Death Penalty

"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Matthew 5:28

'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." Leviticus 20:10

1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." John 8:1-11

If the what you say is true then Jesus broke the judical law by not allowing her to recieve the punishment she deserved.

Actually I think you're missing something. The Jewish leaders had no authority from the government (the Romans) to put anyone to death. So it was irrelevant for the Jewish leaders to ask Jesus whether they should put her to death. Also Jesus as a man was not in a position to execute capital punishment. He also as a man was not in a position to stop Rome from carrying out capital punishment. So in one sense it was irrelevant to her punishment what He said. Jesus was God but He was not an earthly king. The Jewish leaders were again seeking to trap Him, like when they asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to caesar. Jesus instead showed them that they too had sinned in their hearts. He also showed the woman that He would die for her sins in her place.
What Jesus said did not prevent them from carrying out punishment. I'm trying to be very careful here. I don't want to discount Jesus' authority as God. However the point of the Jewish leaders' question was not to find out whether they could punish the woman. Just as in the question about taxes. They weren't really wondering if it was morally right to pay taxes to the government. They were hoping to make Jesus say something that would make either the Romans or the Jews mad at him. If he said yes the Jews would be mad at him. If he said no the Jewish leaders could tell the Romans that Jesus was teaching against paying taxes.
In short Jesus in one sense didn't have the authority to condemn her. He wasn't a witness and so in one sense it didn't matter what He said. So, what I said is true but Jesus did not break the judicial law. Because in one sense He "couldn't" prevent her from receiving punishment. (Of course as God He could call down fire and destroy the Jewish leaders, and would be in His authority as God. That's why "couldn't" is in quotes.)

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

Example #1 . . . John 8:1-11

YoungStonewall wrote:"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.

Remember though, that under the Mosaic period there was a distinction between ecclesiastical and civil government. It is a gross but common error to equate the the civil sphere with the ecclesiastical sphere in the Old Testament. We need to remember however why King Uzziah was punished (See 2 Chronicles 26). If the civil and ecclesiastical were joined in one, why would this king be judged for taking on the role of a church leader?

Just as under the Old Testament, the civil and ecclesiastical spheres had separate and distinct jurisdictions, so it is too under the New Covenant. Both are under God and required to govern according to His revealed will. There is no scriptural warrant to discard the judicial laws that were given to us by the hand of Moses. In order for one to cast off a portion of Scripture as being annulled by Christ, it is incumbent upon that person to show clear scriptural proof for doing so. A good summary of the changes made can be found in the book of Hebrews.

If the Jewish leaders "had no authority...to put anyone to death" as you say, then how did they crucify Jesus? You also say that Jesus "as a man was not in a position to stop Rome" and "...He was not an earthly king..." then why dones Jesus say to Pilate, "...John 18:36-37, John 19:10

You also said, "Jesus instead showed them that they too had sinned in their hearts. He also showed the woman that He would die for her sins in her place." This is exactly my point, Jesus shows us the new ethic under the new covenant of grace.

You say that Jesus didn't witness the the adultery and therefore couldn't pass judgement. Hold on there just a second, He is the God-Man and he knows all things. You say he didn't have the authority to pass judgement on an adulterer, but he had the authority to go through the temple with a whip and throw out the money changers and thieves. Make up your mind, is he God or not.

However John 8 is a bad example and I shouldn't have brought it up since it is considered by many scholars NOT to be part of the inspired text.

So on to other texts:

You have not answered my question about I Cor. 5 and II Cor. 2. Paul says "...immorality of such a kind as does not exsist even among the Gentiles." speaking about a man living in sin with his father's wife, clearly a sin punishable by death in under the Judicial Law, and equally punishable by Roman Law. Does Paul tell the Corinthian church, "call up the Romans and have him arrested, tried and executed?" NO! He tells them to put him out of the church, and treat him like an unbeliever, in the hope that he would repent and be restored.

This is the model of grace, not judgement, played out over and over and over again in the New Testament. Under your line of reasoning, the executioner and the evangelist are in a race to get to the sinner, one to kill and the other to seek his redeemtion before execution.

Where is grace, forgiveness, love under your line of reasoning. God makes it clear throughout His word that he is a God of justice yes, but also a God of mercy and forgiveness.

Also you have not rationally answered my question about what Jesus says about mind-adultery, since we all are guilty of mind-adultery, mind-murder, etc we all deserve death in your line of reasoning. Witnesses are not needed for guilt, we know in our hearts that we are guilty of these sins and therefore deserve death. You say we wouldn't testify against ourselves? If we don't confess our sin then we lie and break the ninth commandment. But if we confess our sins He is faithful and JUST to forgive us our sins.

Hold everything a minute. Why do we have the death penalty? What sort of murder should it be used for? Why do we have it at all? You strongly believe in the death penalty for killing, even to the point of saying being executed the day of the conviction. Where does God say that murder is the only crime to be punisheable by death? Where is the love, forgiveness and grace in all that? God is a God of mercy, and forgiveness. He makes it clear that although he is a God of justice, he is also merciful. Therefore murderers should not be killed, let them have a chance to undo their wrong, be forvigen and turn to Iesu. Life in prison is plenty harsh enough. Right?

Oh and another thing. How is making it public the kind and merciful thing to do? What if your (hypothetical) brother was a murderer. Under your law, you would have him shot publicly the day of his conviction. Is that so merciful to you, kind and forgiving? If he's convicted, give him a chance to repent, right?

The death penalty for murder is a creation ordnance just like the Sabbath, dominion over animals etc.

Josiah, two things.

First, the death penalty was first instituted by God in His commands to Noah in Genesis 9. Specifically vs. 5-6. It is instituted against manslaughter. This was separately instituted apart from the Levitical law and moral code contained later in the Pentateuch.

Secondly, prisons are NOT Scriptural and should be abolished. So, your comment regarding "life in prison" as being harsh enough does not stand, because prison should not be a legitimate option for punishment. There is no reason why our tax dollars should be used in such an obscene manner, to support lazy criminals who refuse to work and live responsible, upright lives.

To add on to the questions TheWylff asked: If abortion is murder, should all those who have had an abortion receive the death penalty?

And should the Docs be shot as well? If you throw out the old testament laws, you have to have a good basis for it. According to Stonewall, the NT abolished the OT laws, so where to you get your ideas for new ones? Putting to death was an OT law, it is now done away with. So where do you get that we ought to put people to death, only for murder? And 1st degree? 2nd? 3rd? Which type of killing do you punish with death, and what other punishments to you impose upon smaller crimes? Let's say you steal, what should happen? You get put in jail? You have to pay back times three or something? You can't pick and choose which laws you get to keep, consistency, lad, consistency.

YoungStonewall wrote:If the Jewish leaders "had no authority...to put anyone to death" as you say, then how did they crucify Jesus?

By Roman authority.

YoungStonewall wrote:
So on to other texts:

You have not answered my question about I Cor. 5 and II Cor. 2. Paul says "...immorality of such a kind as does not exsist even among the Gentiles." speaking about a man living in sin with his father's wife, clearly a sin punishable by death in under the Judicial Law, and equally punishable by Roman Law. Does Paul tell the Corinthian church, "call up the Romans and have him arrested, tried and executed?" NO! He tells them to put him out of the church, and treat him like an unbeliever, in the hope that he would repent and be restored.

This is the model of grace, not judgement, played out over and over and over again in the New Testament. Under your line of reasoning, the executioner and the evangelist are in a race to get to the sinner, one to kill and the other to seek his redeemtion before execution.

Where is grace, forgiveness, love under your line of reasoning. God makes it clear throughout His word that he is a God of justice yes, but also a God of mercy and forgiveness.

You are making a logical blunder that is common to many in the church today by equating civil authority with ecclesiastical authority. The church was never given the power of the sword, but the keys of the kingdom. Hence excommunication was the remedy for such unrepentant sin. That is part of the ministry of grace given to the church. On the other hand, there is no room in the civil realm for such grace. The civil magistrates are to administer justice without prejudice. Grace and forgiveness are for the church, not civil magistrate. I would argue however that unprejudiced, swift justice is an act of love by the civil magistrate. Else how could Jesus say the law and prophets are summed up under the two great commands?

You seem to imply that grace is new to the New Testament. Is that what you are asserting?

YoungStonewall wrote:
Also you have not rationally answered my question about what Jesus says about mind-adultery, since we all are guilty of mind-adultery, mind-murder, etc we all deserve death in your line of reasoning. Witnesses are not needed for guilt, we know in our hearts that we are guilty of these sins and therefore deserve death. You say we wouldn't testify against ourselves? If we don't confess our sin then we lie and break the ninth commandment. But if we confess our sins He is faithful and JUST to forgive us our sins.

You are again confusing two different issues. It is God's province alone to judge the heart. He never allows for human courts to judge on such matters. This is why when He sets out the boundaries for such courts, He makes the requirement for two or more witnesses. Remember the context of the sermon on the mount. Jesus was addressing 1st century Judaism which had a problem of thinking that man could somehow be made right before God through obedience to the law. Jesus is showing however that in God's court, you cannot even pretend innocence. He was not addressing the issue of human courts but of God's court.

You need to be more careful in your use of the text by remembering context. As an example of this common hermeneutical fallacy take Mike Huckabee. Mr Huckabee says that because Jesus tells us that we need to treat others how we want to be treated and that whatever we have done unto the least of these my brothers you have done it unto me, it necessarily means that the government should provide health care and education for everyone while also providing scholarships to illegal aliens. What nonsense! Jesus is addressing individuals, not the civil magistrate. In the same way we need to remember the context of the sermon on the mount as well as Paul's context when addressing the Corinthian Christians. Would the Roman civil magistrate execute God's judgment on the perverted Corinthians. Of course not! On the contrary they approved of it, which is one of the reasons for the problem in the first place.

God forgives sins. The church must extend forgiveness to repentant sinners. Individuals are required to forgive. The civil magistrate has NO scriptural authority to forgive. I challenge you to find one biblical example of this.

Lets be clear here so that everyone knows:

The position BrianEschen and Legolas Greenleaf are discribing is called Theonomy.

YoungStonewall does not.

Lets define our terms also:

Moral Law - the heart of the law summed up in the Ten Commandments

Ceremonial Law - all the laws concerning the worship of God

Civil/Judicial Law - all the laws concerning crime and punishment


Again I must refer to the Confession which I believe says it best:

"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]"

What more can I say, it sounds pretty clear to me.

What more can I say? It seems BrianEschen has beat me to it.

It seems to me that it is pointless to keep arguing this point. We seem to have come around in a circle several times. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Amen?

The only thing that seems clear to me so far is that your view is not in accord with the WCF.

Please show me one scriptural reference that says that the judicial code applied to any nation except Israel.

I don't know that I hold to theonomy, because I don't know that all the laws of the OT should be upheld. I don't agree with my dad or Legolas on all they say. But I do think that some of the OT laws should be carried through.

And it seems this has been beaten to death. The advantages for debates online have their disadvantages as well, it seems. It is hard to get a point across because you can't make someone read what you say, so they often misconsrue it by placing emphasis on wrongly emphasized words. I'm happy to continue, but I don't see the p'int.

But I do think that some of the OT laws should be carried through.

How do you separate which laws still aplly and which laws don't?

About the confession. It seems clear to me from the confession's proof texts that it is talking about sacramental laws, and laws about not wearing garments made of 2 kinds of material, not sewing your fields with 2 kinds of grain, etc. These are clearly what Paul is talking about in Colossians 2:16-17. ...things which are mere shadow of what is to come... How in the world is the death penalty for adultery a shadow of something to come?
Can you show me any proof texts that talk about abolishing the old testament laws that isn't talking about ceremonial laws? When I mentioned this before you quoted all the proof texts but I couldn't see any that proved your point.
If I'm in disagreement with the confession so be it. Unless someone can show me better proof texts or explain what the sundry judicial laws are in the confession I'll remain in "disagreement with the confession." Perhaps the confession is wrong. Be warned though, I will only be persuaded by sound scriptural proof.

"Please show me one scriptural reference that says that the judicial code applied to any nation except Israel."
I'm saying that scripture still applies today. I'm under no obligation to give proof that scriptural laws apply today. You are the one that must give proof from scripture to show that they don't apply. You have the burden of proof, not me.

TheWylff wrote:But I do think that some of the OT laws should be carried through.

I think it's fair since you did the emphasizing here. Which ones and why? Which ones would you have not carried through, why?

BTW Stonewall. You said "make up your mind is He God or not." You must not have read my post very carefully. I tried to make it very clear that I'm not denying or questioning His divinity.
Just so we're clear on that.

In short Jesus in one sense didn't have the authority to condemn her. He wasn't a witness and so in one sense it didn't matter what He said. So, what I said is true but Jesus did not break the judicial law. Because in one sense He "couldn't" prevent her from receiving punishment. (Of course as God He could call down fire and destroy the Jewish leaders, and would be in His authority as God. That's why "couldn't" is in quotes.)

YoungStonewall wrote:Lets be clear here so that everyone knows:

BrianEschen, TheWylff, and Legolas Greenleaf all hold to Theonomy.

YoungStonewall does not.

Lets define our terms also:

Moral Law - the heart of the law summed up in the Ten Commandments

Ceremonial Law - all the laws concerning the worship of God

Civil/Judicial Law - all the laws concerning crime and punishment


Again I must refer to the Confession which I believe says it best:

"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]"

What more can I say, it sounds pretty clear to me.

What is theonomy?

What does the confession mean by "general equity?"

Would you agree also with what the confession says in Chapter 23 Section 3 (specifically the emphasized portion)?

"23:3 The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (2Ch_26:18 with Mat_18:17 and Mat_16:19; Rom_10:15; 1Co_4:1, 1Co_4:2; 1Co_12:28, 1Co_12:29; Eph_4:11, Eph_4:12; Heb_5:4): yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (Lev_24:16; Deu_13:5, Deu_13:6, Deu_13:12; 2Ki_18:4; 23:1-26; 1Ch_13:1-9; 2Ch_15:12, 2Ch_15:13; 2Ch_34:33; Ezr_7:23-28; Psa_122:9; Isa_49:23). For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God (2Ch_19:8-11; 29:1-30:27; Mat_2:4, Mat_2:5)."

I would suggest that perhaps your understanding of what the Confession is teaching is a bit flawed.

and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed

Which ones apply and which ones don't?