What is a Biblical law jurisdiction, and how is this concept derived from scripture?

2021-12-21T01:27:38Z

Mgarcia: minor edit

<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}
<div class="questionbody">
<translate>A Biblical law jurisdiction is simply an agreement by a community about how God's law will be interpreted, with respect to its details and application.</translate>

<translate>Obviously, different people will reach different conclusions about how certain Biblical laws should be interpreted. These often involve issues that affect how civil government should treat (or not treat) certain crimes/sins. Some people, for instance, believe that the Sinai covenant feasts should continue to be observed in some way, and that civil government should somehow enforce observance. Others believe that this is an area of Christian liberty. Some people believe that the Sabbath should still be enforced in some way by civil government, and some (like myself) believe that such enforcement is no longer in the power of civil government (cf. Col. 2:16-17). Some people believe that witnessed acts of adultery should be punished by civil government, and some believe that they should not.</translate>

<translate>It is impossible for the people on either side of these (and other) issues to live under the same civil government jurisdiction, because their religious viewpoints are irreconcilable. It would also be wrong for anyone to claim that the people holding the majority view should rule over the people with the minority view.</translate>

<translate>Rather than fight with one another over whose interpretation is correct, we should simply agree to live at peace with one another in separate jurisdictions, each of which applies Biblical law in the way distinctive to our understanding. Perhaps one group will be more correct than another. God will make it clear who is accurately interpreting His word, because that community will thrive, and the others will not.</translate>

<translate>Paul's admonition to the Corinthians is important:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|1 Corinthians 11:19}}

<translate>The explicit Biblical command which authorizes jurisdictions is Exod. 23:2:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 23:2}}

<translate>Not following God's law with respect to just civil penalties is, by definition, evil. Instead of following the crowd who are doing evil, you should choose to live within a legal jurisdiction where people do follow Biblical law according to justice.</translate>

<translate>God himself will reveal whom he approves.</translate>

<translate>===Historical Example: The "United Colonies of New England"===</translate>

<translate>We see one historical example of Christian jurisdictions in a treaty<ref>Specifically, "a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare."</ref> document called "[[The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England]]," adopted in 1643 by the American Puritans:</translate>

<translate>{{:Quote|3. It is further agreed that the Plantations which at present are or hereafter shall be settled within the limits of the Massachusetts shall be forever under the Massachusetts and shall have peculiar jurisdiction among themselves in all cases as an entire body, and that Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven shall each of them have like peculiar jurisdiction and government within their limits; and in reference to the Plantations which already are settled or shall hereafter be erected, or shall settle within their limits respectively;}}</translate>

===The importance of legal specifications===

When determining the "general equity" application of a Biblical law, there is always going to be a range of "strictness" in how we understand and apply a given principle. The general principles of Biblical law are complete (Psalm 19:7, 2 Tim. 3:15-17), but they must be applied within living contexts different from the time they were originally given. This often requires careful study and thought.

For example, does a requirement of a "roof railing" (found in Deuteronomy 22:8) apply to a modern ground level pool? How about a ground level (open-topped) well or a deep hole in the middle of a farmer's field? The "roof railing" case balances property-owner negligence against personal agency and freedom, with a property-owner's bloodguilt as a possible judicial outcome. Biblical interpreters must make decisions about how the general equity principles apply in a way that is most "just".

Well-intentioned Christians might decide differently on these important issues. It is not possible for every interpretation to be correct, particularly on issues which make the difference between requiring a death penalty, or not, for a particular crime. Only God's law gives civil government the authority to order someone's death. Man cannot alter God's law when it comes to crime and punishment: Deut. 4:2.

A particular civil government jurisdiction cannot simultaneously uphold two (or more) different standards on law. For this reason, those who choose to live in a particular jurisdiction (citizens) must decide which interpretations of Biblical law that they will uphold. These interpretations must be written and defined with care, published, taught regularly, and held up as the standard of justice for that community (within the bounds of that particular jurisdiction). Collectively, these specific interpretations can be called a "legal specification."

A "legal specification" is an agreement on a legal interpretation of details/meanings of Biblical law upon which people (and especially judges) could differ. The intent of the legal specification is:

# Ensuring that the law is interpreted consistently and thoroughly.
# Ensuring that the law is defined carefully and taught correctly.
# Ensuring that the law is enforced predictably, rather than arbitrarily.
# Ensuring that those who function as "judges" can be held accountable to a particular written standard, to which they are bound in their decision-making.

A legal specification is ''not'':

# New law in violation of Deut. 4:2. There should be nothing in the legal specification which is not either directly traceable to a particular general equity principle, or a specific application of something implicit in Biblical law. In this way, it would function in a way similar to the historic confessions of faith, just within the civil realm (i.e. not applying to any matters of church assembly jurisdiction).
# Unalterable by the community, as if the legal specification must be considered the "last word" on interpreting Biblical law. The community can always come together and add or change something which makes the legal specification more just or allows it to accommodate unexpected circumstances. Anyone may propose a legal change as long as they back up this proposal with scripture and auxiliary reasoning. Changes to the specification cannot be applied ''ex post facto'', but communities should be open to any scripturally-backed proposals of "reformation."

Anyone who lives, works, or travels through a given jurisdiction implicitly accepts the law ''as specified'' (Lev. 24:22). Anyone who volunteers to be a judge agrees to apply the law ''as specified'', making legal outcomes predictable. If a judge, in a particular ruling, chooses to violate the legal specification, his judgement is null and void, and he (probably) loses his position as judge.

</div>

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<translate>{{PAGENAME}}</translate>}}

[[Category:1 Corinthians 11:19]]
[[Category:Answered Questions]]
[[Category:Exodus 23:2]]
[[Category:Jurisdiction]]
[[Category:Questions about civil government formation, powers, and limits]]

What is a Biblical law jurisdiction, and how is this concept derived from scripture?

2021-12-21T01:25:43Z

Mgarcia: minor corrections/formatting

<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}
<div class="questionbody">
<translate>A Biblical law jurisdiction is simply an agreement by a community about how God's law will be interpreted, with respect to its details and application.</translate>

<translate>Obviously, different people will reach different conclusions about how certain Biblical laws should be interpreted. These often involve issues that affect how civil government should treat (or not treat) certain crimes/sins. Some people, for instance, believe that the Sinai covenant feasts should continue to be observed in some way, and that civil government should somehow enforce observance. Others believe that this is an area of Christian liberty. Some people believe that the Sabbath should still be enforced in some way by civil government, and some (like myself) believe that such enforcement is no longer in the power of civil government (cf. Col. 2:16-17). Some people believe that witnessed acts of adultery should be punished by civil government, and some believe that they should not.</translate>

<translate>It is impossible for the people on either side of these (and other) issues to live under the same civil government jurisdiction, because their religious viewpoints are irreconcilable. It would also be wrong for anyone to claim that the people holding the majority view should rule over the people with the minority view.</translate>

<translate>Rather than fight with one another over whose interpretation is correct, we should simply agree to live at peace with one another in separate jurisdictions, each of which applies Biblical law in the way distinctive to our understanding. Perhaps one group will be more correct than another. God will make it clear who is accurately interpreting His word, because that community will thrive, and the others will not.</translate>

<translate>Paul's admonition to the Corinthians is important:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|1 Corinthians 11:19}}

<translate>The explicit Biblical command which authorizes jurisdictions is Exod. 23:2:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 23:2}}

<translate>Not following God's law with respect to just civil penalties is, by definition, evil. Instead of following the crowd who are doing evil, you should choose to live within a legal jurisdiction where people do follow Biblical law according to justice.</translate>

<translate>God himself will reveal whom he approves.</translate>

<translate>===The "United Colonies of New England"===</translate>

<translate>We see one historical example of Christian jurisdictions in a treaty<ref>Specifically, "a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare."</ref> document called "[[The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England]]," adopted in 1643 by the American Puritans:</translate>

<translate>{{:Quote|3. It is further agreed that the Plantations which at present are or hereafter shall be settled within the limits of the Massachusetts shall be forever under the Massachusetts and shall have peculiar jurisdiction among themselves in all cases as an entire body, and that Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven shall each of them have like peculiar jurisdiction and government within their limits; and in reference to the Plantations which already are settled or shall hereafter be erected, or shall settle within their limits respectively;}}</translate>

===The importance of legal specifications===

When determining the "general equity" application of a Biblical law, there is always going to be a range of "strictness" in how we understand and apply a given principle. The general principles of Biblical law are complete (Psalm 19:7, 2 Tim. 3:15-17), but they must be applied within living contexts different from the time they were originally given. This often requires careful study and thought.

For example, does a requirement of a "roof railing" (found in Deuteronomy 22:8) apply to a modern ground level pool? How about a ground level (open-topped) well or a deep hole in the middle of a farmer's field? The "roof railing" case balances property-owner negligence against personal agency and freedom, with a property-owner's bloodguilt as a possible judicial outcome. Biblical interpreters must make decisions about how the general equity principles apply in a way that is most "just".

Well-intentioned Christians might decide differently on these important issues. It is not possible for every interpretation to be correct, particularly on issues which make the difference between requiring a death penalty, or not, for a particular crime. Only God's law gives civil government the authority to order someone's death. Man cannot alter God's law when it comes to crime and punishment: Deut. 4:2.

A particular civil government jurisdiction cannot simultaneously uphold two (or more) different standards on law. For this reason, those who choose to live in a particular jurisdiction (citizens) must decide which interpretations of Biblical law that they will uphold. These interpretations must be written and defined with care, published, taught regularly, and held up as the standard of justice for that community (within the bounds of that particular jurisdiction). Collectively, these specific interpretations can be called a "legal specification."

A "legal specification" is an agreement on a legal interpretation of details/meanings of Biblical law upon which people (and especially judges) could differ. The intent of the legal specification is:

# Ensuring that the law is interpreted consistently and thoroughly.
# Ensuring that the law is defined carefully and taught correctly.
# Ensuring that the law is enforced predictably, rather than arbitrarily.
# Ensuring that those who function as "judges" can be held accountable to a particular written standard, to which they are bound in their decision-making.

A legal specification is ''not'':

# New law in violation of Deut. 4:2. There should be nothing in the legal specification which is not either directly traceable to a particular general equity principle, or a specific application of something implicit in Biblical law. In this way, it would function in a way similar to the historic confessions of faith, just within the civil realm (i.e. not applying to any matters of church assembly jurisdiction).
# Unalterable by the community, as if the legal specification must be considered the "last word" on interpreting Biblical law. The community can always come together and add or change something which makes the legal specification more just or allows it to accommodate unexpected circumstances. Anyone may propose a legal change as long as they back up this proposal with scripture and auxiliary reasoning. Changes to the specification cannot be applied ''ex post facto'', but communities should be open to any scripturally-backed proposals of "reformation."

Anyone who lives, works, or travels through a given jurisdiction implicitly accepts the law ''as specified'' (Lev. 24:22). Anyone who volunteers to be a judge agrees to apply the law ''as specified'', making legal outcomes predictable. If a judge, in a particular ruling, chooses to violate the legal specification, his judgement is null and void, and he (probably) loses his position as judge.

</div>

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<translate>{{PAGENAME}}</translate>}}

[[Category:1 Corinthians 11:19]]
[[Category:Answered Questions]]
[[Category:Exodus 23:2]]
[[Category:Jurisdiction]]
[[Category:Questions about civil government formation, powers, and limits]]

What is a Biblical law jurisdiction, and how is this concept derived from scripture?

2021-12-21T01:21:39Z

Mgarcia: added section on legal specification

<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}
<div class="questionbody">
<translate>A Biblical law jurisdiction is simply an agreement by a community about how God's law will be interpreted, with respect to its details and application.</translate>

<translate>Obviously, different people will reach different conclusions about how certain Biblical laws should be interpreted. These often involve issues that affect how civil government should treat (or not treat) certain crimes/sins. Some people, for instance, believe that the Sinai covenant feasts should continue to be observed in some way, and that civil government should somehow enforce observance. Others believe that this is an area of Christian liberty. Some people believe that the Sabbath should still be enforced in some way by civil government, and some (like myself) believe that such enforcement is no longer in the power of civil government (cf. Col. 2:16-17). Some people believe that witnessed acts of adultery should be punished by civil government, and some believe that they should not.</translate>

<translate>It is impossible for the people on either side of these (and other) issues to live under the same civil government jurisdiction, because their religious viewpoints are irreconcilable. It would also be wrong for anyone to claim that the people holding the majority view should rule over the people with the minority view.</translate>

<translate>Rather than fight with one another over whose interpretation is correct, we should simply agree to live at peace with one another in separate jurisdictions, each of which applies Biblical law in the way distinctive to our understanding. Perhaps one group will be more correct than another. God will make it clear who is accurately interpreting His word, because that community will thrive, and the others will not.</translate>

<translate>Paul's admonition to the Corinthians is important:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|1 Corinthians 11:19}}

<translate>The explicit Biblical command which authorizes jurisdictions is Exod. 23:2:</translate>

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 23:2}}

<translate>Not following God's law with respect to just civil penalties is, by definition, evil. Instead of following the crowd who are doing evil, you should choose to live within a legal jurisdiction where people do follow Biblical law according to justice.</translate>

<translate>God himself will reveal whom he approves.</translate>

<translate>===The "United Colonies of New England"===</translate>

<translate>We see one historical example of Christian jurisdictions in a treaty<ref>Specifically, "a firm and perpetual league of friendship and amity for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions both for preserving and propagating the truth and liberties of the Gospel and for their own mutual safety and welfare."</ref> document called "[[The Articles of Confederation of the United Colonies of New England]]," adopted in 1643 by the American Puritans:</translate>

<translate>{{:Quote|3. It is further agreed that the Plantations which at present are or hereafter shall be settled within the limits of the Massachusetts shall be forever under the Massachusetts and shall have peculiar jurisdiction among themselves in all cases as an entire body, and that Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven shall each of them have like peculiar jurisdiction and government within their limits; and in reference to the Plantations which already are settled or shall hereafter be erected, or shall settle within their limits respectively;}}</translate>

===The importance of legal specifications===

When determining the "general equity" application of a Biblical law, there is always going to be a range of "strictness" in how we understand and apply a given principle. The general principles of Biblical law are complete (Psalm 19:7, 2 Tim. 3:15-17), but they must be applied within living contexts different from the time they were originally given. This often requires careful study and thought.

For example, does a requirement of a "roof railing" (found in Deuteronomy 22:8) apply to a modern ground level pool? How about a ground level (open-topped) well or a deep hole in the middle of a farmer's field? The "roof railing" case balances property-owner negligence against personal agency and freedom, with a property-owner's bloodguilt as a possible judicial outcome. Biblical interpreters must make decisions about how the general equity principles apply in a way that is most "just".

Well-intentioned Christians might decide differently on these important issues. It is not possible for every interpretation to be correct, particularly on issues which make the difference between requiring a death penalty, or not, for a particular crime. Only God's law gives civil government the authority to order someone's death. Man cannot alter God's law when it comes to crime and punishment: Deut. 4:2.

A particular civil government jurisdiction cannot simultaneously uphold two (or more) different standards on law. For this reason, those who choose to live in a particular jurisdiction (citizens) must decide which interpretations of Biblical law that they will uphold. These interpretations must be written and defined with care, published, taught regularly, and held up as the standard of justice for that community (within the bounds of that particular jurisdiction). Collectively, these specific interpretations can be called a "legal specification."

A "legal specification" is an agreement on a legal interpretation of details/meanings of Biblical law upon which people (and especially judges) could differ. The intent of the legal specification is:

# Ensuring that the law is interpreted consistently and thoroughly.
# Ensuring that the law is defined carefully and taught correctly.
# Ensuring that the law is enforced predictably, rather than arbitrarily.
# Ensuring that those who function as "judges" can be held accountable to a particular written standard, to which they are bound in their decision-making.

A legal specification is not:

# New law in violation of Deut. 4:2. There should be nothing in the legal specification which is not either directly traceable to a particular general equity principle, or a specific application of something implicit in Biblical law. In this way, it would be similar to the historic confessions of faith, just within the civil realm.
# Unalterable by the community, as if the legal specification must be considered the "last word" on interpreting Biblical law. The community can always come together and add or change something which makes the legal specification more just or allows it to accommodate unexpected circumstances. Anyone may propose a legal change as long as they back up this proposal with scripture and auxiliary reasoning. Changes to the specification cannot be applied ex post facto, but communities should be open to any scripturally-backed proposals of "reformation."

Anyone who lives, works, or travels through a given jurisdiction implicitly accepts the law as specified (Lev. 24:22). Anyone who volunteers to be a judge agrees to apply the law as specified, making legal outcomes predictable. If a judge, in a particular ruling, chooses to violate the legal specification, his judgement is null and void, and he (probably) loses his position as judge.

</div>

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<translate>{{PAGENAME}}</translate>}}

[[Category:1 Corinthians 11:19]]
[[Category:Answered Questions]]
[[Category:Exodus 23:2]]
[[Category:Jurisdiction]]
[[Category:Questions about civil government formation, powers, and limits]]

What is a Biblical law jurisdiction, and how is this concept derived from scripture?

2021-12-21T01:20:31Z

Mgarcia: Removed page from translation

2021-07-31T10:27:56Z

Mgarcia: Fix pronoun

<languages />{{:Navleft|Category:Answered Questions|{{:AnsweredQuestionsname/{{PAGELANGUAGE}}}}}}
<div class="questionbody">

== Mandatory versus Ransomable ==

There are two types of civil government death penalties in Biblical law:

# Death penalties which are the ''talion'' punishment for negligently, but unintentionally, causing someone's death (e.g. Exod. 21:29, Deut. 22:8). These death penalties allow monetary ransom as a substitute for the penalty. See the article: {{:Translink|Does Biblical law require a literal "eye for an eye"?}}
# Mandatory death penalties which do not allow ransom or pardon (e.g. Num. 35:31).

From the standpoint of God's grace and eternal judgement, even the most egregious crime (like murder) can be forgiven, if the criminal repents. But in God's law there is a difference between eternal judgement and temporal judgement.

Some commentators have claimed that the only mandatory, non-ransomable death penalty is for the crime of murder. They have various arguments for this, some of which are addressed in the following essays:

{{:Translink|Does Numbers 35:31 imply that all crimes except murder can be ransomed?}}

{{:Translink|Don't the actions of certain Israelite kings show that death was only a maximum civil penalty?}}

{{:Translink|Does Joseph's intent to divorce Mary show that the death penalty for adultery was not mandatory?}}

== Semantic markers of the mandatory death penalty ==

In Biblical law, the mandatory death penalties are marked in two primary ways:

# For most mandatory death penalties, except those in the book of Deuteronomy, scripture uses the Hebrew verb form ''mot yumat'' ("surely die"). Anywhere you see this in the law, it means that the death penalty is mandatory.<ref>Obviously, there may still be a discontinuity in the New Covenant era, but that is a separate issue.</ref>
# In the book of Deuteronomy, the phrase ''mot yumat'' is not used, but other signifying phrases (called "motive clauses") indicate that the death penalty is mandatory.

Let's examine each of these markers.

== Mot yumat ==

The phrase "''mot yumat''" is a Hebrew verb form called the Hophal imperfect. It is often translated: "shall surely be put to death". This translation is a dynamic equivalency, trying to capture the idiomatic meaning of the pleonastic (doubled) form. In Hebrew, the doubling of a word often conveys an idea of intensification. In this case, it is an intensification of the idea: "putting to death."

In fact, the translation could even be made stronger, as shown in the entry on "''mut''" (Hophal imperfect) in the ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament''. The author of this TDOT entry provides example English translations for Exod. 21:12 and Lev. 20:9:

{{:Quote|"whoever strikes a man so that he dies ''shall be put to death unconditionally''" (Ex. 21:12; cf. 21:15, 16, 17; 22:18[19]). ... "every one who curses his father or his mother ''shall be put to death unconditionally''" (Lev. 20:9; cf. vv. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 27). As a rule, this schema concludes with the bloodguilt formula ''damaw bo'', "his blood is upon him," or ''demehem bam'', "their blood is upon them."<ref>Botterweck, ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 8'', 201-202</ref> (emphasis added)}}

Thus, the use of the Hophal imperfect verb form is the first indicator of the "unconditional" nature of this penalty. Let's briefly look at some other passages in scripture which reinforce this understanding.

=== The evidence from Numbers 35:31 ===

{{:Scriptblockformat|Moreover, you shall not take ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death[''mot yumat''].|scriptref=Numbers 35:31}}

This verse is at the end of a section of the law which explains the cities of refuge. Cities of refuge were places where a person who unintentionally killed someone could flee for safety from the common practice of revenge-killing by the slain man's relatives. Generally, ancient Near East cultures did not distinguish between accidental killing and murder (the way Biblical law does!): if you killed someone accidentally, a relative could pursue you and make you pay -- either with your money (ransom) or your life.

That's why this verse is placed prominently in the "city of refuge" section. The law is making it clear that someone found guilty of murder could not be ransomed (the way most ANE cultures were accustomed to "solve" this problem), because murder is a ''mot yumot'' death penalty. Some commentators have tried to claim that this verse implies that all other death penalty crimes besides murder could be ransomed. For an extended explanation about why that interpretation doesn't work, see {{:Translink|Does Numbers 35:31 imply that all crimes except murder can be ransomed?}}

Numbers 35:31 is one of the best pieces of evidence that ''mot yumat'' penalty entails an absolute prohibition upon ransom.

=== Evidence from Ezekiel ===

In Ezekiel, YHWH talks about the judgment due to a son who engages in several crimes (including murder, idolatry, and adultery):<ref>Block: {{:Quote|... Ezekiel labels him a ''paris'' .... a murderer (''sopek dam'', lit. "one who pours out blood"). The phrase ''sapak dam'', which occurs often in Ezekiel (16:38; 22:3, 27;23:45; 33:25), speaks of a wanton disregard for the sanctity of human life. (Block, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24, 576)}}</ref>

{{:Scriptblockformat|13 ... shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations. He shall surely die [''mot yumat'']. His blood will be on him.|scriptref=Ezekiel 18:13}}

YHWH is pretty clear here: "surely die" (''mot yumat'') means "shall not live". Notice the clause in v.13: "his blood will be on him". This clause reinforces the fact that the shed blood of the person to be executed would not be attributed as a crime to those doing the execution.<ref>Hartley: "'his blood is on him' ... means that this person has forfeited his right to life Josh. 2:19; Ezek. 33:4) . This clause also communicates that whoever punishes the guilty person by taking his life does not come under the laws of blood revenge." (''Leviticus'', 339)</ref>

=== A counterargument from Ezekiel ===

Some commentators try to compare verse 13 to the later verse 21, which reads:

{{:Scriptblock|Ezekiel 18:21-22}}

The commentators make the argument that v. 21 suggests that a wicked person can "repent" of their evildoing and thus avoid any judgment brought against them for their evil acts. For example, Philip Kayser concludes from this verse:

{{:Quote|If an idolater repents and becomes a believer, he shall surely live. If a man who has committed high treason shows genuine repentance, he shall surely live. There can be clemency for capital crimes.<ref>Kayser, ''Is the Death Penalty Just?'', 21</ref>}}

Kayser fails to recognize that there has been a change in topic between verse 13 and verse 21. We must recognize that there is a division in the prophet's message between verse 20 and verse 21, which introduces a new set of ideas.<ref>Daniel Block writes:{{:Quote|Ezekiel counters the people's objections by summarizing his argumentation in vv. 3-18; in the second part (vv. 21-24) he introduces new notions that will receive fuller exposition in vv. 25-32. (Block, ''The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 1-24'', 580)}}</ref> Insofar as we understand where the judgement is coming from in these verses, there is no conflict between them. The unconditional judgement against the murderer in v. 13 is judgement brought by a civil government. This is evident (as indicated above) from the use of the Hophal imperfect and the standard "bloodguilt" clause which is associated with many of the death penalty laws.

On the other hand, the threatened judgement referenced in v. 21 against a different "wicked one" (different from the murderer in v. 13) is from YHWH Himself. Notice the phrase "remembered against him" in v. 22. This is a marker that Ezekiel is referring to YHWH's judgment, not human civil judgment.<ref>Compare Ps. 25:7, Ps. 79:8, Isa. 43:25, Isa. 64:9, Jer. 14:10, Jer. 31:34, Ezek. 21:24-27, Ezek. 29:16, Hos. 8:13, Hos. 9:9.</ref>

Of course, it is true that YHWH graciously forgives those who repent of their crimes: even repentant murderers. But this gracious pardon from eternal judgement does not change the fact that certain egregious crimes require the civil death penalty, if convicted in court.

=== Evidence from a legal parallel ===

{{:Scriptblockformat|27 A man or a woman that is a medium, or is a wizard, shall surely be put to death [''mot yumat'']: they shall stone them with stones; their blood shall be upon them.|scriptref=Leviticus 20:27}}

Notice the ''mot yumot'' and the fact that the community is commanded to stone the convicted criminals. There is a similar passage in Exodus, showing the same type of crime:

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 22:18}}

Here, the phrase ''mot yumat'' is not used. Instead, we have a clear denial of any punishment which does not result in death for the convicted sorceress.

On this law, Greg Bahnsen writes:

{{:Quote|This says much more than simply that a convicted, practicing witch should be assigned some civil penalty. It specifically forbids allowing such a criminal to continue living (which she or he would do if any other penalty than capital punishment were inflicted).<ref>Bahnsen, ''No Other Standard'', 260</ref>}}

Again, the parallelism with the crime in Lev. 20:27 shows that ''mot yumat'' means "shall not live."

=== Structural evidence in a "definition by example" ===

Furthermore, there is structural evidence from a case law which supports a single interpretation for ''mot yumat''. When the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness, a man was witnessed gathering wood on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32). This was a violation of Exodus 31:15, which pronounced a ''mot yumat'' death penalty for anyone "doing work" on the Sabbath. However, the law did not specify the exact method of the death penalty (e.g. stoning), so Moses directly consulted YHWH.

YHWH's answer on this issue is structured as a chiasm:

{{:Quote|
{{:Chiasm|A|1|Then YHWH said to Moses: (v. 35)}}
{{:Chiasm|B|2|The man must be put to death [''mot yumat'']}}
{{:Chiasm|C|3|Shall pelt him with stones}}
{{:Chiasm|D|4|the entire community outside the camp}}
{{:Chiasm|X|5|They took him out (v. 36)}}
{{:Chiasm|D'|4|the entire community outside the camp}}
{{:Chiasm|C'|3|They pelted him with stones}}
{{:Chiasm|B'|2|and he died —}}
{{:Chiasm|A'|1|as YHWH commanded Moses}}

This brief pericope is translated literally (and awkwardly) to illustrate its perfect chiastic structure.<ref>Milgrom, ''Leviticus 23-27'', 2130</ref>}}

The above chiastic unit encapsulates a scriptural "definition by example" of ''mot yumat''. When YHWH was asked by Moses what He meant by "''mot yumat''", He gave a singular, clear answer.

== Mandatory death penalties in Deuteronomy ==

The phrase ''mot yumat'' does not occur in Deuteronomy. However, there are other ways in which we can identify mandatory death penalties.

=== Motive Clauses ===

I'm going to show you a tool which will help you better to understand Biblical law. One of the things which distinguishes Biblical law from other ancient Near East law systems is a feature labelled by Bible commentators as the "motive clause".<ref>"Within ancient Near Eastern law there is no parallel within legal material." (Samuel Jackson, ''A Comparison of Ancient Near Eastern Law Collections Prior to the First Millenium BC'', 59). This is actually a remarkable fact, given that YHWH's law was probably given to mankind from the time that he established human-mediated retributive justice, right after the Flood (Gen. 9:6, Gen. 26:5). See the essay "{{:Translink|Was God's law available prior to Sinai?}}"</ref> Motive clauses are propositional statements which explain God's motivation in giving certain commands. For example, consider the following scripture:

{{:Scriptblockformat|Whoever sheds man's blood, by man will his blood be shed, ''for in the image of God he made man''.|scriptref=Genesis 9:6}}

The non-italicized part of the above scripture is the command. The italicized part is the motive clause. This motive clause explains that the human-mediated retributive response to the crime is because the criminal attacked an image-bearer of God. In this case, we do not even need to know exactly what being "made in God's image" means. The motive clause, minimally, teaches us that transgressing the ontology of humans is somehow relevant to God's requirement for retribution.<ref>It is interesting that natural law arguments against homosexual acts often invoke teleology as a rationale for their "disorderedness." It seems just as likely to me that homosexual and bestial acts are both transgressions of creational ontology.</ref>

In Deuteronomy, there are two motive clauses consistently associated with the death penalties. These two motives can be summarized as "purging out" or "extermination" (of the evildoer) and "deterrence" (of others from crime):

# Purging out/extermination: "So you shall purge the evil from among you." (Deut. 13:5, etc.)
# Deterrence: "Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such a wicked thing among you." (Deut. 13:11, Deut. 17:13, Deut. 19:20, Deut. 21:21).

=== Purging out/extermination ===

This motive clause is associated with crimes such as incest, false prophecy, idolatry, suborning idolatry, false testimony in a capital case, and kidnapping. The legal penalties call for the death of the transgressors, and all the instances of this clause in Deuteronomy use the Piel form of the Hebrew verb ba'ar. The commentator Craigie says that this verb "has the sense of 'burning out, purging out by fire.'"<ref>Craigie, ''The Book of Deuteronomy'', 251</ref> The ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament'' suggests the translation "exterminate," explaining:

{{:Quote|A group of casuistic laws in Deuteronomy is of very special interest. In these laws the punishment is positively characterized by the words, ''you shall exterminate (RSV purge) the evil from your midst.''12 The oldest sections in this group (Dt. 19:11-13; 21:18-21; 22:22; and 24:7) deal with the crimes of murder, stubbornness of a son, adultery, and kidnapping, and have a counterpart in the ''moth yumath'' (''shall be put to death' ) series in Ex. 21:12-17.13<ref>Botterweck, ''Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, vol. 2'', p. 203</ref>}}

Michael Grisanti agrees that "exterminate" is an appropriate translation:

{{:Quote|By exterminating the guilty party, they “burn out” or remove the evil (and evil influence) from the midst of the covenantal nation as a sobering deterrent for others.<ref>Grisanti, ''Deuteronomy'', "Deut. 13:5"</ref>}}

Whether we translate it "purge out" or "exterminate", the intent is clearly to remove the evildoers from the whole human community (not merely to banish them, which would make them somebody else's problem). Here is the list of verses which contain variants of this motive clause: Lev 20:14, Deut. 13:5, Deut. 17:7, 12; Deut. 19:19, Deut. 21:21, Deut. 22:21, 22, 24; Deut. 24:7.

=== Deterrence ===

The deterrent effect is a natural corollary of the death penalty, and it serves the merciful purpose of reducing criminal acts which might otherwise have happened. This makes the community safer. It is one of the unambiguously "good" effects of taking God's law seriously.

The deterrent motive clause is often found in direct association with an "extermination" motive clause (Deut. 17:12-13, Deut. 19:19-20, Deut. 21:21). In one case -- Deut. 13:11 -- it is not.<ref>Yet even in this passage there is a pleonasm of slaying, similar to ''mot yumat'': הָרֹג֙ תַּֽהַרְגֶ֔נּ.</ref>

Michael Grisanti writes (on the death penalty for disobeying a judicial ruling from the central tribunal):

{{:Quote|Anyone who refuses to carry out this verdict, thereby acting arrogantly, must be stoned to death. To refuse a directive of one of God’s representatives is to stand in opposition to Yahweh. The death of that person will serve as a deterrent against any similar presumption.<ref>Grisanti, ''Deuteronomy'', "Deut. 17:8-13"</ref>}}

=== Parallels with ''mot yumat'' ===

A way to verify the connection to the ''mot yumat'' penalties outside of Deuteronomy, are the parallel mention of certain crimes.

==== Adultery ====

For example, the crime of adultery:

{{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 22:22}}

which has a parallel with the ''mot yumat'' penalty for adultery in Leviticus:

{{:Scriptblock|Leviticus 20:10}}

==== Kidnapping ====

We also see this ''mot yumat'' connection in the crime of kidnapping:

{{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 24:7}}

{{:Scriptblock|Exodus 21:16}}

==== Idolatry ====

Here is the death penalty in Deuteronomy for idolatry/false worship:

{{:Scriptblock|Deuteronomy 17:2-7}}

The parallel to ''mot yumat'' requires that we cross-reference the law in Exodus with another law in Leviticus:

{{:Scriptblockformat|He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed [''charam''].|scriptref=Exod. 22:20}}

The phrase "be utterly destroyed" above is the Hebrew ''charam'', a Hophal imperfect verb. When we compare this verse with the following law in Leviticus:

{{:Scriptblockformat|No one devoted [''charam''], that shall be devoted from among men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death[''mot yumat''].|scriptref=Leviticus 27:29}}

we see that an idolater who is ''charam'':

# May not be ransomed (which exactly fits with what we learn about mot yumat in Numbers 35:31; see above)
# Must be put to death [''mot yumat'']

=== Conclusion ===

The above connections show that the motive clauses of "extermination" and deterrence in Deuteronomy serve as semantic markers which reliably designate mandatory death penalties, equivalent to the use of ''mot yumat'' in the other Pentateuchal books.
</div>

{{DISPLAYTITLE:<translate>{{PAGENAME}}</translate>}}
[[ Category:Answered_Questions ]]
[[ Category:Questions about penalties and restitution ]]

[[Category:Answered Questions]]
[[Category:Deuteronomy 13:5]]
[[Category:Deuteronomy 17:7]]
[[Category:Deuteronomy 21:21]]
[[Category:Deuteronomy 22:21]]
[[Category:Deuteronomy 24:7]]
[[Category:Exodus 21:12]]
[[Category:Exodus 22:20]]
[[Category:Ezekiel 18:13]]
[[Category:Leviticus 20:2]]