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.
If you defend "Theonomy," do you believe this law should be literally enforced in our day? More importantly, why do you believe whatever you believe. Because the way you treat this passage should dictate your approach to the question of "capital punishment."
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, 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 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.
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?
I had an e-mail discussion about this issue with William Einwechter, editor of The Christian Statesman magazine. Here is that discussion:
| Subj: Theonomy and Deut. 21:1-9 Date: 97-08-05 09:46:39 EDT From: WEinwechte@aol.com Sender: owner-Theonomy-L@dlh.com Reply-to: Theonomy-L@dlh.com To: Theonomy-L@dlh.com |
| Theonomy-L submission from WEinwechte@aol.com |
| [was "Re: reformed baptists (pacifism)"] In a message dated 97-08-04 17:19:19 EDT, Kevin C. writes: |
| << [3] See Capital Punishment page: http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/DeathRow/index.htm [Whatever your reason for not literally following Dt. 21:1-9 (and there is not a single Theonomist alive who says we should), that is why no "capital punishment" verse should be literally followed today.] >> |
| Is that so? Are you really sure that "there is not a single theonomist alive who says we should" follow Deut. 21:1-9 today? Have you read Rushdoony's Institutes pp. 613-617 where he argues that the the law of Deut. 21:1-9 is to be observed today? He says in application of this law for today: "Clearly it is God's purpose that every wrong be righted. Where the criminal cannot be apprehended, the state of the community must make atonement and restitution" (p. 615). |
| Of course Rushdoony does not argue that the law should be "literally" followed. Why? Because as any good Bible scholar and exegete he is sensitive to the fact that the progress of redemptive history leads to certain modifications in the use and application of the law revealed by Moses. The progess of redemptive history, culminating in Jesus Christ and His death, resurrection, and ascension, is paralleled by the biblical progress of revelation to interpret and apply God's redemptive acts in history to the covenant people. So Rushdoony would not insist on the presence of the Levites in the use of Deut. 21:1-9 today. But the principle of Deut. 21:1-9 of restitution and atonement for all crime still applies today! Not only does Rushdoony believe that the moral law of God revealed in Deut. 21:1-9 is still binding on men and nations, but so do all consistent theonomists. |
| Deut. 21:1-9 is based on the biblical theology revealed in the Scriptures: "... for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it" (Num. 35:33; cf. Ps. 106:38; 2 Kings 24:4). Does innocent blood defile the land today? Is America defiled as a nation before a holy God because it has shed the blood of millions of innocent unborn children? Or because it has allowed brutal murderers to live? All theonomist say, "Yes, the land is defiled by the sheding of innocent blood", and, "Yes, the unchanging moral law revealed in the case law of Deut. 21:1-9 still binds men and nations today". |
| Your use of "literally" will have to be defined. The use of the word "literal" is the cornerstone of dispensational theology to defend their system of interpretation. Is your hermeneutic the same as dispensationalism? If not, then what is your "literal" hermeneutic and the reasons for it? How does your "literal" interpretation cancel the righteous demands of God's moral law for today, as you seem to suggest? |
| William Einwechter |
| submissions to Theonomy-L@dlh.com miscellaneous requests to dlh@dlh.com |
| Subj: Re: Theonomy and Deut. 21:1-9 Date: 08/05/97 To: Theonomy-L@dlh.com |
| In a message dated 97-08-05 09:46:39 EDT, William Einwechter writes: |
| >In a message dated 97-08-04 17:19:19 EDT, Kevin C. writes: > ><<> [3] See Capital Punishment page: > http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/DeathRow/index.htm > [Whatever your reason for not literally following Dt. 21:1-9 > (and there is not a single Theonomist alive who says > we should), that is why no "capital punishment" verse should > be literally followed today.] > >> |
| > >Is that so? Are you really sure that "there is not a single theonomist alive >who says we should" [literally] follow Deut. 21:1-9 today? |
| Yes. I've been a Theonomist for 20 years. There is not a single one. |
| Now, I believe EVERY verse in the OT is "applicable" in some way today. Every verse requiring, e.g., the offering of a lamb is still indicative of God's authority and demands on our lives. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22). But in our day, Jesus is the Lamb of God, and it is a violation of God's Law to shed the blood of anyone or anything else in an attempt to cleanse the land and expiate the wrath of God. No other blood but Jesus'. |
| If you do not agree with that paragraph, fire off your response right now, because there's not much point in reading further. If you are a civic official and learn that a homicide has been committed in your jurisdiction, and the killer cannot be determined, you are not obeying God's Law if you and your fellow magistrates shed the blood of an animal. God's Law requires some other act in order to cleanse the city of bloodguiltiness and expiate God's wrath. I find nothing in your lengthy post to indicate otherwise. And so I say again, there is not a single Theonomist alive today who argues for the literal observance of Dt. 21:1-9. |
| >Your use of "literally" will have to be
defined. The use of the word >"literal" is the cornerstone of dispensational theology to defend their >system of interpretation. Is your hermeneutic the same as dispensationalism? > If not, then what is your "literal" hermeneutic and the reasons for it? How >does your "literal" interpretation cancel the righteous demands of God's >moral law for today, as you seem to suggest? |
| The dispensational hermeneutic holds that NO OT verse is binding UNLESS it is repeated in the NT. The Theonomc hermenutic holds that EVERY OT verse is binding unless it has been EXPRESSLY annuled or re-applied in the NT. Dt 21:1-9 has been expressly annuled, as have the verses requiring the offering of a lamb. In no way does this "cancel the righteous demands of God's >moral law for today, as you seem to suggest." The demands of these laws can be met in their fullest, and therefore in the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY by Jesus Christ on Calvary |
| I don't believe I'm saying anything controversial up to this point. Again, NO ONE argues that in the case of an unsolved homicide city officials must shed the blood of a heifer. The principle is clear; the application is obvious. This is Theonomy 101. |
| I don't believe there is another Theonomist who has a "higher" view of the OT than I do. See my paper at http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/home/omni_law.htm |
| Now the controversy. And may I say that I myself was drawn kicking and screaming to this conclusion. I am in print defending "capital punishment." See, for example, my article in Christianity and Civilization vol 1. But if we do not offer blood in the case of an unsolved homicide, why do we offer blood in the case of a solved homicide? What is the role of the Blood of Christ in this case? How does it relate to the theonomic keeping of the relevant OT statutes? Numb 35:33 is clear, IMHO: the purpose of the liturgical shedding of blood in the case of murder was to bring atonement/expiation. This means OT verses on "capital punishment" are really theological, not political; liturgical, not penal. Our view of these verses has not been shaped by Hebrews 10, but by jurists and theologians trained in Roman Law and secular humanism. Read legal history, such as Harold Berman. Greco-Roman humanism was baptized by Medieval Christians using the holy water of Numb 35. As Americans, our political views have been shaped by this Roman-Catholic consensus. |
| I don't believe our social cancers are going to be cured by the blood-letting of Humanistic vengeance. We rule the teaching of "Thou shalt not kill" in the public schools "unconstitutional," and then expect to clean up the mess by shedding the blood of the student-killers. Wrong! A completely misguided political approach to crime. Our social problems can only be solved theologically. |
| Again, I had long believed in the Scriptural necessity and public utility of "capital punishment." This hasn't been easy. But I believe it is necessary. |
| Thanks, Bill E., for the post. I invite more dialogue. |
| Kevin C. http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/DeathRow/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 |
| Subj: Re: Theonomy and Deut. 21:1-9 Date: 97-08-06 10:46:14 EDT From: WEinwechte@aol.com Sender: owner-Theonomy-L@dlh.com Reply-to: Theonomy-L@dlh.com To: Theonomy-L@dlh.com Theonomy-L submission from WEinwechte@aol.com |
| In a message dated 97-08-05 14:06:12 EDT, you write: |
| << Theonomy-L submission from KEVIN4VFT@aol.com |
| In a message dated 97-08-05 09:46:39 EDT, William Einwechter writes: |
| >In a message dated 97-08-04 17:19:19 EDT, Kevin C. writes: > ><<> [3] See Capital Punishment page: > http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/DeathRow/index.htm > [Whatever your reason for not literally following Dt. 21:1-9 > (and there is not a single Theonomist alive who says > we should), that is why no "capital punishment" verse should > be literally followed today.] > >> |
| > >Is that so? Are you really sure that "there is not a single theonomist alive >who says we should" [literally] follow Deut. 21:1-9 today? (Kevin C, writes) |
| <<Yes. I've been a Theonomist for 20 years. There is not a single one.>> |
| (my response)
It would have been helpful if you would have given my post a literal reading and not added words that I did not say. I did not advocate a "literal" following of Deut. 21:1-9 for today. You added the word literal as is indicated by the brackets around the word. In the second paragraph of my original post I specifically say that neither Rushdoony or other theonomists advocate a "literal" usage of all the details of Deut. 21:1-9. You ignored that qualification. |
| Rushdoony and I advocate the use of the moral law contained in the case law of Deut. 21:1-9. That text is inspired Scripture and continues to instruct us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It teaches a godly covenant-keeping community and their magistrates what to do in the case of an unsolved murder. The precise way that we apply that text today may be open for debate, but the need to apply it is not. |
| (Kevin writes) |
| <<Now, I believe EVERY verse in the OT is "applicable" in some way today. Every verse requiring, e.g., the offering of a lamb is still indicative of God's authority and demands on our lives. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb 9:22). But in our day, Jesus is the Lamb of God, and it is a violation of God's Law to shed the blood of anyone or anything else in an attempt to cleanse the land and expiate the wrath of God. No other blood but Jesus'. If you do not agree with that paragraph, fire off your response right now, because there's not much point in reading further. If you are a civic official and learn that a homicide has been committed in your jurisdiction, and the killer cannot be determined, you are not obeying God's Law if you and your fellow magistrates shed the blood of an animal. God's Law requires some other act in order to cleanse the city of bloodguiltiness and expiate God's wrath. I find nothing in your lengthy post to indicate otherwise. And so I say again, there is not a single Theonomist alive today who argues for the literal observance of Dt. 21:1-9.>> |
| (my response) |
| You have made some unsubstantiated claims here which are not supported from the text of Deut. 21:1-9. You make a hasty generalization and conclude that since an animal is put to death that it is an offering for sin and it is in the same vein as the other offerings in the OT for sin, and that the death of this heifer is typical of the sacrifice of Christ for all sin. You are mistaken. The killing of the heifer in Deut. 21:1-9 is not part of the Levitical sacrifices for sin. For proof of this last assertion note: |
| 1. The heifer is not killed at the tabernacle, nor is blood offered on the altar by the priests as is the case with the other sin offerings in the OT. |
| 2. The heifer is not killed by the Levites, but rather by the magistrates. There was a clear distinction in the OT between the magistrates and those who officiated at the altar. Only the Priests were permitted to offer expiatory sacrifices. |
| 3. Sacrifices were offered by the guilty to forgive their sin before a holy God. The sacrificial animal was a substitute for the guilty and their sin was forgiven when offered in faith. For whom is the heifer in Deut. 21:1-9 offered as a substitute for sin? Is it offered to forgive the murderer? Of course not! If he was later apprehended he would be put to death! Was it offered for the magistrates and the people as a sin offering? No! They had committed no sin. The problem is that they could not discover the murderer--which is failure is not a transgression of the law. There is no substitutionary atonement at work in Deut. 21:1-9. |
| So, the text does not support your contention that the death of the heifer is a substitutionary atonement by the blood of a sacrificial victim. Then what does the death of the heifer signifiy and how does it "put away innocent blood from among you"? |
| Let us begin with a quote from C. F. Keil on Deut. 21:1-9: |
| "As the murderer was not to be found, an animal was to be put to death in his stead, and suffer the punishment of the murderer. The slaying of the animal was not an expiatory sacrifice, and consequently there was no slaughtering and sprinkling of the blood; but, as the mode of death, viz. breaking the neck (vid. Ex. xiii. 13), clearly shows, it was a symbolical infliction of the punishment that should have been borne by the murderer, upon the animal which was substituted for him.... If the murderer were discovered afterwards, of course, the punishment of death which had been inflicted vicariously upon the animal, simply because the criminal himself could not be found, would still fall upon him" (The Pentateuch, vol. 3, p. 404). |
| The symbolism of the killing of the heifer is as follows: |
| 1. The crime of murder must be punished by death according to God's law (Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12, 14; Deut. 19:11-13) |
| 2. The murder could not be determined, so the heifer was slain in his place. |
| 3. By their action of slaying the heifer the magistrates (as representatives of the community) indicate their abhorrence of murder, and their resolve to shed the blood of those who shed man's blood (Gen. 9:6). |
| 4. As Num. 35:31-35 indicates, the land can only be cleansed of innocent blood "by the blood of him that shed it". Since the murdered cannot be determined the blood of the heifer is shed as a substitute. Every murder must be accounted for by an execution. This is the underlying moral law of the text. |
| 5. But this is not a sacrifice for sin. The guilt of murder still rests on the head of the murderer; but the community bears no guilt because they testify by their actions and words to the wickedness of murder and their resolve to punish it with death. Deut. 21:9 is crucial here. The people have put away innocent blood by doing what is "right in the sight of the Lord". What is right in the case of murder is to execute the killer. Since the killer has not been found, what was right was to symbolically carry out the sentence of death with the heifer. This they did, and thus removed the guilt that would have been their's for failing to obey God's law and execute killers. |
| (Kevin writes) |
| <<The dispensational hermeneutic holds that NO OT verse is binding UNLESS it is repeated in the NT. The Theonomc hermenutic holds that EVERY OT verse is binding unless it has been EXPRESSLY annuled or re-applied in the NT. Dt 21:1-9 has been expressly annuled, as have the verses requiring the offering of a lamb. In no way does this "cancel the righteous demands of God's>moral law for today, as you seem to suggest." The demands of these laws can be met in their fullest, and therefore in the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY by Jesus Christ on Calvary>> |
| (my response) |
| Deut. 21:1-9 is not a passage describing the offering of a "lamb" for sin, as we have just proved. The death of the heifer is not a sin offering! The blood of the heifer does not cleanse anyone of sin. What absolves the people is their obedience to the law of God in the symbolic execution of the murderer. |
| How does Jesus Christ's death on Calvary fulfill Deut. 21:1-9 if it is not an expiatiory sacrifice for sin, but a symbolic execution of a murderer? |
| (Kevin writes) |
| <<"I don't believe I'm saying anything controversial up to this point. Again, NO ONE argues that in the case of an unsolved homicide city officials must shed the blood of a heifer. The principle is clear; the application is obvious. This is Theonomy 101.>> |
| (my response) |
| Perhaps magistrates should still kill a heifer in a symbolic execution when there is an unsolved murder. Admitted, this seems strange to us today. But besides that, why not? In a godly covenant-keeping civil order that upholds the death penalty for murder there will be very few murders. Fewer still would be the cases of unsolved homicide. The need for this public act of symbolic execution would be rare. I believe a good argument can be made for the actual killing of a heifer by the magistrates in a Christian nation in covenant with God. The argument above supports this since it is symbolic execution and not a "sin offering." Perhaps someone could argue that the moral law of this text can be fulfilled without a symbolic execution. If so, I am ready to hear it. |
| (Kevin writes) |
| <<Now the controversy. And may I say that I myself was drawn kicking and screaming to this conclusion. I am in print defending "capital punishment." See, for example, my article in Christianity and Civilization vol 1. But if we do not offer blood in the case of an unsolved homicide, why do we offer blood in the case of a solved homicide? What is the role of the Blood of Christ in this case? How does it relate to the theonomic keeping of the relevant OT statutes? Numb 35:33 is clear, IMHO: the purpose of the liturgical shedding of blood in the case of murder was to bring atonement/expiation. This means OT verses on "capital punishment" are really theological, not political; liturgical, not penal. Our view of these verses has not been shaped by Hebrews 10, but by jurists and theologians trained in Roman Law and secular humanism. Read legal history, such as Harold Berman. Greco-Roman humanism was baptized by Medieval Christians using the holy water of Numb 35. As Americans, our political views have been shaped by this Roman-Catholic consensus.>> |
| (my response) |
| It's not hard to understand why you were only drawn kicking and screaming to your anti-death penalty for murder position because it is so patently unbiblical, foolish, and false, without a shred of scriptural support. |
| If my argument on Deut. 21:1-9 is correct (and behoves you to answer my points one by one from the text of Scripture) then your whole argument against capital punishment from Deut. 21:1-9 evaporates. Since no blood is "offered" in Deut. 21:9, and what we have is a symbolic execution of a murderer, then it fully supports the execution of all murderers today! |
| What is the role of the blood of Christ in this case? It appears that it has no direct role, since Deut. 21:1-9 is not a sacrifice for sin; it is not a substitutionary atonement. Christ does have a role, however, in Deut. 21:1-9 today. As "prince of the rulers of the earth" He commands them to uphold His law and execute murderers! |
| You build your whole case against Deut. 21:1-9 on the basis of Hebrews 10 and that the death of the heifer is a sin offering that Christ fulfilled. But the context of Hebrews 9 and 10 is the priests, the tabernacle, the sprinkling of blood on the altar, and the offering of blood in the holy place. None of these are present in Deut. 21:1-9. |
| Furthermore, your statement that the execution of a killer in Num. 35:33 is "liturgical" to bring expiation is ridiculous! If it liturgical expiation, why didn't the law specify that murderers be killed at the tabernacle and their blood sprinkled on the altar, the only place that expiation for sin can be effected? The execution refered to in Num. 35 is the fulfillment of justice for a crime against God and man. |
| (Kevin writes) |
| <<I don't believe our social cancers are going to be cured by the blood-letting of Humanistic vengeance. We rule the teaching of "Thou shalt not kill" in the public schools "unconstitutional," and then expect to clean up the mess by shedding the blood of the student-killers. Wrong! A completely misguided political approach to crime. Our social problems can only be solved theologically.>> |
| (my response) |
| To uphold God's unchanging moral law in regard to the execution of murderers is not "Humamistic vengeance", and to suggest that it is borders on blasphemy! Theonomists do not call for "political" solutions to our social problems. We advocate the application of the righteous standards of God's law in every sphere--personal, family, church, and state. Your rejection of capital punishment for murder makes you the humanist who rejects the law of God for your own autonomous standards spun out of the imaginations of your own mind and reason. |
| William Einwechter |
| submissions to Theonomy-L@dlh.com miscellaneous requests to dlh@dlh.com |
| Subj: Re: Theonomy and Deut. 21:1-9 Date: 08/06/97 To: Theonomy-L@dlh.com |
|
| Thanks to William Einwechter for a challenging response, re: Capital Punishment and Dt 21:1-9. I enjoyed it. Unfortunately, I just received an email from Dean Edward Gaffney at the Valparaiso Schof Law that my case is to be argued before the 9th Circuit Ct of Appeals tomorrow, Thursday 8/7. I've got to run to the library to zerox a case which must be filed with the clerk. Please pray for Gaffney and the judges on my panel. I'll be back to my computer next week. | |
| Here are a few thoughts to keep the ball rolling.
In a message dated 97-08-06 10:46:14 EDT, WEinwechte writes: |
|
| > >It would have been helpful if you would have given my post a literal >reading and not added words that I did not say. I did not advocate a >"literal" following of Deut. 21:1-9 for today. |
|
| To my surprise, you do: | |
| >Perhaps magistrates should still kill a heifer in a
symbolic execution when >there is an unsolved murder. Admitted, this seems strange to us today. But >besides that, why not? In a godly covenant-keeping civil order that upholds >the death penalty for murder there will be very few murders. Fewer still >would be the cases of unsolved homicide. The need for this public act of >symbolic execution would be rare. I believe a good argument can be made for >the actual killing of a heifer by the magistrates in a Christian nation in >covenant with God. The argument above supports this since it is symbolic >execution and not a "sin offering." Perhaps someone could argue that the >moral law of this text can be fulfilled without a symbolic execution. If so, >I am ready to hear it. |
|
| I've never heard anyone argue this before. | |
| >Rushdoony and I advocate the use of the moral law
contained in the case law >of Deut. 21:1-9. That text is inspired Scripture and continues to instruct >us in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). It teaches a godly covenant-keeping >community and their magistrates what to do in the case of an unsolved murder. |
|
| No it doesn't . . . | |
| > The precise way that we apply that text today may be
open for debate, but >the need to apply it is not. |
|
| See? (I agree, of course, that it is to applied in some way today. Just not literally. That's really the whole debate here. Numb 35 says murderers must have their blood shed [cf. Gen 9:6] to cleanse the land, that is, make atonement. We're still supposed to do this after Calvary?) | |
| >You have made some unsubstantiated claims here which are
not supported from >the text of Deut. 21:1-9. You make a hasty generalization and conclude >that since an animal is put to death that it is an offering for sin and it is >in the same vein as the other offerings in the OT for sin, and that the death >of this heifer is typical of the sacrifice of Christ for all sin. You are >mistaken. The killing of the heifer in Deut. 21:1-9 is not part of the >Levitical sacrifices for sin. |
|
| I didn't say it was part of the "Levitical sacrifices for sin." I said it was a ceremonial shedding of blood to bring atonement. This shedding of blood pre-dates the Levitical priesthood (Gen 9:6). This is clear to me from Num 35:33: | |
|
|
| The word "cleansed" is expiation, or atonement. THIS is the purpose of "capital punishment." It is in fact not a "punishment," but an atonement. | |
| The question is, How do we cleanse the land in our day? | |
| >For proof of this last assertion note: > >1. The heifer is not killed at the tabernacle, nor is blood offered on the >altar by the priests as is the case with the other sin offerings in the OT. |
|
| I need proof that there are NO atoning liturgies anywhere but in the tabenacle. Numbers 35 is inescapable: "capital punishment" was a liturgy for expiation. Are you prepared to argue that "executions" only took place on the altar? Is San Quentin an altar today? | |
| > >2. The heifer is not killed by the Levites, but rather by the magistrates. > There was a clear distinction in the OT between the magistrates and those >who officiated at the altar. Only the Priests were permitted to offer >expiatory sacrifices. |
|
| Leviticus 4:15? I could go on for hours on this one. See my page, http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/cp/separation.htm |
|
| >3. Sacrifices were offered by the guilty to
forgive their sin before a holy >God. The sacrificial animal was a substitute for the guilty and their sin >was forgiven when offered in faith. For whom is the heifer in Deut. 21:1-9 >offered as a substitute for sin? |
|
| The murderer. If the murderer were known, his blood would be shed to provide atonement and cleanse the land of bloodguiltiness, Num 35:33. The murderer in Dt 21 is not known, so a heifer is substituted. | |
| >Let us begin with a quote from C. F. Keil on Deut.
21:1-9: > >"As the murderer was not to be found, an animal was to be put to death in his >stead, and suffer the punishment of the murderer. |
|
| Wrong. This is a Greco-Roman concept. The purpose of the shedding of blood was not "punishment," but atonement. The former is political humanism, the second theological. | |
| >The slaying of the animal >was not an expiatory sacrifice, and consequently there was no slaughtering >and sprinkling of the blood; but, as the mode of death, viz. breaking the >neck (vid. Ex. xiii. 13), clearly shows, it was a symbolical infliction of >the punishment that should have been borne by the murderer, upon the animal >which was substituted for him.... |
|
| I disagree. Maybe Jim Jordan can tell us why necks figure so prominently in OT liturgies: Ex 13:13; 34:20; Lev 5:8. I frankly don't trust Keil on this one. | |
| W.E.: >The symbolism of the killing of the heifer is as follows: > >1. The crime of murder must be punished by death according to God's law (Gen. >9:6; Ex. 21:12, 14; Deut. 19:11-13) > >2. The murder could not be determined, so the heifer was slain in his place. > >3. By their action of slaying the heifer the magistrates (as representatives >of the community) indicate their abhorrence of murder, and their resolve to >shed the blood of those who shed man's blood (Gen. 9:6). > >4. As Num. 35:31-35 indicates, the land can only be cleansed of innocent >blood "by the blood of him that shed it". Since the murdered cannot be >determined the blood of the heifer is shed as a substitute. |
|
| Haven't I been saying this? | |
| >Every murder >must be accounted for by an execution. This is the underlying moral law of >the text. |
|
| "Accounted for by an execution." Humanistic Political language. The Bible says "land must be cleansed . . . make atonement . . . shed blood." Let's get theological. | |
| >It's not hard to understand why you were only drawn
kicking and screaming to >your anti-death penalty for murder position because it is so patently >unbiblical, foolish, and false, without a shred of scriptural support. |
|
| I have at LEAST a "shred" of evidence. You could be more charitable. | |
| >Furthermore, your statement that the execution of a
killer in Num. 35:33 is >"liturgical" to bring expiation is ridiculous! If it liturgical expiation, >why didn't the law specify that murderers be killed at the tabernacle and >their blood sprinkled on the altar, the only place that expiation for sin can >be effected? The execution refered to in Num. 35 is the fulfillment of >justice for a crime against God and man. |
|
| Good question! The answer is in Numbers 35:33. "Cleansed" in KJV is "expiation." "So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." | |
| Convince me this is not ceremonial language. | |
| >To uphold God's unchanging moral law in regard to the
execution of murderers >is not "Humamistic vengeance", and to suggest that it is borders on >blasphemy! Theonomists do not call for "political" solutions to our social >problems. We advocate the application of the righteous standards of God's >law in every sphere--personal, family, church, and state. Your rejection of >capital punishment for murder makes you the humanist who rejects the law of >God for your own autonomous standards spun out of the imaginations of your >own mind and reason. > >William Einwechter |
|
| There's a lot of good questions in your post. I can't do them justice now. I'll return to them, however, Your language is very bold. It exceeds the Scriptural evidence. | |
| Kevin Craig http://members.aol.com/VFTINC/DeathRow/index.htm --------------------------------------------- And they shall beat their swords into plowshares and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree. Micah 4:1-7 |
Bill Einwechter recently expanded his thinking in the Christian Statesman magazine. An analysis of his article is here.