Atonement and Redemption
"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption." - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Non-Christians are quick to reference Christ's forgiveness of the thief on the cross as a reason to spare the lives of condemned murderers.
There was a written notice above him, which read:|sc THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: "Aren't you the Christ? Save yourself and us!"
But the other criminal rebuked him. "Don't you fear God," he said, "since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
Then he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."
Jesus answered him, "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23: 38-43)
The thief on the cross was killed for his crimes in accordance with Roman law, but he was pardoned spiritually according to the law of God. While his physical body was condemned, his soul was released from eternal damnation.
As usual, people unfamiliar with the Bible tend to quote, out of context, verses they once read or heard about. The text surrounding the quote is ignored or glossed over. In order for our sins to be forgiven, God requires us to atone for those sins. Salvation is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. God requires a blood sacrifice as atonement for sins. Before Christ, this was achieved by slaughtering an animal, usually an "innocent" lamb.
When Christ came, he became the sacrificial Lamb to take on the sins of those he came to save. The Old Testament ceremonial law was a sign pointing to the work of Christ. He is the "Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world," the Bible teaches.
After the cross, the law didn't become null and void, as some people think. God still requires blood atonement, but slaughtering animals on the altar is a hollow symbol that can't save. Only the blood of Christ can save. His death on the cross satisfied the blood offering for the people he came to save.
I find it comical that unbelievers appeal to the Bible (and only parts of it) when it comes to capital punishment and justification for things which God has deemed perverse. People live rebellious and ungodly lives apart from God, fornicating, slaughtering babies in the womb, and defending the guilty while condemning the innocent, just as the unbelieving Jews did when they demanded that a guilty man go free (Barabbas) and the innocent one be punished (Christ). Such people believe they have no need of a Savior, then presume to tell Bible-believing Christians what the God of the Bible requires.
It's only through the spirit of God in me that I have any sympathy for some people at all. There is nothing innate about my desire to share the Gospel and pray for lost. That is what Christ has done. He's opened my eyes to my own depravity, forgiven me in spite of it, and commissioned me to tell the world about it and pray that others receive the same.
The Role of Government vs. Individual Christians
I've written about the role of government and Christian responsibility numerous times on the political blog, but I gain new readers every day, and many are unlikely to read the archives. I don't like repeating myself, but sometimes it's necessary.
From Onward, Christian Soldiers:
The Bible makes distinctions between individual moral responsibility and governmental responsibility. To believers Christ says, “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also….Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” The Sermon on the Mount, from which these words come, is a presentation of Christian discipleship, not a call to pacifism. Jesus was referring to our individual persecution as believers. We’re to pray for those who mock or harass us for our beliefs, but we are not prohibited from defending ourselves or others against the threat of robbers, rapists, murderers, etc., as permitted by law.
In the same vein, Louie Marsh of The Marshian Chronicles writes about an "overlooked aspect of the death penalty debate." He writes:
Paul clearly teaches here the God established governments because as fallen creatures we need to be restrained, guided and punished when we sin and hurt others.
This can only be done by a governing authority. Of course this authority ought to conduct itself according to God’s moral law. But even when it does not it still has a legitimate function to perform.
That function is to restrain the evil inborn in all humans, and to punish those who do wrong.
While Paul does not say they have the right to capital punishment, the governing authority he and those he’s writing to are living under did in fact use capital punishment quite freely!
The Roman government, the same Roman government who killed Paul’s Lord and Savior Jesus; that’s the governing authority Paul is saying to obey, and is saying God has given the right and indeed duty to punish those who do wrong.
The point is clear. While individuals are commanded to forgive, and not to take vengeance the government isn’t! We are to love and forgive and to strive to become like Christ.
Government is to restrain and to try and create a just and safe and free society in which people can flourish. Human government will never become like Christ, because when He returns it will pass away as all imperfect things.
None of these words will change the hearts of unbelievers. That will be the work of Christ.
—————————————————————————————-
Maintained by La Shawn Barber, this site is not affiliated with Time Warner Entertainment Company, LP, Warner Brothers, The Walt Disney Company, Walden Media, Scholastic, Inc., or Bloomsbury Books. Copyrights and trademarks for books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners. Their use is allowed under Fair Use.
Unless otherwise noted, site design modifications, original writing, and photography are copyrighted by LBC Media, All Rights Reserved.
Original WP theme Copyright Mike Little
December 13th, 2005 at 11:23 am
Random Thoughts on the Tookie Williams' Execution
THE BLOGOSPHERE - Pajamas Media has a good hour-by-hour roundup of bloggers' comments on the execution. I've been critical of Pajamas / OSM / Open-Source / Pajamas Media in the past, but they did a pretty darn good job on this. Blogs4God presents a g…
December 13th, 2005 at 11:47 am
Bootleg cereal and Tookie
How much sense would it make for me (a professing Christian) to quote the Koran, of which I know very little about, to a practicing Muslim in an argument in which I feel the Muslim should apply his or her Muslim beliefs?
December 13th, 2005 at 11:57 am
I dont think the Bible speaks clearly on the subject matter of Capital Punsishment one way or the other. Jesus never taught anything on the subject.
What you say about the Thief on the Cross is true that he was pardoned but his body wasnt. However the woman who was caught in adultery was also to be stoned to death according to the law, and she was forgiven and her body spared.
There are some circumstances where Capital Punishment seems to be the only answer. What do you do with an inmate that kills a prison guard for example? Give him another life sentence? In cases like that it seems to be self defense for society to put the killers to death.
On the other hand, what about the murderer who has truly repented and accepted Christ as his Saviour? Such a person has a new nature and is no longer a threat to anyone. What is the point in putting that person to death?
Although its not popular in conservative circles I like the idea of life sentences without the possibility of parole. And during that life sentence I would hope the prisoner would find repentance. I also like the idea of the inmate earning money inside the institution and paying it to family of the one he murdered (although nothing can ever make up for such a loss)as well as paying for his own keep.
I guess what Im saying is that I think the death penalty should be rare. Im sure its not a popular opinion in conservative circle s but thats the way I see it.
December 13th, 2005 at 11:58 am
WOW…excellent write up.
I wanted to puke last night when Alan Combs (in his typical non biblical way) said "what about thou shalt not kill..doesn't that apply to governments also"? A clear example of not knowing 1. why the law was given 2. who the law pertained to (many would be surprised of the many laws besides the ten commandments in the bible and how if one can read, it may be ascertained which laws spoke to the person and which spoke to "a people/nation" (you know..rules for governing). The buffet style "liberal" theology is why many professing christians are still confused and many more are self deceived as to what it is they believe and who it is they believe in (which all to often is a god that stares back at them in the mirror and changes his mind just as much).
It's amazing how stupid the "A-listers" can be (but then no one said they were known for their brains). Someone writes childrens books and gets nominated for Noble Peace Prize (which a dog or cat can be nominated)and all of a sudden they are "redeemed"… totally ignoring the fact that the man started one of the most ruthless gangs to ever tear apart the black community in LA (and is still doing so in various ways to this very day).
December 13th, 2005 at 12:03 pm
It seems to me that people who off-handedly refer to the thief on the cross conveniently forget that the thief wasn't taken down and spared the remainder of his punishment when he confessed his faith in Jesus. The thief still had to serve his earthly sentence for his crimes. Like you said La Shawn, salvation isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Atonement
Atonement for Tookie Williams would include SOME remorse for the murders - he showed NONE.
Atonement for Tookie Williams would include some good deeds - writing a book that sells 300 copies and another that sold 2 copies did not "TOUCH THE HEARTS OF YOUTH" WITH A SERIOUS ANTI-GANG MESSAGE. Not serious as good deeds.
Atonement for Tookie williams would include behaving in a civilized manner while in prison. Apparently, this was not the case.
Finally, atonement for Tookie Williams would include TALKING to officials about others involved in gang activity. Apparently, HE DIDN'T TALK.
IN SUMMARY, THERE WAS NO ATONEMENT, AND THERFORE NO FORGIVENESS.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:40 pm
Great article LaShawn - and thanks so much for quoting me - I'm honored to be part of your blog!
December 13th, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Ted, read Romans 13:1-5.
The woman to whom you referenced that was to be stoned was not going to be put to death by the governing authority. The Jews were under Roman authority at the time.
In John chapter 8, it was the "teachers of the law and the Pharisees" who brought her before Jesus. If she was guilty of violating a law of the state, I doubt He would've granted clemency. Instead, I believe Christ would've respected the law of the land. If she was guilty of violating a Roman law it would make sense that she would’ve been arrested and tried before a court of law and subsequently punished like the thief was.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Did I wake up in an alternate universe? By reading the posts on this site I'm starting to think there really are people out there who read the WHOLE Bible and not just the "convenient little sound-bitable because it fit's my current need" portions of it.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
The Death Sentence for Stanley "Tookie" Williams
Eric Ragle at Evangelical Underground issued a challenge to answer the following questions and I'm taking it. Check out The Truth Laid Bear to see what other top bloggers are saying about "Tookie". The direction of this particular blog is changing w…
December 13th, 2005 at 2:45 pm
The Bible does speak clearly about capital punishment:
" 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 'Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.' " - Genesis 9:5-6
December 13th, 2005 at 2:51 pm
I like the "unbelieving Jews" line. Unfortunately, what a lot of people don't know (even Christians) is that a lot of early believers were Jews. Jews are a people, so being a Jew does not equal rejecting Jesus.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
EXCELLENT post La Shawn. Wonderful.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
Those who quote the Bible against the death penalty tend to overlook Genesis 9:6. I never hear it.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
FL Mom already posted the following verse…
God's view/command:
Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
It is not optional.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:04 pm
So kudos to FL Mom.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:15 pm
All the books of the Bible (except PERHAPS Luke) were written by Jews, Most of the Old testament addressesses God's creation, interaction, promises, warnings, protection etc. etc. tothe Jews, The New Testament deals with the Jews, Jesus came in the flesh as a Jew, "To His Own" (the Jews) The disciples were Jew, all the apostles were Jews, Paul spoke of God's Future intention with respect to Jews, The Book of Revelations deals with all the Nations, but has specfic themes with respect to the Jews (etc. 144,000 with a specfic amount of virgin males coming out of easch of the 12 tribes of Isreal)……..THINK ABOUT IT
December 13th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
In my experience, the tags "liberal" and "conservative" no longer mean much of anything, and to be Biblical is to be neither and/or both at the same time.
"The whole counsel of Scripture" is a demanding concept: it means that we can't really use Scripture "verses" like kibbles and bits of gravel to toss at perceived "enemies."
I would be just such an "enemy," to FL mom above, because through my children's lives (and I have twelve of them), I have always taught them that the WHOLE counsel of Scripture requires that we actually DO ask ourselves what Jesus would do, not just quote an isolated scripture in a spirit of "so there," or wear a little snarky bracelet.
I raised them as pro-life, which meant that as a family we helped out women with problem pregnancies, we did prayer vigils at the cruise missile plant nearby, and we are anti-capital punishment in the spirit of Sister Helen Prejean's ministry.
When I say a snarky WWJD bracelet, I mean self-righteous, and yes, it is possible to wear a WWJD bracelet in that spirit. I met an attorney a couple of weeks ago who I'd thought at first was Christian– because his office partner was– but he treated me with such contempt, and evasiveness, and rudeness, that I hauled myself up short. I thought: well, jeez, maybe he's NOT Christian, and if he's not I can't hold him to Christian standards like the Golden Rule.
So I asked him. Nicely. "By the way, are you a Christian?" He sensed very clearly that he had not been behaving like one and that's why I'd asked. So he picked up a little walnut-and-bronze nameplate from his desk and actually STUCK IT IN MY FACE. "Seeee?" he said. I had to lean back to read it. It read: W.W.J.D.
One of the most amazing moments of my life.
This was obviously a person who has no intimate knowledge of the heart of God or the spirit of Jesus Christ.
Because what he assumed Jesus would do was to be crude and rude and nasty to a mom of twelve children looking for some help in a sticky illegal situation of retribution for actually being a good citizen.
I believe Governor Schwartzenegger was engaging in low psychodrama when he declared that he was going to "agonize" about his decision. I believe that his decision had already been written up by a former employee, meaning someone who no longer works for him and so there is no way the decision could have been taken these last few days. I believe that the sole factor in his decision was the political analysis that he'd lose voters in his most conservative base if he showed mercy.
I think Tookie Williams' case is rather unique, but I think also that there is strong reason to listen to him on the subject of his innocence of the charges. Courts in America are not the clean, honest place most mainstream upper-middle-class folks assume they are, because they have never had contact with them. Courts are to them a kind of fantasy fiction, that never touch their lives.
Williams' supporters say there is strong evidence that witnesses in his trial were paid, and promised longterm support if they would lie to put him away.
I believe that: it has happened to me, in my own little clean mom life, when I stumbled onto a child pornography and drug ring and (being naive) reported what I uncovered to protect the children who are involved.
The love of money is the root of all evil. Most folks will do whatever it takes to be paid well. Yes, I do mean that: even people who see themselves as Christians have greater loyalties to their paychecks than to their Lord.
If you remember the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials you'll recall that a woman charged with witchcraft (and yes I know that witchcraft is REAL, as it's all over this town) had two options:
1) if they threw her into the water and she sank and drowned, that proved she was innocent–
cool move, dudes.
2) if they threw her in and she floated, that proved she was guilty, so they weighted her with stones and drowned her.
Excellent.
Schwartzenegger said the thing that REALLY angered him was that Williams refused to apologize, i.e. to admit guilt and say he was sorry. S. said that would have moved him to think Williams deserved mercy.
UH-HUH.
Except that Williams said he had NOT committed the murders– nobody questioned that he had done a lot of OTHER awful stuff but that wasn't what he was on trial for, and the American system of justice doesn't have a category for generic bad acting.
So I think what we got to see in this case was a real example of the double-bind, applied in a way that made some people feel justice had been done…
except that it was so similar to the Old Testament custom of the "scapegoat" (which only prefigured the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, in which our sins would genuinely be taken away) that it gave me the creeps. One person had to die so that a lot of people would see who was in control.
This is not what Jesus would have done, but it's so far from Jesus (years and years and light years removed) and so much flotsam and jetsam is over the dam and under the bridge in the interim that it makes my heart hurt.
blessings,
Dr. Bridget
December 13th, 2005 at 5:09 pm
"Thou shalt not kill" is recognized by most as a faulty translation. The proper translation is "Thou shalt not murder."
The idea that we can know that someone has changed their life through religion is extremely doubtful. I hope he did "become a Christian" as people say, or as I would say as a Catholic, that he had true contrition for his sins and did all he could do to repent with a firm purpose of amendment and direct what remained of his life toward God. But neither my opinion nor that of others, Hollywood activists or even entire populations should somehow trump the justice system and the sentence hahded down to him during a fair trial.
December 13th, 2005 at 5:11 pm
Thanks for pointing that out, Pauli. I've wanted to all day but was away from my computer.
December 13th, 2005 at 7:06 pm
Sometimes I wonder if those who defend gangbangers have ever lived around them.
December 13th, 2005 at 7:28 pm
My guess? They haven't.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:04 pm
Ding Dong The Tookie Is Dead
As I suspected, our Governator rejected Tookie's clemency plea, and thus; Tookie was put to death late last night (or very early this morning). Charged of killing four people in cold-blood, he has served Thirty or so years on death row. Recently he h…
December 13th, 2005 at 9:34 pm
My pastor said something reminiscent of the last few lines of this post just this past Sunday. He was talking about the prophecy of Jesus in Isaiah, "And the government will rest on His shoulders." But his basic point was that ultimately, government can't change lives, only Jesus can. Podcast entitled "The Beginning of Great Things" at www.mosaic.org/podcast.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Excellent post, LaShawn. Keep up the good fight. God bless.
December 13th, 2005 at 10:21 pm
The justice system is not perfect. As such, there is no reason to have a death penalty. A "mistake" by the jury, an "oversight" by prosecutors who "forget" to let teh defense know about evidence that helps the defendant, a "mistake" by a clerk who destroys DNA evidence even though others in his office say don't do it…
Such a death system can't be supported.
December 13th, 2005 at 11:54 pm
#18 Dr. Bridget - I wasn't tossing kibbles & bits of gravel nor did I "perceive an enemy." Another poster made a specific assertion that the Bible doesn't address capital punishment so I cited a specific example that it does. No snark intended. My answer was given in the same spirit as if someone had said, "I don't think the name Absalom appears in the Bible." It either does or it doesn't, and if it does, the answerer usually indicates where so that the asker doesn't have to keep guessing.
#16 Garrett O'Hara - Thanks. We can't deny that it's part of the Bible.
December 14th, 2005 at 5:27 am
Ted Wegener #3: "However the woman who was caught in adultery was also to be stoned to death according to the law, and she was forgiven and her body spared."
Like Eddie said in post #8, adultery was not a capital offense according to Roman law. There is more to the story, but I'll only go into why Jesus ultimately allowed the woman to go free.
1) According to the Law, both parties were to be brought forward. The man was nowhere to be found. (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22-24)
2) The Law requires there to be two or more witnesses in order to mete out the death penalty. The death penalty could not be meted out on the word of only one witness. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)
3) The Law states that anyone who comes forward as a witness must not falsely accuse a person of a crime or become an unrighteous witness by not rightly following the Law (e.g., in the case of adultery, not bringing both parties forward). If witnesses are found to be false or unrighteous then they were to receive the same punishment as the person(s) accused were to receive. (Deuteronomy 19:15-19; Proverbs 6:16-19; )
When Jesus states “those without sin” are to cast the first stone He means those without sin (in accordance to the above mentioned Law in Deuteronomy 19) as witnesses in the crime at hand, not general sin in their lives. Remember that the Pharisees knew the Law like the backs of their hands. Some scholars believe that it was the Law that Jesus was writing in the sand. The Pharisees were guilty of being false and unrighteous witnesses by not having brought the man to justice along with the woman.
4) The witnesses were to be the first to stone the guilty party/parties. (Deuteronomy 17:7)
Remember that Jesus did tell them to stone her and after Jesus had written in the sand for the second time the Pharisees chose not to do so. The Bible says in John 8:9 that the Pharisees were convicted by their own conscience and left one by one. Jesus handled the situation legally as the Law demanded. Jesus was in no way instituting a moratorium on the death penalty. The reason the woman was not stoned to death was because there were no witnesses against her. That is not to say that Jesus did not also show mercy to this woman and forgive her because He did, but for the sake of brevity I'll leave it at that.
We must remember that Jesus is God and that He does not change. He is God of the OT & NT.
I plan to blog about the death penalty in the near future which will answer some of your other comments and questions.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:13 am
Bridgett Mc K said in post #18: "Williams’ supporters say there is strong evidence that witnesses in his trial were paid, and promised longterm support if they would lie to put him away."
Hopefully this is not true, but if so they will pay for their sin of false accusations. God sees all. I’m not aware of any witnesses having come forward and admitted they have lied or that they were even asked to lie. If this evidence is so darned strong, I highly doubt that the liberal Supreme Court would have allowed such a travesty of justice to take place. Even the 9th circuit didn’t see any such strong evidence of malfeasance.
The death penalty in this case was justified according to "the whole counsel of scripture." There were two or more witnesses so it is exactly what Jesus would have supported. Mr. Williams, however, is hardly an innocent bystander. He is guilty of founding one of the most evil gangs known to man. How do we know that he didn’t kill more than just the four people he was convicted of killing? It is highly likely that he has killed others in gang fights and drive-bys. I’m not accusing Mr. Williams of other crimes, I’m merely speculating. I’m also not saying that someone should be tried for a crime he did not commit. What I am saying is that if you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time of your own volition or you choose your “friends” unwisely then you’re apt to reap some bad consequences as taught in the bible. But we all know what the CRIPS is all about and it ain’t good.
Mr. Williams was NOT the model prisoner he was made out to be by the MSM and hollywood liberals. He was said to be a difficult prisoner and those on death row are not sorry to see him go to the chamber. I do pray that Mr. Williams admitted his crimes to God, asked forgiveness of his sins, acknowledged Jesus Christ as savior and Lord and repented of his sins.
P.S. Most prisoners do tend to claim innocence, but that doesn’t make it true.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
#11The Bible does speak clearly about capital punishment:
” 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 ‘Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.’
************************************************************
Well, if your going to take that position then it would follow that all acts of "clemency" are wrong then. That seems like an absurd position.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
jesus does not say "turn the other cheek, but only against those who persecute you for your faith."
he says: "turn the other cheek".
la shawn, you added the other part.
the idea of forgiveness includes the idea of messianic suffering, i.e. absorbing the sin (like the messiah) instead of hitting back (equally bad in the eyes of the Lord).
read romans 12, if you don't believe me.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
THE TOOKIE FILES: NEVER-ENDING CIRCUS
The worshipers of Stanley Tookie Williams are promising to give him a "statesman's funeral." Crikey. Meanwhile, the European Left continues to deify Williams, Glenn Greenwald reports. La Shawn Barber weighs in on atonement, redemption, and the role …
December 14th, 2005 at 1:30 pm
Jesus didn't say a lot of things, Tim, but you need to look at the context of the Sermon on the Mount, in light of the whole Bible. It's vital to consider the context and subtext of a passage and not just the text on its face. With various apparent contradictions and misinterpretations, comparing Scripture with Scripture is how Christians should interpret passages. I don't know how you study the Bible, but that's the way I've been taught.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:56 pm
I have little to add along the same vein as most of the comments are going, and your post is pretty well written to convey the general idea. I agree with your post. I did have one thought to add that doesn't seem to have been touched on here. I believe that except for an explanation of salvation and historical aspects of the Bible, it wasn't written for non-believers. Unbelievers do not understand the Bible because they lack…sheesh, how to put this correctly…the spiritual knowledge, the help of the Holy Spirit and all that goes with it. The Bible is a how-to for living a life in Christ. If you are not a part of that you will have no clear understanding of its meaning.
I'm not saying unbelievers shouldn't read it, and that they can't gain knowledge from it. What I'm saying is that it's not written for them. Kinda like (this is going to be a horrible analogy..sorry) that maternity book that's so popular. A man can read it, have a basic understanding of the content, but only a pregnant woman will have a complete understanding, knowledge and frame of reference to go with the book. After all - it was written for her.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Wonderful site. Have read your regular blog for a while and it's excellent too. All my best. Hope blessings are chasing you down and overtaking you.
December 14th, 2005 at 2:31 pm
This is for Louie Marsh:
You're no different from the people of the world. People like
you will do anything to justify things of the world. The NIV
version doesn't count. Haven't you heard it's been called the Non
Inspired Version. There's so much missing from that Bible. God is
clearly in control, not man, but man certainly thinks he is. And
some preachers are always trying to think for God. Why don't you
just stick to the Word of God and stop trying to confuse people.
God is a God of love and therefore expects us to love each other,
which is the second greatest commandment of all. I hate when
people hurt other people, but God said vengeance is mine, I will
repay sayeth the Lord. God said don't add to or take away from His
Word, and He did say that ministers, preachers, teachers,would
receive the harsher punishment. Be careful how you advise others
December 14th, 2005 at 2:32 pm
Excellent post! If only those who are so quick to defend the
death penalty would just as quick to defend abortion! Their
warped thinking is: Killing the innocent is okay, just don't
kill the guilty.
December 14th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
So, then are heaven and paradise two different places? When Christ appeared after His resurrection, he told one of the women to touch him not, for he had not yet ascended to His Father.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
California Assembly to Mull Moratorium on California Death Penalty
The LA Times reports:
State legislators in early January will consider what is likely to be a contentious proposal to postpone executions for as long as three years.
On Jan. 10, an Assembly committee plans to consider legislation that would place a…
December 14th, 2005 at 5:44 pm
A Bad Argument Against Capital Punishment
We all understand that society has to do the dirty work for us in a lot of ways. If I were to decide that my neighbor had stolen my car, nobody would defend my right to kidnap him and hold him in my cellar so that he wouldn't steal from me again. How…
December 14th, 2005 at 5:49 pm
The Lord God is a forgiving father, but forgiveness does not remove the consequences of sin.
One example to consider is Sampson who did indeed sin against God. After Samson was arrested and had
his eyes put out by the Philistines, God restored his strength, but in the end he perished in the
destruction of the temple. This may be over-simplifying things, but I love my kids very very much, and when they are disobedient, I still love them, but however much they apologize for their behavior, there are always consequences.
December 14th, 2005 at 6:06 pm
I'm a fifteen-year-old Christian conservative blogger. I am against the death penalty (and also very strongly against abortion, if anyone wants to know), and I realize that I am at odds with the majority of conservatives on this issue. To me, it is sad that most anti-death penalty advocates are liberals who are just against the death penalty as part of their campaign against any sort of punishment or "judgement."
I do believe that outside of the liberal position, there is a case against the death penalty. I was wondering if those that are pro-death penalty could answer a question: How, if we are truly not just quoting the verses that agree with us, are you able to dismiss God's command of the use of the death penalty not only for murder, but also for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexual behavior (Leviticus 20:13), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), loving anything more than God (Leviticus 20:2), occult practices (Exodus 22:18 ), pre-marital sex (Leviticus 21:9), not observing the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-36), and striking or slandering a parent (Exodus 21:15, 17)?
December 14th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Katelyn, this is why I'm always stressing the need for Christians to read the whole Bible and study it instead of cherrypicking verses that appear to be contradictory. This applies to non-Christians, too, but I don't know how many take the advice seriously.
Two points: 1) A surface-level reading of the Bible might indicate that we're to enforce capital punishment for homosexuality, adultery, etc. But remember that the people of Israel were under Mosaic law. Ancient Israel was a theocracy ruled directly (politically, spiritually) by God, and he commanded that certain sins, including homosexuality and adultery, be punishable by death. But God enacted capital punishment for murder before the covenant with Israel (Genesis 9:6) and to all men.
2) As you know, believers are no longer living under the law but under grace. The old law isn't null and void; it was fulfilled in Christ. Under the new "law," God governs believers spiritually, but he has appointed authority to govern us politically. If the government decides to condemn murderers to death, they are not biblically prohibited from doing so. In fact, I'd argue that government is required to enact capital punishment against murderers.
December 14th, 2005 at 9:16 pm
Matters of Life and Death.
Capital punishment has been getting a lot of chatter from the hip-ocracy lately, just because the number of those subject to it has attained four digits (Most of them confess to be secularists, yet ironically they are still fascinated by numerology) ….
December 16th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Making a sacrifice
It isn?t surprising that there has been a great deal of conversation about capital punishment around the blogosphere recently, what with the case of Cory Maye and the execution of 'Tookie' Williams…
December 16th, 2005 at 4:23 am
La Shawn, it appears that you are implying that I have not read or studied the Bible, or at least not sufficiently enough. That not being true at all, I think we can both refrain from that.
There are three reasons for punishment that should be considered:
1. Reimbursement: to pay back what was lost
2. Protection to society from the criminal
3. Deterrence of future crimes done by other criminals
Now, neither life in prison without parole nor the death penalty can reimburse the victim. Nor can they "pay back" God, as Jesus has already paid the price. (More on this later.) Both life in prison without parole and the death penalty, if done correctly, protect society from the criminal. The death penalty should be more of a deterrent, if the murderer is reasonable at all. However, our system of punishment cannot be based on deterrence alone. Otherwise, our best punishment would be the one that deters the most, such as cutting off someone's hand for stealing.
In our country, we do not use a harsher punishment if a lesser one will have the same effect. In other words, we start at the bottom, and work our way up. We do not start at the harshest punishment, and then dismiss it because it is too "cruel." Therefore, those that are pro-death penalty have an obligation to prove that the advantages of the death penalty overcome the disadvantages compared to life in prison.
In the Old Testament, the death penalty did serve as a way to repay God. However, as you say:
"After the cross, the law didn't become null and void, as some people think. God still requires blood atonement, but slaughtering animals on the altar is a hollow symbol that can't save. Only the blood of Christ can save. His death on the cross satisfied the blood offering for the people he came to save."
Exactly. Now that Christ has paid the price, repaying God with blood is no longer needed, as evidenced by the lack of modern sacrifice and the lack of the modern use of capital punishment for adultery, etc., and the lack of the other attempts at "repaying" God.
You have chosen to explain this differently, by saying that God's commands were only for the people of Israel. I am wondering where this came from, as it was never indicated by God. In the same covenant with the other capital punishment crimes are the Ten Commandments. It is obvious that this part of the covenant is applicable to all people, but you dismiss all other parts because they, according to you, are not. Now who is really "picking and choosing?"
December 16th, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Thanks for the comment on the death penalty. Again I must quote
the Word of God, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay sayeth the Lord."
How would you like to be the one to give the fatal injection? How
would it make you feel to kill someone whose never done anything
to you? It's said that no one actually knows who gives the lethal
shot, but isn't amazing that God does. The Lord says "that
He desires mercy and not sacrifice." The Bible also says "He who
passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes
a dog by the ears." And as far as abortion goes, it's wrong. You can't
justify killing an innocent person born or unborn. God will take His
revenge on evil when He's ready. The Bible tells us the seeds you sow
are the seeds you will reap. We don't have to go around killing people,
simply because we want to take matters into our own hands. That's why God
said man will destroy himself. He's always trying to go against God's
Word. We need to pray that God will continue to bless our country because
we have a lot of blood on our hands.
December 16th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Vengeance is the Lord's, he shall repay. Does this mean that criminals, therefore should not be jailed at all? Forget the death penalty, this sort of selective quoting can just as easily be an excuse for leniency toward all crime.
You ask for a volunteer to flip the switch on the condemned man. I will volunteer, not out of bloodlust or sin, but out of a desire to be obedient to the government in its capacity to restrain a corrupt society, and I'll leave the judging to God.
I know many Christians who couldn't bear to hunt a deer, but that doesn't mean that their squeamishness is a sign of moral superiority or inferiority. Conversely, I know many, many moral, upright and conscientious men who would be honored to be asked by the government to be the agent of temporal justice against a murderer.
In a democratic system, because we install the government, we (individually) often mistakenly take too much responsibility for routine government actions. But I don't wander around all the time thinking that an arsonist is in prison because of me, nor should we contribute to the fairy tale that somehow "blood is on our hands" because some murderers are set to die.
December 17th, 2005 at 12:13 am
Katelyn, et al
I must respectfully disagree with LaShawn about her stance on capital punishment with regard to the sins you’ve listed (e.g., homosexuality). LaShawn, can you point me to scripture(s) that would support your position that capital punishment has been done away with for homosexuality, adultery, etc.?
If our Founders had totally and completely followed the Bible, then they would most certainly have instituted the death penalty for homosexuality, adultery, etc. If, if, IF our government had been set up to mete out the death penalty for the sins you have listed as well as the ones that you did not mention that are listed in the OT then it would have been totally correct to do so in the eyes of God. As I’m sure you know, Jesus took the punishment for our sins so that we might obtain salvation, which does not, in any way, take from us the consequences of sin, as some have already pointed out.
In our post-modern world, we tend to forget that if the death penalty were instituted for homosexuality, adultery, rebellion, pre-marital sex, etc. and actually carried out quickly and swiftly as the Bible commands, then I dare say there wouldn’t be too many that would rebel against their parents or commit fornication/adultery, etc. If a person had homosexual tendencies, they would keep it to themselves instead flaunting it and practicing it. I think the fear of God (if that were properly taught in the church) or at the very least the fear of government would weigh heavy on one’s mind and one would probably think twice and decide AGAINST committing a crime worthy of death.
I won’t go into depth, but God’s law for mankind has always been the law since Adam. Well, actually even before the foundation of the world, but Adam knew the law and passed it down to his children and so on. Though obviously some rejected the law and didn’t pass it on, but it is still God’s perfect law for whichever governmental entity that would choose to obey it. It’s not like the people of the world didn’t know right from wrong until it was officially recorded into scripture through the Israelites. All cultures have a perverted form of God’s laws on their books.
True, the Israelites officially recorded the law and it was for them; however, it was also for the rest of the world. Whether one was/is an Israelite (physically and/or spiritually) or a Gentile God’s law was/is universal. Though we live in a different culture and have great technology the law (plumbing, hygiene, building codes, clean and unclean, etc.) and its principles still “apply” to us today. If you have an accident in your vehicle (OT=ox) and you cause damage you must pay restitution. Jesus took away the ceremonial part in that we no longer have to sacrifice animals, keep the Sabbath, etc. and we can come boldly to the throne of grace since we, as Christians, are cleansed through His blood.
If Jesus were here today, ruling and reigning, He would be ruling with a rod of iron (Revelation 19:15), meaning He would mete out capital punishment as laid out in the OT and not leave anything out. I see no place in scripture where the death penalty was done away with for certain crimes. I think that is a man-made doctrine, but I’m open to proof otherwise.
What is so wrong with meting out the death penalty for homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, rebellion, witchcraft, rape, incest, kidnapping, etc.? Why should we not take those sins as seriously as we do murder? Are they less evil than they were in OT times? Do they not still corrupt and bring harm to nations?
December 17th, 2005 at 1:24 am
Dawn, I'm a bit confused about your position. Are you saying that the death penalty should be used today by our government to punish the other crimes, including "he that curseth his father, or his mother" (Exodus 21:17)? If our government does so, almost all of us would be on death row.
December 17th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
What I'm saying is that if our Founders had instituted the law I'm certain that rebellion would be VERY rare in this country as would be adultery, pre-marital sex, pedophelia, rape, etc. Don't you think?
As far as instituting it today, I'm sure if it were enforced that it wouldn't take too many executions for teens to straighten up and obey their parents, right? I'm not saying that if it were instituted today that we automatically execute a rebellious teen. I'm saying that they should be counseled and warned; if they still refuse to obey their parents then they should pay the consequences. Of course it wouldn’t be a simple law to implement in this day and time, but I would not be averse if it were to be put back onto the books. I think it would be a good thing.
Having said that, the idea is to raise up one's child in the fear and admonition of the Lord or at the very least to discipline them properly so as to not have a rebellious child/teen. I don’t believe the scripture in Exodus means that the first time a child acts out against its parents they should be executed on the spot. I think it means that if a child REFUSES to obey and is downright rebellious then that is when the law is to be executed. If a child (I believe it is talking about a teen) is so rebellious that the fear of execution doesn’t stop them, then there is something very wrong with them. No parent wants to see their child executed. That would be even more incentive to raise them correctly and continually pray over their lives. But I believe that if God’s law were in place there would be very few executions. I think society would in the very least obey the law of the land, if not the God of the universe.
So we can’t look at capital punishment through modern or secular eyes, but we must look at it through the eyes of God. I know if when I was growing up death were a consequence of rebellion, I would have thought twice about some of the things I did as a teen/young adult.
The purpose of this law by God is to put away the evil among us. It is a protection for society. If we obeyed the law of God in this fashion do you think we would have the problems we face in our nation and world today? No. We wouldn’t have astronomical cases of STDs, AIDS, unwanted pregnancies, rapes, murders, incest, cohabitation, adultery, children/teens killing their peers and their parents, disrespect of elders and authority, pornography, pornography addiction, drug addiction, alcohol addiction, open homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc., etc.
I know capital punishment in some cases goes against our sensibilities in this modern live-and-let-live-do-what-feels-good-to-you culture, but God knows best. Please tell me where my thinking on this is flawed. Better yet, please tell me where God has gone wrong in his Law.
Deuteronomy 19:19-21 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
December 18th, 2005 at 12:58 am
Dawn, would you, or would you not agree with the government using capital punishment for adultry, etc.?
Right now, it seems that you are doing a reverse John Kerry: "I think it's a good thing, but I can't impose my views on anyone."
It is definitely not God that is "wrong in his Law." Our human understanding can be wrong, and often is.
December 18th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Dawn, would you, or would you not, support the government executing "rebellious" teens?
December 23rd, 2005 at 11:12 pm
Katelyn,
Yes, I would agree with the government using capital punishment for adultery as long as
there were two or more witnesses as is required in the bible. No reverse Kerrying here.
Yes, I would support the government in executing rebellious teens/young adults living under
their parents' roof, but it would have to be totally provable and with two or more witnesses.
I would think that after a few executions people would stand up and take notice and think
twice before committing a capital offense. That is if the execution were to be carried out quickly and
swiftly.