Paul Bernardo

[revsdd]

How do you read Mark 9:42 and the equivalents in Luke and Matthew. (Which I believe references rape.) "But whoever causes the downfall of one of these little ones who believe in Me--it would be better for him if a heavy millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea"

Of course it may be interpreted that capital punishment is proscribed only if they are no other ways to prevent the rapist. However I am more interested in the reference that Jesus actually supports capital punishment or suicide in some cases.

I have to say first that I find your interpretation of Jesus' words bizarre to say the least. How in the world do you conclude that Jesus is speaking of rape? The context of the passage in all three Gospels is about dealing with the sources and causes of sin. Basically, in modern terms, Jesus says that we need to identify and deal with the root causes of our particular sins. There's an almost psychological sense to this. In the specific verses you refer to, Jesus essentialy warns us not to be the cause of another person's stumble (which various commentators suggest mean either that we should be careful not to cause another person to sin or that we should be careful not to cause another person to lose faith.) How you bring rape into the equation - and make the claim that these words are actually referencing rape - truly baffles me.

And Jesus does not condone capital punishment here. First, unlike the story of the woman in adultery, there is no reference to a capital crime. Second, as Mendalla points out, I think Jesus really means that there will be serious consequences (since hanging a millstone around someone's neck and tossing them into the sea wasn't a typical punishment in Judaism to say the least.) Third, Jesus doesn't say "do it." He says it would be better for the person if it were done. In the same way, one could argue that it would be more humane for Paul Bernardo to be put to death than locked up in a small cell for the rest of his life.

 

[revsdd]

We can take more of Bernardo's freedom away I guess. The important thing is that we make him suffer. I guess.

No. The important thing is not making him suffer. The inevitable thing is that Bernardo has to deal with the consequences of his actions in the manner prescribed by the state. For me, from an ethical perspective, the important thing is that the manner presribed by the state be acceptable based on my understanding of Jesus' teachings. I understand Jesus to teach that none of us are worthy to take life, since none of us are without some kind of guilt.

 

[crazyheart]

Can we forgive? Is forgiveness ever in a scenario like this. To be forgiven , does someone have to ask for It?

 

[revsdd]

Can we forgive? Is forgiveness ever in a scenario like this. To be forgiven , does someone have to ask for It?

The last question is key. Forgiveness means letting go of a debt that someone owes me. In essence it means moving on. I don't actually think one needs to ask for forgiveness. To forgive someone doesn't mean necessarily that everything is set right, but that I choose to let it go and move on from the person and/or situation. That's much easier said than done. In this case, can the French and Mahaffey families really ever let Bernardo out of their debt? That doesn't mean that he pays them back; it just means that they come to an acceptance that he can't do that and that they leave him behind. But can they do it? As the father of a 10 year old daughter I don't know if they can do that. And I wouldn't criticize them if they can't. I just hope that I'm never put to the test of finding out if I could do it.

 

[revjohn]

I understand Jesus to teach that none of us are worthy to take life, since none of us are without some kind of guilt.

And where do you understand Jesus to teach that we may imprison others? If we take a look at the Isaiah passage Jesus quotes and claims to fulfill we should be setting captives free not throwing them behind bars.

Jesus, in speaking about murder does say, "and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." (Matthew 5: 21) and what judgement would that be? Is it the judgment of God, or the King, or whomever has the authority to pass judgment on such activity in Israel?

Just before that Jesus says he has not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets what do they instruct with regard to murderers?

If anyone strikes someone a fatal blow with an iron object, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. Or if anyone is holding a stone and strikes someone a fatal blow with it that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. Or if anyone is holding a wooden object and strikes someone a fatal blow with it, that person is a murderer; the murderer is to be put to death. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death. If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at them intentionally of if out of enmity one person hits another with their fist so that the other dies, that person is to be put to death; that person is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when they meet

It could be argued that when Jesus comments on this command he could have pointed the finger towards a more gracious response than killing except he doesn't. He ups the ante to include calling a brother or sister Raca or anyone a Fool as kindling for the fires of hell.

If only a murder had been brought before him so that we could know Christ's mind for sure.

 

[revsdd]

And where do you understand Jesus to teach that we may imprison others? If we take a look at the Isaiah passage Jesus quotes and claims to fulfill we should be setting captives free not throwing them behind bars.

Jesus, in speaking about murder does say, "and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." (Matthew 5: 21) and what judgement would that be? Is it the judgment of God, or the King, or whomever has the authority to pass judgment on such activity in Israel?

When Jesus (or Isaiah) speaks of setting the captives free I'm not convinced that he's speaking of convicted murderers in prison, of captive Israel in Babylon (in Isaiah's case) or if he's speaking of "captives" in a more spiritual sense (ie, does he mean captives to sin, to the law, etc., etc.) And, of course, there's Paul's words in Romans about being subject to the authority of the state. Paul, of course, refers to the sword, which some interpret as support for capital punishment. I think he's just using the image as representative of the state's authority. I hold to my view that there's only one explicit reference in the New Testament about how to treat a capital offense, and in that reference Jesus seems to make it impossible to find an executioner worthy of being an executioner.

In the case of Jesus' reference to murder in the Sermon on the Mount, it has always been my belief that in this part of the sermon (dealing with murder, adultery, etc., etc.) Jesus is actually pointing out to his audience the futility of trying to truly live by the law. Thus, he equates murder with anger and adultery with lust. His point seems to be that while we tend to think of sin as only the outward action, the underlying thought makes us equally culpable and subject to judgment, even if the thought is not acted upon. Thus, how to escape that problem? The gospel answers that by stating that Jesus is the answer.

In full context, the judgment Jesus is speaking of is the judgment of God, Paul's words in Romans sanction the authority of the state to pass judgment, and Jesus' words in John 8 place limits on what limits we, as Christians, believe should be placed on the authority of the state to execute judgment.

All just my opinion, of course.

 

[Waterfall]

And where do you understand Jesus to teach that we may imprison others? If we take a look at the Isaiah passage Jesus quotes and claims to fulfill we should be setting captives free not throwing them behind bars.

Jesus, in speaking about murder does say, "and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment." (Matthew 5: 21) and what judgement would that be? Is it the judgment of God, or the King, or whomever has the authority to pass judgment on such activity in Israel?

Just before that Jesus says he has not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets what do they instruct with regard to murderers?



It could be argued that when Jesus comments on this command he could have pointed the finger towards a more gracious response than killing except he doesn't. He ups the ante to include calling a brother or sister Raca or anyone a Fool as kindling for the fires of hell.

If only a murder had been brought before him so that we could know Christ's mind for sure.

Or could he have upped the ante by saying that if we intentionally murder/execute the murderer, that it is also murder?

 

[revsdd]

A capital offence is a capital offence, whether (in the context of Jesus' day) it's adultery or murder. It seems to me that the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount make it even more explicit that to God sin is sin; there is no distinction. Thus, Jesus' example of dealing with adultery strikes me as normative for dealing with any capital offence. The basic point being - the law is right and the guilty party is worthy of execution, but none are worthy to be the executioner. Any other position seems to me to be inconsistent with the principles of the New Testament and the example of Jesus, but if anyone can point me to a sinless human who could act as executioner I might be prepared to change my position.