Adultery and homosexuality in the moral law

Status
Not open for further replies.
“Yes, [the spirit of the law does demand justice] but with intent to save and restore whenever possible.”

Dachaser,

Can you help me understand, what is the “spirit” of a civil law that demands, say, the justice of the death penalty? And how can the spirit of such a law that demands the justice of death possibly save and restore?

Moreover, you stated:

“I agree that justice needs to be served, but mercy and Grace are also part of that process.”

Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the antecedent of that presumably justice? If so, then how can “mercy and grace” be “part of that process” which requires the justice of death?

I think you could be blurring two distinct categories - justice and grace, which I believe Taylor and now Bayou are trying to bring to light.

My post is more food for thought so please spend your time with others. I won’t be offended in the least.
 
Dachaser said:
I agree that justice needs to be served, but mercy and Grace are also part of that process.
Click to expand...

What justified us as sinner before the Holy and Righteous God is based on Christ's atonement that redeemed us. For a while, I was ignorant of this amazing fact when I believed that God can grant mercy to those who practice injustices. Of course, that is completely wrong (Exodus 34:7). Moral influence theory and Socinianism concerning the death of Christ were what I used to adhere.

The same thing can be applied to civil justice. A magistrate is also guilty before God if he dares to pardon the guilty without any satisfaction to justice.

While the issue of applying death penalty to adultery, I think, should be debatable given the context of the situation, adultery is nevertheless a sin and a crime for its devastating effects on the well-being of families. Marriage is becoming meaningless in this age.

Sometimes punishing adultery by death is a blessing which we don't often appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Taylor Sexton said:
@Von, if you're interesting in pursuing this further, I would suggest picking up a copy of Greg Bahnsen's By This Standard. It can be found for free here. You may not agree with his conclusions, but, in my estimation, you can't do better than him for a clear representation of the theonomic understanding of the applicability of the Law today.
Click to expand...
Thank you - I will have a look.
It seems like that if you discuss a topic long enough on the PB you will inevitably end up with a handout from the website of Gary North or Vern Poythress...;)
 
My biggest problem with the modern day theonomist, and I’m not trying to be argumentative, is their apparent lack of wanting the death penalty for violations of the first table of the law. Should the state put someone to death for blasphemy or would excommunication be adequate? Should the state put someone to death for worshipping a false god or would excommunication be adequate under our current dispensation? At least with excommunication there is hope of repentance, forgiveness and recovery. When the Pharisees brought the woman the didn’t bring the man. If she was caught in the very act, where was the man? The law said stone the man and the woman. Nevertheless laws in the society of my childhood used to be enacted loosely based on the general equity of the OT law. I remember when it was against the law to open a store or business on Sunday. I remember when blasphemy in public would get you a fine and a night in jail. A great reformation and revival will have to happen before we will see any return to any kind of Christian civilization where Christian behavior is the norm and not the exception as it is today.
 
RWD said:
Regarding the woman taken in adultery, the sole intent of the mob was the entrapment of Jesus and whether a life was callously taken in the process, without regard for godly motive, was of no consequence to these wicked men. Accordingly, had Jesus acquiesced to their plea by condoning the woman’s death on their terms, he would have partaken in their scheming and wickedness according to Exodus 23:1-4.

Moreover, had Jesus allowed for the penalty under Moses to be enacted in this particular case, he would have implied that men need not submit to God’s ordained (Roman) government.

Jesus was in a predicament. He did not want to condone the woman’s execution given the motivation of the witnesses and accusers, lest he himself could be guilty of paving the way for their sin and become an accomplice with them according to Exodus 23:1-4. Nor did Jesus want to suggest that the woman did not deserve immediate punishment for her sin as prescribed by Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22.

Her action was indeed worthy of death, (lest the law which he authored had been abolished; yet he had already stated most unambiguously that he had not come to abolish the law. Matthew 5:17) Let there be no mistake about it, Jesus was for the death penalty when his law required the death penalty. He also required that such penalties be carried out not by perfect men but rather by those who had removed the plank from their own eye. Execution was to be carried out in a spirit of godly humility. Anything less than that was to do God’s bidding with a murderous heart, which would reduce to self-serving vengeance as opposed to righteous justice. We are God’s servants, and we not our own. Indeed, Jesus was concerned not only with the letter of the law but also the spirit in which it was to be followed. This must be appreciated by all Christians, especially theonomists.

The dilemma solved:

Given the circumstances of no witness-accuser who possessed a heart for righteous judgment - the only one who could have put the woman to death and satisfied the full intention of the law both in letter and spirit would have been God himself. Accordingly, Jesus, unwilling to exercise his divine prerogative, invited anyone without sin to throw the first stone. By handling the difficult providence as he did, Jesus upheld Moses’ intention pertaining to a godly accuser's spirit, yet without compromising the deserved, temporal penalty for the woman. We might say that the case was thrown out of court due to the greater sin of the witness-accusers (and the priority of Roman rule, which I believe was secondary). Yet by couching the invitation as Jesus did, the Lord acknowledged both the rightful penalty and the unworthiness of anyone within that mob that day to carry out God’s law as in the manner God would have it - as God’s servant.

God is concerned with the spirit of the law but not at the cost of abrogation. Now if anyone wants to make more of the passage as it pertains to theonomy and suggest that Moses has been abrogated because nobody is without sin, then in turn they prove too much by relegating all temporal justice to the Final Day, a most absurd and unworkable principle. The only question I have at this juncture is whether the anti-theonomists will go out one by one in shame for butchering the logical implications of the text. Or will the angry mob of Jesus' day prove themselves more worthy than these?
Click to expand...

Maybe the thought I have to share is substantially similar, this is still a new discussion to me, but I've heard the idea that the rulers present essentially disqualified and deposed themselves as judges because of their own impenitence. So even having the law of Moses, even if they did hold the title as magistrates (if some were among them) they were unauthorized to carry it out regardless their civil title, even without regard to Roman rule. Much like an elder who has clearly, visibly and impenitently slipped below his qualifications no longer has a right to govern in the church, as such a man is no longer Christ's appointment (if he ever was).

Moses and David required rulers to be just men, blameless, ruling in the fear of God. If they were not these things, they were no longer God's ministers to be terrors to evil. And they are likely not in other cases anyway.
 
Taylor Sexton said:
Of course, but it is the victim’s prerogative to show grace or mercy, not the state’s. Mercy shown by the state is not virtuous, but a grievous miscarriage of justice. The Lord Jesus Christ can show mercy in any situation, though, because...well, does that really need explaining?
Click to expand...

BayouHuguenot said:
How do you "restore" a murderer to society?
Click to expand...

David was a murderer, and he was shown mercy and restored.
 
RPEphesian said:
Maybe the thought I have to share is substantially similar, this is still a new discussion to me, but I've heard the idea that the rulers present essentially disqualified and deposed themselves as judges because of their own impenitence. So even having the law of Moses, even if they did hold the title as magistrates (if some were among them) they were unauthorized to carry it out regardless their civil title, even without regard to Roman rule. Much like an elder who has clearly, visibly and impenitently slipped below his qualifications no longer has a right to govern in the church, as such a man is no longer Christ's appointment (if he ever was).

Moses and David required rulers to be just men, blameless, ruling in the fear of God. If they were not these things, they were no longer God's ministers to be terrors to evil. And they are likely not in other cases anyway.
Click to expand...
They were also direct ruling under God, not the same case under civil governments.
 
Blueridge Believer said:
My biggest problem with the modern day theonomist, and I’m not trying to be argumentative, is their apparent lack of wanting the death penalty for violations of the first table of the law. Should the state put someone to death for blasphemy or would excommunication be adequate? Should the state put someone to death for worshipping a false god or would excommunication be adequate under our current dispensation? At least with excommunication there is hope of repentance, forgiveness and recovery. When the Pharisees brought the woman the didn’t bring the man. If she was caught in the very act, where was the man? The law said stone the man and the woman. Nevertheless laws in the society of my childhood used to be enacted loosely based on the general equity of the OT law. I remember when it was against the law to open a store or business on Sunday. I remember when blasphemy in public would get you a fine and a night in jail. A great reformation and revival will have to happen before we will see any return to any kind of Christian civilization where Christian behavior is the norm and not the exception as it is today.
Click to expand...
God demanded Israel to function under His Law, but not same as for today under civil rulers.
 
Minh said:
What justified us as sinner before the Holy and Righteous God is based on Christ's atonement that redeemed us. For a while, I was ignorant of this amazing fact when I believed that God can grant mercy to those who practice injustices. Of course, that is completely wrong (Exodus 34:7). Moral influence theory and Socinianism concerning the death of Christ were what I used to adhere.

The same thing can be applied to civil justice. A magistrate is also guilty before God if he dares to pardon the guilty without any satisfaction to justice.

While the issue of applying death penalty to adultery, I think, should be debatable given the context of the situation, adultery is nevertheless a sin and a crime for its devastating effects on the well-being of families. Marriage is becoming meaningless in this age.

Sometimes punishing adultery by death is a blessing which we don't often appreciate it.
Click to expand...
God permits now under NC freedom of religion and views, do wefo not execute those having false gods.
 
@Taylor Sexton and @BayouHuguenot ,

Do you believe that it is ever permissible for a civil magistrate to not execute somebody from murder? If so, haven't you just linked civil penalty to the moral law?

I do think that in our country we are far too lenient on the death penalty. However, I don't think that in every circumstance tlthere's a moral obligation for justice to demand life for a life. God perfectly upholds both mercy and justice simultaneously and without compromise. However, for the civil magistrate, there is necessarily going to be some compromise that results in mercy.
 
Dachaser said:
God permits now under NC freedom of religion and views, do wefo not execute those having false gods.
Click to expand...

Yes, we enjoy liberty in Christ, not from Christ. And certainly we may witness the Gospel to unbelieving sinners with courtesy and tolerance but what how should we approach them in nation whose law is solely based on the Word of God? It may be unthinkable in this age to talk about restricting freedom of conscience (as I used to think) but certainly if we allow unbounded toleration, then there could be unseen yet devastating consequences. So while practicing Romanism or adultery may not cause harm to anyone in a physical sense (you commit adultery by consents, right?), it still have a moral and spiritual impacts.
 
Last edited:
timfost said:
@Taylor Sexton and @BayouHuguenot ,

Do you believe that it is ever permissible for a civil magistrate to not execute somebody from murder? If so, haven't you just linked civil penalty to the moral law?

I do think that in our country we are far too lenient on the death penalty. However, I don't think that in every circumstance tlthere's a moral obligation for justice to demand life for a life. God perfectly upholds both mercy and justice simultaneously and without compromise. However, for the civil magistrate, there is necessarily going to be some compromise that results in mercy.
Click to expand...

I can imagine situations where the death penalty is not carried out. I don't see the problem with linking the civil penalty to the moral law. That's standard Reformed reasoning. Read Turretin.

The issue is not whether there is some extreme situation where a murderer is not executed. People like to allude to David, but 99.99% of people before the judge today aren't King David.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I can imagine situations where the death penalty is not carried out. I don't see the problem with linking the civil penalty to the moral law. That's standard Reformed reasoning. Read Turretin.

The issue is not whether there is some extreme situation where a murderer is not executed. People like to allude to David, but 99.99% of people before the judge today aren't King David.
Click to expand...

I think we're mostly in agreement. The problem I see with linking the penalty of the law with morality exclusively is that it becomes immoral to show mercy. Whereas it is always immoral to murder somebody, it is not always immoral for the Magistrate to show mercy and withhold execution.
 
If you want to see the evil effects of not executing murderers look at Northern Ireland. Not only has the British government not executed murdering insurrectionists, but even had them sit in government in one region of the nation, where they are now colluding with politicians on the mainland to force the execution of the unborn on Northern Ireland.
 
Minh said:
Yes, we enjoy liberty in Christ, not from Christ. And certainly we may witness the Gospel to unbelieving sinners with courtesy and tolerance but what how should we approach them in nation whose law is solely based on the Word of God? It may be unthinkable in this age to talk about restricting freedom of conscience (as I used to think) but certainly if we allow unbounded toleration, then there could be unseen yet devastating consequences. So while practicing Romanism or adultery may not cause harm to anyone in a physical sense (you commit adultery by consents, right?), it still have a moral and spiritual impacts.
Click to expand...
God under the NC does not require any nation now to be just based on scripture and His Law though.
 
Dachaser said:
God under the NC does not require any nation now to be just based on scripture and His Law though.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused as to why you think things are so much different under the NC. Is it because the church is no longer a nation state or because of something particularly relating to Christ's work?
 
timfost said:
I'm a little confused as to why you think things are so much different under the NC. Is it because the church is no longer a nation state or because of something particularly relating to Christ's work?
Click to expand...
More the first issue, as just do not see God operating now as He did in Isreal of the OT times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top