My debate with Bob Enyart

[Jefferson]

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


This passage is not talking about carrying a sword for protection as a policeman carries a gun.

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

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

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

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

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ddevonb
I believe that when you come to a theologically absolute position like "only stoning" when God never said "only stoning" , you are on shakey ground.

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

It reminds of another discussion a while ago where one guy was locked into a position arguing that musical instruments are not allowed during Christian worship... simply because they are not mentioned in the New Testament.

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

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

If God wanted to prohibit other types of execution he could have easily done that... it is reasonable to believe that he would have done that.

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

God clearly put limitations on other punishments like the the number of lashes for flogging and how much restitution someone could be forced to pay or how long someone could be forced to be an indentured slave.

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

I don't think so.

 

[Jefferson]

ApologeticJedi, you wrote:

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

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



Good point. There are situations that invoke different moral truths.

But then you contradicted yourself when you said:

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

So which is it?

While I admit that is a good point, this particular example doesn’t have anything to do with the situation I quoted, where the Levites executed about 3000 people with a sword instead of stoning.

The Levites have nothing to do with the Body of Christ dispensation. Part of God's commands to Israel that symbolically demonstrated their separation to God was the requirement at times for them to deliberately kill not just their enemies but also their enemies' women and children and livestock, to burn their tents and all their possessions. But you don't recommend we do this today do you? Why not? Why single out only part of the verse that describes the method of killing (the sword) and say, "this part of the passage still applies today but the rest of the passage doesn't." What biblical hermeneutical rule of thumb are you using to pick and choose like that?

The argument of omission is a bad argument. Give me one example where someone ate a cheesburger in the Bible … clearly then God is against cheeseburgers!??

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

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

Name me one person who was executed by stoning who had kidnapped? Can't do it? How about rape? Don't have an example? What does that tell you ...

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

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

BUT . . .

• 2 Thessalonians 3:6 only says, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly, and not after the teaching which he received from us." What? What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?
  
  
• 2Th 3:14,15 only says, "And if anyone does not obey our word by this letter, mark that one and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?
  
• Titus 3:10 only says, "After the first and second warning, reject a man of heresy,"
  What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?
  
• I Timothy 5:20 only says, "Those who sin, rebuke before all, so that the rest also may fear." What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?
  
• I Corinthians 5:4,5 only says, "in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, with my spirit; also, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ;
  to deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus."
  What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?
  
• 2 Thessalonians 3:6 only says, "Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother who walks disorderly, and not after the teaching which he received from us"
  What happened to the all the other requirements needed in Matthew 18?

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

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

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

 

[ApologeticJedi]

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

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

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

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

If it is a moral issue, to only stone … then it is irrelevant what dispensation it was in. Moral laws never change through any dispensation. Cain knew it was wrong to murder, for instance, long before the law said “Thou shalt not murder”. Moral truths are ingrained on people’s hearts.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Part of God's commands to Israel that symbolically demonstrated their separation to God was the requirement at times for them to deliberately kill not just their enemies but also their enemies' women and children and livestock, to burn their tents and all their possessions. But you don't recommend we do this today do you? Why not? Why single out only part of the verse that describes the method of killing (the sword) and say, "this part of the passage still applies today but the rest of the passage doesn't."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please tell me what is immoral with hanging a kidnapper?

 

[Jefferson]

ApologeticJedi, you wrote:

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

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

. . . if it was morally wrong to put someone to death by any other means than stoning, then why did they profane that moral truth in the valley below Mt. Sinai? If it were a moral law, then you would not expect that you can break it so easily … especially not for a “symbolic” law which often has a lesser importance.

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

Please tell me what is immoral with hanging a kidnapper?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Brother Vinny]

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

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

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

 

[ApologeticJedi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More good symbolism.

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

Again that’s Symbolism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ApologeticJedi]

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

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

 

[TheFlame]

Re: My debate with Bob Enyart

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
So then since no verse speaking of murder mentioned stoning, it would not be a sin to execute other than by stoning for murderers?

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

I don’t perceive it immoral not to participate in every execution.

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

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

I think it is good symbolism.

What does it symbolize?

Regarding piles of stones you said:

More good symbolism.

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

• Eze 3:18 When I say to the wicked, You shall surely die; and you do not give him warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. Yet if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul.
  
• Eze 3:21 But if you warn the righteous so that the righteous does not sin, and if he does not sin, he shall surely live because he is warned; also you have delivered your soul.
  
• Eze 33:8 When I say to the wicked, O wicked one, you shall surely die; if you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked one shall die in his iniquity; but I will require his blood at your hand. Eze 33:9 But, if you warn the wicked of his way, to turn from it; if he does not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul.
  
• 1Co 10:11 And all these things happened to them as examples; and it is written for our warning on whom the ends of the world have come.

Do you pay taxes? Is FICA (Social Security) deducted from your paycheck?

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

I can make the same sort of arguments for circumcision.

I don't think you can, not for this Body of Christ dispensation.

I’m not sure what you mean by “arguments of assumption”. I am not assuming anything that I am aware of.

In spite of the fact that there is not even one example in all of scripture where a nonstoning execution occurs for a capital violation of (non-theocratic, non-covenental, non-ceremonial) moral law, you are nevertheless assuming that it is acceptable. I don't treat scripture that flippantly.

You are the one assuming that stoning is the only allowable method, since you have no biblical data for that position (you only have provided data that stoning was allowed).

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

Regarding Deuteronomy 22:21 you said:

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

Deuteronomy 22:21 concerns adultery. That's not a symbolic law.

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

 

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by Jefferson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ddevonb]

Originally posted by Jefferson

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


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

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


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


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

I don't think so.

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

 

[ApologeticJedi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[bnnyc1955]

Other Non-Capital Means of Punishment

Other Non-Capital Means of Punishment

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

Bob

 

[Jefferson]

Re: Other Non-Capital Means of Punishment

Re: Other Non-Capital Means of Punishment

Originally posted by bnnyc1955
What means of punishment were given for non-capital offenses?

Corporal punishment (ie. flogging) and restituion (to the victim).

 

[Jefferson]

ddevonb, you wrote:

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

I've never seen an executioner carrying an electric chair around with him at the mall.

Are you saying that if we have no stones we can't execute?

I don't know any nation that lacks stones.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
But for murder, God does not say to stone them.

Leviticus 20:2 commands stoning for the murder.

The wicked can be warned without piles of stone, so it's still symbolic.

But as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words.

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

Hanging is only a temporary warning. But a pile of stones is a warning that lasts 24 hours a day, non stop for generations.

I too "unvolutarily" participate in social security. It's doesn't stop me from condemning it.

But participation in stoning would be voluntary.

And not participating doesn't necessarily mean that they are against it either.

It does if they never participate for any execution for any reason under any circumstance decade after decade.

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

We're going around in circles here regarding arguments of omission vrs. arguments of assumption.

 

[Jefferson]

ddevonb and ApologeticJedi:

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

P.S. ApologeticJedi, you previously wrote:

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

Likewise, if adultery is ever recriminalized but we don't get stoning to go along with it, then hey, we can't have everything we want this side of the millenial reign of Christ. I'll gladly stand beside you and cheer on the impersonal professional executioner who pulls the lever for the electric chair.

 

[1Way]

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s the text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Way

 

[1Way]

Jefferson, you responded to Bob Enyart thus:

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

Fire
Lev 20:14 'If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire…’

Joshua 7:25 shows that when this law was applied, these criminals were to be stoned first and then their dead bodies were to be burned: "And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, AFTER they had stoned them with stones." This shows that the verses which command capital criminals to be burned refers to their already dead bodies being burned after they had first been stoned.

Just looking at the books mentioned, didn’t Lev happen first? So how would a subsequent event shape or define an earlier one? And even if it didn’t happen that way, not all accounts happen like you seem to think it must. I grant that being stoned generally means to be put to death. Yet death did not always happen even when a multitude did it, remember Paul in Acts 14:19. Also, couldn’t two separate events happen in different unrelated ways? Sometimes death by fire, sometimes death by stoning, sometimes death by stoning and then fire after death, perhaps sometimes stoning and then fire until finally dead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1Way