CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Part 2 by Dennis Gulledge

The first mention of the death penalty in the Bible is in Genesis 4:10-14. After cowardly Cain murdered his brother Abel, he immediately fears reprisal.  Cain said, "My punishment is greater than I can bear ... and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me" (Gen 4:13-14).

Those who might have sought revenge would have been members of his own family avenging the death of their brother.

Two basic reasons exist for the death penalty in the Old Testament. FIRST, is the fact that all human beings are created in the image of God and life is therefore precious (Gen 1:26-27).  The connection of the death penalty for murder, at this point, comes from Genesis 9:6, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Taking away the life of another is the highest crime that can be committed against another, or society.  The reason is the intrinsic value of human life in its divine connection.

The SECOND reason for God's law on murder is that "...the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it" (Num 35:33).  Matthew Henry was correct when he wrote,

“Where wrong has been done restitution must be made; and, since the murderer cannot restore the life he has wrongfully taken away, his own must be exacted from him in lieu of it, not (as some have fancied) to satisfy the manes or ghost of the person slain, but to satisfy the law and the justice of a nation; and to be a warning to all others not to do likewise.”

Pilate asked Jesus, "Knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?" (Jn 19:10).  It is worthy of note that Jesus did not argue with Pilate over the legitimacy of the death penalty. Jesus acknowledged Pilate's right to carry it out, but denied His own guilt (v. 11).

The Jews once charged Paul with capital crimes that they could not prove (Acts 25:1-10).  The apostle spoke in his own defense: "For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die..." (v. 11).  Paul did not challenge the law, but merely the justice of the charges against him.

Again, Romans 13:1-4 shows the right of civil government to exercise the kind of punishment that the sword represents.  Civil law is to encourage the good and punish the evil.  Individually, we have no right to take vengeance (Mt 5:38-39); Rom 12:19).  The state, acting as "ministers of God" serves this function (Rom 13:4).

Some think that the sixth commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" (Ex 20:13) makes capital punishment wrong.  "You shall not murder" (NKJV) is the more precise reading.  The Hebrew word used here proscribes not only premeditated murder, but also manslaughter (Num 35:11).  If the prohibition extended to capital punishment it would be difficult to understand why there are twenty two capital crimes listed in the Old Testament.  In fact, the very next chapter provided for the death penalty under Mosaic Law (Ex 21:12).

It is said, "Capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder."  The main objective of capital punishment is not deterrence, but punishment.  In the first place, it is not called capital deterrence.  It is called capital punishment because the state has the God given right to punish the murderer for his crime.

Second, the deterrence argument is a farce in a land where the death penalty is so sparsely used (Eccl 8:11; Num 35:33).  If the extreme punishment were consistently and regularly carried out we might see that deterrence is very much a factor!

It is sometimes argued that capital punishment is contrary to God's love. These proponents of their own brand of "love" would have us to "turn the other cheek" even in the most extreme cases of brutality and murder.

These people may not have any use for God in any other realm of life, except in this one where they find it convenient to exploit divine love for their own benefit.

Human sentimentality does not change God's law in this or any other realm (Rom 13:4).  Let it be remembered that God's love does not exclude His justice (Rom 11:22).

Capital punishment will always be a controversial subject.  Arguments for and against it will continue to fly to and fro.  May we never forget to ask what the Bible says on it and let that be the determining factor in our view of the matter.

CHURCH HISTORY: A BIBLICAL VIEW
Part II - No. 6 Compiled and written by Gary Eubanks

With this lesson the student of church history embarks upon a study of that long, dark process of apostasy which eventually culminated in the Roman Catholic Church. This apostasy unfolded very gradually. (Apostasies that move forward too rapidly are ordinarily too obvious and alarming to achieve much success.) Even in the days of the apostles there were signs that the church was moving in the direction of apostasy (Acts 20:29, 30; III Jn. 9,10). After the deaths of the apostles, this apostasy moved forward unchecked and with ever-increasing momentum.

This first period of post-apostolic church history was also one of persecution. By the end of the First Century the Roman government had settled on a policy of persecution against Christians. These persecutions would continue intermittently throughout the Second and Third Centuries but would finally be brought to an end by the Edict of Milan which was issued by Emperor Constantine in 313 A.D. Nevertheless, this was also a period of tremendous numerical and geographical growth for the church. This first period of post-apostolic church history, the "Ante-Nicene Age," is so named because it is the period "before" (signified by the word "ante") the Council of Nicea, the first general council of the apostate church, which was convened by Constantine in 325 A.D. at Nicea in Asia Minor.

The first form which apostasy generally took in the church was in the corruption of its organization. The first step in this organizational corruption, which would evolve over several centuries into the office of a supreme and infallible "pope," was the monarchical episcopate ("monarchical" meaning "one-ruling"' and "episcopate" referring to the "office of a bishop"). Exactly how and when this monarchical episcopate began is not known. Very possibly this development began even in the late apostolic age (Acts 20:29,30; III Jn. 9,10). In any event, it is quite clear that this change in the church's organization became fairly well established in some places during the first quarter of the Second Century. Ignatius, himself the monarchical bishop of Antioch, wrote (110-117) in favorable reference to the monarchical bishops of several churches in cities of Asia Minor. Of course, in the apostolic age, "presbyters" (elders) and "bishops" were terms used interchangeably in reference to the body of men who had the oversight of each church. However, as time went on, one elder began to be exalted above the other elders of a church and the title of "bishop" reserved for him alone. In the early Second Century this practice was not occurring everywhere, and the authority of the monarchical bishop was local, not diocesan (regional), in scope, but by 160 A.D. the monarchical episcopate was well-nigh universal. Eventually, the concept of ''apostolic succession," that bishops were to carry on with the role, authority and responsibilities of the apostles, would be combined with this concept of the episcopate to give it greater power and dignity.

Some historians believe that the development of a stronger episcopate gave churches a greater sense of institutional unity by virtue of a centralized focus of authority and carried the church successfully through the perilous period of heresies. Below is a chart giving the basic words used in the New Testament in reference to the rulers of a local church:

Eph. 4:11 poimen pastor shepherd

Acts 11:30; presbuteros presbyter, elder an older man (of 14:23; 20:17 maturity and experience)

Phil. 1:1; episkopos bishop overseer; supervisor Acts 20:28

From the above, and other, Scriptures three conclusions can be drawn which set the office of bishop in stark contrast to that which later developed in the apostate church. (1) Firstly, the three terms, "elder," "bishop," and pastor," are all used interchangeably in reference to the same office (Acts 20:17,28; Tit. 1:5,7; I Pet. 5:1,2; Eph. 4:11). (It should be noted that the word translated "feed" in two of the preceding passages is the Greek word "poimaino," which means "to pastor" or "to shepherd.." Also, in the last passage where the various officers of the church are listed it is difficult to see how elders could have been omitted when teachers and evangelists are mentioned, unless the elders are the pastors.) The only difference they may have is to emphasize a different facet of the same office. However, there is not Scriptural basis for applying one term exclusively to one individual. (2) Secondly, whenever a church of the New Testament is mentioned as having elders, it had exactly that - elders, not "an elder" or "pastor." In other words, the New Testament order is that a local church always has a plurality of elders. This in itself would seem to indicate that the Lord does not desire that one man be exalted as supreme overseer of a local church. And if He did not desire that it be done on even a local level, how could it please Him to be done on a regional or universal level? (3) Thirdly, there is no Scriptural indication that the authority of an elder extended beyond the local church of which he was a member. Elders were to shepherd the flock of God among them (I Pet. 5:1,2) - the one of which the Holy Spirit had made them overseers (Acts 20:28).

By the beginning of the Second Century the church was well-established in the regions of Syria, Macedonia, Greece, Egypt, and Rome, but it was most extensive in Asia Minor. By this time also it had elicited both popular and governmental opposition. Already the church had endured the persecutions of Nero (54-68) and Domitian (81-96). Such persecutions are indicative of the growing prominence of the church in ancient society. The Roman Government vented its wrath upon Christians because of their refusal to recognize and worship the emperor as a god, but popular animosity against Christians was aroused due to accusations of atheism (because they denied the traditional gods), licentiousness (because their worship was often carried on secretly after nightfall), and cannibalism (because of a misunderstanding of the Lord's Supper — an accusation which the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation would, ironically, give much truth). Christians were also hated for their exclusiveness and the idea that they alone had the truth. Thus began a cycle of persecutions and respites which continued for two centuries until a final edict granting religious liberty was issued by Constantine in 313 A.D. Because of these accusations and persecutions men known as "Apologists" (from the Greek word apologia, meaning a "defense") arose and tried to give a philosophical defense to the gospel and church before the Roman rulers. 

Undenominational Christianity
by Robert F. Turner

The evils of ``sectarian Christianity'' are apparent to all thinking people, and have been denounced by various spokesmen of the leading sects repeatedly. This general recognition of error has given impulse to many ``unity'' movements, and much so-called ``non-sectarian'' preaching. But IS union of all churches the desirable goal? May we correctly assume that such a union equals true Christianity? Is it not possible--or highly probable--that in the compromising process, union with one another would take the place of unity in Christ. After reading several proposals for religious ``unity'' I have concluded that man's plan goes something like this:

ITEM ONE: Hold to no external authority, but allow everyone to ``find truth'' according to his own conscience.

ITEM TWO: Avoid the inevitable conclusion created by Item One, by adopting a concept of ``religious freedom'' large enough to embrace all in one great "brotherhood.''

ITEM THREE: Disfellowship and hold in contempt anyone who uses the freedom of Item One, to point out the fallacy of the false ``brotherhood'' in Item Two.

   Perhaps I have been a bit harsh on our modern "Unitarians'' but I believe this depicts the net results. We are seeking Christianity without accepting the authority of Christ. THERE IS NO SUCH THING. The grand theme of Christianity is CHRIST--Prophet, Priest, and King. He is our teacher, advocate, and our ruler. How absurd to acknowledge all this--as most ``unity'' speakers do--and then give so little attention to the actual teachings of Christ. Instead of discouraging ``doctrinal'' studies, true undenominational Christianity is built upon such studies. ``If a man love me, he will keep my words'' (Jn. 14:23). ``The people were astonished at His doctrine; for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes'' (Matthew 7:28-29). The New Testament church was ONE--because it was made up of people who ``continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine.'' Their fellowship was, first of all, with God; and was maintained by walking in His truth (1 Jn. 1:3-7). When division threatened, the solution was ``God, and the word of His grace'' (Acts 20:29-32). Man has found no better solution today.

    Undenominational Christianity--and in reality there is no other kind of true Christianity--is the fruit of subjection to Christ's will. It brings war against evil; division between those who do, and do not; and world hostility (Eph. 6:10-f.; Lu. 12:51-f.; 1 Jn. 2:15-f.). But it offers the only peace worth while--peace with God, in heaven (Rev. 22). 

Satan Goes To Church
(Selected)

An old legend relates that a pious man met Satan one day coming out of the church building. "What are you doing here?" asked the man. "I thought you’d never set foot inside the building."

"Oh yes," answered Satan, "where there is praying and preaching against me I must see to it that I do not lose too many souls."

"How do you do that?" inquired the man.

"Oh, I have my own methods which work very well. For instance, I set the young ladies' eyes wandering over their neighbor's hats and dresses and soon the spirit of worship is gone. I persuade the young men to look at the cute babies so that they do not hear anything of the word that is proclaimed. I arrange for housewives to be more interested in thinking of food and household chores than what is said in the pulpit. I turn men's thought to business and the latest political news. Most important of all, I interpret every word of the sermon so that it concerns only his neighbor. Then as soon as the worship is over, I change the conversation, and the preacher's words are soon erased. Yes, I'm pretty good at my job."