty?

The death penelty is clearly biblical, referenced all through the OT ans well as the NT. Paul talks about the king 'bearing the sword' in refernce to punishing evil doers.

Also the death penalty, contrary to popular opinion, actually predates the Mosaic Law. It was instituted after the flood sort of as part of a second (post-fall) creation mandate, Genesis 9:5-6.

And furthermore, Paul confirms the validity of the death penalty in Acts 25:11 and again in Romans 13:1-7. (For those that argue that the Death Penalty was abolished with the Old Covenant)

Hope that helps

Well as far as the death penalty goes, absolutely. It should be enforced for all first degree murders, and others as well, though I won't get into that. As far as method, I've always thought hanging was appropriate, being mediaeval and all, but a bullet, lethal injection, electricution, I don't know that it matters as long as they are killed. We shouldn't torture them, that's wrong to do to any living creature that God made, for any reason. As far as public goes, YoungStonewall mentioned something about that. I don't know that I agree with him there. In times past, all executions were public, it became great entertainment, no different than the Roman's feeding Christians to the lions. It shouldn't be a place to go watch and "have fun". If they were going to be public, and I don't know that they should, then it should be a sober thing, not something enjoyable. That is the danger with having it public, for the world (in general) seems to have some sick pleasure in watching people die. The question is why and how, I guess, because it not only has to be the right motives, but has to work once in place. I don't know that they should be public, simply because it complicates things and can become something very bad. For now I'll just stick with getting them done more often, that's a start.

Also mentioned was having it the day of the verdict—I don't know about that. I certainly don't think they should drag it out for years like they do today, but I don't know that it really matters if it's the day of, the day after, a week after, just soon afterwards. But I do think that the death penalty should be enacted in more states and in more circumstances.

There only two punishments for crimes, restitution or execution. The bible is very clear on this. For some crimes you have to pay with money, for other crimes you must pay with your life. Prison is not a biblical punishment and shouldn't be used. Prisons aren't effective in curing criminals. Many who are freed go out and do crimes again. Some have called prisons a "criminal tradeschool" where they can learn new ways to do evil deeds from more experienced criminals. I also don't see why we should pay for prisons with tax dollars. Many homeless people try to get arrested so they can get free food and a place to stay. If people were made into indentured servants, paying for the crimes they committed, then there would be less crime. If someone murders, they should be put on trial as soon as they are caught and if found guilty, they should be put to death. I think visits by family and a pastor should be allowed, but there should be no appeals. They should be put to death within a week's time. They should be kept alive. Biblically, civil government is given the sword to protect us by fighting opposing armies and punishing the criminals with appropriate punishments for their crimes. We preserve life by having the murderers killed.

Read Exodus and Deuteronomy. The Old testament is still applicable. If you think it isn't, then why did Jesus say "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but fulfill. in Matthew 5:17?

I agree with CheeseKing. But it would take a complete turn around in society to bring the laws back to where they should be. If you think about it, there is so much that would be required to be done to make that system work. Not that it shouldn't be done, but it would be difficult.

Amen about slaves/indentured servants. However I don't know what you all mean about being killed soon after. Soon after the crime? Soon after the sentence? It should not be delayed unnecessarily. However if you're talking about soon after the crime not necessarily soon after. It's possible that he could be accused falsely.

As for the method of execution I don't really care. As long as it is not torture or prolonged unnecessarily. I do believe it needs to be public, that's nearly half the point. It makes everyone else fear punishment when the see it carried out faithfully. It might even be good to have either stoning or the modern equivalent. Perhaps firing squad. Including the law about the accuser throwing the first stone.

I don't know exactly what we have the death penalty for here right now. However I believe that most of the laws from Exodus regarding death penalty should be enforced today. Things like adultery, murder, manslaughter(depending on the case), homosexuality, rape, man stealing, sorcery/witch craft, not controlling your dangerous animal that kills someone, disrespectfulness to parents, etc.

Of course things like disobedience to parents would only be if the parents came to the authorities. I would not endorse the government sending in people to check on the children. There would have to be much wisdom applied of course but I think that part of the old testament would still apply today.

There's my 2 cents

Legolas

To answer the earlier question, execution should be carried out within 2-3 weeks of conviction.

So you would have the old fulfilled mosaic law restored? Why?

Show me a passage that says the old civil code still should apply?

Why do you say old fulfilled mosaic law restored? Is fulfilled supposed to mean that it doesn't apply any more? What I referred to in my last post was the chapter right after the 10 commandments. It's the case laws basically expounding and explaining the 10 commandments. You can look up Exodus 20,21, and 22. You ought to remember them fairly well since I know at church you recently had a series on Exodus.

Show you a passage that says the old civil code should still apply? Well perhaps I should say show me somewhere that says it doesn't apply. In the sermon on the mount in Matthew 5 Jesus says I have not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Matthew 5:19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

I always thought that unless the New Testament replaced or annulled a law from the Old Testament we viewed it as applicable today. The sacrificial system is an example of something fulfilled in the New Testament. Jesus was the fulfillment and so the old sacrificial laws are abolished.

In short Yes. I would have "old fulfilled mosaic law restored."



Isaiah English

YoungStonewall wrote:To answer the earlier question, execution should be carried out within 2-3 weeks of conviction.

So you would have to old fulfilled mosaic law restored? Why?

Show me a passage that says the old civil code still should apply?

I believe the burden of proof would be on those who would wish to show why the civil code should not apply today. Remember what Christ said in the sermon on the mount (Matt 5), "Think not that I came to abolish the law or the prophets. I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Verily I say unto you, not one jot or one tiddle shall pass from the law until all be fulfilled." (BPV - Brian Paraphrase Versiion )

Then how come Paul doesnt tell the Corinthian church to take out and stone the adulterer in their midst?

There is no more theocracy. Jesus fulfilled the law.

Show me one instance where Jesus enforced the old mosaic punishment on one single person.

Jesus tells us that any man that looks on a woman with lust has commited adultery with her in his heart.

If we follow the old mosaic law then every man and woman should be stoned for the sin of adultery.

When Jesus tells us adultery begins at the heart, He isn't saying that all previous law concerning adultery is null and void. He was just explaining to us that it does begin at the heart and should still remain punishable if acted upon. Baptism replaced circumcision. Jesus was our sacrafice in place of animal sacrafices. What takes the place of putting those deserving of execution to death? We still put murderers to death. Why would one crime be punishable why the other is not? I would choose, therefore to blame our society and not use our society as an example to consider our law no longer applicable. I believe (I could be wrong) that John 8's example shows guilty men trying to put an adulteress to death. There must be witnesses and it would be unfitting for those that are equally guilty to accuse others who share in their sin. Jesus did not enforce the law, because the time did not call for it.

Amen Cheeseking.

In response to Stonewall.
Yes, in John 8 the pharisees bring a woman charged with adultery to Jesus. This was a trap. They said she was caught in the act and that the mosaic law she was to be stoned. They altered the law in more than one case to try to trap Him. Only if the woman was a betrothed virgin was she to be stoned.(Duet 22:23-24) Also, both the man and woman were to stoned.(Duet 22:22; Lev 20:10) Besides this though, they didn't have more than one witness.

Jesus was one man. He was of course God and Man, no I'm not denying that. But He was not the state. The Bible is very clear that no one person is to carry out "judgement" or punishment upon another. We are not do everything Jesus did or not do everything Jesus didn't do.

There is no more theocracy. Jesus fulfilled the law.
What about the 10 commandments then? Should they be kept today? If so how do make the distinction between Exodus 20 and 21&22?
Jesus fulfilled the law. Yes, if you mean that He kept the law perfectly. In the sermon on the mount when Jesus used fulfill He meant some else. He meant that He gave the law its full meaning. He emphasized its deep, underlying principles and total commitment to it rather than mere external acknowledgment and obedience.

What are you talking about in the Corinthian church? 1 Corinthians 5? Why didn't Paul tell them to stone the adulterer? That's not the church's jurisdiction. The state is put in place to execute criminals. The church can only excommunicate people.

No we wouldn't though because you also have to have more than one witness. You certainly aren't going to testify against yourself are you. Only you and God know what is in your heart. The state cannot prove you looked at a woman with lust and therefore cannot punish you. This is rather beside the point however.

I can find no better explaination than from the ever helpful Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19:

"I. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience, promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[1]

II. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables:[2] the first four commandments containing our duty towards God; and the other six, our duty to man.[3]

III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

IV. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require.[7]

V. The moral law does forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof;[8] and that, not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it.[9] Neither does Christ, in the Gospel, any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[10]"

God destroyed the nation of Israel in AD 70 by the hand of the Romans.

Their is no more nation of Israel and therefore no more binding power of the judicial law.

Soooo.... It seems we agree. Unless you don't agree with what you just posted. From what I read above you seem to be agreeing with me. I'm glad you see the light.

The moral law (the Ten Commandments) is still in full effect.

The ceremonial and judicial laws are not.

The judicial law should INFORM and GUIDE modern God-honoring law makers, but they were instituted by God for the nation of Israel and as such lost all force of obligation with the destruction of the nation of Israel.

If that is what you are saying then yes we agree.

Yes the 10 commandments. I'm saying that Exodus 21 & 22 which is the case laws for the 10 commandments apply as well.
Where can you find that those laws were only for Israel?
I must have read hastily the 4th paragraph. After closer consideration though I'm not sure I agree with it. Depending on what the "sundry judicial laws" are. Did you read the proof texts they have? Nowhere does it say anything about judicial laws expiring with Israel. Maybe the language meant something different back then. Or perhaps they didn't have the right proof texts.
I agree there were laws that only applied to Israel like sacrificing and clean and unclean animals. Things like going to the priest for leprosy. However I don't see how you can argue that the death penalty for those things is null.

I attached the proof texts below if you want to read them. The Westminster Confession of Faith is an excellent and very accurate document. However we must test everything with scripture. I may be misunderstanding the Confession but I don't find what I take it they mean in this text.
(EXO 21-22) GEN 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
MAT 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
1CO 9:8 Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? 9 For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? 10 Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope.

GEN 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah (the nation if Israel), nor a lawgiver from between his feet, UNTIL Shiloh (Jesus) come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be (the New Israel the church)

Pretty clear if you ask me.

Remember Jesus said "My kingdom is not of this world."

It also references these:

COL 2:14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.

DAN 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

EPH 2:15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.

1PE 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of MAN (meaning the law of whatever land the Christian finds himself in) for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

These are all talking about the sacrificial system and the other Israel specific laws. Things like eating clean and unclean animals, not wearing clothes made of 2 kinds of material, not touching death things, not sewing your field with 2 kinds of grain, celebrating the passover, etc. Of course those things were Israel specific. That is very obvious.

My point is that the death penalty laws are not Israel specific. I don't see how you can get from these passages that those moral laws regarding the death penalty are annulled. Col 2:16 says let no man judge you in meat...drink...respect to an holyday...new moon...sabbath days. I see this as talking about the things mentioned in the above paragraph. I don't see how you can put the death penalty laws in with those. I believe Eph 2:15 - 16 is talking about gentiles not having to become jews. Because in Romans Paul is very adamant about the law being still in place.
Romans 3:31 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.
Romans 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law) that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives?
Romans 13:8 - 10 8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. 9 For this, "You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.

So do you believe the Bible mandates any laws that are universal for every nation?
Are the 10 commandments the only laws that we keep from the old testament?
If so is the state required to enforce them or is that private religious life?
If the state is required to enforce them is it up to state to decide any punishment they choose?
Does the Bible mandate any punishment for the state to carry out upon the breakers of the commandments?

I think we're starting to go in a circle. Maybe this will bring us back on track.

What Paul is saying is that we are under obligation to obey the moral law. All the things forbiden and commanded in the Ten Commandments still apply and are sin to break.

"So do you believe the Bible mandates any laws that are universal for every nation?" Yes, summarily contained in the Ten Commandments.

"Are the 10 commandments the only laws that we keep from the old testament?" As a summary of all the law yes they are complete and can be summed up even simpler as Jesus did. Matt. 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27

"If so is the state required to enforce them or is that private religious life?" The state has a duty to punish evil. They should be informed and guided by the judicial code, but since no Nation is the Church they are not binding anymore.

If the state is required to enforce them is it up to state to decide any punishment they choose? See above

Does the Bible mandate any punishment for the state to carry out upon the breakers of the commandments? Only in the case of murder, this mandate predates the mosaic law. It was stated both at creation and again after the Flood.

So when the New Testament talks about the law still applying it is only talking about the 10 commandments? "The law" means the 10 commandments? In Matthew 5 the "jot and tiddle" are the 10 commandments?

Israel did have church and state you know. They were very closely intertwined but the priest didn't order executions and the king or judge didn't offer sacrifices. Being born into the "nation" of Israel you were indeed born into the church of Israel. However the church and nation were not quite the same.

I think however we'll just have to agree to disagree. I can't seem to make you see my point of view I certainly can't see yours. You think the death penalty is good but there is no biblical mandate for it besides murder?

Another question though. Can you biblically argue or do you think that English law was wrong when they had outrageous penalties for crimes like cutting off hands for stealing a loaf of bread?
Is there anything wrong with prisons? Either biblically or in your own opinion.
Is there too harsh a punishment for a crime biblically or in your opinion?
Say is it fine to kill someone for stealing?
Is there a limit on how lenient the government can be? Say can they punish murder with say a fine of oh....$20,000?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that the laws about the death penalty I cited earlier is just the Bible's explanation of the 10 commandments. You seem to see them as extra and not applicable any more.