It has long been popular to argue for more exotic or distant identifications for Tarshish, including by myself in the past. But Josephus said Tarshish was Tarsus, and this modern article backs up that identification convincingly.
Tarshish (Josephus' Tarsus Reconsidered)
http://www.bibleorigins.net/tarshishtarsus.html
There is one detail in that I can't agree with, and that's arguing for a late dating of Genesis based on pre Esarhaddon Assyrian Inscriptions rendering Tarsus was Tarzi. It could be Tarzi was a mistaken Assyrian form corrected by later Assyrians who knew more directly what they called themselves, or the Tarzi inscriptions could be scribal errors. There is no need to question the reliability of Genesis over this.
Those are all very technical and scholarly reasons for that identification. What I want to speculate on now is how it could theologically serve the Meta-narrative of The Bible to connect Old Testament Tarshish to New Testament Tarsus.
Like OT Tarshish it's never a location the narrative visits directly (same with Cilicia as a whole), the few times it seems like Acts is about to go there it then skips forward.
NT Tarsus is only relevant for being the hometown of Saul later known as Paul. Before he's ever mentioned by name he's probably one of the Cilicians refereed to in Acts 6.
We know from Extra Biblical sources that Tarsus of Cilicia was a port city associated with sea trade and thus with ships, but Biblically the New Testament never directly mentions that. However Paul does spend a lot of time on ships, some travel by ship was a part of all four missionary journeys, most famously his ship wreck on Malta.
Tarshish was a grandson of Japheth, but the name is also duplicated as a Benjamite in 1 Chronicles 7:10. I think it's possible the Chronicler is more using this name as a stand in for a Benjamite clan that would in the future live in Cilicia, possibly as a result of the slave trade alluded to in Joel 3.
Paul who was a Benjamite can be viewed as playing a role in how the Genesis 9 eschatological relationship between Japheth and Shem was fulfilled.
A number of Prophecies also speak of Ships of Tarshish playing a role in how exiled Israelites are brought back to the promised land. In some views that too is arguably fulfilled partly by the work of Paul.
Showing posts with label Genesis 9. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Genesis 9. Show all posts
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Tuesday, November 7, 2017
There are people out there arguing that Salvation is only for a certian Race
I shouldn't have to bother responding to these people. But Racism is on the rise right now.
Even in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible salvation was not limited to Blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Leviticus 19 teaches that the stranger that shall dwell among you shall be treated as if he was born among you. And again, Circumcision was clearly also allowed for foreigners.
There are people who combine their British Israelism and Two House theology to teach that the "Gentiles" of the New Testament were only the outcasts of the Northern Kingdom, the "Lost Tribes". Now the main website I'm responding to is White Supremacist, but much of the same logic could be applied to Black Israelite or Asian Israelite theories. I believe the "Lost Tribes" were scattered to all four corners of the Earth, so some truth exists to each of those theories.
What's dangerous is they do make a valid point about "Gentile" not exclusively meaning only non Israelites, since the same Hebrew and Greek words also get translated Nation and are used of the Nation of Israel. So I need to refute them in a way not dependent on the mere use of that word.
Their main article on this subject quotes only one verse of Romans 11, verse 17.
Romans 11:24 destroys their desire to use natural science in interpreting this as it clearly says.
They also have an article against using the word Seed in a spiritual sense, yet did not actually quote Galatians 3 and 4, where Paul's point is clearly about people not naturally Abraham's Seed becoming Abraham's Seed.
But I can also cite Isaiah 53. If you're a Christian you know the Suffering Servant is Jesus, Acts 8 and 1 Peter both quote it as such. And unless you're a Mormon you don't think Jesus had any children by natural biological reproduction. But Isaiah 53:10 says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. Psalm 45 also says The Messiah and The Bride will have children.
In Revelation 12, The Woman is Israel (all 12 Tribes represented), The Man-Child is the New Testament Church, separate from those is....
The statement in John about Jesus coming "Only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" needs to be understood in the context of John 1. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, so He gave unto others the ability to become Sons of God.
In the training mission Jesus sent The Twelve on during His ministry, that mission was given only to Israelites, since the New Covenant wasn't quite made yet, as Jesus Blood wasn't Shed yet. In the context of that mission we see the Samaritans are not counted as Israelites, agreeing with the narrative of 2 Kings 17. But when we get to the true Great Commission in Acts, there the Samaritans are blatantly included, as are Syrians (He may have said Aram in Hebrew) and the Whole World. And then Acts 8 brings The Gospel to Samaria.
Even in the Torah and the Hebrew Bible salvation was not limited to Blood descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Leviticus 19 teaches that the stranger that shall dwell among you shall be treated as if he was born among you. And again, Circumcision was clearly also allowed for foreigners.
There are people who combine their British Israelism and Two House theology to teach that the "Gentiles" of the New Testament were only the outcasts of the Northern Kingdom, the "Lost Tribes". Now the main website I'm responding to is White Supremacist, but much of the same logic could be applied to Black Israelite or Asian Israelite theories. I believe the "Lost Tribes" were scattered to all four corners of the Earth, so some truth exists to each of those theories.
What's dangerous is they do make a valid point about "Gentile" not exclusively meaning only non Israelites, since the same Hebrew and Greek words also get translated Nation and are used of the Nation of Israel. So I need to refute them in a way not dependent on the mere use of that word.
Their main article on this subject quotes only one verse of Romans 11, verse 17.
"And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;"And they then said "Clearly only an olive tree can be grafted into an Olive Tree" so they can say the branches being grafted in are the same ones that fell off, even though that is totally incompatible with what Paul said.
Romans 11:24 destroys their desire to use natural science in interpreting this as it clearly says.
"For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?"In the Greek, "contrary to Nature" is the same as "Against Nature" in Romans 1:26-27. Thus part of the theme of Paul refuting the people who agreed with that rhetorical rant by showing God does something "Against Nature' therefore "Against Nature" can't be inherently wrong.
They also have an article against using the word Seed in a spiritual sense, yet did not actually quote Galatians 3 and 4, where Paul's point is clearly about people not naturally Abraham's Seed becoming Abraham's Seed.
But I can also cite Isaiah 53. If you're a Christian you know the Suffering Servant is Jesus, Acts 8 and 1 Peter both quote it as such. And unless you're a Mormon you don't think Jesus had any children by natural biological reproduction. But Isaiah 53:10 says the Suffering Servant will have Seed. Psalm 45 also says The Messiah and The Bride will have children.
In Revelation 12, The Woman is Israel (all 12 Tribes represented), The Man-Child is the New Testament Church, separate from those is....
the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.So clearly, there is a lot of Seed here.
The statement in John about Jesus coming "Only to the Lost Sheep of the House of Israel" needs to be understood in the context of John 1. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not, so He gave unto others the ability to become Sons of God.
In the training mission Jesus sent The Twelve on during His ministry, that mission was given only to Israelites, since the New Covenant wasn't quite made yet, as Jesus Blood wasn't Shed yet. In the context of that mission we see the Samaritans are not counted as Israelites, agreeing with the narrative of 2 Kings 17. But when we get to the true Great Commission in Acts, there the Samaritans are blatantly included, as are Syrians (He may have said Aram in Hebrew) and the Whole World. And then Acts 8 brings The Gospel to Samaria.
Sunday, June 14, 2015
Genesis 9 and the Curse on Canaan
This is one of the most abused passages of Scirpture. In addition to how it has been and still is used to Justify Racism, Slavery and Imperialism. I've now seen it thrown into (by the pastor I do not name) the list of clobber passages against Homosexuality.
Genesis 9:18-27
Because Leviticus used "uncovered nakedness" as an idiom for various sexual relations. The Mishna, Midrash and The Talmud (Jewish Fables, Titus 1:14) began playing games to add to what this narrative says about Ham. And Christians have gone and played along. One popular theory is to cite the reference that you uncover your father's nakedness when you sleep with your father's wife.
But this passages isn't using the word nakedness is any such Levitical or poetic sense. It's a straight forward narrative. Noah became uncovered, Ham saw it and informed his brothers that there was a problem. Noah became uncovered before Ham saw anything. We are reminded at this moment that he is Canaan's father. It's possible he entered that area because he was looking for his son. If anything Ham is also a victim.
The curse is placed solely on Canaan, not Ham or Ham's descendants in general, just Canaan. Ironically, in light of how this would be used later, the ONLY one of Ham's sons who didn't go to Africa. The people we tragically enslaved were probably mostly descendants of Cush, kin to Nimrod who has also been unfairly slandered.
This "curse" is really a Prophecy. It was strictly speaking I feel fulfilled when David finished conquering the land. That is when Israel's military expansion period was over. If it goes beyond that at all it could include when Alexander finished fulfilling Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, or Rome conquering and enslaving the Phoenician outpost of Carthage. After that I firmly believe Canaanites ceased to exist as a distinct nation.
Regardless of Canaan committing a Sin and misfortune befalling his descendants because of that, being descended from Canaan does not make one automatically Evil. Rachab was from Canaan as well as Uriah The Hittite. Both named in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. Also Hiram King of Tyre who was an ally of Solomon, and the other Hiram who was the architect of The Temple was paternally a Tyrian.
For more refutations of Racism go here.
Now to address what it was Canaan did. The pastor who I do not like to name says (assuming Ham did it) something homosexual was done to Noah. I'm sure plenty others have viewed it that way too. This pastor adds that it demonstrates an inherent link between homosexuality and drunkenness (I wish I knew how to add an eye roll emoji to this blog).
If something sexual was done to Noah, which does seem plausible, the problem is that it was done to him while he was asleep making it Rape.
Another theory is that he castrated Noah, this is usually suggested by bizarre theories trying to make Noah Ouranos of Greek mythology and Ham (who they assume did it) Cronos. This being justified by that Japheth became a Titan as Iapetos in Greek mythology.
All we know is Noah became uncovered, Ham's interruption may well have prevented Canaan from entirely finishing what he was doing.
Genesis 9:18-27
And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These are the three sons of Noah: and of them was the whole earth overspread.
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.
And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.The first error is thinking it was Ham who did something to Noah. The problem is the more limited meaning "son" often has to modern readers. Hebrew had no word for Grandson, Son can mean any male descendant. Every time this particular narrative mentions Ham it refers to him as the father of Canaan. Canaan is the youngest of the four descendants of Noah named in this narrative, while we know from Genesis 10 that Ham was older then Shem.
Because Leviticus used "uncovered nakedness" as an idiom for various sexual relations. The Mishna, Midrash and The Talmud (Jewish Fables, Titus 1:14) began playing games to add to what this narrative says about Ham. And Christians have gone and played along. One popular theory is to cite the reference that you uncover your father's nakedness when you sleep with your father's wife.
But this passages isn't using the word nakedness is any such Levitical or poetic sense. It's a straight forward narrative. Noah became uncovered, Ham saw it and informed his brothers that there was a problem. Noah became uncovered before Ham saw anything. We are reminded at this moment that he is Canaan's father. It's possible he entered that area because he was looking for his son. If anything Ham is also a victim.
The curse is placed solely on Canaan, not Ham or Ham's descendants in general, just Canaan. Ironically, in light of how this would be used later, the ONLY one of Ham's sons who didn't go to Africa. The people we tragically enslaved were probably mostly descendants of Cush, kin to Nimrod who has also been unfairly slandered.
This "curse" is really a Prophecy. It was strictly speaking I feel fulfilled when David finished conquering the land. That is when Israel's military expansion period was over. If it goes beyond that at all it could include when Alexander finished fulfilling Ezekiel's prophecy against Tyre, or Rome conquering and enslaving the Phoenician outpost of Carthage. After that I firmly believe Canaanites ceased to exist as a distinct nation.
Regardless of Canaan committing a Sin and misfortune befalling his descendants because of that, being descended from Canaan does not make one automatically Evil. Rachab was from Canaan as well as Uriah The Hittite. Both named in Matthew's genealogy of Jesus. Also Hiram King of Tyre who was an ally of Solomon, and the other Hiram who was the architect of The Temple was paternally a Tyrian.
For more refutations of Racism go here.
Now to address what it was Canaan did. The pastor who I do not like to name says (assuming Ham did it) something homosexual was done to Noah. I'm sure plenty others have viewed it that way too. This pastor adds that it demonstrates an inherent link between homosexuality and drunkenness (I wish I knew how to add an eye roll emoji to this blog).
If something sexual was done to Noah, which does seem plausible, the problem is that it was done to him while he was asleep making it Rape.
Another theory is that he castrated Noah, this is usually suggested by bizarre theories trying to make Noah Ouranos of Greek mythology and Ham (who they assume did it) Cronos. This being justified by that Japheth became a Titan as Iapetos in Greek mythology.
All we know is Noah became uncovered, Ham's interruption may well have prevented Canaan from entirely finishing what he was doing.
Friday, August 1, 2014
Christians should oppose Capital Punishment
Don't simply throw all the Old Testament passages on Capital Punishment
at me, we are under the New Testament, and are no longer bound by The
Law. We are under the dispensation of Grace.
People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.
Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.
"for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.
I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".
People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.
Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8
John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.
Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin. That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.
Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.
On The Old Testament
Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.
The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.
In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.
Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".
The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.
And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.
Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.
Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.
In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree. Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab. They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them. Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.
Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.
This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.
The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).
Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.
Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.
People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.
Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.
"for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.
I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".
People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.
Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8
John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.
Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin. That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.
Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.
On The Old Testament
Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.
The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.
In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.
4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.
Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".
The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.
And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23
"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."
Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.
Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.
Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.
In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree. Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab. They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them. Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.
Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.
This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.
The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).
Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.
Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)