Death Penalty For Homosexuals?

[RND]

RND,
What do you make of these scriptures?

Act 15:5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, "It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses." 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.

So the matter they were to discuss was Gentile circumcision and keeping the Law of Moses. What was the decision?

Act 15:19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.


Interesting.

Indeed, extremely interesting and I take these scriptures for what they were intended to teach the new converts. Let me ask a few questions as part of my answer here Sean. Would a murderer or rapist have to quit murdering or raping to receive salvation, to be a part of the church? Why did the Council of Jerusalem only include these 4 provisions of the Mosaic law? Did these 4 provision include the sub-provisions associated with them?

The sect of the Pharisees were attempting to force and insist that strict observance to the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation. But the promises of God don't come through law but faith in those promises (Romans 4). Our righteousness is determined by our faith then. Does that make the law useless and null and void? Hardly. One can't "keep" the law and expect salvation. That doesn't mean the law is bad, it simply means that strict observance of the law doesn't make one saved.

Also, what do you make of Paul's statements here:

Rom 7:1 Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?
Rom 7:2 For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.
Rom 7:3 So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man.
Rom 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another—to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God.

Just in case we miss his point Paul says: Rom 7:6 But now we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, so that we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

RND, what are we to make of this?

Verse 4 gives us the answer. We are "dead" to the law that says we can't marry another, because we are "married" to Christ, yet in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells us "lust" is adultery. So on one hand Paul is telling us we can ignore the law to be "married" to Christ, and yet Christ tells us even looking at a woman with bad intentions is a violation of the law.

Obviously, it's not the "law" that's the problem.

The "letter" says that sleeping with another man's wife leads to death. The "Spirit" says looking at a woman (wife or not) with bad intentions leads to death. We CAN NOT obey apart from the "Spirit." In fact Paul tells us it is impossible.

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Does this mean that one can keep every point of the law and still be lost? The whole purpose of the law is to show us our sin, and point us to our need for a savior.

[Sean]

Indeed, extremely interesting and I take these scriptures for what they were intended to teach the new converts.

The passage doesn't open by mentioning new converts. It mentions Gentiles (Acts 15:1-2). Men came from Judea and taught bretheren. This false teaching was being spread to those already converted in an attempt to put on them a yolk that neither they nor their fathers were able to bear (Acts 15:10).

Let me ask a few questions as part of my answer here Sean. Would a murderer or rapist have to quit murdering or raping to receive salvation, to be a part of the church? Why did the Council of Jerusalem only include these 4 provisions of the Mosaic law? Did these 4 provision include the sub-provisions associated with them?

Repentance is part of the gospel presentation (Acts 20:21). Knowing good and evil is something within man from the fall. Doing good is certainly something different though I don't think perfection is required, however. If that were the case then sinless perfection would be required to be saved. But if we could be sinless without the Spirit, they why would we need the Spirit?

Why did the Council of Jerusalem only include these 4 provisions of the Mosaic law? Did these 4 provision include the sub-provisions associated with them?

Please show me where these 4 provisions are in the Mosaic law.

The sect of the Pharisees were attempting to force and insist that strict observance to the Law of Moses was necessary for salvation. But the promises of God don't come through law but faith in those promises (Romans 4). Our righteousness is determined by our faith then. Does that make the law useless and null and void? Hardly. One can't "keep" the law and expect salvation. That doesn't mean the law is bad, it simply means that strict observance of the law doesn't make one saved.

I didn't say the law is useless, null and void or bad. I'm merely pointing out that obedience to God in the new covenant era is by the Spirit and not by the letter of the law. The written code was all the people had before the Spirit was poured out. This isn't a negative statement of the law, it's a positive statement about living by the Spirit.

Verse 4 gives us the answer. We are "dead" to the law that says we can't marry another, because we are "married" to Christ, yet in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus tells us "lust" is adultery. So on one hand Paul is telling us we can ignore the law to be "married" to Christ, and yet Christ tells us even looking at a woman with bad intentions is a violation of the law.

Obviously, it's not the "law" that's the problem.

The "letter" says that sleeping with another man's wife leads to death. The "Spirit" says looking at a woman (wife or not) with bad intentions leads to death. We CAN NOT obey apart from the "Spirit." In fact Paul tells us it is impossible.

Romans 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

Does this mean that one can keep every point of the law and still be lost? The whole purpose of the law is to show us our sin, and point us to our need for a savior.

Jesus doesn't say lust is adultery. He said it's adultery in the heart. Can you show me in the law where it says adultery in the heart is punishable by death in the same way adultery in the flesh is? Or, to put it another way, if I look at a woman to lust after her and commit adultery in my heart then would it be ok at that point to go ahead and commit adultery in the flesh? Since according to your statement, I would already be an adulterer.

Jesus is pointing to the "heart" of the issue. It doesn't matter if you keep the law outwardly if you are "rotten" on the inside. Paul's point is that we don't serve God by the written code. We serve God by obedience to the Spirit of God who empowers us to obey Him.

[Paidion]

I see Paul's references to "the Law" as The Law of God, and that this law was basically moral law.

You would do well to do a word study on the usage of the word "law" accompanied with the article "the", as used by the New Testament writers and then tell us whether it means moral, civil, or ceremonial commands.

I suppose you are interpreting my words to mean "ALL of Paul's references" instead of the particular ones with which I dealt. I am well aware that "the law" in the NT does not always refer to the Law of God. Indeed, in five cases, it refers to the writings of Moses.

Now maybe you would "do well" to do a study of the phrase "law of God" in the New Testament, and see how many times you think it applies to the civic law of Moses.

The inspired writers of the New Testament never thought to divide The Law into these categories as has been done in times since.

Didn't they though? Then what was Paul doing by stating that he became to those outside the law (the gentiles) as one outside the law and then carefully point out that he didn't mean being outside the law of God? It sure appears to the unprejudiced reader as if he is distinguishing "the law" from "the law of God".

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

So what is the distinction if "the law of God" is not a reference to the moral law of God as opposed to the wider law of Moses which included civic and ceremonial laws?

Your posts bear the mark of desperation.

I am sure that is what you want to believe, and what you need to believe in order to hang on to what you feel you must believe ... and I won't discourage you from doing so. I have no desire to convince you of anything. "Convince a man against his will; he's of the same opinion still!"

[Homer]

On the original post Seer wrote:

On Wed. show Steve talked about the authority of the state to punish evil doers. To punish things worthy of death. So if a state instituted the death penalty for homosexual acts would that be just or unjust?

To which Allyn responded:

Is there anything in the NT requiring that a government must put to death any person for anything? Governments are free to make their laws and enforce them but does the NT teach that a death penalty is required?

The Law of Moses prescribed the death penalty for adultery, which was rarely enforced at the time of Jesus (see the story of Joseph and Mary, for example). The Jews of Jesus' day taught that the adulterous wife must be divorced. And Jesus, with His "exception" for divorce in Matthew 5 & 19 certainly seems to have abrogated the death penalty for adultery; He did not require it, or even think to mention it. Unless we are to regard homosexual acts as a more grievous sin than adultery, why would we think the Law of Moses should determine the position taken by Christians?

Paidion wrote:

Didn't they though? Then what was Paul doing by stating that he became to those outside the law (the gentiles) as one outside the law and then carefully point out that he didn't mean being outside the law of God? It sure appears to the unprejudiced reader as if he is distinguishing "the law" from "the law of God".

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.

So what is the distinction if "the law of God" is not a reference to the moral law of God as opposed to the wider law of Moses which included civic and ceremonial laws?

OK Paidion, you have applied the term "moral law" to some part of the Law of Moses. Given that the meaning of the word you have chosen, moral, is defined as:

mor·al
Pronunciation: \ˈmȯr-əl, ˈmär-\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
Date: 14th century
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e: capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

Now please tell us which parts of the Law of Moses relate to right and wrong behavior? Would you say that keeping the Sabbath was moral, or would you say that for the Jews it had nothing to do with "right behavior"? Was paying the tithe right behavior? Was it moral? You tangle yourself up in a hopeless mess. I think you must be confusing the old (and useful) term "natural law" with moral.

[darinhouston]

I am well aware that "the law" in the NT does not always refer to the Law of God. Indeed, in five cases, it refers to the writings of Moses.

Now maybe you would "do well" to do a study of the phrase "law of God" in the New Testament, and see how many times you think it applies to the civic law of Moses.

I haven't followed this thread very closely, but any discussion of "the law" is confusing to me. I guess I grew up thinking it was a reference primarily to the Ten Commandments and the civil law of Moses, but I have begun to think that context is key and that, as Paidion suggests, it doesn't always refer to the same thing. In most NT references pertaining to salvation, it sounds like they are referring not to the "do's and dont's" of life, but to the "how's" of worship -- the sacrificial system and all that pertains to that, which may include aspects of obedience to the civil law but may not.

I think this would be an excellent study (maybe life long), and probably would help us get in the minds of the apostles/NT writers (and Christ) more than anything else if we could understand where they were coming from in this issue.

[Homer]

Darrin,

You wrote:

I haven't followed this thread very closely, but any discussion of "the law" is confusing to me.

Here is an excellent place to begin a study; its the best I have read on the subject:

[Sermon on the Law]

Here is an excert:

In this discussing the doctrine contained in our text, we are then, in the first place, to endeavor to ascertain what ideas we are to attach to the terms "the law," in this, and similar portions of the sacred scriptures.

The term "law," denotes in common usage, "a rule of action."--It was used by the Jews, until the time of our Saviour, to distinguish the whole revelation made to the Patriarchs and Prophets, from the traditions and commandments of the Rabbis or Doctors of the law. Thus the Jews called the Psalms of David law--John xii. 34. Referring to the 110th Psalm, they say, "We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth forever." And again, our Saviour calls the Psalms of David law; John x. 34. Referring to Psalm lxxxii. 6, he says, "Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods." Thus when we hear David extolling God's law, we are to understand him as referring to all divine revelation extant in his time. But when the Old Testament scriptures were finished, and divided according to their contents for use of synagogues, the Jews styled them, the law, the prophets and the psalms. Luke xxiv. 44, Christ says, "All things written in the law of Moses, in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me, must be fulfilled."

The addition of the definite article in this instance as well as all others, alters the signification or at least determines it. During the life of Moses, the words "the law," without some explicative addition, were never used. Joshua, Moses' successor, denominates the writings of Moses, "the book of the law;" but never uses the phrase by itself. Nor indeed have we any authentic account of this phrase being used, without some restrictive definition, until the reign of Abijah, 2d Chron. xiv. 4, at which time it is used to denote the whole legal dispensation by Moses. In this way it is used about 30 times in the Old Testament, and as often with such epithets as show that the whole law of Moses in intended.

When the doctrines of the reign of Heaven began to be preached, and to be contrasted in the New Testament with the Mosaic economy, the phrase "the law," became very common, and when used without any distinguishing epithet, or restrictive definition, invariably denoted the whole legal or Mosaic dispensation. In this acceptation it occurs about 150 times in the New Testament. To make myself more intelligible, I would observe that when the terms "the law," have such distinguishing properties or restrictive definitions as "the royal law," "the law of faith," "the law of liberty," "the law of Christ," "the law of the spirit of life," &c., it is most obvious the whole Mosaic law or dispensation is not intended. But when we find the phrase "the law," without any such limitations or epithets, as "the law was given by Moses," "the law and the prophets were until John," "if ye led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law," "ye are not under the law but under grace," &c., we must perceive the whole law of Moses, or legal dispensation, is intended.

I say the whole law, or dispensation by Moses; for in modern times the law of Moses is divided and classified under three heads, denominated, the moral, ceremonial, and judicial law. This division of the law being unknown in the apostolic age, and of course never used by the Apostles, can serve no valuable purpose, in obtaining a correct knowledge of the doctrine delivered by the Apostles respecting the law. You might as well inquire of the Apostles, or consult their writings, to know who the Supralapsarians or Sublapsarians are, as to inquire of them, what is the moral, ceremonial, or judicial law. But like many distinctions, handed down to us from Mystical Babylon, they bear the mark on their forehead that certifies to us, their origin is not divine. If this distinction were harmless, if it did not perplex, bias, and confound, rather than assist the judgment, in determining the sense of the apostolic writings, we should let it pass unnoticed; but justice to the truth requires us to make a remark or two on this division of the law.

The phrase, the moral law, includes that part of the law of Moses, "written and engraved on two tables of stone," called the ten commandments. Now the word moral, according to the most approved Lexicographers, is defined "relating to the practice of men toward each other, as it may be virtuous or criminal, good or bad." The French, from whom we have the term moral, immediately, and the Romans, from whom we originally received it, used it agreeably to the above definition. Of course, then, a moral law, is a law which regulates the conduct of men towards each other. But will the ten commandments answer this definition? No. For Doctors in Divinity tell us, the first table of the Decalogue respects our duty to God; the second our duty to man. Why then call the ten commandments "the moral law," seeing but six of them are moral, that is, relating to our conduct towards men? In modern times, we sometimes distinguish between religion and morality; but while we affirm that religion is one thing, and morality another; and then affirm that the ten commandments are the moral law--do we not, in so saying, contradict ourselves? Assuredly the legs of the lame are not equal!

Note: "Mystical Babylon" was a reference to the Catholic Church.

[RND]

That Alexander Campbell was on the mark....sometimes!

Why then call the ten commandments "the moral law," seeing but six of them are moral, that is, relating to our conduct towards men?

Because it is impossible to honor and uphold the six that are "moral" without the realization of the "morality" of the first four. One set encompasses man's duty to His God. The other set encompasses man's duty to his fellow man. Both involve "morals."

"The law of Jehovah, dating back to creation, was comprised in the two great principles, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. This is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." These two great principles embrace the first four commandments, showing the duty of man to God, and the last six, showing the duty of man to his fellow-man. The principles were more explicitly stated to man after the fall, and worded to meet the case of fallen intelligences. This was necessary in consequence of the minds of men being blinded by transgression." {RH, May 6, 1875 par. 13}

[Homer]

RND,

If you read the entire sermon, as I recall, he refers to the two great commandments as being in force from the beginning and forever. What he is referring to regarding the "moral law" is the term, as used in the past by Rome, applied to divide the law into categories, which as he said, the apostles never thought to do.

Today we find the word "moral" has taken on a somewhat different meaning, which only adds to the confusion. If "moral" refers to "right behavior", then would we not have to say, for the Jews at least, that the entire Law was moral, which necessarily includes all of the Ten Commandments?

Perhaps you can begin to see how confusing, and unnecessary, this division of the Law can be.

That Alexander Campbell was on the mark....sometimes!

That can be said of everyone. Even a broken clock is right twice a day! A friend of mine once met Ralph Woodrow. He said he enjoyed Woodrow's books but pointed out something he disagreed with Woodrow about, to which Woodrow replied "chew up the meat and spit out the bones". Good advice.

[RND]

RND,

If you read the entire sermon, as I recall, he refers to the two great commandments as being in force from the beginning and forever. What he is referring to regarding the "moral law" is the term, as used in the past by Rome, applied to divide the law into categories, which as he said, the apostles never thought to do.

Today we find the word "moral" has taken on a somewhat different meaning, which only adds to the confusion. If "moral" refers to "right behavior", then would we not have to say, for the Jews at least, that the entire Law was moral, which necessarily includes all of the Ten Commandments?

Perhaps you can begin to see how confusing, and unnecessary, this division of the Law can be.

I read the whole thing. And I find Campbell to be a fairly accurate source for understanding the Gospel and the truth of the law. I'm just not big on Protestants that poke Rome in the eye while still accepting Rome's assertion that she alone has the right to change law.

"Either the [Ten Commandment] Law remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it is passed away with the Jewish ceremonies. If it yet exists, let us observe it according to law. And if it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it." --Alexander Campbell, "Address to the Readers of the Christian Baptists," part 1, Feb. 2, 1824, pp. 44-45 [Campbell (1788-1866) was the founder of the Disciples of Christ Church].

That can be said of everyone. Even a broken clock is right twice a day! A friend of mine once met Ralph Woodrow. He said he enjoyed Woodrow's books but pointed out something he disagreed with Woodrow about, to which Woodrow replied "chew up the meat and spit out the bones". Good advice.

That's cool.

[Homer]

RND,

You wrote:

I'm just not big on Protestants that poke Rome in the eye while still accepting Rome's assertion that she alone has the right to change law.

I'm astonished that you wrote this. Was the quote from Campbell a snippet you found somewhere on the internet and pasted in your post? You could not possibly have said this, as an honest person (which I have no doubt you are), if you had read his article. Here is your quote followed by the very next paragraph as Campbell wrote it:

"Either the [Ten Commandment] Law remains in all its force, to the utmost extent of its literal requirements, or it is passed away with the Jewish ceremonies. If it yet exists, let us observe it according to law. And if it does not exist, let us abandon a mock observance of another day for it."

"But," say some, "it was changed from the seventh to the first day." Where? when? and by whom? No man can tell. No, it never was changed, nor could it be, unless creation was gone through again: for the reason assigned must be changed before the observance, or respect to the reason, can be changed!! It is all old wives' fables to talk of the change of the sabbath from the seventh to the first day. If it be changed, it was that august personage changed it who changes times and laws ex officio - I think his name is DOCTOR ANTICHRIST.

You can guess who Campbell, as other Reformers, thought to be the antichrist. I will spot you POP_.

Campbell went on to demonstate how the sabbath was given to the Jews, and them only.