Death Penalty

[Guest man]

Where in the new covenant is it stated that the taking of a life is acceptable?

I already posted it once. But here it is again:

"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.The authorities that exist have been established by God.Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For 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 you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience." (Romans 13:1-5 NIV)

I see nothing there that indicates the taking of a life or that it is acceptable to do so

As I stated earlier, those governing authorities are secular. God is declaring His sovereignty in that passage when it states that the

authorities that exist have been established by Him. He's not stating that those authorities are Godly in any manner whatsoever.

Peter puts it like this.

1 Peter 2

13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme,

14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.

15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men—

16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God.

17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.

"Ordinance of man" is an indicator that those authorities are secular. We are instructed not to conform to their ways. Obeying their

laws is not conforming to their ways. Being for or against the death penalty is a personal choice. There's nothing in their laws that

require an individual to make a decision one way or the other.

If you truly believe the executioner is carrying out the judgments of God because God brought those authorities into existence, then

everything those authorities delegate is from God. Is that what you believe?

[Tinky]

I see nothing there that indicates the taking of a life or that it is acceptable to do so

I guess you missed the part about those bearing the sword being "God's servants."

As I stated earlier, those governing authorities are secular.

And as I've stated, you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to support that. Again, the passage in Romans I posted said they are "God's servants."

"Ordinance of man" is an indicator that those authorities are secular. We are instructed not to conform to their ways.

In that case, I guess it's okay to not obey any of man's laws. If you truly believe that, you'll soon be in prison.

If you truly believe the executioner is carrying out the judgments of God because God brought those authorities into existence, then

everything those authorities delegate is from God. Is that what you believe?

I guess you missed that whole part I wrote about God using fallible man for His purposes.

[Guest LadyC]

good responses tinky, but i'd like to add to it...

regardless of whether the governing authorities are secular or christian, and EVEN regardless of whether they are righteous or downright EVIL, it is still GOD who placed them in their positions.

furthermore, this notion that we don't have to submit to secular government is as absurd as it is unbiblical. and here i thought it was only the OT that was being disregarded. those who are in agreement with man's most recent statements should review the NT more carefully. all of Jesus' disciples were to submit to the unbelieving governing authorities, EXCEPT in matters regarding worship. only when man's law contradicts the law of God were believers to be disobedient to the law of the land.

[Tinky]

those who are in agreement with man's most recent statements should review the NT more carefully. all of Jesus' disciples were to submit to the unbelieving governing authorities, EXCEPT in matters regarding worship. only when man's law contradicts the law of God were believers to be disobedient to the law of the land.

Amen! Great point, LadyC!

[Guest shiloh357]

LC

You miss the point - Jesus question was to the one who has no sin to cast the first stone. He was the only one standing there sinless- so in reply to His own statement, He was the only one "qualified" to do so- regardless that He wasn't in earthly authority to do so. This is what you aren't seeing.

Yes we have law makers etc, and yes the OT does talk about eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth but what does Jesus say about that in the NT? Forgive, turn the other cheek etc.

Revenge on our behalf is from a fleshly position.

The account of the woman caught in adultery should not be used to address the issue of capital punishment, as that was not Jesus' point. Jesus did not take issue with either the sentence of death for adultery or the guilt of the woman. It is likely that this sentence was carried out numerous tmies during Jesus' earthly ministry and in all of Jesus' condemnations of the Jewish authorities, he never condemned them for carrying out the death penalty for adultery.

Jesus' comments about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" revolve around a misapplication of that OT commandment as a pretext for taking revenge. "eye for an eye and a tooth or a tooth" refer to monetary compensation for an injury. If you injured another person, even on accident," you were required to pay them the worth of the injury in terms of lost wages due to the injury. It had nothing to do with capital punishment or the death penalty.

The death penalty is not "revenge." Revenge is a personal action. It is not based on a due process of law and the right to a fair trial. The death penalty is justice for the victims of deadly crime.

We are not to walk in the flesh as the world does but we are to overcome evil with good.

But since God instiuted the death penalty, how can it be evil? The death penalty is of divine origin, if you want to really get down to it. Can we live on a higher moral plain than God does?

[Mcgyver]

LC

You miss the point - Jesus question was to the one who has no sin to cast the first stone. He was the only one standing there sinless- so in reply to His own statement, He was the only one "qualified" to do so- regardless that He wasn't in earthly authority to do so. This is what you aren't seeing.

Yes we have law makers etc, and yes the OT does talk about eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth but what does Jesus say about that in the NT? Forgive, turn the other cheek etc.

Revenge on our behalf is from a fleshly position.

The account of the woman caught in adultery should not be used to address the issue of capital punishment, as that was not Jesus' point. Jesus did not take issue with either the sentence of death for adultery or the guilt of the woman. It is likely that this sentence was carried out during Jesus' earthly ministry and in all of Jesus' condemnations of the Jewish authorities, he never condemned them for carrying out the death penalty for adultery.

Jesus' comments about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" revolve around a misapplication of that OT commandment as a pretext for taking revenge. "eye for an eye and a tooth or a tooth" refer to monetary compensation for an injury. If you injured another person, even on accident," you were required to pay them the worth of the injury in terms of lost wages due to the injury. It had nothing to do with capital punishment or the death penalty.

The death penalty is not "revenge." Revenge is a personal action. It is not based on a due process of law and the right to a fair trial. The death penalty is justice for the victims of deadly crime.

We are not to walk in the flesh as the world does but we are to overcome evil with good.

But since God instiuted the death penalty, how can it be evil? The death penalty is of divine origin, if you want to really get down to it. Can we live on a higher moral plain than God does?

Spot on...

[Tinky]

God instiuted the death penalty, how can it be evil? The death penalty is of divine origin, if you want to really get down to it. Can we live on a higher moral plain than God does?

Great insight, as usual!

[GoldenEagle]

LC

You miss the point - Jesus question was to the one who has no sin to cast the first stone. He was the only one standing there sinless- so in reply to His own statement, He was the only one "qualified" to do so- regardless that He wasn't in earthly authority to do so. This is what you aren't seeing.

Yes we have law makers etc, and yes the OT does talk about eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth but what does Jesus say about that in the NT? Forgive, turn the other cheek etc.

Revenge on our behalf is from a fleshly position.

The account of the woman caught in adultery should not be used to address the issue of capital punishment, as that was not Jesus' point. Jesus did not take issue with either the sentence of death for adultery or the guilt of the woman. It is likely that this sentence was carried out during Jesus' earthly ministry and in all of Jesus' condemnations of the Jewish authorities, he never condemned them for carrying out the death penalty for adultery.

Jesus' comments about "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" revolve around a misapplication of that OT commandment as a pretext for taking revenge. "eye for an eye and a tooth or a tooth" refer to monetary compensation for an injury. If you injured another person, even on accident," you were required to pay them the worth of the injury in terms of lost wages due to the injury. It had nothing to do with capital punishment or the death penalty.

The death penalty is not "revenge." Revenge is a personal action. It is not based on a due process of law and the right to a fair trial. The death penalty is justice for the victims of deadly crime.

We are not to walk in the flesh as the world does but we are to overcome evil with good.

But since God instiuted the death penalty, how can it be evil? The death penalty is of divine origin, if you want to really get down to it. Can we live on a higher moral plain than God does?

Spot on...

I agree as well

[other one]

good responses tinky, but i'd like to add to it...

regardless of whether the governing authorities are secular or christian, and EVEN regardless of whether they are righteous or downright EVIL, it is still GOD who placed them in their positions.

furthermore, this notion that we don't have to submit to secular government is as absurd as it is unbiblical. and here i thought it was only the OT that was being disregarded. those who are in agreement with man's most recent statements should review the NT more carefully. all of Jesus' disciples were to submit to the unbelieving governing authorities, EXCEPT in matters regarding worship. only when man's law contradicts the law of God were believers to be disobedient to the law of the land.

\

I would disagree with that concerning the USA. Our authority in the country is the constitution....... the Constitution dictates that we the people elect the people to fulfill the seats of the offices created under the authority of the constitution. Basically God has told us that it is our responsibility to choose those that most call leaders in this country. So to speak we have the governing people that we deserve...... but it is "we the people" who choose them.

[ladypeartree]

Not sure if I would vote for the death penalty ( we didnt get a vote when it was abolished in the UK ) but there are some crimes that I am sorry it is not available for ( if that makes any sense )

This month here in the Uk we have a man who has just today changed his plea to guilty after a few weeks of his trial ..his crime ? He murdered the 12 year old granddaughter of the woman he was living with ..He raped her first then murdered her then hid her body in the attic whilst pretending to go and look for her ... he had been her mothers " partner " first before moving in with the grandmother and she had looked on him as a paternal figure for most of her life ..Should he get the death penalty ????

The second trial is for a man who inticed the daughter of a friend into his van ( after failing to kidnap two other young girls ) He raped her then butchered her and scattered her body parts into a raging sea so she will never be found ...the child was just 6 years old

Should he get the death penalty ????

The thrid one that comes to mind is of a man and woman who set fire to their own home in order to murder theri own 6 children ... they succeeded. His motive was to gain sympathy as his mistress who had been living with both himself and his wife along with her 4 children ( yes they too were his ) had moved out of the home and refused to stay with him any longer ...for that 6 children ranging from 15 down to a baby were murdered by being burned alive by their father ...should he get the death penalty ?????

As it stands in this country even though they are all guilty ..two trials over just waiting for the sentencing ) and one with so much evidence including dna. eye witnesses....etc etc that there is no way he would be found not guilty .... they most they can get is life in prison. Sounds bad ??? NOT HERE . They could all be out on the streets again within 5 to 20 years. Whilst they are in prison they will get luxury accomodation in case they are attacked... free education if they chose to have it... food that they get to chose... HOLIDAYS since as lifers they may get depressed ...shopping trips out of prison ..even visits from the wife as it is unfair to deprive her of a chance to have children !!!!!

Dont believe it ??? look at the case of Myra Hindley ..she helped to kidnap torture and murder at least 7 children ..she recorded them pleading for their lives ..she took the bodies with her lover to remote spots and had picnics tossing rubbish into the graves they had dug . Some have never been foud and wont be now as she died in prison BUT she had at least two holidays a year with attendants to keep HER safe. She had her hair done by visiting hairdressers every week ..had her own flat that not even the prison wardens went into without her permission..went shopping every week so she didnt get depressed or suicidal ... the list goes on

Death or a life of luxury in prison ????????? Hmmmmm