Kill the unbelievers!
This week's verses are Deuteronomy 17:2-7:
These verses are very much at odds with the message of love we see in the New Testament. For unrepentant sinners in the New Testament whose sin is contagious, we're simply advised not to hang out with them or let them influence our community. But under the Old Covenant, we were commanded to kill them. Let that sink in a bit. Imagine it being the law, civil or religious, for you to have to round up a posse and kill a member of your community.
In the Old Covenant, the law is given to keep order in a tight-knit nomadic community. There are no jails. There's no real wider society like in Roman times. It's the young Jewish nation and what we would call "alternate belief systems and faith traditions," which were at odds with God's plan. Things had to be dealt with very aggressively in order to keep order. Anyone who was infectious was quarantined outside of the camp, for instance. But anyone who would try to separate God from his people couldn't just be quarantined. They had to be killed. And we're not talking lethal injection here: after a religious trial, a mob would be rounded up and the person would have rocks thrown at their head until it was obvious they had died from their injuries.
The law requires two or three witnesses. On the surface, this probably seems like a procedural safeguard to keep people from having other people they don't like killed. But in the law there is already a safeguard against false accusation, as typically when a trial would happen people would be placed under a curse for being false witnesses or for not speaking up if they knew something. This is similar to why people are asked to swear an oath before testifying now. Nobody wants to be cursed! So why else might there need to be two or three witnesses?
If two or three people know that you're a "devil worshiper" chances are you're not very quiet about it. You might even be influential. So what you have in that case is a spiritually infectious person connected to the heart of the community. In the "life or death, no second chances" world of the Old Testament, only execution could stop the problem from spreading. And to be sure it was serious, the witnesses themselves had to be the ones throwing the first stones. Imagine not just having to testify against your friend in court but to also have to be one of the guys in the firing squad when he's found guilty! You would do everything you could to make sure your friends behaved themselves!
Be thankful we no longer have that as our only option. Imagine going to a Christian conference, and along with the speakers and great worship sessions, you had to gather in the parking lot and throw big chunks of concrete at some poor girl who had a tarot deck or a guy who got caught with some death metal mp3s on his phone. But some people still choose the Old Covenant even now that the New Covenant is available!
When the Sanhedrin gathered to condemn Jesus, they were living pretty much under these verses. The same is true of the church in medieval times, when heretics were burnt at the stake. The Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, and countless smaller movements all chose to live under the condemnation of the Old Testament law rather than choosing the love, life and freedom Jesus died to bring us.
A lot of what drives people away from the church is the sort of "God hates fags" Old-Covenant-choosers who are the most vocal. I've seen evangelists screaming at people on the street, telling them God hates them and that they're going to hell, and that their only chance to be saved is to become like them and fill out some paperwork like they're being arrested. They're living in a world where, like the guys with the rocks, we're deputised to lynch people who are living in opposition to God. But that's not the deal Jesus offers us. They might as well have joined ISIS for all they're (not) doing for God's kingdom.
To see the New Covenant in action, look at Jesus' reaction to the Samaritan woman: Samaritans were heretics in the eyes of the Jews. And here was one who was sexually immoral. And not only that, she was even getting mouthy with him. Under the Old Covenant, Jesus and his disciples could have stoned her to death. "Purge the evil from among you," right? Instead, Jesus treats her with love and respect and presses no charges.
In the Old Testament, the way you purge evil from among you is through a series of bloodbaths. In the New Testament, it is through the blood of Christ and his love and forgiveness. We can't live under both covenants at the same time, so we have to choose. My advice: the new is better than the old!
Suppose a man or woman is discovered among you—in one of your villages that the Lord your God is giving you—who sins before the Lord your God and breaks his covenant by serving other gods and worshiping them—the sun, moon, or any other heavenly bodies which I have not permitted you to worship. When it is reported to you and you hear about it, you must investigate carefully. If it is indeed true that such a disgraceful thing is being done in Israel, you must bring to your city gates that man or woman who has done this wicked thing—that very man or woman—and you must stone that person to death. At the testimony of two or three witnesses they must be executed. They cannot be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The witnesses must be first to begin the execution, and then all the people are to join in afterward. In this way you will purge evil from among you.
These verses are very much at odds with the message of love we see in the New Testament. For unrepentant sinners in the New Testament whose sin is contagious, we're simply advised not to hang out with them or let them influence our community. But under the Old Covenant, we were commanded to kill them. Let that sink in a bit. Imagine it being the law, civil or religious, for you to have to round up a posse and kill a member of your community.
In the Old Covenant, the law is given to keep order in a tight-knit nomadic community. There are no jails. There's no real wider society like in Roman times. It's the young Jewish nation and what we would call "alternate belief systems and faith traditions," which were at odds with God's plan. Things had to be dealt with very aggressively in order to keep order. Anyone who was infectious was quarantined outside of the camp, for instance. But anyone who would try to separate God from his people couldn't just be quarantined. They had to be killed. And we're not talking lethal injection here: after a religious trial, a mob would be rounded up and the person would have rocks thrown at their head until it was obvious they had died from their injuries.
The law requires two or three witnesses. On the surface, this probably seems like a procedural safeguard to keep people from having other people they don't like killed. But in the law there is already a safeguard against false accusation, as typically when a trial would happen people would be placed under a curse for being false witnesses or for not speaking up if they knew something. This is similar to why people are asked to swear an oath before testifying now. Nobody wants to be cursed! So why else might there need to be two or three witnesses?
If two or three people know that you're a "devil worshiper" chances are you're not very quiet about it. You might even be influential. So what you have in that case is a spiritually infectious person connected to the heart of the community. In the "life or death, no second chances" world of the Old Testament, only execution could stop the problem from spreading. And to be sure it was serious, the witnesses themselves had to be the ones throwing the first stones. Imagine not just having to testify against your friend in court but to also have to be one of the guys in the firing squad when he's found guilty! You would do everything you could to make sure your friends behaved themselves!
Be thankful we no longer have that as our only option. Imagine going to a Christian conference, and along with the speakers and great worship sessions, you had to gather in the parking lot and throw big chunks of concrete at some poor girl who had a tarot deck or a guy who got caught with some death metal mp3s on his phone. But some people still choose the Old Covenant even now that the New Covenant is available!
When the Sanhedrin gathered to condemn Jesus, they were living pretty much under these verses. The same is true of the church in medieval times, when heretics were burnt at the stake. The Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials, and countless smaller movements all chose to live under the condemnation of the Old Testament law rather than choosing the love, life and freedom Jesus died to bring us.
A lot of what drives people away from the church is the sort of "God hates fags" Old-Covenant-choosers who are the most vocal. I've seen evangelists screaming at people on the street, telling them God hates them and that they're going to hell, and that their only chance to be saved is to become like them and fill out some paperwork like they're being arrested. They're living in a world where, like the guys with the rocks, we're deputised to lynch people who are living in opposition to God. But that's not the deal Jesus offers us. They might as well have joined ISIS for all they're (not) doing for God's kingdom.
To see the New Covenant in action, look at Jesus' reaction to the Samaritan woman: Samaritans were heretics in the eyes of the Jews. And here was one who was sexually immoral. And not only that, she was even getting mouthy with him. Under the Old Covenant, Jesus and his disciples could have stoned her to death. "Purge the evil from among you," right? Instead, Jesus treats her with love and respect and presses no charges.
In the Old Testament, the way you purge evil from among you is through a series of bloodbaths. In the New Testament, it is through the blood of Christ and his love and forgiveness. We can't live under both covenants at the same time, so we have to choose. My advice: the new is better than the old!
Comments
Post a Comment