A Scriptural Death Penalty Case

[Lunam_Meam]

Do you recall John 18:26?

Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” The Jews answered him, “We do not have the right to execute anyone,”

Actually that’s Jn. 18:31.

Now, Pilate tried to save Jesus from the very beginning, and as the right to administer justice with regard to criminals was remitted, and reserved to Rome, Pilate tried to save Jesus by saying: “Judge Him according to your Law”. Hypocrites, the Jews refused to condemn Him. It’s true that Rome had the right of justice, but when, for instance, Stephen was stoned, Rome still ruled over Jerusalem, and not withstanding all that, they passed sentence, and had the capital sentence executed disregarding Rome. With regard to Jesus, Whom they hated, feared, and did not love—they would not believe He was the Messiah, but did not want to kill Him materially, in case He were—they acted in a different way, and accused Him of being an instigator against the power of Rome (we would say a “rebel”) in order to get Rome to judge Him. In their ill-famed court of justice, and several times in the three years of His ministry, they had accused Him of being a blasphemer, and false prophet, and as such He should have been stoned, or killed in any way. But, now, to avoid committing the crime materially, as by instinct they felt they would be punished for it, they made Rome do it, accusing Him of being a criminal, and a rebel.

 

[Maximian]

So, what you’re really asking for is Jesus to admit He’s more merciful and/or wiser than others.

That is such a distortion of Kapp’s point, it’s offensive.

By the way, Im sure Im not the only one who is getting very tired of the technique of people using arguments beginning “so what you are really asking/saying is…”

 

[Lunam_Meam]

That is such a distortion of Kapp’s point, it’s offensive

Jesus is who I was quoting, thus Jesus was who she was arguing against.

 

[Maximian]

There are two separate issues:

1. Does God grant states the right to execute criminals? Yes He does. Jesus said so to Pilate.
2. Does God demand that we be merciful? Yes He does. But that mercy is always linked to repentance, as Jesus indicated to the woman taken in adultery.

Furthermore even God’s mercy does not exclude the ultimate death penalty - Hell - for those who do not repent.

 

[Maximian]

Jesus is who I was quoting, thus Jesus was who she was arguing against.

You are quoting Our Lord to support your own interpretation of His words and claiming His authority for yourself.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Does God grant states the right to execute criminals? Yes He does. Jesus said so to Pilate.

I never said He didn’t, but He commands us, which includes those of state, to be charitable, which includes being merciful, towards our neighbor. Charity, or love, is the second greatest commandment (Mat. 22:39)

Does God demand that we be merciful? Yes He does. But that mercy is always linked to repentance, as Jesus indicated to the woman taken in adultery.

The adulterous woman wasn’t repentant, yet He still showed mercy towards her. By doing so He gave her time, and possibility to arrive at repentance and holiness, if she wished to reach them. 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.

Furthermore even God’s mercy does not exclude the ultimate death penalty - Hell - for those who do not repent.

I never said otherwise.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

You are quoting Our Lord to support your own interpretation of His words and claiming His authority for yourself.

I haven’t needed to interpret. His words speak for themselves.

 

[o_mlly]

I didn’t say it was false; I was pointing out the problems associated with accepting it as true …

? If a statement is not false then it is true.

Your explanation bears no relation to what was actually written - which in the NRSV is subtitled “ A Call to Persevere ”:

? It is not my explanation but the USCCB’s exegesis: Recalling the Past Hebrews, CHAPTER 10

I rather think your tortured interpretation is your own eisegesis of the text.

It was you who referred to the entire Old Testament as incomplete and temporary.

Once again, it was not me but a Dogmatic Constitution of the church that I cited. Which you have conveniently misquoted above once again resorting to hyperbolism.

This debate is an appeal to authority – the authority of the Catholic Church. I have cited documents from magisterial sources. You have offered the thinking of non-magisterial sources including your own.

Do you have citations from bishops in communion with their pope or from popes that support your contention that the state may use the death penalty when the state has bloodless means to protect society?

 

[Gorgias]

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.

No, that’s not “essentially” what I’m claiming. But I get it that you need to keep claiming this, since you don’t really have any other response to fall back on.

The Jewish authorities wanted Him to address the Law so as to accuse Him of what?

Either of not following the Mosaic Law, or of condoning an illegal act (within the context of the Roman authorities’ laws).

Just for giggles, let’s look at your “counter-examples”:

Unmerciful. Counter-argument: Rather just.

I don’t think I made the claim that the Pharisees were trying to cast Jesus as “unmerciful.” Nevertheless, “justice” is not a rebuttal to the accusation of “lack of mercy.”

Ignorant of the Mosaic Law on adultery, because the adulterer and adulteress must be sentenced, and/or put to death at the same time/location as the other. Counter-argument: The Law says those guilty of adultery are to be put to death, not at the same time/location as the other.

I don’t know how many times I have to say this. Let’s try it one more time: you’re the only one claiming some sort of simultaneity of sentencing / punishment. I’m merely making the (fairly obvious) claim that, if you want to assert ‘adultery’, you have to have both an adulterer and an adulteress. In the pericope, there’s no mention of the former, making the claim of adultery baseless. The only “simultaneity” that is required is in the act of adultery itself… and the Pharisees aren’t showing that this is, in fact, the case. So… no counter-example, since I’m not making the assertion you claim I am.

Committing a crime against Roman Law, since Rome had the right of justice. Counter-argument: Only if she had been killed.

Not a counter-argument, unless you’re trying to claim that Jesus would say “stone her”, and they would all laugh and respond, “except that we know we cannot do so legally; thanks, Jesus!”

Not following the Mosaic Law on adultery. Counter-argument: There’s no Law against showing mercy.

Not a counter-argument, since there is a law on punishing adultery, and it doesn’t include a provision for mercy. (Well… it actually does, if you take the time to look for it:

• act occurs in the city:
  • if she cries out: rape
  • if she doesn’t cry out: presumed consensual act
• if it takes place outside of the city:
  • presumed not to be adultery on her part

So, your counter-argument here fails on two counts: it’s wrong that there’s no ‘mercy’ clause, and it doesn’t meet the situation at hand.

 

[Gorgias]

In summary, He was not ignorant of the Law on adultery.

I never said He was. The Pharisees were certainly hoping to make that claim, though!

Actually that’s Jn. 18:31.

Whoops! Typo.

Still, you see the problem, right? In the very same Gospel in which you’re claiming that Jewish authorities had the ability to stone a person, we see the Jewish authorities admit that they do not. So… strike three?

By the way, Im sure Im not the only one who is getting very tired of the technique of people using arguments beginning “so what you are really asking/saying is…”

Maybe I should begin attempting to appreciate the technique. After all, if someone else knows my own claims better than I do, then perhaps I can just bow out of the argument and let them carry on both sides of the conversation!

 

[Lunam_Meam]

I don’t know how many times I have to say this. Let’s try it one more time: you’re the only one claiming some sort of simultaneity of sentencing/punishment.

I am claiming you are, because you said:

"If Jesus said “apply the punishment”, they could have said, “see! he doesn’t know the Law! The Law requires the presence of the man who committed adultery, and this Jesus guy condemned illegally!”

“…we merely have the Pharisees saying “we want to mete out punishment for a two-person sin, but we’re presenting one person to you” .

I don’t think I made the claim that the Pharisees were trying to cast Jesus as “unmerciful.” Nevertheless, “justice” is not a rebuttal to the accusation of “lack of mercy.”

You did make that claim: "…if He said “let her be punished”, which He essentially did, "then they’d say: “you’re not merciful!”. Again, my counter-argument is His reply was a just, not unmerciful act, because she was guilty.

Not a counter-argument, unless you’re trying to claim that Jesus would say “stone her”, and they would all laugh and respond, “except that we know we cannot do so legally; thanks, Jesus!”

You said: "if he says, “sure, stone her”, which He essentially did, "then they’d say: “a-ha! he’s committing a crime against the emperor!”. Again, my counter-argument is if Jesus had stoned her, thus contributed to her death, then He would’ve committed a crime against Roman Law, but He didn’t throw a stone, nor kill her in any way.

Not a counter-argument, since there is a law on punishing adultery, and it doesn’t include a provision for mercy. (Well… it actually does , if you take the time to look for it:

• act occurs in the city:
  • if she cries out: rape
  • if she doesn’t cry out: presumed consensual act
• if it takes place outside of the city:
  • presumed not to be adultery on her part

So, your counter-argument here fails on two counts: it’s wrong that there’s no ‘mercy’ clause, and it doesn’t meet the situation at hand.

No, your interpretation of my argument fails on two counts: (i) I said “there’s no Law against showing mercy”, thus the existence of a clause showing when to give mercy has nothing to do with it, and (ii) the situations where mercy is to be applied in those cases does not mean that mercy can only be shown in those specific circumstances. Therefore, even your argument where you said: "if Jesus said “let her go”, which He essentially did, “then they’d say: “you don’t follow the Mosaic law!”, fails.

1 of 2

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

Gorgias:

Do you recall John 18:26?

Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves, and judge him according to your law.” The Jews answered him, “We do not have the right to execute anyone,”

Actually that’s Jn. 18:31.

Whoops! Typo.

Now, Pilate tried to save Jesus from the very beginning, and as the right to administer justice with regard to criminals was remitted, and reserved to Rome, Pilate tried to save Jesus by saying: “Judge Him according to your Law”. Hypocrites, the Jews refused to condemn Him. It’s true that Rome had the right of justice, but when, for instance, Stephen was stoned, Rome still ruled over Jerusalem, and not withstanding all that, they passed sentence, and had the capital sentence executed disregarding Rome. With regard to Jesus, Whom they hated, feared, and did not love—they would not believe He was the Messiah, but did not want to kill Him materially, in case He were —they acted in a different way, and accused Him of being an instigator against the power of Rome (we would say a “rebel”) in order to get Rome to judge Him. In their ill-famed court of justice, and several times in the three years of His ministry, they had accused Him of being a blasphemer, and false prophet, and as such He should have been stoned, or killed in any way. But, now, to avoid committing the crime materially, as by instinct they felt they would be punished for it, they made Rome do it, accusing Him of being a criminal, and a rebel.

2 of 2

 

[Gorgias]

You said: "if he says, “sure, stone her”, which He essentially did, "then they’d say: “a-ha! he’s committing a crime against the emperor!”.

Again, I’m not saying that Jesus “essentially said ‘stone her’”. That’s your take, and I think it’s mistaken.

Again, my counter-argument is if Jesus had stoned her, thus contributed to her death, then He would’ve committed a crime against Roman Law, but He didn’t throw a stone, nor kill her in any way.

The crime, I’d say, would be held against those who authorized it. After all, the Pharisees’ response to Pilate in the Gospel of John was that they weren’t permitted to authorize a stoning.

No, your interpretation of my argument fails on two counts: (i) I said “there’s no Law against showing mercy”, thus the existence of a clause showing when to give mercy has nothing to do with it

Except that the positive law that the Pharisees are bringing up doesn’t say “yeah, you can just tell them, 'oh, you crazy kids… get outta here and stay outta trouble!”. So… no: the claim “there’s no Law against showing mercy” runs counter to the Law that actually exists and which the Pharisees are hoping Jesus will ignore, so that they’d have a case against Him.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

You said: "if he says, “sure, stone her”, which He essentially did, "then they’d say: “a-ha! he’s committing a crime against the emperor!”. Again, my counter-argument is if Jesus had stoned her, thus contributed to her death, then He would’ve committed a crime against Roman Law, but He didn’t throw a stone, nor kill her in any way.

The crime, I’d say, would be held against those who authorized it. After all, the Pharisees’ response to Pilate in the Gospel of John was that they weren’t permitted to authorize a stoning.

If that were true, then the Jews could’ve, and should’ve, accused Jesus of committing a crime against Rome, because He essentially said she should be stoned. However, their response to Pilate actually was: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”, meaning unlawful to kill, as Rome had the right of justice.

Lunam_Meam:

No, your interpretation of my argument fails on two counts: (i) I said “there’s no Law against showing mercy”, thus the existence of a clause showing when to give mercy has nothing to do with it, and (ii) the situations where mercy is to be applied in those cases does not mean that mercy can only be shown in those specific circumstances. Therefore, even your argument where you said: "if Jesus said “let her go”, which He essentially did, “then they’d say: “you don’t follow the Mosaic law!”, fails.

Except that the positive law that the Pharisees are bringing up doesn’t say “yeah, you can just tell them, 'oh, you crazy kids… get outta here and stay outta trouble!”. So… no: the claim “there’s no Law against showing mercy” runs counter to the Law that actually exists and which the Pharisees are hoping Jesus will ignore, so that they’d have a case against Him.

That existing Law doesn’t say: “If a man lie with another man’s wife, they shall both die, and cannot be shown mercy”, thus your interpretation of my argument, and your argument, as explained above, fails.

 

[Gorgias]

If that were true, then the Jews could’ve, and should’ve, accused Jesus of committing a crime against Rome, because He essentially said she should be stoned.

Except that He didn’t “essentially say she should be stoned.”

That existing Law doesn’t say: “If a man lie with another man’s wife, they shall both die, and cannot be shown mercy”, thus your interpretation of my argument, and your argument, as explained above, fails.

Ahh, but the Law doesn’t have a provision for mercy. So, you can’t say “it doesn’t say you can’t do this” and make a claim that this is the standard of positive law. It ain’t.

 

[Lunam_Meam]

Lunam_Meam:

You said: "if he says, “sure, stone her”, which He essentially did, "then they’d say: “a-ha! he’s committing a crime against the emperor!”. Again, my counter-argument is if Jesus had stoned her, thus contributed to her death, then He would’ve committed a crime against Roman Law, but He didn’t throw a stone, nor kill her in any way.

The crime, I’d say, would be held against those who authorized it. After all, the Pharisees’ response to Pilate in the Gospel of John was that they weren’t permitted to authorize a stoning.

If that were true, the Jews could’ve, and should’ve, accused Jesus of committing a crime against Rome, because He essentially said she should be stoned (Jn. 8:7). However, their response to Pilate actually was: “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death”, meaning unlawful to kill, not authorize a killing, as Rome had the right of justice.

Ahh, but the Law doesn’t have a provision for mercy. So, you can’t say “it doesn’t say you can’t do this” and make a claim that this is the standard of positive law. It ain’t.

I made no claim about the standards of positive law. The standard of Law means different things to different cultures, and when it comes to carrying out Mosaic Law, Jewish legal scholars, and authorities rely on different traditions, precedents, and examples, than a modern nation would. Regarding carrying out punishments under the Law, they often used God Himself as an example, seeing Him as the embodiment of justice, as well as mercy. And, with no strict rule about not showing mercy, the Jews could invoke God’s own mercy in cases as a reason to not execute certain criminals. Even the small provisions you pointed out give guidance on when execution is not called for in an adultery case. But, they are not written to be the only situations that call for mercy. If the Jews were not given the option to give mercy to the accused, then the Mosaic Laws would have probably killed many more people. How many rebellious, gluttonous sons would have been stoned?

 

[SanctusPeccator]

Now, Pilate tried to save Jesus from the very beginning, and as the right to administer justice with regard to criminals was remitted, and reserved to Rome, Pilate tried to save Jesus by saying: “Judge Him according to your Law”. Hypocrites, the Jews refused to condemn Him. It’s true that Rome had the right of justice, but when, for instance, Stephen was stoned, Rome still ruled over Jerusalem, and not withstanding all that, they passed sentence, and had the capital sentence executed disregarding Rome. With regard to Jesus, Whom they hated, feared, and did not love—they would not believe He was the Messiah, but did not want to kill Him materially, in case He were —they acted in a different way, and accused Him of being an instigator against the power of Rome (we would say a “rebel”) in order to get Rome to judge Him. In their ill-famed court of justice, and several times in the three years of His ministry, they had accused Him of being a blasphemer, and false prophet, and as such He should have been stoned, or killed in any way. But, now, to avoid committing the crime materially, as by instinct they felt they would be punished for it, they made Rome do it, accusing Him of being a criminal, and a rebel.

Except your posts ostensibly overlook the crucial fact the Sanhedrin were only able to disregard the Roman authorities because there was an apparent vacancy in the Imperial Prefecture of Judea during the death of Stephen? When Pontius Pilatus traveled to Rome to give an account for his questionable conduct pertaining to a large Samaritan assembly that had portentously gathered at the village of Tirathana near Mount Gerizim in 36, the Propraetorian Legate [of Augustus] for the Proconsular Imperial Province of Syria – Lucius Vitellius Veteris – consequently designated his subaltern Marcellus as an administrator locum tenens (ἐπιμελητής=epimelētēs) until the situation could be properly resolved at an official hearing convocated by the Emperor Tiberius Caesar Augustus (cf. Flavius Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.4.2 [§89]).
Since the Emperor alone could confer such high public offices associated with the cursus honorum – either the junior equestrian order of praesidial procurators or the senior promagistracies of senatorial legates – responsible for the administrative governance of their minor and major imperial provinces respectively, Marcellus would not have been delegated with the necessary magisterial imperium , which included exercising capital jurisdiction. Additionally, Vitellius is recorded as summarily deposing the High Priest Yônātān bēn-Ḥᵃnanyāh (Jonathan, son of Annas) after the latter had been in office for merely six months (cf. Antiquities of the Jews XVIII.5.3 [§123]). Although Josephus fails to volunteer the reason, it remains quite inexplicable unless Jonathan conspicuously committed some illegal act [without prior consent] that had evidently usurped the judicial powers – such as the ius gladii – exclusively reserved to the Roman prefect, eh?

 

[Ender]

? It is not my explanation but the USCCB’s exegesis: Recalling the Past https://bible.usccb.org/bible/hebrews/10

You: The author contrasts the harshness of the Mosaic Law as an admonishment to those who would turn their back on Christ.

Contrasts the harshness with…what? With how gentle the Lord is to sinners? The USCCB explanation goes on to say: For if violation of the Mosaic law could be punished by death, how much worse will be the punishment of those who have turned their backs on Christ…

“How much worse” doesn’t seem to make your point.

Recalling the harshness of the Mosaic Law does not constitute an affirmation of the death penalty.

If you require a flat statement in the new testament that “capital punishment is OK”, there obviously isn’t one. What you do find are any number of statements accepting its legitimacy. What else you will not find is anything rejecting its legitimacy or contradicting it. Given that it is undeniably sanctioned in the old testament and there is nothing directed against it in the new, it is difficult to understand how it could be contrary to the Gospels when it is clearly not contrary to Scripture as a whole.

Once again, it was not me but a Dogmatic Constitution of the church that I cited.

Your citations are not directly relevant and come with your own interpretation.

This debate is an appeal to authority – the authority of the Catholic Church.

Yes. Precisely what I have appealed to.

I have cited documents from magisterial sources. You have offered the thinking of non-magisterial sources including your own.

You have avoided the issue. Scripture and the sacred tradition of the church acknowledge the legitimacy of capital punishment. How is it not a problem that it is suddenly declared to be contrary to the Gospel? Do you not recognize the significance of this question?

 

[o_mlly]

“ How much worse ” doesn’t seem to make your point.

The USCCB’s point is that your Hebrews 10 citation recalls that in the past if one broke man’s law, the penalty was severe, i.e., temporal death. Recalling that the Mosaic Law was severe does not affirm the legitimacy of that law which was your point.

If you require a flat statement in the new testament that “ capital punishment is OK ”, there obviously isn’t one. What you do find are any number of statements accepting its legitimacy.

The Pope (and I) disagree. Merely acknowledging the way things were does not affirm that those ways were good. Jesus directly refutes the goodness of the Mosaic dietary laws.

What else you will not find is anything rejecting its legitimacy or contradicting it.

The Pope does not claim contradiction, only contrariness, i.e., that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel.

it is difficult to understand how it could be contrary to the Gospels when it is clearly not contrary to Scripture as a whole.

I disagree. The gospels can be analyzed as standalone teachings independent of the other books in the New and Old Testaments. When one does so, not only can one not find affirmation of the death penalty but one finds the teachings are opposite to the principles one usually cites as justifying the death penalty, e.g., justice and vengeance. We know that things which are contrary cannot both be true but both can be wrong. We know the gospel is true.

Ought we to give primacy to the gospels as it relates to the death penalty? It appears the magisterium, the official teaching office of the Catholic church, has done so over the past two generations.

 

[Ender]

Merely acknowledging the way things were does not affirm that those ways were good.

If you are right then Paul acknowledged something as good that is in fact evil. The issue is what Paul thought about it then; not what is thought about it today. Is it possible to believe that Paul didn’t acknowledge it as legitimate?

Jesus directly refutes the goodness of the Mosaic dietary laws.

The relevant point is that Jesus never even indirectly refuted capital punishment; as clearly neither did Paul.

The Pope does not claim contradiction , only contrariness, i.e., that the death penalty is contrary to the gospel.

This is a difference without a distinction; a suggestion to avoid the real problem which is that we are supposed to accept that the Gospel is contrary to Scripture. How are we to rationalize those two contrary positions? How is this possible?

The gospels can be analyzed as standalone teachings independent of the other books in the New and Old Testaments.

This is irrational. Even if you take the gospels as stand alone teachings you would expect them to offer things not found elsewhere, not be… contrary… to what has been taught.

not only can one not find affirmation of the death penalty but one finds the teachings are opposite to the principles one usually cites as justifying the death penalty, e.g., justice and vengeance.

First, vengeance was never given as justification. Second, justice is the only thing that legitimates any punishment, so yet again here is the problem: is capital punishment a just punishment for (at least) murder? This is not complicated: if it isn’t just today it has always been unjust, and the church is implicated in advocating unjust behavior for 2000 years. On the other hand, if the church was right then about the justness of the punishment then it is just today, and it seems unlikely it could be contrary to the Gospel. Which is it?

Ought we to give primacy to the gospels as it relates to the death penalty?

Ah, so you recognize that the Gospel would be contrary to Scripture. If they agreed then there would be no need to give primacy to one of them. That’s the point I’ve been trying to make.

It appears the magisterium, the official teaching office of the Catholic church, has done so over the past two generations.

Not so. Francis’ statement is not magisterial. No papal statement, of itself, is.