|
Important
twitter updates
Hosted by
the mindful mission Recent Comments
Most Commented Posts
Categories
Archives
Syndication
Credits
|
Bible, Authority, and Death
[Writers note: sorry...this is long] Smiles asked the following question on a post below:
I decided to reply with a new post. Lets actually take a look at these two passages. Here are the relevant verses from Romans 13:
Romans 13 says that we must submit to government authority. And in turn that a government has a right to punish those that break the law. I agree with you there. But if you continue reading the passage, it goes to say, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF." I find it really difficult to claim that killing and loving your neighbor can be reconcilable. Now…here are the relevant verses from 1 Peter 2:
1 Peter 2 says that government authorities were sent to punish "those who do wrong." Of course, it goes on to say that slaves must submit to their masters. I am curious to hear if you think that slaves were wrong to attempt to escape slavery? Neither passage talks about instituting death as the ultimate punishment. If anything, the passages do not talk about punishment but instead talk about obedience to the government, correct? Now...if we look at the Gospels, Jesus clearly shot down capital punishment. You can start with the "turn the other cheek" passage. While many say that this is an individual claim, such things did not really exist in the Ancient Near East. The "eye for an eye" command was part of Jewish law, which was the governing authority for the Jewish people of the day. And Jesus clearly said that that law was no longer valid. The same can be said about the woman adulteress about to be stoned, when Jesus stopped the execution. We will never know what Jesus wrote in the dirt, but we do know that Jesus once again overturned a Jewish law mandating death. This passage is interesting in that he did not actually overturn the law, but he asserted that only the guiltless could institute such a penalty. And as we all know, “all have sinned,” meaning there is no such thing as “guiltless.” Furthermore, what I would consider the essence of the teachings of the Gospels is to love God and love others. And “others” is not limited to those that do good or those that you like. Jesus is very clear that we are to love out enemies and show grace to them, forgiving them 70 times 7. Grace, forgiveness, and love are not reconcilable with the death penalty. Now, it is important to look at the Old Testament, as this what you are mainly basing your argument on. The institution of the death penalty in the Old Testament is quite different than the way it is currently used in the United States. Lets take a look at some of the differences.
While the Old Testament does allow for the death penalty, it is a very different system than exists today, with both more capital crimes and more restrictions than exist today. I think that the Gospels, along with the rest of the New Testament, are pretty clear about how we should treat out enemies. And it is not to kill them.
Comments, Pingbacks:
Evangelicals...I swear they are the most inconsistent group of people. You'll have an evangelical person arguing OT things to back one claim, but shoot down OT things due to the "New Covenant" of Jesus Christ.
Bonhoeffer's Cost of Discipleship is a beloved of many an Evangelical, they love and adore it...yet one of its main tenants as it follows the Sermon on the Mount is thou shalt not kill. So Evangelicals will use his attempt to kill Hitler to buttress that...crappy logic. First that attempt was well after the book was written and if you read ethics he admits that God has all the reason to send him to hell for going against God's will in killing somebody. Christians...fight for Christianity and also fight for killing people. They fight for political ideals that are contrary to Christianity, attempting a sythesis that works like water and oil.
Dave if I read you correctly, then I get the sense that you would be completely against any punishment for crime. If someone steals your car, you can't call the police on them because it wouldn't be the loving thing to do to report your car stolen and have them go to jail, right?
Did I ever say anything about eye for an eye? Also the woman caught in adultery, where was the man? According to Jewish custom, both were to be stoned, and they only had one. So in this case it would be unjust to have the woman killed because there was no man. I will agree with you that the death penalty may be used too much. It definately shouldn't be the first thing that we do. I definately think that you have missed the idea of love and discipline. The point of discipline is so that the people who are disciplined learn not to do wrong anymore. It would be unloving to not discipline. Of course the death penalty is a penalty in which learning can not take place afterwards. Also Dave, in your argument you have completely merged Christianity with secular government. Is this not wanting a theocracy as a government. Is this not what the Jews wanted in a Messiah, one that was political. If so, then doesn't that ruin your idea of a counter-cultural Jesus? Dave if I read you correctly, then I get the sense that you would be completely against any punishment for crime.What?!?! When did I say that? I never said that there should not be punishment. I simply said that it is impossible to love someone and kill them at the same time. Did I ever say anything about eye for an eye?I never said that you did. But the principle comes into play when you are using Old Testament support for your beliefs on the death penalty, don't you think? Also the woman caught in adultery, where was the man?What is your point? The passage says absolutely nothing about the man, so you cannot read into the passage like that. That is terrible hermeneutics. The passage talks about the guilt of the accusers and little else. I definitely think that you have missed the idea of love and discipline. The point of discipline is so that the people who are disciplined learn not to do wrong anymore. It would be unloving to not discipline. Of course the death penalty is a penalty in which learning can not take place afterwards.Do you realize what you are saying? First, you say that I missed the point. I agree with you that love and discipline go hand in hand. I never denied that, and I am not sure where you are getting that from. But second, you attack my understanding of the issue and then go on to say that your understanding of the issue does not fit in with the concept of discipline. You say that the point of discipline is as follows: The point of discipline is so that the people who are disciplined learn not to do wrong anymore.But you support the death penalty as a form of punishment, which, as you admit, does not allow for people to learn. I do not understand your logic. Also Dave, in your argument you have completely merged Christianity with secular government.I believe that as Christians we need to stand up for what is right, whether it is religious or secular. Is this not wanting a theocracy as a government.No...I never said that I wanted a theocracy. But just as you talk about wanting the government to ban abortion, I believe that the government should ban the death penalty. What is the difference between the two? Is this not what the Jews wanted in a Messiah, one that was political.Jesus was political. There is absolutely no doubt about it. Jesus' ministry took place within the context of a very political time, and his teaching was extremely political. If so, then doesn't that ruin your idea of a counter-cultural Jesus?No...not at all. Just because Jesus was political does not mean that he was not counter-cultural. But his political, social, and religious teaching was all counter-cultural to both the current state and the messianic expectations. In summary, you main responses to my arguments are that I misunderstand the need for discipline (which I never said should be absent) and that I am looking for a theocracy (which I also never said). Yet you did not really respond to my actual arguments that I made. How can one love and kill a person at the same time? How can someone be blameless in order to kill the accused? How can you believe in the need for discipline (i.e. teaching someone to now do something again) if you support killing the person? One more question - should the teachings of Jesus inform how we live and act? And should the teachings of Jesus inform how we desire our government to act?
Comment from: Roland [Visitor] 07/15/06 @ 19:49
 Permalink
Your view when taken to the logical conclusion does not allow for punishment. You're using an arbitrary standard of "i want punishment, but only this kind but not that kind".
Furthermore, Jesus was talking about interpersonal relationships, not secular government.
I really think you missed my point in the woman caught in adultery story. In order to execute people for that they need both the man and the woman. There was no man, therefore it was unjust. Also what the pharisees were trying to do was to get Jesus to break the law. Only the Romans had the authority to sentence to death. So if Jesus ordered death, he broke Roman Law, and was rebelling against Roman authority.
So this passage has nothing to do with Jesus' view on capital punishment. Also, who convicts people and who does the sentencing of criminal? Does the court system not do its best to get a Jury who has little or no prior knowledge of the case or the people who are involved? So when a Jury sees the defendant they do not see an enemy, just a man who is on trial. This does not make it revenge, but justice. Also, the sentencing is done by a judge, who has heard the evidence just the same as the jury, and determines what is the proper penalty for the crime. This doesn't seem like a system that is hell bent on destroying enemies. Furthermore, Jesus was talking about interpersonal relationships, not secular government.Roland...Jesus is teaching in the context of Jewish law, not just interpersonal relationships. I really think you missed my point in the woman caught in adultery story. In order to execute people for that they need both the man and the woman. There was no man, therefore it was unjust.Simple question...does the passage say anything about the man? You are reading something into the passage that doesn't exist. So this passage has nothing to do with Jesus' view on capital punishment.I am not really sure where you get this. In that time, Jewish religious leaders sentenced people to death frequently based on Old Testament Jewish law. Jesus refused to do so, and it had nothing to do with the man, or Jesus would have talked about the man. It had everything to do with everyone being guilty. Therefore no one had the right to cast a stone. Also, who convicts people and who does the sentencing of criminal? Does the court system not do its best to get a Jury who has little or no prior knowledge of the case or the people who are involved?First, this has nothing to do with what we are tlaking about in this post (i.e. the Biblical justification for/against the death penalty). But, actually no, you are a little off here. The lawyers do its best to get jurors on a jury that will side with them. Not jururs that no nothing about the case. So when a Jury sees the defendant they do not see an enemy, just a man who is on trial. This does not make it revenge, but justice.This is not quite true either. Most people see a murderer as an enemy. Maybe not a personal enemy, but as an enemy against society. Do you really not think that this is true? Also, the sentencing is done by a judge, who has heard the evidence just the same as the jury, and determines what is the proper penalty for the crime.Actually, wrong again. It depends on the state, but often a jury is the one deciding death. As for the proper penalty for the crime? Since you want to go there, answer this then. Why is that for the same crime and same circumstances (same criminal background, mitigating circumstances, etc), a black man killing a white man is much more likely to receive death than a white man killing a black man? Is that justice? Is that the "proper penalty" for the crime? This doesn't seem like a system that is hell bent on destroying enemies.It depends on who the enemy is - if they are black and poor, it sure as hell does. Now if they are rich and white, you are probably right. They are much less likely to be seen as the enemy. Now...you still didn't respond to any of the actual arguments or answer any of my questions. How can you love someone and kill them? How can someone be blameless in order to kill the accused? How can you believe in the need for discipline (i.e. teaching someone to now do something again) if you support killing the person? One more question - should the teachings of Jesus inform how we live and act? And should the teachings of Jesus inform how we desire our government to act?
Ok Dave, I will play your game. Once again, according to Jewish custom, the man and the woman were to be executed together. WHERE WAS THE MAN? Secondly, only the Roman government had the authority to put people to death at the time of Jesus. Remember the Jews had to go to Pilate in order to get Jesus a death sentence.
First off death is not the ultimate punishment. Condemnation is. Government has the authority to punish. So what is the extent of what the government can do to punish? The Government is God's instrument of wrath on earth. The government carries out justice on people who do evil things. Also you don't see a difference between killing innocent children(abortion) and convicted criminals(death penalty)? Also are we killing the accused or the convicted? Now, I am not saying that it isn't fair to say in a discussion on wether the death penalty is just or not, to ask on if the carrying out of the penalty is fair or not. True, the death penalty may be used to much. If the death penalty is carried out wrong, that is a whole different matter. Also is the purpose of the Gospel to usher in a great government, or to save souls? The government is here to serve a different purpose than the church. The people in the church are to turn the other cheek when someone strikes them. Where does it say to not stop those who you strike someone else? The government is God's instrument for wrath on earth, it has the right to carry out punishment to those who do wrong. Sometimes, very rarely, death is an appropriate punishment for those who do wrong.
Also how do you interpret, "Does not bear the sword in vain" in Romans 13:4? Is the sword not an instrument of death? Is it possible that Paul is saying that the government has the power to cast judgment up to death?
I was just wondering. Once again, according to Jewish custom, the man and the woman were to be executed together. WHERE WAS THE MAN?You keep saying this over and over again, but that does not make it mean something. Jesus said absolutely nothing about the man. Don't you think that matters just a little bit? You are very much adding something that doesn't exist. First off death is not the ultimate punishment. Condemnation is.First, this is an opinion. Do not state it as fact. Second, do you really believe this? Do you really believe that being condemned is worse than being killed. Worse than someone taking your life away? Government has the authority to punish. So what is the extent of what the government can do to punish?I don't disagree with you that the government has the authority to punish But punishment and taking one's life are two very different things. Also you don't see a difference between killing innocent children(abortion) and convicted criminals(death penalty)?No...I do not see a difference. Both assume that the life has no value, which clearly does not align with Biblical teachings. Also is the purpose of the Gospel to usher in a great government, or to save souls?I am sorry, but can you point out where I said that the purpose of the Gospel is to "usher in a great government?" I never said that. It is impossible to argue with someone who continually places words in my mouth that I do not say. Where does it say to not stop those who you strike someone else?This is a complete straw man. Stopping someone is different than killing them, and you know it. The death penalty is not a deterrent, and this has been shown over and over again in studies. The government is God's instrument for wrath on earth, it has the right to carry out punishment to those who do wrong.Again, I agree that the gov't can carry out punishment. But I do not believe that this means that taking of life. Now...you still haven't answered my questions. You set up an argument saying that love needed discipline, and you defined discipline as teaching someone not to do wrong again. You set up a perfect argument against the death penalty. When I pointed that out, you refused to respond. I also want to know your thought to these questions: Should the teachings of Jesus inform how we live and act? And should the teachings of Jesus inform how we desire our government to act?I respond to your Romans 13 question later...I am work and don't have time to respond correctly to that one.
Smiles...I also want to know how you respond to this argument:
The OT clearly has capital offenses that are not considered to such today, such as adultery, homosexuality, accidental manslaughter and rebellious teenagers (see Exodus 21). If you are going to base your argument on the OT allowance of the death penalty, would you not have to also allow it for these "lesser" crimes?You base your argument on the following: The OT allows for death as a punishment. The NT does not overturn this, so therefore the death penalty is allowed. Therefore, using your logic, you must believe that the above "lesser" crimes should also receive the death penalty, right? Because these issues were not overturned by the NT. Also...there are many other OT laws that were not overturned in the NT. Things like seeing a woman naked during her period, touching a dead pig skin, etc. Do you believe that they should all be followed? Also how do you interpret, "Does not bear the sword in vain" in Romans 13:4? Is the sword not an instrument of death? Is it possible that Paul is saying that the government has the power to cast judgment up to death?I am going to steal from John Howard Yoder on this, from Politics of Jesus. We are not subject to a literal sword, but instead we are subject to the judicial/police/governmental forces. According to Yoder, the "sword" is actually a dagger used by police. This verse is not referring to the state's authority to use death as a form of punishment, but instead is just uses as a metaphor for the dagger that represents the police forces. I know this is a short answer, but my time is limited. I can get you the exact quotes later, but I don't currently have the book with me. Somewhat related, here are two good essays on Romans 13:
Well, on your argument on lesser crimes, I am talking about the allowance of the death penalty. I am not saying that all the rules from the Old Testament be applied. In the U.S., what crimes is it where the death penalty is allowed? Murder? So, your argument on things that aren't illegal in the U.S., is out the window because there is no legislation against it.
Also on your clean and unclean, read Matthew 15, Mark 7 and Acts 10-11. That may cover your clean and unclean issues. Also on Yoder's comment about the dagger. Why do you respect a dagger, or as he compared it to a gun. I would suggest that the reason being that it can kill you. So you still don't see a difference between killing innocent children, who have done nothing but exist, and CONVICTED MURDERERS WHO HAVE NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE. Also on my choice of words for ulitmate punishment. Damnation is the ultimate punishment, not death. I am asking you so many questions on the purpose of government because if you believe the purpose of government is to usher in the Christian ethics of loving one another, and feeding and clothing the poor, and creating a government on earth that takes does this, than what is the purpose of the church, you have made it no different than the government. Thus has you not created a theocracy? Plus if you have made all these Christian values that you want in our government to be law, how are Christians any different? Well, on your argument on lesser crimes, I am talking about the allowance of the death penalty. I am not saying that all the rules from the Old Testament be applied.I am simply using your logic. You claimed that the OT authorized the use of the death penalty, and the NT did not overturn that. Therefore the death penalty is allowed Biblically. But using this logic would mean that you are also okay with homosexuals, adulterers, etc getting the death penalty. I am not talking about what is legal/illegal in the U.S. I am talking about your Biblical argument. Also on your clean and unclean, read Matthew 15, Mark 7 and Acts 10-11. That may cover your clean and unclean issues.Thanks... because I have not read them before. I know the verses. Mark 7 specifically talks about what comes out of a person is what makes them unclean. Do you think something like killing a person would be one of those things? Why do you respect a dagger, or as he compared it to a gun. I would suggest that the reason being that it can kill you.Sure...I never said differently. But that does not mean that the dagger/sword represents killing or violence. The dagger simply represented the police. So you still don't see a difference between killing innocent children, who have done nothing but exist, and CONVICTED MURDERERS WHO HAVE NO RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE.Yes, you are correct. I see no difference. Please - justify your belief that one's life becomes less valuable because they are guilty. I want to you see you justify this Biblically. Both abortion and the death penalty take away valuable life. Both are wrong. But more on this - you believe that my stance on the death penalty leads to a theocracy. The point that I brought up with abortion is that you want abortion to be illegal. But for you that does not constitute a leaning towards a theocracy. That does not make any sense. Also on my choice of words for ultimate punishment. Damnation is the ultimate punishment, not death.Okay...I think that I can agree with this, but it is still an opinion. But on top of that, a human cannot give damnation to a person, only God can, right? So in turn, death would be the ultimate punishment given by man. Thus has you not created a theocracy?No...I have created a government that is taking part in what the Gospel asks of all of us. Plus if you have made all these Christian values that you want in our government to be law, how are Christians any different?What? We are not supposed to be different for the sake of being different. We are different because God has called us to be something different, to live life in a different way. The difference is because what God has called us to do is in contrast to the prevailing mindset of society. Not just because we want to be counter-cultural. In turn, if we actually had a government that cared about the poor, that cared about life, that cared about the environment, etc, we would have a government and society that was more in line with the teachings of the Gospels.
Ok, here is the thing. Too many times we as Christians ask the question "What is wrong with it?" So, in this case, we are perhaps asking "What is wrong with the death penalty? What is wrong with the government killing those who have committed murder?" I think the better question to be asking (this applies to all areas of life) is "What is RIGHT with it?" In other words, how is this going to advance the gospel? I might ask you both whether the goal of the Church is to support justice or build the kingdom (not that they are mutually exclusive, but there is an ordering here that is essential). So, what kind of a message does it send to our world when Christians are among the first to support the death penalty while our entire faith centers around grace? We were deserving of ULTIMATE punishment, and instead we received ultimate life! What kind of inconsistency does that show the world? Let us also ask the question of whether when we are supporting the spilling of blood to make up for sin we are basically saying that Jesus' blood was not enough for the sins of the world! "Well, Jesus died for everybody, but we still have to kill him because he did something wrong." Sorry, I think that is a pretty retroactive approach and really, proclaiming something contrary to the gospel.
As far as abortion and the death penalty are concerned, I see them as completely equivalent. First, where does the Bible say babies are innocent? Does the Bible not teach that we are all of reprobate nature until Christ comes into our lives? That because we are descendants of Adam we are tainted with sin? Even if you disagree with that, I think you made a great point when you mentioned that the value of life does not decrease in the slightest because of guilt. To use the words of the great Derek Webb, "Are we defending life when we just pick and choose ones acceptable to lose and which ones to defend?" "Love is not against the law:" how true that is. Whether the GOVERNMENT can do it or not, what do WE do as Christians? We are not called to AGREE with government! Look at Daniel in Babylon, Elijah with Ahab, heck, the APOSTLES and the Sanhedrin! Those were all authorities ordained by God, but men of God are speaking out against them in blatant disobedience. Being subject and being in accordance with are two completely different things. Our citizenship in heaven comes first. I think when we try to answer the question "What is right about the death penalty" or "How is our support of the death penalty going to advance the gospel," we will be hard pressed to find answers. Now, look the other way: "How is speaking against the death penalty right," or "How is the Church speaking out against the death penalty going to further the Gospel," I think we can find plenty of good answers. Does that not point us in a certain direction? Can we really just support it because "Well, the Bible doesn't say they CAN'T do it..." (which I might argue that it might). But EITHER WAY, we have to go FAR beyond that superficial, weenie-Christian kind of questioning!
wow i just realized how old this thread is. i'm kind of late, aren't I? :)
Leave a comment:
|
Support
the mindful mission friends recommended blogs criminal justice/death penalty Progressive Christian Blog Network
|
