Christian Citizenship Poll?

[buggy]

Speaking of death by stoning, don't you notice the ceremonial aspects of it too? When we think of the death penalty today, we think of stuff like hanging, firing squad, lethal injection etc. All these deaths are executed swiftly, and most of the time secretly.

But in the OT, you have stoning... done by the people. And the person will usually die a slow, painful death - if not killed by the stones, he will die by bleeding. Remember in Genesis...

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." - Genesis 9:6 KJV

Even this ceremony was to remind us of the terrible consequences of sin, that it demands our life, which even our own blood cannot repay!

 

[Southern Twang]

Speaking of death by stoning, don't you notice the ceremonial aspects of it too? When we think of the death penalty today, we think of stuff like hanging, firing squad, lethal injection etc. All these deaths are executed swiftly, and most of the time secretly.

But in the OT, you have stoning... done by the people. And the person will usually die a slow, painful death - if not killed by the stones, he will die by bleeding. Remember in Genesis...

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." - Genesis 9:6 KJV

Even this ceremony was to remind us of the terrible consequences of sin, that it demands our life, which even our own blood cannot repay!

No I don't see the ceremonial aspects of it. I can't speak for all Theonomists, I know that Gary North sees no problem with stoning, and neither do I.

I especially like that the community is coming together and putting the evil away. This type of punishment does remind us of the consequences of sin, and in a very real way.

In modern society, as you alluded to, executions are done in secret or separated from the eyes of the community. People need to be able to see the executions. I would hope this would greatly discourage would be murders and people that falsely accuse others of capital crimes. Once again, consequences of sin need to be felt and realized.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I'll say,
It just might do us well go back a hundred years, to public hangings and the like. Sober people up, I'd say.

I wouldn't want to go back 500 years though, to public spectacles like drawing and quartering. To the macabre party-atmosphere that accompanied many public executions.


But,
I have to say, as a former soldier who did serve in an active combat zone (though I never fired a shot in anger), to all the brave souls who confidently assert their willingness to lay your hands to the stones, and bring the death...

you are more sure of yourself, than I would be to say I could've killed the enemy. And I was trained to do it, and carried over 300 rounds of 5.56 ball ammunition on my person every time we went out the gate.

My! how sure we are of our theoretical commitments.

And how many of these executions would any of you be willing to participate in, on say, a weekly basis? Especially in the early going, when you have to "set the example," and prove how hard-line and committed you and the new Godly Regime are to the principles of the "Revolution". Robespierre! Where are you when we need you?

Or will we be waiting till the percentage of voluntary compliance and church-goers are 75%, to implement the stonings? (BTW, who remembers reading "The Lottery" by Shirley Jackson, in HS or college lit.?) Or is it really fair to expect the 51% to wait? Would it be right to hesitate when God's Law is on the line? NO! let the missiles fly!


Seriously, how many of of you have ever really considered this, or ANY killing, from a mental-balance standpoint? How about reading a few books:
On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Dave Grossman
The Face of Death by John Keegan

Is there any place, in the Brave New World of Theonomy, for a willingness to endure provocations? For the sake of Christ? Or is that only when we are in the minority? Once we get on top, baby, then look out! (Wait, wasn't that the Jewish attitude on the eve of the Messianic Age?)

 

[Southern Twang]

Bruce,

If you think stoning is barbaric, then you believe God is barbaric. He instituted it, your problem lies with Him.

It would be interesting to see how many people in modern society would want capital punishment at all if they had to be involved in carrying it out. That could also be said for war. The detachment from the process somehow makes us more comfortable with it.

If you think stoning is inhumane, think about sitting in a prision cell for the rest of your life (of course now we give prisoners all sorts of amenities). A prison system is not even Biblical!

Bruce, you bring up very good points. Thanks for your input and service to our country.

 

[Peairtach]

The point is should we be stoning - the shards of the stony broken law coming down on the head of the offender - when the law is no longer stony?(II Corinthians 3:6-11).

Should we be carrying out all the death penalties that were added (Galatians 3:19) to the death penalty for murder given to the world through Noah and which functioned as a pedagogue to a Church and Kingdom under age.

Under the more gracious New Covenant - the Old Covenant being gracious but less so - we are treated as sons and not slaves (Galatians 4:1-11). Should not Christians have the opportunity to repent and be restored like the incestuous man in I Corinthians or like the man who was collecting sticks on the Sabbath in Numbers 15, rather than be executed by his congregation or the state? A lesser civil (or ecclesiastical !?!) penalty than execution would provide for this.

It is no wonder theonomianism has been called biblicist when the context of the typological sacrifices is ignored.

Re the WCF, if the Westminster Commissioners were so sure that general equity was a one to one correspondence between Mosaic offences and their penalties, including the death penalty, and what should be legislated for in the New Covenant, why didn't they just list them like Rushdoony and Bahnsen did?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dewey,
I don't think I called stoning "barbaric". I'm not sure I even thought of that word, or anything similar while I typed my post.

By using this term, do you think that I think the practice of stoning--
and hence God--is
primitive, uncivilized, brutish, simplistic, superstitious, unnecessarily violent or bloody...?

Do I think stoning is appropriate to our time and place? No, not really. But I also don't think that taking female captives in war for servants or wives is appropriate for our time and place. And I think that in the time and place all that guidance was given, Israel was a model of propriety when compared to the "barbarized" but technically advanced and sophisticated civilizations to the north, south, east, and west of them.

Moreover, things that are "old" now, often become "new" again in the future, so perhaps stoning will make a comeback. I'm not in principle opposed to that, so I don't really think that your criticism of my position on this point is well-formed, or based on what I actually wrote.

But I don't have the same precommitment as a theonomist to a specific form of ancient revitalization. So it doesn't occur to me to think that stoning as such is automatically the best way of exercising capital punishment, just because God once gave such directive.

God also told them to burn a person in at least one instance (doesn't say the same person had to be stoned before, after, or at all). People were executed by the sword and the spear in the OT--no indication that this was in violation of Mosaic principles. It's plausible to think that "manner" of execution was considered either adiaphora or a judgment-call, or a positive injunction that could change. When God told the people to execute by stoning, stoning was already in use (Ex.8:26).


My point in writing my post was to draw attention to the fact that it is one thing to talk about stoning people to death (or any other form of execution), and it is another think entirely to "throw the first stone," or the hail, or the coup de grace. A lot of people advocating stoning know deep down that they can agitate safely, with very little chance they will ever have the occasion to perform one. They don't even have to think about the details--how convenient.

And while I do not think one has to be a hearty or a willing participant (unless compelled by law) in order to support executions (any, in principle), if a person cannot seriously think through the implications of his commitment to stoning, and embrace his gory involvement--he shouldn't advocate for it.

It probably is better to get executions out of the closet, and back into the public square. Everyone shares in this justice. You signal your approval or disapproval of this act. It is a public sanction of the judgment; or it could be their public sanction of the accused, and the people put the government in fear by their manifest disapproval of the act. I think of the public's rejection of Bloody Mary's executions.

But, let's stop theorizing in the abstract. If stoning be advocated, then let's be specific. If you are the one sent to pick up that last boulder, and drop it with that sickening crunch on the subject's skull, do you think you can do it? You've been assigned to finish it; do you say, "Pick someone else"? No, you chose this method, so you do it.

My objection, at least in the limited manner I've stated it here, is that people are generally much too glib in what they advocate. "The vital thing is the blueprint; we'll handle the minor hiccups on the move!" This is exactly the track every Utopian experiment has taken: be it in Muenster, Paris, Petrograd, Phnom Penh... pick your Paradise.

I really don't want to see another failed experiment, again with Christians at the levers.

 

[Peairtach]

Dear Christusregnat,

Richard,
I'm finding this interchange enjoyable. So as not to become too tedious, I will say that I disagree with the typology you have imposed on the judicials; I think it is arbitrary. Further, I think if followed consistently, would lead to the abolition of civil justice.

Hardly. Civil justice has other purposes apart from the typology that was in the Mosaic civil justice.

The example you cited from the cities of refuge deals with captial punishment for muder. If you wanted to argue against a certain penalty from this passage, you would be forced to argue against the death penalty for murder (which I understand you are unwilling to do). The fact that the Torah does not nicely distinguish between the different types of law does not mean that they are the same kind. If you care to read "you shall love your neighbor as you love yourself" in Leviticus 19, you will find it surrounded by genuinely typological teachings. It is confusion to set aside these distinctions. I do not deny typology; it is all over the books of Moses. What this has to do with the equity of the judicial punishments is this: it is irrelevant.

We already have the death penalty for murder given to the world through the Noahic Covenant in Genesis on the basis of the lex talionis. The cities of refuge case law involves the death of the high priest. Ceremonial law and typology has to be disentangled from moral and penal law if we are to learn anything from this case law about the punishment of murderers/manslayers in the 21st Century.

Because typology is "all over the books of Moses" we have to be more careful than theonomists have been in making careful distinctions lest we be found legislating shadows.

The point about Gillespie is simply that the Assembly was composed of men of similar convictions, which can very easily be established (pun intended) by reading their writings and the original WCF etc.

If they all agreed with the one to one application of Mosaic crimes and penalties to today, why did they not say so instead of talking about GE?

My point remains that many of the men there were of the same mind, and that the original standards are impossible to make sense of from our modern Post Enlightenment standpoint.

Does the Spirit not continue to illumine the study of His Word Post Enlightenment and can we not learn to distinguish between humanistic interpretation and the illumination of the Spirit?

If it is the case that there are typical elements in the penal sanctions, then it would be theonomists who would be arbitrary in legislating shadows and putting the new wine of the Kingdom into old bottles.

It is not the case, however.

So you say, while maintaining that typology is "all over the books of Moses" (?)

Again, this is an unbiblical form of Biblical theology. Unconfessional to boot. Jesus reiterated Mosaic Judicial sanctions with approval, and (as we'll see in a second) so did the Apostles.

Of course Jesus did. He was living before the resurrection and before A.D. 70,
and He had given this legislation to Israel through Moses. I don't know which statements of the Apostles you're referring to.

Actually, not every sin deserves immediate physical death. One of the major functions of the judicials is to restrain the magistrate from punishing every sin that he wants. Jesus recognized this distinction in the Law He gave when he talked about murder in the Sermon on the Mount; some sins bring us to judgment before God (hating in the heart), but some can be brought as evidence in a trial (saying "Raca").

I meant that if God dealt with us immediately as we deserve. Those that broke the 10C under the Mosaic Law in certain ways and didn't have a sacrifice were dealt with immediately as they deserved, in order to point the Israelites to God's eschatalogical punishment.

I'm not contending that arguing that the judicials is extra-confessional, I'm arguing that it is contra-confessional, since it specifically denies what the Confession states about the judicials.

Because it doesn't comport with your view of general equity? Theonomy apparently is the only correct view of GE, but the WCF doesn't tell us that. Why not? Rushdoony believed the Confession needed amendment.

I'll answer your other points later.

Richard.

 

[DonP]

What the theonomists miss is:

There was a reason for the death penalty in the old covenant that is no longer applicable in the new.

In the old testament they were to purify the land. This was typological

They were to kill men, women, children animals etc. as a sign and type of purification and separation from the world.
To manifest a national purity and separation from other nations, they even purified among themselves by the death penalty.

Now Christ reversed this clearly by His not obeying the law to stone the woman caught in adultery.
He said its over. We are done with the civil govt and those laws. Now we are in the fulfillment and the spiritual reality is more clear.

There is no need for types anymore. Sanctify yourselves in your hearts. Judge by the same standard. Who is without sin cast the stone, therefore no one but He could and He didn't.

Therefore as Richard said, we are in a different ministration of the Covenant now and though I do not oppose the death penalty, I see no purpose for it as it was used in the OT. Then to purify for a visual type. And pointing to eternal death and removal from the visible covenant and probably the invisible Covenant as well.

Nowdays we might do it perhaps to save money on protecting society from a repetitive killer, rapist, etc. rather than warehousing them as animals in a zoo.

The govt. should have some methods of deterring evil to protect society etc. but it should also, if it were following Christian principles, seek for patience with the person to give them the gospel and time to repent and be converted. Even mass murderers etc.

There is nothing in scripture that tells us in the NT ministration that we must have a death penalty. We are not to purify the land for a typological purpose. that was the reason God had Israel do it.
in my opinion God did not have Israel execise those laws because there was something eternally right about them for all governments and nations to come. Just for Israel and its unique redemptive typology.

This si why the wise and godly men of the Westminster Assembly agreed that only the General Equity of the OT laws are to be required of governments.

That is:
no more than an eye for an eye.
Manslaughter is different than premeditated murder
There are sins that are of ignorance and some of presumption and they should be punished differently.
Judge wisely, if a woman cries out versus if she does not cry out then claims rape.

So make sure the laws and punishments are equitable, but not the same or exact as the OT was for Israel's special purpose.

As for our prison system, apart from being corrupt as other parts of society, I do not find it helpful.

I would much prefer a vigilante system where each one protected themselves and criminals beware. This would probably reduce the number of criminals.

And if we have a prison system it should be rehabilitative in nature, where possible. Educational and preparatory to putting people back into society capable of earning a living with new values and also with the gospel of salvation applied ot them or the warnings of hell ringing in their ears.

So barring this, anything we do have will be weak and faulty.

Perhaps had we gathered and preached to and prayed for our murders, god would have predestined conversion to more of them.
And many are converted in prison and htis si their life's work now. They are missionaries to others who come into the prison.
There are churches in the prisons still thank God, and the Spirit is at work.
We all would do well to remember them more in prayers, and visits and sending Christian literature.

We are not the nation of Israel. We are Israel the spiritual seed and people. God is done with he nation and the land, and the laws and temporal blessings and promises to Israel. There is no more Jew or Greek, it is all about the spiritual kingdom now.

Col 3:2
If then you were raised with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ is, sitting at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on things above, not on things on the earth. NKJV

Where are we told to make sure the earthly governments specifically are doing things right?
Rulers just as any other individual should be commanded to repent and obey Christ. So we vote and speak out to our Christian rulers to make General Equity laws, and uphold the 10 commands, but God has told us
Rom 13:1 For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience' sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. NKJV


These amazing verses tell me that God is particularly reminding us that He is in control of governments and rulers, and will use them to protect us and maintain common grace and restrain evil.

Almost as if to say, let them do their job, I will handle them, you go preach the kingdom. What difference does it make which government you are under on earth or what laws so long as I am using them to retrain evil.
Let the dead bury the dead, you go do what only a Christian can do, preach the gospel.

We are not Adam. We are not here to redeem this physical word for God. It is going to be destroyed and and new earth created for us to live in. Our primary task is the spiritual kingdom, not the preservation and reforming of the physical.

If we were all doing so well in the primary task, then maybe time to take a look at others things. But we are failing miserably at he primary.

Let us sanctify ourselves before we seek to sanctify the unregenerate government.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Adam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
In the New Covenant conditions of the Millenial Golden Age, the raft of Mosaic death penalties would be inequitable (because the sacrificial system has ended), inappropriate and unecessary.

This is unconfessional rot.

It's unconfessional rot if you have the correct view of GE. If I have it's not.

Quote from Adam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Hebrews 2:1-4)

Notice: 1. Hebrews argues that the mosaic judicials are righteous judgments (you think they are typical, but they are actually the right judgments). Notice: 2. He argues from the justice of these penalties to the greater justice of the final judgment. The main conclusion: Mosaic judicial sanctions are right; God's greater punishment is also right. I don't see where this bring in sacrifices.

Those sentenced to death had no typological salvation via the altar and sacrifices, therefore it was equitable, under the typological scheme of Moses that they be executed. If it was always equitable that people should be executed for the raft of offences under Moses, why were these death penalties added to the death penalty for murder given to all mankind via Noah. Notice that the writer to the Hebrews is already speaking in the past tense about the "just recompence of reward" under Moses.


Quote from Adam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
In Hebrews 10:26-29 we are reminded that those who were executed under Moses law had no animal sacrifice - neither could they offer a sacrifice for their sin before their execution.

The point of the Mosaic law is that a man could not make an "escape route" for himself from a capital sentence. However, as we know, every sin can be forgiven against God, even though some could not be forgiven on earth, and still can't.

Hebrews 10:26-29 with Numbers 15:30-31 shows that there was no sacrifice for sin in the case of those sentenced to capital punishment for wilful breach of the 10C. Numbers 15:31 says that the iniquity of the offender was to be upon him, that is he couldn't transfer it to a sacrifice and therefore had to die. An example is given of the man collecting sticks on the Sabbath and flagrantly breaking the 4C. We don't read that he was allowed a sacrifice for his sin. Do you believe he was?

I believe that if someone had faith in Christ, of course he would go to heaven, even although the typological penalty had to be applied.

The point of the writer to the Hebrews is that the death penalty under Moses pointed to the sorer penalty of Hell.


Quote from Adam

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Tallach
For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Hebrews 10:26-29)

Again, this argues for the justice of the Mosaic sanction, not for its typology. Despisers of Moses' law are worthy of death. Despisers of the gospel of Christ are worthy of an even greater death.
Yesterday 12:11 AM

So the typological death should fall away lest it obscure the greater death.

Those of us Reformed who aren't theonomists also love God's law and want to see it applied correctly in all areas of life. Do you believe that non-theonomists love God's law?

I've heard some who call themselves theonomists say that apart from murder the death penalties of Moses were maximum penalties. What is your view on that and, if you hold to this, what mitigating factors led to this commutation, and what penalties do you believe were imposed instead of death in such cases?

 

[DonP]

Heb 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, NKJV

Heb 8:5 who serve the copy and shadow of the heavenly things, NKJV

Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ. NKJV

1 Cor 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come. NKJV

Why would anyone want to go back to the shadow and types.

We have the reality in Christ. Let us live in this world, and our rulers as well, wit wisdom in light of the reality, not go back under the types

 

[Southern Twang]

Dewey,
I don't think I called stoning "barbaric". I'm not sure I even thought of that word, or anything similar while I typed my post.

By using this term, do you think that I think the practice of stoning--
and hence God--is
primitive, uncivilized, brutish, simplistic, superstitious, unnecessarily violent or bloody...?

Glad you don't think it's barbaric. We're clear on this now.

Do I think stoning is appropriate to our time and place? No, not really. But I also don't think that taking female captives in war for servants or wives is appropriate for our time and place. And I think that in the time and place all that guidance was given, Israel was a model of propriety when compared to the "barbarized" but technically advanced and sophisticated civilizations to the north, south, east, and west of them.

Females captives? Stick to the subject at hand please.

I agree Israel was a model of propriety, but where we differ is that I still believe it is a model for "modern" society.

Moreover, things that are "old" now, often become "new" again in the future, so perhaps stoning will make a comeback. I'm not in principle opposed to that, so I don't really think that your criticism of my position on this point is well-formed, or based on what I actually wrote.

Great! This is what I think all non-Theonomists will do: get on board when we get a chance to apply God's law to society. This is all I could ask for.

But I don't have the same precommitment as a theonomist to a specific form of ancient revitalization. So it doesn't occur to me to think that stoning as such is automatically the best way of exercising capital punishment, just because God once gave such directive.

Fair enough. Hopefully you'll fill a little more convicted about it, but I don't think anything I write is going to do that.

God also told them to burn a person in at least one instance (doesn't say the same person had to be stoned before, after, or at all). People were executed by the sword and the spear in the OT--no indication that this was in violation of Mosaic principles. It's plausible to think that "manner" of execution was considered either adiaphora or a judgment-call, or a positive injunction that could change. When God told the people to execute by stoning, stoning was already in use (Ex.8:26).

It is possible that stoning will only be one method of execution. I'll have to put in more study time before I become dogmatic on this subject.

My point in writing my post was to draw attention to the fact that it is one thing to talk about stoning people to death (or any other form of execution), and it is another think entirely to "throw the first stone," or the hail, or the coup de grace. A lot of people advocating stoning know deep down that they can agitate safely, with very little chance they will ever have the occasion to perform one. They don't even have to think about the details--how convenient.

And while I do not think one has to be a hearty or a willing participant (unless compelled by law) in order to support executions (any, in principle), if a person cannot seriously think through the implications of his commitment to stoning, and embrace his gory involvement--he shouldn't advocate for it.

It probably is better to get executions out of the closet, and back into the public square. Everyone shares in this justice. You signal your approval or disapproval of this act. It is a public sanction of the judgment; or it could be their public sanction of the accused, and the people put the government in fear by their manifest disapproval of the act. I think of the public's rejection of Bloody Mary's executions.

But, let's stop theorizing in the abstract. If stoning be advocated, then let's be specific. If you are the one sent to pick up that last boulder, and drop it with that sickening crunch on the subject's skull, do you think you can do it? You've been assigned to finish it; do you say, "Pick someone else"? No, you chose this method, so you do it.

You're right Bruce, easier said than done. If God's law requires me to drop that last boulder, which signifies the execution of justice, then by all means I'm going to drop that last rock.

My objection, at least in the limited manner I've stated it here, is that people are generally much too glib in what they advocate. "The vital thing is the blueprint; we'll handle the minor hiccups on the move!" This is exactly the track every Utopian experiment has taken: be it in Muenster, Paris, Petrograd, Phnom Penh... pick your Paradise.

I really don't want to see another failed experiment, again with Christians at the levers.

God's law will prevail. I have faith that Christians will one day be utterly convicted by His Word and carry out grace, mercy, and justice as God would have it.

This is a subject that is hard to swallow for Christians in this time period. Our culture has severly impeded our perspective on punishment. Most Christians are happy with the current prison system which hardly executes justice. We see no talk of restitution. In the end we penalize the victim by housing and feeding the inmate with their tax dollars.

Bringing back the Biblical form of punishment, proper execution methods and resititution, are an inescapable fact for the Christian Reconstructionist.

 

[Philip]

Dewey,

Here's part of my problem with stoning, though: I deserve the stoning just as much as the criminal does. I can't throw the stone unless I am sinless (John 8:1-11).

Again, I agree with Richard that the civil law is, in reality, ceremonial and typological, not to mention that fact that we would need to implement new legislation to cover things not mentioned, such as cyber-crime, intellectual property, patent law, corporate regulations, contract law, etc. And just where in OT law do we find a mandate for any sort of legislative body? In fact, we don't because God Himself was the legislative and executive of Israel (until the monarchy). So, unless we want to reinstitute a monarchy (oh wait, that's Christ) we have an inadequate system for a modern society. Unless we want to stretch the meaning of the law to cover advances in technology and society (in essence, create a new Talmud--which would not have the same authority) we have to admit that an extra-biblical legislative body would be necessary (and may I mention that God's monarchy is not a constitutional one).

Implementation and enforcement are major barriers here, if you're going to take things literally, as you're doing.

 

[Prufrock]

Here's part of my problem with stoning, though: I deserve the stoning just as much as the criminal does. I can't throw the stone unless I am sinless (John 8:1-11).

I am not a Theonomist, nor do I believe in the abiding validity of the Mosaic penal sanctions -- but the above statement seems slightly strange to me. Are you suggesting that during the Old Testament anyone who took part in carrying out the mandates of the law (i.e., stoning for certain offenses) was wrong to do so, as they were not sinless?

 

[Peairtach]

Here's part of my problem with stoning, though: I deserve the stoning just as much as the criminal does. I can't throw the stone unless I am sinless (John 8:1-11).

I am not a Theonomist, nor do I believe in the abiding validity of the Mosaic penal sanctions -- but the above statement seems slightly strange to me. Are you suggesting that during the Old Testament anyone who took part in carrying out the mandates of the law (i.e., stoning for certain offenses) was wrong to do so, as they were not sinless?

In connection with this Q, I'd like to ask if it was the case that those guilty of the same crime couldn't be witnesses/stoners of the accused/convict? I'd heard someone say this in connection with the woman taken in adultery, and that the Pharisees who were accusing her were themselves convicted in their minds of adultery.

I know that the case of the woman taken in adultery - with whom Jesus dealt very graciously - isn't evidence against theonomianism for various reasons.

 

[Philip]

Here's part of my problem with stoning, though: I deserve the stoning just as much as the criminal does. I can't throw the stone unless I am sinless (John 8:1-11).

I am not a Theonomist, nor do I believe in the abiding validity of the Mosaic penal sanctions -- but the above statement seems slightly strange to me. Are you suggesting that during the Old Testament anyone who took part in carrying out the mandates of the law (i.e., stoning for certain offenses) was wrong to do so, as they were not sinless?

No, just that Jesus raised the bar here. Stoning has no place in the new covenant.

 

[Prufrock]

No, just that Jesus raised the bar here.

Can you tease that out for me? Raised the bar how?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do I think stoning is appropriate to our time and place? No, not really. But I also don't think that taking female captives in war for servants or wives is appropriate for our time and place. And I think that in the time and place all that guidance was given, Israel was a model of propriety when compared to the "barbarized" but technically advanced and sophisticated civilizations to the north, south, east, and west of them.

Females captives? Stick to the subject at hand please....

It wasn't off topic:

Deu 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deu 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Deu 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.​

It's part of the law, and the law in toto is what's under discussion.

Aaand... it's a little anachronistic -- to drop the above practice into our own era.

If we approach discussion of this war-conduct as though it only informs us in vague GE terms, it seems awfully convenient that we take a strong stand on stoning (take it as is), and go soft on female captives.

After looking at the whole theonomy-project for years (even fancying it for a while), I do not see consistency in the way problems like this are approached. Some approaches are more consistent than others, but the more consistent it is, either 1) the less it resembles the stance of the original proponents due to specific and substantial modifications, or 2) the more it starts to resemble the actual ancient culture in which it was instituted.


Seriously, if we don't want people equating essential Christianity with fundamentalist Islam, we better have an answer to those who accuse us of wanting to go back to the first century, or the 15th century, BC.

There is a reason that Islam is stuck in an eighth century rut. Because the society that they build, wherever they gain power, cannot leave Mohammad too far behind.

Same with Moses. However, we have an advantage, in that our dynamic religion serves a living Mediator. Moses served in the House of Christ. When Christ came home, Moses stepped down.

 

[Prufrock]

Moses served in the House of Christ. When Christ came home, Moses stepped down.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from P.F. Pugh
Again, I agree with Richard that the civil law is, in reality, ceremonial and typological

I think I prefer the word typical rather than ceremonial in connection with these penal laws, because the laws also had a definite practical and moral basis. There is a definite strain of typology in them that is ignored by the theonomists.

Christ fulfilled the sacrificial system by becoming a sacrifice for us, but there is also a sense that in taking on Himself the crimes against God's law that we had committed, He became a criminal against the Ten Commandments in our place, not that He had any crimes of his own of course, and thus fulfilled the typology inherent in the Mosaic penal law.

I don't know if hanging was meant to be a mode of execution under the Mosaic law, but at least criminals who had been executed by stoning or the sword were (sometimes?) hung from a tree until nightfall.

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God ) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance (Deut. 21:22-23)

The Jews broke this law by allowing Jesus to hang (continue hanging) on the Cross for the three hours of darkness that were over the Land, thus defiling the Holy Land.

The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.(Acts 5:30).

And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree: (Acts 10:39)


And when they had fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down from the tree, and laid him in a sepulchre.(Acts 13:29)

Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Gal. 3:13)

Was part of the curse of the law, that Christ redeemed His people from, the curse of death embodied in the typological penalties?

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed.(I Peter 2:24)

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

This is going to be my only post in this thread because I find these conversations often unfruitful and unhelpful. They quickly degenerate into strawmen massacres and come close to 9th Commandment violations often. That being said I would ask that before we tell Theonomists what they "miss" and "fail to understand" how about we let Bahnsen imparticular speak for himself on typology and the Old Testament. His work By This Standard is on Google Books here. Please read Chapter 14 The Categories of God's Law where he deals with many of the questions posed in this thread concerning typology, etc.

In fact for a little background start in Chapter 11 and work through Chapter 14.

Blessings,

 

[Southern Twang]

Do I think stoning is appropriate to our time and place? No, not really. But I also don't think that taking female captives in war for servants or wives is appropriate for our time and place. And I think that in the time and place all that guidance was given, Israel was a model of propriety when compared to the "barbarized" but technically advanced and sophisticated civilizations to the north, south, east, and west of them.

Females captives? Stick to the subject at hand please....

It wasn't off topic:

Deu 21:10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the LORD thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive,
Deu 21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
Deu 21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
Deu 21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
Deu 21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.​

It's part of the law, and the law in toto is what's under discussion.

Aaand... it's a little anachronistic -- to drop the above practice into our own era.

If we approach discussion of this war-conduct as though it only informs us in vague GE terms, it seems awfully convenient that we take a strong stand on stoning (take it as is), and go soft on female captives.

After looking at the whole theonomy-project for years (even fancying it for a while), I do not see consistency in the way problems like this are approached. Some approaches are more consistent than others, but the more consistent it is, either 1) the less it resembles the stance of the original proponents due to specific and substantial modifications, or 2) the more it starts to resemble the actual ancient culture in which it was instituted.


Seriously, if we don't want people equating essential Christianity with fundamentalist Islam, we better have an answer to those who accuse us of wanting to go back to the first century, or the 15th century, BC.

There is a reason that Islam is stuck in an eighth century rut. Because the society that they build, wherever they gain power, cannot leave Mohammad too far behind.

Same with Moses. However, we have an advantage, in that our dynamic religion serves a living Mediator. Moses served in the House of Christ. When Christ came home, Moses stepped down.

Yes it was off topic. We were talking about stoning, not consistent/inconsistent issues with Theonomy and certainly not about taking female slaves. I would encourage you to make Theonomists be consistent with their theology. But don't be surprised when we acknowledge your contribution to Theonomy.

By all means, we can go hard on female captives if it is Biblical. That discussion is for another thread…

Mohammad is the fake, Christ is for real. Jesus will not lead us into misery as Mohammad has done with his followers. Kiss the Son lest He become angry! You better believe Moses stepped down, and now THE Law Giver, who did not come to abolish the law, upholds today this same very standard.

 

[Christusregnat]

It's part of the law, and the law in toto is what's under discussion.

This is what you keep discussing with yourself, but no Theonomist that I am aware of is discussing this.

Cheers,

 

[Parsifal23]

Anabaptist/Mennoite no envolvment in politcal matters or warfare i.e. evangelize the world but do not be involved in it.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dewey (and Adam),
The subject is very contextual. It's at least as contextual as using Mt.5:17 to substantiate your position! That's an appeal that must apply to the entire spread of the law, which clearly allows me to appeal to some other law-area (belligerence instead of penology), to just point to another area where I would find anachronism today, and to check your commitment to your professed principle.

I see you chose to address the issue anyway, and your answer

By all means, we can go hard on female captives if it is Biblical.

both reaffirms your commitment to your professed principle, and highlights how our two different approaches lead us to different answers consistent with our principles.


If the only difference between (postmillennial) Christian Theonomy and the other Christian, and all the non-Christian, Utopian experiments is: the former is the "correct" theory," then this just assumes the correctness of the enterprise. But as far as I'm concerned the real question is whether this enterprise in fact corresponds to God's revealed expectations for us.

Because I disagree that reconstructing this world's kingdoms on an earthbound model is any aspect of the explicit New Covenant mission for Christians (and/or the church by extension), I feel free to critique the experiment under the same species as any of the other attempts.


If you're just going to tell me that you're right, and therefore I'm wrong, that makes logical sense, but it isn't really an interesting conversation. But it's been OK. I hope we end up in full agreement on the truly vital matters. And with that, I'll follow Ben's example, and just drift on out of the exchange, having served my purpose.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Dewey
You better believe Moses stepped down, and now THE Law Giver, who did not come to abolish the law, upholds today this same very standard.

Better, Dewey, is that Christ takes the law of Moses and hands it back to the Christian stripped of all its provisional elements. Which is what we are discussing here: What are the provisional and permanent elements of Moses' law?

In relation to Pentecostalism/the Charismatic Movement we ask a similar Q: What are the provisional and permanent elements of the Apostolic period?

-----Added 7/20/2009 at 07:51:36 EST-----

This is going to be my only post in this thread because I find these conversations often unfruitful and unhelpful. They quickly degenerate into strawmen massacres and come close to 9th Commandment violations often. That being said I would ask that before we tell Theonomists what they "miss" and "fail to understand" how about we let Bahnsen imparticular speak for himself on typology and the Old Testament. His work By This Standard is on Google Books here. Please read Chapter 14 The Categories of God's Law where he deals with many of the questions posed in this thread concerning typology, etc.

In fact for a little background start in Chapter 11 and work through Chapter 14.

Blessings,

I'll check this out. I've already read Rushdoony's "Institutes" and Bahnsen's "Theonomy". Just glancing at the chapter on "Categories of Law", I notice once again that Bahnsen subsumes judicial penalties under the category of moral law; i.e. he only has the two basic categories of moral and ceremonial law, unlike the WCF which has three.

Only the moral law - without the civil penalties given to Israel - was taught to the people by God Himself, was written on stone, placed in the ark of the Covenant and was subject to the death penalty; the death penalty wasn't part of the moral law itself. Bahnsen obscures this by his categories unlike the WCF.

Quote from Bahnsen
By recognising the various categories of God's OT law we can readily understand the continuing validity of every stroke of God's commandments for today. It is simply a matter of properly reading the law itself.

Does this involve recognising that the use of the death penalty under Moses had typological as well as moral and penal purposes?

 

[MW]

The poll lacks the obvious choice of establishmentarianism.

I dislike coming down on the theonomists again, but it is no straw man that is attacked when theonomy is criticised for requiring the application of "the law" in "exhaustive detail." I just completed another reading of Theonomy in Christian Ethics while working on an essay relative to the Westminster Standards, and on this reading it was even clearer that Bahnsen repudiates the idea that the "moral principles" of the law abide. He continually states that the law as law, as legislation, as judicial enactment, as penal sanction, abides in all its detail. The choice between theonomy and autonomy is pronounced with extreme dogmatism to apply even in the area of penalties against crime. I am sorry, my theonomic brethren, but the leading thesis is flawed and cannot be substantiated. It is simply dishonest to maintain that the law in exhaustive detail is binding but then to repeatedly retreat back to the position that it is the moral principles of the law which abide.

 

[Peairtach]

Quote from Bruce
But I don't have the same precommitment as a theonomist to a specific form of ancient revitalization. So it doesn't occur to me to think that stoning as such is automatically the best way of exercising capital punishment, just because God once gave such directive.

God also told them to burn a person in at least one instance (doesn't say the same person had to be stoned before, after, or at all). People were executed by the sword and the spear in the OT--no indication that this was in violation of Mosaic principles. It's plausible to think that "manner" of execution was considered either adiaphora or a judgment-call, or a positive injunction that could change. When God told the people to execute by stoning, stoning was already in use (Ex.8:26).

Stoning could still easily have been chosen by God because it does tie in with the fact that the law is written on stone. Circumcision was in use before the time of Abraham and yet is suitable for its teaching purpose.

The sword speaks of Holy War and was used on those who worshipped the Golden Calf. Hebrews relates the sword to the Word of God and entering God's rest as the Israelites used it to enter Canaan.

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. (Hebrews 4:11-13)

Burning seems to have been prescribed in one instance in association with the peculiar holiness of priests: And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Lev 21:9)

There is no indication that she was to be stoned first. Hebrews 12:29 reminds us, "For our God is a consuming fire."

Hanging on a tree: this is related to the death of our Lord in the NT. There is some debate as to whether the person was stoned first. Notorious criminals would be hung up as a warning. Christ became a notorious criminal against God's law because he bore the sins of His people. He is a warning as to what can be expected by those who break God's law from a just God, if they do not obey the Gospel.

The use of the spear on a blasphemer speaks of swift judgment and involved a quick judgment call averting the plague in the case of the Israelites worshipping the Baal of Peor.

And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.

And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand; And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel. And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.

My main point has been that not primarily the mode of death but the fact that death/bloodshed was so often the penalty, related to Israel's sacrificial system of substitutionary death/bloodshed.