From: pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp (Martin Pauley)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty (and the Law)
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:55:25 GMT

5629 5639 

In an article, baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters)
writes:
>jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris) wrote >>
>>>                           However, death is the required consequence
>>> for murder.
>
>Can you cite a New Testament (Christian) passage that supports this?

(I hope you are not implying that the Old Testament is not Christian!)
Death is the required consequence for ANY sin and this consequence
originates from the Garden of Eden and is restated throughout the Bible.
Execution is the punishment for murder (and adultery, rebellion against
parents and other crimes) required by Mosaic Law.  This Law has not
changed and, according to Jesus, will never change until everything has
been accomplished.  Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was NOT an abolition
of the Law but it was the beginning of a New Covenant which rescues us
from the power of the Law.  (Sorry that I cannot give explicit
references: I don't have my Bible handy.)

Gregg Walters also writes:
>Although Jesus knew of his own crucifixion and death, He did not
>instruct His disciples to retaliate against His tormentors.  Nor did the
>disciples, when facing their deaths, instruct their followers to
>retaliate.  Death for death (as in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) is
>Old Testament (Jewish) Law.

Firstly, "Death for death" is NOT Old Testament Law but only a small
PART of the Law and MUST be taken in context.  "Eye for an eye" was only
demanded in certain situations; in other cases, punishments ranged from
fines to execution.
Also, even if "death for death" was a Jewish Law, Jesus and his
disciples were living under Roman rule (Jewish Law wasn't the current
legal system) and so could not enforce their Law against Roman Law.

In another article,  aaron@binah.cc.brandeis.edu (Scott Aaron) writes:
>You mean like Jesus did with the adulterous woman?  She should have been
>stoned for her sin but Jesus let her off, thus avoiding God's commands. 

Somewhere else, seanna@bnr.ca (Seanna (S.M.) Watson) writes:
>The bible (old testament) says that a woman found committing adultery
>is to be stoned to death.  When such a woman was brought before Jesus,
>he challenged those who had "taken responsibility" for her punishment
>by telling them to examine themselves.  He forgave her, and told her
>to turn from her ways. Was Jesus avoiding his responsibility to follow 
>God's commands?  Are we not to follow his example?

Jesus did NOT avoid God's commands or his responsibility to follow them.
For starters, he didn't need to since the men bringing the woman had
already corrupted the command.  Why do you believe them when they say
"Moses said we should stone such women".  They had already violated the
Law which they were now trying badly to misquote!  The Law actually says
that the woman AND THE MAN should be stoned together.  If they caught
the woman then they obviously caught the man too.  They broke the Law by
not bringing him to Jesus as well.

Having said that, I agree with the intended point: Jesus did not condemn
the woman but showed the mercy of God.  We should follow his example.
But remember that the mercy of God was not something new.  God had been
constantly showing his love and mercy throughout the Old Testament; we
were too blind and stupid to notice; all we saw were the punishments!
The Law for the Israelites existed to keep them holy.  Every Law given
to Israel was perfect, having its own well-defined purpose and a
punishment which exactly suited the crime!

In an article about Wesley Allen "Hang Me" Dodd, athomson@otago.ac.nz
(Alastair Thomson) writes:
>A general comment on capital punishment. Do we have the right to take
>away the opportunity for someone to receive Christ? In killing someone
>we cut short the time they have to hear and respond. Whatever the crime
>we do not have the right to condemn *anyone* to eternal damnation, that
>decision belong to our loving and just God.

Sounds like a convincing arguement but think.  It has been stated that
the "eternal damnation" decision belongs to God alone.  I propose that
the time for someone to die is decided by God alone and the number of
opportunities they will have been given before their death is decided by
God alone.  Because of this, we DO NOT HAVE THE POWER to take away an
opportunity for someone to receive Christ even if we execute them.
(I could go into great detail and present a very long explanation but I
don't think it is appropriate for this thread.)

Let's get closer to home.  If your country/state/whatever has the death
penalty then the authorities there have the right to execute someone
since they have been placed in authority by God.  Because of this, we
cannot state that the death penalty is either right or wrong or even if
it appropriate or not.  

I think the Capital Punishment subject is a "disputable matter" and as
such we should follow Paul's advice and be firmly convinced in out own
minds but not try to convert others to our beliefs.  (I get this idea
from somewhere like Romans 14 and 15 where Paul is talking about eating
idol meat and keeping special days.)

Just some thoughts.

.Marty.!
[Lost in Space! (or is it Japan?)]
<pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp>