Hobbs, Eric E. and Walter C. Hobbs. “Contemporary Capital Punishment: Biblical Difficulties with the Biblically Permissable.” Readings in Christian Ethics, edited by David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw, vol. 2, Baker Books, 2005, pp. 463-70.
Eric and Walter Hobbs have had extensive careers as a lawyer and a professor respectively. Eric has served as director on various boards and given many speeches on policy and criminal prosecution. Walter Hobbs has served as a Director of Institutional Research and at the State University of New York at Buffalo and received his Ph. D. in sociology. This history has provided both men with the ability to speak with authority on the topic of ethics.
The article begins with a clear thesis statement by the …show more content…
The authors begin by enumerating the various sins requiring the death penalty, and expound upon the sins from the list which no longer necessitate the use of capital punishment. Westmoreland-White and Stassen argue that the death penalty was put into practice to ensure the purity of the Israelites as the people of God. Next, the authors examine the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exod. 20:13) and argue that the translation is a term used for general killing and is even used as a term for capital punishment in the book of Numbers. Following this, the authors analyze Genesis 9:6 and argue that it is not part of a mandate as there is no government to enact this. The concept of lex talionis, “the law of retaliation” (128), is regarded by the authors as a general rule, not as a part of the actual law, but as a general guideline for making punishments appropriate to the crime, rather than allow violence to escalate. Similarly, Old Testament murderers who were not executed, but like David, after repenting of their sins were used greatly by …show more content…
The author explains that the text was recited by priests, and as such, is not part of the code of law. This is not written for the government to apply, but as a description of how society functioned at this current time. Yoder uses the example of Cain, the first murderer, for an example of the proper punishment for murderers. Rather than execute Cain for the murder of his brother, God saved Cain from the penalty by marking him that no one may kill him. Yoder bemoans the attitude that man takes in responding to wrongdoing with “escalating vengeance” (474). He argues that counter-vengeance increases the suffering caused by sin. Yoder further argues that Genesis 9:6 is established in a framework of ritualistic sacrifice. Stating that “to kill an animal is a ritual act” (475), therefore the killing of man possess even greater ritual meaning. Many cultures in the ancient world offered human sacrifices as the ultimate sacrifice to their gods, but the God of Israel only allowed killing only for specific
Eric and Walter Hobbs have had extensive careers as a lawyer and a professor respectively. Eric has served as director on various boards and given many speeches on policy and criminal prosecution. Walter Hobbs has served as a Director of Institutional Research and at the State University of New York at Buffalo and received his Ph. D. in sociology. This history has provided both men with the ability to speak with authority on the topic of ethics.
The article begins with a clear thesis statement by the …show more content…
The authors begin by enumerating the various sins requiring the death penalty, and expound upon the sins from the list which no longer necessitate the use of capital punishment. Westmoreland-White and Stassen argue that the death penalty was put into practice to ensure the purity of the Israelites as the people of God. Next, the authors examine the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” (Exod. 20:13) and argue that the translation is a term used for general killing and is even used as a term for capital punishment in the book of Numbers. Following this, the authors analyze Genesis 9:6 and argue that it is not part of a mandate as there is no government to enact this. The concept of lex talionis, “the law of retaliation” (128), is regarded by the authors as a general rule, not as a part of the actual law, but as a general guideline for making punishments appropriate to the crime, rather than allow violence to escalate. Similarly, Old Testament murderers who were not executed, but like David, after repenting of their sins were used greatly by …show more content…
The author explains that the text was recited by priests, and as such, is not part of the code of law. This is not written for the government to apply, but as a description of how society functioned at this current time. Yoder uses the example of Cain, the first murderer, for an example of the proper punishment for murderers. Rather than execute Cain for the murder of his brother, God saved Cain from the penalty by marking him that no one may kill him. Yoder bemoans the attitude that man takes in responding to wrongdoing with “escalating vengeance” (474). He argues that counter-vengeance increases the suffering caused by sin. Yoder further argues that Genesis 9:6 is established in a framework of ritualistic sacrifice. Stating that “to kill an animal is a ritual act” (475), therefore the killing of man possess even greater ritual meaning. Many cultures in the ancient world offered human sacrifices as the ultimate sacrifice to their gods, but the God of Israel only allowed killing only for specific