Here’s a sign that was held at a Boston Gay Marriage Protest from a few years ago:
Here’s the biblical text the sign is referencing in its entirety:
If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.
The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
So the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him, and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give it to the girl’s father, because he publicly defamed a virgin of Israel. And she shall remain his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
How would you respond? Here are some thoughts Dr. Brown shared on the subject:
There were certain laws that God gave to ancient Israel before Jesus came into the world in order to maintain certain standards of purity and in order to keep Israel separate from the nations. Those laws are not applicable to Christians today. There were other laws based on universal principles of morality and holiness, including the prohibition against murder, the prohibition against child sacrifice, and the prohibition against homosexual practice. Those laws are still in full force today.
Tags: death,
death penalty,
gay activism,
gay activists,
gay marriage,
homosexual agenda,
homosexuality,
law,
marriage,
Moses,
Old Testament,
sin
Possibly Related Posts:
Pingback: Twitter Trackbacks for How Would You Respond to Gay Protest Sign? | Voice of Revolution [askdrbrown.org] on Topsy.com
I think the problem with Dr. Brown’s response is that it’s picking and choosing what is applicable from the Old Testament based on what’s convenient or simply not horrifying by today’s standards.
Another problem is, that some of the other troubling OT laws have nothing to do with purity, such as being able to sell your daughter into slavery, and the small 48 hour window of time your slave has to survive after a brutal beating, so you’re not held responsible for his death, if the internal injuries kill him on the third day.
I think a better response would be that the Old Testament laws were given for Israel to govern themselves in a theocracy, while having a Sanhedrin, and that no one else was required, or asked to follow them. Since there isn’t an Israeli theocracy with a Sanhedrin today, these laws aren’t applicable. This doesn’t explain why they were there in the first place, so much as why they aren’t relevant now.
Another thing you could say is that in light of the New Covenant, the only Old Testament values that are continued are ones explicitly re-mentioned in the New Testament. These become “values” and not laws for society, because there isn’t instruction on how people, namely gentiles, should run government and law. This would mean that women should still be upfront with their fiance’s on whether they are virgins, but will not be executed if they fall short of this ideal. Same with homosexuality. You could say that homosexuality is still discouraged, but the penalty is no longer enforced.
What makes things a little more difficult is the talk against homosexuality is a lot more vague in the New Testament. However, I believe it’s clear enough.
However, this doesn’t escape the issue that executing a woman for not being a virgin at marriage doesn’t sound excusable at ANY point in time to civilized people. God apparently approved of, and commanded, public executions with the slow, agonizing death of getting pelted with rocks, at an earlier period of time. You can argue that these laws were necessary for purity, but the fact that this was the best way God could think of to do this, hurts the Bible’s credibility in other issues.
Personally, I think if they wanted to go into absurdity, they could switch their signs to Ezekiel 4, where God commands his prophet to eat his food off of human poop, to make a symbolic statement, then shows mercy by letting Ezekiel substitute cow poop in instead.
The solution to this, is simply to not rely on the Bible to discourage people from loving their partners. While I disagree with both his research and conclusions, I think that Dr. Brown is taking some proactive steps in making this a secular issue instead of a religious one.
–Dan
What Dr. Brown says is nonsense. Man cannot go reading the mind of G-d, picking and choosing laws from the Torah, declaring some to be more “morally based” and applicable today and some not. G-d never did so in the Torah, and nobody, including Dr. Brown has a right to do so.
There was One Torah given to the Jewish people, and homosexual relations is as weighty a sin, and carries the same penalty as working on the Sabbath.
A better response is that many of these laws are only applicable to the Jewish people. Unfortunately for non-Jewish homosexuals, this is a sin for them also.
Matt
Matt,
Nonsense? Hardly! Look, e.g., at Leviticus 18, which speaks of sins for which God judged Egypt and Canaan, as opposed to, say, the dietary laws in Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy, which were given exclusively to Israel. The former were universal prohibitions which still apply today to all peoples; the latter were given specifically to Israel.
Look also at the sins for which God judged the pagan nations in Amos 1 and the beginning of Amos 2. Those were universal prohibitions (as were the laws given in Genesis 9).
Really, God made things quite clear in His Word on this subject, so you either misunderstood my post or you misunderstand the Scriptures.
Dr. Brown,
Since we’re on the topic of what biblical laws are applicable, I’d like to ask you about a specific one. From the Biblical moral law, both OT, and NT, is slavery still permissible under any circumstances? As I recall, the OT never forbid it, and neither did Jesus or Paul.
It seems that it would go against the law of love, but much of what we’d liberally call “love” isn’t agreed upon in scripture. Plus, there seems to be rules for what should take place within the slavery set-up, but nothing condemning slavery itself.
Curious for your opinion on this one.
–Dan
Dan,
Dr. Brown addresses the slavery issue in the second half of this lecture (from about 45 minutes in): http://coalitionofconscience.askdrbrown.org/resources/2008_lecture_monday.html
If you have the time, you may want to consider watching that, and then share your thoughts on it here.
— Marcus
Dr. Brown:
I do not disagree that there were different laws given to the nations and to Israel (see my post). What I disagree with is distinguishing between so called “moral laws” and laws to keep Israel separate from the nations and to establish standards of purity. I ESPECIALLY disagree with the comment that the latter laws (i.e. those to keep Israel separate from the nations) are not in effect today. Says who? The Torah never distinguishes between the latter and former, and says that both laws are to be in effect for all time.
By the way, there is a dietary prohibitiion given to the gentiles in Genesis 9:4 (not Genesis 8) that is also still in effect today just to prove that there is no distinguishing between moral and ritual transgression.
Matt
Matt,
First, you really need to be careful how you post, especially with words like “nonsense.” If you want to be heard, you might want to turn down the volume a bit. :)
Second, the issue at hand had to do primarily with Gentiles, not Jews, quoting parts of the Torah that are certainly not relevant to them today.
Third, the dietary law in Genesis 9 barely touches on the dietary laws found elsewhere in the Torah.
Fourth, you yourself do not believe that some of these Torah laws apply today, otherwise you would be stoning adulterers, etc. Rather, you accept the changes made to those laws by Jewish traditions. As for other laws, like the stoning of a rebellious, unrepentant son, do you follow the Talmudic tradition that say that God never intended the law to be kept?
Dr. Brown:
Forgive my zeal and desire to defend the torah, but it upsets me that people would dismiss dietary laws, laws of family purity, and sabbath as not being part of “morality and holiness” when there is absolutely no biblical basis for its exclusion or separation from any of the other laws of the Torah. Keep in mind, the Torah commanded the death penalty for both homosexuality and sabbath, and the sabbath is actually one of the 10 commandments, while homosexuality is not.
I agree with you that many of the laws in the Torah do not apply to Gentile Christians, but at least in popular culture, Christians seem to accept the 10 commandments as binding, when they too were only given to the Children of Israel.
I am not sure what you are trying to say about the dietary law in Gen 9. Do you believe it applies today or do you not? If so, this is clearly not a law of universally recognized morality.
The Torah does not change. Either it is entirely true, and true for all time, or none of it is true. From, G-d’s perspective, it is equally unacceptable to work on the Sabbath as it is to commit an act of homosexuality. This is evident from the similarity of the punishments.
Matt
Matt,
You are forgiven.
So, please be kind enough to answer the questions I asked you the ongoing validity of say, the laws to stone to death a disobedient and rebellious son. Do you follow what the Torah says or what the Talmud says?
Dr. Brown:
Again, G-d does not change. The Torah does not change. These laws are still in effect. The Torah is for all time. A court with the authority to stone a rebellious and wayward son would be able to do so if by due process, they found him culpable.
So how do you feel about my assertion that a one who violates the Sabbath is every bit as sinful as a practicing homosexual. Or the assertion that there are ritual laws that apply to Gentiles that most don’t even know about.
Matt
Matt,
So then, you reject what the Talmud says about the law concerning the stoning of a rebellious and unrepentant son?
As for your question to me, please show me where God gave the command for the seventh day Sabbath to the whole world and not just to Israel.
I have to applaud Matt for being consistent. Sometimes I wonder if fundamentalist Islam today is a reflection of what Judaism was in the early days, with the violent punishment for purity laws, and emphasis on stamping out idolatry and heresy by whatever means necessary.
Dr. Brown:
I never said that the non-Jews were supposed to keep the sabbath (in fact I believe that they should not do so). Then again, I don’t know of many hebrew-christians who keep the sabbath, and therefore, I believe they are just as sinful as homosexuals.
I don’t think what I said about ben sorrer u’moreh is inconsistent with what the Talmud says is 71a (or is it 72a). If it was, please enlighten me.
Matt
Matt,
Percentage-wise, more Messianic Jews keep the Sabbath than do Jews as a whole worldwide, but that’s entirely irrelevant to the point I made in commenting on the verse in question in the picture, above, and you’re reacting to things as if I was having a dialog within Judaism, which I was not.
As for your reading of the ben sorer umoreh, do a little more digging and if you still don’t understand what the Talmud was saying with reference to my challenge to you, let me know, and I’ll respond further as soon as time permits. But I trust you’ll be able to discover my point soon enough.
My comment?
“Biblical exegesis makes for good atheism.”
CORRECTION, PLEASE.
I meant, “Bad Biblical exegesis makes for good atheism.”
I certainly think there is a lot of bad exegesis out there. Take this rather smug atheistic video, for example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUj8hg5CoSw
Yes, the problem is that I don’t think people on various sides of this issue care enough to do actual exegesis. Gathering ammo to suit their purposes seems to be the main issue, which is why I asked the question “How would you respond?”. I’m wondering what a short pithy response would be that would require no biblical exegesis (or really thinking at all :) ) on the hearer’s part. I thought Dr. Brown’s thoughts were good to that end.
Dr. Brown,
In the video that Marcus provided for Dan, you stated that you are against violence in the name of religion.
I’m only thinking of this in fairness to the average opponent to our position: What would you say if someone asked you what you make of the violence God commanded Israel to do against the Canaanites? (For instance, see this atheistic video criticizing William Lane Craig for his answer to this question: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvsgo7NgR9k. How would you respond to this? A fair warning: There is some language in the video.)
Here is Craig’s full article that is being challenged in the atheistic video cited above: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767.
Ben
Ben,
You might want to read the book entitled Show Them No Mercy, edited by Tremper Longman, for more insight on this.
Simply stated, God waited until the iniquity of the inhabitants of Canaan was so severe that the people had to be destroyed, and this was a one time event ordered by God and something certainly not to be repeated with the coming of Jesus the Messiah into the world.
We follow the whole Bible, Ben, and for more than 3000 years now, God has never commanded His people to wipe out the inhabitants of a country, and He will not command us to do so in the future. And Jesus has established the pattern of non-violence that we follow.
Dr. Brown,
Thank you for your thoughtful comments, and thanks for the reference to Show Them No Mercy. I’ll be sure to check it out.
Blessings to you!
Dr. Brown,
I know you’re busy, but do you have any comments regarding the claims made in the atheistic video?
I’ve been thinking about your comments, and I agree wholeheartedly with you that Jesus established a pattern of non-violence for us, but I can imagine an atheist saying in response, “How do you know that your God won’t command more violence against evil people? What was so different before Jesus came that demanded this? Why didn’t God just kill them Himself, like with Ananias and Sapphirra? Can you really say that ‘violence in the name of religion is bad’ if your God commanded it, even if it were just a one-time thing? One time or many times, it was still a command to do violence.”
For the record, I couldn’t agree more that we follow the whole Bible. And I love God and think He’s wonderful. And I don’t fully understand Him, and that’s okay—the command to slaughter the Canaanites is one such example where I’m frankly baffled (I guess my experience is similar to the writer of Psalm 88, who doesn’t seem to understand why God has appeared to abandon him). I don’t want to give the false impression that I’m trying to assassinate God’s character by raising this objection.
The reason I’m doing this is because I want to fairly address atheistic concerns like the one in the video. Perhaps intellectual argument can’t convince hard hearts, but I think they raise honest objections in the video. I’ve just started reading Show Them No Mercy, by the way. Thanks again for the recommendation.
Blessings,
Ben
Ben,
Thanks for your further question. The answer to the atheist is simple: We who believe the Bible is God’s Word take it in its totality, and because we believe it is God’s Word, we will not listen to any other voice, no matter how divine it claims to be, if that voice contradicts what is written in the Word. So, God will NOT command us to go out and wipe out people today in His name, since His final Word to us speaks against that.
Well, any reason to not follow a “divine voice” to kill is a good one.
However, the problem is that people will have their own interpretations of the Old and New Testament. There was a number of Christians who believed “Compel them to come in,” legitimized the Crusades. It’s obviously the wrong interpretation, but enough people believed it to do evil.
Currently, the same thing can happen. With a number of believers thinking we’re in the End Times and could be facing a war against the Antichrist, including the idea that Obama will legislate the “Mark of the Beast,” divine-inspired violence could easily be a possibility.
Also, even if the New Testament is against violence, someone could always say God changed his mind. He’s changed his mind in several occasions, including arguably Jeconiah’s curse and some other judgments.
–Dan
Dan A.,
You mentioned that during the people during the crusade did “evil.” How do you come to the conclusion that something is evil? What makes something evil?
Dan A.,
The problem here is that you as non-believer (at times, hostile to the faith) are arguing with believers, thereby raising arguments that have no relevance to us. It would be like me using faith principles with an atheist.
So, with regard to your Jeconiah example, this was in keeping with God’s revealed will in Jeremiah 18, namely, when He promised judgment and people repented, He would reverse the judgment. The non-violent ethic of the NT, however, is based on the example of Jesus and His death on the cross — and that is not something that can or will be changed.
As you continue to post here over the months, it’s clear that your primary problem is with God, not His people, and when you come to know Him personally, your objections will vanish.
Marcus,
I see evil as malice, the intent to harm others. It could be for personal gain, or just for the pleasure of the act, but if you’re acting to harm others, it’s generally evil. Obviously, there are difficult situations (war, self-defense, criminal justice), where the definition gets more complicated.
You don’t need a higher power to figure out what is good or bad, most of the time. You just need to quiet the voice of your fears, which is what usually drives good people to malice.
–Dan
Dr. Brown,
My apologies if I’ve misused any scripture in argument. I had heard from a number of sources that Jeconiah’s curse had been reversed, but you would know better than I.
Thank you for your patience.
–Dan
Dan,
No need to apologize, but I appreciate your graciousness. Yes, the curse was reversed, in accordance with the principles laid out in Jeremiah 18, as stated in the post. Repentance reversed the judgment.
ok, here it goes. The Law of Faith vs. The Law of Moses. Please forgive my lack of scholarship, but I think you can get idea. I as a Christian in my flesh am tempted to lust after a woman other than my wife. The Spirit desires holiness. The warfare we have is within. Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within you. i.e Born Again. Old Testament Israel. God makes Covenant, people AGREE to covenant, people fail to keep the Laws and deliver punishments, they become over run with sin and all sorts of bad things happen that cause Israel to be worse than the other nations. They are worse because they say that they are worshipers of Jehova but in truth they are not!!! at least most of them are not. Switch to today, no Israel, Sheep are scattered, we leave among the heathen and have no place to lay our head, Some Christians follow Jesus, some who say they are Christians do not. Born again Believers may fall in to sin but do not stay there and continue to grow in holiness, false Christians say they love God but are not Born again and keep on sinning. The law of Faith is spiritual. My heart says in the Spirit, Shawn it would be better if a millstone were hanged around your neck for you to make one of these little ones to stumble, it says to me let me die a thousand deaths before I abandon my wife and children so I can fulfill my lust. If I do the Church is to take me outside the gate so to speak and leave me (in love) there as if I were a leper. If I repent then there is a good chance I am a true believer, and will be accepted back in the beloved but with much regret will probably leave a trail of destruction behind because of my sinful rebellion. This process makes me fit for Heaven. Without this outworking of the Spirit I could never be made ready for the wedding feast. The Law is made for transgressors it is only a burden to those who do not love God or their neighbor. God makes the burden light and easy to bear. Love causes me to not follow after sin, not my love, but God’s love. God even says it is a sin to hate anyone even your enemies. I believe when King David sinned with Bathsheba he had to face the fact that even he could despise the commandments of God which means that at times even a true believer can become consumed with their own vanities and lusts so as to abandon true goodness and beauty, that is God. People don’t hate God because He’s a tyrant. They hate him because he is pure and truly good and we are at best self righteous hypocrites in our own flesh. For example, people who hate women use pornography, you may not see it that way but it’s only because you are dead in sin and have only commited sin your whole life and are like a pig feeding on slop. I only say this to make the point that people use and abuse each other at their wim without thought for the victims. The porn actors are actually victims although still accountable for their own actions like the rest of us.
Shawn, that was an outstanding post. I’ve not been a Christian for too long and am still learning every day. You grounded something for me that I had never considered — Born Again. Old Testament Israel.
It’s the little things (sometimes) in Spiritual growth . . . and that was a “Wow” for me. Maybe not for others, but it certainly was for me. It adds yet one more piece to the ‘Argument From Biblical Harmony’ which I happen to believe is the greatest proof for God’s existence. You just can’t make this stuff up.
God bless your insight(s).
Thank you for sharing.
Todd
Shawn,
I liked your post, also. I’m no where near a scholar, and have been studying The Word for about a year. As believers in the Messiah, we all have to start somewhere.
I think that Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum brings out an interesting point about the Law of Moses. This is just a small section, the rest can be read here: http://www.ariel.org/amds.htm
TO MAKE ONE SIN MORE The fourth purpose, and this one is strange, but it is there as we shall see, is to make one sin more. Let’s read the passages where Paul speaks of this in the Book of Romans.
For example, in Romans 4:15 Paul says: for the law works wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression. In Romans 5:20 he repeats in similar words: And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound; but where sin abounded, grace did abound more exceedingly. Let me reiterate: in Romans 4:15: for the law works wrath; but where there is no law, neither is there transgression. And in Romans 5:20: And the law came in besides, that the trespass might abound. The picture that he is giving is that the Law came in to cause more sin, to actually make us sin more. How does that work?
Paul explains it in Romans 7:7-13: What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Howbeit, I had not known sin, except through the law: for I had not known coveting, except the law had said, You shall not covet: but sin, finding occasion, wrought in me through the commandment all manner of coveting: for apart from the law sin is dead. And I was alive apart from the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died; and the commandment, which was unto life, this I found to be unto death: for sin, finding occasion, through the commandment beguiled me, and through it slew me. So that the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and righteous, and good. Did then that which is good become death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might be shown to be sin, by working death to me through that which is good;-that through the commandment sin might become exceeding sinful. Before I deal with this passage, let’s read one more in I Corinthians 15:56: The sting of death is sin; and the power of sin is the law. Basically what Paul is saying in Romans 7 and I Corinthians 15 is that a sin-nature needs a base of operation; furthermore, the sin-nature uses the Law as a base of operation. Paul said, “where there is no Law, there is no transgression.” He did not mean, of course, that there was not any sin before the Law was given. The term transgression is a specific type of sin in violation of a specific commandment. Men were sinners before the Law was given, but they were not transgressors of the Law until the Law was given. Once the Law was given, then the sin-nature had a base of operation. Because as soon as the Law said you shall not, “the sin-nature said, “oh yes I will.” Or as soon as the Law said, “you will do this,” the sin-nature said, “oh no I won’t.” The sin-nature suddenly found a base of operation. The Law was used as a beachhead and suddenly all these new commandments were given, and the sin-nature “went to town” more or less, and started doing what it could to cause the individual to violate these commandments and sin all the more.
This is the fourth purpose of the Mosaic Law.
TO LEAD US TO FAITH This led to the fifth purpose, which is found in Galatians 3:24, is to lead us to utter faith. Galatians 3:2425 read: So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith is come, we are no longer under a tutor. The final purpose of the Law is to lead us to faith. This is a build-up from the fourth purpose. As much as we may try to keep the Law perfectly, because of our sin-nature we will never do it. As Paul said in Romans 7: “as much as I tried not to covet, suddenly I found myself coveting everyone and everything. And I found myself full of the sin of coveting.” It caused him to sin more until it drove him to utter faith. Therefore, the fifth purpose of the Law is to drive one to faith; specifically, faith in Yeshua (Jesus) the Messiah.
THE UNITY OF THE LAW OF MOSES It must be understood that the Mosaic Law is viewed by the Scriptures as a unit. The word Torah, meaning “law,” when applied to the Law of Moses is always singular, although it contains 613 commandments. The same is true of the Greek word nomosin the New Testament. The division of the Law of Moses into ceremonial, legal and moral parts is convenient for the study of different types of commandments contained within it, but it is never divided in this way by the Scriptures themselves. Neither is there any scriptural basis for separating the Ten Commandments from the whole 613 and making only those perpetual. All 613 commandments are a single unit comprising the Law of Moses. It is the principle of the unity of the Law of Moses that lies behind the statement found in James 2:10: For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is become guilty of all. The point is clear: a person needs only to break one of the 613 commandments to be guilty of breaking all of the Law of Moses. This can only be true if the Mosaic Law is a unit. If it is not, the guilt lies only in the particular commandment violated and not in the whole Law. In other words, if one breaks a legal commandment, he is guilty of breaking the ceremonial and moral ones as well. The same is true of breaking a moral or ceremonial commandment. To bring the point closer to home, if a person eats ham, according to the Law of Moses he is guilty of breaking the Ten Commandments although none of them says anything about eating ham. The Law is a unit, and to break one of the 613 commandments is to break them all.
In order to have a clear understanding of the Law of Moses and its relationship to the believer, Jew or Gentile, it is necessary to view it as the Scriptures view it: as a unit that cannot be divided into parts that have been done away with and parts that have not. Nor can certain commandments be separated in such a way as to give them a different status from the other commandments.