What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Would Jesus Christ oppose the death penalty? (1 Viewer)

timschochet

Footballguy
Just finished re-reading The Confession by John Grisham- by the way, it's a terrific read, one of his best. In the book, Grisham, who is a religious Christian, has his hero, a Lutheran minister, come to a spiritual realization after viewing a death penalty in Texas in which an innocent man was killed by the state. The minister decides that Jesus would have been completely against the death penalty, and that the death penalty is unChristian. He cites no Scripture other than "Cast the first stone", but does state that Jesus' teachings to love your neighbor and forgive everyone is incompatible with putting people to death for their crimes.

I'm interested to know how religious Christians in this forum feel about Grisham's assertion.

 
For an all powerful/present/knowing kind of guy, he is sure hard to get a hold of for answers.

 
Grisham has a lot more to say about the death penalty than what he put in The Confession, or any of his novels, really. I'd start there with anything about "Grisham's assertion." I think he and Judge Kozinsky did some projects together. Some of his stuff on the death penalty is very well thought out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Non Christian opinions on this (including mine) really don't matter. I'm curious to hear what religious Christians think.
Hang on...I thought you didn't believe in Jesus?
I don't. But the majority of Americans do. And a majority of Americans believe in the death penalty. And in most red states (for example Texas, where the novel takes place) a strong majority are both religious Christians AND believe in the death penalty. According to Grisham, this is a contradiction. I'm interested how religious Christians reconcile this.

 
Christians are to love their enemies and never avenge evil according to Paul. He got that from Jesus allegedly. FWIW.

 
Non Christian opinions on this (including mine) really don't matter. I'm curious to hear what religious Christians think.
Hang on...I thought you didn't believe in Jesus?
I don't. But the majority of Americans do. And a majority of Americans believe in the death penalty. And in most red states (for example Texas, where the novel takes place) a strong majority are both religious Christians AND believe in the death penalty. According to Grisham, this is a contradiction. I'm interested how religious Christians reconcile this.
I think he's all for it.

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.
Of course you fit the definition. You have quotes from the New Testament in your sig!

I don't want to get into a long discussion or debate about what is or isn't a religious Christian. That might be interesting, but not sure it's relevant to the subject. Without too much thought, I would define a religious Christian as anyone who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and the son of God.

ETA- Whereas a non-religious Christian would be someone raised in a Christian family, who attended church as a child (and possibly as an adult), who might refer to themselves as a Christian (or Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, etc.) but who deep down either hasn't really given the whole thing too much thought or is actually unsure or doubtful.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
According to the bible the penalty for ignoring the sabbath is death, so I think he'd be ok with the death penalty for murder.

 
Non Christian opinions on this (including mine) really don't matter. I'm curious to hear what religious Christians think.
Hang on...I thought you didn't believe in Jesus?
I don't. But the majority of Americans do. And a majority of Americans believe in the death penalty. And in most red states (for example Texas, where the novel takes place) a strong majority are both religious Christians AND believe in the death penalty. According to Grisham, this is a contradiction. I'm interested how religious Christians reconcile this.
If we're being honest, most Christiants probably don't put that much thought into it. Speaking only for myself and as somebody who has slowly shifted to disfavor the death penalty over recent years. I'm not theologian, but I think one argument that the death penalty is not necessarily inconsistent with faith in Christ is as follows:

In Genesis 6-9, God floods the entire earth in response to sin. In Genesis 18-19, God destroys the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in response to sin. There are probably other OT examples, but I'm too lazy to look. The NT makes it pretty clear that Jesus forgives and that we should too. That is the primary Biblical reason I have a hard time with the death penalty. But, then there is Romans 13:1-7:

v4: "For the one in authority is Gods servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are Gods servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

Anyway, combining v4 with several OT examples, it is clear that God punishes sin and that governments can do the same. Governments even "bear the sword" which could be reasonably interpreted as capital punishment.

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.
Of course you fit the definition. You have quotes from the New Testament in your sig!

I don't want to get into a long discussion or debate about what is or isn't a religious Christian. That might be interesting, but not sure it's relevant to the subject. Without too much thought, I would define a religious Christian as anyone who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and the son of God.

ETA- Whereas a non-religious Christian would be someone raised in a Christian family, who attended church as a child (and possibly as an adult), who might refer to themselves as a Christian (or Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, etc.) but who deep down either hasn't really given the whole thing too much thought or is actually unsure or doubtful.
fair enough...in my world those are all just Christians. That said, I doubt he'd have much to say about the gov't of the world and their rules. That wasn't really a concern of his.

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.
Of course you fit the definition. You have quotes from the New Testament in your sig!

I don't want to get into a long discussion or debate about what is or isn't a religious Christian. That might be interesting, but not sure it's relevant to the subject. Without too much thought, I would define a religious Christian as anyone who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and the son of God.

ETA- Whereas a non-religious Christian would be someone raised in a Christian family, who attended church as a child (and possibly as an adult), who might refer to themselves as a Christian (or Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, etc.) but who deep down either hasn't really given the whole thing too much thought or is actually unsure or doubtful.
fair enough...in my world those are all just Christians. That said, I doubt he'd have much to say about the gov't of the world and their rules. That wasn't really a concern of his.
What's funny is I doubt there's any correlation between which group is more likely to grasp, understand, or even know their religions' particular dogmas well enough to answer your question.

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.
Of course you fit the definition. You have quotes from the New Testament in your sig!

I don't want to get into a long discussion or debate about what is or isn't a religious Christian. That might be interesting, but not sure it's relevant to the subject. Without too much thought, I would define a religious Christian as anyone who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and the son of God.

ETA- Whereas a non-religious Christian would be someone raised in a Christian family, who attended church as a child (and possibly as an adult), who might refer to themselves as a Christian (or Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, etc.) but who deep down either hasn't really given the whole thing too much thought or is actually unsure or doubtful.
fair enough...in my world those are all just Christians. That said, I doubt he'd have much to say about the gov't of the world and their rules. That wasn't really a concern of his.
What's funny is I doubt there's any correlation between which group is more likely to grasp, understand, or even know their religions' particular dogmas well enough to answer your question.
my question? :oldunsure:

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.
Of course you fit the definition. You have quotes from the New Testament in your sig!

I don't want to get into a long discussion or debate about what is or isn't a religious Christian. That might be interesting, but not sure it's relevant to the subject. Without too much thought, I would define a religious Christian as anyone who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and the son of God.

ETA- Whereas a non-religious Christian would be someone raised in a Christian family, who attended church as a child (and possibly as an adult), who might refer to themselves as a Christian (or Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, etc.) but who deep down either hasn't really given the whole thing too much thought or is actually unsure or doubtful.
fair enough...in my world those are all just Christians. That said, I doubt he'd have much to say about the gov't of the world and their rules. That wasn't really a concern of his.
What's funny is I doubt there's any correlation between which group is more likely to grasp, understand, or even know their religions' particular dogmas well enough to answer your question.
my question? :oldunsure:
Oops, I mean Tim's. Didn't realize yours was the direct quote above my quote. I was mainly referring to Tim's question in the OP and explaining why I think it's kinda dumb to signal out only "true believers" since I don't think they're any more likely to possess the dogmatic understanding and knowledge to answer Tim's questions.

 
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
You don't think Jesus would involve himself in a government sanctioned killing of another person???
what do you mean by "involve" ?
To, at a minimum, speak on the issue.
He's on record saying that people should follow the rules of their gov't and give (pay the taxes) they are required. So, to that extent, yeah, he'd be involved. His answer would probably be, "if that's the rule of your gov't, don't do the crime if you can't do the time". I doubt he'd condemn or praise it though. It really wasn't his concern.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
You don't think Jesus would involve himself in a government sanctioned killing of another person???
what do you mean by "involve" ?
To, at a minimum, speak on the issue.
He's on record saying that people should follow the rules of their gov't and give (pay the taxes) they are required. So, to that extent, yeah, he'd be involved. His answer would probably be, "if that's the rule of your gov't, don't do the crime if you can't do the time". I doubt he'd condemn or praise it though. It really wasn't his concern.
Of, right, the books that were written at a minimum of 60 years after his death. That record.

 
what is "religious Christian" vs ______________ Christian? Need to know before giving an answer that won't be read because I don't fit the definition.
Of course you fit the definition. You have quotes from the New Testament in your sig!

I don't want to get into a long discussion or debate about what is or isn't a religious Christian. That might be interesting, but not sure it's relevant to the subject. Without too much thought, I would define a religious Christian as anyone who sincerely believes that Jesus Christ is their Lord and Savior, and the son of God.

ETA- Whereas a non-religious Christian would be someone raised in a Christian family, who attended church as a child (and possibly as an adult), who might refer to themselves as a Christian (or Baptist or Methodist or Catholic, etc.) but who deep down either hasn't really given the whole thing too much thought or is actually unsure or doubtful.
fair enough...in my world those are all just Christians. That said, I doubt he'd have much to say about the gov't of the world and their rules. That wasn't really a concern of his.
What's funny is I doubt there's any correlation between which group is more likely to grasp, understand, or even know their religions' particular dogmas well enough to answer your question.
my question? :oldunsure:
Oops, I mean Tim's. Didn't realize yours was the direct quote above my quote. I was mainly referring to Tim's question in the OP and explaining why I think it's kinda dumb to signal out only "true believers" since I don't think they're any more likely to possess the dogmatic understanding and knowledge to answer Tim's questions.
Well, as I said before....those people he listed are all Christian as far as I'm concerned, but some of us do actually think about and try to work out discrepancies we see....contrary to popular belief and the :hophead: around here.

 
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
You don't think Jesus would involve himself in a government sanctioned killing of another person???
Two other people were crucified with Him, and he did nothing except acknowledge to the one guy who accepted him would see him in heaven.
Fair point.

Although, to contextualize that, his "mission" at that point was simply to be put to death so he could open the gates of heaven. Guess they we collateral damage along the necessary means to meet Jesus's ultimate goal.

 
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
You don't think Jesus would involve himself in a government sanctioned killing of another person???
what do you mean by "involve" ?
To, at a minimum, speak on the issue.
He's on record saying that people should follow the rules of their gov't and give (pay the taxes) they are required. So, to that extent, yeah, he'd be involved. His answer would probably be, "if that's the rule of your gov't, don't do the crime if you can't do the time". I doubt he'd condemn or praise it though. It really wasn't his concern.
Of, right, the books that were written at a minimum of 60 years after his death. That record.
Correct...from a historical perspective, that 60 years might as well have been the next day. We base tons of "facts" in this world on evidence produced hundreds of years after the events took place without batting an eye. Historical accuracy is typically a losing battle when it comes to "slamming" the Bible...better to stick to the theology part.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
You don't think Jesus would involve himself in a government sanctioned killing of another person???
what do you mean by "involve" ?
To, at a minimum, speak on the issue.
He's on record saying that people should follow the rules of their gov't and give (pay the taxes) they are required. So, to that extent, yeah, he'd be involved. His answer would probably be, "if that's the rule of your gov't, don't do the crime if you can't do the time". I doubt he'd condemn or praise it though. It really wasn't his concern.
Of, right, the books that were written at a minimum of 60 years after his death. That record.
Correct...from a historical perspective, that 60 years might as well have been the next day. We base tons of "facts" in this world on evidence produced hundreds of years after the events took place without batting an eye.
When we're referencing a person's statement, a "record" generally refers to a verbatim written recording of his statement. 60 years later is greatly subject to the flaws of oral tradition.

 
jesus seemed like a pretty chill, laid back dude. i think if he were here today, he'd be for things like gay marriage and abortions in certain cases, and would probably oppose the death penalty. it wasnt jesus who made christianity all screwed up. it was other guys who followed throughout history who wanted to control their women and their brown people and tell people what they can or cant do with their bodies. i think jesus would be pretty pissed off at the state of the church if he were around today.

 
I, as a "religious Christian," believe that it is clear that Jesus would not have supported the death penalty in today's context. This is a pretty big topic that circles around what you think about the continuity of the various covenants and how Jesus' resurrection affected them. Some believe all covenants were abrogated by Jesus' resurrection and we are under a new form of the covenant (I count myself here,) and some believe that Jesus' resurrection only abrogated the covenants that were specific to Israel, and the Noahic covenant which was for all mankind is still binding (capital punishment supporters point toward Genesis 9:6 for support.)

Unfortunately, Jesus did not speak directly toward this issue. So we are left to parse his words and interpret what we think he would have said. This should give Christians on both sides of the argument strong pause when they claim their position as *the* biblical position. I will, however, lay out why I think supporting the death penalty as a Christian is unconscionable.

1. God hates hands that shed innocent blood. Unless one is willing to claim our judicial system as inerrant, it is simply a fact that the death penalty results in our government killing innocent people. Fathers, brothers, wives, husbands, sisters. People who don't deserve it. People who have young children relying on them for support and guidance. People who were convicted by a judicial system that failed them. Some may think that these people are a worthy sacrifice to enable the government to kill people who commit heinous crimes. God hates hands that shed innocent blood. His people should be careful not to enable hands to shed innocent blood.

2. The strongest arguments (like Gen 9:6) for the death penalty straight from scripture come out of the OT. For the Israeli people under the law that god had enacted specifically for them in their time and context, there were capital crimes. Here are some examples from the OT:

“When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman's husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

(Exodus 21:22-25 ESV)
“Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.

(Leviticus 24:17-21 ESV
Your eye shall not pity. It shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

(Deuteronomy 19:21 ESV
These are the three times (in the ESV anyway) that the phrase "eye for eye" occurs in the Old Testament. Jesus, being an OT scholar, knew exactly what he was saying when he said, in Matthew 5

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. (Matthew 5:38-42 ESV)
Every single mention of "eye for eye" in the OT also mentioned capital punishment. It seems to me that Jesus, being the one who fulfilled the law so that we are no longer bound by it, is telling us that, as of now, things change. They are different. We no longer take an eye for an eye, and by extension, a life for a life.

3. The new testament authors speak about repaying evil for evil

Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

(1 Peter 3:9 ESV)

Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”

(Romans 12:17-19 ESV)

See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone.

(1 Thessalonians 5:15 ESV)
I may have more to say, but it will have to wait. Things to do. :)

 
shader said:
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
Jesus didn't live in a democratic society. In THIS society we cannot "rend unto Caesar", because we ARE Caesar. Therefore, shouldn't religious Christians vote and legislate based on their moral beliefs?

 
The Commish said:
Zow said:
The Commish said:
Zow said:
shader said:
Jesus didn't get involved in politics. I don't think he would advocate either position.
You don't think Jesus would involve himself in a government sanctioned killing of another person???
what do you mean by "involve" ?
To, at a minimum, speak on the issue.
He's on record saying that people should follow the rules of their gov't and give (pay the taxes) they are required. So, to that extent, yeah, he'd be involved. His answer would probably be, "if that's the rule of your gov't, don't do the crime if you can't do the time". I doubt he'd condemn or praise it though. It really wasn't his concern.
Commish, if Jesus were living under a government that was clearly doing evil (like Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany), would his attitude still be "this is not my concern- let them do whatever they want"- or would he tell his followers to resist?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top