A commenter in the earlier post about Exodus International is checking to see if I am ashamed of Leviticus 20:13 yet, which I am not. But before proceeding, let me quote that verse in full.
“If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13).
This passage is the Word of God, and before moving on to how we are to receive and apply it today, let us — by which I mean all Christians who believe the Scripture — affirm that this law, as originally given, was holy, righteous, and good. This means that in the time of Moses, if a homosexual acted out his impulses, doing what is here forbidden, and was caught in that deed, and was duly tried and executed, no injustice whatever was done. This law, along with the rest of God’s law, teaches us what holiness means. To apologize for it, or to refuse to talk about it, because the perpetrators of unholy deeds today might find it offensive, is to contribute heavily to the lostness of a very lost generation.
So what about today? How should passages like Lev. 20:13 be received and applied? There are legitimate secondary questions that arise from this, like what the ideal law would be in a postmillennial republic. I have written about this elsewhere, but our chief task is to get there, and not so much to speculate about what it might be like when we do. And so how are we to get there? The answer is gospel, and nothing but gospel, and passages like Lev. 20:13 (unapologized for) play a key role in this.
Taking the flow of redemptive history into account, the central use of such passages must be evangelistic, which they cannot be if we spend our time being sorry about their existence. The law condemns sinners, and convinces them that they are under the just sentence of God’s holy wrath. This wrath manifestly includes those who pursue the unnatural lust that leads to same sex copulation. God hates it, and because He hates it, He will condemn to Hell those who live this way without repentance and faith in Jesus.
This means that execution for homosexual behavior is not passé. It still happens, and when it happens — at the hand of our most holy God — it is a judgment that is righteous and good. And without repentance, the sentence will fall on everyone who sins in this way, and it would be better to have the Grand Tetons fall on you than that. The wrath of the Lamb will be as furious as His blood was red. And unlike Leviticus, this sentence is forever.
“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections . . . 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” (Rom. 1: 26, 32).
Note that Paul is echoing the teaching of the law here, in complete agreement with Moses, and he is telling us about it in terms of what we deserve. This is not necessarily what we get, but it is most certainly what we deserve to get.
Another passage like it is found in 1 Corinthians, and it gives us some additional guidance on how we are to treat sins in the time of the new covenant, if those sins were also capital crimes in the time of the old covenant.
Paul says this:
“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither . . . effeminate [catamites], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [sodomites] . . . shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:9, 11).
And such were some of you. Paul gives us a list of sins, a number of which were capital offenses under Moses, and he tells the saints at Corinth that a number of them used to live this way. But they were accepted by God now; they were now saints. They were cleansed, washed, holy. They were justified — declared righteous. He does not argue that because they had this guilty past, they were now required to go throw themselves off a bridge. They deserved death, but the mercy of God had now arrived in Christ. But note — the arrival of mercy in Christ did not mean that this guilty past wasn’t really a guilty past.
The giving of the law under Moses was a rough tutelage, designed to teach holiness to a planet full of sexual pirates. When the time was fulfilled,God sent His Son to be a sin offering in order to accomplish what the law — however holy it was — could not accomplish. The holiness of the law could not make us love the law of holiness. But what the law could not do, seeing that it was undone by our lusts, God did by sending His Son in the form of a sinful man. And He took on this body in order to make an excruciating death on a cross of wood possible. This is something He did for sodomites.
Get that? The new era arrived, but it was not a new era because we finally realized that homosexuals didn’t deserve to die because of their alternative life choices. Of course they deserved to die, and they deserved it precisely because of those choices.
I should also note that it is de rigueur these days for all good Christians to hasten to say at this point that heterosexuals are big, fat sinners as well, also deserving of death for their corruptions and misdeeds. And if you are asking me to say this because it is the truth of God, I am happy to do so. It is the truth of God, as amply demonstrated by the rest of those lists in Romans and Corinthians. But if you are asking me to do so in an attempt to pull the punch in what I am saying about homosexuality, I am not going to do it. Not the right time. Practicing homosexuals deserve to die, and without repentance they will die everlastingly, under the horrific sentence of the Lord Jesus. Depart from me, He will say, you workers of iniquity. The doctrine of Hell cannot be understood as an instance of God walking Leviticus back. No, it is more like Leviticus everlasting.
And if you want to accuse Him of eschatological hate crimes, remember He is the same one who died on the cross so that we might have the tremendous privilege of offering free forgiveness, free grace, and imputed righteousness to homosexuals everywhere. Friend, the reason Jesus died on the cross is precisely because your sodomy is worthy of death. He died there so that we might have the great joy of telling you here that the sentence of death you so richly deserve has already been executed. God made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf. Jesus died so that we might rejoice to say . . . and such were some of you.
We know this, in part, because of the passage in Leviticus, and others like it. Backing away from such passages is backing away from a possibility of salvation for those trapped in same sex lust. The demand that we back away from this is a demand for us to stop loving homosexuals, and to start hating them. The homosexual movement, as it is playing out in America today, is a loud concerted demand that the church agree together that God’s revealed pattern of law and grace is not for homosexuals. Unbelievably, many quarters of the church are going along with it — withholding the gospel from homosexuals in the name of loving them.
Now what I have written above is the grand theme of the New Testament. It is all gospel, and that is what we were told to lead with. This message is what we are to use to tear down strongholds. When we do that, we may turn our attention to other lesser matters. So why needn’t the blood of a homosexual be upon him, as Leviticus says? The short answer is because the blood of someone else is on him.
“all Christians who believe the Scripture”
I just pause my reading here to remark on how sad it is that you have to add the qualifying clause, in what should be a tautology.
But you do, because it isn’t.
This is so good. Thank you!
Mr. Wilson,
Greg Bahnsen argues against this and says it really should be literally applied today. You say, “Paul didn’t tell them to go throw themselves off a bridge.” Well of course; it was the job of the state, not the individual to execute judgment. The Roman state was rebellious and wasn’t executing judgment in this way, but it should have, according to theonomy.
And couldn’t this argument be applied to murderers and rapists? In this new covenant era, we shouldn’t really execute them. Just replace all of the references above with “murderer” or “rapist” and there you go.
Nothing better than the truth!! Thanks for reminding all true believers of God’s stance.
Seth, I made a point here of not saying what I think the law should be in a hypothetical biblical republic down the road. Not because I am ashamed of what I think — I have stated it elsewhere — but because I think the above the thrust of the NT message.
The high wire of truth and love is the toughest to balance. Falling to one side or the other looks different, but the splat on the floor is usually the same.
Thank you, Doug, for not compromising one bit on this issue. This is a biblical model for other Christians, especially younger gospel ministers, like myself. God bless you.
This is true. Rapists and murders are also so condemned. Yet all have sinned and all have fallen short of the glory of God. None of this is OK and unless we all repent and confess all our sins. And rely on the Mercy and salvation of the blood of Jesus. Then we will all spend eternity away from the Lord. My point is share Jesus in love and truth. Not what we want to believe but the Word of God.
If the appropriate punishment for other capital crimes like murder, rape, or infanticide has not changed, is there any reason that the sexual crimes would receive different punishments now?
This blog posts reminds me why I stopped believing in the christian god long before I stopped believing in god altogether. You people believe that it is righteous and holy to kill people for engaging in consensual sexual activity, of which your god does not approve. To me that is sickening. You have a moral viewpoint that sanctions murder, slavery and rape – because your god told you that under some circumstances such actions are morally okay. Thankfully for me I have been able to leave your god behind and make moral choices for myself. In my moral universe it… Read more »
Thanks Wilson.
It is absolutely crazy that this is even a topic of discussion. It is crystal clear to any honest reader of the Bible that unrepentant Homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom. Any “Christian” who compromises on this issue is not in line with the Scriptures. The most loving thing to do is warn the Homosexual of the certain death that will follow.
Good job, Doug, in hiding your views on Leviticus 20:13 II made a point here of not saying what I think the law should be. But of course the question that I have repeatedly asked you to answer was precisely that — What do you think the law should be? Most of your followers who read this post will believe that you answered the question by saying, “I do not believe that homosexuals should be executed according to the command in Leviticus 20:13.” Which is completely false. You believe that homosexuals should be executed and they would be if you… Read more »
“This means that execution for homosexual behavior is not passé. It still happens, and when it happens — at the hand of our most holy God — it is a judgment that is righteous and good.”
Can you clarify what you are referring to here? There seems to be some innuendo and dog-whistles, but it comes along with the typical plausible deniability. I would prefer if you actually spelled out an example of the “it still happens” thing that you are referring to as “righteous and good”.
I do think that there is some relevance in this passage:
“They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?’ He said to them, ‘Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.'”
I made a point here of not saying what I think the law should be in a hypothetical biblical republic down the road. Not because I am ashamed of what I think — I have stated it elsewhere.
Could you provide a link to what you have said elsewhere, or say what you “think the law should be” here? (If you can’t find a link or are too ashamed of what you think to repeat it here, I’ll find a link or a quote of your previous statements for you),
Jonathan,
In context, it seemed fairly clear to me like the “it still happens” is referring to the eternal application of a death sentence by God himself at death. (Read the sentence immediately following the one you’re asking about.) In other words, while cultures don’t necessarily apply the death penalty to homosexual sin, God still does. He does so eternally, and it is righteous and good that He does so.
Steve sounds like a man who does not believe the Bible is the word of God. Those are the worst kind of men.
@ jonathan : Of course there is relevance in the passage, it is scripture, after all. He is explaining the relevance of case law, as it had developed during the time of Israel. Understand that even though the law prescribes the just punishment, that punishment is not always carried out, even by a just judge. Circumstance, leniency and pardon are available to the judge as well. It doesn’t lessen the prescribed result for breaking the particular law.
Fernando, if there is no God, what could possibly be wrong with executing homosexuals? Who cares?
Steve,
I have another post on this coming up, in which I will state my position (again), and quote profusely from previous times of not getting through.
Rich, that’s not at all how I read it the first time, but with your guidance I can see that interpretation easier now. I think the statement has the right dog-whistles, but yes, Pastor Wilson will give your interpretation if challenged.
I have a sincere question:
Does the Body turn a capital offender over to the law for criminal prosecution and execution?
So if there is a member of the body who shoots somebody or rapes somebody or sodomizes somebody (maybe that last one was even “consensual,” ha) and then comes clean, confesses, repents, etc, is it the responsibility of the body to turn that person over to the secular legal system for execution?
Maybe this is a case-by-case thing?
I have been mulling this over for a while, and I want counsel.
RK
Both St. Paul and Pastor Wilson were writing in a society in which the State does not enforce Biblical law for Biblical crimes. So we can say people guilty of sodomy, kidnapping, or reviling parents DESERVE execution, but they aren’t going to get it. This is God’s mercy, that they can repent and escape both temporal and eternal punishment. A postmill Biblical law order might punish sodomy with death, after a fair trial and with witnesses, but in order to get to such a society you’d have to convert so many people to Christianity that the chances of that happening… Read more »
Thanks for using the word “trapped” because this topic does demonstrate that the “will” is truly in bondage to the fallen desires of human nature.
Fernando, It is not your moral universe! The universe belongs to God!
Doug, I look forward reading your next post on this topic, as you address Steve Wells’ concern on whether or not homosexuals ought to be put to death. Although, Steve doesn’t seem to realize that the law calls for this to be done in accordance with stare decisis due process (Dt 17:8-13), and not as an autonomous vigilante mob in Jn 8:1-11 against the decree of Caesar (Jn 18:31) as Jerusalem’s “judge” (Dt 17:9,10-12; Ro 13:1-2) or civil authority. Paul in writing to the church in Rome, writes that Christians should not count on Jesus’ atonement to necessarily save them… Read more »
Doug, your flip answer seems to assume that unless one believes in god there can be no basis for moral behaviour. I was fortunate enough to develop the capacity to put my self in the place of others. I can imagine the pain and the hurt caused not only to the executed but to their families and loved ones. This ability to put myself in the place of the other, what your jesus referred to loving your brother as your self, is the reason why I would care. From an evolutionary perspective, groups of humans that developed basic rules, like… Read more »
Good post Doug, I look forward to the follow up.
@Fernando: are you still not aware that you are standing on nothing?
@Fernando: in other words, on your worldview you may ‘choose’ to ‘care’. But your ‘choice’ is nothing more than the result of chemical collisions. Neither is your ‘care’ more than a certain feeling brought about by chemical collisions.
People who choose to not ‘care’ in the same way as you do also have their own chemical collisions to back up their argument.
So what you are really saying amounts to “My chemical collisions are better than yours”.
Since you believe the Bible is infallible, I would like you to note that in fact that one Book in the Old Testament contains many, many laws, the vast majority I’m sure which you violate. If you demand others must follow these laws, I’m sure you plan on following all o them to the letter. You know, because it’s the inerrant word of God, you can’t just pick and choose. 1. Don’t cut your hair nor shave. (Leviticus 19:27) You don’t look like some shaggy hippy to me. 2. Psychics, wizards, and so on are to be stoned to death.… Read more »
Henrybish- Maybe that is the case. However, just because you “believe” in the truth of free will doesn’t mean we have free will. Cognitive Neuroscience is a very young and rapidly growing field that may answer some of these questions. However, a philosopher I read but cannot for the life of me remember makes a very nice argument that free will or not, it’s pointless to behave as if outcomes are predetermined. The point you’re making is a very important one, logically, it follows that if we’re all matter, than everything we do is pre-determined just as an object will… Read more »
Hey Doug. You seem to like seeing blood spilled. You should check likeleak.com out. It has some pretty good pictures and videos of beheadings, public stonings and the like. I know it must be rough not being able to publicly smash in the heads of “queers” until their brains are leaking out of their ears, so perhaps this will satisfy you a little. Cheers! Here’s a good video of a stoning. It’s fiction but it’s a nice portrayal that I’m sure you’ll enjoy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_DFbw4IW-s Of course, none of this will compare to what Jesus has in store for these people,… Read more »
Here’s another good video of a stoning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTGd6VJ-M6k&NR=1&feature=endscreen
Hey Doug, I’ll let you know if they make a compilation video of these. I’ll send it to you for Christmas so you can watch people get pummeled to death while you stuff your face with ham.
Very interesting, well-written and certainly solidly, bilbically grounded. Always interesting to see people try to argue for an agreed upon morality with nothing other than subjective, evolved “feelings” to support that such a thing could actually occur. Makes me think of the monkeys typing and eventully producing a Shakespearean play :-) The idea of consquences for “sin” and the possibility that no fair, merciful God could possibly exact penalties for said willful behavior is simply beyond those ears to hear and hearts to understand until a sovereign God chooses to open them. The attempt to compare a just God to… Read more »
@ James
I support the death penalty for murder. Do you?
If so, does that mean you want to sit around and see prisoners executed all the time? I doubt it.
Grow up and stop trolling.
Also read the Commedia by Dante. It’s one of the greatest works of literature ever written. And it would probably help you.
A lot.
Doug, I look forward to reading your next post on this topic, as you address Steve Wells’ concern on whether or not homosexuals ought to be put to death. Although, Steve doesn’t seem to realize that the law calls for this to be done in accordance with stare decisis due process (Dt 17:8-13), and not as an autonomous vigilante mob in Jn 8:1-11 against the decree of Caesar (Jn 18:31) as Jerusalem’s “judge” (Dt 17:9,10-12; Ro 13:1-2) or civil authority. Paul, in writing to the church in Rome, writes that Christians should not count on Jesus’ atonement to necessarily save… Read more »
Doug, does it occur to you that the reason Christianity is basically dead in Europe, and on the way out in the United States, is that it was already given a chance and produced miserable results? For centuries, Christianity controlled the legal system in Europe and the United States. It isn’t that your gospel has never been tried; it’s that it was tried and the results were not what anyone with an actual say in the matter would choose.
“Fernando, if there is no God, what could possibly be wrong with executing homosexuals? Who cares?”
Well, people who understand the concept of “first they came for the homosexuals, but because I was a homosexual I did not speak up.” Do you really not get that social policy has practical consequences beyond the immediate policy?
James, it’s interesting how you have commented at another blog how you appreciate it when folks refrain from calling you names and treating you kind. Yet, I’ve seen nothing but hatred from you on Doug’s blog. Does that somehow help you justify your lifestyle? Does that make it easier for you to continue to hate God and love your sin? Here’s a challenge to you: quit trolling Christian blogs and find a Bible-believing church. Share your issue (homosexual lifestyle) with the pastor and see if you are treated with the contempt you seem to believe is felt toward you. I… Read more »
Looking forward to living in Doug’s postmillennial republic where, after an exhausting day of murdering gays, we can relax with a light evening of stoning adulterers and those who shave with a safety razor.
So what you are really saying amounts to “My chemical collisions are better than yours”.
Yes, and they’re most notably better than yours, which appear to have convinced you that a magical but strangely impotent sky fairy is terrified of consensual sex between adults.
@ Eric
Yes, Christendom in the Middle Ages only ended slavery, gave numerous rights to women (including rights to vote, own property, and run a business), created a society of upward mobility for lower classes, set numerous precedents for just law courts, and saw great advancements in education, architecture and technology. Modernity, on the other hand, brought a return of slavery, removed many rights from women, and brought about sharp class divisions, especially in France where it eventually led to the Revolution (another wonderful bloodbath courtesy of irreligious modernity).
Rick, you seem to be confusing Christianity with the Enlightenment. Certainly in this country, Christianity kept slavery going a lot longer than it would have otherwise, and did everything it could to slow down racial equality. You are aware that the KKK was basically the political and social wing of various Southern fundamentalist churches, aren’t you?
“Christianity… did everything it could to slow down racial equality”
Someone needs to tell Dr. King.
Dr King was going up against Southern Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians, almost all of whom supported racial segregation. They’ve mostly apologized for it now, but that was then. IIRC, didn’t the PCA split from the PCUSA over racial segregation?
Eric the Red,
IIRC, didn’t the PCA split from the PCUSA over racial segregation?
No.
Eric, Nope, all those things I mentioned happened waaaay before the Englightement. We’re talking AD 1000 – 1300 ish time period. Slavery ended in Europe DURING the Middle Ages. All the negative things I mentioned (reduced rights for women, the return of slavery, sharp class divisions) came about in the 1500s and 1600s, AFTER the Middle Ages ended. For some beginning resources check out: “Those Terrible Middle Ages!” by Regine Pernoud any of the “Life In A Medieval…” books by Frances and Joseph Gies “A Short History of England” by G.K. Chesterton “Gods Battalions” by Rodney Stark or, if you’ve… Read more »
By the way, David, some of us are old enough to remember just how vicious the Southern churches were during the Civil Rights movement. My pastor called Dr. King “Marrin Lucifer Koon” and preached sermon after sermon about how the Communists were behind it. So do not give me any crap about how Christianity (the conservative wing of it, anyway) was helpful to the civil rights movement. As best as I can tell, the only Christians who favorably distinguished themselves during that era were those liberal Christians most of the people here despise so much.
Rick, assuming you are right on your dates, and I will candidly admit to not having the time tonight to go on line and research it, how much good stuff does it take to balance the scales against the Inquisition, the New World genocide, the hostility to science (the inventor of the clock was tried for witchcraft and heresy), et al? When the Spanish tried to exterminate the Mayans, Incas and Aztecs, they were basically following in the footsteps of Joshua exterminating the Canaanites, and openly said so. How much good stuff does it take to balance the scales against… Read more »
As best as I can tell, the only Christians who favorably distinguished themselves during that era were those liberal Christians most of the people here despise so much.
Weird, because this for example comes out of one of the two mainline, liberal Presbyterian denominations of the 1950s. The very denomination, BTW, from which the OPC broke in the 1930s (because of Liberalism) and the PCA broke in 1973 (because of Liberalism).