Battle Talk ~ BR XI

[ApologeticJedi]

I said: "Theo indicates that Genesis 9 doesn’t prescribe the Death Penalty (despite that every known commentary may say differently."

Theo responded: "I did not originate this interpretation."

Didn't say that you did, however .... can you please name even one Bible commentator that agrees with you?

 

[theo_victis]

John H. Yoder Ph.D. agrees with the conclusion that this passage does not speak of God's establishment of the government. I did not originate this interpretation. He differs from my exegesis because he believes that this passage is internally speaking of the sacrificial system (I disagree on some aspects of this).

The exegesis is mine (adapted from a few friends). I, however, think it is a proper exegesis because of the fact that there is parallelism there (the chiasm). I didnt really look up any commentaries to find out if someone agrees with me. I will. I think the exegesis I made makes some valid points. Even if my exegesis is poor (which I highly disagree), I still believe the conclusion that this is where God instituted government and the DP is a false notion. Where does it speak of governments? This is a covenant contract between God and Noah, not God and governments.

 

[theo_victis]

Are you an alternate user name?

Just in case you are referring to me (since Novice already has accused me of making multiple screen names) I will repeat once again: I am not lying...I have no other usernames!

 

[death2impiety]

My thoughts: jibber jabber

My thoughts: jibber jabber

Socratic Dialectic Methodology? Now he's completely misrepresenting Turbo's argument. Yes, indeed Turbo has completely dismantled Theo's view and shown the logical inconsistancy of his viewpoint (If someone repents you must forgive and not punish...but then punish those you forgive...just not too harshly!)
It'd be impossible to be a combatant in this debate and not point out the errors in theo's judgement. What's more, this debate is "Should Christians support the death penalty." Turbo's main argument has been strong scriptual evidence for the death penalty (for capital crimes) and against imprisonment.

This SDM argument is clear evidence that Theo is struggling and hoping for a last minute bit of pity out of the peanut galary. "Sure Turbo may have pointed out how ridiculous my view is, but that doesn't mean his is right!" Honestly, I do agree with that statement, and had Turbo not provided clear scriptual support alongside his ridicule of Theo's argument he wouldn't be winning. But he did and he is.

I'm still curious...is theo concerned with truth? It's obvious that his views on punishment are totally hypocritical, and completely unbiblical. Since God has called the death penalty a deterrent (see Bible) and since God has shown obvious support for the death penalty (see Bible), as a Christian concerned with Truth, with faith in God's Word, I'm waiting to see a bit of scripture that clearly undermines Turbo's position. And out of curiosity I'd like to know what Theo proposes we do with unrepentant murderers, as Christ clearly said that forgiveness is only to be granted to the repentant. :think:

 

[theo_victis]

Most of Christianity has rightly called the age directly after the Flood the Age of Government. Spurgeon, Scofield, Calvin, and many modern scholars have called it that.

An agreement among scholars is obviosly important, but I mean, this site is notorius for its spreading of the OV which does not have a strong theological history either. All I am saying is, let's not make history be the issue. If my exegesis is poor, I will admit it. I, however, think that the conclusion of the exegesis is very strong. God was not talking about governments but dietary laws. Turbo had used this to support the DP. I am just showing from an exegetical study of the Hebrew (something Turbo obviously did not do) that his use of this passage does not support his claims.

Also, it is quite humorous to hear Theo try to dismiss “the sword” as not being a lethal weapon, but just symbolism. I’m sure in his version of history Roman centurions carried their literal swords in vain, but not their authority.

Hold up... You are not addressing my arguments. You are just laughing at them. This does not make them false. Look at the passage again. Paul is appealing that we are to obey the governments not in fear but in good conscience. We are to do so out of love. Perfect love casts out fear, for fear deals with punishment. Where is this fear? Commantators such as Harrisville, Dunn, etc. all recognize that the sword can be seen here symbolically based on the usage of the word Pharo. Why would Paul tell us to fear the government's adminsitration of the DP if we do not pay our taxes? Romans didnt kill people for tax evasion! That had tax collectors that would brutalize you until you paid up!!!


Dismissing my argument by laughter doesnt mean anything.

 

[theo_victis]

Socratic Dialectic Methodology? Now he's completely misrepresenting Turbo's argument. Yes, indeed Turbo has completely dismantled Theo's view and shown the logical inconsistancy of his viewpoint (If someone repents you must forgive and not punish...but then punish those you forgive...just not too harshly!)
It'd be impossible to be a combatant in this debate and not point out the errors in theo's judgement. What's more, this debate is "Should Christians support the death penalty." Turbo's main argument has been strong scriptual evidence for the death penalty (for capital crimes) and against imprisonment.

This SDM argument is clear evidence that Theo is struggling and hoping for a last minute bit of pity out of the peanut galary. "Sure Turbo may have pointed out how ridiculous my view is, but that doesn't mean his is right!" Honestly, I do agree with that statement, and had Turbo not provided clear scriptual support alongside his ridicule of Theo's argument he wouldn't be winning. But he did and he is.

You are missing the point of this. I am asking Turbo to actually put forth some arguments. He just questions everything I say without validating his claims. He continually misrepresents my views and does not answer the question at hand in the debate, "Should Christians support the DP?" Turbo ignores my arguments and only looks for apparent logical flaws.

I'm still curious...is theo concerned with truth? It's obvious that his views on punishment are totally hypocritical, and completely unbiblical.

So I should assume you have a reading disability. Ah, what the heck, you probably do not understand this.

Of course I am interested in truth! Where is my hypocrisy? There is more hipocritical judgment in condemning someone to deah when you condemn them then imprisoning somebody. Open your eyes for once!

And out of curiosity I'd like to know what Theo proposes we do with unrepentant murderers, as Christ clearly said that forgiveness is only to be granted to the repentant.

Wow. You do not read my posts. I already said put them in jail and help them out. Jeesh! But come on now, lets do the Christian thing and just kill everybody.

 

[theLawRocks]

Micheal Ross,killed 8 New England woman, one of the women he killed was my friend. (Robin Stavinsky).
I never let up on Ross or forgave him for what he did. is that wrong?
How does God see this? Did Ross get the justice he deserved, how do you determine justice?

not sure if this makes sense, I am not good at explaining (in typing) what I mean.

Sharri bring up a concept that has not been yet considered by Theo or Turbo.

Sin, all sin damages much more than individuals. The entire creation groans due to our sin. Robin’s murderer impacted and possibly destroyed the lives of so many, her family, mother, father, and friends. The entire community was brought down, even generations. Hearts were hardened. An act of evil was committed, not only against Robin and God, but even Sharri.

And the way we fail to execute punishment, even as Turbo says, “painfully and swiftly” only serves to harden so many hearts to goodness and righteousness. Politicians, judges, lawyers, and voters ….. consider Prvb 17:15.

I am going to go out an a limb here, knowing that God’s ways are so much greater than man’s ways. What if….. God wasn’t JUST focused on the sinner and an appropriate punishment for crime, but what if …. God considered the whole effect of what we call capital crimes -- on Robin’s family, on His plan for Sharri, on the soul of so many.

Possibly, it is an act of Gods Mercy, that he instructed us on the right use of capital punishment for capital crimes….. I’ll have to study his Word further.

 

[theo_victis]

An act of evil was committed, not only against Robin and God, but even Sharri.

I totally agree with this! But according to Turbo, sharri cannot forgive Ross, even though she was affected by his crime. Since the offense was not comitted against her, she cannot forgive him of the wrong. Consequently, then it is unjust for sharri to be angry with Ross or to feel pain in this situation because she does not have the right to forgive him. Obviously, someone does have the right to have anger and to forgive and let go of our anger, appeasing it in Christ. Just because a crime is committed against one person does not mean many are affected. Great point!

 

[theLawRocks]

A thought

A thought

I totally agree with this! But according to Turbo, sharri cannot forgive Ross, even though she was affected by his crime. Since the offense was not comitted against her, she cannot forgive him of the wrong. Consequently, then it is unjust for sharri to be angry with Ross or to feel pain in this situation because she does not have the right to forgive him. Obviously, someone does have the right to have anger and to forgive and let go of our anger, appeasing it in Christ. Just because a crime is committed against one person does not mean many are affected.!

Ok then, what if God has given us his law including the Death Penalty not only because it highlights sin and guides us toward our Saviour, but also to minimize the effect of evil and maximize His Kingdom. Can't capital punishment God's way and Forgiveness God's way co-exist. Shouldn't we figure out how to do that, by His Word?

I'm convinced that we can. Since Jesus said in Matt 5:17-19 Heaven and Earth would cease to exist before any part of the Law would cease.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

John H. Yoder Ph.D. agrees with the conclusion that this passage does not speak of God's establishment of the government.

That wasn't what I asked. I realize the Mennonite leaders don't necessarily agree with Captial Punishment or today, but even most Mennonites (including Yoder) agree that this was a command for Capital Punishment.

The exegesis is mine (adapted from a few friends).

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Why did you lie earlier and say that you didn't originate it?

I, however, think it is a proper exegesis because of the fact that there is parallelism there (the chiasm).

Actually it was a great stretch to try to convince us that this passage doesn't mean what is so obviously means to everyone that read it. You were reaching for anything that would mean other than Capital Punishment for some reason. Possibly because this statement predates the law given by Moses and you thought that might hurt your position if you gave into that. If we look to the Septuagint to resolve the difference I think it becomes quite clear what is being spoken of.

Even if my exegesis is poor (which I highly disagree), I still believe the conclusion that this is where God instituted government and the DP is a false notion. Where does it speak of governments? This is a covenant contract between God and Noah, not God and governments.

It was a contract between Noah and his descendants (ergo the human race). And it is a command that establishes Human Government (stewardship) over the area of crime. It is a command to 1) find those who have shed innocent blood, and 2) to punish them (with execution in this case). This establishes the core of any justice system.

This necessitates a denial of anarchy.

 

[Turbo]

But according to Turbo, sharri cannot forgive Ross, even though she was affected by his crime. Since the offense was not comitted against her, she cannot forgive him of the wrong.

Wrong! From my second round post:

Individuals can only forgive a murderer to the extent that he sinned against them, and they should if he repents.

Great points, theLawRocks. :thumb:

 

[On Fire]

Ok then, what if God has given us his law including the Death Penalty not only because it highlights sin and guides us toward our Saviour, but also to minimize the effect of evil and maximize His Kingdom. Can't capital punishment God's way and Forgiveness God's way co-exist. Shouldn't we figure out how to do that, by His Word?

Evil has already been defeated. God doesn't play games like minimizing the effects of anything.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Hold up... You are not addressing my arguments. You are just laughing at them. This does not make them false. Look at the passage again.

I am doing both. :chuckle: I am dismantling your argument with a little humor. No one who knew anything about the context of the time of this epistle would think a Roman Centurion welded his literal sword in vain. I thought it was hilarious that you went that far to escape the obvious meaning of this passage and to come up with an alternative meaning.

Paul is appealing that we are to obey the governments not in fear but in good conscience. We are to do so out of love.

Only if we have good behavior does he say this. Paul says that for people that commit crime, it should be a terror.

Paul’s statement of love, which is not in context with this passage, is for Christians. He does not argue that he expects non-Christians to behave out of love. Christians should approach the government in love, but we do not need to be naïve and think that the unbelieving world will be able to naturally do the same. They need the “terror” and “fear” that Paul speaks of in Romans 13.

I think you are a bit reckless in your approach to the Bible. You approach the Bible as a "dodge", thinking you'll just "make-it-say" whatever you want it to. Your exegesis (if we are kind enough to call it that) is unrestrained wild assertions. I’d say most of your absurd statements about Romans 13 and Genesis 9:6 would not be supported by 99% of those that oppose Capital Punishment (of which I used to be).

Dismissing my argument by laughter doesnt mean anything.

That it was disguised in humor, does not make any of my points less valid.

 

[Chileice]

Good exegesis? I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but not one commentator I have (and I have all the classics - Keil/Delitsch, Clarke, Gill, Henry, Barnes, etc.) agrees with TV's interpretation. That should tell you something.

I will agree with you that it is important not to go out on a limb with some crazy concoction of an idea. But check Derek Kidner for example, a respected commentator in the evangelical camp (He wrote Genesis for the Tyndale commentary). He says:
"one cannot simply transfer verse 6 to the statute book unless one is prepared to include verses 4 and 5a with it. Capital punishment has to be defended on wider grounds." If you read his entire commentary he sees this as a sanctity of life passage, including animal life (and this was written 40 years ago, long before the animal rights movement for those who think he is some kind of modern liberal tree-hugger) and a passage about the supremacy of HUMAN life over and above that.

Now, I just happen to believe that TV and whoever he got the idea from, may have found a possible and I say possible interpretation of the passage that makes sense IN ITS CONTEXT, which obviously upholds the sanctity of human life which IS the obvious interpretation of the verses if one reads the passage in CONTEXT. That is the KEY to Biblical interpretation. If not, we get mormonism, Christian Science, JWs and a whole slew of other variations that are no longer biblical, nor Christian.

This topic is a no win debate for either side because it is charged with emotion. And if you believe criminals should be swiftly killed for everything from adultery and murder to hating their father and mother, then you will find some verse, most often out of context, to support the presupposition that you hold. I am not saying Theo is necessarily a great Bible scholar, but I am saying he took the passage in context and EXEGETED it rather than forming an eisegesis from his preconception. Obviously, I do not support the death penalty and I am also bias as is every other poster here. But I do think that if you read what TV wrote in this last post, it is the most coherent and cohesive argument put forward by anyone as yet in this debate.

As far as the classical commentators: They, as are we, were people of their day. They lived in a time where NOT having capiutal punishment was inconceivable. They had heard someone say this passage supported capital punishment and those had heard it, etc. That does not necessarily make it right. Many people used the Bible to support slavery. Now all but the most bigotted would find such an exegesis repugnant and irresponsible. The cross changed MANY things, but we have been ever slow to understand it. It changed the sacerdotal system, but the Catholic Church went back and re-instituted it because it was convenient in a world which seemed unable to live without priests. Jesus truly liberated women in a way that even today we have a hard time understanding. But other rabbis did not have women in their entourage. He was a scandalous person. That is part of why he was killed (from the human side anyway). So much that we now take for granted, was not taken for granted before the advent, life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. Could it be that we are still catching up to ALL that Jesus was trying to say when he said that the TRUTH would set us free? It took the disciples themselves a couple of decades to understand Jesus wasn't just for the Jews, despite what Jesus said and did. His universal salvific mission was finished at the cross, but our learning curve goes on as we plumb the heights and depths of the grace of Christ.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

But check Derek Kidner for example, a respected commentator in the evangelical camp (He wrote Genesis for the Tyndale commentary).

His argument is not the same as TVs. His is actually a better argument. TVs idea, that this is actually about not eating blood, is unsupported by the text and is poor exegesis. Kidner admits the natural reading of the passage, but argues that it shouldn't be applied to today. That would have been a better (though still flawed) argument.

Now, I just happen to believe that TV and whoever he got the idea from, may have found a possible and I say possible interpretation of the passage that makes sense IN ITS CONTEXT

It was being fast-and-loose with the passage. There were three seperate commands:

1) Dietary
2) Capital Punishment
3) Replenish the Earth

For TV to argue that #2 compliments #1 and is really a deitary command (oh brother!), but then admit that #3 is of a different context, shows that even he recognizes his exegsis breaks down quickly. His explanation doesn't fit with the wording of the passage, and it doesn't fit with the current, historic, or natural understanding of the passage and it's context.

 

[Chileice]

Don't you think it is unjoined to correlate the fact that Paul often spoke about love, into saying that Paul actually believed we should obey the government not out of fear? Where does Paul explicitly make that correlation? Yes, I agree he mentions "love", but where does Paul explicitly say that we shouldn't fear the government? Because that would be necessary to make that argument.

Doesn't Paul say "But if you do what is evil, be afraid!"(Rom 13:4a) and "Rulers are not to be a terror to good behavior, but to those that do evil" (Rom 13:3a)

Do the words "terrror" and "afraid" fit better with "fear" or "love" in your opinion?

Just wondering.

I think you continue to pull one verse OUT of context, and one brief passage out of the context of the New Testament. Why limit your thought to one verse of Paul? Look what Peter has to say in a VERY instructive passage in 1 Peter 2:

13Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

Look at the words: LOVE, RESPECT, HONOR, FEAR all being used together. We ought NOT to fear the king, we should honor him. WE OUGHT to fear God for he alone is worthy of that and we should show respect to ALL men, even those who are not of the faith. Certainly it will be hard to LOVE them as we do brothers in Christ, but we should at least give them respect. And although they be criminals they at least deserve the respect Christ gave the the theif on the cross. We ought to at least listen, try to find some way to rescue such a person and give them the opportunity to learn the fear of God.

As Theo pointed out, not even the universal flood was enough death penalty to stop man from sinning. Noah and his daughters-in-law were right back at it within days of their miraculous rescue. Now as those who fear God, we should submit to rulers and authorities if they are doing their duty of punishing wrong-doers and COMMENDING those who do right. When is the last time you saw that? If we spent more time commending the good in people, I promise you, we would spend a whole lot less time having to punish them. Positive reinforcement is far superior to negative deterents. SO all I am saying is look at the BIG picture and not the narrow view that you have inherited from someone else. Think for yourself as you let the WHOLE of scripture guide you.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

I think you continue to pull one verse OUT of context, and one brief passage out of the context of the New Testament. Why limit your thought to one verse of Paul?

I am only bringing up the passages that have been brought up in the debate. However there are scores of passages in the New Testament alone which support the death penatly, form Jesus, to Paul, to the writer of Hebrews, to angels, to the believers in heaven.

Look at the words: LOVE, RESPECT, HONOR, FEAR all being used together. We ought NOT to fear the king, we should honor him.

Now isn't that a bit wreckless? If we are to "fear" God, is it therefore wrong to "fear" the king? Does this somehow deny what Paul says? Of course not. We should also fear the king.

And again, Peter is speaking to believers. He is not expecting unbelievers to "love" believers or "fear" God. Thus it fits with Paul's words that governments are to be "terrors" to evil doers.

Think for yourself as you let the WHOLE of scripture guide you.

Once I started doing that, I left the anti-death penalty crowd behind. I realized that there is a ton of New Testament support for the Death Penalty, and that the Old Testament should not be dismissed so carelessly.

Please let the WHOLE of scripture guide you, instead of pulling one verse of Peter's out of context.

 

[theo_victis]

That wasn't what I asked. I realize the Mennonite leaders don't necessarily agree with Captial Punishment or today, but even most Mennonites (including Yoder) agree that this was a command for Capital Punishment.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. Why did you lie earlier and say that you didn't originate it?

What are you talking about? Lying?!? I told you clearly. My interpretation came from Yoder (that this passage is not about governments). He agrees with my conclusion. My exegesis is mine in the sense that I did the research but it was adapted from an argument made in a research paper from a friend of mine. Seriously, you have a terrible reading comprehension ability.

 

[theLawRocks]

It all matters

It all matters

Evil has already been defeated. God doesn't play games like minimizing the effects of anything.

Yes, Satan and his evil plan are defeated. But sin yet exists and the effect of sin still impacts lives. I did not mean to infer it was a game, but instruction on how to minimize the effect of sin. Fight off the flaming darts of the evil one (Eph 6). And the Old Testiment law via Matt 5 as well as the forgiveness found at the Cross are our instruction in full force.

 

[Delmar]

Where in Genesis 9 does the term ruler come into play? The term "ruler" is not used in Genesis until the 39th chapter!

Go fish.

For some reason I had in mind we were talking about Rom 13. I see that I was mistaken. My bad.