Date: May 13, 2001 04:26 PM
Author: Alvin Plummer (aplummer@deja.com)
Subject: Red Herrings & Levite Sacrifices

FALSE PREMISES

Unfortunately, Brother has mixed up two seperate issues: the cleansing of the land and capital punishment. When you start the argument with false premises, the resulting discussion is fundamentally skewed and incorrect.

The incorrect premise is "Capital punishment for murder/manslaughter cases is needed to cleanse the land of sin." The correct premise is "Capital punishment for murder/manslaughter cases is required because God's image has been marred. As final owner of all men, God has the right to demand restitution for this act of blasphemy."

The classic case of one man lashing out at God by attacking another of God's Image-bearers is Cain's murder of Abel. Because Adam is taken from the ground (Gen 2:7; 3:19; Ecc 3:20; 12:7), the ground demands restitution: 

Genesis 4:10
10 And He said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto Me from the ground ["the land" adamah].
11 And now art thou cursed from the earth ["the land" adamah], which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand;

DISCUSSION: JESUS' DEATH AN ATONEMENT FOR ALL MURDERS?

Assumption: Jesus, as the final cleansing sacrifice, has in a number of ways cleansed the land. Essentially, I agree with North (as Anarcho-Kev posted), that Jesus was the perfect, cleansing sacrifice for the land. The cleansing has been done definitely, is being accomplished progressively, and will be done finally at the last judgement.

Question: Does this mean that the death penalty is no longer in effect?

Response: No. All Christians have been saved in Christ, but still must suffer the *Biblical civil code* penalities for their sin. Christian liars should never be trusted, Christian thieves still need to pay restitution, various Christian criminals still need to be lashed, and Christian murderers still need to be executed. This is true even though Jesus' blood covers *all* of their sins before God.

One could just as logically argue that even though Christ's blood covers all our sins in order to admit us to heaven, it is still necessary to bring turtledoves to the temple in order to bring about an earthly atonement/cleansing.

Non sequitur.

DEATH PENALITY: WHO EXECUTES?

The church is permitted to do it's form of covenantel death (spiritual execution) - excommunication of membership for deliberate, consistent hatred of God's law, which amounts to hatred of God Himself.

The family, as a legally oath-bound covenental institution, may also inflict covenental death. In this sphere of family government, evil family members are executed by disinheritance. Lethal force to defend the family unit (NOT punish family members) may be used in certain circumstances requiring physical self-defence.

The physical dealth penalty in all circumstances may only be pronounced by the State, not the Church nor the family. This includes crimes against the person (murder, etc), family (adultery, striking parents, continuous rebelliousness) and direct attacks against God (ie: blasphemy - actively cursing God's name in public)

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=49373)

Thus, even if the need to shed blood should someday be established (Alvin hasn't done it yet), there would still logically be the need to establish a non-familial monopoly for this command. More here.

Date: May 13, 2001 04:37 PM
Author: Alvin Plummer (aplummer@deja.com)
Subject: The basic justification of the death penalty

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEATH PENALTY

'An assault on man is an assault on the image of God.... Man is made in the image of God. He is therefore a royal agent, and as such, he deserves protection.... Murder is rebellion, but a special kind of rebellion: lashing out at God's very image, the capstone of His creation. This is the most probable interpretation of the clause in terms of why murder is a capital crime. It explains why man-killing animals are to be executed (Gen 9:5)'

Note that North believes that - while lesser punishments can be substituted for other crimes (ie: lashes for a adulterer), only capital punishment will do for a murderer/manslaughterer. No lesser punishments will be accepted.

If Alvin were to post a theological explanation of why theft is sinful, that would not prove that we are still obligated to bring blood sacrifices to the temple for the crime of theft.

THE NECESSITY OF THE DEATH PENALTY

To assume that the Crucifixion of Jesus wiped away the death penalty is to implicitly argue that His death rendered all Biblical law void in the current era. The destruction of Biblical law - the silencing of God's voice to society outside of the Church - is to give society and government to the covenant-breakers: Christians would have no idea what God wants, and so would have no standard to rule.

Endless oppression under the heel of the idols of the Godhaters may be the opinion of most Christians today, as the preferred choice to avoid becoming judges (and being held to the Law themselves). They have forgotten that no coward is entering the Kingdom of Heaven (Rev 21:8).

This continuous defeat of God's people is not the Biblical position, nor should it be the goal of His people. Theonomy insists that God - thru his obedient people - will triumph in history, in time and on earth.

This is totally illogical. One could just as logically argue that someone who assumes that the Crucifixion of Jesus wiped away animal sacrifices implicitly argues that all law is void. Murder and theft are still wrong, but the land cannot be cleansed by the shedding of any blood but that of Christ.

I do not argue that Christians should not become judges. Indeed, that is an essential component of my brand of Patriarchy, which requires family heads to act as both priest and king (Rev. 1:6; 5:10). In fact, I would argue that those who are arm-chair executioners are the cowards. It's easier to demand that someone else execute all the bad guys instead of taking steps to prevent bad guys from coming into existence.

WHO'S LAW?

I posit that an attack against the legal State use of the death penalty is an indirect attack on the existance of God's Law-Word. To say that God should not punish murder on this earth with death says that God has no say on how *any* crime should be punished. Which means that a godless humanity determines punishment for any crime, up to and including no punishment at all "incase of insanity, stress, etc".

If God cannot dictate the punishment for a crime, than God cannot say that anything is a civil crime on this earth. Which implys that there is a neutral point of reference, from which all reasonable men can determine what the punishment of a crime should be, without reference to God.

This "neutral point of reference" is an intellectual fraud, and does not exist.

North, once again, in the conclusion of _Inheritance and Dominion_

"*There is no neutrality*. Protestant American Christians today are willing to say this in public far more often than they were when I began writing my economic commentary on Genesis in April of 1973. This confessional reversal constitutes the beginning of a revolution in religious thought. When Christians at long last decide to follow this statement regarding neutrality to its logical conclusion - the denial of political pluralism - they will have begun a major journey toward theonomy. To speed up this process of self-awareness, I ask, one more time: If not God's law, then whose? If not God's law, then what? I suggest three choices. God's law or chaos. God's law or tyranny. God's law or chaos followed by tyranny."

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=49374)

I defend Theonomy. I believe every verse of Scripture is law. I worship God's Law. Listen to Alvin's logic: 

To say that God should not punish theft on this earth with the loss of a lamb sacrificed in the temple says that God has no say on how *any* crime should be punished.

Reductio ad absurdum.

The purpose of God's Law re: the shedding of blood is not primarily to "punish" the murderer. The primary purpose is plainly to cleanse the land (Numb. 35:33).

"The annulment of blood sacrifices is neutrality, an intellectual fraud, and political polytheism!!"

Nonsense.

Date: May 13, 2001 04:48 PM
Author: Alvin Plummer (aplummer@deja.com)
Subject: The continuance of capital punishment

UNIVERSAL APPLICATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY

Note that the death penality predates the establishment of the Land, and is therefore not a ceremonial law or law restricted to the land of Israel. In Genesis 9:5-6 God tells Noah in the post-Flood world,

"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.

Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

And note that Paul supported the right of the magistrate - even a pagan magistrate - to enforce capital punishment outside of the Promised Land:

Romans 13:4-6 "For he [the State] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid ; 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.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing."

Note that this was said of a pagan, antiChristian state that often killed unjustly. Yet Paul refused to remove the sword from the State, because the right of justified, lawful execution resided in the government. Instead of removing the sword, Paul argued for limiting the sword's use for just (aka Biblically legal) occasions.

(Note: biblically, private individuals do have the right to use lethal force in certain occasions requiring self-defense and protection of personal property.)

What is "the establishment of the Land?" The promise to Abraham regarding a certain parcel of Palestine? Irrelevant. There were plenty of "ceremonial" laws before the promise to Abraham. There were also plenty of laws relating to "the land" ("the ground," "the earth," not tribal property). Notice the discussion of Cain's offense against the land, above. Notice that before the command re: the shedding of blood (Gen 9:5-6), God gave the command not to eat blood (Gen. 9:4), Noah obeyed the command to bring animals aboard the ark based on the "clean/unclean" distinction, and then made animal sacrifices (Gen 8:20). All this "predates the establishment of the Land."

Romans 13 is not talking about capital punishment. Throughout Scripture "the sword" speaks of war and taxation/confiscation/tribute, which is what Rom 13 has in view (vv. 7-8). Romans 12 says we are not to resist evil. Romans 13 includes the State in this category of evil ("the powers" are demonic, Eph 6:12) and says that God sends evil.

It is thus entirely predictable that someone bearing a sword would be "a pagan, antiChristian state that often killed unjustly." Christ said "Put away your sword" (Matt 26:52).

I don't believe "private individuals have the right to use lethal force." (Partly because I don't believe in "rights" - see here and here.) The Bible clearly states that if lethal force is used, it is criminal, and the "defender's" blood must be shed, Exod. 22:3 (unless the one smitten is an intruder at night, Ex. 22:2).

HATRED OF THE DEATH PENALTY

When God spoke to Noah, He explictly permitted men to execute people for a limited set of crimes. This sword is limited to the State - but it *does* properly reside there, as Paul has noted. All nations, as a form of obedience, should execute murderers/manslaughterers.

North again, on the hatred of the death penalty by various 'enlighened' modern's:

"God has shared His monopoly of execution with men. The final power of death is held by Jesus Christ. "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death (Rev. 1:18). It is He who triumphed over death (I Cor. 15). Christ is the go'el, the kinsman-redeemer who is also the family avenger of blood (Num. 35:19). Satan himself could not take Job's life without God's permission (Job 3:6). Only the creator of life has the original right to destroy life; only He can establish the standards by which man's life may be legitimately removed, including the standards of execution by the civil government.

The biblical view of the State unquestionably and irrefutably affirms the right and obligation of the State to execute men, for the Bible sets forth God's law. God has delegated this power to the State. It cannot lawfully be neglected - certainly not in the name of a "higher, more compassionate" interpretation of God's holy law. *To deny the legitimate, derived, or ministerial sovereign of the State in this regard is to deny the original sovereignty of God.* It is to call into question God's law, the image of God, the protection this image is entitled to, and the responsibility of State officials under God. The denial of capital punishment is, in a very real sense, an attempt to deny God's right of final execution, the imposition of the penalty of the second death, eternal punishment in fire (Rev. 20:14). Such a position denies the right of God to offer murderers an earthly, institutional "down payment" or "earnest" which points to and affirms the reality of their future eternal punishment to come. Furthermore, by denying this right of execution to the State, the opponents of capital punishment are implicitly turning over the power of execution (as distinguished from the right of execution) to murderers and rebels. It reduces their risk of permanent bodily judgment.

Anarchists, rebels, warlords, and criminals all resent the superior authority of civil government. Such authority points to a higher authority and the final judgment. Man's very image is repulsive to murderers, for it also points to the subordination of man's very being to a sovereign God. Man's image of God points to *man's subordinate responsibility*, but a lawful authority as a ruler over creation. It points to *dominion*. Satan and his followers loathe this image. They loathe it and love death (Prov. 8:36). But the image of God in man, when regenerate, is a death-defying image."

When God spoke to Noah, He did not limit the sword to the State. There was no State.

If Christ is the avenger of blood, what right does anyone else (even those presumptuously calling themselves "the State") have avenging blood??

To deny the legitimate, derived, or ministerial sovereignty of the State in regard to sacrificing animals in the temple is to deny the original sovereignty of God."

Non sequitur.

"Protection" is a red herring. The State does not "protect" anyone by killing a murderer before he murders. State action is ex post facto. (Or is it post hoc? Whatever it is, it isn't "protection.")

If anything, an ostensibly bloodless "execution," which denies being tied to the theology of the law of atonement in Numbers 35:33, is an attempt to deny the Providence of God, and His right to provide "national security."

Warlords do not "resent" the authority of "civil government." They want to be the "civil government." Christ says the gentile kings love to be "archists," but it must NOT be so among Christ's followers (Mark 10:42-45).

Will Christian Reconstructionists adopt the theology of warlords, or of non-archists?

(http://freebooks.forums.commentary.net/forums/Index.cfm?Message_ID=49375)