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 25th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Glen goes on to say in another email:
January 25th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Dave Grasby had this to say in response to an email questoining our understanding of God requiring the killing of millions of people in the bible:
January 25th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Greg,
your basic problem is that God does NOT say capital punishment for murder is vengeance.
I might also add if Jesus was alluding to Romans then why didn’t he give an example of that. He doesn’t. None of the examples he gives is a bulls roar of murder.
January 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Hey Homer, I reckon it might have Tyndale’s commentary. I was looking at commentaries so old last year they lacked a copywrite date… and even used them in essays! I love the feel of really, really old books.
It would have to be said… views of when Matthew was written have changed since the time those really, really old commentaries were written, so I think you’d have trouble finding any living scholar who thinks the sermon on the mount was intended to be law for the nation of Israel (ie it’s believed to have been written outside of Palestine after the destruction of the temple… albeit to a largely Jewish church.)
But I will look!
January 26th, 2007 at 7:10 am
Homer,
There is nothing in the tale about the thieves on the cross that supports your view, nothing. The one thief says, “this man has done nothing wrong, but we deserve this”, and according to Roman law, which was what was driving the debacle, this was true. The man recognized that Jesus got railroaded, and was on trial for being a thorn in the flesh of the religious people, and a threat to the government. This has nothing to do with the justification of the death penalty. Jesus recognized the mans faith, and spoke to his faith. Are you so ridiculously stupid that you think Jesus, on the cross, would address the fairness of capital punishment, from a Kingdom point of view, while the man next to him is dying? I have not met one person that thinks this isn’t the most absurd arguement they have ever heard. You are the one argueing from silence, you say that Jesus didn’t say anything therefore you are right. COMPLETE RUBBISH!!!
As to the sermon on the mount, you have addressed on small passage, while I have posted a whole gospel worth of quotes. Jesus was very very clear that mercy is the mark of a Christian, and mercy is not what capital punishment is talking about. Jesus also very clearly says that we are to suffer injustice, and not retaliate, not just with the turn the other cheek verse, but with many others as well. Jesus also talks about how we should recognize our own falleness, and therefore not force the punishment of others for theirs. Your refusal to accept the making of all things new, but Jesus, the New Adam, is basically a disrespecting the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and the one you say is your Lord. Jesus is the new Adam, and the covenant starts anew with Him. What He says goes. He Himself explained that the law would pass away after He fulfilled it, and Paul again shows us that in Romans 7.
Your argueing for the right to kill people shows your distance from the Prince of Peace, and the God that is love.
rev
January 26th, 2007 at 9:51 am
Janet, I would recommend the Don Carson book as it is only on the Sermon on the Mount however even that is somewhat dated.
Beware though the don does write a lot.
Rev seems to have discovered that Genesis 9 comes after Genesis 4. Well done.
Now let us go to the videotape. What does the criminal say.
Luke 23:39-41 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
39 Then one of the criminals who were hanged blasphemed Him, saying, “If You are the Christ,[a] save Yourself and us.”
40 But the other, answering, rebuked him, saying, “Do you not even fear God, seeing you are under the same condemnation? 41 And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong.”
here again we can see how accurate rev is.
Surely the Apostles and the early church fathers would say the criminal was wrong. He was not receiving a punishment that was just indeed getting a due reward.
Instead they say nothing.
By the way the ‘whole’ gospel of quotes had as much to due with the punishment of murder as the examples.
like the rest you lack a basic understanding of the theology of Genesis 9:6 and it is only a sentence!
You are therefore arguing given your ‘logic’ that you would make no attempt to stop a person killing or your family because of ‘mercy’
You still cannot get your head around the difference between punishment and murder
Now you get desperate. you equate salvation by the law ( which is irrelevant to this topic) with the punishment for murder.
gosh I do wish I understood hermeneutics like you
January 26th, 2007 at 10:05 am
Read your own quote, the guy said was saying don’t you even fear God since you are being executed right now as well. In other words, Aren’t you even scared of your blasphemy seeing as you are right now dying and will have to be accountable for your actions momentarily. Your pompous idea that I haven’t read the verses is quite laughable. There is not one iota of a hint that what you are saying is even infered in the passage, you are making your arguement from silence, which is what you accuse Lance of doing.
And then your stupid sleight of hand remark about self defense being about showing mercy just shows you are more concerned with protecting your sense of unshakable rightness than actually learning. Mercy does not mean not protecting others, it means not killing someone. There is a huge difference from protecting your family and setting a date to kill someone, if you can’t see that you are blinder than I thought.
I know the difference between punishment and murder, I am not talking about murder, nor am I calling capital punishment murder, I know that it is different, but I am saying that it too, is unChristlike and wrong.
You have once again not shown anything even vaguely resembling a defence of you position from the new testement. You are, for all of your CHristian jargon, not following the God of love revealed to us through Jesus the Christ.
rev
January 26th, 2007 at 10:07 am
Oh, and isn’t it amazing that the people that actually lived in Jesus cultural context all understood his teachings to mean not participating in war or capital punishment, but Homer, the great theologian and hermenuetics expert says they were actually wrong! What an arrogant position to hold.
rev
January 26th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
How is it different - just becuse it is sanctioned by dully elected/appointed/installed/whatever people, just becuse it is not in the heat of the moment. how is it diferent? killing someone in anything other tha the defense of yourself or your family is murder, the death penalty is state sanctioned murder. I’m not sure how it is different rev.
January 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Well it is different because in the old testement thou shalt not murder did not include capital punishment.
rev
January 26th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
well congratulations are needed.
apparently all the criminal on the cross was about fearing God and nothing to do of the punishment.
Well this time at least you are half right.
people who lived when Jesus lived thought he meant. Careful rev most of the early fathers you talked about were well past Jesus’s life.
The apostles were absolutely silent on it as are all writers of the New Testament except Paul who supported indirectly.
Do you use an ouija board?
Participating in the army and capital punishment for murder ain’t the same.
I also note you have completely run away from your red herring of romans 7 which could only have been put in by ignorance or worse.
January 26th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Romans 7 explains how the law was crucified with Christ, we are set free from the old covenant and are now free to marry the risen Christ. The old testement was fulfilled completely with Jesus’ death and resurection, I ran from nothing, your “defense” was completely worthless. And your accusation of changing the subject was also stupid.
Your complete lack of respect for the early church fathers, or the completion of Jesus’ death and resurection makes perfect sense. You are too proud to recognize that you are wrong, like usual.
rev
January 26th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
You two are funny.
January 27th, 2007 at 9:37 am
one problem rev we ain’t talking about salvation we are talking about punishment for murder which makes Romans 7 irrelevant.
Jesus’s death enables me to ipsofacto become part of God’s kingdom but it doesn’t explain what punishment is correct for murder!
there is a big difference in between believing the law provides salvation and attempting to live by the law to please God because of Jesus you know love your neighbour as yourself!!!
Name the Early church fathers who heard Jesus say Genesis 9:6 is overturned and where did they say it.
January 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am
We already listed a number of quotes from the early church fathers that illustrated that very fact, perhaps you should just scroll back and read them. And it is not irrelevant just because you say it is, we are now under the law of love, which is to extend to our enemies and those that would injure us. Go and learn what this means, I desire compassion rather than ritualistic religion.
rev
January 27th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
rev you quoting romans 7 shows you are iether just plain ignorant or worse attempting to pass this off as evidence to those who don’t know.
Very pharasaic
January 27th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
And your statment means nothing more than Michael Jackson calling people ignorant, you give nothing to back up your opinion except your opinion.
And if someone like you calls me a pharisee, well I reckong I am doing the right thing. Everyone I have talked to that has read your posts thinks you are a self righteous, pompous, jerk. Every single person. So, if you thought I was aces, then I would start to worry. You resemble very much the charicature of Christian fundementalists, and you look nothing like Jesus. Something I am sure you are proud of.
rev
January 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
now you quoted one early father Haleius quoted several others.
you said later 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.
do you just want to change that at all ? I would suggest very few if any come into that category
If I put a load of influence on early fathers I would be a catholic.
January 28th, 2007 at 6:33 am
Homer,
You are correct, I am not sure if any of them were direct disciples of the apostles. I am sure that they are much closer to the beginning of the church and reflected their ethos much better than you or Carson does.
rev
January 29th, 2007 at 7:30 am
if we go to the primary documents look at say a New Eusebius by Frend or Documents of the Christian Church by Bettenson we simply find no evidence that any of the early fathers insisted Jesus overturned Genesis 9:6.
indeed capital punishment is hardly mentioned. When it is mentioned opinion is given .
if we go to secondary documents such as the Spreading Flame by FF Bruce or a much smaller book A short history of the Early Church by Harry Boer the subject does not come up.
In the Bible we have the direction of Genesis 9:6.
as a friend of mine pointed out we have Paul saying in Acts 25:11
11″If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
oops Paul does not seem to agree with rev.
which is why Romans 13 allows for the execution of people hence the sword analogy.
January 29th, 2007 at 8:07 am
Perhaps you should understand there is a difference between Roman law and Christian morality Homer, it is a hard thing to grasp, but Nero is not exactly who we are to take our ques from. Paul was operating under Roman Law, and argueing under their principles, it was a Roman trial. The issue doesn’t come up in the very first church documents, as it was very obvious that Christians were not to take part in capital punishment. Why? Because that is what Jesus teaches by word and example. Anyone can see that, well anyone but you!
rev
January 29th, 2007 at 9:38 am
I never did quite understand why draining blood from animals (a practice which is reaffirmed in Acts) from the Noahic covenant is irrelevant for Christians, while the “life for life” principle of the Noahic covenant (which is never reaffirmed in the New Testament) is relevant for Christians.
Homer, please explain why one part of the Noahic covenant stands and the other does not.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:03 am
The Mennonite Church USA created a statement about the death penalty in response to a 2001 resolution in favor of abolition. It said in part:
The churches willingness to be involved with death (burning of heretics and pagans who would not become chritians) was all about power and politics as a result of the church becoming ‘official’ at the time of Constantine - before this the greater majority of the church’s leaders and members were against killing another human being in any form. (Clement of Alexandria actually did try to justify the death penalty he was
January 29th, 2007 at 11:41 am
http://www.beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics/2007/01/helen-prejean-greatest-indignity-of.html
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Helen Prejean: The Greatest Indignity of All
When Saddam Hussein and his aides Awad Hamed al-Bandar and Barzan Ibrahim were hanged, many were upset that the killings were not done with “dignity.” They thought it unseemly and improper that some present at the execution hurled insults and taunted Hussein, or that his half-brother Ibrahim was decapitated in the process.
That’s like talking about icing without talking about the cake.
Here’s the cake: rendering Hussein or any human being defenseless and killing him. Imposing a violent death on a person is the greatest indignity of all; it makes name-calling or taunts pale in significance.
Can a state killing ever be done with dignity? This question was at the heart of my dialogue with Pope John Paul II in January 1997. I informed him of the U.S. Supreme Court statement in Furman v. Georgia, which claimed that executing human beings is not “inconsistent with our respect for the dignity of men.” And I told him how in accompanying the condemned to their deaths, most asked me to “pray that God holds up my legs.”
“How can one possibly subject human beings to torture and to death and yet respect their dignity?” I asked.
The pope responded publicly when he visited St. Louis in 1999 and said: “A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil.” He then renewed his call for the abolition of the death penalty, which, he said, “is both cruel and unnecessary.”
Even for Saddam Hussein.
The response to Hussein’s execution from Vatican officials has been unequivocal in their condemnation. “There is no doubt,” said Cardinal Renato Martino, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “that Saddam was a ruthless dictator responsible for hundreds of deaths. But one does not compensate for one crime with another crime. The church proclaims that human life is to be protected from conception to natural death. The death penalty is not a natural death.” Cardinal Martino said it was not morally licit for anyone, “not even the state,” to kill another person.
Hussein’s hanging was “tragic news,” said Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi. He went on to say: “This is a reason for sadness even if this is about a person who is guilty of serious crimes. The position of the Catholic church, which is against the death penalty whatever the circumstances, needs to be repeated again: There is a risk that [the hanging] feeds the spirit of vengeance and plants the seeds for fresh violence.”
Since 9/11, we have seen time and again the operation of this cycle of vengeance and violence. When will we ever learn?
Sister Helen Prejean is a member of the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille and a prominent anti-death penalty advocate whose work was featured in the film Dead Man Walking. Her most recent book is The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:43 am
Sorry for the HTML mix up
January 29th, 2007 at 11:47 am
and becoming sorrier as the day goes on! Phil Dan fix up my evil please
January 29th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Janet, it isn’t a problem as I have argued before. if you read the passage carefully that is how we eat.
rev,
I see you are now arguing something else. Paul isn’t arguing for Roman laws he is saying however he is quite prepared to accept death if convicted without any caveat that capital punishment is quite wrong.
Greg,
we are ONLY talking about Murder.
January 29th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
So what if we are only talking about murder? The fact still remains that it is not the place of the church (nor the individuals that make up the church) to be supporting or involved in the intentional death of others.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:47 am
“Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.,” (1 John 3:15).
Based upon some of the personal comments which I have seen bandied about on this thread, it seems to me that 1) some are coming perilously close to murdering their brothers in their heart and 2) are doing so in direct violation of the commandments of God: “Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge,” (James 4:11).
Ironic, huh?
Question: does being ‘right’ (in doctrine or practice) excuse us from responding to one another in gentleness?
January 30th, 2007 at 7:49 am
P.S. I learned this from sinning repeatedly in this way myself …. just so there are no misunderstandings.