I will continue onward from the last post in this series [1].
Perjury in a capital case
Deuteronomy 19:16-21--"If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the Lord before the priests and the judges who are in office at that time. The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
The judges would place on the perjurer the penalty that the Law would have imposed on the crime which the victim of the deceitful and malicious slander was accused of. Thus, if someone maliciously charged an innocent person with theft (Exodus 22:1-5), arson (Exodus 22:6), or assault (Exodus 21:18-19), he or she would be sentenced to pay proportionate financial damages to the victim of the accusation. Someone who falsely accuses another whom the accuser knows to be innocent of adultery, murder, rape, kidnapping, sorcery, or any other capital crime must receive the punishment the falsely accused would have received: death.
Child sacrifice
Leviticus 20:1-5--"The Lord said to Moses, 'Say to the Israelites: "Any Israelite or any alien living in Israel who gives any of his children to Molech must be put to death. The people of the community are to stone him. I will set my face against that man and I will cut him off from his people; for by giving his children to Molech, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name. If the people of the community close their eyes when that man gives one of his children to Molech and they fail to put him to death, I will set my face against that man and his family and will cut off from their people both him and all who follow him by prostituting themselves to Molech."'"
Pagan nations allowed individuals and families to sacrifice their children to perverse gods by burning them. Yahweh attached the capital penalty to such child sacrifice to reinforce in the minds of his followers how disgusting and cruel such a practice was. Some atheists will occasionally proclaim that God only opposed child sacrifice to gods besides himself but not sacrifices in his name, but this is an unjustifiable conclusion that stands wholly refuted by child sacrifice and murder laws scattered about in Mosaic Law.
Cursing a judge of Mosaic Law
Deuteronomy 17:8-13--"If cases come before your courts that are too difficult for you to judge--whether bloodshed, lawsuits or assaults--take them to the place the Lord your God will choose. Go to the priests, who are Levites, and to the judge who is in office at that time. Inquire of them and they will give you the verdict. You must act according to the decisions they give you at the place the Lord will choose. Be careful to do everything they direct you to do. Act according to the law they teach you and the decisions they give you. Do not turn aside from what they tell you, to the right or to the left. The man who shows contempt for the judge or for the priest who stands ministering there to the Lord your God must be put to death. You must purge the evil from Israel. All the people will hear and be afraid, and will not be contemptuous again."
Cursing a judge or priest of Mosaic Law is like cursing one's parents; God despised them both. Since Mosaic Law reveals perfect justice, to disrespect a judge who accurately upholds it is to profane and disregard justice itself. This penalty would not apply to any legal system other than Mosaic Law, because none of them have either the particular legislation God revealed or judges with genuine divine approval.
Prostitution (by a priest's daughter only)
Leviticus 21:9--"If a priest's daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire."
While prostitution is elsewhere condemned without a civil punishment attached (Leviticus 19:29, Deuteronomy 23:17-18), prostitution involving a priest's daughter required her execution. The rabbis ensured that the man who participated in the crime along with her would also die. This punishment, out of all the capital ones examined so far on this page and investigated in part one, has been nullified for the obvious reason that the entire priesthood has been abolished, no longer necessary because of Christ's atoning death. Thus the penalty can no longer exist because there are no legitimate Biblical priests to even have daughters. As an additional observation, an adulterous male or female prostitute would die because of adultery laws and anyone who raped a prostitute would also be killed.
Lying about virginity to a spouse
Deuteronomy 22:17-21--"If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, 'I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,' then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, 'I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, "I did not find your daughter to be a virgin." But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity.' Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite woman a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you."
This does NOT condemn a woman who has sex prior to her marriage to death. Pre-marital sex was actually handled much differently in Mosaic Law than many Christians and critics alike believe. God did not make pre-marital sex a capital crime (or a "crime" at all) and addressed it elsewhere, in Exodus [2]. This passage punishes the woman for intentional dishonesty about her virginity, not for sleeping with someone before she was engaged and married (as those are different crimes). The reason the man in the text was not to be executed for accusing his innocent wife is because the charge was not deliberate perjury like in Deuteronomy 19:16-21. I see no reason to believe that a similar reaction would not have occurred against a husband who misleads his wife about his virginity prior to marriage.
Marrying a woman and her mother simultaneously
Leviticus 20:14--"If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you."
I am uncertain as to why God considered this offense a capital one, but some commentaries have suggested that the corpses were burned after a less agonizing method of execution.
Incest (with a parent or son/daughter-in-law)
Leviticus 20:11-12--"If a man sleeps with his father's wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. If a man sleeps with his daughter-in-law, both of them must be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads."
Incestuous sex with one's parent violates both the moral law against adultery and the universal prohibition of incest located in Leviticus 18:6.
False prophecy in Yahweh's name
Deuteronomy 18:20--"'But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death.'"
Prophecy serves a great apologetic and evidential purpose and must not be polluted by the delusions of false prophets and those who would practice syncretism by speaking on behalf of false gods in addition to Yahweh. The timing of this command, before the arrival of the Messiah, only amplified the concern for accurate prophecy.
Sacrificing to a god other than Yahweh
Exodus 22:20--"Whoever sacrifices to any god other than the Lord must be destroyed."
This does not mean that God commanded the Israelites to kill EVERY man or woman from a neighboring region who sacrificed to a god besides Yahweh, but instead relates to the group of people who followed God. Deviating from true theology to the point where one goes from following God to sacrificing to a pagan deity deserves death. If people object, they should be reminded of two things. First, that if there is no God then there is no morality at all, so a moral prescription like this one cannot be opposed on atheistic grounds. Second, all of the evidence clearly supports Christian philosophy. So if Exodus 22:20 originated from a legitimate deity, we cannot dispute it. Crimes against God, who's very nature IS morality and justice, do possess a grave severity.
Blasphemy
Leviticus 24:15-16--"Say to the Israelites: 'If anyone curses his God, he will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.'"
If cursing one's parents or the judge of Mosaic Law deserves death, then certainly cursing the name of God deserves an equal punishment.
Homosexual sodomy
Leviticus 20:13--"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
"One of the major problems is that some people immediately quit speaking specifically in terms of what Scripture teaches, and start adopting dialogue and terminology that reflects malinformed secularists. For example, nowhere does Scripture, Mosaic Law or not, advocated criminalizing “homosexuality”? It says no such thing. That is the scare tactic terminology used by leftists, not Scripture. Yet it is also the only terminology employed by Howse and Johnson throughout their discussion.
The Mosaic crime was not homosexuality per se, but the act of sodomy itself. That is a whole world of difference, just like the lust for another woman a man may have in his heart is completely different in the view of civil law than the physical act of adultery. These are all sins, to be sure, but not civil crimes. Scripturally speaking, crime is a subset of sin which carries the additional civil punishment which sin alone does not [3]."
I have quoted another theonomist on this verse to prove that not even all theologians who want to reimpose Mosaic Law believe that this law states that all homosexuality behavior is a capital crime.
If a man raped another man, the aggressor alone would die. As Deuteronomy 22:25-27 explains through the case law of an engaged woman raped by a man, someone who has sin forced upon them (aka a married person who is raped is not guilty of adultery) is not guilty since they had no volitional consent to engage in evil.
Sabbath violation
Exodus 35:2--"For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death."
Of almost all the capital crimes in Scripture, this is perhaps the one I understand the least. I don't know why the crime was so severe or carried such drastic legal retaliation, but I can try to investigate resources on the issue. Jesus clarified the initial intent of the Sabbath laws but did not abolish them.
Conclusion
And now all the capital crimes in the Bible have been presented. People often overestimate how many activities God punished with death, but as you can see, theft, robbery, atheism, pre-marital sex, and assault were not punished with death, nor were a host of other crimes and offenses. Even Christian sources continue to confuse these facts, as I found one which labeled premarital sex a capital crime by referencing two verses that pertain to crimes entirely separate from it and another which claimed that God supported the horrific penalty of Roman crucifixion for the thieves inhumanely tortured alongside Christ.
"Premarital sex brought the death penalty (Leviticus 21:9; Deuteronomy 22:20-21) [4]."
"While Jesus was on the cross the Romans inflicted the death penalty on the two criminals next to Him. Christ said nothing in their defense, or against their crucifixions. One of those two mocked Christ. In response, the other criminal (whom Jesus would immediately declare righteous, Luke 23:43) said of their punishments, 'we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this Man has done nothing wrong' (Luke 23:41). What did this forgiven criminal, this newly justified man, say about the death penalty? Bottom line: the criminals were getting their just punishment. The dying criminal knew the truth, as he said, 'we indeed' are 'justly' punished. [5]"
Where the hell are these people deriving their statements about capital punishment from? Not the Bible and not from reason, apparently. Unfortunately, this reflects much of the pathetic theology and moral reasoning on the death penalty and Old Testament Law that survives and flourishes in most churches.
Now I have finished my list of capital crimes according to Biblical law. I will not yet terminate this blog series, however, as I have more to comment about on the topic of the death penalty.
[1]. http://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2016/07/capital-crimes-part-1.html
[2]. See Exodus 22:16-17. I will hopefully post on this before the end of the summer.
[3]. https://americanvision.org/10492/brannon-howses-moral-dilemma-on-homosexuality/
[4]. http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=683
[5]. http://kgov.com/death-penalty
Hello.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know your thoughts on Numbers 15:32-26, the incident where a man gathering wood on Sabbath was sentenced directly by pronouncement from God. It's one of those things that likely will rankle the sensibilities of more than a few modern people.
I put this request on this post because it contained both the topics of cursing and Sabbath violations and this specific part seems relevant to them. I will note that I am working from the New English Translation version of this text.
The commentary I have seen using this as an argument against God's just nature tend to put forth imaginary circumstances around the man that are plainly not there in the scripture and likely would have resulted in a different outcome if these imaginary circumstances were indeed part of the actual case. Circumstances which God would be entirely be aware of if they were there.
Commentaries that argue that this is indeed an example of just judgement reference it's placement right after an explanation on how deliberate sins are to be handled and after the section detailing the whining of the Israelites. The assertion goes that the man's actions essentially constitute an intent to knowingly, willfully, and ultimately needlessly commit Sabbath violation using the wood that he worked to gather. I have seen at least one comment that this may have been the basis for the Jewish practice of "putting fences" around the laws so that even nearly similar or demonstrable lead-ups to a sin are to be taken as the sin itself and dealt with as such.
For my part, while I do ultimately agree that this is a just judgement based on the circumstances given and the placement of the narrative piece, I think even those who defend it as such might be assuming too much. Like with Er long before this, we are not privy to the precise nature of what warranted his demise, as we ourselves will not know all the details of anyone's mortal follies. This man's case does have surrounding context to back it up, but even with that, the explanation of this event can be more simple.
This event is at the tail end of explanations on how to deal with intentional and unintentional sins. Now comes a man who definitely was doing some kind of effortful thing that fell into a grey area as far as the Israelites' understanding of the laws go. They bring him to Moses and Aron for a ruling, and God weighs in. God, being an omniscient figure who certainly knows His own laws, the actions of the man, and the intent of the man, tells the community what must be done with him. He does not explain the thoughts of the man, nor does it seem (to me) that he directly establishes this a a precedent for all other similar situations (insofar as the community will suspect any other potential law violations). The community had an unsure case, they brought it to God by the proper channels, and God gives them the correct course of action. This is how to resolve uncertainties with what is available to them, and God has soundly demonstrated the trustworthiness of His proclamations prior to this; thus, his decree is rightly carried out.
I am possibly missing something, so I would like your take on this as well as on that passage as a whole. Thank you.
Oh yes, this is one of the capital punishment laws of the Bible that is most likely to shock modern people! It's just that nothing but emotional dislike drives that shock most of the time. If Christianity is true (and there is significant evidence suggesting but not proving that it is), then this and other commands of God are just regardless of how anyone feels, though there is far more to the issue of the Sabbath than just that much.
DeleteThe story in Numbers 15:32-36 is presented as one where the Israelites were not sure how to handle the situation, as verse 34 directly states. Part of this could be because of the ambiguity of the Sabbath law on their own. With murder, someone might be confused about what separates murder from amoral, accidental killing (manslaughter) or killing in self-defense, but Exodus 21:12-14 clarifies the distinction immediately. With rape, someone might confuse rough sex for nonconsensual sex, but Deuteronomy 22:25-27's case law clarifies that it is forced sex that constitutes this sin. With working on the Sabbath, it is not immediately clear which actions qualify and which are exempt. Is exerting physical effort the sin? Not always, or else people could not move at all or even protect themselves from some sudden disaster or attack. Is it doing paid work? Some people might get paid to do things like just talk to people as they might on a day when they are not working for money, and every example of Sabbath violation involves physical labor of some kind. Then there are hospital workers that would allow people to die if not they did not work every day. Due to facts like these and how Jesus later heals on the Sabbath and says that the Sabbath is for the benefit of people, not the other way around, it can be discovered that not all physical or mental effort of any kind automatically qualifies as violating the Sabbath.
With this in mind, along with the details of the scenario in Numbers 15, it is clear that the man who gathered sticks did this unecessarily, especially in light of how the previous verses address intentional and unintentional sins. It is also worth noting that other capital offenses of Biblical law cannot be done unintentionally. No one can accidentally murder, rape, kidnap, commit acts of sorcery, curse God, and so on. These other capital sins are by nature intentional actions that, even if someone thought they were not doing anything wrong, cannot truly be done by accident. After the establishing of a Sabbath day as a community, this could also be true of Sabbath violations. If God had already addressed working on the Sabbath earlier on and no one else was out performing otherwise everyday work on the day he picked up sticks (and perhaps they likely talked about how the next day would be the Sabbath the day before), this man would not have been able to work on the Sabbath by total accident. Still, the matter was brought to God and the man was not killed without deliberation and consulting God.
Also, that idea of putting metaphorical "fences" around sins is ironically contrary to the Bible itself, but it still infected the worldview of the Pharisees during the life of Jesus and thrives in the church even now. If the Bible does not condemn something directly or by logical extension of something it does say directly, then that thing is nonsinful on the Christian worldview no matter what individual Christians prefer (Deuteronomy 4:2). Looking at or thinking about an attractive married person of the opposite gender and even merely experiencing sexual attraction is not sinful; actually committing adultery is. Drinking alcohol is not sinful; hedonistic or irresponsible alcohol abuse is. The same would be true of violating the Sabbath. If God had wanted to condemn anything more with this law, he would have said so, as he himself also says not to add to his commands in Deuteronomy 4:2. This is also what Jesus condemns the Pharisees for in Matthew 15:3-9. It would therefore actually be unbiblical to mistake nonsinful things or lesser sins as the equivalent of carrying out a capital crime!
DeleteThese are the things that come to mind as I look back on that passage. I had to split my reply in half for it to even upload. Hopefully it helps, but any other questions are always welcome!
It has been very helpful, thank you.
ReplyDelete