No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Clete]

Was it morally right (then) to kill someone for cursing their parents?

Is it your intention to suggest that God is unjust?

First of all, it's not a matter of simply killing people. It's a public, government sanctioned, execution of a convicted capital criminal.

And yes, of course it was morally right to execute those whom God said should not remain alive.

Ezekiel 13:19 And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live,....​

And finally, as I have already explained multiple times (I think to you), this law did not apply to small children or smart mouthed teenagers. This law had to do with adults who were drunkards and went around defaming their parents publicly. Further, there are good arguments to suggest that this law was symbolic and had to do with Israel's relationship with THE Father. This law was paralleled when Israel rejected the risen Messiah. In response God "cut them off" because of their rebellion (Romans 9). I've heard arguments on both sides though and while I do fall on the side that says that this law would not have just application outside of Israel's covenant with God, I wouldn't be dogmatic about it either way when discussing these things theoretically.

Clete

 

[Clete]

Regarding Matthew 5:17-18, it means that Jesus Christ came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies (Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53). Matthew 5:17-18 cannot mean that Jesus came not to abolish the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, for He did come to do that, on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19). Also, Matthew 5:17-18 cannot mean that Jesus came to fulfill the letter of all of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments, for He could not possibly have done that. For example, some of those commandments applied only to women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:4-8), or to wives suspected of adultery by their husbands (Numbers 5:19-31).

As the Christ (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-46), the mediator of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-9), Jesus had the divine authority to contradict the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments and replace them with His own, even better, New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:38-44, Matthew 19:7-9, John 8:5-7), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:2). And as the Christ, Jesus had the divine authority to allow His disciples to break the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Matthew 12:1-8).

No.

This is almost entirely wrong.

The only portions of the Mosaic Law that were not applicable too and observed by the Twelve apostles AFTER Calvary and after the Resurrection and after Pentecost (A Jewish feast/sabbath day by the way), were those laws dealing with sacrifices and the priesthood, et. al. (See Hebrews - the whole book). Aside from those things, the Twelve obeyed Moses. They circumcised their children, avoided unclean foods, observed the sabbath, tithed, etc, etc, etc just as Christ did and taught them to do.

Your confusion has to do with having missed the fact that when Israel officially rejected their risen Messiah, God cut them off and turned instead to the Gentiles through Paul, the singular Apostle to the Body of Christ, who did not receive "his gospel" from man, nor was he taught it but rather it was given to him by direct divine revelation (Galatians 1:12). Without the Pauline epistles, you would live your Christian life much the same way that modern Messianic Jews do (they almost entirely ignore Paul, by the way) and would refuse to work on Saturday's and would avoid unclean foods, etc.

In short, you read both the Pauline epistles as well as the rest of the New Testament as though it's a collection of letters that were all written to the same group of believers under the same dispensational rules. The result is contradiction and confusion.

Jesus did not violate the Mosaic Law. Had He done so, He could not have died for the sins of the world because He'd have had His own sin debt to pay! (i.e. Your doctrine puts the whole of the Christian faith in jeopardy.)

Further, the Mosaic Law cannot be improved upon with "even better" commandments in the first place (Galatians 3:21). Jesus flat out did not improve the law, He crucified it, removed it out of the way (Colossians 2:14).

Clete

 

[ok doser]

Note that imprisonment, keeping legal offenders "in ward" (Leviticus 24:12, Numbers 15:34), was practiced during the time of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.

not as a punishment

 

[glassjester]

Is it your intention to suggest that God is unjust?

No!

And yes, of course it was morally right to execute those whom God said should not remain alive.

Ok. So then, let's apply your previous statement to this one.

Earlier, you said:

That which was morally right then, remains morally right today.

You say it was morally right to execute people for cursing their parents, in the OT. Therefore it is morally right today to execute people for cursing their parents. Yes?

 

[glassjester]

Read the law. If it was followed, where would the immorality be?

Or are you one of these guys who thinks they are above the law?

Then is it morally right today to execute people for cursing their parents?

 

[Stripe]

Then is it morally right today to execute people for cursing their parents?

Read the law.

 

[Clete]

No!




Ok. So then, let's apply your previous statement to this one.

Earlier, you said:


You say it was morally right to execute people for cursing their parents, in the OT. Therefore it is morally right today to execute people for cursing their parents. Yes?

So did you intentionally make your question misleading?

Yes, of course you did. The proof is the fact that you ignored the whole rest of my response which already addresses your ridiculous “trap”.

Good bye!

I don’t discuss complex issues with dishonest jerks.

 

[glassjester]

So did you intentionally make your question misleading?

Yes, of course you did. The proof is the fact that you ignored the whole rest of my response which already addresses your ridiculous “trap”.

Good bye!

I don’t discuss complex issues with dishonest jerks.

I haven't been dishonest at all.

You said what was morally right then, is morally right now. You also said it was morally right to put to death those who cursed their parents (then), but... not now?

What's changed? Isn't it still immoral to curse one's parents? Or was that never immoral to begin with?

You've said that the punishment for a "moral based crime" should remain the same today, as dictated in the OT. But you've given no logical reason for this, you've merely asserted it. Why should the punishment be exactly the same now as it was for a specific time and place, then?

 

[Clete]

I haven't been dishonest at all.

You said what was morally right then, is morally right now. You also said it was morally right to put to death those who cursed their parents (then), but... not now?

As I said, I explained in my post which you have now ignored twice.

Dishonest.

What's changed? Isn't it still immoral to curse one's parents? Or was that never immoral to begin with?

I explained in my original answer. I'm not going to do it again.

You've said that the punishment for a "moral based crime" should remain the same today, as dictated in the OT. But you've given no logical reason for this, you've merely asserted it.

This is not only false, it an intentional lie. I used you own premise which you have no used to spring what you want to pretend is a trap by ignoring the explanation given in my answer.

Why should the punishment be exactly the same now as it was for a specific time and place, then?

This has been explain to you on more than one occassion. It isn't my fault that you willfully ignore it.

Don't bother responding to me any further. I won't read it.

:wave2:

 

[glassjester]

You've said that the punishment for a "moral based crime" should remain the same today, as dictated in the OT. But you've given no logical reason for this, you've merely asserted it.

This is not only false, it an intentional lie.

Ok, let's look back.

I asked...

So how do you know that specific penalties for specific crimes were intended for every nation, and not just for Israel?

You answered...

The punishment for a moral based crime is just as valid as is the crime itself.

That's not an explanation. It's just an assertion. I ask, "How do you know the punishments should be exactly the same today?" and your answer boils down to, "because they are."

 

[bibleverse2]

. . . the Twelve obeyed Moses. They circumcised their children . . .

Note that whether or not someone is physically circumcised does not matter to Christians (Colossians 3:11, Galatians 6:15, Galatians 5:6). Instead, the only circumcision that matters is the spiritual circumcision (Philippians 3:3) of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

If Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, get physically circumcised thinking that they have to (Acts 15:1,5) because it was commanded to Abraham (Genesis 17:10) and was part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 12:3), then Christ will profit them nothing (Galatians 5:2). They have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) and placed themselves under the curse of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26).

Under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, physical circumcision was required for a male, whether Jew or Gentile, whether infant or adult, to become part of Israel (Exodus 12:48). But under the New Covenant, physical circumcision is not required for a Jew or Gentile to become part of Israel. All that is required is faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29). This is one of the ways in which the New Covenant is not according to the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32). The letter of the entire Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on Jesus' Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

Also, unlike the abolished physical circumcision of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29) makes no distinction between males and females (Galatians 3:28-29).

Also, under the New Covenant, a non-Christian, genetic Jew, even though he may be physically circumcised, he is spiritually uncircumcised (Acts 7:51), and so spiritually is not a Jew (Romans 2:28-29, Revelation 2:9b, Revelation 3:9). He has been broken off in spirit from the good olive tree of Israel, the genetic Jews' own tree (Romans 11:20,24). Yet he will be grafted in again if he comes into faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:23-32), who is Himself a Jew (John 4:9,22, Luke 2:21).

 

[Jacob]

Note that whether or not someone is physically circumcised does not matter to Christians (Colossians 3:11, Galatians 6:15, Galatians 5:6). Instead, the only circumcision that matters is the spiritual circumcision (Philippians 3:3) of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13).

If Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, get physically circumcised thinking that they have to (Acts 15:1,5) because it was commanded to Abraham (Genesis 17:10) and was part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Leviticus 12:3), then Christ will profit them nothing (Galatians 5:2). They have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4) and placed themselves under the curse of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Galatians 3:10, Deuteronomy 27:26).

Under the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, physical circumcision was required for a male, whether Jew or Gentile, whether infant or adult, to become part of Israel (Exodus 12:48). But under the New Covenant, physical circumcision is not required for a Jew or Gentile to become part of Israel. All that is required is faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29). This is one of the ways in which the New Covenant is not according to the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:32). The letter of the entire Old Covenant Mosaic law was abolished on Jesus' Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6).

Also, unlike the abolished physical circumcision of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the spiritual circumcision of the New Covenant of Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:11-13, Philippians 3:3, Romans 2:29) makes no distinction between males and females (Galatians 3:28-29).

Also, under the New Covenant, a non-Christian, genetic Jew, even though he may be physically circumcised, he is spiritually uncircumcised (Acts 7:51), and so spiritually is not a Jew (Romans 2:28-29, Revelation 2:9b, Revelation 3:9). He has been broken off in spirit from the good olive tree of Israel, the genetic Jews' own tree (Romans 11:20,24). Yet he will be grafted in again if he comes into faith in Jesus Christ (Romans 11:23-32), who is Himself a Jew (John 4:9,22, Luke 2:21).

Is not the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah?

 

[bibleverse2]

. . . Jesus flat out did not improve the law . . .

Note that He did improve the law (Hebrews 8:6-7), in the sense that He shows in the Sermon on the Mount how His New Covenant, Christian commandments are even stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover that their newlywed wife is not a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).

Jesus Christ also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while His New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it is also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), while Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required that anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), while Jesus allowed His disciples to work on the sabbath, and said that they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus Himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).

So in obeying Jesus Christ's New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and also exceed in righteousness, those who mistakenly try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

 

[bibleverse2]

Is not the new covenant for the house of Israel and the house of Judah?

Yes (Jeremiah 31:31-34), but note that just as the Gentile Ruth (a genetic forbear of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, Luke 3:23-32) could say to the Israelite Naomi: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16), so Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29).

That is, all Jews in the Church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all Gentiles in the Church have been grafted by God into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29), and so have been grafted by God into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire Church is the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the Church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15) which God has made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of Gentile Christians being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the Church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A Gentile Christian can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into by God, and he will receive an answer if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22) without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).

Also, all those in the Church, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

 

[Jacob]

Yes (Jeremiah 31:31-34), but note that just as the Gentile Ruth (a genetic forbear of Israel's Messiah: Matthew 1:5-16, Luke 3:23-32) could say to the Israelite Naomi: "thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God" (Ruth 1:16), so Gentiles in the Church have been grafted into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29).

That is, all Jews in the Church remain members of whichever tribe of Israel they were born into (Romans 11:1, Acts 4:36). And all Gentiles in the Church have been grafted by God into Israel (Romans 11:17,24, Ephesians 2:12,19, Galatians 3:29), and so have been grafted by God into its various tribes (cf. Ezekiel 47:21-23). So the entire Church is the twelve tribes of Israel (Revelation 21:9,12; 1 Peter 2:9-10). This is necessary, for all those in the Church are saved only by the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28; 1 Corinthians 11:25; 2 Corinthians 3:6, Hebrews 9:15) which God has made only with Israel (Jeremiah 31:31-34, John 4:22b). John 10:16 refers to the "other sheep" of Gentile Christians being brought into "this fold" of Israel, which is the "one fold" of the Church (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:4-6, Revelation 21:9,12). A Gentile Christian can pray and ask which tribe of Israel he has been grafted into by God, and he will receive an answer if he asks in faith (cf. Matthew 21:22) without any wavering (cf. James 1:6-7).

Also, all those in the Church, whether Jews (Acts 22:3) or Gentiles (Romans 16:4b), have become spiritually-circumcised Jews if they have undergone the spiritual circumcision of water-immersion (burial) baptism into Jesus Christ (Romans 2:29, Philippians 3:3, Colossians 2:11-13).

I believe that I am of the tribe of Levi by choice.

 

[Jacob]

Note that He did improve the law (Hebrews 8:6-7), in the sense that He shows in the Sermon on the Mount how His New Covenant, Christian commandments are even stricter than the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade murder (Matthew 5:21, Exodus 20:13), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even calling people names (Matthew 5:22). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law forbade adultery (Matthew 5:27, Exodus 20:14), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids even looking at another woman with lust (Matthew 5:28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law permitted divorce and remarriage (Matthew 5:31, Deuteronomy 24:1-2), while Jesus' New Covenant law forbids it (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18), except for a single exemption granted only to husbands who discover that their newlywed wife is not a virgin, but had committed fornication (Matthew 19:9).

Jesus Christ also shows in the Sermon on the Mount that while His New Covenant, Christian law is stricter than the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, at the same time it is also more merciful. For the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required taking an eye for an eye (Matthew 5:38, Deuteronomy 19:21), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires turning the other cheek (Matthew 5:39). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required hatred for one's enemies (Matthew 5:43, Deuteronomy 23:6), while Jesus' New Covenant law requires love for one's enemies (Matthew 5:44). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, the ministration of death (2 Corinthians 3:7), required, for example, that adulterers be put to death (Leviticus 20:10), while Jesus showed mercy to the woman caught in adultery (John 8:4-11). And, for another example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required that anyone who does any work on the sabbath is to be put to death (Exodus 31:14, Numbers 15:32-36), while Jesus allowed His disciples to work on the sabbath, and said that they were guiltless (Matthew 12:1-8), just as Jesus Himself worked on the sabbath (John 5:17-18).

So in obeying Jesus Christ's New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29, John 14:15; 1 Corinthians 14:37), Christians, whether Jews or Gentiles, are both more merciful and loving, and also exceed in righteousness, those who mistakenly try to keep the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48, Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19).

What if it is not more strict but is more merciful? Perhaps your new covenant law is simply the Law taught correctly.

 

[bibleverse2]

Perhaps your new covenant law is simply the Law taught correctly.

No, it's a new law/covenant, for:

Hebrews 8:6 . . . now hath [Jesus Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

 

[Jacob]

No, it's a new law/covenant, for:

Hebrews 8:6 . . . now hath [Jesus Christ] obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill. The new covenant not being like the old, was additional. His body and blood.

 

[bibleverse2]

Jesus did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets but to fulfill.

See post #140 above.

The new covenant not being like the old, was additional. His body and blood.

It also contradicted the old in some ways. See again post #153 above.

 

[Jacob]

See post #140 above.



It also contradicted the old in some ways. See again post #153 above.

Jesus was hardly anti Law. He observed and taught it.