However, they don’t have to die at all, if one imitates Jesus’s example of mercy in a death penalty case where it would’ve been justice to kill. By doing that, the one shown mercy has the opportunity to reach repentance, holiness, and perfection this life, as they are commanded to.
I haven’t read it, but apparently in his book ‘By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed’, Edward Feser makes the argument (among others) that while no known official studies have been conducted on the matter, there is indeed evidence of high levels of repentance among those about to receive capital punishment, that is never observably expressed by many of those who simply live out their lives in a prison cell and die there of old age.
Personally it seems to resonate with me that it would be more merciful to execute me (the foreknowledge of which would concentrate my mind on my own dignity, character, and who I’m about to be for eternity) than to lock me in a box for life (wherein I might stubbornly cling to my resentments, accusations of others, putting off forever until tomorrow the internal change of heart needed to face the eternity I don’t have any specific reason to think is coming soon). I imagine I’d be much more likely to “repent with sincerity” if my mind was focused by the reality of a death sentence, than if my mind was left lazy and clouded by the idle speculation that there’s always time to repent tomorrow.
It seems to me that others have provided ample evidence that Jesus was not understood by his disciples to be teaching that the death penalty ought not to be legal, nor that it is never a merciful act. Others have also discussed the context (historical and specific) of the case you’re citing, and have given reasons why it may not be representative of all cases and the moral principles at play in them.
I never said Jesus taught the death penalty was wrong, but its not mercy, rather justice when its just. Jesus commanded we be merciful towards our brethren, just as our Father in Heaven is merciful to us (Lk. 6:36). And, in a death penalty case where it would’ve been justice to kill He chose mercy (Jn. 8:1-11). When one kills another, whether justly, or unjustly, they are robbed of the opportunity to reach repentance, holiness, and perfection in this life, as they are commanded to. Patient mercy gives souls time to recover and fortify themselves. Not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.
This begs the question, offering your conclusion then using it as if it’s a reason supporting your conclusion. Exactly what’s being debated here is (in part) whether the death penalty robs a person of the opportunity to reach repentance, holiness, and earthly perfection – or whether it mercifully accelerates and facilitates a person’s path to repentance, holiness, and earthly perfection prior to death.
Lunam_Meam:
- I’m not sure it’s indisputable that “it would’ve been justice” to kill the woman who was arguably entrapped into sin by men trying to trap Jesus. Additionally, evidence seems to suggest that stoning had actually been effectively abolished by this time, and when it occurred it wasn’t a matter of formal legal ‘justice’. It was illicit.
- We all, eventually, rise again to eternal life, or eternal death. Jesus is God. Scripture and Catholic teaching seem pretty definitive that Jesus will allow some to spend eternity in the hell of death. What Jesus shows us in this case is that he can intervene. In a spiritual way, he can forgive our sins (because he is God). It seems to me that if one adopts the position that the comparatively minor situation of a temporal death penalty is inconsistent with God’s merciful nature… how will one avoid eventually falling into the heresy of universalism and believing that the eternal death penalty is inconsistent with God’s merciful nature?
Jesus wants us to reach repentance, holiness, and perfection in this life, but the death penalty robs one of the opportunity to do so. Patient mercy gives souls time to recover and fortify themselves. Not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.
That’s a conclusion, not an argument leading to a conclusion. You’ll never persuade anyone by just repeating your conclusions over and over again.
Jesus taught in word and deed of charity, which includes mercy, even in a death penalty case where its justice to kill, and He wants us to reach sincere repentance, holiness, and perfection in this life. Patient mercy gives souls time to recover and fortify themselves. Not every soul recovers instantaneously from its wounds. Some do so by successive stages, which are often slow, and subject to relapse.Lunam_Meam:
That’s a conclusion, not an argument leading to a conclusion.
I’ve been presenting reasons and explanations, so I don’t know what you’re talking about, and I repeat myself when necessary. I have counter-arguments out there currently unaddressed, including by you.Lunam_Meam:
You seem convinced that the conclusions you’ve arrived at are self-evident, sufficiently thought through, and lack compelling counter-argument. When others offer compelling counter-argument, you seem to fall back on repetitively restating your conclusions over and over again.
That’s the point of the story: from their perspective, it isn’t about the woman at all; it’s about using her to trap Jesus. And, from Jesus’ perspective, it’s all about the woman.
No, because that’s how Jesus is sidestepping the trap. He isn’t addressing the Law (which is what they want Him to do). Instead, he’s talking to those who are purported ‘witnesses’. In the law, the first to throw the stones are the witnesses themselves.
Not saying that; it’s you who keeps making that interpretation of my claim. I am saying that, if they bring an adulteress, it doesn’t make any sense unless they also bring an adulterer. Can’t have one without the other!
Right. But it was illegal, under Roman law. (That’s the other side of the trap they’re trying to set for Jesus. If he says, “sure, stone her”, then they say “a-ha! he’s committing a crime against the emperor!”)
You’ve outdone the Protestants. Sola Scriptura at least includes all of Scripture; you’ve discarded everything except the four gospels.
Your comment in no way describes what those passages actually say. Paul said he did nothing that “deserved” the death penalty. He also acknowledged that anyone who set aside Mosaic Law “dies without mercy”. Revelations commands: “if any man shall kill with the sword, with the sword must he be killed.”
Even your own citation doesn’t support this claim. What it says is that they “contain some things which are incomplete and temporary”, and “nevertheless show us true divine pedagogy.” Your reading would have even the ten commandments be only temporary. This ought to suggest your position is not as stable as you think. Given that divine teaching on capital punishment was given in the covenant with Noah, which will last until the end of time, it’s pretty clear that “incomplete and temporary” are inapplicable here.
It’s not the point of the story, or the perspective of those in it, that I was making a comment on. I was addressing the fact that you, as a reader of the story, have changed what you interpret to be the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ intentions, and plans against Jesus—essentially changing your argument against why this isn’t a story about Jesus using mercy over justice—after every counter-argument I present. So, I don’t know why you decided to say this at all…
You’ve repeatedly claimed if the adulteress had been killed, then it would’ve been illegal, because of the adulterer’s lack of presence beside her at her sentencing, according to your interpretation of the Law on adultery. That means you’re essentially arguing the adulterer had to be sentenced, and put to death at the same time/location as the adulteress.
Jesus confirmed the Law on adulterers by referencing Deut. 17:6-7 and 19:15-16 (see Jn. 8:7). So, He did address it, which is what you argue the Pharisees and Sadducees wanted Him to do, thus they could have, and should have accused Him of not knowing it, or acting against the Roman Law, because you also essentially argue the adulterer and adulteress must be judged, and put to death at the same time/location for the Law on adulterers to apply, as well as that the Romans didn’t allow stoning, yet they didn’t accuse. Therefore, your arguments fail.
My point here is that stoning happened at the time, whether legal or not. And, it doesn’t seem clear when the Romans took the right to capital punishment from the Jewish religious leaders before 70 AD. But, even when the Roman Prelate in control of a province has taken the right away, they just need the Roman’s approval to carry out the punishment, so even saying they were legally forbidden to sentence someone to death isn’t entirely accurate. There still seems to be plenty of disagreement on the specifics, but it did still happen, and happened enough for calling it “abolished” to be an overstatement."Lunam_Meam:
Right. But it was illegal, under Roman law.
No, of course not. Nothing has been discarded. But you’re not focusing on the issue that you raised:o_mlly:
You’ve outdone the Protestants. Sola Scriptura at least includes all of Scripture; you’ve discarded everything except the four gospels.
Do you have an argument that renders Pope Francis’ claim to be false?
? If your citation indicated someone had done something that does deserve the death penalty then you’d have a point. Paul says just the opposite.
The theme of this section is “Recalling the Past”. The author contrasts the harshness of the Mosaic Law as an admonishment to those who would turn their back on Christ. Recalling the harshness of the Mosaic Law does not constitute an affirmation of the death penalty.
No, Revelation 13:10 acknowledges that Christians who refuse to worship the emperor will be put to death.
Nonsense. The reference most certainly excludes the Ten Commandments as “incomplete and temporary”.
Yes, Gen 9:6 stands. As the Old is revealed in the New, we are looking for affirmation of that OT command in the NT. Christ makes reference to one death penalty Mosaic Law in rebuking the Pharisees in Mat 15:4-6. However, Christ then proceeds to debunk the Mosaic Laws at least in reference to its proscriptions regarding clean and unclean foods.
Hyperbole is not helpful in moving the conversation forward. Please stop.
It doesn’t. That’s the part that I’m denying in your argument. I get that this is why you think my claim is spurious… but that’s not what I’m claiming.
No: in essence, what Jesus did was to say, “OK… if you think you’re following the Law, then let the witnesses cast the first stone – but only if they’re without sin.” That’s not a “confirmation of the Law”.
Yeah… I’m not.
It doesn’t seem to you that this is the case? Do you recall John 18:26?
We seem to be arguing the same point, over and over, back and forth, and not making any progress here. So… have a nice day.
Jesus affirmed the power of capital punishment as given by God: Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above.“ (John 19:10-11)
Of course when Jesus was speaking of Pilate’s power coming from above, that is, from God, Jesus referred also to Himself.
Yes, Pilate (the lawful magistrate) has no authority to take Jesus’ life, only Jesus does.
I didn’t say it was false; I was pointing out the problems associated with accepting it as true, not least of which is that it would contradict other parts of Scripture.
Paul said he would accept the death penalty if he had done something to merit it.
Your explanation bears no relation to what was actually written - which in the NRSV is subtitled “A Call to Persevere”:
This is true. It was you who referred to the entire Old Testament as incomplete and temporary.
First, something once commanded should be considered in force unless explicitly rejected. “Not confirmed” cannot reasonably be considered rejected. Second, how realistic is it to believe that God would contradict himself by commanding something at one point and then turning around and prohibiting it?
Yes, he rebuked the Pharisees for not keeping the law that commanded death. His discarding of the dietary laws says nothing whatever about discarding the rest of the law.
You’ve claimed if the adulteress had been sentenced and killed, then it would’ve been illegal, because of the adulterer’s lack of presence beside her in both instances, according to your interpretation of the Law on adultery. That means you’re essentially arguing the adulterer had to be sentenced, and killed at the same time/location as the adulteress.
The Jewish authorities wanted Him to address the Law so as to accuse Him of what? You’ve claimed if His opinion was in favor of the death penalty, then He could’ve been accused of the following: