Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 09, 2008
Andrew Tallman :: Townhall.com Columnist
Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
by Andrew Tallman
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Previously, we saw how capital punishment is compatible with love, honors God’s sovereignty over life, and encourages the condemned to repent and be saved. Now, let’s finish our discussion by looking at three biblical counter-examples to execution.

Religious Objection: What about Cain?

In Genesis 4, Adam and Eve’s two sons bring their offerings to God. God accepts Abel’s and rejects Cain’s. In his anger, Cain strikes and kills his brother. God discovers Cain’s violence and banishes him for life while also protecting him with some sort of divine mark. Doesn’t this show that even God does not favor executing murderers?

One way to explain Cain’s survival is that the law against murder wasn’t given by God for another 1,600 years after Noah’s flood. Even the Old Testament wasn’t written by Moses for another 900 years after that. But this response fails since there is the punishment of banishing. If it wasn’t a crime because the law hadn’t been given yet, there would have been no punishment at all. Also, Cain clearly expected to be punished by God and men. Thus, his severe but non-capital banishment demands explanation, and the only biblically plausible answer is that this wasn’t murder.

Nothing in the text indicates that Cain intended Abel’s death. Not only are there hundreds of ways to strike a man and kill him unintentionally, but it’s even possible, as the first homicide in history, that Cain didn’t even understand the consequences of his assault. Furthermore, even if Cain did intend to kill Abel in a moment of rage, it’s not clear this would legally qualify as pre-meditated. God’s penal system distinguishes negligent homicide from murder. Thus, one might say we know it wasn’t murder precisely because God merely banished him.

Religious Objection: What about King David?

In 2 Samuel 11, King David sees Bathsheba bathing on a rooftop near the palace, commands her to be brought to him, commits adultery with her, discovers she is pregnant, fails to trick her husband into sleeping with her to cover the pregnancy, and then has him killed through a complex military conspiracy. How does God respond? He sends Nathan the prophet to chastise David, who repents for his crimes and goes on living, but God condemns the bastard child to death.

If God is for capital punishment, why doesn’t David get executed? Both adultery and murder were capital crimes in Israel, and this must have been the worst-kept secret in the Mediterranean. There were even witnesses for every part of the conspiracy (a necessary component of Old Testament capital law). So why the leniency?

I believe it’s because David was King of Israel, anointed by God Himself through the prophet Samuel. Though this will sound strange to our ears which have been trained by the concepts of law as king, the rule of law, and equality before the law, David was above the law. No matter what the anointed of God does, he is still holy because of the anointing and cannot be touched. David demonstrated this by refusing to kill King Saul, who deserved it many times over. Moreover, when David learns that an aide assisted Saul’s suicide in battle, David immediately executes him for touching God’s anointed. 

So David was spared a doubly-deserved death only because he was king. Nevertheless, a life penalty was still taken: the child. Thus, the Bible gives one precedent to explain why David wasn’t killed and also a reason to think that the murder still required the compensatory death of a human. It’s certainly a difficult passage, but it’s also certainly not a clear repudiation of the death penalty.  

Religious Objection: What about the woman caught in adultery?

In John 8:1-11, the Pharisees bring Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery to see if He will authorize her execution. After He famously says, “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” they all depart. Jesus proceeds to send the woman on her way, saying, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way; from now on sin no more.” Of all passages in the Bible, this one most clearly shows that Jesus opposed capital punishment, right?  

First, we should note that this passage is textually dubious. The best manuscripts don’t include it, and both its placement and style controvert its authenticity. Even so, the Christian community has long considered this an iconic story of Jesus’ mercy. So, to merely throw it out would be inappropriate. Besides, it may well be a legitimate story, just not one included in the John manuscript. Hence, an interpretation would be more helpful than a dismissal.

The trouble is that most people wildly misunderstand this story. The Pharisees’ only reason for bringing this woman to Jesus was to put Him in a dilemma. On the one hand, Jesus couldn’t call for her execution since Roman law prohibited anyone other than a Roman court from doing this. The Pharisees proved they knew this when they later brought Jesus to Pilate rather than killing Him themselves. On the other hand, He couldn’t oppose her execution because this would have proven He was a false prophet for contradicting God’s Law. The passage even explains this in verse 6, “… they were saying this, testing Him, in order that they might have grounds for accusing Him.”

So, the Pharisees wanted to make Jesus a heretic for opposing capital punishment, but He evaded their trap. The tremendous irony is that now, 2,000 years later, people who claim to love Jesus teach that He was precisely the heretic His enemies wanted to paint Him as. If Jesus was in fact repudiating capital punishment in this story, then He was neither the divine Son of God nor a true prophet. As I’m apparently more reluctant than others to embrace this conclusion, I can’t interpret Jesus as rejecting the Old Testament here. Had He been, His enemies would have left jubilant rather than ashamed. There are many theories on the meaning of this story, but the one thing we must not do is use it to say Jesus overturned God’s Word as His enemies intended.

What we see with the above examples is that even the difficult Bible passages don’t undermine the validity of capital punishment.

Conclusion

The religious and the secular arguments agree: capital punishment is purposeful, rational and pleasing to God. If you have read all eleven of these columns, I thank you for your persistence and your patience and trust they have been useful.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Andrew Tallman is host of The Andrew Tallman Show on AM 1360 KPXQ from 5-7PM weekdays in Phoenix, AZ.

Be the first to read Andrew Tallman's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Re: Was is written?
"In John 8:1-11, the Pharisees bring Jesus a woman caught in the act of adultery to see if He will authorize her execution."

To truely understand John 8:3-11 you must read it context. Note the actions of Jesus, the Christ, and the REACTION of woman's accusers:

"3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they said to Him, 'Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 'Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?' 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, 'He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?' 11 She said, 'No one, Lord.' And Jesus said, 'I do not condemn you, either. Go from now on sin no more'."

What did Jesus write in the sand? The Scripture is silent on this, but whatever He wrote when the woman's accusers "heard it" (read it) they began to leave. I summise that what Jesus wrote, knowing what was in their hearts, was the transgressions of the accusers. This was punctuated by His declaring "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." In the end the required "two witnesses" were no longer present, hence the woman could not be convicted of adultry and sentenced according the Law. Of course He also knew the woman's heart, and thus Jesus willing to forgive her.

ts
"While it seems clear that he did not commit the crime for which he was executed"

That was the point.

Continued
What would a God who loves that person and wants the best for him do? Set up a framework that shields the man from the consequences of his decisions and actions, or let him suffer on Earth for a few short years, so that he can be happy in the afterlife?

What if God wanted to set up rules that, considering our capacity for free will and all the chaos and harm that results from it, would provide the greatest overall opportunity for each of us to recognize and accept our proper relationship to and with him? What rules would have been best? Other than assuming that he did so, we cannot answer that question.

I am not suggesting that the above example is how God made his decisions, or why the Laws of Moses are as they are, because I do not know that. I am just suggesting that we do not and cannot consider things from His perspective, and therefore, we should “rely not on our own understanding” if that means judging that God has made an error, or using decisions that we cannot even comprehend as justification to deny or rebel against Him. Just thought you would like to know…

Decisions
Many of the arguments on here are based on the idea that we can understand God’s decisions as though He operates on our level of perception and our priorities. When God set up the rules to run Jewish society in Israel, he had all knowledge to base his decisions on, including the knowledge that future societies would be influenced by those laws.

Humans tend to analyze God's decisions by the standard of what would result in the most fair and beneficial consequences for each individual person in his earthly life. God has a lot more on his mind than that. He had to set up a framework that humans with free will could live in and that would result in a stable society which would be better for all and would provide the best setting for everyone to accept the gift of eternal life that results from a proper relationship with Him.

My belief is that God considers our happiness during our life on Earth, while desirable, to be much less important than our eternal future and even than the free will that he has granted us. Let us consider a situation in which there is a particularly stubborn, egotistical, and defiant man, who is extremely self-confident and sees no need to seek for, acknowledge, or submit to God. Perhaps the best way for that man to be persuaded out of his own self-satisfaction and realize his true relationship to God, is for terrible things to happen to him that make his earthly existence painful and profoundly unpleasant. Continued…

DA gives a link, he did not read it
quote:
Larry Griffin's case is probably not the best one for advancing this argument, but it's the case at hand. He was not a solid citizen. While it seems clear that he did not commit the crime for which he was executed - the killing of Mr. Moss - he did plead guilty to killing someone else.

"he did plead guilty to killing someone else."

DA writes
9:44 PM EST
letme....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/14herbert.html

I spoke of Natural Law
In agreement with the Christian Faith

"No one can argue against what I have shown, and I can prove it too."

-------------
deathstar writes:
No one has argued against using barbaric and prolonged torture to execute people for being gay?

TS, I'm not so naive as to think you are the only Christian on TH who thinks God wants to see homosexuals tortured to death in the most painful way possible.
----------

ts:
Tortured?
You make it up with such accusations cause you have nothing to argue.
So you are left with stupid accusations, as this.
No one promotes torture, I would support a quick death like hanging though.
No contradiction in Natural Law and the Christian Faith, same God created both.
-------

deathstar writes:
I'm sure they are all glad you are busy speaking for them.
------
ts:
I am sure you are so briming full of bs you can spend the rest of your life with ignorant remarks as you have all over this thread.


letme....
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/opinion/14herbert.html

TH is having many technical problems....
TH is having many technical problems....

TH is having many technical problems. I noticed comment pages are experiencing numerous issues. It appears that someone on TH is trying to fix the problems. I posted a comment that I thought TH's re-design was done poorly, but I think that after they get the problems fixed things will be back to normal.

Liberals Lie A Lot
Deathstar, name for us one, just one, provably innocent man who was ever executed in the United States. We're waiting.

This is one of the biggest canards in circulation today in the US. People have been cut loose because of legal and procedural error, but that certainly does not mean they were all innocent - not by a longshot.

As for executing people who were later dound to be totally innocent, "provably" innocent - hasn't happened, Deathstar.

Were waiting - give us some names and dates.

Sheesh!
Abolishing the death penalty for starters, Deathstar.

Guttersnipes and Leftists
Deathstar, I was talking about the author. More precisely, principally people like him who are invariably atheists and who use Bible verses against ignorant Christians to move a purely political agenda. Curiously enough, this same crowd wants all religion out of politics, but most of them are certainly not averse to quoting this same Bible to further their own social and political agendas. We've always known that you lefties all swing both ways, in politics and in the bedroom!

Anyways, my comments stand. You and most of your brethren are clueless leftists, Deathstar. They simply don't come any more insane than yourself. This is why I refer to most of you as gutter snipes, as dirty little socialist street urchins. Other than that, you're an OK guy.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
"Has anyone noticed that these same types, usually atheists, who cleverly use the Bible to argue their leftist philosophies "

----

Tell me, what "leftist philosophies" am I using the bible to espouse?


Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
"Hardly. The government doesn't seek you out ahead of time to murder you, nor do the juries"
---------------

In other words, the government has never executed an innocent person, and all of the long terms ex-xons who are now being released as the result of DNA studies were really guilty to begin with.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
Has anyone noticed that these same types, usually atheists, who cleverly use the Bible to argue their leftist philosophies are very selective in what the pull out of it?

For example, whatcha wanna bet that these same people using the Bible to argue against the death penalty would go ballistic if you said, "OK, since you're fond of quoting the Bible on this one, let me give you some other Bible material on homosexuality and killing babies. Got a minute, pal?"

Yeppers, then all of a sudden the Bible wouldn't be such an "authority" on these other matters, now would it?

Reminds me of these very same liberals who favor abortion and homosexuality citing the Pope when it comes to war, poverty and whatever else is convenient, but when you remind them this same Pope is bitterly opposed to abortion and homosexuality, then all of a sudden it's SCREW THE POPE!

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
Ergum

Reply # 35
Date: May 10, 2008 - 1:05 PM EST Perhaps. But in all the translations of the Ten Commandments into English I have seen, I have never seen it written, "Thou shalt not murder."

Get a better translation!

"Given those definitions of murder, it is hard to see how something could be more premeditated than a government-implemented execution."

Hardly. The government doesn't seek you out ahead of time to murder you, nor do the juries. You committed the act knowing the consequences.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
Opinion v. World History is what this all comes down to.
There is no separating the Bible from that history.

Its ingrained by the very laws of nature and the Founding Principles of this Nation.
And I expect it to stop the clowns who know nothing of this subject to quit showing how ignorant they are.
deathstar does not even have that much intelligence to shut up so he can keep his ignorance to himself.
On this subject matter.

There is no intellectual debate against reality, but fools think otherwise and show how dumb they are, like you do deathstar.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
Thanks
deathstar
The feeling is mutual, and that gives us some common ground, as I think you are a reprobate.

No one can argue against what I have shown, and I can prove it too.

All of it is based in actual history of the world and the bible both.

You not knowing either subject and commenting on it, takes the cake for the boldness of your own stupidity.

You really are a unlearned person, and ignorance is basis of all arrogance and unlearned opinion, and is all you got sonny boy.
An ignorant uninformed opinion based in your own lack of knowledge and understanding anything but the cotton thick matter you use for brain cells.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
Talent Scout,

You are so far out that you have ended this thread.

Fortunately, you are also in such a minority of oddballs and outright whackos that you don't pose a real threat to anybody or anything except intelligent discourse.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty of Death
Both Natural Law and Biblical Faith in the God of Nature and Natures God, are in COMPLETE harmony.

There is no conflict between the Christian Faith and the Laws of Nature, because its the very same God who gave men BOTH.

This knowledge was once COMMON in America and Europe, and is what built Western Civilization.
Firm Foundations for the Unifying of Government in America supporting Christianity, and Christianity supporting Government.
The good Government we USED to have here, and no longer.



Nature, Jim

Talent Scout at 6:42 writes
"only a fruit-loop would think that the death penalty came from religion".


Jim writes: 10:00 PM
There are a lot of "loops" who so contend...for example John at 10:51PM posits that GOD CREATED THE DEATH PENALTY at the time of the Flood.
-----
EXACTLY RIGHT
He is the God of Nature, like it or not.
Thats why Nature itself has caused all Nations of the world to have a death penalty.
IT IS IN NATURE'S LAWS.

Understand Natures Laws Jim?
You should take the time to read up on them, many brilliant men of the past did.
Like John Locke (1632-1704)

-------


Jim writes:

Furthermore, TS takes my comments out of context...and the context [clearly established by the columnist and seized upon by most posts] was the Biblical basis for the death penalty.
-------
ts:
No Jim, you came on with an attitude

Jime writes:
As this column and many of the responses demonstrates religion is most commonly the base equivalent of schizophrenia...

I just handed it right back to you with your own snotty attitude is all.

--------


Jim writes:
I agree that the death penalty did not come EXCLUSIVELY from religion...but religion has had an exceptionally strong influence on the penal system.
---------
ts:
Yeah
Most religions support the LAW!
Its the outlaws who do not and are the schizophreniacs, fruitloops

Talent Scout at 6:42 writes
"only a fruit-loop would think that the death penalty came from religion". There are a lot of "loops" who so contend...for example John at 10:51PM posits that GOD CREATED THE DEATH PENALTY at the time of the Flood. Furthermore, TS takes my comments out of context...and the context [clearly established by the columnist and seized upon by most posts] was the Biblical basis for the death penalty. I agree that the death penalty did not come EXCLUSIVELY from religion...but religion has had an exceptionally strong influence on the penal system.

Jim-Too

clarification
What I mean is that the Jews in Spain and Russia and the Aztecs in the Americas were quite devout to their own religion. They had no faith in a Christian eternity.

not exactly
"Christian eternity had to be worse than death by fire, flaying, or torture."

In Russia and Spain and in some Christians' encounters with indigenous Americans, what you see is either a strong fidelity to religion, just not Christianity. They didn't believe in Christianity at all, how could they believe in a Christian eternity?

Jim
Great Post!

In Russia and during certain times in Spain, Christians also offered a choice to Jews - deny your religion save yourself from execution. Jews often had the same reaction as the Aztecs -Christian eternity had to be worse than death by fire, flaying, or torture.

Fruitloop
Jim writes:
Schizophrenia!
I happen to support capital punishment in the most extreme cases...but based upon rationality and not religion As this column and many of the responses demonstrates religion is most commonly the base equivalent of schizophrenia...
-------
Only a fruitloop would thank the death penalty comes from religion.

Its been in every nation on the earth, every culture and every language.
And the Aztecs were some of the most murdereous barbarians this earth has ever known.

In fact the Aztecs were known to rip the beating heart out of the chest of a living human sacrifice and eat it.

Hanging is merciful when compared.

correction
My last line above should read: The story has absolutely nothing to do with Christ's attitude toward the death penalty.

Why am I not surprised
deathstar writes: 4:59 PM


Why am I not surprised that you are defending the execution of homosexuals by prolonged, unspeakable torture, but also quoting the bible to defend it?

Spoken like a true Christian, TS; have at it.
---------
ts:
You would support this degeneracy and abomination?

Spoken like a true reprobate, deathstar is a perfect screen name for you, have at it and reap the rewards.

Its fine with me

a couple of thoughts
1. Re: "Thou shalt not kill." I have also seen it translated as, "thou shalt do no murder." That is more accurate. The commandment means not to murder rather than not to kill. You can tell by context. Only a page and a half after the commandment is given the death penalty is laid out for intentional murder. God is not schizophrenic.

2. The dynamic in the story of the woman taken in adultery is this: Religious leaders sought to get Jesus in a catch 22. There is a law condemning the adulterer to death in the Torah. The Romans forbade the Jews from exercising the death penalty. The story is actually like the one about the coin with Caesar's image - - a clever trap designed to snare Christ.

He escaped, but you have to understand exactly how to appreciate the genius of it: As a rabbi, Christ conducted a beth din, a court proceeding. The rabbi/judge has the right to qualify witnesses at such a proceeding. Those witnesses who accuse a person of a capital crime must be the first to cast the stones at the execution. Christ set the requirements for a reliable witness as being someone who has never sinned. Having no qualified witnesses willing to condemn the woman, Christ could let her go, fulfilling the Law of Moses and obeying Roman law.

The story has absolutely nothing to do with the death penalty.

Schizophrenia!
I happen to support capital punishment in the most extreme cases...but based upon rationality and not religion As this column and many of the responses demonstrates religion is most commonly the base equivalent of schizophrenia... and when the religion-possessed influence governmental affairs [including the issue of capital punishment] the government itself becomes tainted and schizoid. A story [perhaps allegorical] came out of the Spaniards early conquest of Central America. The Aztec's were notorious for their religious-inspired cruelty. An Aztec leader was about to be executed for heresy. A Spanish priest gave the condemned an option. Confess God, we'll quickly and mercifully strangle you to death, and you will dwell perpetually with our Merciful God and your fellow believers in Paradise. Continue to reject God, and we will slowly burn you at the stake, and you will continue to burn eternally in Hades. The Aztec chose the pyre rather than spend an eternity with such unspeakable vermin.

Jim-Too

Talent Scout
'Sodomy is a revolting and degenerate crime against one's own body, defiling it by unnatural lust."

--------------

Why am I not surprised that you are defending the execution of homosexuals by prolonged, unspeakable torture, but also quoting the bible to defend it?

Spoken like a true Christian, TS; have at it.

Just a thought
Maybe the death penalty is not just justice, but maybe for the guilty perpetrated. He who has little value for other's lives probably has great value for his own. Living on death row separated from other people can give a person time to contemplate on his own life, what he had done, and what he has become. As soon as he can stop blaming others for his horrendous acts and take responsibility for them, maybe he will see he does deserve the death penalty. This to me is true redemption and acknowledgment of God.

The Law is Good
1Ti 1:8 -
But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully;

Ro 7:12 -
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good

Sodomy is a revolting and degenerate crime against one's own body, defiling it by unnatural lust.
Thats why normal people feel the abomination of it just talking about the sin worthy of death, under the Law.

These Laws are never going to be abolished, as they are found in nature itself, and has judged already as a sin worthy of death.


Le 18:22 -
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

Le 20:13 -
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Do not believe your own ignorance deathstar

Talent scout
"It is an abomination"

-

What is, the manner of showing God's love? Ultimately, the difference between a guillotine and an electric chair is moot - it all ends up the same. When Henry the eighth had his good friend and advisor Thomas Cromwell executed, he hired an inexperienced teenager for the decapitation - and it took three tries, after which Cromwell's head was boiled and placed on a spike in a public area.

My point is, what's the difference? It was all done in the name of God, and this ridiculous columnist would tell you that such things were a joy to God, and an expression of God's love.

My advice: be a little discretionary, don't believe all the c--p you read on TH just because it's on TH.

Whats not to love?
deathstar writes: 2:03 PM

In 16th century Switzerland, homosexuals were executed by being cut into small pieces over a period of four days.

That's how much the Swiss liked to show God's love.
-------
It is an abomination

this columnist said
"Previously, we saw how capital punishment is compatible with love '

----------

In 16th century Switzerland, homosexuals were executed by being cut into small pieces over a period of four days.

That's how much the Swiss liked to show God's love.

Millions,& billions more
Care, than care what YOU say.

-----------

Stu writes: 5:20 AM
God in need of his own justice...
Who cares what god wants?

Can you show that Scripture to me?
FredSBA writes: 12:52 PM
Theology
One of the big problems here is that Christians see God as the great judge in the sky. He is, but he's not.
--------
ts:
Its the very Founding Principle America is Founded in.
Laws of Nature and Natures God.

----------
FredSBA writes
Isaiah calls judgement His "strange work", that which He takes no pleasure in. As I understand it, judgement is more closely related to surgery than to penal matters.
------
ts:
Been a reader of Scripture for over 40 years now, never read such a scripture as you claim is in there.
If you mean this Scripture:
Isa 28:21 -
For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act

Ok, but is says nothing about His Judgment as "strange".

His strange act is what it says, speaking of the Birth of the Son of God.

Preceding verses.
Isaiah 28:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place

His Judgments are not what he called strange, it was His Acts of laying the Foundation for the Foundation of God's Kingdom among men.


Brian R
Perhaps. But in all the translations of the Ten Commandments into English I have seen, I have never seen it written, "Thou shalt not murder." Be that as it may, in English - and in law - murder is a specific form of homicide - which is the killing of one person by another. All murder is homicide, but not all homicide is murder. (There is justifiable homicide, such as self-defense, etc.) But these are human constructs.

"Murder" is typically defined as the willful/purposeful taking of another human being's life. Then there are degrees of murder. First degree is usually premeditated - or, "with malice aforethought." Second degree murder is willful, but typically not premeditated. Manslaughter is usually accidental, or grossly negligent homicide.

Given those definitions of murder, it is hard to see how something could be more premeditated than a government-implemented execution.

Finally, as to whether God actually said "kill" or murder," I offer this thought: you'll notice that while our (man's) penal codes run into hundreds of pages, God's original laws fit on two small stone tablets. So who added all the "judicial gloss"?

Theology
One of the big problems here is that Christians see God as the great judge in the sky. He is, but he's not.

Isaiah calls judgement His "strange work", that which He takes no pleasure in. As I understand it, judgement is more closely related to surgery than to penal matters. God removes from the healthy body those that introduce unhealthiness and who do unhealthy things.

And yes, He commands (Genesis 9) that it be done by capital punishment.

What God also does quite often is mercifully heal unhealthy people. If you approach judgement as a penal matter, there is little room for that, but if you approach it as a health matter, it is pretty straightforward.

Yes, God chooses capital punishment in a set of cases. He also chooses mercy.

Ergum, your translation
is faulty.

Properly translated, the commandment doesn't say "Thou shalt not kill".

It says "Thou shalt not MURDER".

World of difference there, pard.

Bible Passages
Does anyone have a problem with God requiring the murder of an innocent infant to let David, one of the most despicable characters of the Old Testament, live? Capital punishment is undoubtedly condoned in the OT. God ordered, or carried out personally,the murder of literally thousands of people.

Jesus did not condemn the prostitute.
1) This mob was made up of men that had obviously committed the sin of adultry. As adulterers they did not have the right to judge.
2) It was not Jesus's mission or purpose to judge. This is consistent with his whole ministry. He hung out with sketchy characters and in sketchy places because He did not come for those that think they are righteous but for those who can admit they are failures at keeping the Law.
3) Jesus came so that we would know what God was like and to draw us near to Him by becoming the sacrificial Lamb of God.
4) Next time Jesus comes it will be with a sword.
5) THese verses should not be used by governments to determine what to do with criminals. It doesn't apply.

I am pro-life
We live in an age of grace and mercy.

Who knows what God can do with the worst of the worst? Turn him around and while in prison bring 1,000's into the Kingdom.

We know how corrupt our judicial system is. How can anyone place any credence in its ability to judge rightly these days?

For these three very specific reasons, I do not agree with capital punishment. I believe all life needs to be protected - regardless how heinous a crime. Death would be a far better exit than life in prison.

This discussion...
...skirts the real issue. Proponents of capital punishment seek to justify its use. The author and others try to decipher God's position on the issue with biblical exegesis. Some opponents of capital punishment turn to legalistic and secular arguments.

Because there are well founded, and convincing but specious, arguments on both sides the discussion is endless. The Bible, history, even the law is subject to interpretation, interpretation influenced by personal bias for one position or the other.

The real argument is the power. The power to determine life or death of an individual is an awesome one. Who should be entrusted with such a power?

As one who believes in justice, I see "a jury of my peers" as the most reasonable and rational answer to that question. And were it truly an impartial jury of my peers, I might still be a supporter of capital punishment.

In truth the system of justice promised me by the framers is grossly compromised. Over the past 200+ years politicians, law enforcement operatives at every level, and a highly politicized bench have undermined the equity of the system.

Politicians, bureaucrats, and self-serving careerist cannot be trusted with such power. I am loath to be a party to the murder of and innocent person, whether the murder take place in the street or in the gas chamber. Because I abhor murder, I think it best not to allow people with perverse incentivization to exercise capital punishment in my name.

Difficult Bible Passages and the Penalty
I am a Christian and feels deeply that my God feels that every person has the right to unthreatenen life. Anyone who takes a life then should face the consequences.

more on capital punishment
Last of all, I get the sneaky suspicion that Tallman may be one of those who thinks that Jesus died on the cross and rose again only to give us a second chance at saving ourselves by our own works [may I be wrong on this].

In fact, Bible Christians have always believed that Jesus' death on the cross was the necessary atonement for the sins of His people. It is substitutionary and penal, wherein the righteous Messiah, the Incarnate Word of God (Jn. 1) bore our sins in his body on the tree (I Peter 2:24-25; Mk. 10:45; Isaiah 53). It is not a mere crime for which JOOOOOOZ, Italians, white people [that's for you, Jemmy Wright Jr.], or modern Americans who support capital punishment deserve eternal vilification.

Indeed, even after Jesus' resurrection and ascension, he remains the Lamb of God slain for our sins (when Scripture speaks of Jesus as "Lamb", it's talking sacrifice; not cute wooliness). His is the blood that will never depart from David's House. Why? It is the blood of the covenant shed for the many for the remission of sins. It is why salvation is still available to any who will accept it.

Indeed, Jesus accepted capital punishment--even one wrongly meted out--that you and I may be saved.

I think anyone who uses religion
to justify killing someone else, is frightening. Aren't we fighting a war against people like that? They think they're right, too. Does God have the right and power to take our lives? Of that I have no doubt. Is Man God? I don't think so.

Men make mistakes, and one of the greatest of these is pride. I'd say putting yourself up there with God is a good example.

Recall that the Pharisees had Jesus killed because, amongst other things, He violated the laws (like healing on the Sabbath, for example). Oh, yes - and then there was the "blasphemy" and all the other trumped-up charges they brought against him.

When Man uses his laws (or, more accurately, his interpretation of God's laws) to kill God, it strikes me as the best example of why Man shouldn't rely on his own laws to kill other men.

But, if all of that is too esoteric for you, how about this one? THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

I support capital punishment, too
Tallman shortcharges Scripture at several points.

First, the Pharisees who sought to stone the woman caught in adultery seem to have been a kangaroo court or lynch mob. Note that Jesus asks the one without sin to cast the first stone, exposing the corruption of the group.

As for David, he was anointed, but he was also put in place by a covenant with the elders of Israel (II Sam. 5), and was subject to Torah (Dt. 17). Note as well that Nathan announced to him not only the impending death of the child born of adultery but also that the blood would not depart from his house. Nor did it. The books of Kings show us that the Davidic Dynasty was plagued by trouble all the way down to Babylonian Captivity.

I note as well that David murdered Uriah the Hittite (the poor Armenians were getting it in the neck even back then!) and took his wife by subterfuge that probably would have been hard to prove in court. But, had David battered down Uriah's door, stabbed him in plain sight, and pulled a simpering Bathsheba from the bathtub to take her back to the palace, that probably would have justified revolt against such a king (since Tallman mentions "law as king", I assume he has read Samuel Rutherford's 1644 tract _Lex Rex_, which justified Covenanting Scotland and Puritan England's revolt against Charles I).

(to be continued)


Buck, Koolhand
Relax guys. There is a middle ground between anarchy and subservient acquiesance to every last idiocy of the law. Over the years there have been quite a few stories of people who got away with vigilante action against perverts who were not punished by courts due to technicalities, witness intimidation or jury stupidity. Koolhand, Buck never said anything about riots. Buck, Koolhand has a point. The rule of law is due respect and a degree of tolerance for imperfection.

buck WTF?
"If, each time the people are treated by these liberal judges and lawyers as impediment to whatever they want to do, the people react violently, these liberals will get the message."

As Ricky Bobby's kids say: "Anarchy! Anarchy!"

Way to think there Buck, so if a court decision ticks you off, let's have a riot. What a maroon;
nothing like a good laugh to start the day.

Capital Punishment
Everyone that says "capital punishment doesn't deter crime" I would ask only one question, why is a mafia bagman, or any criminal bagman left alone? Right, there would be instant death to anyone that dares impede the man or woman doing the job of a bagman. Now, the reason capital punishment doesn't work in the USA is because we have allowed liberal judges and liberal lawyers make the rules, instead of the people making the rules. If, each time the people are treated by these liberal judges and lawyers as impediment to whatever they want to do, the people react violently, these liberals will get the message. Judges and lawyers are here to proptect the people, not the criminal.

Song and Dance
This guy twists, spins, distorts scripture like an MC Hammer dance routine. I've gotta tell ya, this is one of the most pathetic examples of 2 Peter 3:16 I've ever seen. I've never seen anyone do a song and dance like this, and I've heard a lot of scummy preachers in my life. I feel like I should have read it with background music, something like "Jarabe Tapatia"

God in need of his own justice...
Who cares what god wants? If he can't give us a clear indication of his wishes, why spend so much energy trying to find out? The US is a democracy with no established religion, and criminal penalties are a matter of public concensus. How many votes does god get?

Anyway, if I had my way 'he' would have been imprisoned for multiple first-degree murder, often amounting to genocide, and thus would not be constitutionally entitled to vote.

Stuart

Most profound insight
In words to explain the death penalty, I have not seen
----------


As Prof. Michael Pakaluk so perfectly expressed the point,

“If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins….”

If we didn’t deserve the death penalty ourselves, then why would Christ need to suffer it on our behalf in order to satisfy the justice of God?

Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of the Father, Who required His own Son to pay precisely that price in our stead.

On further thought
all social policies have a cost, often in lives.

We have tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year in order to use our freeways and highways efficiently and speedily. There's a cost in lives for those 70 mph speed limits. However, we freely accept that because we don't want to poke along the freeways at 15 mph.

Same deal.

The death penalty is constitutional
as it's clearly allowed under the 5th Amendment.

Further, the Founders themselves imposed it in certain historical instances, immediately coming to mind George Washington's execution of Valley Forge deserters, as well as the hanging of Benedict Arnold's conspirator British Major Andre.

That's good enough for me; it's part of the social contract.

I also don't require perfect proof of guilt. If we waited for perfection, we'd never punish anybody for anything.


All the rest of this nonsense is simply sophistric nonsense along the lines of asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



oh well!
After many years of thinking about Biblical events, I've conculded that the incident with the woman taken in adultry was a set-up. Where was the man? The law dictated the same penalty (stoning) to both participants in the sin. Why was the man not presented to Yeshua bar Yoseph? The answer: this was a set-piece crime intended to present Jesus with a lose-lose situation. As usual, he outfoxed his enemies with his greater (supernatural?) knowledge.

As for the human-controlled death penalty -- it demands a prefection not available to mere human reason. In the abstract, death for death seems entirely just. In reality we seldom can be sure beyond any doubt that we have condemned the guilty party.

Lock them up and weld the door shut!

Why I Support Capital Punishment Part 8d


Why I Support Capital Punishment, Part 8d
by Andrew Tallman, originally published 5/1/08


(continued from previous post)


What about the rest of the New Testament?

Since both Jesus’s teaching and His death affirm the capital punishment, it should come as no surprise that the rest of the New Testament reinforces this view.

When confronting Governor Festus, Paul says in Acts 25:11, “If I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of these things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them.” He both affirms capital statutes and accepts them as binding on him if he has broken one. Later, in the New Testament’s most famous passage on the nature of government, Paul explains, “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath upon the one who practices evil.” (Romans 13:4) Finally, the same Bible which begins in Genesis 9:6 with the establishment of capital punishment, then carries the theme consistently throughout the text, and ends by reiterating it in Revelation 13:10, “If any one is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if any one kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.”

Literally from beginning to end, the Bible teaches that capital punishment is authorized and required by God. If so, then why do so many people claim to oppose this practice on religious grounds? We’ll consider some of their objections in the next column.


Why I Support Capital Punishment Part 8c


Why I Support Capital Punishment, Part 8c
by Andrew Tallman, originally published 5/1/08

(continued from previous post)


Shortly thereafter, Jesus tells Pilate in John 19:11, “You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above…” This authority to put Jesus to death would be odd if it didn’t entail the general power to execute criminals. Finally, when He is dying of crucifixion, Jesus accepts the repentance of the thief on the cross, who says to his reviling companion, “Do you not even fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving what we deserve for our deeds….” (Luke 23:40-41) Had Jesus disagreed with this statement, responding to it with the promise of eternal salvation was a rather obtuse way to express the correction.

Beyond all this evidence that Jesus affirms the consistent Biblical principle of capital punishment, there is yet one more vital concept to grasp. Christians believe that Christ died on the cross to pay for the sins of us all. Although His sinlessness merited eternal life, He endured the death we deserved to extend that gift to us. As Prof. Michael Pakaluk so perfectly expressed the point, “If no crime deserves the death penalty, then it is hard to see why it was fitting that Christ be put to death for our sins….” If we didn’t deserve the death penalty ourselves, then why would Christ need to suffer it on our behalf in order to satisfy the justice of God? Denying the death penalty directly assaults the justice of the Father, Who required His own Son to pay precisely that price in our stead.


(concluded next post)


Why I Support Capital Punishment Part 8b


Why I Support Capital Punishment, Part 8b
by Andrew Tallman, originally published 5/1/08


(continued from previous post)


In Matthew 5:17-18, He taught, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished.” Just a few verses later, He extends the prohibition against murder to hatred and condemns haters to “the hell of fire” in verse 22, which is very strange talk for someone who opposes capital punishment. It’s very hard to dismiss these verses because they occur smack in the middle of the Sermon on the Mount, which is so often mistakenly offered as the repudiation of Old Testament justice. If Jesus elsewhere opposes capital punishment, then He is not only contradicting the Father but even His own words.

Later, Jesus scolds the Pharisees and scribes for teaching leniency toward rebellious children by quoting the Old Testament, “For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother,’ and ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.’” (Matthew 15:4) Subsequently, when the Romans come to arrest Jesus, Peter rather ineptly tries to defend Him by killing Malchus, but only succeeds in slicing off his ear. Jesus rebukes him with the warning, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” Far from advocating pacifism, as this passage is often misused to do, Jesus here teaches Peter that using the sword (for murder) will only get the sword used against him (for execution).


(continued next post)


Why I Support Capital Punishment Part 8a


andrewtallman writes: “Just for the sake of clarity, this column is actually the last in a series of 11. For whatever reason, Townhall never did publish Part 7 (which lays out the Old Testament case) or Part 8 (which lays out the New Testament case).”


Why I Support Capital Punishment, Part 8a
by Andrew Tallman, originally published 5/1/08


In the previous article, I showed that the Old Testament endorses capital punishment. Now, let’s see whether the New Testament maintains or contradicts this teaching.

Did Jesus support capital punishment?

Many Christians believe that faithfulness to the ministry of Jesus requires them to oppose capital punishment. Though they acknowledge that the Old Testament mandated this penalty for murder, they think Jesus changed everything. Typically, their view is that the harsh and mean God the Father of the Old Testament established execution, but the loving and kind God the Son of the New Testament abolished it. I’m pretty sure such people don’t realize they’re denying the Trinity when they say this.

The doctrine of the Trinity affirms the eternal unity of all three persons of the Godhead, but such a fundamental disagreement between the Son and the Father would rupture this unity. In fact, if Jesus had contradicted any of the Father’s principles, let alone such a well-established one, that very disagreement would have immediately disproved His claims to be the divine Son. This was exactly the heresy the Pharisees were hoping to trap Him into when they brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus. Even His enemies knew that He absolutely had to affirm capital punishment in order to prove Himself not a false prophet. How truly strange, then, that those who claim to love Him assert that He did exactly what His enemies failed to trick Him into doing! Far from opposing capital punishment, Jesus actually advocated it, as His unity with the Father required.


(continued next post)


A few points...
God didn’t institute the death penalty until after the flood in Genesis 9:6. This was after he executed all flesh (except Noah and his family) himself, because they had all become corrupt.

God may have spared David because he immediately confessed his sin, he realized he had sinned against God and didn’t try to excuse his sin. This was completely different from Saul who would always blame God or the people for his sin. David was a man after God’s own heart, maybe because he realized that his sin was a sin against God.

As for woman caught in the act of adultery; Leviticus 20:10 states that both the adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death. It wouldn’t have been just to execute the woman without also executing the man; the Pharisees certainly knew the law and that may have been why they were convicted by their own consciences and walked away without accusing the Lord of being a heretic.

In Matthew 22:29, Jesus chastised the Sadducees when they tried to trip him up with a question about the resurrection, even though they didn’t believe in the resurrection themselves. He said: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God”. The same is true of those who try to use the Bible to prove their liberal ideas even though they don’t really believe the Bible themselves. John Kerry’s favorite N.T. book was Job.

More Scripture
People quote “…He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” but forget that He told the woman to “go, and sin no more.” -John 8:7,11 Jesus didn’t do away with Old Testament Law. During the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” - Matthew 5:17

Where to read the entire series
Just for the sake of clarity, this column is actually the last in a series of 11. For whatever reason, Townhall never did publish Part 7 (which lays out the Old Testament case) or Part 8 (which lays out the New Testament case). If you want to read them all, you can do so at my articles blog:
http://andrewtallmanshowarticles.blogspot.com/ (Links are on the right side)
or at Crosswalk.com:
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/commentary/11574674/
(Links are at the bottom)
I hope this helps those of you who have been following the series. I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for all your insightful comments both in these posts and to my email.

Sincerely,
Andrew

Cam writes:
Jesus specifically renounced the eye-for-eye mentality in favor of turning the other cheek. He also rejected many common views on what was appropriate behavior on the Sabbath.
---------

Yes, for an individual to take it upon himself to render vengeance, but says nothing about changing the Law.
This is addressed to individuals, it is not changing the Law of Moses.

Jesus says: "I say unto YOU"
He says nothing about what the Law does to Judge a Crime with Judgment.


Matthew 5:38-42
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.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. 41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

Tallman has written one of the very best studies, on this subject, I have ever read.

Congratulations to him

Death penalty fair and just
The death penalty was divinely appointed, and the just punishment for murder and many other sins against God. There is no way to read Scripture and conclude that the death penalty is not sanctioned by God, and even demanded by His justice. Basically, if you think the death penalty unjust, you call into question the cornerstone of the Christian faith: Christ was executed to pay the just penalty for my Sin.

"Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy" is one of the Beatitudes, but so is "blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be filled".

I am genuinely conflicted about the the application of the death penalty, and I think that if it is used at all it should only be under the Biblical standard of two or more eyewitnesses as proof. I also believe that the victim's next of kin should be permitted the right to grant clemency and waive the death penalty.

Justice and mercy are opposites. It is only at the Cross that God accomplished both without contradiction (Christ mercifully paid the full penalty for my Sin thus fulfilling God's justice). Therefore, anytime we show mercy, we water down justice. The good news is that justice is ultimately meted out by God, not Man.

Tallman has done a great job of researching this controversial and complex issue, and should be praised for his diligence and courage, not attacked because of his conclusions.

Damn, Truth Is Fun!
We're all under the death penalty for our sins. And most will die! HO, HO, HO. But nobody mentioned resurrections. Yes, 3 of them. The 2nd Resurrection after 1000 years of Christ's reign on earth includes most of mankind who never heard or believed the truth. You will get your chance with them. Death isn't final especially for those few wrongfully accused.

But opine on you opinionates! Those who want to really be free? eli3.tripod.com

Who is this creepazoid Tallman?
His previous "God wants us to show love by killing" column was soundly ripped to shreds by many posters. So what is Pt. 2 doing here?

Who do we kill?
If we through the government execute someone who was actually innocent who then gets killed? Note: Most people who are in favor of the death penalty also say it takes to long to execute someone, and the evidence has shown that it is exactly the long time it takes to execute someone that has prevented innocent people convicted wrongly from being executed.

Jesus of Nazareth
did not refute or change any OT teaching, but rather gave an interpretation of it that was new, and there fore controversial in that day. The Religious Leaders of the day would write law upon law to "loophole" Scripture. Jesus taught the loopholes back out of Scripture, and in this way threatened said leaders. I think it is a valid argument that the requirements of the individual and the responsibilities of governments are not the same, nor should they be. Long discussion follows....

Florida
Jesus uses the metaphors of the shepherd and sheep to explain your point.

Whether or not capital punishment is sinful, it's hard to imagine why a Christian would devote their time to scripturally justifying it. Aren't there better things to do?

Tallman sounds like Jesus contradicting the Old Testament would be heresy. Jesus specifically renounced the eye-for-eye mentality in favor of turning the other cheek. He also rejected many common views on what was appropriate behavior on the Sabbath.

What...
"capital punishment is purposeful, rational and pleasing to God."

You really think when we take a persons life that pleases God? Ridiculous! God Loves All of Man Kind he cries when one of His mess up so bad that our laws decide we should take their life. Does that mean we shouldnt use this in the most severe cases, No i dont think so, But God the Great I Am is not pleased by Mans fallen state regardless of which side of the law they may be on!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.