My debate with Bob Enyart

[Jefferson]

I debated Bob Enyart on the issue of whether or not public stoning is the only Biblical method of capital punishment on his 12-3-02 show. I'm the first caller. Enyart brought up God sending fire and brimstone on people and opening up the earth and sucking them down to hell and things like that but that was God executing people. The issue is the method that human governments are allowed to use to execute people.

After I hung up, several minutes later Bob mentioned how governing authorities use the sword as God's ministers in the book of Romans. But again, this is not an execution. It is the equivalent to our police carrying guns. Police may kill someone with a gun but after a lawful trial, we do not execute people with guns.

Likewise, just because the "police" in Rome's day carried swords that does not mean God approved of the sword being used to execute a duly convicted criminal after a legal trial.

I still say Bob is wrong about this. Public stoning is the only method of execution found in the Bible.

[Knight]

Are you talking about the show...Do Callers Change? (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5789)

I will listen to it in the morning.

[Jefferson]

No. It's the show entitled, "Jo Scott's not in jail." It's show #227.

[Housefly]

I can see how favorably the rest of the world would look upon this too...

uhhh

They already think we are ingnorant, primitive fools. Let's give them some real fodder...

:)

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jefferson
No. It's the show entitled, "Jo Scott's not in jail." It's show #227. Oh ooops... I should have read your post more carefully.

Here is the show Jefferson is talking about....Jo Scott's not in jail (http://KGOV.com/BEL/2002/20021203-BEL227.mp3)

[Goose]

I heard you Jefferson. You sounded surprised.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Housefly
I can see how favorably the rest of the world would look upon this too...

uhhh

They already think we are ingnorant, primitive fools. Let's give them some real fodder...

:)
We don't worship the false god of Public Acceptance on this forum Housefly.

[Brother Vinny]

Jefferson said,


After I hung up, several minutes later Bob mentioned how governing authorities use the sword as God's ministers in the book of Romans. But again, this is not an execution. It is the equivalent to our police carrying guns. Police may kill someone with a gun but after a lawful trial, we do not execute people with guns.


Only because our government has become wishy-washy, wanting to make the death penalty as painless as possible. Death by firing squad is not unheard of in our country (or in others). And, when you really think about it, isn't using a gun just a very precise way of casting a stone at very fast speeds?


Likewise, just because the "police" in Rome's day carried swords that does not mean God approved of the sword being used to execute a duly convicted criminal after a legal trial.


Ah, but they did crucify their capital criminals, and nowhere do we see God's disapproval of this method. Certainly Jesus Himself could have said something about the injustice of this method of execution had He wanted to, no?

Stoning was given specifically to Israel. All God required of non-Israelite government was that the murderer's blood be shed (see Genesis 9:6). By this guideline, stoning is a just form of execution, as is crucifixion, and the guillotine, and the firing squad.

[Goose]

I'm all for flogging. According to the polls, most Americans are too.

[ApologeticJedi]

I believe that the Jews also used hanging as a method of execution as well. They were only told by God not to let the bodies hang on the tree overnight.

In some cases where the Bible calls for execution, the exact method to be used is not mentioned. It is obvious that judges are given the leverage to determine the proper course for themselves.

If that was your debate, I think you picked a really weak and unattainable position. It's really a stretch to suggest that God is only for death by stoning. To say it is tenuous is kind.

[Knight]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
I believe that the Jews also used hanging as a method of execution as well. They were only told by God not to let the bodies hang on the tree overnight.

In some cases where the Bible calls for execution, the exact method to be used is not mentioned. It is obvious that judges are given the leverage to determine the proper course for themselves.

If that was your debate, I think you picked a really weak and unattainable position. It's really a stretch to suggest that God is only for death by stoning. To say it is tenuous is kind. Wow!! Long time no see. Great to have you back at TOL!!!

[Paradõsis]

Paul

Only because our government has become wishy-washy, wanting to make the death penalty as painless as possible. Death by firing squad is not unheard of in our country (or in others). And, when you really think about it, isn't using a gun just a very precise way of casting a stone at very fast speeds?

No. A firing squad usually kills someone almost instantly, while stoning does not. The stoning of both Paul and Stephen in Acts demonstrates this.

There's one other form of punishment that needs to be mentioned: that which comes when people wallow in their own sins and heresies (e.g., enyartianism). In these cases God essentially hands the people over to Satan (or the heretics), so that the person might be wounded, and realising his error and repent, not die a spiritual death. Unfortunately, Saint Justin Popovich said that we can die thousands of spiritual deaths in this life, and Enyartians (ie. mid acts dispensationalist, theonomist, open theist, judgmentalist, righteous hatist, innovators extraordinaire) always seem to return to their own Enyartian vomit, even when they have a taste of truth.

Yuck. :(

[Knight]

Paradõsis, welcome back..... again. :)

[Knight]

Originally posted by Paradõsis There's one other form of punishment that needs to be mentioned: that which comes when people wallow in their own sins and heresies (e.g., enyartianism). In these cases God essentially hands the people over to Satan (or the heretics), so that the person might be wounded, and realising his error and repent, not die a spiritual death. Unfortunately, Saint Justin Popovich said that we can die thousands of spiritual deaths in this life, and Enyartians (ie. mid acts dispensationalist, theonomist, open theist, judgmentalist, righteous hatist, innovators extraordinaire) always seem to return to their own Enyartian vomit, even when they have a taste of truth.

Yuck. :( Well its a darn good thing you aren't judgmental eh???? :rolleyes:

[Knight]

There are two kinds of judgmental people:

The kind that judges, AND the kind that judges like a hypocrite.

Ask yourself.... which one are you?

[Poly]

My judgment is that I don't judge.:D :rolleyes:

[ibowatjesusfeet]

I just listened to Jefferson's call. I'm pretty sure that crucifixion, beheading, and flogging (this could kill people) where all mentioned as public forms of execution.

--Ibowatjesusfeet

PS (Bob Enyart kind of sounds like one of those Christians that believes that a person should be severely punished for any crime they commit. Am I misinterpreting what he say?)

[Poly]

Originally posted by ibowatjesusfeet
I just listened to Jefferson's call. I'm pretty sure that crucifixion, beheading, and flogging (this could kill people) where all mentioned as public forms of execution.

--Ibowatjesusfeet

PS (Bod Enyard kind of sounds like one of those Christians that believes that a person should be severly punished for any crime they commit. Am I misinterpreting what he say?)

He believes that a person should be punished in accordance to how God says he should be punished depending on what crime was committed.

[Goose]

Y'all are a bunch of hippocrats! ;)

[Bob Enyart]

Jefferson, hi, Bob Enyart here. Hey, thanks for calling. Your call caught me unprepared, so I didn’t have the verses at the tip of my tongue, but I argued that in addition to stoning, the Bible supports execution by fire and by sword. And I do think, God does not limit execution to these methods. Please consider:

(If this post is too long, I apologize. I need to learn forum etiquette.)

Fire
Lev 20:14 'If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire…’
Lev 21:9 'The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.’
And while I wouldn’t use as proof examples of heathens executing men by fire (Jer. 29:22, Dan. 3:20), I think Judah’s case is worth considering:
Gen. 38:24 …Judah was told, saying, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry." So Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!"
Note: This suggests that execution by fire was not introduced by Moses but already accepted in the time of the patriarchs. And while Judah was not a model of virtue, yet in this public action, he is at least seeking to appear righteous.

Sword
Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.
1 Kings 2:8 [David said to Solomon:] "And see, you have with you Shimei… I swore to him by the LORD, saying, 'I will not put you to death with the sword.'
1 Kings 2:25, 34 [During Solomon’s time of wisdom and obedience, before his fall:] So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck [Adonijah] down, and he died. … So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and struck and killed him [strongly inferring by the sword, v. 8]…
1 Kings 18:40 And Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!" So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
Note: Today, on top of Mount Carmel stands a statue of the prophet Elijah holding a sword (see photo at http://www.virtualtravels.com/diary/israel99/images/001elijah.jpg), representing his execution of the 450 prophets of Baal. Do you think this tradition is incorrect, and that these hundreds of men were stoned? How many stones would have been needed? Would the bloody stones be reused? And though it were so late in the day (1 Kings 18:36), still Elijah had time enough to execute them all, apparently that day. It seems that executing that many men could be done quickly with a sword, but not by stoning. Thus, with the biblical precedents for the use of swords, this tradition seems far more reasonable than a supposition that Elijah had them all stoned.
Rom. 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Note: Jefferson, I read your rebuttal to my use of this verse, but please reconsider. The official is “God’s minister” who does not bear the sword in vain. Yes, the sword is a figure of speech for the power of the government. But it is a rather literal figure of speech, for officials carried swords, and swords were not used for beating but for killing, and men commonly were killed with official swords.

Hanging
Num. 25:1, 4 Now Israel… began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab… Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the LORD, out in the sun…"
Josh 8:23-24, 26, 29-30 But the king of Ai they took alive, and brought him to Joshua. And it came to pass when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai…, and when they all had fallen by the edge of the sword until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned to Ai and struck it with the edge of the sword. For Joshua did not draw back his hand, with which he stretched out the spear, until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree until evening. And as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his corpse down from the tree… Now Joshua built an altar to the LORD God of Israel…
Note: Joshua strongly implies that he executed this king by hanging. For, they took him alive, and made an end to the slaying, and then hanged the king.
Note also the official killing with swords and spears. Of course, these killings occurred in a battle, and similarly, David slew Goliath at the request of King Saul, with a sling; and Sisera was killed with a tent peg hammered through his skull (and Judges 5 records the song celebrating that killing). And remember that God approved of Phinehas the priest, grandson of Aaron, who thrust a javelin through the Jewish man and the Moabite woman (Num 25:7-8).
Deut. 21:22 "If a man has committed a sin deserving of death, and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree…”
Note: I believe that this hanging refers primarily to the treatment of the corpse after death. Yet, Joshua may have had this verse in mind when he hung Ai’s king. Also, the New Testament quotes this verse to refer to the crucifixion. Perhaps that is only a reference of convenience. But it might also indicate that this verse can refer to either the treatment of a corpse OR a method of execution. However, I believe that slowness of death by crucifixion causes that method to cross the line between execution and torture. And while I support corporal punishment of an eye for an eye, I oppose the use of torture.

Variable: Ex. 21:23-25 "But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
Note: God gives some latitude to judges to determine the number of lashes (Deut. 25:2-3) or a fitting sentence. Thus, I believe the methods of execution in the Bible are examples, and not exhaustive of all acceptable forms. For example, electrocution was unavailable millennia ago but could be used today.

Thanks, -Bob

[Lion]

Bob E.-Great post, but you left out my favorite:1Sam. 15:33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

Sounds like a sword to me, unless he had long, sharp rocks.

[bnnyc1955]

All punishment in the Bible was not just about execution by certain methods. For less severe crimes, there was "beating by sticks" or rods. All of you are far more articulate in citing appropriate passages. From recent past, public floggings, strappings or paddlings would appropriate punish less severe infractions without the cost of incarceration with the resulting public embarassment and shame acting as a true deterrent. Yes, strappings and paddlings for adults may seem "juvenile" but then aren't some petty criminal behaviors by adults also "juvenile"? Your thoughts?

Bob

[Knight]

Maybe I should split this thread? Its a good one but it has gone astray from Jeffersons first post.

[Knight]

OK... I split this thread.

The current thread can remain as is regarding Jefferson's call to Bob Enyart. This thread is highlighted by a post from Bob himself. Thanks Bob!

A new thread has been started to continue the debate about adultery and if adultery should be criminal and what the punishment should be.

The new thread is.....Adultery... is it criminal??? If so... what should the punishment be? (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5819)

[Jefferson]

Bob, thanks for your reply. I will first give you my theory as to why I think God only wants us to use stoning as a means of execution. Then, in responding to the verses you raised I will refer back to my theory so you will know where I am coming from.

I need to make clear from the start that I am only referring to the execution of citizens who would commit capital offenses in a constitutional monarchy in the 21st century. I am not referring to the execution of foreign military commanders, soldiers or heads of State during war. Nor am I referring to idolaters, sabbath- breakers or any other violaters of Old Testament ceremonial law since those verses would not be applicable to us today.

There are several reasons why I think God only allowed for the public stoning of citizen capital criminals.

First: An issue that you bring up often yourself - relationships. The threat of broken relationships and peer pressure is a very powerful deterrent. When the community participated in a stoning, the community collectively declared their separation from both the criminal and his crime. It had to be an incredible amount of peer-pressure and warning to others who might consider committing a similar crime in the future.

Second: Stoning represents the judgment of God, since Christ is "the rock" and is the "stone" which threatens to fall upon men and destroy them (Mathew 21:44). In line with this, the community hurls a rock representing himself and his affirmation of God's judgment. The principle of stoning, then, affirms that the judgment is God's; the application of stoning affirms the community's assent and participation in that judgment.

Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment.

Forth: Public stoning forces citizens to face the reality of the ultimate civil sanction, execution, which in turn points to God's ultimate sanction at judgment day. Stoning also faithfully images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15).

Fifth: Because most people, including Christians, do not want to think about God's final judment, they prefer to assign to distant unknown executioners the grim task of carrying out God's judgment in private. This privatization of execution is immoral. It is itself criminal. It is unjust to the convicted criminal, and it is unjust to the surviving victims, who do not see God's justice done in public. The growth of impersonalism has been a problem for the West from the beginning. Even in the days of public executions, several centuries ago, the axeman wore a face mask. The Bible does not allow the establishment of a professional, taxpayer-financed guild of faceless executioners who, over time, inevitably grow either callous, impersonal or even sadistic regarding their task. Instead, the Bible imposes personal responsibility on members of society at large for enforcing this ultimate sanction. But people refuse to accept this God-imposed personal responsibility. They prefer to make a lone executioner psychologically responsible for carrying out the sentence rather than participate in this responsibility, as God requires.

Sixth Evangelism. Seeing the death penalty in action before their very eyes makes the judgment of God (the second death) seem more believable to unbelievers. How much more believable would preaching about the second death be if unbelieving citizens were themselves required to participate in the first death of capital criminals?

Seventh: This refusal by citizens to accept personal responsibility has led to the haters of God's law to become politically dominant. They have used the same kinds of arguments against capital punishment in general that embarrassed Christians had accepted in their rejection of public stoning. Step by step, society eliminates capital punishment and men's hatred of God's law is steadily manifested in modern civil law.

Now, with that foundation laid out, I will now respond to the individual verses with which you are attempting to rebut my position:

Fire
Lev 20:14 'If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire…’
Joshua 7:25 shows that when this law was applied, these criminals were to be stoned first and then their dead bodies were to be burned: "And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, AFTER they had stoned them with stones." This shows that the verses which command capital criminals to be burned referrs to their already dead bodies being burned after they had first been stoned.

Lev 21:9 'The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.’
This verse singles out a priests daughter, therefore it is referring to Old Testament ceremonial law and hence would not be applicable to us today.

Gen. 38:24 …Judah was told, saying, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry." So Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!"
None of your laws in your proposed Constitution of America refer to any Book of the Bible earlier than Exodus. You, yourself exclude laws from Genesis. This execution of would include Tamar's unborn baby which was still in her womb! This execution is clearly another example of the symbolic cleansing of the land, hence it is not applicable to the Body of Christ dispensation.

Sword
Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.
These people were killed for worshipping a false god. You have said that in your proposed constitutional monarchy that people would be allowed to worship false gods if they so chose. Therefore, again, this verse would not apply to the Body of Christ dispensation.

1 Kings 2:8 [David said to Solomon:] "And see, you have with you Shimei… I swore to him by the LORD, saying, 'I will not put you to death with the sword.'
Here is verse 8 and 9 in full: "And, behold, with you is Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim. But he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I swore to him by Jehovah, saying, I will not put you to death with the sword. And now, do not hold him guiltless. For you are a wise man, and you know what you ought to do to him. But bring his gray head down to the grave with blood."

Note that Shimei was put to death simply for cursing David. I don't think you are advocating that cursing a 21st century monarch in the Body of Christ dispensation should be a capital crime. So this verse also does not apply to our discussion.

1 Kings 2:25, 34 [During Solomon’s time of wisdom and obedience, before his fall:] So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck [Adonijah] down, and he died. … So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and struck and killed him [strongly inferring by the sword, v. 8]…
Adonijah attempted a coup on the throne (I Kings 1:5-12). Solomon later allowed Adonijah to live as long as Adonijah remained faithful (I Kings 1:50-53) which he did not when he attempted another coup on the throne via marriage (I Kings 2:13-25). An attempted coup on the throne is an act of war. As my introduction to this post states, I am only trying to decide Biblical punishment for citizens who commit capital crimes during a normal peace-time economy. If a brother of a monarch in the 21st century tried to gain power via marriage would your Constitution of America recommend the death penalty for that person? I don't think so. So again, this verse does not apply to our discussion.

1 Kings 18:40 And Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!" So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.
This verse is about the killing of false prophets. Since false prophets would be allowed to live in a 21st century constitutional monarchy under your Constitution of America this verse also does not apply to our discussion.

Rom. 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.
Note: Jefferson, I read your rebuttal to my use of this verse, but please reconsider. The official is “God’s minister” who does not bear the sword in vain. Yes, the sword is a figure of speech for the power of the government. But it is a rather literal figure of speech, for officials carried swords, and swords were not used for beating but for killing, and men commonly were killed with official swords.
If your Constitution of America became law, I would see no problem with police (ie. God's ministers) killing criminals in the line of duty with guns just like they do today. But God's ministers killing in the line of duty is a very different situation than an orderly execution after a lawful trial. Since we kill criminals with electric chairs and injections, does this mean a police officer can also use those tools to kill a criminal? No it does not. The police use guns. The courts use electric chairs and injections. Different methods for different offices. It's the same in the Bible. The "police" in Old Testament Israel may have used swords to kill criminals in the line of duty. But when it came to an orderly execution after a lawful trial of a citizen convicted of a (nonceremonial nonsymbolic nontheocratic/covenental) crime they were commanded by God to use stones only.

Hanging
Num. 25:1, 4 Now Israel… began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab… Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the LORD, out in the sun…"
Your Constitution of America does not consider this kind of fornication to be a captial offense. This verse does not apply to the Body of Christ dispensation therefore it is not applicable to our discussion.

Josh 8:23-24, 26, 29-30
You provided my rebuttal to this verse yourself when you said:

Of course, these killings occurred in a battle,
To reiterate my opening statement to this post: "I am only referring to the execution of citizens who would commit capital offenses in a constitutional monarchy in the 21st century. I am not referring to the execution of foreign military commanders, soldiers or heads of State during war. Nor am I referring to idolaters, sabbath- breakers or any other violaters of Old Testament ceremonial law since those verses would not be applicable to us today."

[ApologeticJedi]

Actually stoning isn't mentioned that often either in the Law. It seems to be mentioned only for:

1) adultery
2) worshipping other Gods
3) breaking the Sabbath
4) being rebellious to parents.

Two of these are symbolic for certain. Looking at it I never see God saying to put, for instance, a murderer to death by stoning. Evidently God leaves that up to the judge.

And while you are quite contentious about burning only being mentioned in, for instance, war criminals, it does show that God is not set on stoning-alone. And I’m not sure that your dichotomy between civil time and military isn’t fairly flimsy. While I do agree that they have slightly different rules, I’m not sure execution is one of them.

Considering that God doesn’t demand stoning in cases of murder, kidnapping, and sexual sins besides adultery, I think it is a leap to say “It can only be by stoning”, when the Bible never explicitly nor implicitly states that. I think this is the same sort of trap the Pharisees fell into when they suggested a whipping could be no more than 39 lashes – adding to the law in order to fall within it.

The method of execution has no moral value behind it. People don’t feel guilt putting someone to death by hanging, firing squads, stoning, nor anything else. Even the arguments you gave are all basically built on symbolism.

I tell you what, if you'll help me recriminalize adultry, I'll help you petition that public stoning be the method for it. :)

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
Actually stoning isn't mentioned that often either in the Law.
But when ever a specific method of execution is mentioned for a citizen capital criminal who has violated a moral (not a symbolic or ceremonial) law, that method is always stoning.

Looking at it I never see God saying to put, for instance, a murderer to death by stoning. Evidently God leaves that up to the judge.
I don't think God left an issue as important as execution up to the imagination of sinful men. Look at what those methods have produced. On one extreme sinful man has invented torture and on the other extreme our own government gently and painlessly puts murderers to sleep. (If only we could all be blessed with such a peaceful departure from this earth.)

No, I don't think God left it up to the imagination of the judges. Rather I think God understood that the judges already read about God's stoning commands and did not need to be told every single time a new death penalty case arose what the method of execution should be. If God only told them once, that was enough.

The method of execution has no moral value behind it.
Oh? What is your response to the 7 points I raised to Bob Enyart about this?

Here they are again:

First: An issue that you bring up often yourself - relationships. The threat of broken relationships and peer pressure is a very powerful deterrent. When the community participated in a stoning, the community collectively declared their separation from both the criminal and his crime. It had to be an incredible amount of peer-pressure and warning to others who might consider committing a similar crime in the future.

Second: Stoning represents the judgment of God, since Christ is "the rock" and is the "stone" which threatens to fall upon men and destroy them (Mathew 21:44). In line with this, the community hurls a rock representing himself and his affirmation of God's judgment. The principle of stoning, then, affirms that the judgment is God's; the application of stoning affirms the community's assent and participation in that judgment.

Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment.

Forth: Public stoning forces citizens to face the reality of the ultimate civil sanction, execution, which in turn points to God's ultimate sanction at judgment day. Stoning also faithfully images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15).

Fifth: Because most people, including Christians, do not want to think about God's final judment, they prefer to assign to distant unknown executioners the grim task of carrying out God's judgment in private. This privatization of execution is immoral. It is itself criminal. It is unjust to the convicted criminal, and it is unjust to the surviving victims, who do not see God's justice done in public. The growth of impersonalism has been a problem for the West from the beginning. Even in the days of public executions, several centuries ago, the axeman wore a face mask. The Bible does not allow the establishment of a professional, taxpayer-financed guild of faceless executioners who, over time, inevitably grow either callous, impersonal or even sadistic regarding their task. Instead, the Bible imposes personal responsibility on members of society at large for enforcing this ultimate sanction. But people refuse to accept this God-imposed personal responsibility. They prefer to make a lone executioner psychologically responsible for carrying out the sentence rather than participate in this responsibility, as God requires.

Sixth Evangelism. Seeing the death penalty in action before their very eyes makes the judgment of God (the second death) seem more believable to unbelievers. How much more believable would preaching about the second death be if unbelieving citizens were themselves required to participate in the first death of capital criminals?

Seventh: This refusal by citizens to accept personal responsibility has led to the haters of God's law to become politically dominant. They have used the same kinds of arguments against capital punishment in general that embarrassed Christians had accepted in their rejection of public stoning. Step by step, society eliminates capital punishment and men's hatred of God's law is steadily manifested in modern civil law.

I tell you what, if you'll help me recriminalize adultry, I'll help you petition that public stoning be the method for it. :)
You've got a deal.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
And, when you really think about it, isn't using a gun just a very precise way of casting a stone at very fast speeds?
No, it is not because the public is not involved in the execution when professional executioners perform the deed.

Ah, but they did crucify their capital criminals, and nowhere do we see God's disapproval of this method. Certainly Jesus Himself could have said something about the injustice of this method of execution had He wanted to, no?
Silence is not the same thing as approval.

Stoning was given specifically to Israel.
Wrong. Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says, "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
But when ever a specific method of execution is mentioned for a citizen capital criminal who has violated a moral (not a symbolic or ceremonial) law, that method is always stoning.



Both times? I fail to see that as a mandate.

Further, for a murderer, God does not recommend stoning, but seems to indicate that you do to them, as they did to their victims (“an eye for an eye”). Your position seems to fall apart if even one counter example is allowed to stand.


Originally posted by Jefferson
I don't think God left an issue as important as execution up to the imagination of sinful men.


If God had felt that strongly about it, and only wanted murderers punished by stoning, He could have said that, and removed the speculation.

While I do think you have a stronger argument that I originally gave you credit for, I also see that God does leave important issues up to the imagination of sinful man. It seems to me that even certain crimes aren't even mentioned, but God trusts sinful men to discover them.

Again, I think it contrite to pin something as a command that is not mentioned as a command in the Bible. There are enough laws in the Bible without adding to them unneccessarily.

My other problem with your argument is that it bears no moral value.



Originally posted by Jefferson
Look at what those methods have produced. On one extreme sinful man has invented torture and on the other extreme our own government gently and painlessly puts murderers to sleep.


There are other, more valid, reasons against the extremes.



Originally posted by Jefferson
No, I don't think God left it up to the imagination of the judges. Rather I think God understood that the judges already read about God's stoning commands and did not need to be told every single time a new death penalty case arose what the method of execution should be. If God only told them once, that was enough.


God wouldn't have had to tell them every time, he would have said one time "You can only execute with stoning". And then we could be debating whether that was a symbolic command, or whether all mankind in ulterior countries recognize it as a moral truth.

Further, God said in the case of murder, that you repay “eye for and eye”, which seems to generally speaks to a type of justice that executes in the same respect as the guilty murdered. It’s not concrete, I’ll admit, but it is as solid as anything you’ve put forth.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Oh? What is your response to the 7 points I raised to Bob Enyart about this?
Here they are again:



I responded to them indirectly the first time. You seem to be affirming that they have no moral value to them, but are symbolic in nature. I don’t even agree with your symbolism, but even if I did, that’s no cause to throw more bondage onto people, that executions can only be a specific way (especially when God fails to say that in the Bible).

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Wrong. Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says, "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

You sure you're a dispensationalist, Jefferson?

A strong Acts 9 Dispensationalist would recognize that Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Leviticus are all directions given explicitly to Israel. In God's plan for Israel, Gentile nations were to be blessed for their subservience to God's chosen nation.

But what of us in the Body of Christ? Where's the Israel we're supposed follow? It doesn't exist, because in the Body of Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile, and God is not currently using the nation of Israel as a standard for Gentile nations to follow. Since the laws of Israel are not ours to follow, our guidance for administration of the death penalty must come from outside Mosaic Law. We thus look to Noachidic (pertaining to Noah) Law for guidance; a great many of us are not descended from Abraham, but ALL of us are descended from Noah. Since Noachidic Law was given to all of man prior to the foundation of Israel, it stands to reason that any administration of the death penalty that involves the shedding of life's blood is right and just.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
. . . the laws of Israel are not ours to follow . . .
Then why did Paul write I Timothy 1:8-10? "But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Since Noachidic Law was given to all of man prior to the foundation of Israel, it stands to reason that any administration of the death penalty that involves the shedding of life's blood is right and just.
The electric chair often does not involve the shedding of blood.

Since the laws of Israel are not ours to follow, our guidance for administration of the death penalty must come from outside Mosaic Law. We thus look to Noachidic (pertaining to Noah) Law for guidance;
There is only 1 moral law for all dispensations (though different ceremonial laws for different dispensations). Paul tells us the law was in operation before Sinai, when he says "for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses: (Romans 5:13-14). Before the law "came," the law was already in operation. The proof of this is that it was already dealing death to sinners. At Sinai, the law was given a definitive publication, but it was already operating in the world, and was already known to men.

In fact, Paul said, "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). In other words, the same law which came at Sinai was operating in the Garden. We can turn to passages in Genesis and in Exodus before Sinai and see that people knew the law before it was written down by Moses.

FIRST The laws of slavery were known and functioned in the life of Jacob and in the interaction between Moses and Pharaoh before the written law was given.

God's children could only be held as slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2). Pharaoh had broken this law. Moses' demand for Israelite freedom was grounded in this law, which was familiar to Pharaoh.

Pharaoh showed a knowledge of Exodus 21:4 before it was written when he said the men could leave, but not their families (Exodus 10:7-11). 21:4 says, "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone." From Pharaoh's viewpoint, it was he who had provided the wives and children of the Hebrew men, so he thought he had a legal claim to them. But Pharaoh was wrong because Jacob had brought his women, children, livestock, and servants with him when he settled in Egypt, and so the Hebrews were under the law of Exodus 21:3: "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the lord of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him."

God's yet unwritten law which was familiar to Pharaoh (because of Joseph's influence and because it underlay the common law of the Ancient Near East, also orders that when a slave is set free, he is to be given going-away gifts (Deuteronomy 15:12-16) to help him celebrate and to help him set up in business. God told the Hebrews to request (not "borrow") such presents from their neighbors (Exodus 3:22). Moses demanded such presents from Pharaoh (10:25). Those who give such presents are blessed by God (Deuteronomy 15:18), and the Egyptians knew this even before this law was written down by Moses after the Exodus. Another proof of this is that in Exodus 12:32, when Pharaoh gave his presents, he specifically asked for the Deuteronomy 15:18 blessing.

Obviously Pharaoh understood something about God's laws governing slavery before Moses wrote them down after the Exodus.

SECOND The law of evidence concerning torn beasts (Exodus 22:13) is referred to by Jacob way back in Genesis 31:39.

THIRD Exodus 21:1 and 24:3 call these laws "mishpatim," and Abraham is said to know the mishpatim way back in Genesis 18:19. Also, way back in Genesis 26:5, Abraham is said to have "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." This is surely more than the 10 commandments!

FORTH Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a young man who seduces a young girl to marry her. This law was clearly being followed to the letter way back in Genesis 34, which concerns the relations between Shechem and Dinah. Because Simeon and Levi broke the not-yet-written law, Jacob condemned their actions. (Genesis 49:5-7).

Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral laws against murder and rape are.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
The electric chair often does not involve the shedding of blood.


There is blood though it is incidental, just as the blood in stoning is.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral law against murder is.

While I agree with most of what you said about there being 1 moral law and it was known long before Moses, but I quote this statement because it is obviously false. I believe it is beginning to become obvious that your position is tenuous and so you are having to make wild statement to back yourself.

Now, if we are to judge the idea of stoning being the only form of execution, as a moral truth, then you need to address every passage Bob Enyart gave to you. Because in these passages, the “moral truth” is profaned!

Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

So did the Levites sin? Since you believe the execution by stoning to be only moral way, then God was recommending immorality? Only Symbolic laws can be removed as such. Moral truths stand through time (you said that too!). They stand whether there is open war, or peace. Moral truths remain no matter what the situation. You never have to abandon a moral truth in order to uphold another moral truth. So if it was okay for the Levites to kill by the sword, then it is clear that the method of execution is not a moral issue. At best it is symbolic.

[Brother Vinny]

Jefferson said,


The electric chair often does not involve the shedding of blood.


And nowhere did I call the electric chair a just form of punishment. This is a straw man, Jefferson-- a fallacy employed by those who know their arguments are weak.


. . . Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral laws against murder and rape are.


The burden of proof is upon you to prove this. I do not believe you have done this.

As horrid as it is, I believe crucifixion is another just form of execution. This is important to my soteriology. Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment which rightfully should have been mine to receive.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

So did the Levites sin? Since you believe the execution by stoning to be only moral way, then God was recommending immorality? Only Symbolic laws can be removed as such. Moral truths stand through time (you said that too!).
There are different methods of killing for different situations. And yes, some are moral in some circumstances and immoral in others. For example:


Police officers are allowed to shoot someone, but they are not allowed to drag that person to an electric chair and flip the switch.

Our courts put capital criminals in electric chairs but state laws do not allow them to be executed with bullets.

Military executions often are carried out by firing squad. They are not allowed to execute via lethal injection.

etc., etc., etc.


God's allowable methods of killing also vary depending on the circumstances (ceremonial violations vrs. war vrs. criminal acts by citizens, etc.)

If you disagree with this then show me just one specific case in the Old Testament where a citizen (not a soldier in war) murdered or raped or kidnapped or committed a homosexual act, etc. (all NONceremonial violations) and the method of execution was clearly NOT stoning.

Just one case. It's a big book with tons of examples. Surely if you are right then there will be just ONE example to prove your case. If not, then what does that tell you?

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
And nowhere did I call the electric chair a just form of punishment.
I agree with you. But Bob Enyart thinks it IS a just form of punishment.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove this. I do not believe you have done this.
Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have law do perform by nature the things of the law, these, not having law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves."

As horrid as it is, I believe crucifixion is another just form of execution.
Crucifixion is torture. The right to inflict torture on anyone is an exclusive prerogative of God in His office of Eternal Judge, which is why men are not supposed to imitate him in this practice. This is the theological basis of civil laws against torture, which was constantly denied in Christian Europe for centuries until the era of the French Revolution. It is also why God-denying, self-consistent Marxist societies use torture as a normal implement of social policy: they see the State as the agent of the Communist Party as having replaced God, including His office as Judge.

[Brother Vinny]

Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have law do perform by nature the things of the law, these, not having law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves."


This is a pretty apt summation of moral law. You know what, Jefferson? Stoning isn't written, so far as I can tell, on my heart. While I can determine-- using only my own reason-- that murderers should be put to death (it just makes inherent sense), and while it makes just as much sense that the murderer's death should be violent, there's nothing in my conscience that declares what the mode of execution should be.


Crucifixion is torture.


And stoning isn't?!? Stoning may be more to-the-point than crucifixion, but I'd say any method of execution that is a) extremely painful, and b) is prolonged enough to allow the convicted to get a few words in (such as Stephen's prayer), could be considered torture.

And just where do you get your bias against torture? Jesus used the earthly example of a master handing over his unforgiving servant to torturers as a parable illustrating His heavenly Father (see Matthew 18:21-35, especially verses 33-35). Surely Jesus would not have used the picture of an unjust master to illustrate God's justice?


The right to inflict torture on anyone is an exclusive prerogative of God in His office of Eternal Judge, which is why men are not supposed to imitate him in this practice.


This right, just as the right to judge, has apparently been delegated (see the passsage in Matthew cited above).


This is the theological basis of civil laws against torture, which was constantly denied in Christian Europe for centuries until the era of the French Revolution. It is also why God-denying, self-consistent Marxist societies use torture as a normal implement of social policy: they see the State as the agent of the Communist Party as having replaced God, including His office as Judge.


The misuse of a tool does not negate the proper usage of that tool. Torture has its place. The Romans were not using the torture of crucifixion to exact military secrets from spies. That may have been a fringe benefit in some cases, but the end sought by crucifixion was death.

So, Jefferson, all this begs a question. Whenever I see Jesus depicted as hanging on the cross, one of the thoughts that inevitably come to mind is, "It should've been me up on that cross, not Him." Does your view necessitate the thought, "No one should've been up there"?

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
[Regarding crucifixion being torture] And stoning isn't?!?
No. Stoning is painful but it's over too quickly to be considered torture. Likewise, I do not consider the electric chair to be torture because it is over too quickly.

Stoning may be more to-the-point than crucifixion, but I'd say any method of execution that is a) extremely painful, and b) is prolonged enough to allow the convicted to get a few words in (such as Stephen's prayer), could be considered torture.
Communist nations that used torture disagree with you. They didn't just want their captives to "get a few words in." Their true tortures lasted for days. Stoning would last for less than a minute.

Jesus used the earthly example of a master handing over his unforgiving servant to torturers as a parable illustrating His heavenly Father (see Matthew 18:21-35, especially verses 33-35). Surely Jesus would not have used the picture of an unjust master to illustrate God's justice?
First of all, the verse does not use the word "tormentors" but rather "the tormentors" meaning the reader should know based on the context which tormentors he was referring to. The answer is found just 4 verses earlier (verse 30) when we learn that the torment is prison, not physical torture like has occurred in POW camps.

Secondly, it was a parable, not a command by God to governing authorities on the proper method of punishment. Old Testament law did not allow imprisonment. Prison is analogous to the final judgment. There is no restitution to victims by those in hell or in the lake of fire. There is permanent restitution to God, but not to man. In this sense, hell is outside history and the process of restitution and restoration. Hell is described as a debtors prison in this parable. Clearly, this parable is a picture of Christ's payment of His people's ethical debts to God, as their kinsman redeemer. This substitute payment is available to mankind only in history. Therefore, the prison is illegitimate because it blocks the opportunities for repayment to victims.

So, Jefferson, all this begs a question. Whenever I see Jesus depicted as hanging on the cross, one of the thoughts that inevitably come to mind is, "It should've been me up on that cross, not Him." Does your view necessitate the thought, "No one should've been up there"?
Yes. No one should have been up there. God has delegated to human governments the right to kill capital criminals, not to torture them for hour after hour, even day after day.

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by Jefferson

After I hung up, several minutes later Bob mentioned how governing authorities use the sword as God's ministers in the book of Romans. But again, this is not an execution. It is the equivalent to our police carrying guns. Police may kill someone with a gun but after a lawful trial, we do not execute people with guns.

Likewise, just because the "police" in Rome's day carried swords that does not mean God approved of the sword being used to execute a duly convicted criminal after a legal trial.

I still say Bob is wrong about this. Public stoning is the only method of execution found in the Bible.


Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

These passages clearly talk about rulers not policeman. The ruler bears the sword to minister God's wrath... to execute.
This passage is not talking about carrying a sword for protection as a policeman carries a gun.

[ddevonb]

I believe that when you come to a theologically absolute position like "only stoning" when God never said "only stoning" , you are on shakey ground.It reminds of another discussion a while ago where one guy was locked into a position arguing that musical instruments are not allowed during Christian worship... simply because they are not mentioned in the New Testament.
If God wanted to prohibit other types of execution he could have easily done that... it is reasonable to believe that he would have done that.
God clearly put limitations on other punishments like the the number of lashes for flogging and how much restitution someone could be forced to pay or how long someone could be forced to be an indentured slave.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
There are different methods of killing for different situations. And yes, some are moral in some circumstances and immoral in others. For example:

Police officers are allowed to shoot someone, but they are not allowed to drag that person to an electric chair and flip the switch.


Good point. There are situations that invoke different moral truths. In general, Police are not allowed to come into a suspect’s home and shoot them. However there are many situations where police are given the leverage to do just that.

While I admit that is a good point, this particular example doesn’t have anything to do with the situation I quoted, where the Levites executed about 3000 people with a sword instead of stoning. This isn't a situation where they were gunning down a fleeing suspect, or stopping someone in the midst of a crime, or any other situation where deadly force is called for by police.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Our courts put capital criminals in electric chairs but state laws do not allow them to be executed with bullets.

Military executions often are carried out by firing squad. They are not allowed to execute via lethal injection.
etc., etc., etc.
[/list]


While the first was actually a good point, these are all bad points. The difference is the first dealt with moral truths (and morality is germane to the discussion on whether or not your “stoning only” is a moral issue), these are matter of protocol, not issue involving morality.


Originally posted by Jefferson
God's allowable methods of killing also vary depending on the circumstances (ceremonial violations vrs. war vrs. criminal acts by citizens, etc.)


Then it is clear that stoning was not a moral issue, otherwise there wouldn’t be different allowable methods of killing.


Originally posted by Jefferson
If you disagree with this then show me just one specific case in the Old Testament where a citizen (not a soldier in war) murdered or raped or kidnapped or committed a homosexual act, etc. (all NONceremonial violations) and the method of execution was clearly NOT stoning.

Just one case. It's a big book with tons of examples. Surely if you are right then there will be just ONE example to prove your case. If not, then what does that tell you?

No that’s another bad argument. The argument of omission is a bad argument. Give me one example where someone ate a cheesburger in the Bible … clearly then God is against cheeseburgers!??

Name me one person who was executed by stoning who had kidnapped? Can't do it? How about rape? Don't have an example? What does that tell you .... nothing, because an argument of omission is a bad arguement.

Since you are the one saying that “stoning only” is a moral truth, then it is up to you to provide proof for that. For instance, I could provide proof that “don’t murder” is a moral truth due to the universal recognition among scores of cultures. But no culture in history has ever believed that stoning was the only method of execution allowed. Don’t you think if it was a moral truth, even one culture in the history of the world would have recognized that fact?

I think your first argument was very good. It is a shame you didn’t stick with that and try to find some circumstance that would invoke a different moral truth that would have excused the Levitical priests from not stoning.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ddevonb
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he BEARETH not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil. [emphasis mine]


This passage is not talking about carrying a sword for protection as a policeman carries a gun.
Yes it is. That's what the word "beareth" means. It means "to carry."

For example, our second amendment gives us the right "to keep and bear arms." What is your definition of the difference between these two words in our second amendment?

Police "bear" arms but our exocutioners "keep" their weapons, they don't "bear" them.

If your view is correct, the verse would say, "for he keeps not the sword in vain." But it doesn't say that.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ddevonb
I believe that when you come to a theologically absolute position like "only stoning" when God never said "only stoning" , you are on shakey ground.
Shakey ground is where Christians get creative with God's decrees.

It reminds of another discussion a while ago where one guy was locked into a position arguing that musical instruments are not allowed during Christian worship... simply because they are not mentioned in the New Testament.
You are comparing apples with oranges here. You are trying to compare our freedom in Christ with taking away someone else's ultimate freedom - their very life.

When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not hold contests to see who can come up with the most creative methods?

If God wanted to prohibit other types of execution he could have easily done that... it is reasonable to believe that he would have done that.
He did do that by the lack of a clear example of a non-stoning execution of a citizen criminal who committed a capital crime against God's moral (ie. nonceremonial) law.

God clearly put limitations on other punishments like the the number of lashes for flogging and how much restitution someone could be forced to pay or how long someone could be forced to be an indentured slave.
So when it came to an even more serious issue like the death penalty, God suddenly developed a split personality and said, "Oh what the heck guys, just do whatever floats your boat."

I don't think so.

[Jefferson]

ApologeticJedi, you wrote:

Originally posted by Jefferson
There are different methods of killing for different situations. And yes, some are moral in some circumstances and immoral in others. For example:

Police officers are allowed to shoot someone, but they are not allowed to drag that person to an electric chair and flip the switch.



Good point. There are situations that invoke different moral truths.
But then you contradicted yourself when you said:
Then it is clear that stoning was not a moral issue, otherwise there wouldn’t be different allowable methods of killing.
So which is it?
While I admit that is a good point, this particular example doesn’t have anything to do with the situation I quoted, where the Levites executed about 3000 people with a sword instead of stoning.
The Levites have nothing to do with the Body of Christ dispensation. Part of God's commands to Israel that symbolically demonstrated their separation to God was the requirement at times for them to deliberately kill not just their enemies but also their enemies' women and children and livestock, to burn their tents and all their possessions. But you don't recommend we do this today do you? Why not? Why single out only part of the verse that describes the method of killing (the sword) and say, "this part of the passage still applies today but the rest of the passage doesn't." What biblical hermeneutical rule of thumb are you using to pick and choose like that?

The argument of omission is a bad argument. Give me one example where someone ate a cheesburger in the Bible … clearly then God is against cheeseburgers!??
You are comparing apples with oranges here. You are trying to compare our freedom in Christ (ie. clean vrs. unclean foods) with taking away someone else's ultimate freedom - their very life.

When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not hold contests to see who can come up with the most creative methods?
Name me one person who was executed by stoning who had kidnapped? Can't do it? How about rape? Don't have an example? What does that tell you ...
It tells me that God didn't need to keep repeating Himself after He had first laid down His principle.

For example, God laid out the procedure for church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17 - "But if your brother shall trespass against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he hears you, you have gained your brother. But if he will not hear you, take one or two more with you, so that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the church. But if he neglects to hear the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a tax-collector."

BUT . . .


2 Thessalonians 3:6 only says, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly, and not after the teaching which he received from us." What? What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?


2Th 3:14,15 only says, "And if anyone does not obey our word by this letter, mark that one and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?

Titus 3:10 only says, "After the first and second warning, reject a man of heresy,"
What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?

I Timothy 5:20 only says, "Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear." What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?

I Corinthians 5:4,5 only says, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ;
to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?

2 Thessalonians 3:6 only says, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly, and not after the teaching which he received from us"
What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?

The answer is God didn't need to keep repeating Himself after He had first laid down His principle just like the stoning issue. He didn't need to keep repeating Himself.

Since you are the one saying that “stoning only” is a moral truth, then it is up to you to provide proof for that. For instance, I could provide proof that “don’t murder” is a moral truth due to the universal recognition among scores of cultures. But no culture in history has ever believed that stoning was the only method of execution allowed. Don’t you think if it was a moral truth, even one culture in the history of the world would have recognized that fact?
Not necessarily because Paul said, "I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust." (Romans 7:7) Therefore if Paul did not know lust was a sin apart from scripture, why would you expect other cultures to know that nonstoning execution methods were sin apart from scripture?

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
But then you contradicted yourself when you said … So which is it?


No, no, no Jefferson. I said that you had a good point that sometime moral truths change with different circumstances. That doesn’t mean you were correct about stoning, you still have to prove that. You had a good beginning, but that was it.

You are so funny Jefferson. Just because I recognize that you had one good point, doesn’t mean that the debate is over. It is good to recognize when someone else brings forth a good point, but your good point doesn’t get you all the way to the logical conclusion that we can only execute via stoning.


Originally posted by Jefferson
The Levites have nothing to do with the Body of Christ dispensation.


If it is a moral issue, to only stone … then it is irrelevant what dispensation it was in. Moral laws never change through any dispensation. Cain knew it was wrong to murder, for instance, long before the law said “Thou shalt not murder”. Moral truths are ingrained on people’s hearts.
Originally posted by Jefferson
Part of God's commands to Israel that symbolically demonstrated their separation to God was the requirement at times for them to deliberately kill not just their enemies but also their enemies' women and children and livestock, to burn their tents and all their possessions. But you don't recommend we do this today do you? Why not? Why single out only part of the verse that describes the method of killing (the sword) and say, "this part of the passage still applies today but the rest of the passage doesn't."


You totally missed what I said. My argument wasn’t that we must kill with swords, or that we should put to death people for worshipping golden cows. My point was that if it was morally wrong to put someone to death by any other means than stoning, then why did they profane that moral truth in the valley below Mt. Sinai? If it were a moral law, then you would not expect that you can break it so easily … especially not for a “symbolic” law which often has a lesser importance.



Originally posted by Jefferson
You are comparing apples with oranges here. You are trying to compare our freedom in Christ (ie. clean vrs. unclean foods) with taking away someone else's ultimate freedom - their very life.

When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not hold contests to see who can come up with the most creative methods?


That’s a strawman attack Jefferson. I’ve never advocated that position. I think it is great that you are considering the Bible. However I don’t find very much validity for your own idea that we should only execute via stoning. That “command” seems to me to be your own invention, not God’s.


Originally posted by Jefferson
It tells me that God didn't need to keep repeating Himself after He had first laid down His principle.

For example, God laid out the procedure for church discipline in Matthew 18:15-17 –


Yes, but we don’t see that principle laid out for stoning only.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Not necessarily because Paul said, "I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust." (Romans 7:7) Therefore if Paul did not know lust was a sin apart from scripture, why would you expect other cultures to know that nonstoning execution methods were sin apart from scripture?

Because early in Romans Paul established that everyone has the law. The Jews had it written in stone, but Gentiles have it written on the heart. That’s why moral laws are found in at least some culture, usually several. But the Jews who had the literal Law of Moses never practiced stoning solely as a method of execution.

Please tell me what is immoral with hanging a kidnapper?

[Jefferson]

ApologeticJedi, you wrote:

No, no, no Jefferson. I said that you had a good point that sometime moral truths change with different circumstances. That doesn’t mean you were correct about stoning, you still have to prove that. You had a good beginning, but that was it.
Then how about another example: Excommunication. Matthew 18:15-17 lays out detailed procedures for disfellowship. Why then were those procedures not followed in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10?

. . . if it was morally wrong to put someone to death by any other means than stoning, then why did they profane that moral truth in the valley below Mt. Sinai? If it were a moral law, then you would not expect that you can break it so easily … especially not for a “symbolic” law which often has a lesser importance.
They didn't profane it or break it. They were obeying Exodus 22:20 - "One sacrificing to a god, except it is to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Since this verse does not specify stoning, they did not sin against this verse by executing via the sword for this theocratic, covenental, ceremonial violation.

Please tell me what is immoral with hanging a kidnapper?
First: The community does not participate in a hanging. When the community participated in a stoning, the community collectively declared their separation from both the criminal and his crime. It had to be an incredible amount of peer-pressure and warning to others who might consider committing a similar crime in the future. Since with hangings, citizens just passively watch from the sidelines, the peer-pressure effect on future kidnappers is reduced.

Second: Stoning represents the judgment of God, since Christ is "the rock" and is the "stone" which threatens to fall upon men and destroy them (Mathew 21:44). In line with this, the community hurls a rock representing himself and his affirmation of God's judgment. The principle of stoning, then, affirms that the judgment is God's; the application of stoning affirms the community's assent and participation in that judgment. Hanging does not accomplish this.

Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment. Hanging is only a temporary reminder, not a permanent one.

Forth: Stoning images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15). Hanging does not accomplish this.

Fifth: The impersonalism of hanging allows people to avoid thinking God's thoughts after Him. Citizens can stand afar off and even condemn the morality of capital punishment in their own minds if they so choose. Not so when they themselves are participating in the execution. . The Bible does not allow the establishment of a professional, taxpayer-financed guild of faceless executioners who, over time, inevitably grow either callous, impersonal or even sadistic regarding their task. Instead, the Bible imposes personal responsibility on members of society at large for enforcing this ultimate sanction. But people refuse to accept this God-imposed personal responsibility. They prefer to make a lone executioner psychologically responsible for carrying out the sentence rather than participate in this responsibility, as God requires.

Sixth Evangelism. Seeing the death penalty in action before their very eyes makes the judgment of God (the second death) seem more believable to unbelievers. How much more believable would preaching about the second death be if unbelieving citizens were themselves required to participate in the first death of capital criminals via stoning? They do not participate in a hanging.

The main question you are asking me is why do I think execution by sword (for example) was moral for violations of ceremonial law but not for nonceremonial law.

The answer is because God said it was via His lack of even one example of a non-stoning execution for a nonceremonial violation.

You don't value this "argument of omission" but my argument of omission is WAY better than your argument of assumption especially when it comes to holy scripture discussing an issue as important as the death penalty.

You can use your "argument of assumption" by trying to pound the square peg (of an execution for a ceremonial violation) into the round hole (of an execution for a nonceremonial violation) if you want to, but I'm not going to do it.

When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not use "arguments of assumption?" Yes, or no?

Why did God think non-stoning executions for ceremonial violators was moral? Beats me. Why did God institute the ceremony of circumcision? What was inherently moral about that? The fact that the methods of executions for ceremonial violations are as unexplainable as many of the ceremonies themselves should come as no surprise.

Finally, I'll leave you with this question: Deuteronomy 22:21 (for example) says, "then they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies, because she has done foolishness in Israel to play the harlot in her father's house." Why doesn't the verse say "the men of her city shall stone her with stones OR kill her with the sword OR burn her with fire etc.?

[Brother Vinny]

I'm going to give Jefferson a partial victory here (or rather, say he's earned it).

I don't think stoning can fall under the moral law simply because while one can intuit apart from Scripture the inherent need for murderers (and other capital criminals) to be put to death, one cannot likewise intuit that stoning is the method to use.

However, I think Jefferson has a case that stoning is the method preferred by Scripture.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Then how about another example: Excommunication. Matthew 18:15-17 lays out detailed procedures for disfellowship. Why then were those procedures not followed in the case of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-10?


Sorry I haven't responded sooner. I didn't see this until today.
To be honest I have never put these two passages together. I would say it is likely that Jesus' advice on excommunication was a guideline only, not a moral imperative. In any case, I’ll give it some thought.

I’m not sure how you think it ties into the discussion on stoning though. I agreed with you already that different situations can invoke different moral truths. My challenge was for you to show what different moral truth was going on that allowed the Levites to use the sword instead of stoning. Can you show me what your line of reasoning was on this?


Originally posted by Jefferson
They didn't profane it or break it. They were obeying Exodus 22:20 - "One sacrificing to a god, except it is to Jehovah only, he shall be utterly destroyed." Since this verse does not specify stoning, they did not sin against this verse by executing via the sword for this theocratic, covenental, ceremonial violation.


So then since no verse speaking of murder mentioned stoning, it would not be a sin to execute other than by stoning for murderers? I’m trying to hold you to your own viewpoint.


Originally posted by Jefferson
First: The community does not participate in a hanging. When the community participated in a stoning, the community collectively declared their separation from both the criminal and his crime. It had to be an incredible amount of peer-pressure and warning to others who might consider committing a similar crime in the future. Since with hangings, citizens just passively watch from the sidelines, the peer-pressure effect on future kidnappers is reduced.


I’m not sure that has anything to do with moral truth. I don’t perceive it immoral not to participate in every execution. I think it is good symbolism.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Second: Stoning represents the judgment of God, since Christ is "the rock" and is the "stone" which threatens to fall upon men and destroy them (Mathew 21:44). In line with this, the community hurls a rock representing himself and his affirmation of God's judgment. The principle of stoning, then, affirms that the judgment is God's; the application of stoning affirms the community's assent and participation in that judgment. Hanging does not accomplish this.


That is wholly an argument of symbolism. Has nothing to do with morality.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment. Hanging is only a temporary reminder, not a permanent one.


More good symbolism.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Forth: Stoning images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15). Hanging does not accomplish this.


Again that’s Symbolism.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Fifth: The impersonalism of hanging allows people to avoid thinking God's thoughts after Him. Citizens can stand afar off and even condemn the morality of capital punishment in their own minds if they so choose. Not so when they themselves are participating in the execution.


Sorry, that’s not true.
Do you pay taxes? Is FICA (Social Security) deducted from your paycheck?


Originally posted by Jefferson
Sixth Evangelism. Seeing the death penalty in action before their very eyes makes the judgment of God (the second death) seem more believable to unbelievers. How much more believable would preaching about the second death be if unbelieving citizens were themselves required to participate in the first death of capital criminals via stoning? They do not participate in a hanging.


Again symbolism defined.
All very good symbolic points. No moral points to your argument.

I can make the same sort of arguments for circumcision. Should we demand circumcision?


Originally posted by Jefferson
When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not use "arguments of assumption?" Yes, or no?


I’m not sure what you mean by “arguments of assumption”. I am not assuming anything that I am aware of. You are the one assuming that stoning is the only allowable method, since you have no biblical data for that position (you only have provided data that stoning was allowed).


Originally posted by Jefferson
Why did God think non-stoning executions for ceremonial violators was moral? Beats me. Why did God institute the ceremony of circumcision? What was inherently moral about that?


Absolutely nothing … and you couldn’t have made my point better.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Finally, I'll leave you with this question: Deuteronomy 22:21 (for example) says, "then they shall bring the girl out to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones so that she dies, because she has done foolishness in Israel to play the harlot in her father's house." Why doesn't the verse say "the men of her city shall stone her with stones OR kill her with the sword OR burn her with fire etc.?

Because even symbolic laws were not optional for Israel. That is not true for the body of Christ. Circumcision is optional.

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
I'm going to give Jefferson a partial victory here (or rather, say he's earned it).


I like Jefferson. I think he's passionate about this issue and I think that's great. And if adultery is ever recriminalized in that way, I'll gladly stand beside him and stone an adulterer or two!

:D

[TheFlame]

Originally posted by Jefferson
I debated Bob Enyart on the issue of whether or not public stoning is the only Biblical method of capital punishment on his 12-3-02 show. I'm the first caller. Enyart brought up God sending fire and brimstone on people and opening up the earth and sucking them down to hell and things like that but that was God executing people. The issue is the method that human governments are allowed to use to execute people.

After I hung up, several minutes later Bob mentioned how governing authorities use the sword as God's ministers in the book of Romans. But again, this is not an execution. It is the equivalent to our police carrying guns. Police may kill someone with a gun but after a lawful trial, we do not execute people with guns.

Likewise, just because the "police" in Rome's day carried swords that does not mean God approved of the sword being used to execute a duly convicted criminal after a legal trial.

I still say Bob is wrong about this. Public stoning is the only method of execution found in the Bible.


I don't believe God intended to restrict the method of execution to stoning, although that may be the only one mentioned.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
So then since no verse speaking of murder mentioned stoning, it would not be a sin to execute other than by stoning for murderers?
It would be a sin because the bible does mention other moral (ie. non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial) violations requiring capital punishment and 100 percent of the time that the method of execution is mentioned those executions are always via stoning.

I don’t perceive it immoral not to participate in every execution.
Neither do I. If we had mandated stoning today but the government started executing people for practicing Islam or Judaism or Buddism, or any religion other than Christianity, then I would not participate in those executions. In fact, I would protest them the way I protest abortion. My protests would be a moral protest.

By the same token, if you deliberatly boycott every stoning, then you would be making a moral judgment against stoning itself. It would be just like refusing to attend a friend's wedding because he unbiblically divorced his first wife. Your non-participation would be a moral judgment against him.

I think it is good symbolism.
What does it symbolize?

Regarding piles of stones you said:
More good symbolism.
No, it is obedience to the moral (nonsymbolic) commands to warn the wicked:

Eze 3:18 When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not give him warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.

Eze 3:21 But if you warn the righteous so that the righteous does not sin, and if he does not sin, he shall surely live because he is warned; also you have delivered your soul.

Eze 33:8 When I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die; if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. Eze 33:9 But, if you warn the wicked of his way, to turn from it; if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul.

1Co 10:11 And all these things happened to them as examples; and it is written for our warning on whom the ends of the world have come.

Do you pay taxes? Is FICA (Social Security) deducted from your paycheck?
Not voluntarily. People could choose to participate or boycott stonings thereby publicly affirming or disagreeing with the morality of stoning. (I think I previously mentioned something about citizens being required to participate. I meant to say the law should require local governments to allow citizens to participate).

I can make the same sort of arguments for circumcision.
I don't think you can, not for this Body of Christ dispensation.

I’m not sure what you mean by “arguments of assumption”. I am not assuming anything that I am aware of.
In spite of the fact that there is not even one example in all of scripture where a nonstoning execution occurs for a capital violation of (non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial) moral law, you are nevertheless assuming that it is acceptable. I don't treat scripture that flippantly.

You are the one assuming that stoning is the only allowable method, since you have no biblical data for that position (you only have provided data that stoning was allowed).
I didn't say it was the only allowable method for any situation. I said it was the only allowable method for a non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial capital violation of moral law.

Regarding Deuteronomy 22:21 you said:
Because even symbolic laws were not optional for Israel. That is not true for the body of Christ. Circumcision is optional.
Deuteronomy 22:21 concerns adultery. That's not a symbolic law.

Finally, God could have put in the bible an example of a nonstoning execution for a non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, violation of moral law like adultery or murder or homsexuality, but He didn't. Why not?

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Yes it is. That's what the word "beareth" means. It means "to carry."

For example, our second amendment gives us the right "to keep and bear arms." What is your definition of the difference between these two words in our second amendment?

Police "bear" arms but our exocutioners "keep" their weapons, they don't "bear" them.

If your view is correct, the verse would say, "for he keeps not the sword in vain." But it doesn't say that.

Can you not get fixed on one word and focus on the passage?Police and exectioners both keep and bear arms. To say that executioners don't bear their arms is just silly.

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he BEARETH not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Now examine this passage again. It says he bears the sword to execute wrath. This is speaking about the right to execute.
This is not speaking about a policeman ... it is speaking of an agent of the government who is given the delegated authority to execute. This passage does not refer to a policeman who primarily uses his weapon in self defense.

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by Jefferson

Shakey ground is where Christians get creative with God's decrees.


You are comparing apples with oranges here. You are trying to compare our freedom in Christ with taking away someone else's ultimate freedom - their very life.

When it comes to taking away someone else's life, don't you think we should be very circumspect in our methods and not hold contests to see who can come up with the most creative methods?


He did do that by the lack of a clear example of a non-stoning execution of a citizen criminal who committed a capital crime against God's moral (ie. nonceremonial) law.


So when it came to an even more serious issue like the death penalty, God suddenly developed a split personality and said, "Oh what the heck guys, just do whatever floats your boat."

I don't think so.

I believe in fact ...that it is you that are getting creative with God's degree by putting restrictions where God didn't.
When God instituted the Death Penalty in Genesis he just said that murderers should be executed... their blood should be shed by man. There is not indication that he was very particular about the method. In fact God himself was an example of much creativity when it came to executing his wrath on evil doers.
Saying that God not being too particular in this area isn't saying that God developed a plit personailty. On lesser crimes God sought to limit punishment to a just amount.
When it comes to capital offenses the punishment is death.
Dead is dead.
Stoning, electricution, beheading, a firing squad all produce the same result... death.
Even if God had a preference, there is no reason to conclude that was the only approved way.
Are you saying that if we have no stones we can't execute?

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
It would be a sin because the bible does mention other moral (ie. non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial) violations requiring capital punishment and 100 percent of the time that the method of execution is mentioned those executions are always via stoning.


But for murder, God does not say to stone them. So they could execute murderers with a sword, just as the Levites executed the worshippers of the golden idol with swords.

Your argument as to why the Levites could do that was because Ex 22:20 doesn't mention stoning, so they could pick another method. Well most capitol crimes in the Bible do not require stoning either by your own principles.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Regarding piles of stones you said:
More good symbolism.

No, it is obedience to the moral (nonsymbolic) commands to warn the wicked:


The wicked can be warned without piles of stone, so it's still symbolic. Actually, doesn't that make your argument worse?! Now people are going to let a pile of stones do the speaking, when God made it clear that what he meant by that is that people need to be rebuking other people for sin.

But perhaps you'll let them go on sinning, because you'll rely on the crutch of the pile of stone (which offer little more "warning" than a hanging).



Originally posted by Jefferson
Not voluntarily. People could choose to participate or boycott stonings thereby publicly affirming or disagreeing with the morality of stoning. (I think I previously mentioned something about citizens being required to participate. I meant to say the law should require local governments to allow citizens to participate).


You said that the could condemn execution only if they were not forced to do it. "Not so" you said, "when they themselves are participating in the execution." That's not true. Participation doesn't stop people from condemning something. I too "unvolutarily" participate in social security. It's doesn't stop me from condemning it.

And not participating doesn't necessarily mean that they are against it either. That's seems legalistic to me.

Originally posted by Jefferson
I didn't say it was the only allowable method for any situation. I said it was the only allowable method for a non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial capital violation of moral law.


That's right. That's what you said without any backing in scripture. The scriptures don't share your belief that the rules changed on this issue in war-time verses peace-time, but you invented that distinction.

Don't you think it is shaky theology to add to God's word?



Originally posted by Jefferson
Deuteronomy 22:21 concerns adultery. That's not a symbolic law.


I was referring to stoning. You weren't asking about adultery specifically. You were asking why it said to stone, and not kill with a sword. My response was that stoning was symbolic for Israel, and that they had to follow it whether it was symbolic or moral.


Originally posted by Jefferson
Finally, God could have put in the bible an example of a nonstoning execution for a non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, violation of moral law like adultery or murder or homsexuality, but He didn't. Why not?

God didn't make the Bible all-inclusive. It doesn't have an example against every foolish idea. Especially not when people are willing to so qualify their statements with made-up distincitions such as "non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, on Tuesdays"

God allowed murderers to be put to death "in like manner". He does not explicitly say how, and he certainly doesn't recommend stoning. God could have put "and you shall execute only with stoning", but God didn't do that.

The difference between your interpretation and mine is that I am reading what is there, and staying with God's word. You are reading into God's word what isn't there. You are making assumptions that God really meant to say that only stoning should be allowed for murder too.

[bnnyc1955]

There has been so much attention focussed on means of capital punishment. What means of punishment were given for non-capital offenses? Not all people were executed for violations.

Bob

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by bnnyc1955
What means of punishment were given for non-capital offenses?
Corporal punishment (ie. flogging) and restituion (to the victim).

[Jefferson]

ddevonb, you wrote:

Can you not get fixed on one word and focus on the passage?Police and exectioners both keep and bear arms. To say that executioners don't bear their arms is just silly.
I've never seen an executioner carrying an electric chair around with him at the mall.

Are you saying that if we have no stones we can't execute?
I don't know any nation that lacks stones.

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
But for murder, God does not say to stone them.
Leviticus 20:2 commands stoning for the murder.

The wicked can be warned without piles of stone, so it's still symbolic.
But as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

But perhaps you'll let them go on sinning, because you'll rely on the crutch of the pile of stone (which offer little more "warning" than a hanging).
Hanging is only a temporary warning. But a pile of stones is a warning that lasts 24 hours a day, non stop for generations.

I too "unvolutarily" participate in social security. It's doesn't stop me from condemning it.
But participation in stoning would be voluntary.

And not participating doesn't necessarily mean that they are against it either.
It does if they never participate for any execution for any reason under any circumstance decade after decade.

That's right. That's what you said without any backing in scripture. The scriptures don't share your belief that the rules changed on this issue in war-time verses peace-time, but you invented that distinction.
We're going around in circles here regarding arguments of omission vrs. arguments of assumption.

[Jefferson]

ddevonb and ApologeticJedi:

After 18 posts by me on this topic think I need to move on to other issues. Besides we are beginning to rehash the same arguments. Thanks much for challenging me on this and helping me to clarify my own arguments. I'll let you guys have the last word on this topic.

P.S. ApologeticJedi, you previously wrote:
I like Jefferson. I think he's passionate about this issue and I think that's great. And if adultery is ever recriminalized in that way, I'll gladly stand beside him and stone an adulterer or two!
Likewise, if adultery is ever recriminalized but we don't get stoning to go along with it, then hey, we can't have everything we want this side of the millenial reign of Christ. I'll gladly stand beside you and cheer on the impersonal professional executioner who pulls the lever for the electric chair.

[1Way]

Jefferson – Hey friend, I just read most of this thread. I’m usually way to busy to respond as I’m gone all week driving truck OTR, and have many things to catch up on like moving for example. I hope you will entreat me with yet another response.

I agree with you about how capitol punishment is carried out has moral implications that can be beneficial to a society and that we should be careful to not stray from the written word. And that for example, prolonged torture is wrong and is not a Godly punishment.

Morality and absolutes
You hold that capitol punishment for a “"non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense” is a moral issue. In other words, it would be “wrong” to do otherwise. For example, to execute by drowning a murderer who drowned their victim(s), that would be wrong. But where I come from, morality is an issue of absolute right and wrong, it doesn’t change from time to time. So what about Cain and Able? Was God wrong for contradicting what you evidently hold is a moral issue? Wasn’t that a case of “non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense.”? Even if it was one of those exceptions you keep mentioning, do you think that God could violate a moral issue? You don’t deny that (true) morality is absolute, do you?

? hmmmmm ?
Why do you keep saying, “the body of Christ dispensation”, instead of the “dispensation of mystery”, or the “dispensation of grace”, for example?

Details verses big picture
As to the issue of Romans 13 and “bearing” the sword verses “keeping” the sword, your point in part being that your view is more active and fitting, and ours is less active and less fitting. On the contrary, your view is more passive and ours more active.

Here’s the text.

“Romans 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”

-- God’s purposeful sword bearing minister --
-- an avenger -- to [execute] wrath -- on the criminal --

That is a picture of active use, a present active threat, avenging against a criminal, executing wrath on the criminal. These ideas of godly wrath and vengeance are within the context of righteous judgment against the evil doer. To “avenge” and to “execute” wrath does not lend to a police officer packing just in case a crime might happen. To “avenge” and to “execute wrath” usually means that the crime already happened, and that judgment has already passed. See Romans 12:9 below.

So, I think your view turns the “bearing of the sword” into a more passive and undeveloped potential role than the idea presented of the sword’s active use in “executing wrath and vengeance” “on” the criminal. If not, then what’s the difference between “repaying after the fact” and (“prepaying” if you will) “packing” in advance before hand?

When is Godly wrath and vengeance normally executed on the criminal?
How does the old saying go?

Romans 12:19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but [rather] give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance [is] Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

Repay? Is the packing police man bearing arms to repay “passed tense”. Or isn’t he generally packing to take care of present and perhaps future or potential threats, and to protect his own life and the lives of the innocent in so doing? I.E. a prophylactic safeguard, not as much one of repayment.

Who generally, and without doubt, rules and governs a land?
Lastly, consider who is named as the sword bearer. The governing authority, what do those words bring to mind?

- Judges, rulers, magistrates, etc.
- Military, police, soldiers, armies, etc.

Sure they can overlap ideas, buy you are distinguishing between the two. I doubt it if those societies back then separated their military from civilian protection. But, if God intended a police or military idea, either would normally represent a large numerous and less distinct group of people who actually does not have inherent authority and are governed by their own rulers, as compared to magistrates and rulers, who are generally considered the few or the distinct or the one (guy in charge), and they are the seat or location of authority. So why instead of military, did He say, the “governing authorities” and “rulers” and “the authority” (verse 3), and “he” in verse 4? All of which have the idea of ruling judicial authority, and lend far better to the few or the singular and those who rule over others than it would armies and military who are governed by their governors. Armies and police themselves don’t rule a land, they answer to the lands laws and magistrates created by its rulers. So, it’s not about military; it’s about rulers who are in governing authority, and they appropriately preside over capitol punishment and the like.

1Way

[1Way]

Jefferson, you responded to Bob Enyart thus: Now, with that foundation laid out, I will now respond to the individual verses with which you are attempting to rebut my position:
Fire
Lev 20:14 'If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire…’
Joshua 7:25 shows that when this law was applied, these criminals were to be stoned first and then their dead bodies were to be burned: "And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, AFTER they had stoned them with stones." This shows that the verses which command capital criminals to be burned refers to their already dead bodies being burned after they had first been stoned. Just looking at the books mentioned, didn’t Lev happen first? So how would a subsequent event shape or define an earlier one? And even if it didn’t happen that way, not all accounts happen like you seem to think it must. I grant that being stoned generally means to be put to death. Yet death did not always happen even when a multitude did it, remember Paul in Acts 14:19. Also, couldn’t two separate events happen in different unrelated ways? Sometimes death by fire, sometimes death by stoning, sometimes death by stoning and then fire after death, perhaps sometimes stoning and then fire until finally dead.

Who is to say that the capitol offender was necessarily already dead before being burned? I could easily understand that the fire could have served much like the breaking of the legs for crucifixion, to hasten the death in some difficult or prolonged circumstances. Although a sword or ax or spear would have been a quicker and simpler “hastening” method, than builder a fire for execution.

Sure, stoning could end the life of a person with just one stone on the temple for example, but on the other hand, it could easily go on for hours and hours for many different reasons. Perhaps the executioners didn’t have large enough rocks, or strong enough executioners, or enough executioners, or enough good rocks to go around, or the perhaps the capitol offender was really strong or especially quick or resilient, or perhaps the executioners were weak from a bad harvest or drought, or a lack of sleep, or weak from widespread sickness, or weather could made the execution unusually difficult, or their aim just wasn’t as good as it was when they were younger, etc, etc, etc. So, I don’t think it is a great stretch to suggest that under less than ideal circumstances, some assistance might be needed, especially to keep a righteous execution from turning into a prolonged and thus evil torture session.

The passage just says which happened first. Is there a passage that says that they burned them only after they were dead?

Man, what a terrible thing to consider, being stoned to death and such. But it is comforting to know that God would rather that happen to the (few) wicked capitol offenders, than to have terrible crimes happen to the innocent (masses).

I have to admit, it does seem possible that perhaps stoning is the preferred or allowed method under those circumstances, but on the other hand, the other methods mentioned were ok for other circumstances. So, apparently you seem to think that the various military and ceremonial issues alter things enough to present “implied” biblical precedents.

If I’m off base on the issue of morality from my previous post, I hope you will explain what you meant instead. Thanks.

1Way

[Jefferson]

Hey, congratulations Dwayne. You won Knights "Post of the Day" with that one. I'll respond to you via email or PM. I don't want to reopen this because I'm involved with too many other things right now, both on TOL and otherwise.

Jeff

[Knight]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Hey, congratulations Dwayne. You won Knights "Post of the Day" with that one. I'll respond to you via email or PM. I don't want to reopen this because I'm involved with too many other things right now, both on TOL and otherwise.

Jeff What can I say? It was a well thought out, nicely formatted informative post! :)

[1Way]

Jefferson - I still am looking forward to hearing your responses, private or public. If you were so certain about some of the things that you have presented, then I would hope that you would still share them freely. I really hate the idea of missing out on standing corrected from so much error. And consider all those who might benefit from our discussion. Or has my contribution somehow changed things that dramatically that nothing more need be shared? Just wondering.

[1Way]

Jefferson – Here’s a friendly reminder of where we were last. Jefferson – Hey friend, I just read most of this thread. I’m usually way to busy to respond as I’m gone all week driving truck OTR, and have many things to catch up on like moving for example. I hope you will entreat me with yet another response.

I agree with you about how capitol punishment is carried out has moral implications that can be beneficial to a society and that we should be careful to not stray from the written word. And that for example, prolonged torture is wrong and is not a Godly punishment.

Morality and absolutes
You hold that capitol punishment for a “"non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense” is a moral issue. In other words, it would be “wrong” to do otherwise. For example, to execute by drowning a murderer who drowned their victim(s), that would be wrong. But where I come from, morality is an issue of absolute right and wrong, it doesn’t change from time to time. So what about Cain and Able? Was God wrong for contradicting what you evidently hold is a moral issue? Wasn’t that a case of “non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial, capitol offense.”? Even if it was one of those exceptions you keep mentioning, do you think that God could violate a moral issue? You don’t deny that (true) m