Previous | | Next | | E-Mail | | Contents | | V&FT
However, alongside the influence of the Church has been the influence of Rome, of Athens - of "classical" culture (i.e., paganism). And this is why it is even more important to understand the theologians. Although it is not our purpose in this paper to prove the point, the theologians have often looked to the Roman Empire and Greco-Roman culture for their standard of "greatness." Since they have wanted the Bible to be "great," they have "found" Greco-Roman concepts of law therein. Let's ask the theologians to show us in the Bible where the pagan concept of "capital punishment"[18] can be found.
From here on out, we are going to focus on the justice of capital punishment, that is, whether or not it is just in God's eyes for a Christian (or the "State") to shed the blood of another man. We are not here considering the pragmatic reasons for and against capital punishment.[19] What we want to know is, Are the Old Testament laws concerning the shedding of human blood in response to "capital crimes" applicable in this age? We'll start with
Q. 11: Where does the Bible make a distinction between "moral" and "civil" (political) or "ecclesiastical" (religious) laws?Traditional Protestant ethics has divided the Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, into at least two divisions: The "Moral Law" and The "Ceremonial Law." Even if the theologians do not agree on a precise definition of the "Moral Law," many still agree on which laws are to be described as "Moral:" laws against theft, adultery, and murder are fairly clear.
"Ceremonial Laws" are those that accomplished a pedagogical, or educational function. These laws taught the Israelites something about God's program for the salvation of the world. They taught men about the work of the coming Messiah. They were a foreshadow of things to come, and when the things foreshadowed actually came, the foreshadows had served their purpose. The most obvious laws no longer literally observed in the New Covenant are laws concerning the possession and division of the land of Palestine, laws of cleansing, and the ritual shedding of blood. We may assume that all other standing laws are binding in the New Covenant unless the New Covenant specifically teaches otherwise. This is the "theonomic" ("God's Law" [in its entirety]) position.
Q.12: Are we to assume that the laws concerning the shedding of the blood of certain criminals are binding ("moral") or typological ("ceremonial")?The best way to determine the answer to this question is to examine the purpose and function of these laws. If we find them to be laws concerning the land of Palestine, laws of cleansing, or the ceremonial shedding of blood, we might well infer that they were pedagogical laws, not to be literally obeyed in our day.
An example of the problem can be found in Deuteronomy 21:1-9:
1. If one be found slain in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee to possess it, lying in the field, and it be not known who hath slain him: 2. Then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain: 3. And it shall be, that the city which is next unto the slain man, even the elders of that city shall take an heifer, which hath not been wrought with, and which hath not drawn in the yoke; 4. And the elders of that city shall bring down the heifer unto a rough valley, which is neither eared nor sown, and shall strike off the heifer's neck there in the valley: 5. And the priests the sons of Levi shall come near; for them the LORD thy God hath chosen to minister unto him, and to bless in the name of the LORD; and by their mouth shall every controversy and every stroke be tried: 6. And all the elders of that city, that are next unto the slain man, shall wash their hands over the heifer that is beheaded in the valley: 7. And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it. 8. Be merciful, O LORD, unto Thy people Israel, whom Thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto Thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them. 9. So shalt thou put away the guilt of innocent blood from among you, when thou shalt do that which is right in the sight of the LORD.Aside from the problems we have already discussed regarding the joint-efforts of elders ("civil"?) and priests ("ecclesiastical"?), many questions concerning the New Testament obedience of this passage arise.
Are the civil magistrates responsible to obey this law? Not in its Old Testament form, most would agree. When an unsolved murder takes place, no one argues that we should shed the blood of an heifer to cleanse the land of the shed blood of the victim.
But, if the crime is murder and the murderer is found,[20] is it still necessary and proper in the New Testament to shed blood, in the same way the heifer's blood was shed? Why is the shedding of blood in the case of the unsolved murder no longer appropriate in the New Testament, but the shedding of the blood of the convicted murderer is appropriate?
The theonomists are pretty well agreed that it is no longer necessary to have cities of refuge to protect manslaughterers from Family vengeance-takers until the death of the high priest. Likewise, there is near-universal agreement that in the case of an unsolved murder the laws of Deuteronomy 21 no longer have a pedagogical function demanding literal obedience by civil (ecclesiastical?) officials. The problem is one of consistency: if unsolved murders no longer require the ceremonial shedding of blood, why do solved murders require a shedding of blood? Reconstructionist Gary North makes these important points in his "I.C.E. Position Paper" on the annulment of the dietary laws under the heading:
The question then must be answered by a search of all other commands to shed the blood of murderers and other capital criminals: was it the purpose of these laws to cleanse the land of blood guiltiness? Are they still required after Calvary?The Cleansing of the Land Since Christ's death and resurrection, the whole earth has been permanently cleansed of the death-curse it labored under as a result of Adam's fall. That release was established definitively at Calvary, and is being progressively revealed over time. The whole creation looks forward to the final release at the end of time (Rom. 8:19-23). This is one aspect of the release granted to the Church and to mankind in general by Christ.
In Old Testament Israel, for instance, the land was polluted - religiously polluted - by any unsolved murder. The elders of the city in which the murder occurred had to slay a heifer in order to remove the pollution from the land (Deut. 21:1-9). Calvary annulled this law; the death of Christ covered the pollution and permanently cleansed the land. There is no ritual cleansing required by the civil magistrates in order to free the land of pollution.
Let us begin in Genesis and isolate forty-four passages commanding death for certain criminals and determine the function and purpose of these commands.
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.This is the moral justification for the State deliberately killing another human being. As we examine more passages, this one will become clearer.
There are some other questions we can ask.[21]
Q.13: Man's creation in the Image of God is the basis for something.
For what?
Q.14: Is verse 4 to be observed today?
12. He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death. 13. And if a man lie not in wait, but God deliver him into his hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he shall flee. 14. But if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die.(Compare I Kings 2:26-33)
28. If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but owner of the ox shall be quit. 29. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.Q.15: Was the ox stoned because it was created in the image of God? (Compare Genesis 9:6)
{18} Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.A: Strong's #2763. The word is often translated "devoted" or "accursed" (Joshua 7). The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament says that this word
{19} Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.
{20} He that sacrificeth unto any god, save the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.
Q.16: Where else does the Bible use the phrase "utterly destroyed"?
Q.17: What does this phrase mean? (Use your Strong's Concordance.)
means a ban for utter destruction, the compulsory dedication of something which impedes or resists God's work, which is considered to be accursed before God. The idea...appears in Num 21:2-3, where the Israelites vowed that, if God would enable them to defeat a southern Canaanite king, they would "utterly destroy" (i.e., consider as devoted and accordingly utterly destroy) his cities. This word is used regarding almost all the cities which Joshua's troops destroyed (e.g., Jericho, Josh 6:21; Ai, Josh 8:26; Makkedah, Josh 10:28; Hazor, Josh 11:11), thus indicating the rationale for their destruction. In Deut 7:2-6, the command for this manner of destruction is given, with the explanation following that, otherwise, these cities would lure the Israelites away from the LORD (cf. Deut 20:17-18). Any Israelite city that harbored idolaters was to be "utterly destroyed" (Deut 13:12-15; cf. Ex 22:19). (I:741)We shall consider this concept again when we come to Deuteronomy 13:12-18.
14. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. 15. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Compare Exodus 35:2; 12:15,19)Q.18: Where else does the phrase "he shall be cut off from among his people" occur? Some have suggested that this phrase means ex-communication, and not always death. What do you think? (Recall our discussion in the section on the "separation of church and state.")
Q.19: Were family members exempted from this command?
Q. 20: Verse 4: What does it mean to have blood imputed to a man?Consider how the Pharisees abused these concepts. See Leviticus 19:17-18.
Q. 21: How is this related to the faithful setting forth of God's Law (Ezekiel 3:18-21)?
Q. 22: Is it still important for us to declare God's Word (Acts 18:6; 20:25-27)?
Q. 23: Verses 12-13: What kind of crimes put blood on a man or city (Ezekiel 18, esp. v. 13)?
Q. 24: What happens if this blood remains uncovered (Ezekiel 24:6-10)?
Q. 25: Does dust have a role in the New Testament with regard to those who have rejected faithful preaching and have blood upon them (Mark 6:11; Matthew 10:14; Luke 9:5; 10:11; Acts 13:51)?
Q. 26: Would anyone besides the Jews understand such a testimony in our day? Should they?
Q. 27: Given the regularity of animal sacrifices, why would the presence of blood on a man have been such a disturbing prospect? Wouldn't the Levitical rituals cover the blood incurred by the commission of these crimes?
Let us consider one passage at a time and ask whether the law is a "ceremonial" or a "moral" law. If we make no other point in this section, it is that the line between "ceremonial" and "moral" laws is often assumed to be an easy one, yet the line is not quite so hard and fast. We may have been mistaken in telling the State to execute criminals based on these verses.
Q. 28: "Moral" or "Ceremonial?"
Q. 29: "Moral" or "Ceremonial?"
Q. 30: Is this response to a violation of the "moral" law applicable in the New Covenant?
Q. 31: The commandment to offer sacrifices is now fulfilled only through faith in the Lamb of God. We therefore call it a "ceremonial law." What about the penalty for neglecting this commandment (verse 8)? "Moral" or "Ceremonial?"
Q. 32: "Moral" or "Ceremonial?"
Q. 33: The penalty for lying with a slave girl is not death, it is a sacrificial cleansing. Why is it not death, as in other cases of adultery?Q. 34: Did the people of Israel need to be taught anything about the privileges (and therefore the responsibilities) of a free son and heir as opposed to a slave? (cf. Galatians 3:24-4:8)
Q. 35: "Moral" or "Ceremonial?"
Q. 36: We would all agree that the New Covenant forbids the use of witchcraft (Acts 19:19), but what of the eating of food with blood (Acts 15: 20)?
Q. 37: "Moral" or "Ceremonial?"
Q. 38: "Moral" crime? "Ceremonial" cleansing? Or vice versa?
Q. 39: Are they also to stone or burn them? If they are not, Who will judge them? (I Corinthians 5:12-13; Hebrews 13:12-16; 10:26-31).Q. 40: May we only execute outside the city limits?
Q. 41: What is the Biblical principle that would allow us to shed blood within the city limits in the New Testament but not the Old?
Q. 42: One well-known Theonomist believes that if a man injures another, that very same injury should be done to him. Not all Theonomists agree with him. On what Scriptural basis do you agree or disagree with him?Q. 43: Nearly all theonomists claim that Jesus did not put the "eye-for-an-eye" rule aside (Matthew 5:38-42); they claim He was not talking about the State, but about interpersonal conflict. Do you know which verse of Scripture proves or disproves this assertion, or do you simply take the word of famous men as your authority (cp. Acts 17:11)?
Q. 44: When the "eye-for-eye" laws of physical disfigurement were carried out, was there a shedding of blood?
Q. 45: What is the general New Testament attitude toward Old Testament practices involving the shedding of blood?
Q. 46: Would the eye-for-eye rules fit into this general category?
Q. 47: How does the New Testament concept of restitution (restoration) bear on personal injuries?
Q. 48: Is the revelation we have in the New Testament more direct and sure or less clear than in the Old Administration? (cf. 2 Peter 1:19) Would it therefore be easier or more difficult now to implement God's Law in society than in the Old Testament?
Most theonomists are agreed that since the manslayer was free after the death of the high priest (verse 32) that this law no longer functions in the New Covenant, following the death of the Great High Priest (i.e., Jesus Christ - Hebrews 3:1). But we have again two elements that create much confusion concerning the death of either the murderer or the high priest: those elements are blood, and the promised land (verses 31-34).
Q. 49: In the New Covenant, does murder defile the land in the same way as it did in the Old?The word "satisfaction" in v. 31 means "substitutionary atonement" If it is true that "there can be no expiation for the land but by the blood of the murderer," then we need capital punishment today.Q. 50: Is atonement (or expiation, a better translation for "cleansed") made for the land in the same way today as under the Old Covenant?
Q. 51: Could it be the case, however, that today our land is cleansed in another way?Q. 52: Does the New Testament teach that while Christ's sacrifice did not pay the penalty for all men, yet for all men Christ is the only sacrifice?
Q.53: Are laws concerning holy wars fulfilled or qualified in the New Testament?First, the action of the sword in the hands of Christians is the Power of the Word of God (Ephesians 6:17), which is the Word of Christ (II Thessalonians 2:8; Revelation 19:15). But this was known in the Old Testament, where the word for "the edge of the sword" is also the word for "commandment" as well as for "mouth" (I Samuel 12:14; cp. Isaiah 11:4; Hosea 6:5).
Q. 54: Should we infer that Christians no longer devote the nations to the shedding of blood, but do pierce their hearts and lives with the Mouth of the Sword of the Lord (Hebrews 4:12; Isaiah 49:2)?Second, we are to be the salt of the earth (Matthew 5:13). Christians have often ignored or misunderstood the words of our Lord in the Sermon on the Mount when He tells us that the ceremonial laws of national sacrifice are to be fulfilled in His saints. By applying the Sword of the Lord, we obey the Levitical commands concerning ritual sacrifice, which were designed in part to teach the effect God's Word would have when faithfully declared. Leviticus 2:13 commanded that all offerings should be salted with salt (Ezekiel 43:24). The offerings were nevertheless consumed by the fire. If the offerings were without sin they would not have been consumed (Malachi 3:1-6). In the New Covenant, the holy ones are baptized with fire (Matthew 3:11) and are not consumed. It is the Word of God that preserves them against fire (II Peter 3:7). In the same way, we are to keep the mouth of our sword salty (Colossians 4:6). Those in whom the salt abides shall be preserved against the fire; those who remain unsalted shall be consumed by the fire (Mark 9:43-48).
Q. 55: How important is it, therefore, for Christians always to be bringing the Word of God to bear on those we touch, that they might be preserved against the great sacrificial fire (Mark 9:49-50)?The response to a false prophet is parallel to the response to a seducing city or nation: the entire city is put to death; even the cattle are sacrificed (vv. 15-16). Nothing that is "cursed" or "devoted" to be "utterly destroyed" (same word in each case) is to have a part in the Israelite camp (v. 17).
Q. 56: Why do some argue that the commands to execute entire nations are not abiding case law principles clothed in the details of the cultural cases at hand?Those who have followed the Protestant Reformers have always left untouched the sovereignty of the secular princes. We don't declare holy war on occultic, socialistic, or demonic nations because the reigning doctrine of Sovereignty is political (polis-centered) and statist, not Family-centered and Biblical; Secular Humanists (and Christians educated in Roman Law traditions) want to recognize and give due political deference to the "legitimacy" of all nations,[22] from Khadafy and Saddam Hussein to emerging third-world dictatorships rooted in terrorism -- simply because they are secular, non-church, polis-centered institutions. "Birds of a feather etc."
Q. 57: Why is it this command of national sacrificial execution is disregarded, but the same type of command pertaining to individuals is upheld and advocated?A New Testament Theocracy, or Christocracy, would in fact mean complete de-polis-ization; Christ, not man, is King; God, not the State, is Divine. Every believer has access to God's revelation which is complete, clear, and unmediated as in the Old Testament.
Q. 58: Was Israel any more sinless than a "Christian nation" in the New Covenant age?
Q. 59: Is God's Word in our day any less clear and sure than in the Old Covenant (cf. 2 Peter 1:19)?
Q. 60: By what theological principle do we who support capital punishment on a theonomic basis arbitrarily suggest that the details of execution, such as method (stoning, burning, etc.) or time and place can be altered, when specified by God's Law?The participation of witnesses in the stoning, as well as the Congregation, cannot be discontinued. Replacement of the witnesses and the Congregation by professional executioners is non-theonomic. Bureaucratized shedding of blood is simply fascism as an answer to crime, knowing that since witnesses would be required to stone a convicted criminal, fewer would testify and help bring about a conviction. Congregational participation clearly requires and cultivates personal responsibility and community morality. Stoning a man, shedding his blood until he dies, then removing his mangled corpse outside the city limits, certainly teaches the witnesses and the congregation more than the cleaner death by electricity, gas, or lethal injection, performed behind the closed doors of the penitentiary labyrinth by anonymous professional bureaucrats. (Yet if we were to follow God's Law in exhaustive detail we might find the ceremonial character of the shedding of blood would be more evident.)
Q. 61: Is there a "separation of church and state" here?
Q. 62: How does this compare with the commanded scenario in I Corinthians 6:1-8?
Q. 63: Is there a "death penalty" passage which unmistakably mandates the elimination of the criminal, as opposed to the elimination of uncleanness or bloodguiltiness?This is not a law which is designed to "keep criminals off the streets." It is a law which makes atonement for sin by the shedding of blood, whether that of the criminal or an animal substitute.
Q. 64: Is this kind of law still to be observed?
Q. 65: Can it be observed in the New Testament? Would the sacrificing of a lamb or heifer for sin be efficacious in the New Testament?
Q. 66: Will the corpses of the executed defile the land if we leave them in the electric chair, gas chamber, or gallows?
Q. 67: After the judge, jury, district attorney, clerk, bailiff, and congregation stone the criminal, must they, as believer-priests, move the carcass outside the city limits, so as to avoid uncleanness?
19. In another paper we suggest that the pragmatic rationale for capital punishment (e.g., reduction of crime) is a test better answered by strengthening Christian families than by strengthening the State. [Back to text]
20. If the killing was accidental and the killer is found, he was to flee to the City of Refuge until the death of the High Priest. Should this be the pattern today? [Back to text]
21. Obviously the most basic question to be asked is the question that undergirds this whole paper: Does God still require us to shed the blood of criminals? Questions 13 and 14 are somewhat trivial in comparison, though they may shed some light on the matter. [Back to text]
22. When Saddam Hussein attacks George Bush's friends, George Bush compels powerless American youths to take guns and bombs over to Iraq. Hearing Bush's threats, Saddam Hussein compels powerless Iraqis to meet the Americans with guns and bombs purchased from Western arms dealers with money received from Bush a year earlier when Saddam and Bush were on speaking terms. What right do these two men have to force others to kill and be killed for them? Bush claims that in war it is "tragic but unavoidable" that innocent men, women, and children will be killed, but it must be so, because Saddam Hussein "represents" them as "their" leader. The Myth of Political "Legitimacy" cost the lives of 200,000 in Iraq and over 100,000,000 in the 20th century. [Back to text]