tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138907131330259957.post8622726140503692181..comments2022-05-06T06:41:53.361-05:00Comments on Westminster in 180 Days: Day 122: The Sixth Commandment, part 3 - "Capital Punishment"Kevin Craighttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138907131330259957.post-47859555091902215662010-03-30T02:52:29.671-05:002010-03-30T02:52:29.671-05:00The purpose of putting a criminal to death in the ...The purpose of putting a criminal to death in the Old Covenant age was not solely to put him to death: it was to shed his blood to make atonement and cleanse the land in a way that could not be done with the usual animal sacrifices.<br /><br />In the New Covenant age, the only blood that can make atonement is that of Christ. Shedding the criminal's blood would serve no Biblical purpose. Killing the criminal without even shedding his blood (e.g., lethal injection) is senseless <a href="http://kevincraig.us/vengeance.htm" rel="nofollow">vengeance</a>.<br /><br />In cases of capital crimes which have victims, the perpetrator should be made a bondservant of the victim's family, making some degree of restitution for the rest of his life.Kevin Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138907131330259957.post-19002751903019226422010-03-29T23:21:05.795-05:002010-03-29T23:21:05.795-05:00Thanks for your response Kevin. That's a good,...Thanks for your response Kevin. That's a good, detailed answer. Applying the principle from the old testament passage into our time makes sense.<br /><br />Are there any crimes in the New Covenant age that would warrant a criminal to be put to death by those who had jurisdiction over the criminal?Tony W. Denhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17567525588478069714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138907131330259957.post-73138193311083590652010-03-29T00:13:17.435-05:002010-03-29T00:13:17.435-05:00Great question! I would start with Exodus 21:28ff....Great question! I would start with Exodus 21:28ff., here in a <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exod%2021:28-30&version=MSG" rel="nofollow">modern translation</a>:<br /><br /><b>If an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned. The meat cannot be eaten but the owner of the ox is in the clear. But if the ox has a history of goring and the owner knew it and did nothing to guard against it, then if the ox kills a man or a woman, the ox is to be stoned and the owner given the death penalty. If a ransom is agreed upon instead of death, he must pay it in full as a redemption for his life.</b><br /><br />The first question is to establish guilt. You can't just accuse someone of being a molester. The process in Matthew 18:15ff. must be followed. "Tell it to the church" means <a href="http://95days.blogspot.com/2008/11/thesis-70-judgment-and-church-courts-of.html" rel="nofollow">Church-Courts</a> to establish guilt or innocence.<br /><br />Once the guilt of the molester is clearly established, the next question is one of "jurisdiction": who owns this goring ox? Who has responsibility for this child molester? The first answer would be his father. Another way to ask this question is to make it more practical and less abstract and hypothetical: how do you know about this child molester's existence? Is he your son? Then you have jurisdiction and it is your responsibility under the law of the goring ox to make sure it doesn't happen again. Is the molester your employee? Then you should tell his father. If you can't do this, then arguably you have jurisdiction and responsibility. Knowledge brings responsibility. Maybe the molester is a tenant in the apartment building you own. You certainly have a duty to other tenants.<br /><br />Knowledge brings the first level of jurisdiction, and the law of the goring ox applies.<br /><br />There are costs involved in keeping an ox from goring someone. Fences, electronic collars, or whatever it takes. If you know about a child molester, you need to take action until you can clearly establish jurisdiction, which establishes who needs to bear the costs of monitoring this goring ox.<br /><br />In a free market in a Christian culture, "Goring Ox Protection Services" will be established to help those with jurisdiction take responsibility for their ox or molester. This may take the form of insurance: you pay a monthly premium, and if you have a goring ox, your Service will take on the responsibility of making sure it doesn't happen again. The Service may require that you belong to a church that has competent courts and doesn't convict innocent people. If a molester covered by your service molests again, not only does the service lose customers when word gets out, but they have to pay out a monetary judgment to the victim. Under secular civil governments such as ours, victims are seldom if ever compensated, even if the perpetrator pays a fine to the State.<br /><br />If the person with jurisdiction doesn't have such insurance, representatives for such agencies would contact those who should have jurisdiction over the criminal, probably immediately after the trial court passes judgment, advertising their services, competing against other agencies on the basis of security (preventing recidivism) and cost.<br /><br />People who refuse to subscribe or take responsibility for their goring ox would be black-listed by credit agencies.<br /><br />Non-profit organizations would be formed to raise money to pay for such Goring Ox Services on behalf of those who have jurisdiction over potential criminals but can't afford to subscribe to their services.<br /><br />Of course, we have no way of being <a href="http://kevincraig.us/capitalism.htm#shoes" rel="nofollow">able to predict</a> exactly how this situation would be taken care of. This is just a suggestion. It all depends on how seriously society takes God's Law.Kevin Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7138907131330259957.post-34992494959118346752010-03-28T22:10:31.263-05:002010-03-28T22:10:31.263-05:00I understand that Christ's blood is the answer...I understand that Christ's blood is the answer to the atonement issue, but what I don't understand is how criminals should be handled in New Covenant times. For instance, how is this situation supposed to be handled: There is a child molester who will not repent and who keeps committing the same crime over and over?Tony W. Denhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17567525588478069714noreply@blogger.com