Defiant, but hanged
There has been a lot of comment over the last couple of days about the hanging of Saddam Hussein. Some of it has even penetrated the busyness of the season to resonate a little. I have been reflecting a little on a photo that was on the age website (which I now cannot find). It was a side on picture of Hussein, his head lowered with the noose around his neck. And for some reason I thought that I had seen a very similar image before recently. Or that the image was evoking reactions in me that had stirred in relation to something similar. For the life of me I couldn’t figure it out.
It came to me in the end. The image was evoking for me the photos of the Abu Graib torture. The last time I saw such a high profile image of someone with a noose around their neck, it was damning evidence of torture. I haven’t read much commentary so I don’t know how original this response was, and maybe it is entirely appropriate that a known torturer die with these sorts of images echoing in my head.
But I can’t really believe that. I don’t remember very much about the victims of the Abu Graib torture. Because it was irrelevant what crimes the victims may have been guilty of. I do remember a fair bit about the people in those photos who were putting nooses around necks. When talking about outrageous and obscene acts such as torture, the perpetrators commit a crime against humanity itself, not just against the individual victim. Such acts diminish the human race.
I am pretty comfortable calling Hussein evil. He was certainly a man worthy of criminal punishment. But in hanging him, and in condoning or accepting or allowing or refusing to condemn that action, we are smaller and less just and just less.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:53 am
Homer, you are completely full of crap, and again you don’t prove me wrong by posting scripture, but by making judgements that make no sense at all. Scripture is not on your side.
Matt: 5
7Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
9Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called sons of God.
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matt: 18
32″Then the master called the servant in. ‘You wicked servant,’ he said, ‘I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn’t you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?’ 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.
Matt: 20
25Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Matt:23
23″Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness.
Matt: 26
52″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.
And that is just one gospel, do I need to continue? And isn’t it weird to you that all of Jesus disciples, and all of their students, and all of their students disagree with you? I will trust them over you anyday Homer.
You still have not shown one new testement verse that explains how we are no longer supposed to use capital punishment for adultery, homosexuality, or delinquency, but we are supposed to use it for murder! You still have not once explained why God protected Cain from being executed! You still have not explained why the very clear understanding of the early church Fathers is not what Jesus taught! You are relying on your very fleshly desire to see people punished for their wrong doing, instead of trusting God to judge, and believing in love.
rev
rev
January 22nd, 2007 at 11:41 am
“and it may in fact be the view of the rather archaic Matthew Henry Commentary”
Hi Janet. MH doesn’t talk about “litigation” and doesn’t attempt to weaken Christ’s words. I don’t always agree with MH and other commentators who are sometimes heavily influenced by politics and tradition but he had a soft Christian heart and that often comes through in his writing.
Mathew Henry Concise:
Mathew 5
Verses 38-42 The plain instruction is, Suffer any injury that can be borne, for the sake of peace, committing your concerns to the Lord’s keeping. And the sum of all is, that Christians must avoid disputing and striving. If any say, Flesh and blood cannot pass by such an affront, let them remember, that flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God; and those who act upon right principles will have most peace and comfort.
Verses 43-48 The Jewish teachers by “neighbour” understood only those who were of their own country, nation, and religion, whom they were pleased to look upon as their friends. The Lord Jesus teaches that we must do all the real kindness we can to all, especially to their souls. We must pray for them. While many will render good for good, we must render good for evil; and this will speak a nobler principle than most men act by. Others salute their brethren, and embrace those of their own party, and way, and opinion, but we must not so confine our respect. It is the duty of Christians to desire, and aim at, and press towards perfection in grace and holiness. And therein we must study to conform ourselves to the example of our heavenly Father, 1Pe 1:15,16. Surely more is to be expected from the followers of Christ than from others; surely more will be found in them than in others. Let us beg of God to enable us to prove ourselves his children.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/matthew/mhc/matthew5.htm
Luke 6
Verses 27-36 These are hard lessons to flesh and blood. But if we are thoroughly grounded in the faith of Christ’s love, this will make his commands easy to us. Every one that comes to him for washing in his blood, and knows the greatness of the mercy and the love there is in him, can say, in truth and sincerity, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? Let us then aim to be merciful, even according to the mercy of our heavenly Father to us.
Verses 37-49 All these sayings Christ often used; it was easy to apply them. We ought to be very careful when we blame others; for we need allowance ourselves. If we are of a giving and a forgiving spirit, we shall ourselves reap the benefit. Though full and exact returns are made in another world, not in this world, yet Providence does what should encourage us in doing good. Those who follow the multitude to do evil, follow in the broad way that leads to destruction. The tree is known by its fruits; may the word of Christ be so grafted in our hearts, that we may be fruitful in every good word and work. And what the mouth commonly speaks, generally agrees with what is most in the heart. Those only make sure work for their souls and eternity, and take the course that will profit in a trying time, who think, speak, and act according to the words of Christ. Those who take pains in religion, found their hope upon Christ, who is the Rock of Ages, and other foundation can no man lay. In death and judgment they are safe, being kept by the power of Christ through faith unto salvation, and they shall never perish.
http://eword.gospelcom.net/comments/luke/mhc/luke6.htm
Sounds pretty good to me.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:34 pm
rev, it would be helpful if you actually read.
positive for capital punishment. Romans13 then Jesus on the cross where he actually doesn’t contradict the just penalty of the criminal.
Try 1 Cor 5 for adultery etc.
you never could understand the bible and frankly I doubt your much vaunted education.
irony of ironies but you are the true pharisee although in true fashion you won’t understnd why.
Halieus, it has actually passed you by but Henry is CONTRADICTING your position.
January 22nd, 2007 at 12:37 pm
sorry to add one thing, the law was to be adjudicated by jewish magistrates not by individuals taking the law into their own hands!
January 22nd, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Thanks Halieus… well, not Matthew Henry’s view then.
I’m still trying to understand where this view comes from.
“the law was given to the Jewish nation ie it was to be discharged by magistrates!”
Let me repeat then… are you suggesting the sermon on the mount is an interpretation of the Mosaic law under the rule of Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews…. the civil law for Kingdom of Heaven in Israel under Jesus’ reign?
A simple yes or no will do!
January 22nd, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Here is a new word for you Homer, it is called Hermenuetics. It is the way in which we understand the scriptures. Now Homer, this magical word tells us that we must understand the context of the passage in its immediate context, in the context of the larger scriptures and in the context of its history and culture. Now I am very sure you don’t understand this, because St. Paul, who wrote Romans by the way, was executed because he infact refused to respect the government, and refused to submit to the Roman or the Jewish rule.
But it is ironic that you who are so scriptural, refuse to actually address the plethora of scriptures I presented. Nor do you address the fact that all of those closest to Jesus historically hold my view and not yours.
Oh, and just so you know, I understand why you say I am a pharisee, and its funny because you are using pharisaical thinking to rearrange the definition to support your own anti Jesus thinking. Good job.
rev
January 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 pm
M Henry doesn’t goes far enough, isn’t specific enough, but contradict my position? Just keep telling yourself that Homer. I don’t think you understand my position. It’s based on what Jesus said, not on re-writing what Jesus said.
You do realise that it was individuals, “the whole congregation” that carried out stoning? The followers of Jesus never carried out any stoning. You seem to think that Christ and His followers would have stoned people to death if all the right procedures were followed! He said he who is without sin and they were all convicted from the eldest to the youngest. He didn’t correct them about appropriate procedures, he ended the practice altogether for anyone willing to follow him.
You’ve claimed that you would execute a prisoner begging for mercy, in cold blood, without mercy. How do you reconcile that with the words of Christ? By reducing them to nothing and appealing to Gen9. You can’t personally put people to death and still be genuinely concerned for their welfare. The serious contradiction is in your thinking concerning love and mercy.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Didn’t Jesus say to some people, sometime:
Go and learn this, I desire compassion rather than sacrifice
I think I remember that.
rev
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:21 pm
Homer, I don’t think you really have a complete grasp of what it means to be a follower of Jesus (I gues for that matter who among us does) but I can not for the life of me find anything in the teachings of Jesus that supports the death penalty and a mountain of teaching against it. You have yet to argue fom the Christian scriptures (as opposed to the Hebrew) for the death penalty so i’d like you to spell it out from a Christian point of view (New Testament to make it quite clear).
You cite Romans 13 and I assume you mean the submission to authorities - but which authorities are you suggesting we submit to? The Australian, the US or the Iraqi? Each has a different view on the death penalty. As an Australian I assume we can only submit to Australian authorities and therefore you homer must submit to not agreeing to the death penalty - because that is the view held by our government.
You also neglect verses 8-10 which tell us that love does no harm to it’s neighbour…killing someone is the ultimate harm a person can inflict! Even the scriptures you claim support your position ca be used to argue against it…of course I realise that I am mishandling the scriptures as i am a liberal pharisee…now you’ve gone and made me sad you see
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:40 pm
And furthermore,
“Oh Paul did not do anything illegal as it was according to Jewish law.”
So killing innocent men and woman was not illegal? Killing the servants of God was legal according to Jewish law? I suppose the Jews did “nothing illegal” in delivering up Jesus either! Or in killing the prophets, did nothing illegal? This is where your legalism shows out. Stephen called them murderers:
“Which of the prophets didn’t your fathers persecute? They killed those who foretold the coming of the Righteous One, of whom you have now become betrayers and murderers.” Acts 7:52
Then they murdered Stephen, brutally and illegally, legally you say. By what law did they murder the innocent barer of truth and was it “adjudicated by jewish magistrates”? Of the hundreds he persecuted, beat and murdered, none was illegal?
Jesus was the Messiah. Killing his followers was wrong. Killing the prophets was wrong. You’d like to say, “it was wrong but not illegal” but according to your arguments it was both wrong and illegal. As was Jesus, they were innocent of any crime. There are no provisions in the Law for executing innocent people who believe the truth. Paul was wrong and a murderer.
When Stephen’s friends buried him, it was with a lot of tears and grieving but I’m sure without that sense of retribution, of punishment, of needing a death for a death. They knew vengeance belonged to God.
When Saul was converted he then became the hunted, there were plots to execute him. So who should help him escape what he deserved but the very people that had a strong motive to see his death as just. They helped him escape death by hiding him and lowering him over a wall in a large basket. Phenomenal love and forgiveness.
When they got him to Jerusalem the brothers were afraid of him, But no-one was trying to kill him or arguing that he deserved to die, life for life as if it was the only just thing. They could have delivered him to the Romans as a murderer who broke their laws. They no longer related to that life of the law, vengeance, retribution. They now understood the new law of grace, of forgiveness, of love. They wouldn’t murder neither would they condemn to death even a murderer.
Barnabas stood up for Saul and his conversion story, not stood forward and mounted an argument against him which he could have so easily done and been right in the natural sense. He’d chased, persecuted, beaten and murdered innocent people. When Saul’s accusers after his conversion proclaimed “he isn’t fit to live!”, the people he’d been persecuting displayed a genuine concern for his wellbeing and safety. They showed love to him, they had mercy.
No-one could conclude that early Christians were death penalty advocates. The Pharisees were very keen, to the Empire it was practically a national past-time, a daily spectacle, but not Christians.
Only the sinless have the right to condemn to death. He who is without sin. That’s what the NT church knew and, as is well understood, the Romans needed no encouragement from Gen9 to execute people as if by grudging duty to God. They paid no attention whatsoever to Gen9.
January 22nd, 2007 at 6:51 pm
And one more thing, Homer said,
“Romans 13 which in fact backs up Genesis 6 .Paul in speaks of judges as Gods ministers in using the sword that is to say in putting to death those who deserve death!”
Your argument borders on question begging when you presuppose that the text “backs Gen9″. This verse backs Gen9 for people who believe in the death penalty and Christian application of Gen9, with NO supporting argument. You believe in the death penalty therefore the NT supports the death penalty. There is no mention in this passage of murder or life for life. It contains none of the content of Gen9, no mention of specific crimes (but tax evasion) or “proportionate retribution”, no endorsement for an eye for an eye, no mention of the death penalty and certainly no mention of Christian participation in CP. By your logic this verse could be used to kill people for any crime!
Your big argument has been punishment fitting the crime, there’s not even a hint of that in Romans 13 In fact Roman punishments rarely fitted the crime. Crucifixion for theft? Does that fit the crime?
January 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 am
Whew. Ya’all can get into it, can’t ya’? (smile)
A question: are those here who are against the death penalty advocating dying at the hands of evil men as a sound alternative to fighting back when one’s own life is in danger?
I think that martyrdom is scriptural, as God leads. I am willing to suffer or die at the will of God, but I am not willing to suffer when it is not His will. In my relationship with God, I follow His lead rather than just subject myself to every whim of evil.
If the righteous do not fight evil, how will evil not overtake good? Would not more people have suffered and died unjustly under the hands of the Nazis if they had not been opposed?
Is it more moral to commit suicide by refusing to defend oneself? (Again, I grant that refusing to defend oneself is scriptural at times.)
In the case of the Nazi concentration camps, Rev, would it have been possible to walk into one and say, “Hey dudes, I’m here to take the punishment you meant to deal to this Jewish man here; beat me instead.” Would that have worked?
As far as “Would Jesus have ‘flipped the switch’” (electric chair) goes, doesn’t God flip the switch every day on the unrepentant who die outside of Christ’s saving grace?
Is there not a measure of accountability required by God which ends in death for all those who do not repent? Of course, for God’s love is a JUST love: and men reap according to what they have sown; we must admit that some are worthy of death, else we find God to be unjust.
To me, this all suggests that mercy has an end. I understand if people want to say, “Let God make that determination, not me” and even support that.
To become so ’super spiritual’ that we can no longer practice good judgment is not to be godly, however, but deceived: I have no problem with those who oppose the death penalty; but to suggest that there are no crimes/sins/offenses which are worthy of death is not scriptural in my opinion.
Mercy is available to all through the cross (or in the natural, through repentance): but it is not guaranteed.
And yes, I do respect and honor everyone else’s opinions: especially when they disagree with me.
–thanks for listening ….
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:32 am
P.S. I am against murdering people, personally. However, I do not find the death penalty to be unjust in every case.
But that’s just me.
I COULD compromise and settle for life in prison in lieu of the death penalty, however, for egregious offenses.
January 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 am
And I admit that the law is man’s imperfect attempt to imitate God’s perfect justice.
Good grief. Now, I’m agreeing with you people! (smile)
Just throwing some bread on the waters ….
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 am
I suppose it wasn’t very good sense for Jesus to go to the cross either. Or for the early church not to fight against the Romans when they tried to kill them. You see the narrow path often does not make sense. I believe that God will bring righteousness, and justice by His means not ours. When the Romans saw Christians that were willing to die, but not willing to kill they saw something beyond their human capabilities. The power of God was evident, and they wound up often repenting. Constantine was forced to join forces with the church because they couldn’t persecute it out of existence.
Who would have thought a bloodless revolution was possible? But Gandhi pulled it off using Jesus strategy even though he wasn’t a Christian, how much more can it work when people, empowered by the living God, refuse to take up the power of life and death, but rather love with complete perfection like God tells us in Matthew 5-7.
It is funny that so many people write off most of the sermon on the mount. Well Jesus obviously didn’t mean to give to everyone, just those who really need it. Well Jesus obviously didn’t mean to sell everything. To love everyone. To forgive everyone. But this sermon ends with the message that if you do not do these things you are building your life on a shaky foundation. We are actually expected to live that out.
As to being lead by the Spirit, how many people believed they were lead by the Spirit and have done ridiculous things? I know of quite a few people that have divorced their spouses and ran off with others knowing it was God’s will!!! I don’t trust myself to always know what the Spirit is saying, as I am a selfish person, and often talk myself into things that are not right. So I must rely on Jesus example, and the word. And it is very very clear, despite Homer’s him hawing, what the new testement tells us, and the early church lived it out.
rev
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:31 am
I actually don’t consider the death penalty unjust - it probably is quite just that if you kill someone you forfeit your life - however as a Christian what seems just in our eyes may not well be just in God’s eyes. We have been given life by God and yet we seem to think we are entitled to take lofe at our our own discression - The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is life - compare that to the evil servant who was forgiven his entire debt but would not do te same for another servant who owed him a lesser debt! If God has given us life - how do we think it is just for us to take anothers life?
January 23rd, 2007 at 10:34 am
Janet,
where did an eye for eye come from?
Greg, people who usually comment on this blog can throw Pharisee as a pejorative yet not know what it means, can assert the bible upholds slavery without understanding what slavery was in Israel, believe an adulterer or homosexual would be immediately stoned, cannot differentiate between a repentant sinner and an unrepentant sinner.
If I were you I would really cogitate on what a christian really means.
Halieus. you still haven’t figured out what punishment is.
A hint on Romans 13 what was the most severest punishment for a roman citizen. think about Paul.
What I really like about rev which is very easy to recognise if you have seen Lance in action is how he always changes the topic.
The topic is punishment of murder. pure and simple.
Unfortunately for rev and the rest the Sermon on the Mount doesn’t even come close to the topic.
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:25 am
You Homer claim people chyange topics -but you avoid questions when you don;t have answers - here is my post above agin…can you please adress the arguments contained whithin in it?
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Greg,
we are talking about the correct punishment fitting the crime of murder.
To my mind it doesn’t matter what country one is in the punishment fitting the crime of murder is death.
You can forgive someone that crime but the punishment stills needs to be put.
The Harm was killing an innocent person in the first place
January 23rd, 2007 at 2:27 pm
In Australia the punishment fitting the crime of murder is life in prison - so in fact it does matter what country you’re in. of course the harm done first was the killing of a person (innocent is your addition and in my opinion is what you have described others words…a weasel word). But as Christians we are called to a higher way - the way of love which does no harmn to it’s neighbour. How do you justify the harm of the death penalty when we are called to love as the highest reflection of the law? Love your neaighbour? as long as they don;t kill you!
January 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I really have no thought out stance on this topic but came across this article pro capital punishment and thought i would play the devils advocate.. see article at http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5530
“People say, “Well capital punishment is just revenge.” My response is they’re right in a sense. It is revenge. In fact, it’s just revenge. It’s God’s vengeance based on justice, executed through the machinery of government that God ordained.
Paul uses the word “sword” here. I don’t think he had in mind paddling people with the broad side of the sword. No, capital punishment is in view here as a proper tool government would use to express the vengeance of God in a just fashion against gratuitous evil. That’s the biblical teaching.
What about Jesus? Some say Jesus’ ethic of love and forgiveness requires us to end the death penalty. This was the appeal Mother Theresa made when Robert Alton Harris was facing the gas chamber here in California. She appealed to the governor saying Jesus would forgive.
With no disrespect towards Mother Theresa, I think her comments were mistaken because her view simply proves too much. What should be done instead with capital criminals? Should we put them in prison for the rest of their lives? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put them in prison for ten years? But Jesus would forgive. Should we put a murderer in prison for one day? But Jesus would forgive.
You see, if this argument works it becomes justification for the abolishment of any kind of punishment whatsoever. This argument proves too much.
Further, that Jesus would forgive is a different issue from whether the government should forgive. God can forgive evil. That doesn’t mean the government should forgive it in terms of its exercise of justice.
In fact, Jesus never challenged the validity of the death penalty when He had perfect opportunity to do so. Even in John 8, with the woman caught in adultery, he never challenged the death penalty itself. He didn’t enforce it under what seemed to be an unjust situation because all the witnesses fled. Remember, Jesus said, “Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The Law required witnesses to convict someone. “
January 23rd, 2007 at 8:58 pm
Homer, you are blind or can’t read, your comprehension skills are absent. You always change the subject and don’t understand the bible of have the Spirit. Read 2 corinthians
Wow, how intelectual was that? Homer taught me to debate.
It is apparent to everyone here that you cannot address this issue with any kind of new testement defense. Well everyone but yourself. You still have not even addressed the issue of the early church fathers being completely opposite your position on this issue, again, because you are a stiff necked, pompous, pride filled, law lover. Well Paul would wish you would finish the job.
rev
January 23rd, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Hi abtruth. I was so glad to see your handle on the top of a post. I’d pretty much exhausted my thoughts on this and now you’ve thrown the dog another bone! The people from STR are pretty smart and much better educated than i am yet I believe their position is based on tradition and old covenant attitudes and not the New Testament. I’d like to try and address the main points, hopefully without repeating too much of what I’ve said previously.
“Paul uses the word “sword” here. I don’t think he had in mind paddling people with the broad side of the sword.”
That’s funny, but ultimately obscures the truth. The sword is the symbol of authority to punish. If the context of the passage was murder or capital crimes then there might be some basis for assuming he speaks of CP but Paul speaks of any crime which, if the reasoning were followed, suggests God advocates CP for more crimes and misdemeanours than even the OT allowed. That simply being outside the law is a capital crime or for maintaining our Christian integrity against the law, God has ordained the death penalty! If the argument is CP for murderers it doesn’t come from this verse.
Jamieson, Faussett, and Brown has the sword as symbolic of authority, “he beareth not the sword in vain–that is, the SYMBOL of the magistrate’s authority to punish.”
Not in punishing every crime with the sword but as the administrator of justice for any crimes not just capital crimes and the sword represents that general authority not specific to CP.
B. W. Johnson explains the significance of the visibility of the sword as a symbol:
“The ruler, the guardian of order and the preserver of peace is, as a rule, a blessing. He beareth not the sword in vain. Not only did the magistrate wear the sword, but one was borne before him in public processions as an EMBLEM of his right to use it in the interests of order and justice.”
So the sword was visibly a threat and symbolic but was rarely used as the instrument of legal CP with other, more diabolical methods used to execute prisoners. Cruel and grotesque punishments we would have to admit God approved of if Roman CP is approved of in the verse in question.
Johnson also explains that obeying rulers is the general rule but “It does not imply that we shall obey wicked magistrates when they command us to disobey God. See Acts 4:19. 3. For rulers are not a terror to the good work. This is the general rule. Of course there have been occasional exceptions, when some human monster has been invested with absolute power, but the principle is true. It is not the law-abiding, but the lawless, who fear the law. Rulers as a class are a blessing. There was an exception a few years later when Nero developed his fiendish hate of all good.”
The Wycliffe brings the idea of force in maintaining order, that is, should you resist, you may be killed, something that remains true today and a separate issue from CP. This then would come closest to the meaning of the expression, “does not carry the sword in vain” and fits with the symbolism of authority generally. In Australia we see this from time to time. The authorities in the process of their lawful duty end up killing someone who is resistant to arrest or submission to the law. This has nothing to do with CP.
The Wycliffe B.C.
“…Here it is clear that God has ordained force (the sword) to be used by human authorities to prevent anarchy and the tyranny of evil in human society.”
and the NIV backs the idea of the sword’s symbolism:
NIV S.B.
“13:4 …The sword. The Symbol of Roman authority on both the national and international levels.”
So the verse describes a general submission to authority. It certainly in no way advocates Christian participation in Roman CP or CP as necessary or God’s will but places Christians as needing to obey the requirements of ordered society and laws generally and it’s fair to say that if one resists the authorities or is in rebellion against the legal enforcers then they may end up dead. That’s quite different from CP.
Eugene Peterson brings out the symbolism in his paraphrased Message bible as does the living bible:
Message
3-5Do you want to be on good terms with the government? Be a responsible citizen and you’ll get on just fine, the government working to your advantage. But if you’re breaking the rules right and left, watch out. The police aren’t there just to be admired in their uniforms. God also has an interest in keeping order, and he uses them to do it. That’s why you must live responsibly—not just to avoid punishment but also because it’s the right way to live.
6-7That’s also why you pay taxes—so that an orderly way of life can be maintained. Fulfill your obligations as a citizen. Pay your taxes, pay your bills, respect your leaders.
Romans 13:3-4
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013%20;&version=65;
Living
3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are God’s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are God’s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience.
Romans 13:3-4
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2013%20;&version=51;
“Should we put them in prison for the rest of their lives? But Jesus would forgive….it becomes justification for the abolishment of any kind of punishment whatsoever.”
Forgiveness doesn’t necessitate the absolving of responsibility to protect society from dangerous people but coupled with mercy requires an approach to criminals that is clement, giving less than they deserve and provides for redemption and rehabilitation while protecting society and preserving order. There are a few examples of this, one being King David whom God forgave, had mercy and did not require his life, but there was still a price to pay for his murder, also the cities of refuge (Num. 35:9-28), which provided some legal protection for one accused of murder.
“Further, that Jesus would forgive is a different issue from whether the government should forgive. God can forgive evil. That doesn’t mean the government should forgive it in terms of its exercise of justice.”
Christians follow the example of Christ yet Governments can never follow Christ so it becomes the responsibility of Christians with influence on Governments to plead the Christian cause.
Someone has to carry out the act. Government doesn’t carry out the act but an individual. If that individual is a Christian then he has failed to love, to love his enemies or his Governments enemies or societies enemies, identifying himself with the government above and before identifying himself with Christ.
“he never challenged the death penalty itself. He didn’t enforce it under what seemed to be an unjust situation because all the witnesses fled. Remember, Jesus said, “Is there no one here to condemn you? Then neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.” The Law required witnesses to convict someone.”
There was no-one there to condemn because Jesus, without contradicting the Law of Moses, convicted every individual by that inclusive statement, “he who is without sin”. Without abolishing the law outright he made it impossible for his followers to be involved. He left stoning to be carried out only by a mob led by a hypocrite in violation of an established absolute truth.
My argument has been that CP is not Christian, call it what one will, it’s not a Christian act. Governments are not the servants of God in the same way that a Christian is a servant of God. They are only servants of God in maintaining order, in a very general sense. It doesn’t follow that because that system ordained to maintain order has various methods of doing so that therefore those methods are also ordained.
In a democracy it is supposedly the people who prescribe laws and if those people are in suitable numbers Christian then the laws should reflect somewhat the teaching and clemency of Christ.
Any good discussion of this topic should also include the attitudes of the earliest Christians who represent the purest Christian heritage (not necessarily doctrine) and reveal the thoughts of those people closest to the original church and it’s place in the world. For example, soldiers carried out CP in Roman times but when a soldier became a Christian he was forbidden from participating. Tertullian writes speaking of the law, “The practice of the old law was to avenge itself by the vengeance of the sword. It was to pluck out “eye for eye,” and to inflict retaliatory revenge for injury. However, the teaching of the new law points to clemency”, and he makes clear that Christians didn’t, “take part in sacrifices or capital punishments” and queries whether Christians should be soldiers at all (even in a time of peace) suggesting, “A man cannot give his allegiance to two masters — God and Caesar” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.154, 3.73.)
So the real issue became whether Christians could serve the state in the capacity of enforcer at all. He concluded that, “an immediate abandonment of the military office” was the way to stop arguments about what Christians could and couldn’t do in the service.
Since Christians, without argument, were not involved in Capital Punishment the question became whether, in the words of Tertullian, it is, “lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword will perish by the sword? Will the son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even to sue at law? Will he who is not the avenger even of his own wrongs, apply the chain, the prison, the torture, and the punishment? ” (Ante-Nicene Fathers 3.100.) The consensus among early Christians was no to all of the above.
The original article also raises ethical questions that should be addressed but so far in the whole discussion I’ve only concentrated on the biblical, Christian, position. Christians following Christ do not carry out the killing of people and by extension do not support the same.
January 24th, 2007 at 6:50 am
Great post halieus.
The Romans passage is very difficult sometimes. It seems apparent to me that there are many times when the governments are not agents of God, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Nero and Diocletion in the early churches not so distant future. It is ridiculous to think that Idi Amin who was sanctioning the persecution, rape and murder of Christians in Uganda was an agent of God for good. There is two choices here, either Paul is being misunderstood, or the scriptures simply are not true. I choose Paul being misunderstood.
rev
January 24th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I don’t hear anyone here saying “murderers / criminals should not be punished by the state”… which was the argument used in abtruth’s post. That sounds like one of the silly extreme arguments Lance posted about recently… either you support the death penalty, or you don’t punish murderers at all. What nonsense.
The core ethical issue for me is who has the right to take human life? For me, my stance on both euthanasia and capital punishment is that only the Lord has the legitimate authority to give and to take life.
M. Scott Peck has written a fantastic book on euthanasia for anyone wishing to delve into that particular issue called “Denial of the Soul”. It’s a great read.
January 24th, 2007 at 11:44 am
Janet, firstly sorry on the references . I did say they were off the top of my head.
My bible study notes confirm both the tyndale commentary and of course Don Carson’s book on the Sermon on the Mount but when I did not recognise henry’s words I realised I got that wrong.
I won’t go through a whole lot more but a good reference is the book by Derrett about the law and the N/T.
rev claims Jesus and the apostles changed the law regarding Gen 9:6 but can’t give any illustrations. Indeed neither talked specifically what punishment is fit for the crime of murder.
If rev is correct and there was a change surely the criminal on the cross would have been a fulcrum for that but we have silence!
halieus concentrates on the punishment itself for not doing it. Sorry there is no dignity in death. None. To be consistent all these contributors must be appalled by the punishment of stoning to death in the levitical laws.
The Sword is used in romans as it is the example of the most extreme judgment.
we are or should be only talking about the punishment for murder.
Who is in power is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether murder was committed.
rev loves early church fathers but not the bible although there are worlds apart from being a soldier and being a judge handing out punishment for murder.
abtruth,
1 cor 5 makes it absolutely clear that is was unrepentant sinners who deserved punishment. Jesus seems to me imply the woman was repentant and therefore not guilty!
January 24th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Thanks Homer.
I don’t own any of those references, but I’ll try to have a sticky beak when I go back to college.
January 24th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Homer doesn’t understand that the early church fathers actually were discipled by the people that actually walked and talked with Jesus and therefore are much better prepared to put Jesus’ very explicit teachings on loving your enemies, forgiving those that sin against you, extending mercy, learning compassion, and being willing to suffer for love sake, then some arrogant 21century scholar. I love the bible Homer, I love the New Testement, because it shows that Jesus overturned the law.
But lets see, Homer still hasn’t addressed the issue of Cain, I guess God can break the commandments and not be a hypocrite? Homer still has not addressed all of the statements from the bible that I have posted, he just broad brushes them with some bullshit about Don Carson said the sermon on the mount doesn’t actually mean what it says. And Homer still has yet to explain how the government is an agent of God in Hitlers case.
Homer, you are the one changing the subjects, you are the one holding on to extra biblical explanations, and you are the one that refuses to acknowledge Jesus, who actually is supposed to be the center of our faith.
rev
January 25th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Janet you will probably only find that last book at a theological college, a good one at that.
Rev still hasn’t figured out why chapter 9 of genesis comes well after chapter 4. never mind perhaps one day he might find out.
Did Jesus even come close on the sermon on the mount to examining the case of murder. not unless you think hitting someone on the cheek is murder. his examples do not even come close.
Did the early fathers say the prisoners on the crosses next to Jesus should not have been crucified or not.
Surely this is the easiest example to find if rev is correct but again we get is silence on this topic and coarse language on others!
who the judge is is irrelevant if a person commits murder. all the judge does is give the punishment for that crime.
In this case the crime is murder and only murder.
I also notice rev said Jesus and the Apostles spoke out against capital punishment but err failed to provide any proof.
January 25th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Cafe Church Glebe has beenn having an interesting discussion via it’s e’group about God and vengefulness. Glen Powell had this to say: