Pages

Sunday, March 05, 2017

Should sodomites be executed?

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 2 “Say to the people of Israel…13 If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them (Lev 20:1-2,13).

i) The death penalty for sodomy is controversial. Unbelievers often use this as a wedge tactic. But just because a Bible verse is "offensive" doesn't mean we should discount it. 

ii) Notice, though, how the section is introduced. On the one hand, the fact that Lev 20 is specifically addressed to the "people of Israel" doesn't ipso facto rule out a wider application. Ancient Israel had a penal code because it was a nation state. Every nation state requires a penal code. And that will include laws covering sex crime, violent crime, and property crime. There's a "general equity" principle in the Mosaic law. 

iii) On the other hand, the fact that Lev 20 is specifically directed at Israelites removes any presumption that these laws apply to gentiles or Christians. It's unwarranted to automatically extrapolate these laws to a completely different socioreligious context.

iv) There's also a distinction between sins and crimes. Not every sin is a crime. There are many sins the Mosaic code doesn't criminalize. Conversely, the purity codes aren't about intrinsically right or wrong conduct, but symbolic holiness.

v) Apropos (iv), it may well be that some death penalties are due to the need to keep Eretz Israel sacrosanct. In the Mosaic code, you have a category for defiling the land. There were sacred places. And there were concentric degrees of cultic holiness. The tabernacle was holier than Eretz Israel, while the inner sanctum was holier than the sanctuary.

However, even in the OT context, it wouldn't be possible to profane the land outside Eretz Israel, because the land outside of Eretz Israel was already profane. Even though sodomy was and remains a grave sin, it cannot desecrate the land, and hence, it isn't necessary to execute offenders to reconsecrate the land (e.g. pagan Egypt, Assyria, Babylon). Moreover, the purity codes and the notion of holy places doesn't carry over into the new covenant. 

vi) That doesn't rule out the death penalty in some cases (e.g. murder). That antedates the Mosaic covenant, and its grounded in the imago Dei. 

21 comments:

  1. The ideas in #V seems to be a unbiblical assumption, that the reason that homosexuality was a death penalty crime is because it defiled the land. Did the Reformers look at it that way? It seems to me that homosexuality is a gross violation of the God's plan at creation. Are you trying to make sure that homosexuality is never criminalized again? Is your motive biblical or are succumbing to modernity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The ideas in #V seems to be a unbiblical assumption, that the reason that homosexuality was a death penalty crime is because it defiled the land."

      The principle isn't confined to homosexuality. And it's hardly an unbiblical assumption. In the Mosaic theocracy, the land (Eretz Israel) could be polluted by sin. Execution is a way to remove the contaminant.

      This goes to the general principle about how physical contact between holy and profane defiled the former, requiring purification.

      "Did the Reformers look at it that way?"

      Irrelevant. They're not my exegetical standard of comparison.

      "It seems to me that homosexuality is a gross violation of the God's plan at creation."

      A red herring. Nothing in my post denied that homosexuality is a gross violation of God's plan for manhood and womanhood. But it's a question of penology.

      "Are you trying to make sure that homosexuality is never criminalized again?"

      I don't imagine that I'm that influential.

      Moreover, the question at issue wasn't whether homosexuality should be illegal, but whether it should be a capital offense.

      I think known homosexuals should be banned from positions of authority. I think that should be grounds for job termination.

      "Is your motive biblical or are succumbing to modernity?"

      It's hardly incumbent on me to prove my bona fides to you. You're not my standard of comparison. I'm under no obligation to demonstrate to you the purity of my motives.

      Delete
  2. If it's a violation of the creation formula then it can hardly be only a problem of land defilement. Did murder defile the land?

    As for your bona fides....is this how you answer everyone who has a question about your motives. You just don't have to answer. Of course I'm not the standard, I'm not God. Is it God alone that can ask a question about your motives? Do you always treat the brethren as "nobodies"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "As for your bona fides....is this how you answer everyone who has a question about your motives. "

      Why not? It's a presumptuous question. I don't owe a perfect stranger a justification of my motives. Moreover, the demand is misguided. If you suspect my motives, won't you suspect my explanation? So what's the point? If you distrust someone, won't you distrust their answers?

      "Do you always treat the brethren as 'nobodies'?"

      You're not entitled to simultaneously post anonymously, conceal your profile, then turn around and complain that I'm treating "the brethren" as "nobodies". You've gone out of your way to fly under the radar as a "nobody". Where's the documentation that you represent "the brethren"?

      Delete
    2. "If it's a violation of the creation formula then it can hardly be only a problem of land defilement."

      You keep confusing sins and crimes. Those can overlap, but they don't coincide, for reasons I already gave.

      "Did murder defile the land?"

      Indeed it did. Murderous bloodshed polluted the land, requiring ritual purification.

      Delete
    3. For Pete sake, you're publishing this in a public blog. I asked you nicely about your motives. All kinds of people are out in the blogoshere publishing junk theology, and I question their motives. If all you said was that you were trying to be biblical and honor God I could except that, even if you went no further. We're two people having a conversation, not a formal debate.

      I did not purposely try to hide myself. My name is Tom McClintock and I live in SoCal.

      A follow up question. Is God the "only" law giver? And if He is, then as you say homosexuality should be illegal (moral equity) then why is the death penalty not of the same more equity? The reference to the Reformers wasn't to hold them up as some ultimate standard, but to reference the "testimony" of the church. That testimony can bring us to greater light, since God has actually enlightened and worked in His church. They are of course fallible, but we should at least heed what heed what our brethren in the past said.

      Delete
    4. "If all you said was that you were trying to be biblical and honor God…"

      If my motives are honorable, my saying so adds nothing to the purity of my motives. If my motives are dishonorable, then I lack credibility as a character witness in my own defense. So the whole exercise is useless.

      "then as you say homosexuality should be illegal (moral equity)"

      I didn't say it should be illegal in general. Rather, I said homosexuals should be banned from positions of authority. I have in mind occupations like public school teachers, Boy Scout leaders, mayors, governors, judges, attorneys general, military officers.

      Basically, homosexuals shouldn't be in positions where they can exploit/oppress subordinates or discriminate against the faithful. That sort of thing.

      Your objections work at cross-purposes. You originally objected that my position is supposedly too lenient on homosexuals. Then when I point out that I support employment restrictions for homosexuals, you do an about face and complain that I'm discriminating against homosexuals!

      "then why is the death penalty not of the same more equity?"

      There are three issues here:

      i) Is X a sin?

      ii) Is X a crime?

      iii) What is the obligatory penalty for X?

      I think it's arguable that the Mosaic Covenant classified some sins as crimes because the cultic holiness of Israel required a certain level of ritual purity. By the same token, I think it's arguable that some crimes under the Mosaic covenant are capital offenses because the cultic holiness of Israel required a required the land to be cleansed by executing the source of sacrilege. But we're no longer under that regime.

      "since God has actually enlightened and worked in His church."

      Which continues up until the present day with modern exegetical scholarship.

      Delete
    5. Where was I complaining that you were discriminating against homosexuals. I whole heartily say that homosexuality should not only be discriminated against, but criminalized. It's a pox on any nation.

      Although God has and will work in His church, I don't see the period after the WCF up to now as a great period of continuing reformation, but a period of deformation. God causes those too.

      If crimes are so closely connected to cultic purity, then what is the foundation for criminal law? The writers of the WCF never based criminal law on some form of cultic purity that I have read, but general moral equity. The decriminalization of homosexuality has not led to good things. I know that this isn't a very good argument for criminalization, but are we not reaping what we sowed?

      Delete
    6. As concerning your motives, I find that a man may think his motives are honorable, but when you dig deeper things may not be as "I" imaged them. I like to know why a man is taking the course he is on. Just like I want to know why I do the things I do. I really don't know what a man's motives are until he tells me, I'm not in the habit of calling a man's motives wrong until I know better. And I'm not in the habit of calling man a liar when he tells me about himself.

      Delete
    7. "Although God has and will work in His church, I don't see the period after the WCF up to now as a great period of continuing reformation, but a period of deformation."

      Exegetical theology has made great strides since the 17C.

      "If crimes are so closely connected to cultic purity, then what is the foundation for criminal law?"

      Not all OT sins/crimes are closely tied to cultic purity. And, once again, the issue of penalties is a separate question.

      But it's always been necessary for Christians to do some sifting and sorting in terms of how much OT law was meant to carry over into the new covenant. It's always been conceded that some of the Mosaic laws are tied to the unique typological role of Israel.

      Delete
  3. "I think that should be grounds for job termination. "

    Any job? You think that there's a moral imperative to fire a gay accountant or engineer who is otherwise an asset to their company in every way?

    Why not an idolator or a fornicator as well, then?

    People need an income. You'd prefer they rely on welfare? I'm not saying that employers overlook every personal vice. I'm just wondering why you're singling out homosexuality above every other sin the Bible also considers a capital crime.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ‪"‬Any job?‪"‬

      I specifically said positions of authority.

      "I'm just wondering why you're singling out homosexuality above every other sin the Bible also considers a capital crime."

      You're the one who's recasting my highly qualified statement into a sweeping generalization I never made.

      Delete
  4. I sense a bait and switch coming.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve, you seem to oppose theonomy, but is your objection to sodomites in positions of authority based on exegetical or pragmatic grounds? We Lutherans like to fall back on natural law, but that seems to be a nose of wax. Please clarify.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You could say it's pragmatic. A prudential argument. In fact, we've been seeing what homosexuals do when they have power over other groups and individuals.

      Delete
    2. One wouldn't need to be a theonomist to advocate for the criminality of homosexuality, or for the death penalty. You could make a general equity case based upon exegetical (think Romans 1) or historical grounds (the negative effects of homosexuality on society).

      Delete
    3. @sdg: I'm not following you re: general equity, if the laws were given to Israel and dealing with holiness of the land and people. The act should be the object of societal opprobrium, but I fear the Sex Police State as much if not more than I fear sodomites. Sounds like the church needs to evangelize better.

      Delete
    4. 1. The church definitely needs to evangelize better.

      2. I don't think the entirety of the Mosaic Law is dealing just with the "holiness of the land and people" in the ritual sense. Not all of the Law is part of the holiness code.

      3. General equity in the WCF sense. That is, the ban on or condemnation of homosexual behavior is not one that is unique to the geopolitical entity known as Israel. Rather, it is one that applies outside of the cultic context of that particular nation (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1). I don't think the case that the penalty for homosexual conduct is about "defilement of the land" is all that compelling. Even if (arguendo) it were about preserving the purity of the land, that does not invalidate broader application - homosexual behavior is one of those singled-out for special opprobrium in the Old and New Testaments. It's defiling to more than just the holy land.

      Delete
    5. We're in agreement on 1 & 2, but 3 still seems a bit of a stretch. Yes there are many apeoples and cultures opposed to sodomy, but others are indifferent at worst. So what is your standard for calling for capital punishment - as opposed to lesser penaties - of sodomites - if not an appeal to the Law given to Israel rather than Gentile nations? What about the Sabbath or other laws which don't neatly fit the tripartite Westminsterian model? Is the Law that from which all modern civil lawas are derived, or an expression of natural law specific to Israel?

      Delete
    6. "Kirk Skeptic Steve, you seem to oppose theonomy"

      I think theonomy has an element of truth. Many Mosaic laws codify timeless principles. However, theonomists overstate their case. For instance, Bahnsen took the position that we should presume Mosaic laws remain in force unless the NT explicitly repeals them. But that's a simplistic and unreliable shortcut

      "I fear the Sex Police State as much if not more than I fear sodomites."

      Indeed, one of the issues is balancing the harms of homosexuals against the harms of empowering the state. For instance, I don't want a legal situation in which people must prove that they are straight. And consider the damage done by false accusations or vindictive prosecutions in that situation.

      Delete
    7. Soli Deo Gloria

      "One wouldn't need to be a theonomist to advocate for the criminality of homosexuality, or for the death penalty. You could make a general equity case based upon exegetical (think Romans 1) or historical grounds (the negative effects of homosexuality on society)."

      i) Rom 1 would greatly expand the list of capital crimes–and along with that the potential for official abuse of power.

      ii) In addition, there's a distinction between what is worthy of death and what is obligatory. Eschatological justice is the only ultimate justice. Penology is mainly about making social life possible. It sets a moral floor rather than a moral ceiling.

      "I don't think the entirety of the Mosaic Law is dealing just with the 'holiness of the land and people' in the ritual sense. Not all of the Law is part of the holiness code."

      True. However, penalties needed to be ratcheted up to maintain cultic holiness.

      "That is, the ban on or condemnation of homosexual behavior is not one that is unique to the geopolitical entity known as Israel. Rather, it is one that applies outside of the cultic context of that particular nation (e.g. Sodom and Gomorrah, Romans 1)."

      No question but that it's gravely sinful.

      Delete