You said it yourself, MM...

This is one of the reasons I don't believe in the DEATH PENALTY....

Mortal man, messing in GOD'S WORK....

A policeman carrying a gun for protection of himself and society is not the same as that same policeman- making a decision on his own- because he feels AUTHORIZED- to go ahead and SHOOT someone that is suspicious on the street corner...

For me, one case of wrongful execution is one too many in our CIVILIZED COUNTRY....

Actually I've been planning to try a new SWEET POTATO PIE recipe for Xmas....

Also got the SWEET POTATO QUEEN COOKBOOK AND FINANCIAL PLANNER...

Haven't opened it up yet...

Saving it for a SPECIAL GODDESS time period when it can be SAVORED...

Mm:

"Just as I hope that one of my Army buddies finds Osama and runs him thru with the bayonet. No trial. No treating him with any respect. Just send him on to his 72 virgins in He!!"

You gotta wonder what went through the mind of the marines who found him in the spider hole...

...pull the pin on the grenade and let it fall?

That 2k restraint!

-ol' 2long

I know in my new church, of a different denomination, there is one doctrine that troubles me a great deal. I am unable to find ANY basis in the Bible for its explanation.

However, that ONE doctrine is not enough to make me removed myself from the OTHER missions and activities with which I do agree.

I think the question is a valid one....

What about if one of your children is accused of murder, insists that he/she is innocent, is found guilty and sentence to die, still maintains his/her innocence up until the last day of his/her life, posthumous evidence shows he/she was indeed innocent. Would you still be in favor of the death penalty? [rhetorical question for you to answer only to yourself]

TMCM

Would Jesus Oppose the Death Penalty?

While campaigning for the presidency, George W. Bush was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly pointed out that Bush had named Jesus Christ as his model political philosopher and suggested that this might be a contradiction with Bush’s own support of the death penalty. Bush replied, “I can’t justify the death penalty in terms of the New Testament. I’m going to justify it in terms of the law…” (from No Spin Zone by Bill O’Reilly, p. 102). O’Reilly then stated, “I don’t believe he [Jesus] would be embracing the death penalty if he were here today.” Bush: “We can both agree on this.”


In the same chapter of his book (v.104), O’Reilly states: “As for the death penalty, with all due respect to the president, you don’t have to put words into Jesus’ mouth to infer what he might have thought on the subject. Most theologians believe he considered all life sacred and, thus, would most likely oppose the death penalty. Also, since he was a victim of it, he may have a rooting interest in seeing it abolished.” O’Reilly also mentions that the pope agrees with him on this.


So, in the eyes of both proponents and opponents of the death penalty, the case is closed. Jesus would be against it. After all, most theologians agree.


But, I must protest. Most theologians, as usual, are wrong. Jesus did support the death penalty and He left a hearty biblical record proving the point. Jesus has been so remade by the modern world into a mix of Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa and Tiny Tim that they cannot see the Jesus clearly portrayed in the Bible. Let us look at the record.


Consider this: the Mosaic Law very strongly supported the death penalty and Jesus never once disobeyed the law or taught against it. He said, “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt.5:17). The law made numerous provisions for the death penalty. Jesus did not come to destroy these provisions but to fulfill them. As such, He would have supported the death penalty.


The Woman Taken in Adultery

But, you say, what about the women taken in the very act of adultery. This story is told in John 8:3-11. The scribes and Pharisees sought to find something against Jesus. Their method of operation was to ask a question or present a problem in which either solution would hurt Jesus (see several instances in Matthew 23). In this case, they presented the woman taken in adultery and reminded Jesus, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?” (v.5). If He upheld the law, the meek and lowly Jesus would be portrayed as cruel. If He made an exception to the law, He would be in favor of breaking the law. In either case, His bond with the people would be broken.


However, Jesus did the unexpected. He stooped down and wrote with His finger on the ground. What He wrote, we are not told. When the Pharisees insisted on an answer, He said, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (v.7) and continued writing.


One interesting fact about this story: only the woman was brought. No man was accused. Yet, adultery is definitely a two-person sin. Is it possible that Jesus wrote Leviticus 20:10 on the ground? It says, “And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” Notice, both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. Not one, but both.


At any rate, the consciences of the accusers began to accuse their own hearts. One by one, beginning with the eldest, they slipped away until no man was there to accuse the woman. With no accusers, there was no required penalty. Jesus had used the occasion to point out the hypocrisy of the scribes and Pharisees while at the same time showing His love to the unloved. He told the woman to go and sin no more.


Let Him Die the Death

This is a wonderful illustration of the grace of God, but it is not proof that Jesus opposed the death penalty. In fact, He made a direct statement of His support. Again, in dealing with the scribes and Pharisees, when they accused the disciples for not washing before eating, Jesus said,


“But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” Matthew 15:3-4


He then described (v.5-6) how the Pharisees allowed someone to hold back needed help for their parents by saying that it was a gift to God. This was the dedication of their possessions to the temple to be given at the time of their death. Of course, they could do anything they wanted with this gift until they died. But in the eyes of the Pharisees it freed them from their obligation to honor their mother and father by caring for them in their old age.


According the Jesus, the applicable commandment was that he who cursed his mother or father was required to die the death. However, the Pharisees had transgressed this commandment by their man-made traditions. This is not Jesus opposing the death penalty. This is Jesus requiring it.


As I Follow Christ

One more proof can be found in the ministry and message of the Apostle Paul. Paul told those to whom he ministered, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ” (1Corinthians 11:1). Paul was not sinless as His Saviour was. But he was meticulous in his service to God (see Phil.3:4-6). And, according to his own testimony, he was careful to follow the life of Jesus Christ. Certainly, if Jesus had been opposed to the death penalty, then so would Paul have been.


However, Paul recognized the justice of the death penalty. When he was brought before the judgment seat of Festus, he said, “For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (Ac.25:11). By this, Paul admitted that there were offenses worthy of death and that the government had the right to administer death in those cases.


He further states in Romans that the powers that be (government) are ordained by God. They act as ministers of God for good. He further warns, “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” (Rom.13:4). The powers that be bear the sword to execute wrath on those that do evil. What do you think these powers are going to do with the sword? Are they going to slap someone on the wrist with it? No. They are going to “execute wrath” by executing someone. They are going to administer the death penalty.


God Himself established the death penalty long before the law was given to Moses. He told Noah, “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man” (Gen.9:5). This command has never been repealed. Not by the New Testament. Not by Paul. Not by Jesus Himself.


The Jesus of the Bible supported the death penalty. It was not His purpose for coming. Therefore, He said only a little about it. But He supported it nonetheless. When He returns to the earth the next time, His perspective will be different. Then, He will come as judge and will be executing the death penalty (see Revelation 19:11-15).


The Real Problem

The problem has nothing to do with the clarity of scripture. It has everything to do with the carnal preconceptions of man. Man wants a toothless Jesus. He wants the Jesus who suffers the little children to come but he rejects the Jesus who runs the moneychangers out of the temple with a whip. He wants a Jesus who will smile on his fornication and adultery, on his dishonesty and hypocrisy, with a boys-will-be-boys look. He does not want the Jesus who called the Pharisees a bunch of ugly names (see Matthew 23) or the One who talked about ****** more than He talked about heaven.


In short, modern man wants, and so envisions, “another Jesus.” The Corinthians are warned against such teachers and preachers. “For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2Cor.11:4). We should still warn believers of such false prophets today.


Jesus believed in the death penalty. It was established by God, codified by the law, supported by Jesus Himself and sustained by the Apostle Paul. Theologians have no biblical evidence against it. They only have their perception of another Jesus. May we never follow that other Jesus but ever remain faithful to the Jesus of the Holy Bible.

MM:

Who wrote this article?

I'm not convinced by it..

I want a statement in which Jesus states he would be in agreement with man committing DEATH as a punishment....

This seems to be someone's INTERPRETATION of the bible...

I will do some more studying on this and get back with you...

The Death Penalty: What Would Jesus Do?
Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death. (Numbers 35:31)


Surprisingly, many Christians oppose the death penalty. In Maryville, Tennessee, some local pastors protested the death penalty by saying, "What would Jesus do?" In this essay I would like to explore this question. My conclusion is probably not the same as those pastors in Maryville.


Keith J. Pavlischek makes a very important observation:

If the marketing of "WWJD" trinkets is any indication, evangelicals are likely to be sympathetic to an approach that begins by asking "What would Jesus do?" But what if that is the wrong question? The problem is not, as Von Drehle suggests, that this is a legitimate question for one's personal life, but not for one’s capacity as a public official or military leader. It isn't a very good question for one's personal life either. If I'm considering whether to get married or stay single and head to the mission field, it would be a mistake to ask—what would Jesus do? Because Jesus, the Word incarnate, didn't come to earth to get married, just as he didn't come to establish a university, think tank, or assume political office. The same can be said for just about every other issue we confront personally, let alone nationally. 1
Apparently some Christians do not realize that Jesus and Jehovah are one and the same. Jesus was not a prophet with new insights for living, He was God in the flesh--the same God who gave us the Ten Commandments, and who said, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man" (Genesis 9:6).

This is not to be confused with the 6th commandment, which in the King James Version reads, "Thou shalt not kill." The proper translation of the Hebrew word is found in the New King James Version, which reads, "You shall not murder." Once again, a distinction needs to be made between "kill," "murder," and "execute," three very different terms.


Some people say Jesus' teachings of love and forgiveness require us to abolish the death penalty. But do they really? If we followed this particular argument to its logical end, we would have to do away with all punishment. But no one suggests we should do that. The alternative is always life in prison, but should we put murderers in prison for the rest of their lives? "But Jesus would forgive." Should we put them in prison for twenty years? "But Jesus would forgive." Should we put them in prison for a week? "But Jesus would forgive." The problem comes from applying interpersonal matters with matters between citizen and state.


There is a further problem with the understanding of the word, "forgiveness." Forgiveness means to "cease to feel resentment against." Forgiveness includes pardon for offenses, but I don't think that this is what Jesus intended. Instead, we are to cease to feel resentment against our offenders (hate the sin, not the sinner), but we are not to pardon, that is, to release them from the legal penalties. Parents punish their children even if they forgive them. God forgives sin, but we still have to pay the penalty for it. For example, God may forgive someone for sexual promiscuity, but He will not necessarily take away the resulting sexually transmitted disease. We should forgive our offenders, but we should not ask that the government not punish them.


Death penalty opponents never fail to mention the adulteress whom Jesus forgave. This is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the death penalty for murder is not even the issue in this particular passage of scripture. The death penalty for adultery was required of the nation of Israel, while the death penalty for murder was required of all people--the U.S. does not execute adulterers. As J.P. Holding points out,

Because the Romans held the rule of life and death and the right to implement capital punishment, this was a challenge to Jesus to commit sedition. If he had said, "Go ahead," he would have been arrested. By itself this offers no injunction against capital punishment, since it was not really an option; moreover, Jesus' reply indicates, "If we are to enforce it this time, some of you are next." The constraints of Roman power were acknowledged -- though capital punishment itself was not thereby repudiated.2
Second, Jesus is God. He has the authority to remove consequences of sins whenever He sees fit to do so. He did so in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament. The fact that Jesus removed consequences for sin does not mean we have the authority to do so. You may choose to pardon crimes committed against yourself, but you can never pardon crimes committed against someone else.

Bob Enyart notes:

The prohibition of personal vengeance has precedence in the Old Testament. "You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge but you shall love your neighbor as yourself "(Lev.19:18). No one could successfully argue that the prohibition of vengeance in the Old Testament negated the death penalty then. And no one can successfully argue the same today.

Jesus invented the death penalty, and He approves of it today. He said, "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of ****** fire." (Matthew 5:21-22). What Jesus is saying here is that just as execution is the required punishment for murder (as commanded in the Old Testament), those who speak hostile words to others and have hatred in their hearts will suffer eternity in ******. Not only does Jesus fail to condemn the civil authorities for executing murderers, He defines a much more serious, eternal punishment for those who hate and verbally attack others.

Some have said that Jesus abolished the Mosaic Law. Not only is this untrue, it is also irrelevant. The death penalty for murder was given before the Law and even before the existence of the nation of Israel. It was a universal mandate given by God. As Chuck Colson has explained,

It is because humans are created in the image of God that capital punishment for premeditated murder was a perpetual obligation. The full range of biblical data weighs in its favor. This is the one crime in the Bible for which no restitution was possible (Numbers 35:31,33). The Noahic covenant recorded in Genesis 9 ("Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. "Gen 9:6) antedates Israel and the Mosaic code; it transcends Old Testament Law, per se, and mirrors ethical legislation that is binding for all cultures and eras. The sanctity of human life is rooted in the universal creation ethic and thus retains its force in society. The Christian community is called upon to articulate standards of biblical justice, even when this may be unpopular. Capital justice is part of that non-negotiable standard. Society should execute capital offenders to balance the scales of moral judgement.

What would Jesus do? He would encourage us to do as He commanded us to do in Genesis.

Identity Jack on Neak's computer:

When our family started doing prison ministries, and having contact with parolees on the streets, the kids and I discussed the fact that by doing this there was always the chance, even if it wasn't likely, that something would go wrong and one of us might end up dead. We made a pact that if this ever happened, that the ones who were left, once the survivors' acute grieving was under control, would make it their dedicated effort to lead the perpetrator to Jesus, repentance, and salvation so that death would neither have been in vain, nor have triumphed.

So--just my personal opinion--I think that if Mortarman's hypothetical killer was NOT a Christian, nor repentant, visits from someone whose only interest was in leading him to God would be more important, not less, than visits to the condemned man who was spiritually prepared to die.

t&l