Adultery and homosexuality in the moral law

Status
Not open for further replies.
He is now calling out spiritual Isreal, and His kingdom will not be enforced here until the return of Christ.
Yes. But I'm not referring to a pseudo-kingdom of God here. Ultimately, the final judgment will come at an unexpected moment, and the redeemed will inherit new heaven. But part of Christ's purpose to redeem His elects is to give them a new heart that enable them to serve Him (Ezekiel 36:26). So a Christian should perform his duty in serving God and in conformity to His law. And this applies to the civil magistrates. Please don't misunderstand that I accuse you of antinomianism.

Dr. Bahnsen affirms that there are parts of the Mosaic law that should be discarded because of Christ's fulfillment. Nevertheless, there are moral laws that are applicable for civil justice for they are God's standards.
 
Is it immoral for the magistrate to show mercy?

Only if the offense is actually against the state. The victim of a crime should be the one to decide whether their oppressor is shown mercy.

Now, how can a victim of murder make such a decision? They’re dead.
 
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.

The state can show mercy when the crime is against the state. If a murderer kills my family, and the state shows mercy by giving him a few years "good behavior," is that justice?
 
Only if the offense is actually against the state. The victim of a crime should be the one to decide whether their oppressor is shown mercy.

Now, how can a victim of murder make such a decision? They’re dead.

Hey Taylor,

I think we need to be carful here. Should a rape victim who confuses forgiveness with just recompense be permitted to let her rapist go free to rape again? Turning the other cheek and an eye for an eye are compatible principles.
 
Hey Taylor,

I think we need to be carful here. Should a rape victim who confuses forgiveness with just recompense be permitted to let her rapist go free to rape again? Turning the other cheek and an eye for an eye are compatible principles.

Ron,

Indeed, good caution. I thought about that, too, when I formulated my response. There are instances where justice must be carried out, regardless of the victim’s desires, surely. After all, all law is religious, and so rape, to use your example, is not just an offense against the victim, but against the God of Heaven.

In what I was saying, I was mainly just addressing the specific question of murder and the permissibility of the magistrate granting mercy.
 
I'm hesitant to wade into this discussion, but here goes:

The nature of God is moral. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Gen. 9:6 predates the Mosaic Law. Where has God rescinded this?

Is it merciful to keep a man in prison for 30, 40, 50 yrs only to heap up more sin and judgment upon himself?

If a man receives the death penalty for murder, God will save him (spiritually) if he is of the elect. Isn't that merciful? What about the thief on the cross? There are consequences to sin even if there is repentance. What of the homosexual who gets AIDS and dies? He may repent, but he is still going to suffer the consequence of his sin.

When God marked Cain for killing Abel, he was left to himself to roam the earth and become worse heaping up judgment. Matthew Henry's commentary on this is insightful.

As someone who has an immediate family member serving time for murder of another family member, I can attest that prison has only made him worse. He has been given much light of the gospel. It may shock many of you for me to say this, but living out his days to heap up more condemnation is not merciful.

He was released after 24 yrs., and violated parole within 3 mos. even though he had EVERY opportunity given to him: full-time job with benefits, nice used car, place to live, all new clothes, cell phone. Why? He came out with the same heart (and worse) as when he went in.

Better to die and be spiritually alive than to live out one's days in prison yet spiritually dead. We are not to fear him who kills the body.

Prisoners live by their own rules and laws inside prison. Be sure that if you don't conform, they will exact their own form of justice against one another. They continue their illegal activities and become more inventive. Prison is not meant to reform, it is meant to be a punishment, and so is the death penalty.

Have any of you considered the punishment enacted on the survivors of either the victim's family or the offender's family? What if you're in both of those categories? Do any of you know what it is like to be serving time with the offender? It is a life sentence (or however long) for the families as well. Nothing is normal, and there is that constant reminder and anxiety whenever the offender comes up for parole (if eligible).

Yes, my opinion may not be popular and even distasteful, but it would have been far better if he lost his physical life and the Lord granted spiritual life. God's elect will be saved even if facing death for murder.

We have all but lost any deterrents for murder especially when they can continue in their criminal activity in prison, with a bed, food, cable tv, and many other luxuries that many law-abiding citizens aren't afforded. Is that justice?
 
Last edited:
I'm hesitant to wade into this discussion, but here goes:

The nature of God is moral. Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Gen. 9:6 predates the Mosaic Law. Where has God rescinded this?

Is it merciful to keep a man in prison for 30, 40, 50 yrs only to heap up more sin and judgment upon himself?

If a man receives the death penalty for murder, God will save him (spiritually) if he is of the elect. Isn't that merciful? What about the thief on the cross? There are consequences to sin even if there is repentance. What of the homosexual who gets AIDS and dies? He may repent, but he is still going to suffer the consequence of his sin.

When God marked Cain for killing Abel, he was left to himself to roam the earth and become worse heaping up judgment. Matthew Henry's commentary on this is insightful.

As someone who has an immediate family member serving time for murder of another family member, I can attest that prison has only made him worse. He has been given much light of the gospel. It may shock many of you for me to say this, but living out his days to heap up more condemnation is not merciful.

He was released after 24 yrs., and violated parole within 3 mos. even though he had EVERY opportunity given to him: full-time job with benefits, nice used car, place to live, all new clothes, cell phone. Why? He came out with the same heart (and worse) as when he went in.

Better to die and be spiritually alive than to live out one's days in prison yet spiritually dead. We are not to fear him who kills the body.

Prisoners live by their own rules and laws inside prison. Be sure that if you don't conform, they will exact their own form of justice against one another. They continue their illegal activities and become more inventive. Prison is not meant to reform, it is meant to be a punishment, and so is the death penalty.

Have any of you considered the punishment enacted on the survivors of either the victim's family or the offender's family? What if you're in both of those categories? Do any of you know what it is like to be serving time with the offender? It is a life sentence (or however long) for the families as well. Nothing is normal, and there is that constant reminder and anxiety whenever the offender comes up for parole (if eligible).

Yes, my opinion may not be popular and even distasteful, but it would have been far better if he lost his physical life and the Lord granted spiritual life. God's elect will be saved even if facing death for murder.

We have all but lost any deterrents for murder especially when they can continue in their criminal activity in prison, with a bed, food, cable tv, and many other luxuries that many law-abiding citizens aren't afforded. Is that justice?

For all the things you mentioned I think prison is a cruelty, ineffective, and monstrously expensive. It was eye-opening for me to notice God never instituted one. All punishments were not only fair but quickly and inexpensively executed. The point was clearly made to the one punished and those witnessing. Then everyone could move on.
 
I had almost passed this thread by without any comment. But at the last moment gave in to the urge to chime in.

I am fully aboard Calvin's basic sentiment, which makes me along with him, under the estimate of the arch-theonomist RJR, guilty of "heretical nonsense." A label I consider a badge of honor. The penal sanctions of the Law of Moses are not of themselves morally binding, but judicial; and subject to considerations of wisdom discovering any general equity they may contain.

*************************
Bringing up David's case together with the woman's (she caught in adultery) seems more than fair. David was the highest judicial authority in the land, and not above God's Law and jurisdiction; but at the same time not subject to a human court. There was none, but perhaps the high priest could have rebuked him as a peer; certainly Nathan did as the divine spokesman.

In the last analysis, God's verdict upon David is clear. The king pronounced his own death sentence on himself (unwittingly, in advance) in 2Sam.13:5, and admitted his guilt in v13. The same v has the prophet announcing that the king should not be put to death, because the LORD the King pardoned him.

God was free to grant this pardon. It was his Law given to men to administer, and he was not bound to abide by it. That David's sin would be paid for by the future Mediator and Sacrifice is implicit, inasmuch as "he will by no means clear the guilty," that is leave any sin unpunished.

*************************
The case of the woman taken in adultery has other parallels in the ministry of Jesus, where his enemies sought to put him in a bind. Could they fashion a trap for him; whereby anything he said in response would trouble him with the people, with the religious authorities, or with the politicals?

Jesus avoided every pitfall in this crafty bind. Some of his words and acts are open to several lines of analysis. The missing man-culprit reveals a corrupt selective prosecution motive, and the possibility that the woman was made a patsy. His toying in the dust of the temple (Jn.8:2, 6, 8) calls to mind the ritual of trial for adultery, see Num.5:17.

But above all, while his rhetorical device of calling on the innocent ones to cast the first stone drives the accusers away; the actual claim of Jesus in this passage is one of divinity. He sets aside the woman's due penalty, not because she is innocent (she is not, and doesn't protest to be); and not so much on account of a lack of two or three witnesses remaining. He sets it aside because as God and as Messiah, he has the power to suspend her sentence: exactly the same as the LORD's power to revoke David's death sentence.

Ordinary justice could have, would have, proceeded against this woman; perhaps even caught up with her lover, if only to satisfy an equitable result, had Jesus or someone else brought that matter to the fore. No argument could be given that one guilty party in an adulterous situation was unpunishable, if the counterpart in the sin was escaped. That's like saying capturing one member of a gang of thieves will not yield a trial unless all his fellows are also captured.

King David showed mercy to his own son, guilty of an equally egregious sexual offense as this woman's (some will argue: more offensive). We could spend a long time debating the folly of his action (or inaction); wondering if any similar crime would have been pardoned in Israel's justice economy, perpetrated by someone other than a prince; wondering if any such pardon could ever be judged "wisdom" on the part of a human judge; or whether the king of Israel was compelled to condemn (and might never pardon) such crimes as the Law described as Most Heinous.

But the simple fact is that the Executive action of the king was done as God's anointed, and as a rule was not reviewable in this life. It was as the very judgment of God pronounced. I can only think of one case when the king's "justice" was invalidated by a mass repudiation of it by the people, 1Sam.14:44-45. The holy body experienced a kind of gag-reflex, when the head tried to force this injustice down its throat.

It wasn't too long ago, we were discussing on the PB the question of whether, or in what manner or condition or prudence, Jesus was under or was over the Law of Moses. Jesus is always consistent with his Father's will, always obedient to whatever moral righteousness a man--who is also king--ought to do. But Moses was a servant in Jesus' house, never the other way around. The Lord picked particular moments during his ministry to make it clear to various parties which of the two was in charge.

In the case of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus does nothing to subvert the Law, or even give that appearance. But the pardon he gives should not be viewed in any way other/less than his Kingly prerogative.
 
Your whole post (as always) gave a lot of light and perspective to the topic - thank you!
In addition to this, I enjoyed the following quote a lot:
The holy body experienced a kind of gag-reflex, when the head tried to force this injustice down its throat.
 
I had almost passed this thread by without any comment. But at the last moment gave in to the urge to chime in.

I am fully aboard Calvin's basic sentiment, which makes me along with him, under the estimate of the arch-theonomist RJR, guilty of "heretical nonsense." A label I consider a badge of honor. The penal sanctions of the Law of Moses are not of themselves morally binding, but judicial; and subject to considerations of wisdom discovering any general equity they may contain.

*************************
Bringing up David's case together with the woman's (she caught in adultery) seems more than fair. David was the highest judicial authority in the land, and not above God's Law and jurisdiction; but at the same time not subject to a human court. There was none, but perhaps the high priest could have rebuked him as a peer; certainly Nathan did as the divine spokesman.

In the last analysis, God's verdict upon David is clear. The king pronounced his own death sentence on himself (unwittingly, in advance) in 2Sam.13:5, and admitted his guilt in v13. The same v has the prophet announcing that the king should not be put to death, because the LORD the King pardoned him.

God was free to grant this pardon. It was his Law given to men to administer, and he was not bound to keep it. That David's sin would be paid for by the future Mediator and Sacrifice is implicit, inasmuch as "he will by no means clear the guilty," that is leave any sin unpunished.

*************************
The case of the woman taken in adultery has other parallels in the ministry of Jesus, where his enemies sought to put him in a bind. Could they fashion a trap for him; whereby anything he said in response would trouble him with the people, with the religious authorities, or with the politicals?

Jesus avoided every pitfall in this crafty bind. Some of his words and acts are open to several lines of analysis. The missing man-culprit reveals a corrupt selective prosecution motive, and the possibility that the woman was made a patsy. His toying in the dust of the temple (Jn.8:2, 6, 8) calls to mind the ritual of trial for adultery, see Num.5:17.

But above all, while his rhetorical device of calling on the innocent ones to cast the first stone drives the accusers away; the actual claim of Jesus in this passage is one of divinity. He sets aside the woman's due penalty, not because she is innocent (she is not, and doesn't protest to me); and not so much on account of a lack of two or three witnesses remaining. He sets it aside because as God and as Messiah, he has the power to suspend her sentence: exactly the same as the LORD's power to revoke David's death sentence.

Ordinary justice could have, would have, proceeded against this woman; perhaps even caught up with her lover, if only to satisfy an equitable result, had Jesus or someone else brought that matter to the fore. No argument could be given that one guilty party in an adulterous situation was unpunishable, if the counterpart in the sin was escaped. That's like saying capturing one member of a gang of thieves will not yield a trial unless all his fellows are also captured.

King David showed mercy to his own son, guilty of an equally egregious sexual offense as this woman's (some will argue: more offensive). We could spend a long time debating the folly of his action (or inaction); wondering if any similar crime would have been pardoned in Israel's justice economy, perpetrated by someone other than a prince; wondering if any such pardon could ever be judged "wisdom" on the part of a human judge; or whether the king of Israel was compelled to condemn (and might never pardon) such crimes as the Law described as Most Heinous.

But the simple fact is that the Executive action of the king was done as God's anointed, and as a rule was not reviewable in this life. It was as the very judgment of God pronounced. I can only think of one case when the king's "justice" was invalidated by a mass repudiation of it by the people, 1Sam.14:44-45. The holy body experienced a kind of gag-reflex, when the head tried to force this injustice down its throat.

It wasn't too long ago, we were discussing on the PB the question of whether, or in what manner or condition or prudence, Jesus was under or was over the Law of Moses. Jesus is always consistent with his Father's will, always obedient to whatever moral righteousness a man--who is also king--ought to do. But Moses was a servant in Jesus' house, never the other way around. The Lord picked particular moments during his ministry to make it clear to various parties which of the two was in charge.

In the case of the woman taken in adultery, Jesus does nothing to subvert the Law, or even give that appearance. But the pardon he gives should not be viewed in any way other/less than his Kingly prerogative.
The Law Giver paid for His own required judgment for His own, do we now live under Grace. Still able to judge and punish, but each case is case by case.
 
The Law Giver paid for His own required judgment for His own, do we now live under Grace. Still able to judge and punish, but each case is case by case.

I am not a theonomist, but every theonomist I know agrees with that. In fact, the very fact that you said "case by case" implies some continuity with case law.

It comes down to this: what is the purpose of punishment? The Bible, and natural law tradition, say it is retribution. This much and no more.

Modern humanism says it is rehabilitation. The problem with rehabbing the criminal is that you don't even have to wait until x commits a crime to rehab him for society. Further, there is no logical endpoint to the rehab. It can go on forever.

This is a horror beyond imagining. CS Lewis wrote two works that utterly destroy the "rehab" theory of punishment: the essay "On the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" and also the novel, easily the 4th greatest novel of the 20th century, That Hideous Strength.
 
I am not a theonomist, but every theonomist I know agrees with that. In fact, the very fact that you said "case by case" implies some continuity with case law.

It comes down to this: what is the purpose of punishment? The Bible, and natural law tradition, say it is retribution. This much and no more.

Modern humanism says it is rehabilitation. The problem with rehabbing the criminal is that you don't even have to wait until x commits a crime to rehab him for society. Further, there is no logical endpoint to the rehab. It can go on forever.
Right. Rehab is not biblical. Repentance and a new heart (true change of heart) is, and it is of God, not man. It doesn’t negate there may be consequences for sin.

Jeremiah 17:9
 
Last edited:
Right. Rehab is not biblical. Repentance and a new heart (true change of heart) is, and it is of God, not man. It doesn’t negate there may be consequences for sin.

Jeremiah 17:9
Both David and Moses had bad times as result in of their sins, and yet both were spared death penalty they had due them.
 
I am not a theonomist, but every theonomist I know agrees with that. In fact, the very fact that you said "case by case" implies some continuity with case law.

It comes down to this: what is the purpose of punishment? The Bible, and natural law tradition, say it is retribution. This much and no more.

Modern humanism says it is rehabilitation. The problem with rehabbing the criminal is that you don't even have to wait until x commits a crime to rehab him for society. Further, there is no logical endpoint to the rehab. It can go on forever.

This is a horror beyond imagining. CS Lewis wrote two works that utterly destroy the "rehab" theory of punishment: the essay "On the Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" and also the novel, easily the 4th greatest novel of the 20th century, That Hideous Strength.
I am saying that while all who murder were to be killed under Law, were not some spared that, such as David and Moses?
Son of Sam deserved death, and yet preaches Jesus behinds bars now.
 
Both David and Moses had bad times as result in of their sins, and yet both were spared death penalty they had due them.
Yes, but should we live by exceptions or are there normative principles in scripture? Who pardoned them?

How do you deal with Gen 9:6? Prov 28:17?

There is to be justice in this life, but it is tainted by sin. One day, God will exact perfect justice.
 
I am saying that while all who murder were to be killed under Law, were not some spared that, such as David and Moses?
Son of Sam deserved death, and yet preaches Jesus behinds bars now.

Your argument seems to be this:

Major Premise: God waived the death penalty in a few extreme cases.
Conclusion: The civil magistrate can waive them whenever now.

How does this even follow?
 
Your argument seems to be this:

Major Premise: God waived the death penalty in a few extreme cases.
Conclusion: The civil magistrate can waive them whenever now.

How does this even follow?
No, more that while we can still demand death in certain cases, we do not have to apply it all the time.
 
Yes, but should we live by exceptions or are there normative principles in scripture? Who pardoned them?

How do you deal with Gen 9:6? Prov 28:17?

There is to be justice in this life, but it is tainted by sin. One day, God will exact perfect justice.
First degree murder demands death penalty, but not lesser murder and crimes.
 
There are only two who can show mercy.

1. The victim.
2. God.

In the case of murder, the victim is dead and cannot show mercy. The state has no right to show mercy. Scripture doesn't allow for mercy in the case of murder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top