Be Thankful You Aren't Living in Moses' Day; But Don't Miss God's View of Sin Even Today.

Leviticus Chapter 20: Penalties of Various Sins and the Laws’ Purposes

Leviticus 20

Today is Palm Sunday and likely none of us are able to celebrate it with other believers except our own family. But the sun is shining. Reminds us of the fact that the Son is shining. Enjoy your day. Take time to reflect on God’s gift to mankind and the fact that He is still in control. In the meantime, I continue with my study of book of Leviticus. Read on.

The Passage

The entire chapter is broken down into the penalties for the various sins God had mentioned earlier. These are penalties for:
-- worshipping Molech (verses 1-5)
-- consulting Spirits (verses 6-8)
-- cursing Parents (verse 9), and
-- committing Sexual Sins (verses 10-21).

The chapter ends with a section (verses 22-27) on the purpose of the laws of sanctification of the people.

Thoughts on the Passage

On worshipping Molech: remember this was to forbid the Israelites from giving any of their offspring to idols or heathen gods. If one did this, they were to be stoned to death. And if anyone just ignores such a sin by another person, they too will be cut off from God because they also have played the ‘harlot’. God is telling us today that we cannot ignore sin among us, especially among our churches. And while we are not to stone people, He does provide for us today a process in the New Testament by which we can approach those amongst us who are sinning against the Lord. David Guzik writes:

Molech was worshipped by heating a metal statue representing the god until it was red hot, then by placing a living infant on the outstretched hands of the statue, while beating drums drowned out the screams of the child until it burned to death.

On consulting Spirits: The penalty is that god sets his fac against that person and cuts him/her off from among Hi people.  In fact, in the last verse of the chapter (vs. 27), God says that anyone (of His people) who is a medium or a spiritualist shall be stoned to death.

On cursing Parents: The penalty is death. Period.  Wow. Glad I didn’t curse my parents, although I am sure there were times that they may have deserved it. On this, Guzik writes:

Virtually all commentators agree this is not the outburst of a small child – or even an adolescent – against their parent, but the settled heart of an adult child against their parent. Such inter-generational warfare was not to be tolerated, and punishable by death.

Guzik goes on to state that in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 where this matter is discussed further, that passage. . .

. . . states that the parent did not have the right to carry out this punishment, but they had to bring the accused child before the elders and judges of the city. This meant that the parent - against all contemporary custom - did not have the absolute power of life and death over their children.

Perhaps not quite so “contemporary” anymore, as more and more the state is telling parents what little rights they have over their children – be it with respect to their schooling, their discipline, or their health.

On committing Sexual Sins: The penalty for adultery with someone else’s spouse was death. This includes incest, homosexuality, and bestiality. Marrying two women who are related carried the penalty of death by burning. [Guzik indicates that some think this was not death by fire, but more a kind of ‘branding’ that left with them a visible lasting scar as a reminded, not unlike the famous story of The Scarlet Letter by Nathanial Hawthorne, 1850.]  In the case of incest involving a sibling or lying with a woman who is having her period, the penalty is being cut off from the people, but there is no mention of death.  However, in the case of incest involving an aunt (or uncle one may assume), the penalty is that the those involved will die childless. God had specific penalties for specific sins.

In the last section of the passage, God gives us again the purpose of His laws. The Israelites were to keep them so that their new land that God gives them does not “spew them out” – that is, that God does not allow it to spew them out. Secondly, God says that a lot of these things that heathens do are “abhorred” by Him. And doing some of those things makes us “detestable”. Third, we are to be “holy to God” because He is holy, and we have been set apart from others to be His.

Chuck Smith claims that a lot of this sounds like “capital punishment” and wonders if we practiced it, whether a lot of our ills in society today would be mitigated. As we all know the Enemy has been able to confuse us all on this matter as he has on so many other matters with complexities of argument that seem right unto man but aren’t necessarily right before God.  The issue remains a very much outstanding one in our society.

One thing is for sure, God certainly does not think lightly of sin. He will punish it. If we learn nothing else from this chapter of Leviticus (even though we are under the New Covenant in many ways), let us learn that God is dead serious about sin, our sin. He can and does forgive, but He hates our sin and unforgiven sin will not be forgotten.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Laws Concerning Violence Resulting in Death -- Exodus 21:12-14

--> “He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.  But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint you a place to which he may flee.  If, however, a man acts presumptuously toward his neighbor, so as to kill him craftily, you are to take him even from My altar, that he may die.”
 

We begin our look at this passage by commenting that these laws, while they utilize the male pronoun and noun forms (he, him, a man, etc.), are also intended for women. There is an article entitled Why you should never say ‘he or she’.  The author, David Gelernter, a professor at Yale, writes, “When the style-smashers first announced, decades ago, that the neutral ‘he’ meant ‘male’ and excluded ‘female,’ they were lying and knew it.” It is a wonderful article, well written and most enjoyable.  I suggest you look it up at the link above.  So, we continue our study with these laws applying both to males and females.

Secondly, we note that this law concerns violence that results in death.  What God is saying here is that someone who kills another person must be put to death.  This was the origin of capital punishment that some jurisdictions still have in the West, and certainly many Islamic societies follow.

But God goes on here to distinguish between various types of murder, or so it seems.  The actual text suggests there is a difference between “a man lying in wait to kill someone” almost like a hunter hunts his prey versus a man who kills someone in the course of his life.  Most modern translations (see Verse 14 translations ) seem to reflect the second category as murder happening by accident or as murder permitted or ordained by God.  For this second type of murder, God says the person is not to be killed but rather that He would provide a place to which he may flee and be safe.

The more modern world seems to have run with this distinction a little further and translated it into the difference between intentional/planned/pre-meditated murders (which God deals with in the last verse of this passage, verse 14) vs. non-premeditated ones.  What the world has done conveniently takes God out of the equation but also establishes a whole different set of criteria with its accompanying problems to determine whether or not a murderer should receive the death penalty.  Thus, we have an outcry against it today.  God’s criterion was one and simple: if He (meaning God) allowed it, the murderer was not to be killed, but he had to hide and flee, implying some punishment may well be warranted (especially if the murder was an accident, say due to carelessness, etc.).

As indicated above, the last verse in the passage provides a special instruction with respect to those who kill someone “craftily” or via scheming and planning to do so first.  These people are even to be removed immediately from any service to, or for, God or any worship of God and be killed.  Perhaps this was what gave rise to the old church lynching activities that took place many years ago.  And certainly taking the law into our own hands is not what God intended for His children today.  But is it possible that we as a church have gone too far the other way by allowing known sin to continue in our midst; by allowing unrepentant sinners to continue to play key roles in our congregations or missions?  I remember once informing a pastor that a new congregant of his was there rather than his former church because he just left his wife and children to be with someone else.  The pastor did not even want to hear about it.  Woe to us who turn a blind eye to continuing unrepentant sin in our own families, churches, organizations.  While confronting it is often costly in many respects, I believe we need to get serious about what God wants for us, for our families, for our churches, and for the organizations we are part of – that is, the very entities we can do something about.  It is all part of getting the “Bride”, His Church, ready for the Groom’s return.

 

_____________________________________________________________________

[Are you looking for a speaker at your church, your club, school, or organization? Ken is available to preach, teach, challenge, and/or motivate. Please contact us.]

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.  And while you’re here, why not check out some more of our recent blogs shown in the right hand column.  Ken.

________________________________________________________________________

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.

Is It Possible The California Crowd Was Not Cheering for Capital Punishment?

There was an awkward moment on National TV on September 7th when it was announced that the state of Texas has executed 234 condemned murderers under Rick Perry's governorship. In his blog, adapted for RealClearReligion, Rod Dreher calls the reaction (applause) to the announcement a "vile repulsive thing". But what was the audience cheering for and how vile a thing is it really in perspective?

First of all, let me declare my position on 'capital punishment'. A) Intellectually I'd like to say, "I don't know." B) Theologically, I'd like to say "God is a God of Love and a God of Justice, so the answer often must be 'it depends'.  God's 'grace' is more about our eternal salvation than our escaping of consequences here on earth for our sins."  C) Socially, I'd like to say, "Al Capone used it as a deterrent to others who thought they could cross him, and since very few did, I believe it worked and still does as a good deterrent.  I just don't buy those who say it is not."  And finally, D) from a human perspective, I'd like to say, "no should have to die at the hands of another person, but gee whiz that goes for the victim of the murderer as well, doesn't it?"

So what was all that applause down there in California during the debate really all about?   Of course, no state of the union or any other jurisdiction for that matter is perfectly suited in making the call to execute someone.   No court is perfect.  And so on.  And yes, mistakes are made and sometimes the innocent person goes to the gallows.   (You'll be given examples in Dreher's blog.)  Let me remind you that all these bleeding hearts that cry blue bloody murder when a mistake is made with respect to capital punishment, they rejoice or at least stay silently complacent when hundreds of thousands of innocent children are murdered annually through abortions, when more and more doctors want to pursue mercy-killings of the aged (not sure whose mercy they have in mind), and now when some members of the North American public carry-out so-called 'honor-killings' because their culture or religious law calls for it.   Mr. Dreher there's no consistency in your line of argument.

Dreher also suggests that people have a strong need to believe in capital punishment.  I disagree with that.  I was a big fan of capital punishment (perhaps like Dreher himself admits he once was), and although I still accept it as the right way to go in many circumstances, I don't have the "strong need" to believe in it.  In fact, I wish we never had to exercise it -- I wish we were never put in a position to need to exercise it.  But we are.  We are because there are "vile repulsive people out there who do vile repulsive things to others especially children."   That's what's vile and repulsive Mr. Dreher, not people applauding, even for capital punishment, if they were.

If you think, however, they were applauding "for capital punishment" you are more narrow-minded or blind than I thought and certainly more narrow-minded and blind than those you accuse of being 'conservative.'  In case you can't figure it out, let me explain it to you. . .

These people were applauding (and loudly) for the guts that one state and one governor had and have to deal directly with those, and give a clear message to any potential, murderers who carry out such vile and repulsive acts as those that warrant the death penalty in their state.  That is what people were applauding for.

Dreher goes on to say he would rather have society protect itself by bloodless means if at all possible.  But to apply that argument here is weak.  First there is the issue of cost -- (bloodless equals no death penalty in this case) -- and that means a very heavy on-going cost to society for keeping a convicted murder alive, often for decades.  I'm okay with that, but it is the liberals that complain so much about costs when it comes to keeping old people alive or putting GPS tracking systems on convicted child sex offenders.   Secondly, bloodless means we are totally denying any deterrent power of execution -- something I personally believe it has, just by watching human nature -- from the age of young children right up to adults.

Once again, you've heard my side of the story.  It's best i let you get Dreher's and then you can make up your own mind. When you do, let us know how you'd vote on this one.

RealClearReligion - The Ugliness of Cheering for Capital Punishment

Thanks for dropping by. Sign up to receive free updates. We bring you relevant information from all sorts of sources. Subscribe for free to this blog or follow us by clicking on the appropriate link in the right side bar. And please share this blog with your friends. Ken Godevenos, Church and Management Consultant, Accord Consulting.

It would be great if you would share your thoughts or questions on this blog in the comments section below or on social media.