My debate with Bob Enyart

[Lion]

Rock and roll, stab and slice, tear and gouge, gas and explode, shock and crush...

Rock and roll, stab and slice, tear and gouge, gas and explode, shock and crush...

Bob E.-Great post, but you left out my favorite:

1Sam. 15:33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel hacked Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.

Sounds like a sword to me, unless he had long, sharp rocks.

 

[bnnyc1955]

Appropriate Forms of Punishment in the Bible

Appropriate Forms of Punishment in the Bible

All punishment in the Bible was not just about execution by certain methods. For less severe crimes, there was "beating by sticks" or rods. All of you are far more articulate in citing appropriate passages. From recent past, public floggings, strappings or paddlings would appropriate punish less severe infractions without the cost of incarceration with the resulting public embarassment and shame acting as a true deterrent. Yes, strappings and paddlings for adults may seem "juvenile" but then aren't some petty criminal behaviors by adults also "juvenile"? Your thoughts?

Bob

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Maybe I should split this thread? Its a good one but it has gone astray from Jeffersons first post.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

ATTENTION: THIS THREAD HAS BEEN SPLIT IN TWO!!!!

ATTENTION: THIS THREAD HAS BEEN SPLIT IN TWO!!!!

OK... I split this thread.

The current thread can remain as is regarding Jefferson's call to Bob Enyart. This thread is highlighted by a post from Bob himself. Thanks Bob!

A new thread has been started to continue the debate about adultery and if adultery should be criminal and what the punishment should be.

The new thread is.....Adultery... is it criminal??? If so... what should the punishment be?

 

[Jefferson]

Bob, thanks for your reply. I will first give you my theory as to why I think God only wants us to use stoning as a means of execution. Then, in responding to the verses you raised I will refer back to my theory so you will know where I am coming from.

I need to make clear from the start that I am only referring to the execution of citizens who would commit capital offenses in a constitutional monarchy in the 21st century. I am not referring to the execution of foreign military commanders, soldiers or heads of State during war. Nor am I referring to idolaters, sabbath- breakers or any other violaters of Old Testament ceremonial law since those verses would not be applicable to us today.

There are several reasons why I think God only allowed for the public stoning of citizen capital criminals.

First: An issue that you bring up often yourself - relationships. The threat of broken relationships and peer pressure is a very powerful deterrent. 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.

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.

Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment.

Forth: Public stoning forces citizens to face the reality of the ultimate civil sanction, execution, which in turn points to God's ultimate sanction at judgment day. Stoning also faithfully images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15).

Fifth: Because most people, including Christians, do not want to think about God's final judment, they prefer to assign to distant unknown executioners the grim task of carrying out God's judgment in private. This privatization of execution is immoral. It is itself criminal. It is unjust to the convicted criminal, and it is unjust to the surviving victims, who do not see God's justice done in public. The growth of impersonalism has been a problem for the West from the beginning. Even in the days of public executions, several centuries ago, the axeman wore a face mask. 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?

Seventh: This refusal by citizens to accept personal responsibility has led to the haters of God's law to become politically dominant. They have used the same kinds of arguments against capital punishment in general that embarrassed Christians had accepted in their rejection of public stoning. Step by step, society eliminates capital punishment and men's hatred of God's law is steadily manifested in modern civil law.

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 referrs to their already dead bodies being burned after they had first been stoned.

Lev 21:9 'The daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father. She shall be burned with fire.’

This verse singles out a priests daughter, therefore it is referring to Old Testament ceremonial law and hence would not be applicable to us today.

Gen. 38:24 …Judah was told, saying, "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry." So Judah said, "Bring her out and let her be burned!"

None of your laws in your proposed Constitution of America refer to any Book of the Bible earlier than Exodus. You, yourself exclude laws from Genesis. This execution of would include Tamar's unborn baby which was still in her womb! This execution is clearly another example of the symbolic cleansing of the land, hence it is not applicable to the Body of Christ dispensation.

Sword
Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

These people were killed for worshipping a false god. You have said that in your proposed constitutional monarchy that people would be allowed to worship false gods if they so chose. Therefore, again, this verse would not apply to the Body of Christ dispensation.

1 Kings 2:8 [David said to Solomon:] "And see, you have with you Shimei… I swore to him by the LORD, saying, 'I will not put you to death with the sword.'

Here is verse 8 and 9 in full: "And, behold, with you is Shimei the son of Gera, a Benjamite of Bahurim, who cursed me with a grievous curse in the day when I went to Mahanaim. But he came down to meet me at Jordan, and I swore to him by Jehovah, saying, I will not put you to death with the sword. And now, do not hold him guiltless. For you are a wise man, and you know what you ought to do to him. But bring his gray head down to the grave with blood."

Note that Shimei was put to death simply for cursing David. I don't think you are advocating that cursing a 21st century monarch in the Body of Christ dispensation should be a capital crime. So this verse also does not apply to our discussion.

1 Kings 2:25, 34 [During Solomon’s time of wisdom and obedience, before his fall:] So King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he struck [Adonijah] down, and he died. … So Benaiah the son of Jehoiada went up and struck and killed him [strongly inferring by the sword, v. 8]…

Adonijah attempted a coup on the throne (I Kings 1:5-12). Solomon later allowed Adonijah to live as long as Adonijah remained faithful (I Kings 1:50-53) which he did not when he attempted another coup on the throne via marriage (I Kings 2:13-25). An attempted coup on the throne is an act of war. As my introduction to this post states, I am only trying to decide Biblical punishment for citizens who commit capital crimes during a normal peace-time economy. If a brother of a monarch in the 21st century tried to gain power via marriage would your Constitution of America recommend the death penalty for that person? I don't think so. So again, this verse does not apply to our discussion.

1 Kings 18:40 And Elijah said to them, "Seize the prophets of Baal! Do not let one of them escape!" So they seized them; and Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there.

This verse is about the killing of false prophets. Since false prophets would be allowed to live in a 21st century constitutional monarchy under your Constitution of America this verse also does not apply to our discussion.

Rom. 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.
Note: Jefferson, I read your rebuttal to my use of this verse, but please reconsider. The official is “God’s minister” who does not bear the sword in vain. Yes, the sword is a figure of speech for the power of the government. But it is a rather literal figure of speech, for officials carried swords, and swords were not used for beating but for killing, and men commonly were killed with official swords.

If your Constitution of America became law, I would see no problem with police (ie. God's ministers) killing criminals in the line of duty with guns just like they do today. But God's ministers killing in the line of duty is a very different situation than an orderly execution after a lawful trial. Since we kill criminals with electric chairs and injections, does this mean a police officer can also use those tools to kill a criminal? No it does not. The police use guns. The courts use electric chairs and injections. Different methods for different offices. It's the same in the Bible. The "police" in Old Testament Israel may have used swords to kill criminals in the line of duty. But when it came to an orderly execution after a lawful trial of a citizen convicted of a (nonceremonial nonsymbolic nontheocratic/covenental) crime they were commanded by God to use stones only.

Hanging
Num. 25:1, 4 Now Israel… began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab… Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take all the leaders of the people and hang the offenders before the LORD, out in the sun…"

Your Constitution of America does not consider this kind of fornication to be a captial offense. This verse does not apply to the Body of Christ dispensation therefore it is not applicable to our discussion.

Josh 8:23-24, 26, 29-30

You provided my rebuttal to this verse yourself when you said:

Of course, these killings occurred in a battle,

To reiterate my opening statement to this post: "I am only referring to the execution of citizens who would commit capital offenses in a constitutional monarchy in the 21st century. I am not referring to the execution of foreign military commanders, soldiers or heads of State during war. Nor am I referring to idolaters, sabbath- breakers or any other violaters of Old Testament ceremonial law since those verses would not be applicable to us today."

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Actually stoning isn't mentioned that often either in the Law. It seems to be mentioned only for:

1) adultery
2) worshipping other Gods
3) breaking the Sabbath
4) being rebellious to parents.

Two of these are symbolic for certain. Looking at it I never see God saying to put, for instance, a murderer to death by stoning. Evidently God leaves that up to the judge.

And while you are quite contentious about burning only being mentioned in, for instance, war criminals, it does show that God is not set on stoning-alone. And I’m not sure that your dichotomy between civil time and military isn’t fairly flimsy. While I do agree that they have slightly different rules, I’m not sure execution is one of them.

Considering that God doesn’t demand stoning in cases of murder, kidnapping, and sexual sins besides adultery, I think it is a leap to say “It can only be by stoning”, when the Bible never explicitly nor implicitly states that. I think this is the same sort of trap the Pharisees fell into when they suggested a whipping could be no more than 39 lashes – adding to the law in order to fall within it.

The method of execution has no moral value behind it. People don’t feel guilt putting someone to death by hanging, firing squads, stoning, nor anything else. Even the arguments you gave are all basically built on symbolism.

I tell you what, if you'll help me recriminalize adultry, I'll help you petition that public stoning be the method for it.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
Actually stoning isn't mentioned that often either in the Law.

But when ever a specific method of execution is mentioned for a citizen capital criminal who has violated a moral (not a symbolic or ceremonial) law, that method is always stoning.

Looking at it I never see God saying to put, for instance, a murderer to death by stoning. Evidently God leaves that up to the judge.

I don't think God left an issue as important as execution up to the imagination of sinful men. Look at what those methods have produced. On one extreme sinful man has invented torture and on the other extreme our own government gently and painlessly puts murderers to sleep. (If only we could all be blessed with such a peaceful departure from this earth.)

No, I don't think God left it up to the imagination of the judges. Rather I think God understood that the judges already read about God's stoning commands and did not need to be told every single time a new death penalty case arose what the method of execution should be. If God only told them once, that was enough.

The method of execution has no moral value behind it.

Oh? What is your response to the 7 points I raised to Bob Enyart about this?

Here they are again:

First: An issue that you bring up often yourself - relationships. The threat of broken relationships and peer pressure is a very powerful deterrent. 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.

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.

Third: Each pile of stones served as a continual reminder of the reality of God's judgment.

Forth: Public stoning forces citizens to face the reality of the ultimate civil sanction, execution, which in turn points to God's ultimate sanction at judgment day. Stoning also faithfully images the promised judgment against Satan: the crushing of his head by the promised Seed (Genesis 3:15).

Fifth: Because most people, including Christians, do not want to think about God's final judment, they prefer to assign to distant unknown executioners the grim task of carrying out God's judgment in private. This privatization of execution is immoral. It is itself criminal. It is unjust to the convicted criminal, and it is unjust to the surviving victims, who do not see God's justice done in public. The growth of impersonalism has been a problem for the West from the beginning. Even in the days of public executions, several centuries ago, the axeman wore a face mask. 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?

Seventh: This refusal by citizens to accept personal responsibility has led to the haters of God's law to become politically dominant. They have used the same kinds of arguments against capital punishment in general that embarrassed Christians had accepted in their rejection of public stoning. Step by step, society eliminates capital punishment and men's hatred of God's law is steadily manifested in modern civil law.

I tell you what, if you'll help me recriminalize adultry, I'll help you petition that public stoning be the method for it.

You've got a deal.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
And, when you really think about it, isn't using a gun just a very precise way of casting a stone at very fast speeds?

No, it is not because the public is not involved in the execution when professional executioners perform the deed.

Ah, but they did crucify their capital criminals, and nowhere do we see God's disapproval of this method. Certainly Jesus Himself could have said something about the injustice of this method of execution had He wanted to, no?

Silence is not the same thing as approval.

Stoning was given specifically to Israel.

Wrong. Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says, "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
But when ever a specific method of execution is mentioned for a citizen capital criminal who has violated a moral (not a symbolic or ceremonial) law, that method is always stoning.

Both times? I fail to see that as a mandate.

Further, for a murderer, God does not recommend stoning, but seems to indicate that you do to them, as they did to their victims (“an eye for an eye”). Your position seems to fall apart if even one counter example is allowed to stand.

Originally posted by Jefferson
I don't think God left an issue as important as execution up to the imagination of sinful men.

If God had felt that strongly about it, and only wanted murderers punished by stoning, He could have said that, and removed the speculation.

While I do think you have a stronger argument that I originally gave you credit for, I also see that God does leave important issues up to the imagination of sinful man. It seems to me that even certain crimes aren't even mentioned, but God trusts sinful men to discover them.

Again, I think it contrite to pin something as a command that is not mentioned as a command in the Bible. There are enough laws in the Bible without adding to them unneccessarily.

My other problem with your argument is that it bears no moral value.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Look at what those methods have produced. On one extreme sinful man has invented torture and on the other extreme our own government gently and painlessly puts murderers to sleep.

There are other, more valid, reasons against the extremes.

Originally posted by Jefferson
No, I don't think God left it up to the imagination of the judges. Rather I think God understood that the judges already read about God's stoning commands and did not need to be told every single time a new death penalty case arose what the method of execution should be. If God only told them once, that was enough.

God wouldn't have had to tell them every time, he would have said one time "You can only execute with stoning". And then we could be debating whether that was a symbolic command, or whether all mankind in ulterior countries recognize it as a moral truth.

Further, God said in the case of murder, that you repay “eye for and eye”, which seems to generally speaks to a type of justice that executes in the same respect as the guilty murdered. It’s not concrete, I’ll admit, but it is as solid as anything you’ve put forth.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Oh? What is your response to the 7 points I raised to Bob Enyart about this?
Here they are again:

I responded to them indirectly the first time. You seem to be affirming that they have no moral value to them, but are symbolic in nature. I don’t even agree with your symbolism, but even if I did, that’s no cause to throw more bondage onto people, that executions can only be a specific way (especially when God fails to say that in the Bible).

 

[Brother Vinny]

Originally posted by Jefferson
Wrong. Deuteronomy 4:5-8 says, "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

You sure you're a dispensationalist, Jefferson?

A strong Acts 9 Dispensationalist would recognize that Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and Leviticus are all directions given explicitly to Israel. In God's plan for Israel, Gentile nations were to be blessed for their subservience to God's chosen nation.

But what of us in the Body of Christ? Where's the Israel we're supposed follow? It doesn't exist, because in the Body of Christ there is no Jew nor Gentile, and God is not currently using the nation of Israel as a standard for Gentile nations to follow. Since the laws of Israel are not ours to follow, our guidance for administration of the death penalty must come from outside Mosaic Law. We thus look to Noachidic (pertaining to Noah) Law for guidance; a great many of us are not descended from Abraham, but ALL of us are descended from Noah. Since Noachidic Law was given to all of man prior to the foundation of Israel, it stands to reason that any administration of the death penalty that involves the shedding of life's blood is right and just.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
. . . the laws of Israel are not ours to follow . . .

Then why did Paul write I Timothy 1:8-10? "But we know that the law is good if a man uses it lawfully, knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous one, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for homosexuals, for slave-traders, for liars, for perjurers, and anything else that is contrary to sound doctrine"

Since Noachidic Law was given to all of man prior to the foundation of Israel, it stands to reason that any administration of the death penalty that involves the shedding of life's blood is right and just.

The electric chair often does not involve the shedding of blood.

Since the laws of Israel are not ours to follow, our guidance for administration of the death penalty must come from outside Mosaic Law. We thus look to Noachidic (pertaining to Noah) Law for guidance;

There is only 1 moral law for all dispensations (though different ceremonial laws for different dispensations). Paul tells us the law was in operation before Sinai, when he says "for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses: (Romans 5:13-14). Before the law "came," the law was already in operation. The proof of this is that it was already dealing death to sinners. At Sinai, the law was given a definitive publication, but it was already operating in the world, and was already known to men.

In fact, Paul said, "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). In other words, the same law which came at Sinai was operating in the Garden. We can turn to passages in Genesis and in Exodus before Sinai and see that people knew the law before it was written down by Moses.

FIRST The laws of slavery were known and functioned in the life of Jacob and in the interaction between Moses and Pharaoh before the written law was given.

God's children could only be held as slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2). Pharaoh had broken this law. Moses' demand for Israelite freedom was grounded in this law, which was familiar to Pharaoh.

Pharaoh showed a knowledge of Exodus 21:4 before it was written when he said the men could leave, but not their families (Exodus 10:7-11). 21:4 says, "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone." From Pharaoh's viewpoint, it was he who had provided the wives and children of the Hebrew men, so he thought he had a legal claim to them. But Pharaoh was wrong because Jacob had brought his women, children, livestock, and servants with him when he settled in Egypt, and so the Hebrews were under the law of Exodus 21:3: "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the lord of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him."

God's yet unwritten law which was familiar to Pharaoh (because of Joseph's influence and because it underlay the common law of the Ancient Near East, also orders that when a slave is set free, he is to be given going-away gifts (Deuteronomy 15:12-16) to help him celebrate and to help him set up in business. God told the Hebrews to request (not "borrow") such presents from their neighbors (Exodus 3:22). Moses demanded such presents from Pharaoh (10:25). Those who give such presents are blessed by God (Deuteronomy 15:18), and the Egyptians knew this even before this law was written down by Moses after the Exodus. Another proof of this is that in Exodus 12:32, when Pharaoh gave his presents, he specifically asked for the Deuteronomy 15:18 blessing.

Obviously Pharaoh understood something about God's laws governing slavery before Moses wrote them down after the Exodus.

SECOND The law of evidence concerning torn beasts (Exodus 22:13) is referred to by Jacob way back in Genesis 31:39.

THIRD Exodus 21:1 and 24:3 call these laws "mishpatim," and Abraham is said to know the mishpatim way back in Genesis 18:19. Also, way back in Genesis 26:5, Abraham is said to have "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." This is surely more than the 10 commandments!

FORTH Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a young man who seduces a young girl to marry her. This law was clearly being followed to the letter way back in Genesis 34, which concerns the relations between Shechem and Dinah. Because Simeon and Levi broke the not-yet-written law, Jacob condemned their actions. (Genesis 49:5-7).

Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral laws against murder and rape are.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

Originally posted by Jefferson
The electric chair often does not involve the shedding of blood.

There is blood though it is incidental, just as the blood in stoning is.

Originally posted by Jefferson
Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral law against murder is.

While I agree with most of what you said about there being 1 moral law and it was known long before Moses, but I quote this statement because it is obviously false. I believe it is beginning to become obvious that your position is tenuous and so you are having to make wild statement to back yourself.

Now, if we are to judge the idea of stoning being the only form of execution, as a moral truth, then you need to address every passage Bob Enyart gave to you. Because in these passages, the “moral truth” is profaned!

Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

So did the Levites sin? Since you believe the execution by stoning to be only moral way, then God was recommending immorality? Only Symbolic laws can be removed as such. Moral truths stand through time (you said that too!). They stand whether there is open war, or peace. Moral truths remain no matter what the situation. You never have to abandon a moral truth in order to uphold another moral truth. So if it was okay for the Levites to kill by the sword, then it is clear that the method of execution is not a moral issue. At best it is symbolic.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Jefferson said,

The electric chair often does not involve the shedding of blood.

And nowhere did I call the electric chair a just form of punishment. This is a straw man, Jefferson-- a fallacy employed by those who know their arguments are weak.

. . . Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral laws against murder and rape are.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove this. I do not believe you have done this.

As horrid as it is, I believe crucifixion is another just form of execution. This is important to my soteriology. Jesus Christ took upon Himself the punishment which rightfully should have been mine to receive.

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by ApologeticJedi
Exodus 32:27-28 "Thus says the LORD God of Israel: 'Let every man put his sword on his side, …and let every man kill his brother, every man his companion, and every man his neighbor.' " So the sons of Levi did according to the word of Moses. And about three thousand men of the people fell that day.

So did the Levites sin? Since you believe the execution by stoning to be only moral way, then God was recommending immorality? Only Symbolic laws can be removed as such. Moral truths stand through time (you said that too!).

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.
  
• Our courts put capital criminals in electric chairs but state laws do not allow them to be executed with bullets.
  
• Military executions often are carried out by firing squad. They are not allowed to execute via lethal injection.
  
• etc., etc., etc.

God's allowable methods of killing also vary depending on the circumstances (ceremonial violations vrs. war vrs. criminal acts by citizens, etc.)

If you disagree with this then show me just one specific case in the Old Testament where a citizen (not a soldier in war) murdered or raped or kidnapped or committed a homosexual act, etc. (all NONceremonial violations) and the method of execution was clearly NOT stoning.

Just one case. It's a big book with tons of examples. Surely if you are right then there will be just ONE example to prove your case. If not, then what does that tell you?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
And nowhere did I call the electric chair a just form of punishment.

I agree with you. But Bob Enyart thinks it IS a just form of punishment.

The burden of proof is upon you to prove this. I do not believe you have done this.

Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have law do perform by nature the things of the law, these, not having law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves."

As horrid as it is, I believe crucifixion is another just form of execution.

Crucifixion is torture. The right to inflict torture on anyone is an exclusive prerogative of God in His office of Eternal Judge, which is why men are not supposed to imitate him in this practice. This is the theological basis of civil laws against torture, which was constantly denied in Christian Europe for centuries until the era of the French Revolution. It is also why God-denying, self-consistent Marxist societies use torture as a normal implement of social policy: they see the State as the agent of the Communist Party as having replaced God, including His office as Judge.

 

[Brother Vinny]

Romans 2:14-15: "For when Gentiles who do not have law do perform by nature the things of the law, these, not having law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending themselves."

This is a pretty apt summation of moral law. You know what, Jefferson? Stoning isn't written, so far as I can tell, on my heart. While I can determine-- using only my own reason-- that murderers should be put to death (it just makes inherent sense), and while it makes just as much sense that the murderer's death should be violent, there's nothing in my conscience that declares what the mode of execution should be.

Crucifixion is torture.

And stoning isn't?!? Stoning may be more to-the-point than crucifixion, but I'd say any method of execution that is a) extremely painful, and b) is prolonged enough to allow the convicted to get a few words in (such as Stephen's prayer), could be considered torture.

And just where do you get your bias against torture? Jesus used the earthly example of a master handing over his unforgiving servant to torturers as a parable illustrating His heavenly Father (see Matthew 18:21-35, especially verses 33-35). Surely Jesus would not have used the picture of an unjust master to illustrate God's justice?

The right to inflict torture on anyone is an exclusive prerogative of God in His office of Eternal Judge, which is why men are not supposed to imitate him in this practice.

This right, just as the right to judge, has apparently been delegated (see the passsage in Matthew cited above).

This is the theological basis of civil laws against torture, which was constantly denied in Christian Europe for centuries until the era of the French Revolution. It is also why God-denying, self-consistent Marxist societies use torture as a normal implement of social policy: they see the State as the agent of the Communist Party as having replaced God, including His office as Judge.

The misuse of a tool does not negate the proper usage of that tool. Torture has its place. The Romans were not using the torture of crucifixion to exact military secrets from spies. That may have been a fringe benefit in some cases, but the end sought by crucifixion was death.

So, Jefferson, all this begs a question. Whenever I see Jesus depicted as hanging on the cross, one of the thoughts that inevitably come to mind is, "It should've been me up on that cross, not Him." Does your view necessitate the thought, "No one should've been up there"?

 

[Jefferson]

Originally posted by Paul DeYonghe
[Regarding crucifixion being torture] And stoning isn't?!?

No. Stoning is painful but it's over too quickly to be considered torture. Likewise, I do not consider the electric chair to be torture because it is over too quickly.

Stoning may be more to-the-point than crucifixion, but I'd say any method of execution that is a) extremely painful, and b) is prolonged enough to allow the convicted to get a few words in (such as Stephen's prayer), could be considered torture.

Communist nations that used torture disagree with you. They didn't just want their captives to "get a few words in." Their true tortures lasted for days. Stoning would last for less than a minute.

Jesus used the earthly example of a master handing over his unforgiving servant to torturers as a parable illustrating His heavenly Father (see Matthew 18:21-35, especially verses 33-35). Surely Jesus would not have used the picture of an unjust master to illustrate God's justice?

First of all, the verse does not use the word "tormentors" but rather "the tormentors" meaning the reader should know based on the context which tormentors he was referring to. The answer is found just 4 verses earlier (verse 30) when we learn that the torment is prison, not physical torture like has occurred in POW camps.

Secondly, it was a parable, not a command by God to governing authorities on the proper method of punishment. Old Testament law did not allow imprisonment. Prison is analogous to the final judgment. There is no restitution to victims by those in hell or in the lake of fire. There is permanent restitution to God, but not to man. In this sense, hell is outside history and the process of restitution and restoration. Hell is described as a debtors prison in this parable. Clearly, this parable is a picture of Christ's payment of His people's ethical debts to God, as their kinsman redeemer. This substitute payment is available to mankind only in history. Therefore, the prison is illegitimate because it blocks the opportunities for repayment to victims.

So, Jefferson, all this begs a question. Whenever I see Jesus depicted as hanging on the cross, one of the thoughts that inevitably come to mind is, "It should've been me up on that cross, not Him." Does your view necessitate the thought, "No one should've been up there"?

Yes. No one should have been up there. God has delegated to human governments the right to kill capital criminals, not to torture them for hour after hour, even day after day.

 

[ddevonb]

Re: My debate with Bob Enyart

Originally posted by Jefferson

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.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

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.

These passages clearly talk about rulers not policeman. The ruler bears the sword to minister God's wrath... to execute.
This passage is not talking about carrying a sword for protection as a policeman carries a gun.

 

[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.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.
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.
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.

 

[ApologeticJedi]

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. In general, Police are not allowed to come into a suspect’s home and shoot them. However there are many situations where police are given the leverage to do just that.

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. This isn't a situation where they were gunning down a fleeing suspect, or stopping someone in the midst of a crime, or any other situation where deadly force is called for by police.

Originally posted by Jefferson
[*] Our courts put capital criminals in electric chairs but state laws do not allow them to be executed with bullets.

[*] Military executions often are carried out by firing squad. They are not allowed to execute via lethal injection.
[*] etc., etc., etc.
[/list]

While the first was actually a good point, these are all bad points. The difference is the first dealt with moral truths (and morality is germane to the discussion on whether or not your “stoning only” is a moral issue), these are matter of protocol, not issue involving morality.

Originally posted by Jefferson
God's allowable methods of killing also vary depending on the circumstances (ceremonial violations vrs. war vrs. criminal acts by citizens, etc.)

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

Originally posted by Jefferson
If you disagree with this then show me just one specific case in the Old Testament where a citizen (not a soldier in war) murdered or raped or kidnapped or committed a homosexual act, etc. (all NONceremonial violations) and the method of execution was clearly NOT stoning.

Just one case. It's a big book with tons of examples. Surely if you are right then there will be just ONE example to prove your case. If not, then what does that tell you?

No that’s another bad argument. 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!??

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 .... nothing, because an argument of omission is a bad arguement.

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?

I think your first argument was very good. It is a shame you didn’t stick with that and try to find some circumstance that would invoke a different moral truth that would have excused the Levitical priests from not stoning.