Why Theonomy?

[Turbo]

billwald,

Does God want governments to prosecute rapists?

Does God want governments to prosecute thieves?

 

[Jefferson]

First and foremost, I tend to take the majority scholarship view that the author(s?) of the Pastoral Epistles was not Paul--this would be called a "Pseudo-Pauline Epistle.". That does not cause any substantive change in my arguments against theonomy, but I felt you should be aware of my position, lest it cause confusion.

God-hating liberals just love to annoint themselves with awards, pat themselves on the back and call their position "the majority scholarship view." All it is, is just the majority liberal view. Nothing more than that. It holds no water with me. You can see their bias in every field. Just look at Hollywood this year when "The Passion of the Christ" did not even get nominated for anything. Liberals desperately trying to call themselves open-minded and objective is laughable. Therefore, I hold their self-given title of the "majority scholarship view" in contempt.

"Keep the Law and I will bless you; break it, and I will curse you" is a powerful statement, but it is a statement that only applies to descendants of Jacob. (See Ex 19.)

When Paul writes that children should obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20) do you actually take that fact to imply that only children of Christian parents are under moral obligation to obey their parents? The fact that only Israel was given a special revelation of certain political laws does not mean that only Israel was bound to keep such laws. The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts (see Romans 2:12-16). In fact Romans 1:31 says that those who commit abominations such as homosexuality know that "those who practice such things are worthy of death."

Please pay close attention to Deuteronomy 4:5-8: "Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Jehovah my God commanded me, so that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it. And you shall keep and do them, for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
For who is a great nation whose God is coming near to them, as Jehovah our God is, in all our calling on Him? And who is a great nation whose statutes and judgments are so righteous as all this Law which I set before you today?"

That passage shows that Israel's law was supposed to be a model for all the gentile nations around her.

The plan was that all nations would flow into Zion saying, "Come and let us go up to the mountain of Jehovah, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of Jehovah from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:2,3)

God obviously required the gentile nations to obey his law as Lev 18:24-28 shows: "Do not defile yourselves in any of these things. For in all these the nations are defiled, which I cast out before you. And the land is defiled. Therefore I visit its wickedness on it, and the land itself vomits out those who live in it. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not commit any of these abominations, neither the native, nor any stranger that lives among you. For the men of the land who were before you have done all these abominations, and the land is defiled. You shall not do these so that the land may not spew you out also when you defile it, as it spewed out the nations that were before you."

There is only 1 moral law for all dispensations (though different ceremonial laws for different dispensations). Paul tells us the law was in operation before Sinai, when he says "for until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses: (Romans 5:13-14). Before the law "came," the law was already in operation. The proof of this is that it was already dealing death to sinners. At Sinai, the law was given a definitive publication, but it was already operating in the world, and was already known to men.

In fact, Paul said, "just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" (Romans 5:12). In other words, the same law which came at Sinai was operating in the Garden. We can turn to passages in Genesis and in Exodus before Sinai and see that people knew the law before it was written down by Moses.

FIRST The laws of slavery were known and functioned in the life of Jacob and in the interaction between Moses and Pharaoh before the written law was given.

God's children could only be held as slaves for 6 years (Exodus 21:2). Pharaoh had broken this law. Moses' demand for Israelite freedom was grounded in this law, which was familiar to Pharaoh.

Pharaoh showed a knowledge of Exodus 21:4 before it was written when he said the men could leave, but not their families (Exodus 10:7-11). 21:4 says, "If his master gives him a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to her master, and he shall go out alone." From Pharaoh's viewpoint, it was he who had provided the wives and children of the Hebrew men, so he thought he had a legal claim to them. But Pharaoh was wrong because Jacob had brought his women, children, livestock, and servants with him when he settled in Egypt, and so the Hebrews were under the law of Exodus 21:3: "If he comes alone, he shall go out alone; if he is the lord of a wife, then his wife shall go out with him."

God's yet unwritten law which was familiar to Pharaoh (because of Joseph's influence and because it underlay the common law of the Ancient Near East, also orders that when a slave is set free, he is to be given going-away gifts (Deuteronomy 15:12-16) to help him celebrate and to help him set up in business. God told the Hebrews to request (not "borrow") such presents from their neighbors (Exodus 3:22). Moses demanded such presents from Pharaoh (10:25). Those who give such presents are blessed by God (Deuteronomy 15:18), and the Egyptians knew this even before this law was written down by Moses after the Exodus. Another proof of this is that in Exodus 12:32, when Pharaoh gave his presents, he specifically asked for the Deuteronomy 15:18 blessing.

Obviously Pharaoh understood something about God's laws governing slavery before Moses wrote them down after the Exodus.

SECOND The law of evidence concerning torn beasts (Exodus 22:13) is referred to by Jacob way back in Genesis 31:39.

THIRD Exodus 21:1 and 24:3 call these laws "mishpatim," and Abraham is said to know the mishpatim way back in Genesis 18:19. Also, way back in Genesis 26:5, Abraham is said to have "kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws." This is surely more than the 10 commandments!

FORTH Deuteronomy 22:28-29 commands a young man who seduces a young girl to marry her. This law was clearly being followed to the letter way back in Genesis 34, which concerns the relations between Shechem and Dinah. Because Simeon and Levi broke the not-yet-written law, Jacob condemned their actions. (Genesis 49:5-7).

Stoning is not a ceremonial law which only applied to Old Testament Israel. It is a moral law which is for all nations in all dispensations just like the moral laws against murder and rape are.

Christians are not under the entire law but nonchristians are still under the moral law as the following verses prove:

I John 3:4: "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness."

Romans 7:7, "What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Let it not be said! But I did not know sin except through the law. For also I did not know lust except the law said, You shall not lust."

Galatians 3:24: "So that the Law has become a trainer of us until Christ, that we might be justified by faith."

Finally, nonchristians will be judged by the law:

Rev. 20:12 - "And I saw the dead, the small and the great, stand before God. And books were opened, and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books"

Rev. 20:13 - "And the sea gave up the dead in it. And death and hell delivered up the dead in them. And each one of them was judged according to their works."

Now, you may think that it would be a good idea for our current Gentile government to require obedience to the Mosaic Law ... but there's a few problems with that. Acts 15 and Gal 3:10-14 may be the most out-spoken examples, but they are far from the only ones. For you to try to live by the Law means that you must do everything that the Law requires. That means circumcision, ritual cleanliness, eschewing unclean meat, and the temple sacrifices. You cannot separate the Law into "moral law" and "ritual law"--such a separation is unbiblical.

Scripture has told us Old Testament ceremonial law is no longer in effect for today.

Regarding the ceremonial law Paul said, "But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Galatians 4:9)

Colossians 2:16-21 says, "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ. Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God. Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, (Touch not; taste not; handle not;"

Hebrews 7:17,18 says, "For He testifies, 'You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.' For truly there is a putting away of the commandment which went before, because of the weakness and unprofitableness of it."

Epesians 2:15 says, "having abolished in His flesh the enmity (the Law of commandments contained in ordinances) so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, making peace between them;"

Arguable. At no time does Hebrews or Psalms say that the same person will fill the office of Messianic King and Priest after the Order of Melchizedek. It is not an unreasonable conjecture, but it is conjecture.

Where did I claim Christ was Melchizedek? The point I made was that monarchy was declared by God a thousand years before Saul.

As a side note: I also take the majority scholarship view that Deuteronomy was compiled in final form during or shortly after the Babylonian Exile.

Who cares when it was compiled? What matters is when the command was given. And it was given well before Israel asked for a king.

However, I also addressed this: in Deuteronomy, God does not say "You shall make a King": the text says "When you make a king, do it my way."

It says both. It says, “You shall surely set a king over you…” That is a command for them to have a king. Then secondly, after that has first been understood, scripture then adds, “…whom the Lord your God chooses.” God telling them to “do it my way” does not nullify the fact that God commanded them to have a king thousands of years ahead of time.

 

[billwald]

NT teaches that "God wants" for the Christians to judge the Christians and let the non believers worry about the non believers.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

God-hating liberals just love to annoint themselves with awards, pat themselves on the back and call their position "the majority scholarship view." All it is, is just the majority liberal view. Nothing more than that. It holds no water with me. You can see their bias in every field. Just look at Hollywood this year when "The Passion of the Christ" did not even get nominated for anything. Liberals desperately trying to call themselves open-minded and objective is laughable. Therefore, I hold their self-given title of the "majority scholarship view" in contempt.

Jefferson ... I don't feel that there's any possible response to this paragraph that would not be outside of the realm of civil discourse. I realize you aren't attacking me, and I do disagree with the statements above, but I don't want my disagreement with the statements to be perceived as an attack against you, personally.

When Paul writes that children should obey their parents (Ephesians 6:1; Colossians 3:20) do you actually take that fact to imply that only children of Christian parents are under moral obligation to obey their parents? The fact that only Israel was given a special revelation of certain political laws does not mean that only Israel was bound to keep such laws.

No, but my rejection of theonomy does not constitute antinomianism. I am not opposed to law: I am opposed to the inaccurate attempt to apply the Mosaic Law to situations where it does not apply.

The Mosaic Laws cannot be divided into "political laws" and "moral laws": one who follows the Mosaic Law is committed to following all of the Law, as Gal 3:10 states:

Gal 3:10, NKJV

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them."​

You cannot divide the Law into sections and selectively apply the sections. If you do so, those to whom the selective parts of the Law are applied are under the curse.

The Gentiles who were not given the law still have the work of the law written on their hearts (see Romans 2:12-16). In fact Romans 1:31 says that those who commit abominations such as homosexuality know that "those who practice such things are worthy of death."

Jefferson, the Mosaic Law calls homosexuality an abomination, but it also calls eating shellfish an abomination. Indeed, Rom 1 extends the list of acts worthy of death far beyond sexual immorality: "all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; ... whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...."

According to Rom 1, all of these acts are worthy of death. Who among us has not been malicious, proud, or disobedient to our parents? Even those of you who are Christian have admitted that you still fall into sin!

Yet we are discussing the issue of the Law. in Rom 2:14, Paul himself says that the Gentiles do not have the law! Why would you inflict the Law--and the curses of the Law--on those whom the law were not made for?

So who was the Law made for? Ex 19 tells us plainly:

Ex 19:3-6, NKJV:

3 And Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain, saying, "Thus you shall say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: 4 "You have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles' wings and brought you to Myself. 5 Now therefore, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people; for all the earth is Mine. 6 And you shall be to Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words which you shall speak to the children of Israel."​

The Law was part of the Old Covenant, between YHVH and the Children of Israel. It was the sign of the Old Covenant ... yet you state that the Old Covenant has been done away with? Then why would you keep the Law, which was its sign? Why would you deny the author of Hebrews, who states ...

Heb 9:19;20, NKJV
"19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, "This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you."

The Law was part and parcel of the Old Covenant, sealed with the blood of animals. You state that you now live under the new covenant, yet keep hearkening back to the Law of the old one. In doing so, you are attempting to invalidate the blood of Christ, who you believe makes clean where the Law never could.

Justin

 

[Jefferson]

Justin - I will gladly respond to your last post if you will have the courtesy to address at least half of my previous post (#142) instead of the mere 20 percent that you did respond to.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Justin - I will gladly respond to your last post if you will have the courtesy to address at least half of my previous post (#142) instead of the mere 20 percent that you did respond to.

Jefferson, with all due respect, the response I gave applies to the 80 percent that I snipped from your post, not simply the 20 percent or so that I quoted. Now, if you like, I can go through the post point-by-point, but my response will remain unchanged:
1: You cannot divide the law into Ceremonial and Moral components. Additionally, you cannot place anyone under a required obedience to the Mosaic Law without also placing them under the curse of the law. Gal. 3:10.
2: Paul makes a far different description of the "moral law" than you, including such acts as "all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; ... whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...." Unless you plan on making the punishment for gossip the exact same punishment for homosexuality, you cannot argue for a Christian continuance of the Law based on this passage.
3: The Mosaic Law was part and parcel of the Old Covenant. If (as Christians claim) we are in the New Covenant, the Law no longer applies as a principle of government.
4: Those who advocate the Law as part of "Christian Dominion" are advocating a rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

These four points more than answer every single statement that you made in your post.

Justin

 

[Jefferson]

1: You cannot divide the law into Ceremonial and Moral components.

Wrong. Paul divided it, therefore so can we. Why did Paul not mention any of the ceremonial laws in First Timothy 1:8-10? Because Paul separated them. In that passage Paul was only talking about moral conduct, not ceremonial obedience. Furthermore, Paul commanded us to divide the word in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Additionally, you cannot place anyone under a required obedience to the Mosaic Law without also placing them under the curse of the law. Gal. 3:10.

Please read verses in their context. The context of Galations is salvation. No one who is advocating governments today to enforce Biblical law is doing so because they believe obedience to Biblical Law is the way to salvation from their sins. Do you actually think that when people today obey the commands to not murder or steal that they immediately come under the curse of God? They only come under the curse if they obey for the purpose of attaining salvation. Huge difference.

2: Paul makes a far different description of the "moral law" than you, including such acts as "all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; ... whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful...." Unless you plan on making the punishment for gossip the exact same punishment for homosexuality, you cannot argue for a Christian continuance of the Law based on this passage.

Where in the world do you get the idea that the punishment for gossip should be the exact same punishment for homosexuality? Please quote me chapter and verse.

3: The Mosaic Law was part and parcel of the Old Covenant. If (as Christians claim) we are in the New Covenant, the Law no longer applies as a principle of government.

Then why does Paul say in Romans 13:4 that the governing authorities are "God's minister" who bears not the sword in vain? Sounds like Theonomy to me.

4: Those who advocate the Law as part of "Christian Dominion" are advocating a rejection of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

:darwinsm:

 

[Granite]

It seems to me that CR, dominionism, theonomy, whatever you want to call it, has little use for the personal figure of Jesus.

He got lost in the sauce a long time ago. Why wait for Jesus when you can have power in the here and now?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Wrong. Paul divided it, therefore so can we. Why did Paul not mention any of the ceremonial laws in First Timothy 1:8-10? Because Paul separated them. In that passage Paul was only talking about moral conduct, not ceremonial obedience.

First and foremost, Galatians 3:10 was also the proof text that you cannot parse the Law into ceremonial and moral components.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Secondly, your argument that Paul divided the Law is an argument from silence. Paul did not mention the Law, but to definitively state that this is because he regarded the "Ceremonial Law" as fulfilled while regarding the "Moral Law" as still in force is a logical fallacy.

Paul's actual opinion on the law is given in Galatians 3:1-5.

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Jefferson, the Law will not "redeem" the nation, any more than it will redeem so much as one person in it. Indeed, Paul assumes that Christians will live among "sinners" in 1 Cor 5.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Paul does not command Christians to take controll of the government: he expects the "unsaved" to act in this manner, and makes absolutely no provision for the saved to try to force any code of behavior on them.

Furthermore, Paul commanded us to divide the word in 2 Timothy 2:15 - "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

Oh, please, Jefferson! Orthotomounta does not mean to "divide" as one "divides" the carcass of a steer!

rightly dividing - "rightly handling" [Vulgate]; "rightly administering" [ALFORD]; literally, cutting "straight" or "right": the metaphor being from a father or a steward (1 Corinthians 4:1) cutting and distributing bread among his children [VITRINGA and CALVIN], (Luke 12:42). The Septuagint, Proverbs 3:6 11:5, use it of "making one's way": so BENGEL here takes Paul to mean that Timothy may make ready a straight way for "the word of truth," and may himself walk straight forward according to this line, turning neither to the right nor to the left, "teaching no other doctrine" (1 Timothy 1:3). The same image of a way appears in the Greek for "increase" (see on 2 Timothy 2:16). The opposite to "rightly handling," or "dispensing," is, 2 Corinthians 2:17, "corrupt the word of God."

Cite

Please read verses in their context. The context of Galations is salvation. No one who is advocating governments today to enforce Biblical law is doing so because they believe obedience to Biblical Law is the way to salvation from their sins. Do you actually think that when people today obey the commands to not murder or steal that they immediately come under the curse of God? They only come under the curse if they obey for the purpose of attaining salvation. Huge difference.

And a grossly incorrect synopsis of my statement. I never said, nor do I believe, that Theonomists believe that enforcing Biblical Law is salvic. The "curse of the Law" is not for obeying the Law, but for obeying only parts the Law.

Where in the world do you get the idea that the punishment for gossip should be the exact same punishment for homosexuality? Please quote me chapter and verse.

Romans 1:29-32.
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It's not just murder and fornication--if you break a promise, you deserve death. If you are proud, you deserve death. If you are boastful, you deserve death. And yes, backbiters--or gossips, depending on the translation--deserve death.

Then why does Paul say in Romans 13:4 that the governing authorities are "God's minister" who bears not the sword in vain? Sounds like Theonomy to me.

Paul speaks not only to the Romans, but of the Romans--the Roman Empire, which did not cavail at prostitution, homosexuality, drunkenness, pillage, or at persecuting Christians. Now, unless you think Paul was saying that Roman law is the law we should now follow (which I highly doubt), you'll see how silly your statement is.

Justin

 

[Lighthouse]

First and foremost, Galatians 3:10 was also the proof text that you cannot parse the Law into ceremonial and moral components.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Paul was referring to salvation.

Secondly, your argument that Paul divided the Law is an argument from silence. Paul did not mention the Law, but to definitively state that this is because he regarded the "Ceremonial Law" as fulfilled while regarding the "Moral Law" as still in force is a logical fallacy.

Did you mean to say, "Paul did mention the law?"

Paul's actual opinion on the law is given in Galatians 3:1-5.

1 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?
2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?
4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.
5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

Jefferson, the Law will not "redeem" the nation, any more than it will redeem so much as one person in it. Indeed, Paul assumes that Christians will live among "sinners" in 1 Cor 5.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

Paul does not command Christians to take controll of the government: he expects the "unsaved" to act in this manner, and makes absolutely no provision for the saved to try to force any code of behavior on them.



Oh, please, Jefferson! Orthotomounta does not mean to "divide" as one "divides" the carcass of a steer!


Cite



And a grossly incorrect synopsis of my statement. I never said, nor do I believe, that Theonomists believe that enforcing Biblical Law is salvic. The "curse of the Law" is not for obeying the Law, but for obeying only parts the Law.



Romans 1:29-32.
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

It's not just murder and fornication--if you break a promise, you deserve death. If you are proud, you deserve death. If you are boastful, you deserve death. And yes, backbiters--or gossips, depending on the translation--deserve death.



Paul speaks not only to the Romans, but of the Romans--the Roman Empire, which did not cavail at prostitution, homosexuality, drunkenness, pillage, or at persecuting Christians. Now, unless you think Paul was saying that Roman law is the law we should now follow (which I highly doubt), you'll see how silly your statement is.

Justin

:sozo:THEONOMY IS NOT ABOUT REDEMPTION! IT'S ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE!

 

[Granite]

Maybe that's part of theonomy's problem.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

:sozo:THEONOMY IS NOT ABOUT REDEMPTION! IT'S ABOUT CRIMINAL JUSTICE!

How is it justice for only Christian opinion and Christian law to be admissible in government?

 

[Lighthouse]

How is it justice for only Christian opinion and Christian law to be admissible in government?

And herein lies the problem with your perception. This isn't "Christian" law. It's all about civil and criminal law. Murderers and rapists being put to death for their crimes is better for society than letting them stay in jail for ten years, then setting them free where they can return to what they were doing. Theonomists don't believe in putting these laws in effect because they're in the Bible, but because they are good for society. That's why the symbolic/ceremonial laws would not be in effect. People working on the Sabbath aren't going to be put to death, but child molesters are. And, the laws pertaining to the priesthood aren't going to be in effect. Especially since there is no priesthood. Do you understand, yet?

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

Theonomists don't believe in putting these laws in effect because they're in the Bible, but because they are good for society.

OK, then here's a question for you: are the laws of Deut 22:28-29 "good for society?"

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Frankly, I'm less than impressed with those who reject the NIV because it translates that section as "rapes her"--the KJV language may allow those who wish to blush away from the fact pretend it isn't there, but though the Bible calls for the death of one who rapes a betrothed girl, it only calls for a fifty shekel debt and eternal marriage for one who rapes an unbetrothed girl.

People working on the Sabbath aren't going to be put to death, but child molesters are.

Seeing as how a marriage age of 12 to 15 is not uncommon ... there goes your claim about killing child molesters.

Do you understand, yet?

Sarcasm ill becomes you, Lighthouse. It requires a subtlety that comes with age and experience.

To put it succinctly, I reject theonomy not only because it is against your Bible, but because it calls for the return of barbarism to a culture that has learned better.

 

[Lighthouse]

OK, then here's a question for you: are the laws of Deut 22:28-29 "good for society?"

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

If people are forced to marry if they fornicate that would put an end to fornication, wouldn't it?

Frankly, I'm less than impressed with those who reject the NIV because it translates that section as "rapes her"--the KJV language may allow those who wish to blush away from the fact pretend it isn't there, but though the Bible calls for the death of one who rapes a betrothed girl, it only calls for a fifty shekel debt and eternal marriage for one who rapes an unbetrothed girl.

It clearly says that a rapist should be put to death. It doesn't say anything about betrothal.

In the case of a man fornicating with a betrothed woman, they are both put to death, because it's adultery.

Seeing as how a marriage age of 12 to 15 is not uncommon ... there goes your claim about killing child molesters.

Where is that shown to be common? What makes you think kids got married? Kids that young are nowhere near mature enough to get married.

And killing a 45 year old man who molests six year old boys is a sicko. A pervert. And deserves death.

Sarcasm ill becomes you, Lighthouse. It requires a subtlety that comes with age and experience.

I wasn't being sarcastic.

To put it succinctly, I reject theonomy not only because it is against your Bible, but because it calls for the return of barbarism to a culture that has learned better.

You're wrong on both counts. There's nothing barbaric about putting murderers to death.

And if you're so against theonomy, are you against the current government making murder and rape illegal?:think:

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

If people are forced to marry if they fornicate that would put an end to fornication, wouldn't it?

Lighthouse, did you even read the passage? Here, let me give it to you again.

Deut 22:28-29. We'll use the NKJV this time.
28"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This is not "fornication"--this is rape. If a betrothed woman is raped (v 25-27), the rapist is stoned ... but if the woman is unbetrothed, then the rapist pays 50 shekels to the woman's father, and he marries her.

No matter what her desires are. No matter how she feels about this rapist.

Barbarism.

 

[Clete]

Lighthouse, did you even read the passage? Here, let me give it to you again.

Deut 22:28-29. We'll use the NKJV this time.
28"If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

This is not "fornication"--this is rape. If a betrothed woman is raped (v 25-27), the rapist is stoned ... but if the woman is unbetrothed, then the rapist pays 50 shekels to the woman's father, and he marries her.

No matter what her desires are. No matter how she feels about this rapist.

Barbarism.

The word "siezes" here is what has you convinced that this is rape. I wonder what the word is in the original and whether or not this was figure of speech, an idiomatic expression meaning something quite different than rape? :think:

I'll have to look it up.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Clete]

taphas

1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield

a) (Qal)

1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch

2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully

b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured

c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)​

:think:

I think that an interpretation other than rape is still quite possible and given the law in verses 25-27, it is impossible that it is talking about rape. You'd have two sentences right next to one another that directly contradict. That simply doesn't make sense.

Wow! That was pretty easy! It took less than 6 minutes to find the information, think it through and type up a post about it. Amazing what a little effort gets you.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

The word "siezes" here is what has you convinced that this is rape. I wonder what the word is in the original and whether or not this was figure of speech, an idiomatic expression meaning something quite different than rape? :think:

I'll have to look it up.

Taphas, Strong's 08610
1) to catch, handle, lay hold, take hold of, seize, wield
** a) (Qal)
**** 1) to lay hold of, seize, arrest, catch
**** 2) to grasp (in order to) wield, wield, use skilfully
** b) (Niphal) to be seized, be arrested, be caught, be taken, captured
** c) (Piel) to catch, grasp (with the hands)

I added the asterisks to help with indentation.

 

[Justin (Wiccan)]

I think that an interpretation other than rape is still quite possible and given the law in verses 25-27, it is impossible that it is talking about rape. You'd have two sentences right next to one another that directly contradict. That simply doesn't make sense.

What two sentences contradict? If a man rapes a betrothed woman, he was stoned to death. If he rapes an unbetrothed woman, he payed fifty shekels and married her.

Justin