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

[timschochet]

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.

He was nailed to the cross at that point, right? Had Jesus done something (use God's powers to break out, break out those that were with him, etc.) then the Christian religion would be VERY different, right? (In fact, I suspect that in that event it would have no more meaning to most people than Greek mythology does.)

 

[The Commish]

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.

Is this really where we're going or is this just Woz?

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

 

[The Commish]

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?

His primary concern is/was bigger than anything an individual government could muster. Remember, he was living under a government that had him executed, so I'm not sure why you think his message would change. To be clear, his responses were very pointed and specific to the questions asked. He always taught that God's law took precedence over any man made government law, so where those points crossed, he'd say to follow God's Law. So, getting back to your original question of the death penalty, I think it's safe to assume that he'd not have an opinion one way or the other on that specific form of corporal punishment. That sort of corporal punishment isn't analogous to these most recent examples of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.

 

[Scoresman]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

christian theology was written by men not named jesus.

 

[The Commish]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

What are reasons for believing that the death penalty contradicts Christian theology? Not sure I've ever had this conversation with anyone before.

 

[timschochet]

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?

His primary concern is/was bigger than anything an individual government could muster. Remember, he was living under a government that had him executed, so I'm not sure why you think his message would change. To be clear, his responses were very pointed and specific to the questions asked. He always taught that God's law took precedence over any man made government law, so where those points crossed, he'd say to follow God's Law. So, getting back to your original question of the death penalty, I think it's safe to assume that he'd not have an opinion one way or the other on that specific form of corporal punishment. That sort of corporal punishment isn't analogous to these most recent examples of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Ok- so as an extension of my question to Shader: we live in a democratic society. As a Christian, you're asked to vote on the death penalty (or candidates who support it vs. those who don't, etc.) Do you say to yourself, "Well, Jesus didn't directly comment on this issue, so I'm going to vote based on whether or not I believe it makes sense for our society without considering Christian morality", or do you say, "As best as I can figure, Jesus would be against the death penalty, so as a Christian, I have to be against it too." ?

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

What are reasons for believing that the death penalty contradicts Christian theology? Not sure I've ever had this conversation with anyone before.

I'm not the best person to answer this. Proninja offered a lengthy opinion- see above.

But according to John Grisham, as best as I understand him, Christians are supposed to forgive their enemies- love them in fact. Punishing them by killing them seems contradictory to this idea, no?

 

[Jayrod]

Jesus' ministry was concerned with spiritual matters and eternity. Governmental issues and law and order were not anything he really became involved in directly.

However, God gave a lot of direction for governance in the Law (aka Pentateuch, aka first five books of the Bible). These rules were meant to give direction to the Jewish people and were used as a sort of legal documents to handle disputes and determine punishments for crimes. Among those punishments was capital punishment.

Jesus' effect on the Old Testament was to complete the sacrificial needs of man's sin and thus remove the issues of purification from sin....hence there is no longer a need to make animal sacrifices or worry about eating unclean foods or remaining ceremonially clean. He did not, however, provide for any disregarding of the proper governance of people nor of the punishment for crimes. In fact, Paul and Jesus both support the adherence to the governing authorities rule of law and order as a form of obedience to God, so long as it does not come into conflict with God's other stated laws.

Long story short, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would be against the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty in so much as guilt can be established with no reasonable doubt and the nature of the crimes warrants it.

 

[Charlie Steiner]

As a Christian, you're asked to vote on the death penalty (or candidates who support it vs. those who don't, etc.) Do you say to yourself, "Well, Jesus didn't directly comment on this issue, so I'm going to vote based on whether or not I believe it makes sense for our society without considering Christian morality", or do you say, "As best as I can figure, Jesus would be against the death penalty, so as a Christian, I have to be against it too." ?

As a believer in Jesus Christ, I think both responses are valid, and those who disagree with me are correct as well.

 

[Jayrod]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

What are reasons for believing that the death penalty contradicts Christian theology? Not sure I've ever had this conversation with anyone before.

I'm not the best person to answer this. Proninja offered a lengthy opinion- see above.

But according to John Grisham, as best as I understand him, Christians are supposed to forgive their enemies- love them in fact. Punishing them by killing them seems contradictory to this idea, no?

I've always taken this to be true on an individual level, but not on a governmental level. As Christians, we are also supposed to give a man our tunic if he takes our coat. Does that mean we should be against punishing thieves?

The command given to Christians to forgive others their sin is not a command to eliminate punishment for crimes.

 

[proninja]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

Christian theology is not a monolithic thing, and unfortunately we can't really ever certainly say to know on issues like this. I think it's fairly clear, but I don't think it's absolute. The bible is meant to be a testimony to the life and work of Christ and it makes his atoning work for a sinful people very clear. It isn't meant to be a manual on all things in every situation. Certainly it has value in these situations, but we need to be careful not to bend the bible to our will and use it in ways it was never intended, for example as a manual of law in civil government. I don't think we can ever say if it's against "Christian theology" because there will likely be theologians who earnestly disagree on this, simply because this isn't the question the bible is supposed to definitively answer.

 

[Jayrod]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

Christian theology is not a monolithic thing, and unfortunately we can't really ever certainly say to know on issues like this. I think it's fairly clear, but I don't think it's absolute. The bible is meant to be a testimony to the life and work of Christ and it makes his atoning work for a sinful people very clear. It isn't meant to be a manual on all things in every situation. Certainly it has value in these situations, but we need to be careful not to bend the bible to our will and use it in ways it was never intended, for example as a manual of law in civil government. I don't think we can ever say if it's against "Christian theology" because there will likely be theologians who earnestly disagree on this, simply because this isn't the question the bible is supposed to definitively answer.

Solid point here.

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

Christian theology is not a monolithic thing, and unfortunately we can't really ever certainly say to know on issues like this. I think it's fairly clear, but I don't think it's absolute. The bible is meant to be a testimony to the life and work of Christ and it makes his atoning work for a sinful people very clear. It isn't meant to be a manual on all things in every situation. Certainly it has value in these situations, but we need to be careful not to bend the bible to our will and use it in ways it was never intended, for example as a manual of law in civil government. I don't think we can ever say if it's against "Christian theology" because there will likely be theologians who earnestly disagree on this, simply because this isn't the question the bible is supposed to definitively answer.

I get that. I was just interested to learn some of the details of the disagreement. You've helped considerably. So has Jayrod. How would you respond to his post #59?

 

[timschochet]

Jesus' ministry was concerned with spiritual matters and eternity. Governmental issues and law and order were not anything he really became involved in directly.

However, God gave a lot of direction for governance in the Law (aka Pentateuch, aka first five books of the Bible). These rules were meant to give direction to the Jewish people and were used as a sort of legal documents to handle disputes and determine punishments for crimes. Among those punishments was capital punishment.

Jesus' effect on the Old Testament was to complete the sacrificial needs of man's sin and thus remove the issues of purification from sin....hence there is no longer a need to make animal sacrifices or worry about eating unclean foods or remaining ceremonially clean. He did not, however, provide for any disregarding of the proper governance of people nor of the punishment for crimes. In fact, Paul and Jesus both support the adherence to the governing authorities rule of law and order as a form of obedience to God, so long as it does not come into conflict with God's other stated laws.

Long story short, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would be against the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty in so much as guilt can be established with no reasonable doubt and the nature of the crimes warrants it.

This is another very insightful post, representing the opposite of Proninja's POV. Thx.

 

[proninja]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

Christian theology is not a monolithic thing, and unfortunately we can't really ever certainly say to know on issues like this. I think it's fairly clear, but I don't think it's absolute. The bible is meant to be a testimony to the life and work of Christ and it makes his atoning work for a sinful people very clear. It isn't meant to be a manual on all things in every situation. Certainly it has value in these situations, but we need to be careful not to bend the bible to our will and use it in ways it was never intended, for example as a manual of law in civil government. I don't think we can ever say if it's against "Christian theology" because there will likely be theologians who earnestly disagree on this, simply because this isn't the question the bible is supposed to definitively answer.

I get that. I was just interested to learn some of the details of the disagreement. You've helped considerably. So has Jayrod. How would you respond to his post #59?

I think I already did.

 

[Jayrod]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

What are reasons for believing that the death penalty contradicts Christian theology? Not sure I've ever had this conversation with anyone before.

I'm not the best person to answer this. Proninja offered a lengthy opinion- see above.

But according to John Grisham, as best as I understand him, Christians are supposed to forgive their enemies- love them in fact. Punishing them by killing them seems contradictory to this idea, no?

I've always taken this to be true on an individual level, but not on a governmental level. As Christians, we are also supposed to give a man our tunic if he takes our coat. Does that mean we should be against punishing thieves?

The command given to Christians to forgive others their sin is not a command to eliminate punishment for crimes.

I'm not sure I understand the difference when we live in a democratic society. As I wrote earlier, we are Caesar. Why would you want the government to perform differently than you would as an individual?

 

[proninja]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

Not sure what this has to do with the magistrate's legal ability to kill someone that they are mostly certain has committed a crime.

 

[timschochet]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

Honest question from someone who doesn't know Scripture that well: are humans supposed to imitate God's punishments?

 

[proninja]

Jayrod, if you are suggesting that Jesus did nothing to abrogate the civil law of the OT, are you in favor of handing down the death pe

Jesus' ministry was concerned with spiritual matters and eternity. Governmental issues and law and order were not anything he really became involved in directly.

However, God gave a lot of direction for governance in the Law (aka Pentateuch, aka first five books of the Bible). These rules were meant to give direction to the Jewish people and were used as a sort of legal documents to handle disputes and determine punishments for crimes. Among those punishments was capital punishment.

Jesus' effect on the Old Testament was to complete the sacrificial needs of man's sin and thus remove the issues of purification from sin....hence there is no longer a need to make animal sacrifices or worry about eating unclean foods or remaining ceremonially clean. He did not, however, provide for any disregarding of the proper governance of people nor of the punishment for crimes. In fact, Paul and Jesus both support the adherence to the governing authorities rule of law and order as a form of obedience to God, so long as it does not come into conflict with God's other stated laws.

Long story short, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would be against the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty in so much as guilt can be established with no reasonable doubt and the nature of the crimes warrants it.

This line of reasoning would lead me to believe that you support the death penalty as prescribed in the Torah. Is that the case?

 

[Jayrod]

Personally, I don't want to discuss the accuracy of the Gospels, or whether or not Jesus was God or any of this stuff that always surfaces in any religious thread and always serves no purpose except to antagonize believers in Christianity. I'm hoping we can focus on the death penalty and whether or not it contradicts Christian theology.

What are reasons for believing that the death penalty contradicts Christian theology? Not sure I've ever had this conversation with anyone before.

I'm not the best person to answer this. Proninja offered a lengthy opinion- see above.

But according to John Grisham, as best as I understand him, Christians are supposed to forgive their enemies- love them in fact. Punishing them by killing them seems contradictory to this idea, no?

I've always taken this to be true on an individual level, but not on a governmental level. As Christians, we are also supposed to give a man our tunic if he takes our coat. Does that mean we should be against punishing thieves?

The command given to Christians to forgive others their sin is not a command to eliminate punishment for crimes.

I'm not sure I understand the difference when we live in a democratic society. As I wrote earlier, we are Caesar. Why would you want the government to perform differently than you would as an individual?

It depends upon my role in the specific situation.

If it is a crime against me, then I am to show forgiveness and mercy.

If it is a crime against another, then my role as governmental official (or Caesar as you put it) is to uphold justice and punish the wrongdoer for their crimes. Should I let a child molester not be punished for his crimes? Does not the victim cry out for justice?

 

[Jayrod]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

Not sure what this has to do with the magistrate's legal ability to kill someone that they are mostly certain has committed a crime.

It has to do with the legitimacy of death as a form of punishment.

 

[proninja]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

Honest question from someone who doesn't know Scripture that well: are humans supposed to imitate God's punishments?

It's a bad argument that doesn't have anything to do with capital punishment. Unless, of course, Jayrod is suggesting that be a model for how we are to treat people in a similar situation, which I really, really hope he isn't.

 

[Jayrod]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

Honest question from someone who doesn't know Scripture that well: are humans supposed to imitate God's punishments?

God often times uses people to do his will. At times the answer is yes. At other times, God just does it himself through natural means.

 

[Jayrod]

Jayrod, if you are suggesting that Jesus did nothing to abrogate the civil law of the OT, are you in favor of handing down the death pe

Jesus' ministry was concerned with spiritual matters and eternity. Governmental issues and law and order were not anything he really became involved in directly.

However, God gave a lot of direction for governance in the Law (aka Pentateuch, aka first five books of the Bible). These rules were meant to give direction to the Jewish people and were used as a sort of legal documents to handle disputes and determine punishments for crimes. Among those punishments was capital punishment.

Jesus' effect on the Old Testament was to complete the sacrificial needs of man's sin and thus remove the issues of purification from sin....hence there is no longer a need to make animal sacrifices or worry about eating unclean foods or remaining ceremonially clean. He did not, however, provide for any disregarding of the proper governance of people nor of the punishment for crimes. In fact, Paul and Jesus both support the adherence to the governing authorities rule of law and order as a form of obedience to God, so long as it does not come into conflict with God's other stated laws.

Long story short, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would be against the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty in so much as guilt can be established with no reasonable doubt and the nature of the crimes warrants it.

This line of reasoning would lead me to believe that you support the death penalty as prescribed in the Torah. Is that the case?

If I lived in a theocratic society as was prescribed by the Isrealite nation to whom the Torah law was given and in whom the hope of the world still rested through the actions of that nation as God's chosen people? Then yes.

In the USA where we do not have a nation of only people who adhere to the laws of God? Then no.

Different people, different time, different goals for society.

 

[Jayrod]

Also, in Acts 5, Ananias and Sapphira were put to death by God for lying about money.

Honest question from someone who doesn't know Scripture that well: are humans supposed to imitate God's punishments?

It's a bad argument that doesn't have anything to do with capital punishment. Unless, of course, Jayrod is suggesting that be a model for how we are to treat people in a similar situation, which I really, really hope he isn't.

It wasn't necessarily meant to be an argument, but a statement of a fact to consider when thinking about the death penalty, IMO.

If God still punishes people in the NT with death, I think it is relevant to the discussion.

 

[proninja]

Jayrod, if you are suggesting that Jesus did nothing to abrogate the civil law of the OT, are you in favor of handing down the death pe

Jesus' ministry was concerned with spiritual matters and eternity. Governmental issues and law and order were not anything he really became involved in directly.

However, God gave a lot of direction for governance in the Law (aka Pentateuch, aka first five books of the Bible). These rules were meant to give direction to the Jewish people and were used as a sort of legal documents to handle disputes and determine punishments for crimes. Among those punishments was capital punishment.

Jesus' effect on the Old Testament was to complete the sacrificial needs of man's sin and thus remove the issues of purification from sin....hence there is no longer a need to make animal sacrifices or worry about eating unclean foods or remaining ceremonially clean. He did not, however, provide for any disregarding of the proper governance of people nor of the punishment for crimes. In fact, Paul and Jesus both support the adherence to the governing authorities rule of law and order as a form of obedience to God, so long as it does not come into conflict with God's other stated laws.

Long story short, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would be against the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty in so much as guilt can be established with no reasonable doubt and the nature of the crimes warrants it.

This line of reasoning would lead me to believe that you support the death penalty as prescribed in the Torah. Is that the case?

If I lived in a theocratic society as was prescribed by the Isrealite nation to whom the Torah law was given and in whom the hope of the world still rested through the actions of that nation as God's chosen people? Then yes.

In the USA where we do not have a nation of only people who adhere to the laws of God? Then no.

Different people, different time, different goals for society.

But you are using God's law as the basis for support for the death penalty. Why not use God's law as the basis for your support of where it is applied?

 

[Jayrok]

I think Jesus would be ok with how governments set up laws for their people. He might be against it personally, but he wouldn't protest outside any gas chambers. The system of law that he grew up under was very strict and included the death penalty for things people today would think trivial.

 

[Jayrod]

Jayrod, if you are suggesting that Jesus did nothing to abrogate the civil law of the OT, are you in favor of handing down the death pe

Jesus' ministry was concerned with spiritual matters and eternity. Governmental issues and law and order were not anything he really became involved in directly.

However, God gave a lot of direction for governance in the Law (aka Pentateuch, aka first five books of the Bible). These rules were meant to give direction to the Jewish people and were used as a sort of legal documents to handle disputes and determine punishments for crimes. Among those punishments was capital punishment.

Jesus' effect on the Old Testament was to complete the sacrificial needs of man's sin and thus remove the issues of purification from sin....hence there is no longer a need to make animal sacrifices or worry about eating unclean foods or remaining ceremonially clean. He did not, however, provide for any disregarding of the proper governance of people nor of the punishment for crimes. In fact, Paul and Jesus both support the adherence to the governing authorities rule of law and order as a form of obedience to God, so long as it does not come into conflict with God's other stated laws.

Long story short, there is no Biblical evidence that Jesus would be against the death penalty. I personally support the death penalty in so much as guilt can be established with no reasonable doubt and the nature of the crimes warrants it.

This line of reasoning would lead me to believe that you support the death penalty as prescribed in the Torah. Is that the case?

If I lived in a theocratic society as was prescribed by the Isrealite nation to whom the Torah law was given and in whom the hope of the world still rested through the actions of that nation as God's chosen people? Then yes.

In the USA where we do not have a nation of only people who adhere to the laws of God? Then no.

Different people, different time, different goals for society.

But you are using God's law as the basis for support for the death penalty. Why not use God's law as the basis for your support of where it is applied?

If it was the Kingdom of Jayrod, a fully Chrisitan nation? Then you would have a point. In the USA where not everyone professes to believe in God? Then I don't think the law should be the same.

 

[Jayrod]

I think Jesus would be ok with how governments set up laws for their people. He might be against it personally, but he wouldn't protest outside any gas chambers. The system of law that he grew up under was very strict and included the death penalty for things people today would think trivial.

I concur.

 

[proninja]

I think Jesus would be ok with how governments set up laws for their people. He might be against it personally, but he wouldn't protest outside any gas chambers. The system of law that he grew up under was very strict and included the death penalty for things people today would think trivial.

Precisely why it seems inconsistent to me when people use that system of law as the authority of God to support the death penalty, but have absolutely no desire to support the death penalty for all the things contained in that system of law. It seems like people using parts of that law to support what's really important to them, which is usually something else entirely. If OT law as given to civil society is truly God's law that hasn't been abrogated, we need to get to stoning lots of people.

 

[The Commish]

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?

His primary concern is/was bigger than anything an individual government could muster. Remember, he was living under a government that had him executed, so I'm not sure why you think his message would change. To be clear, his responses were very pointed and specific to the questions asked. He always taught that God's law took precedence over any man made government law, so where those points crossed, he'd say to follow God's Law. So, getting back to your original question of the death penalty, I think it's safe to assume that he'd not have an opinion one way or the other on that specific form of corporal punishment. That sort of corporal punishment isn't analogous to these most recent examples of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany.

Ok- so as an extension of my question to Shader: we live in a democratic society. As a Christian, you're asked to vote on the death penalty (or candidates who support it vs. those who don't, etc.) Do you say to yourself, "Well, Jesus didn't directly comment on this issue, so I'm going to vote based on whether or not I believe it makes sense for our society without considering Christian morality", or do you say, "As best as I can figure, Jesus would be against the death penalty, so as a Christian, I have to be against it too." ?

As a Christian I say, "Jesus gives us no real direction as to the rules of the world, so I need to look at this pragmatically. I know humans are fallible and mistakes can be made. I hold life in an incredibly high regard and I know this person was put on earth for a reason. Do I want to have rules that could potentially do permanent harm to this individual?" It has very little to do with what Jesus would be in favor of because he's really not concerned with worldly laws/consequences.

 

[Jayrok]

If OT law as given to civil society is truly God's law that hasn't been abrogated, we need to get to stoning lots of people.

As you know, the laws of the Torah were given for guidance and structure to the Israelites to live by. Pagan gentile nations had their own sets of codes to live by. So the Mosaic laws didn't apply to everyone.

I believe when Jesus said you without sin cast the first stone, he wasn't canceling the law they had in place for the crimes they perceived the woman had committed. He was just saying everyone should clean up their own house before judging someone else (e.g. those men shouldn't be hypocrites when interpreting the law). Jesus followed the law and, at times, he called them on misrepresenting the spirit of the law (healing on the sabbath, etc.).

Had the accused woman been tried in front of the Sanhedrin in a proper court setting, with witnesses and testimony, he would have been ok with a guilty verdict. It was a teaching moment where the lesson was don't be quick to judge others when you are also breaking the law in some fashion. And also people who sin can be redeemed if they repent.

His position, IMO, was that the law was perfect and could be followed if people would love God and one another (the two greatest commandments). In doing so, people would naturally produce good fruit, which is what separated those who inherited God's kingdom from those on the outside looking in. So the accused woman could repent and be forgiven and turn from her life of sin. That is what Jesus wanted and it would conform to the spirit of the law... that is repent and turn from sin.

Abrogation of the law is a Pauline concept, IMO, and not something Jesus set out to do. Jot and tittle (or as my wife says, ### and tittle)... Matthew 5:18 -- For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

 

[Jayrod]

If OT law as given to civil society is truly God's law that hasn't been abrogated, we need to get to stoning lots of people.

As you know, the laws of the Torah were given for guidance and structure to the Israelites to live by. Pagan gentile nations had their own sets of codes to live by. So the Mosaic laws didn't apply to everyone.

I believe when Jesus said you without sin cast the first stone, he wasn't canceling the law they had in place for the crimes they perceived the woman had committed. He was just saying everyone should clean up their own house before judging someone else (e.g. those men shouldn't be hypocrites when interpreting the law). Jesus followed the law and, at times, he called them on misrepresenting the spirit of the law (healing on the sabbath, etc.).

Had the accused woman been tried in front of the Sanhedrin in a proper court setting, with witnesses and testimony, he would have been ok with a guilty verdict. It was a teaching moment where the lesson was don't be quick to judge others when you are also breaking the law in some fashion. And also people who sin can be redeemed if they repent.

His position, IMO, was that the law was perfect and could be followed if people would love God and one another (the two greatest commandments). In doing so, people would naturally produce good fruit, which is what separated those who inherited God's kingdom from those on the outside looking in. So the accused woman could repent and be forgiven and turn from her life of sin. That is what Jesus wanted and it would conform to the spirit of the law... that is repent and turn from sin.

Abrogation of the law is a Pauline concept, IMO.

But I don't really agree with this.

 

[Jayrok]

Abrogation of the law is a Pauline concept, IMO.

But I don't really agree with this.

To abrogate the law is to abolish or cancel or annul it. Jesus never taught that. Paul teaches that the law was a barrier between God and man and Jesus' acts on the cross removed or abolishing it. To say abolishing the law and replacing it with simple faith in Christ's death and resurrection is Paul's gospel. And that's fair enough.

Granted, Paul is not saying one can do whatever one likes as long as he has faith. He says that if you are under the law, you are subject to the entire law. For example, if you circumsize yourself or maintain the requirements of eating kosher, you are subject to all the other requirements and are condemned under them. Faith frees one from that burden because Christ took on that burden for everyone who is in Christ. This is an essential part of the NT, but it tends to be beside the point of how Jesus spoke about the law.

In contrast, Jesus taught that the entire law was summed up in two essential commandments: Love God with all your heart, mind and spirit, and love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus "fulfilled" the law because he was love. Love sums up the law and prophets (Matt 22:37-40). He turned the other cheek when he was struck. He forgave his abusers and he forgave the sinners who came to him asking for forgiveness. That is what the law is all about and he was the only one who understood it. Love each other and tend to each other's needs.

If you do this, then you are righteous through your obedience to the law. So Jesus didn't replace or remove the law, he showed the blueprints on how to live by God's law... love God and one another. His sacrifice was not to replace the law. It was to pay the debt of sin past and future. Your debt of sin is paid by his actions on the cross, but you are still expected to be obedient to the law through love.. the results of this is the good fruit you bear and that is how others will know Christ is in you. If you do not bear good fruit, Jesus won't know you and you are in danger of being cast out (Matt 3, 7; Luke 3, 6, 8; John 15).

 

[Bojang0301]

Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball.

 

[Jayrok]

Jesus Christ can't hit a curve ball.

Is that what you're saying?