BIBLE LAW VS. CONSTITUTIONALISM:
A Christian Perspective

Chapter 17
Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, & Cruel and Unusual Punishments?

Section 1

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment 8 is almost word for word the same prohibition found in Article 10 of the 1689 English Bill of Rights. George Mason included the same language in the 1776 Virginia Bill of Rights, and the Confederation Congress incorporated these prohibitions into the Northwest Ordinance of 1787.

Bail

Bail consists of property, usually money, pledged to the court as surety, or a guarantee, on behalf of a defendant, so he might be released from custody until his innocence or guilt is decided in a court of law. This, of course, is with the understanding that the defendant will return for trial:

Bail is cash or cash equivalent that an arrested person gives to the court to ensure that he or she will appear in court when ordered to do so. If the defendant appears in court at the proper time, the court refunds the bail. But if the defendant doesn’t show up, the court keeps the bail and issues a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

Judges are responsible for setting bail. Because many people want to get out of jail immediately (instead of waiting up to five days to see a judge), most jails have standard bail schedules that specify bail amounts for common crimes. An arrested person can get out of jail quickly by paying the amount set forth in the bail schedule.

The Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that bail not be excessive. This means that bail should not be used to raise money for the government or to punish a person for being suspected of committing a crime. Remember: The purpose of bail is to allow the arrested person to remain free until convicted of a crime, and the amount of bail must be no more than is reasonably necessary to keep the suspect from fleeing before a case is over.1

Posting bail, of course, cannot guarantee the defendant will not default on his promise to appear in court (what is commonly known as jumping bail). Consequently, this constitutional allowance puts many criminals back on the streets. Even those who do return to face charges have free reign to continue in their criminal activity while released on bail:

…only a very small percentage of criminals are ever convicted and sent to prison…. One case was cited of a man who was arrested for armed robbery and released on bond [bail]. During the next four months, while free on bond, he was arrested five times on various charges ranging from petty larceny to car theft. Finally he pleaded guilty to attempted petty theft and was again released to await sentencing.2

Although Amendment 8 does not specifically provide for bail, it bans only excessive bail, without defining what is excessive. Consequently, except for states in which bail schedules are pre-assigned, what is or is not excessive is left to the arbitrary decisions of each judge in any given case. Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which specified to which types of crimes bail could be applied and how these were to be determined:

…upon all arrests in criminal cases, bail shall be admitted, except where the punishment may be death, in which cases it shall not be admitted but by the supreme or a circuit court, or by a justice of the supreme court, or a judge of a district court, who shall exercise their discretion therein, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offence, and of the evidence, and the usages of law.3

In 1966 and 1984, bail reform acts were passed:

In 1966, Congress enacted the Bail Reform Act of 1966 which states that a non-capital defendant is to be released, pending trial, on his personal recognizance or on personal bond, unless the judicial officer determines that such incentives will not adequately assure his appearance at trial. In that case, the judge must select an alternative from a list of conditions, such as restrictions on travel. Individuals charged with a capital crime, or who have been convicted and are awaiting sentencing or appeal, are to be released unless the judicial officer has reason to believe that no conditions will reasonably assure that the person will not flee or pose a danger. In non-capital cases, the Act does not permit a judge to consider a suspect’s danger to the community, only in capital cases or after conviction is the judge authorized to do so.

The 1966 Act was particularly criticized within the District of Columbia, where all crimes formerly fell under Federal bail law. In a number of instances, persons accused of violent crimes committed additional crimes when released on their personal recognizance. These individuals were often released yet again….

In 1984 Congress replaced the Bail Reform Act of 1966 with new bail law…. The main innovation of the new law is that it allows pre-trial detention of individuals based upon their danger to the community; under prior law and traditional bail statutes in the U.S., pre-trial detention was to be based solely upon the risk of flight.

18 USC 3142(f) provides that only persons who fit into certain categories are subject to detention without bail: persons charged with a crime of violence, an offense for which the maximum sentence is life imprisonment or death, certain drug offenses for which the maximum offense is greater than 10 years, repeat felony offenders, or if the defendant poses a serious risk of flight, obstruction of justice, or witness tampering. There is a special hearing held to determine whether the defendant fits within these categories; anyone not within them must be admitted to bail.4

Even the 1984 Act provided bail opportunities for anyone, based upon the decisions of a finite judge.

Because bail is only necessary when expeditious adjudication cannot be guaranteed, the framers must have recognized that the system they were instituting could not deliver the “speedy trials” allegedly provided for in Amendment 6. In other words, bail is only required in slow, overburdened judicial systems, as found in the United States Constitutional Republic. (See Chapter 15 for more regarding the Constitution’s inability to provide swift litigation.) The contradiction between the Sixth Amendment’s provision for speedy trials and the Eighth Amendment’s provision for bail is but another of many ways that proves the United States Constitution is inherently flawed.

On the other hand, Yahweh’s5 law does not provide for bail. When government is based upon His perfect laws, both trials and punishment are meted out swiftly, if not immediately. Consequently, bail (like prison) is superfluous.

The downside to Yahweh’s no-bail system is that there will be occasions when innocent men incur short-term incarcerations while awaiting trial. Still, it is much better that a few innocent men should suffer incarceration, rather than that many innocent victims should suffer at the hand of criminals who are allowed to roam free by way of an unbiblical, criminal-enabling bail system. Under Yahweh’s Ninth Commandment safeguards (see Chapter 14 for the six judicial safeguards), false accusations, and thus false imprisonments, would be virtually nonexistent.

Furthermore, the Bible warns against becoming surety for another person, which rules out providing bail on behalf of a stranger, or a friend:

My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, if thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. Do this now, my son, deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself, and make sure [importune, NASB] thy friend. Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids. Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand of the hunter, and as a bird from the hand of the fowler. (Proverbs 6:1-5)6

He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and he that hateth suretiship is sure [safe, NASB]. (Proverbs 11:15)

A man void of understanding striketh hands, and becometh surety in the presence of his friend. (Proverbs 17:18)

Be not thou one of them that strike hands, or of them that are sureties for debts. (Proverbs 22:26)

Like other non-biblical governments, the United States Constitutional Republic provides for measures that Yahweh condemns.

Surety contracts are folly for both parties (particularly those involving suspects and convicted criminals) because trust is being placed in a finite man who cannot guarantee he will be alive to uphold his part of the bargain even one day later. Martin Luther commented upon the person who becomes surety for another man:

…his own life and property are never for a single moment any more secure or certain than those of the man for whom he becomes surety.7

Becoming surety demands that a person guarantees the future of another person, a presumption the Bible identifies as arrogance:

Boast not thyself of to morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. (Proverbs 27:1)

It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. (Acts 1:7)

Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain: Whereas ye know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appeareth for a little time, and then vanisheth away. For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or that. But now ye rejoice in your boastings: all such rejoicing is evil. (James 4:13-16)

Providing bail on behalf of someone is worse because it vainly attempts to guarantee another’s man’s integrity.

Fines

The Eighth Amendment prohibits excessive fines, without defining what is excessive, which enables the government to collect “non-excessive” fines without defining to whom they are to be paid:

The Court has held the Clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, “when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.”8 The Court based this conclusion on a review of the history and purposes of the Excessive Fines Clause. At the time the Eighth Amendment was adopted, the Court noted, “the word ‘fine’ was understood to mean a payment to a sovereign as punishment for some offense.”9 The Eighth Amendment itself, as were antecedents of the Clause in the Virginia Declaration of Rights and in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, “clearly was adopted with the particular intent of placing limits on the powers of the new government.”10 Therefore, while leaving open the issues of whether the Clause has any applicability to civil penalties or to qui tam actions, the Court determined that “the Excessive Fines Clause was intended to limit only those fines directly imposed by, and payable to, the government.”11 The Court [in Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993)] has held, however, that the excessive fines clause can be applied in civil forfeiture cases.12

Non-excessive fines sound like a good idea, except that they are entirely unbiblical, particularly when paid to the State.

Fines, which are paid to the state for law violations, are pagan forms of revenue collecting and punishment. They are not Biblical. They are not because they pervert judgment and stem from a pagan view of man. They pervert judgment because the state will put more effort into the enforcement of those laws that bring the greatest amount of revenues to the state coffers than those that do not. Those laws that have a low rate of monetary return per cost of enforcement will be less likely to be enforced than those that bring a high rate or return to the state. This is true because fines that are paid to the state stem from the pagan view that man is an economic creature. This view holds that man lives for material goods and not for his god.13

Leviticus 5 and Numbers 5 provide the only examples remotely similar to state fines:

If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things [tithes, offerings, etc., 2 Chronicles 31:6] of YHWH;14 then he shall bring for his trespass unto YHWH a ram without blemish out of the flocks, with thy estimation by shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for a trespass offering: And he shall make amends for the harm that he hath done in the holy thing, and shall add the fifth part thereto, and give it unto the priest…. (Leviticus 5:15-16)

And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to do a trespass against YHWH, and that person be guilty; then they shall confess their sin which they have done: and he shall recompense his trespass with the principal thereof, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him against whom he hath trespassed. But if the man have no kinsman to recompense the trespass unto, let the trespass be recompensed unto YHWH, even to the priest…. (Numbers 5:5-8)

In both instances – in Leviticus 5, where a 20% additional penalty is levied, and in Numbers 5, where restitution is required even when no victims or relatives are alive to receive restitution – the “fines” are to be paid to the priests (or, under the New Covenant, to full-time kingdom laborers). Other than these two instances, additional fines or penalties always go to the victim or the victim’s relatives.

Biblical “fines” paid to the victims of non-capital crimes (a practice rarely witnessed in American jurisprudence), are of an amount that many constitutional judges would very likely consider excessive, particularly with the indentured servitude provision attached for anyone unable to pay the required restitution and additional penalties.

Yahweh’s law requires from two to five times restitution on things stolen, depending upon the nature of the crime:

If a man shall steal an ox, or a sheep, and kill it, or sell it; he shall restore five oxen for an ox, and four sheep for a sheep…. If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. (Exodus 22:1, 4)

The Bible does not tell us why more is required of an ox thief than a sheep thief, but analyzing this statute from a primitive agronomist perspective provides a few plausible explanations. An ox’s lower rate of reproduction was probably one reason why oxen were more highly valued. Also, it takes longer to bring oxen to maturity than it does sheep, and sheep do not require the training that oxen do. But an even more probable explanation exists.

Both sheep and oxen were eaten and used for clothing, but only oxen were used to till the land, pull carts, and perform other arduous tasks. In other words, oxen were the tractors in Moses’ day. Given a choice between losing a sheep or a tractor, a prudent husbandman would choose the former. Steal a man’s sheep, and he would lose a hide and some meat. Steal a man’s ox – his means of livelihood – and his family’s survival could be jeopardized. Theft of a man’s sheep represents only an immediate loss. Theft of a man’s ox represents both an immediate and a future loss.

Modern Applications

Exodus 22:1 is case law that provides precedent against much more than just the theft of livestock. For example, a farmer’s tractor is of greater value to him than the family automobile. This is true not only because the tractor costs more, but also because the tractor is his means of livelihood, while the car is only a means of transportation. Therefore, an apprehended tractor thief should be required to pay the equivalent of five tractors, whereas a car thief should pay the equivalent of four cars. If, instead, the victim were a traveling salesman who owns and uses a tractor only for property maintenance, the judgment would be transposed. Purpose, not price, determines an object’s worth and the rate of restitution.

Yahweh’s standard penalty rates eliminate arbitrary decisions common among judges and juries alike by eliminating both excessive and deficient judgments.

Whether the rate of restitution is four or five times, Yahweh’s judgment for stealing is a deterrent to potential thieves, whereas current American jurisprudence provides little deterrence whatsoever. Under Yahweh’s laws, only the victim is compensated; the “State” should not receive any remuneration whatsoever, except for modern instances of Leviticus 5:15-16 and Numbers 5:5-8. Under man’s laws, however, the victim often receives little or no compensation and is further victimized by the very system that is supposed to protect him. After the State slaps the thief’s hand and collects its fines two or three times, the repeat offender may finally be sentenced to prison, which, of course, is funded by the victim’s tax dollars:

“The guilty man lodged, fed, clothed, warmed, lighted, entertained, at the expense of the State in a model cell, issued from it with a sum of money lawfully earned, has paid his debt to society; he can set his victims at defiance; but the victim has his consolation; he can think that by taxes he pays to the Treasury, he has contributed towards the paternal care, which has guarded the criminal during his stay in prison.” These were the bitter and sarcastic words of Prins, the Belgian, at the Paris Prison Congress in 1895, when during a discussion of the problem of restitution to victims of crime, he could no longer contain his indignation at various practical and theoretical difficulties raised against his proposals on behalf of the victim.15

The offended party is preyed upon first by a low-class thief and then by a high-class thief.

Under modern law, fines are almost invariably paid to the city, county or federal government. If the victim wants any remedy he must sue for damages in a civil court. However, as everyone knows, by the time a criminal has paid his fines to the court [his “debt to society”], he is usually depleted of funds or consigned to prison where he is earning nothing and therefore could not pay damages [debt to his victim] even if his victim went to the expense of filing a suit and getting a judgment. As a result, modern justice penalizes the offender, but does virtually nothing for the victim.16

The superiority of Yahweh’s laws is easily seen when contrasting the United States Constitutional Republic’s criminal justice system with Yahweh’s criminal justice system.

Recovered Property and Indentureship

If the theft be certainly found in his hand alive, whether it be ox, or ass, or sheep; he shall restore double. (Exodus 22:4)

Verse 1 of Exodus 22 addresses thieves who have either killed or sold what they stole, while verse 4 addresses thieves who are apprehended with the stolen item still in their possession. In the latter case, the stolen item is restored to the owner, and he is further compensated with the equivalent current value of what was stolen. This additional remuneration covers any loss or inconvenience incurred while the stolen item is out of the owner’s possession. Just as importantly, it punishes the thief, likely deterring him from participating in further criminal activity.

A man apprehended with the stolen item in his possession might be someone who stole out of necessity, in contrast to a career thief who steals for profit. Solomon addressed the former type of thief:

Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry; but if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house. (Proverbs 6:30-31)

Because Yahweh’s law makes no mention of a sevenfold reparation, this is not meant to be taken literally. The number seven in the Bible is often used to signify perfection, completion, and fullness. In other words, a thief of necessity, although he may be pitied, must still pay what the law requires, even if it results in bankruptcy and indentureship:

…if he have nothing [with which to pay the required restitution], then he shall be sold for his theft. (Exodus 22:3)

A thief is indentured until he is able to pay the required two, four, or five-fold restitution either to his victim or to the purchaser of his indentured service. In some high-dollar cases, such as in the Bernie Madoff17 scam, the thieves would not be sent to prison to spend the remainder of their lives being housed, fed, and entertained at taxpayer’s expense. Instead, they would be consigned to perpetual servitude. Any proceeds from their servitude would be divided among their victims. Restitution and indentureship would eliminate any need for prisons, and the deterrent effect would go a long way toward eliminating theft in society.

How much better is Yahweh’s justice when contrasted with the United States Constitutional Republic’s so-called justice system, which penalizes the victim and other innocent people by taxing them to pay for the imprisonment of convicted thieves? (See Chapter 22, “Amendment 13: Constitutional Slavery,” for more regarding indentureship versus incarceration.)

Fines paid to the city, county, or state, or a prison term for the criminal, does nothing for the victim and very little for the offender. Neither do those sentences often fit the crime. Actually a term in prison, or in jail, cannot even be considered punishment. It is rather a REWARD to the criminal for his crime. He is relieved of the responsibility of providing his own shelter, clothing, food, and medical care. He is given total economic security at the expense of the law-abiding citizens, including his victims.18

Under Yahweh’s system, the first time a thief is apprehended and judged guilty, he is required to repay anywhere from two to five times more than what he stole. If he cannot pay the required restitution, the convicted thief is to be indentured until he has worked off his debt. Either way, the criminal is punished, and the victim is compensated for his losses.

When Yahweh’s judgments are enforced, tax-subsidized prisons are superfluous. A portion of today’s prison population would be set free for having been convicted of non-biblical crimes created by the State. A large percentage of prisoners, after being retried, would be executed for their capital crimes.19 Thieves would be released to either pay restitution to their victims or be indentured until their debt is paid.20 (Chapter 22, which addresses Amendment 13, will provide more regarding indentured servitude versus the United States Penal system.)

The argument that all prisoners would have to be released based upon the idea that people cannot be prosecuted ex post facto does not stand up, because Yahweh’s law is eternal and has always been in effect. Most prisoners are cognizant that their deeds were evil. Moreover, ignorance of the law cannot be used as an excuse to escape judgment:

And if a soul sin, and commit any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of YHWH; though he wist it not [was unaware, NASB], yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. (Leviticus 5:17)

Someone might wonder what should be done with a thief who refuses to pay restitution. As contempt of court, or more properly, contempt of Yahweh and His laws, such refusal would be a capital crime:

And thou shalt come unto … the judge that shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which YHWH shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto … the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. (Deuteronomy 17:9-13)

When given the choice to either pay restitution or die, any thief will gladly choose to pay two to five times what he stole, and he will likely never steal again.21

Corpus Dilecti

Yahweh’s law does not provide for the State to levy additional fines or penalties, as is done today, for example, in most motor vehicle accidents. Unlike man’s edicts against speeding, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit, possessing firearms made illegal by the State, and innumerable other victimless “crimes,” no one is liable under Yahweh’s law unless he has caused damage or injury to someone else.

When early American laws more closely resembled Yahweh’s laws, they required a crime actually be committed, which in turn required a damaged party. This law, known as corpus dilecti, is perverted in countless present-day cases in which the State declares itself the damaged party and imposes fines upon people who have not caused damage or injury to anyone.

Additionally, under Yahweh’s law, the person at fault is responsible for damages – not an insurance company. Insurance companies contribute to irresponsibility and lawlessness by sheltering people from paying for the full consequences of their actions:

The failure of a society to ground itself on restitution, or its departure from this principle, means a growing necessity for costly protection by means of insurance. Much insurance is, all too often, a form of self-restitution, in that the buyer pays for protection against irresponsible people who will not make restitution. The large insurance premiums paid by responsible persons and corporations are their self-protection against the failure of the law to require restitution.22

Cruel and Unusual Punishments

The fact that Amendment 8 prohibits cruel and unusual punishments for crime implies that it requires punishments that are kind and usual – or humane. What is meant by these terms is anyone’s guess, since the Constitution fails to define “cruel and unusual,” leaving what are predominately unbiblical and antinomian courts to arbitrarily determine what is and is not allowable.

Capital Punishment

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet.23

Both Old and New Testaments alike prescribe capital punishment for several crimes, including the following:

…he that [intentionally] killeth any man shall surely be put to death. (Leviticus 24:17)

…knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things [capital crimes] are worthy of death…. (Romans 1:32)

Certain people consider the judgment for the Sixth Commandment transgression in Leviticus 24:17 oxymoronic, but only because they refuse to distinguish between intentional and justifiable homicide. According to the Bible, capital punishment for capital crimes – transgressions of the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Commandments – is clearly justifiable homicide.24

Former attorney general of Florida Robert L. Shevin succinctly presented the case for capital punishment:

The human capacity for good and for compassion makes the death penalty tragic; the human capacity for evil and depraved behavior makes the death penalty necessary.25

One of the reasons the Eighth Amendment does not delineate what is cruel and unusual is because the so-called founding fathers disagreed upon what constituted such treatment. Some of them believed capital punishment itself was cruel and unusual:

There were some significant voices at the time in favor of abolishing capital punishment. Some argued that the success of the new republic should depend upon the virtue of its citizens and not on their fear of a harsh penal code, which many saw as the hallmark of tyranny. Benjamin Rush, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, declared that “capital punishments are the natural offspring of monarchical governments.” Even a conservative like Alexander Hamilton [one of the signatories of the United States Constitution] believed that “the idea of cruelty inspires disgust,” and that the death penalty undermined republican values and behavior.26

…in 1794, the Pennsylvania legislature abolished capital punishment for all crimes except murder “in the first degree”…. In New York, in 1796, the legislature authorized construction of the state’s first penitentiary, abolished whipping, and reduced the number of capital offenses from thirteen to two. Virginia and Kentucky passed similar reform bills. Four more states reduced its [sic] capital crimes: Vermont in 1797, to three; Maryland in 1810, to four; New Hampshire in 1812, to two and Ohio in 1815, to two. Each of these states built state penitentiaries….

Finally, in 1846, Michigan became the first state to abolish the death penalty (except for treason against the state)…. In 1852, Rhode Island abolished the death penalty led by Unitarians, Universalists, and especially Quakers.27

Presently, fifteen states have repealed the death penalty altogether.

Although the virtue of capital punishment was settled by Yahweh in His law long ago, the debate over the death penalty rages on thanks, in part, to the ambiguity of Amendment 8’s wording:

In a totally unexpected opinion in June 1972, a closely divided Supreme Court vacated the death sentences of approximately 600 inmates in prisons across the country. In Furman v. Georgia, the majority held that imposition of the then existing capital punishment schemes violated the ban on cruel and unusual punishment. …[the Court ruled] that the legal methods by which it was applied were irrational and arbitrary and as such, violated the Eighth Amendment.28

The capriciousness of the Supreme Court regarding “cruel and unusual punishments” is witnessed by its varied and often contradictory decisions. Consider the following sampling:

These are but a few examples of a government of, by, and for a whimsical people, adjudicated by a capricious court system:

…public perceptions of standards of decency with respect to criminal sanctions are not conclusive. A penalty must also accord with “the dignity of man,” which is the basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment….29

As we have seen in discussions of other rights, constitutional meanings do change over time as conditions evolve. What may seem appropriate in one era may look vastly different to another generation. Although the U.S. judicial system, in interpreting the Constitution, is bound by the words of that document, and, to a degree, by the intent of the Framers, courts have attempted to make the application of their words relevant to contemporary society….30

We have nothing to guide us in defining what is cruel and unusual apart from our own consciences. A punishment which is considered fair today may be considered cruel tomorrow. And so we are not dealing with a set of absolutes. Our decision must necessarily spring from the mosaic of our beliefs, our backgrounds and the degree of our faith in the dignity of the human personality.31

What we find described above is government ruled by the prevailing humanism of the day, or as put by Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900): “his [the criminal’s] punishment … is meted out in accordance with precisely the degree of astonishment the latter [judges] feel when they regard the incomprehensible nature of his deed.”32

In Trop v. Dulles, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote regarding “evolving standards of decency” as they pertain to applying the Eighth Amendment:

The [Eighth] Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.33

Man’s standards – including the Constitution – are “not conclusive,” leading to confusion and contradiction. Yahweh’s standards are the polar opposite of man’s; they are authoritative, never changing, and therefore, completely trustworthy.

Juveniles, Mentally Retarded, and Insane

The Eighth Amendment’s “cruel and unusual punishments” clause paved the way for death penalty exceptions for juveniles and the mentally retarded. In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for anyone under the age of eighteen violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments,” and in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), the Court held that it would likewise be cruel and unusual to execute anyone mentally retarded. Consequently, insanity pleas have become a common means for criminals to elude capital punishment.

On May 17, 2010, “In Graham v. Florida [No. 08–7412], the [United States Supreme] court’s majority held that it is unconstitutional to sentence juvenile offenders, who have not killed anyone, to life in prison with no chance of parole.”34

Yahweh’s judicial system provides no exceptions for age or impaired mental capacity. Although the following remarks from Ronald L. Dart may appear insensitive, they merit consideration:

We think nothing of destroying germs that threaten the body. Why not destroy the human “germs” that threaten society? Some human life forms are not fit to survive. Why not kill them off … [improving] the genetic code by weeding out those unfit to survive.

If society doesn’t do it, then perhaps the criminals will kill one another off…. But the danger here is that the weaker criminals will be killed off, slowly creating an ever stronger criminal class…. So here is a world where the criminal class gets ever stronger while the upright class gets weaker. This description seems uncomfortably close to what is happening in our society right now.35

Murderers

Yahweh’s law does not provide any exceptions whatsoever for convicted murderers. Leviticus 24:17 and other passages dictate that the judgment for intentional, premeditated murder is death. Human life is so sacred to Yahweh that any man or animal who maliciously takes a person’s life is to be put to death. Death penalty opponents find this incongruent. They believe that life is so valuable that it must be protected at all costs. Contrary to their claim that capital punishment cheapens human life, it is the anti-capital punishment proponents who cheapen life. For example, if a murderer is given twenty years in prison instead of being put to death, the life of the person murdered has been assigned a value of only twenty years.

Life is sacred, but not at any cost. Even Yeshua’s36 (Jesus’ given Hebrew name) life was not so sacred that it could not be sacrificed. Some things are more sacred than even life itself. The life of a murderer is certainly not more sacred than the life of the person he murdered. Put another way, the life of the person murdered is so sacred that it requires the life of the murderer:

…surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man’s brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (Genesis 9:5-6)

Except in some instances of death resulting from negligence, murder is the one crime for which there is no clemency from the death penalty:

…ye shall take no satisfaction [restitution] for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. And ye shall take no satisfaction for him [the convicted murderer]…. So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it. (Numbers 35:31-33)

Yahweh’s law provides for monetary compensation for cases other than first degree murder. However, this is at the discretion of the blood avenger:

If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten; but the owner of the ox shall be quit. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to this judgment shall it be done unto him. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned. (Exodus 21:28-32)

Biblical instruction and the opportunity for repentance should always precede execution. The opportunity to repent was provided in Ezekiel 18, thereby allowing some people amnesty from the death penalty:

…a shedder of blood … [an idolater who] hath eaten upon the mountains, and defiled his neighbour’s wife … and hath lifted up his eyes to the idols, … shall he then live? He shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him…. The soul that sinneth, it shall die…. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed [“hath … eaten upon the mountains … hath lifted up his eyes to the idols of the house of Israel, hath … defiled his neighbour’s wife,” verses 15-17], and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. (Ezekiel 18:10-22)

Note the second list of capital crimes in verse 15 does not include murder. Murderers may be forgiven by Yahweh, but they cannot be pardoned from the death penalty.

Biblical precedence for the opportunity to repent is found in Ezra 9 and 10, where we are informed that “The holy race [the Israelites] intermingled with [“married”] the [non-Israelite] peoples of the lands.” Ezra called for the guilty to repent and then honored their repentance when those Israelites put away their foreign wives.37 Thus, in Yahweh’s sovereign plan, genuine repentance could be a consideration when judgment is being rendered in criminal cases. The Apostle Paul wrote about people who had committed capital felonies but who had become a part of the Christian community of Corinth:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind [homosexuals], nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)

Note that murderers are not listed in 1 Corinthians 6.

Execution sermons were a common practice in 17th-century New England:

The practice of preaching to a condemned man before the gallows … took on new meaning in New England, because of the smallness of the community and the strength of orthodoxy. Even the condemned man himself participated actively.

We have an eye-witness account of what happened before the execution of the murderer James Morgan at Boston in 1686. “…there was that Care taken for his Soul that three Excellent Sermons were preached before him, before his Execution; Two on the Lord’s day, and one just before his Execution.” The two Sabbath sermons … were by Cotton Mather and Joshua Moody; the sermon at the gallows by Increase Mather…. All the sermons were passionate and eloquent, calling on the criminal to repent while there was yet time and begging the congregation (that is, the whole community) to profit by this example….”

Standing before the ladder of the gallows, and looking at the coffin which he was soon to fill, Morgan sought to play his part in the ritual. He seized his last opportunity to give the sermon which only he could give…: “I pray God that I may be a warning to you all, and that I may be the last that ever shall suffer after this manner…. I beg of God, as I am a dying man, and to appear before the Lord within a few minutes, that you take notice of what I say to you. Have a care [guard yourself against] drunkenness, and ill company, and mind all good instruction; and don’t turn your back upon the word of God, as I have done…. O, that I may make improvement of this little, little time, before I go hence and be no more! O, let all mind what I am saying, now I am going out of this world! O, take warning by me, and beg of God to keep you from this sin, which has been my ruine [sic]!”

Such a sermon by a condemned man was by no means unique. Cotton Mather filled twenty closely-printed pages of his Magnalia with “An History of some Criminals Executed in New-England for Capital Crimes; with some of their dying speeches.”38

Joshua called on Achan to do essentially the same thing by means of a public confession, before having him executed:

And Joshua said unto Achan, My son, give, I pray thee, glory to the Lord God of Israel, and make confession unto him; and tell me now what thou hast done; hide it not from me. And Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the Lord God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done: When I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonish garment, and two hundred shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold of fifty shekels weight, then I coveted them, and took them; and, behold, they are hid in the earth in the midst of my tent, and the silver under it. (Joshua 7:19-21)

Judges, victims, or the victims’ next-of-kin may consider repentance and conversion as extenuating factors when determining whether criminals are put to death for capital crimes – except in cases of murder. Yahweh’s law demands that murderers must be executed:

…if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from mine altar, that he may die. (Exodus 21:14)

In 1 Kings 1:50-53, King Solomon spared Adonijah’s life for his crime of conspiracy when Adonijah took hold of the horns of the altar in the tabernacle. But when the murderer Joab took the same desperate measure in 1 Kings 2:28-34, Solomon refused to spare his life.

This no-clemency clause of the Sixth Commandment, which is attached only to the judgment for murderers, demonstrates just how grievous murder is to Yahweh. Perhaps only violations of the First and Second Commandments are more serious.

Stoning

Instead of attempting to make His punishments as humane as possible, Yahweh chose some of the crueler and more unusual forms of punishments.

Stoning is Yahweh’s principal means of carrying out public executions (Leviticus 20:2, 7; 24:16; Numbers 15:32-34; Deuteronomy 13:6-10; 17:2-5; 21:20-21; 22:20-21, 23-24). It is a means of capital punishment the framers would have shunned as cruel and unusual, and it certainly would not have met all of Justice William Brennan’s criteria in Furman v. Georgia (1972):

There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is “cruel and unusual.” [1] The primary principle, which I believe supplies the essential predicate for the application of the others, is that a punishment must not, by its severity, be degrading to human dignity. The paradigm violation of this principle would be the infliction of a torturous punishment of the type that the Clause has always prohibited. Yet “[i]t is unlikely that any State at this moment in history,” Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. at 666, would pass a law providing for the infliction of such a punishment. Indeed, no such punishment has ever been before this Court. The same may be said of the other principles. [2] It is unlikely that this Court will confront a severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion; no State would engage in a reign of blind terror. [3] Nor is it likely that this Court will be called upon to review a severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society; no legislature would be able even to authorize the infliction of such a punishment. [4] Nor, finally, is it likely that this Court will have to consider a severe punishment that is patently unnecessary; no State today would inflict a severe punishment knowing that there was no reason whatever for doing so. In short, we are unlikely to have occasion to determine that a punishment is fatally offensive under any one principle.39

Stoning fails to meet stipulations one and three. Stoning is degrading to one’s human dignity and American society wholly rejects it.

Here is something everyone can agree upon – stoning is indeed cruel and unusual. But this did not disqualify it as Yahweh’s preference for carrying out the death penalty. In fact, Yahweh’s standard for punishments – whether we are talking about stoning, lex talionis, or scourging – is the antithesis of man’s standards. His standards usually are the opposite of man’s.

If your paradigm is that Yahweh always knows best (obviously not the paradigm of those who framed the Constitution or of the judges of the Constitutional Republic), you will embrace Yahweh’s means of punishment and renounce the Eight Amendment as rebellion against Yahweh.

Because Yahweh is not a cruel God but rather a loving and merciful God (Exodus 34:6, etc.), who desires none to perish, but instead that they come to repentance (Ezekiel 18:23, 30-32; 2 Peter 3:9), we know His judgments are not only just, but also remedial and preventative. If the remedial effect is rejected, Yahweh’s judgments still provide deterrence to others and protection for prospective victims and latent criminals alike:

And thou shalt stone him [a promoter of false gods] with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from YHWH thy God…. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. (Deuteronomy 13:10-11)

And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before YHWH thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. (Deuteronomy 17:12-13)

…if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you. And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you. And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:18-21)

And they [the criminal’s parents] shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear. (Deuteronomy 21:20-21)

When the scorner is punished, the simple is made wise…. (Proverbs 21:11)

It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction [terror, NASB] shall be to the workers of iniquity. (Proverbs 21:15)

Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear. (1 Timothy 5:20)

Additionally, the Apostle Paul made it clear that capital punishment is a deterrent:

For [godly] rulers are … a cause of fear … for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath [punishment] upon the one who practices evil. (Romans 13:3-4 NASB)

If the death penalty is not a deterrent to criminal behavior, then those who claim that capital punishment is barbaric are right. This would then mean that Yahweh is also barbaric, since He clearly instituted capital punishment for at least nineteen different felonies.

Those who identify themselves as “New Testament Christians”40 regrettably play right into the hands of the anti-capital punishment establishment. Such Christians make a distinction between the “God of the Old Testament” and the “God of the New Testament.” They declare that the God of the Old Testament was a cruel, vengeful, and hard God whereas the God of the New Testament is a loving, merciful. and gracious God. Are there two Gods in the Bible? The Bible adamantly rejects such a notion:

…I am YHWH I change not…. (Malachi 3:6)

Yeshua [the] Christ [is] the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. (Hebrews 13:8)

Consider also the following Old Testament descriptions of Yahweh:

…YHWH God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abundant in goodness and truth. (Exodus 34:6)

O give thanks unto YHWH; for he is good; for his mercy endureth for ever. (1 Chronicles 16:34)

…thou [Yahweh] art a God ready to pardon, gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness…. (Nehemiah 9:17)

Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord YHWH: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? … For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord YHWH: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” (Ezekiel 18:23-32)

Whether viewed from the Old or New Testament perspective, Yahweh is a God of love, grace and mercy. Thus, capital punishment, conceived by a loving and merciful God, cannot be barbaric. Instead, Yahweh instituted capital punishment, as administered in His law, as a deterrent to criminal behavior. Gary North points out that the death penalty has a threefold deterrent effect:

The death penalty … provides a deterrence effect – deterring the criminal from future crime (he dies), deterring other criminals from committing similar crimes (fear of death), and deterring God from bringing His covenant judgments on the community for its failure to uphold covenant law (fear of God’s wrath).41

Ronald L. Dart and Philip G. Kayser, respectively, provide the following compelling statistics:

I saw a statistic recently that underlined the problem. Of all the men currently in prison … how many of these men had been tried and convicted of murder, had been released, and then had killed again? The number ran to more than eight hundred, including five prison guards. Five of these killers had not been released, but had killed prison guards. Whatever our academic arguments about deterrence and the death penalty, here is something we have to deal with. There are eight hundred citizens and five prison guards who would still be alive today if these killers had been quickly dispatched.42

…from the time that the death penalty was once again legal in America (1977) to February of 2007 there have only been 1137 executions. Yet the period of time has had well over half a million murders.43

Some people reject capital punishment, claiming it constitutes vengeance. Indeed it does. Instead of personal vengeance, however, it is vengeance at the hands of Yahweh by way of His judicial protocol, which helps contain vigilantism and generational feuds. Those who quote Romans 12:19 as a proof text against taking vengeance into one’s own hands, need to read further:

Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 12:19-13:4)

Capital punishment eliminates personal vengeance and replaces it with Yahweh’s:

The New Testament commands us to love of our enemies (Matthew 5:44), to not take “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” (Mt. 5:38) and to not avenge ourselves since vengeance belongs to the lord (Rom. 12:19). …if we were to apply such passages and reasoning to the state, it would rule out prisons, fines, or any other penalties too…. The truth of the matter is that these Scriptures were given to prevent private citizens from taking vengeance into their own hands. The state was to give justice; private citizens were to show love.44

On the other hand, when vengeance is left to Yahweh, it is something the righteous can rejoice in:

The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked. So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth. (Psalm 58:10-11)

Consequently, Christians should endorse capital punishment, at least when it is carried out by a Christian government according to Yahweh’s laws (Romans 13:1-7), based upon the testimony of two or more witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6-7), and with the stipulation that perjurers be put to death (Deuteronomy 19:18-21). The death penalty must be administered in a timely manner (Ecclesiastes 8:11), and stoning should be the preferable method of execution (Leviticus 20:2, etc.). This is not an endorsement for unscriptural vigilantism; biblical judicial protocol must be followed.

Additional Reasons for Stoning

Opponents to the death penalty believe that any form of capital punishment is inhumane. Even the champions of capital punishment are always looking for a more humane method to execute the condemned. Both opponents and proponents alike claim to be motivated by mercy and compassion. Mercy and compassion for whom? Certainly not for the victims, or the victims’ next-of-kin, or for society, or for latent criminals. This leaves only the convicted criminals. Unrepentant murderers, rapists, and other capital felons do not deserve our compassion and mercy. To show mercy to such criminals, implies that we are more virtuous than Yahweh.

Anti-death penalty proponents see themselves as merciful and kind, but, in truth, they are cruel to everyone but the criminal. “[T]he tender mercies of the wicked are cruel” is how Solomon put in Proverbs 12:10.

Christians today are afraid of the laws of the Bible. They are actually embarrassed by them. They do not recognize that biblical law is a two-edged sword of God’s judgment: blessing for the righteous, but cursing for the unrighteous (Romans 13:1-7). They do not understand that God’s law-order for society is merciful. For example, God requires the death penalty for kidnappers (Ex. 21:16). The death penalty used to be imposed on kidnappers in the United States, and kidnapping was rare. It is no longer imposed regularly, and kidnapping has become a blight. Kidnapping by terrorists in Europe is commonplace. Who says that God’s law regarding kidnapping is too harsh? Harsher than kidnapping itself? So it is with all of God’s civil laws [and their judgments]. They are merciful compared with the effects of unpunished evil. The modern world is learning just how unmerciful a society can be that is not governed by biblical law.45

The purpose of capital punishment is the removal of a criminal from society and its remedial effect of cleansing the community of evil, which, in turn, provides for peace and security and a well-ordered society.

Fewer criminals and, therefore, fewer victims are the obvious benefits of such public policy. Consequently, in order for the death penalty to be the greatest possible deterrent, Yahweh chose a brutal form of execution. The harsher the punishment, the greater the deterrent. People are less likely to write checks against insufficient funds when they are penalized thirty dollars rather than thirty cents. Likewise, people are less likely to commit felonies when the maximum penalty is the mandatory consequence for unrepentant criminals. This is especially true if it is compulsory for the whole community to attend and participate in public executions and scourgings, as required by Yahweh’s law:

And YHWH spake unto Moses, saying, Bring forth him that hath cursed without the camp; and let all that heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation [community] stone him. …And he that blasphemeth the name of YHWH, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land…. (Leviticus 24:13-16)

And YHWH said unto Moses, The man [who had desecrated the sabbath] shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. (Numbers 15:35)

Yahweh did not prescribe lynchings,46 decapitations, gassings, electrocutions, or lethal injections as His method of execution. Instead, stoning is Yahweh’s principal means for executing capital criminals. This is because stoning allows for the blood avenger, or next-of-kin, the witnesses, and others in the community to be personally involved in the execution:

But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities [of refuge]: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die. (Deuteronomy 19:11-12)

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:6-7)

If we return to Yahweh’s cruel and unusual form of capital punishment, requiring the entire community to participate, not only would there be far fewer criminals, but crime would become almost unheard of. Of course, some people’s so-called sense of decency will not allow them to entertain a return to Yahweh’s righteous judgments. Anyone who prefers to show mercy to a convicted criminal rather than assuring greater public safety is only concerned about protecting his own sensibilities and making himself feel good.

Stoning is especially important as it pertains to the witnesses. Witnesses must be so certain of their testimony that they, along with the blood avengers, are prepared to initiate judgment upon the person against whom they testify. This mandatory provision for direct participation by the witnesses in the death of the person they assisted in convicting helps to assure more certain testimony. Stoning is one of the few means of capital punishment that provides this direct involvement by the witnesses and others. Exodus 19:13 also allows the criminal to be shot as an alternative. This is probably because firing squads, whether by bows or rifles, also allow the witnesses and others to participate. This could be used as a substitute for stoning when stones are unavailable.

In non-capital cases, flogging can be prescribed as punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3), which also provides the means for the witnesses to be involved in meting out judgment.

It is sometimes argued that Yahweh ordained stoning because the contemporary methods of gassing, lethal injection, and electrocution were not available. However, lynching, decapitation, or spearing, all of which would have been swifter and, therefore, more merciful than stoning, could have been prescribed and were not. The reason for not using these three methods is obvious when it is understood that Yahweh desired capital punishment to have the greatest possible impact upon society. This can only be accomplished when the whole community is involved in the execution, which can only be achieved with stoning or a firing squad.

Yahweh does not make mistakes. He is perfect. His morality is perfect, and His laws, including His judgment of stoning is likewise perfect.

There is an additional enduring deterrent effect that only stoning can provide:

And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan … and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? YHWH shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. (Joshua 7:24-26)

And Joshua burnt Ai…. And the king of Ai he hanged on a tree [probably after he had been stoned, Deuteronomy 21:21-23] until eventide: and as soon as the sun was down, Joshua commanded that they should take his carcase down from the tree, and cast it at the entering of the gate of the city, and raise thereon a great heap of stones, that remaineth unto this day. (Joshua 8:28-29)

These heaps of stones stood as a perpetual witnesses to all succeeding generations of what comes of a wicked lifestyle. Consider the profound effect upon an young person who inquires of his father “What is this pile of stones?,” giving the father the opportunity to caution his son against the lifestyle and consequence of the executed criminal. The impact would be immense, and even more so if the father had been a witness or participant in the stoning.

The following list delineates the crimes for which an offender is to be stoned:

Lex Talionis

And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. (Exodus 21:23-25)

And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. (Leviticus 24:19-20)

And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. (Deuteronomy 19:21)

This judgment, known as lex talionis, or the law of retribution, is extremely important in its deterrent effect and its potent contribution toward eliminating crime in society.

It is not surprising that Judaism (Talmudism51) which is nearly always antithetical to biblical law, all but negates the powerful deterrent effect of lex talionis. Instead of applying this judgment literally, the Talmud assigns a monetary value for one’s eye, tooth, arm, leg, etc.:

…the desire to retaliate finds expression in such Scriptural verses as “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise” (Exod. 21:24-5; see also Lev. 24:19-20 and Deut. 19:21). …Jewish tradition [the tradition of the elders condemned by Yeshua, codified into the Talmud circa 500 A.D.] asserts that an injurer could only be required to compensate his victim financially, paying him the estimated value of the injury incurred…. (The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia)52

The Rabbis, conforming to established Pharisaic tradition, interpreted the Biblical law in such a manner as to permit a money payment as damages in every case where the Biblical law, literally applied, would have required some form of bodily mutilation comparable to that originally inflicted by the offending person (B.K. [Baba Kamma, Talmud] 83b-86a). …the so-called Biblical “law of retaliation” is not a law at all, but is rather merely a statement, presented in the Pentateuch in three varying forms, of the general principle basic to all judicial systems, that like should be compensated for by like. …the literal application of the principle had been almost completely outgrown quite early in the evolution of Biblical legislation [there is no such thing as “the evolution of Biblical legislation,” except in Judaism]. In its place the practice developed of describing a fine to be paid by the offender to the injured party…. And before the beginning of the rabbinic period, a few centuries later, the principle, despite its specific Biblical sanction, was regularly and legally evaded. Certainly it was altogether out of accord with the spirit of Judaism. (The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia) 53

…the Gemara (B. K. [Baba Kamma] 83b et seq.) first discusses why the literal rule of eye for eye must yield to the more humane law of compensation in money…. The interpretation of “eye for eye” being thus established to the satisfaction of the rabbis, there is no reason for them to doubt that “bruise for bruise” means money for the pain suffered, and does not mean the infliction of like pain…. The Mishnah says the damage is appraised by ascertaining how much the person injured would have been worth as a slave in the market before the infliction of the injury and how much he is worth after it; the difference represents the damage. (The Jewish Encyclopedia)54

It is known in the tradition of our rabbis that this means monetary compensation…. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra commented that Scripture uses such a term to indicate that he really is deserving of such a punishment [that his eye be taken from him], if he does not give his ransom. …we may take ransom from a wicked person who cut off any of the limbs of another person. Therefore we are never to cut off that limb from him, but rather he is to pay monetary compensation, and if he has no money to pay, it lies as a debt on him until he acquires the means to pay, and then he is redeemed. (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman)55

…the taking of this legal canon [Exodus 21:25] literally, in the sense of an eye for an eye, would be morally impossible for any idea of equity … the whole spirit of the text is what the traditional Halacha [Jewish law] teaches, viz. that here it is only talking of monetary compensation for the injury inflicted…. (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch)56

Many pronomian teachers have, regrettably, fallen prey to substituting Talmudic law for Yahweh’s law regarding lex talionis:

The principle involved in the Biblical law of punishment is stated in Exodus 21:23-25: “Thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning [sic] for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Some choose to interpret this literally, but the very context (Ex. 21:1-36), a delineation of offenses and penalties, makes clear that it means that the punishment must fit the crime; it must be proportionate to the offense, neither lesser nor greater. This principle is restated in Leviticus 24:17-21 and Deuteronomy 19:21.57

Not only liberal but evangelical scholars often err at this point, as witness the premillennial, dispensationalist scholar, Unger, who reads Exodus 21:24, 25 as literal….58

…the principle of lex talionis [does not] involve maiming or mutilation. It does not mean that if Jones cuts off Smith’s hand, Smith is entitled to cut off Jones’ hand…. Rather, it means Jones must pay restitution to Smith for the value of his lost hand – in medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, etc.59

These interpretations are not biblical but pharisaical. They also sound emotionally similar to the arguments made by people embarrassed by Yahweh’s mandates for capital punishment.

Lex talionis it not merely a principle, nor does the context of Exodus 21 prove otherwise. In fact, we find several reasons why lex talionis must be taken literally. Because Exodus 35:31-33 demands that no monetary restitution be accepted for the life of a murderer, we know that the statement “life for life” in Exodus 21:23 is to be taken literally. Consequently, the immediate context of Exodus 21:24-25 is clearly literal in its intent and, therefore, “eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, [and] stripe for stripe” are to be taken literally as well.

Furthermore, verses 26-27 provide exceptions, not to monetary amounts, but to the literal punishments of verses 24-25 and, in so doing, thereby differentiating between the worth of freeman and slaves.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12, which requires a woman’s hand to be amputated for maliciously grabbing a man’s genitals, must be taken literally. Otherwise, Yahweh would have simply assigned a monetary recompense and never mentioned amputation. Not only is a monetary recompense not assigned here or in Exodus 21:24-25, but nowhere is any amount affixed as to the worth of an eye, a tooth, an arm, etc. How is a comparable amount to be determined for such losses unless Yahweh Himself assigns them? Furthermore, nowhere does Yahweh specify the judgment if someone cannot afford the monetary judgment. North understood some of the implications of these questions:

…does the law so interpreted [monetarily] lead to class antagonism? What if the criminal is poor? He cannot pay what a rich man can afford to pay. Is it fair to allow a rich man to forfeit only money, when the poor man must forfeit his eye or tooth or else become an indentured servant to pay off the debt? Will violent rich people become more careless than violent poor people with regard to injuring others? Are the rich being taught to care less for the law of God than the poor do? If the rich can buy their way out, is society thereby allowing the development of resentment among the poor, who feel that the law is working against them? Is society implicitly subsidizing rich criminals?

The most important questions are these: Has the “eye for eye” principle been abandoned when economic restitution is substituted for physical punishment? Will God honor a society that abandons this literal principle?60

That Deuteronomy 19:21 requires “thine eye shall not pity” in carrying out lex talionis is also indicative of a literal application. This phrase is only used three times in the Bible. It is used twice in Deuteronomy 19: in verse 13 regarding executing murderers and in verse 21 as it applies to lex talionis. The third instance is found in Deuteronomy 25:12 in reference to the hand amputation of the woman who injures a man’s genitals. “Thine eye shall not pity” is never used in reference to a monetary remuneration. Why not? Because no one is likely to show pity if that is all that is required.

Judges 1, in which the Canaanite King Adoni-bezek was captured and punished by the Judahites and Simeonites, provides biblical precedent for the literal interpretation of lex talionis:

Adoni-bezek fled; and they pursued after him, and caught him, and cut off his thumbs and his great toes. And Adoni-bezek said, Threescore and ten kings, having their thumbs and their great toes cut off, gathered their meat under my table: as I have done, so God hath requited me. (Judges 1:6-7)

The literal application of this judgment was exercised by Yahweh when judging nations. For example, the Egyptians, who were responsible for the deaths of countless Israelites baby boys, paid with the loss of their own first-born sons.

The most powerful argument for a literal interpretation of lex talionis is its unquestionably potent deterrent effect upon latent criminals:

The principle of “eye for eye” is easily understood. It allows people to evaluate in advance their potential liabilities for actions that inflict physical harm on others. This encourages personal responsibility. It also encourages people to make accurate assessments of potential costs and benefits of their actions. This is the biblical principle of counting the cost (Luke 14:28-30). It is basic to biblical liberty that individuals count the costs of their behavior….

The law of God establishes the “eye for eye” principle. Men can assess, in advance, what their punishment is likely to be if they transgress the law. They can count the potential cost of violence. This is a restraining factor on all sin. A person can imagine the costs to his potential victim of losing an eye or a tooth. If convicted, the criminal will bear a comparable cost.61

How much more potent when an “eye for an eye,” is taken literally?

…lex talionis … may seem brutal. Judicially unregulated violence is more brutal…. This no doubt repels the sense of justice of covenant-breakers, but God is not concerned about the ethical sensibilities of covenant-breakers.62

This does not mean that lex talionis must be executed in every maiming incident. It is only required when the victim demands it.

There are added stipulations to lex talionis found in Exodus 21:18-19, which, in addition to any physical judgment required from verses 24-25, demands monetary remuneration:

…if men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed; if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished [shall not be put to death]; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed. (Exodus 21:18-19, NASB)

In Baba Kamma 8:1, the Jewish Mishnah – the first written compendium of Judaism’s Oral Law, later codified circa 500 AD as a part of the Babylonian Talmud – adds the unbiblical requirement of compensation for the injured person’s pain, suffering, and embarrassment or indignity. That these additional “damages” are often included in today’s court judgments is more evidence that Talmudic “law,” not Yahweh’s law, dominates the judicial system of the United States Constitutional Republic.

Not only did the constitutional framers not promote lex talionis, they even legislated against it in Amendment 8 – in effect, once again, ruling against Yahweh.

Mahatma Gandhi is reputed to have said, “An eye for eye makes the whole world blind,” but, in fact, the deterrent effect of lex talionis ensures far fewer maimed or murdered people in society. Lex talionis provides for equitable retribution while restricting the extent of retaliation, thus keeping the punishment proportional to the crime (Exodus 21:23-25, Leviticus 24:18-20). In other words, Yahweh’s judgment demands an arm for an arm, not an arm, a leg, and an eye for an arm.

Lex talionis promotes personal responsibility and makes the insurance industry obsolete. A downsized and smaller government is an additional benefit. Federal agencies such as OSHA and the Federal Drug Administration would be superfluous under its enforcement. Oversight of a speedy trial and administration of the proper judgment would be the only government intervention required.63

Christian Fear of the Judgments

Run ye to and fro … and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that executeth judgment, that seeketh the truth; and I will pardon it. (Jeremiah 5:1)

Every viable, dynamic law contains three integral components: commandments, statutes, and judgments. Moses revealed that Yahweh’s law is comprised of these three components:

…he [Yahweh] declared unto you his covenant [law], which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments…. And Yahweh commanded me [Moses] at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4:13-14)

Without any one of these three components, the law is essentially crippled. For example, modern society has initiated traffic laws for the safe operation of motorized vehicles. One of man’s commandments for this area of law is: “Thou shalt not speed.” However, without statutes to explain what speeding is in each particular situation (20 miles per hour in school zones, 30 miles per hour in residential zones, 55 miles per hour on two-lane highways, etc.), the commandment cannot be fully understood or obeyed. In like manner, unless the law has judgments that are brought to bear upon the transgressors, the law has no “teeth” by which to check potential transgressors.

That Yahweh intends for the judgments (which alone determine dominion) to be in the hands of His people is unmistakable:

Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye YH. (Psalm 149:6-9)

Be that as it is, even most so-called pronomians abdicate one third of the Yahweh’s Constitution – the judgments – to the non-Christians. Consider John Calvin’s and the Westminster Confession’s statements regarding the judgments:

…there are some who deny that any commonwealth can be properly ordered if it is governed simply by the laws common to all nations, but without embracing the political laws [judgments] of Moses…. We must bear in mind here the commonplace division of the whole Law of God, as promulgated by Moses, into moral, ceremonial and judicial parts, and we must consider these parts separately, so as to be certain which of them apply to us, and which less so. Nor should we allow ourselves to be detained by the quibble that judicial and ceremonial laws also have to do with morality. The old authors who handed down this division … did not call them [the ceremonial and judicial laws] “moral” laws, because they could be changed and abrogated without danger to morals….

And therefore, just as ceremonies could be abrogated without dutifulness to God being in any way impaired, so judicial laws could be abrogated…. And if this is true and it certainly is, then individual peoples have been left the freedom to make what laws they see to b expedient, but all of these laws must be measured against the law of love.

John Calvin64

To them [Old Covenant Israel] also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws [the judgments], which expired with the state of that people….

Westminster Confession65

Of course, there is no biblical justification for equating Yahweh’s judgments with the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Covenant, which were fulfilled and done away with by Yeshua and His blood-atoning sacrifice. There is also no justification for the “commonplace division” of Yahweh’s laws into “moral, ceremonial and judicial parts,” by which the ceremonial and the judicial are eliminated from Yahweh’s morality. That murderers and sodomites be put to death, for example, is indisputably a part of Yahweh’s morality and, thus, a part of His very nature. Thus to abrogate Yahweh’s judgments is to abrogate a portion of Yahweh Himself. Although this “commonplace division” has no biblical justification, the Bible often describes Yahweh’s moral laws by its three fundamental parts: commandments, statutes, and judgments.

In his book entitled Law & Covenant, in which he promotes Yahweh’s law under the New Covenant, Ronald L. Dart claims the following about Yahweh’s judgments:

But what about those judgments? Aren’t some of them outdated? Yes and no. Judgments do not require literal obedience. They may be dated, but they still serve as precedents in law. Judgments are obeyed in the spirit of the law…. We are supposed to think about them, or in the words of the psalmist, to meditate on them, for they are the will of God applied to a given time and place.66

Like so many others, Dart believes stoning and lex talionis are outdated and were for another “time and place” and “untenable in the modern world.”67 He may not despise Yahweh’s judgments, as did those in Ezekiel 20:13, but like most contemporary Christians, he is embarrassed by them. Like most anti-judgment pronomians, Dart later turned over the judgments to “the civil government of the time,”68 but (unlike the Apostle Paul in Romans 13) without distinguishing between godly and ungodly governments:

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. (Romans 13:3-4)

Not all governments fit this description. The civil magistrates in verses 3 and 4 are described as ministers of God. Is that, by any stretch of the imagination, an accurate description of most bureaucrats and politicians in office today? What does the term “minister of God” mean? The answer is quite simple: a government official who ministers on behalf of God and His laws:

And he [King Jehoshaphat] set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, and said to the judges, Take heed what ye do: for ye judge not for man, but for YHWH, who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear of YHWH be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with YHWH our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts [a bribe, NASB]. (2 Chronicles 19:5-7)

Moses warned his judicial appointees that their judgments were to be the judgments of Yahweh:

And I charged your judges at that time, saying, Hear the causes between your brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s…. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)

Only civil rulers who adjudicate on behalf of Yahweh and according to His laws fit Paul’s description of “ministers of God.” Instead of manifesting the godly leadership qualifications listed in Chapter 5, current United States government officials commit such atrocities as:

Because these are not the actions of a “minister of God to [us] for good,” America’s present government does not fit the description in Romans 13. It is better depicted by the following maxim: “No one’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session,” which is just another way of saying what Solomon wrote in Proverbs 29:

When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn. (Proverbs 29:2)

Calvin’s two-kingdom and anti-judgment theology, inevitably led to dangerous conclusions regarding Romans 13:

…we are to be subject not only to the authority of those princes who do their duty towards us as they should, and uprightly, but to all of them, however, they came by their office, even if the very last thing they do is to act like [true] princes…. Those who govern for the public good are true examples … and signs of his goodness; those who govern unjustly and intemperately have been raised up by him [Yahweh] to punish the iniquity of the people. Both are equally furnished with that sacred majesty, with which he has endowed legitimate authority…. And hence, as far as public obedience is concerned, they are to be held in the same honour and reverence as would be accorded an excellent king…. …nor must we be in any doubt that we must honour the worst tyrant in the office in which the Lord has seen fit to set him.74

As for us … let us take the greatest possible care never to hold in contempt, or trespass upon, that plenitude of authority of magistrates …whose majesty it is for us to venerate … even when it is exercised by individuals who are wholly unworthy of it and who do their best to defile it by their wickedness.75

Unlike Calvin and so many of today’s preachers, those who preached prior to America’s War of Independence had no difficulty seeing Paul’s intent in Romans 13. Just thirty-six days prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Pastor Samuel West preached a sermon from Romans 13:

Can we conceive of a more perfect, equitable, and generous plan of government than this which the apostle has laid down … to have rulers appointed over us to encourage us to every good and virtuous action, to defend and protect us in our just rights and privileges, and to grant us everything that can tend to promote our true interest and happiness; to restrain every licentious action, and to punish every one that would injure or harm us; to become a terror of evil-doers; to make it their constant care and study, day and night, to promote the good and welfare of the community, and to oppose all evil practices? Deservedly may such rulers be called the ministers of God for good. They carry on the same benevolent design towards the community which the great Governor of the universe does toward his whole creation.76

Regrettably, few preachers today see as clearly as Pastor Jonathan Mayhew did in 1749 when he preached the following regarding Romans 13:

If rulers are a terror to good works, and not to the evil; if they are not ministers for good to society, but for evil and distress, by violence and oppression; if they execute wrath upon sober, peaceable persons, who do their duty as members of society, and suffer rich and honorable knaves to escape with impunity; if, instead of attending continually upon the good work of advancing the public welfare, they attend continually upon the gratification of their own lust and pride and ambition, to the destruction of the public welfare; if this be the case, it is plain that the apostle’s argument for submission does not reach them; they are not the same, but different persons from those whom he characterizes, and who must be obeyed, according to his reasoning.77

What these early American pastors preached is borne out in the word “revenger” in verse 4 of Romans 13. It is translated from the Greek ekdikos, which means “carrying justice out,”78 or executing righteousness. Righteousness originates from only one source:

…Only in YHWH are righteousness and strength. (Isaiah 45:24)

Righteous art thou, O YHWH, and upright are thy judgments. (Psalm 119:137)

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews testified to Yahweh’s righteous, or just, judgments:

…we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip [drift away from it, NASB]. For … every transgression and disobedience [during the Mosaic Covenant] received a just recompence of reward [the punishment he deserved, TEV]. (Hebrews 2:1-2)

The government described by Paul in Romans 13 is one that carries out the righteousness, or justice, of Yahweh.79 Solomon made it clear that only the righteous can carry out Yahweh’s justice:

Evil men understand not judgment [justice, NASB]: but they that seek YHWH understand all things. (Proverbs 28:5)

Consequently, to fail to distinguish between godly and ungodly governments (as Christians like Dart have done here in America) – which inevitably turns judgment over to the unrighteous – is not only unbiblical, but a recipe for disaster:

Therefore the law is slacked, and [righteous] judgment doth never go forth: for the wicked doth compass about [surround, NASB] the righteous; therefore wrong judgment proceedeth. (Habakkuk 1:4)

Article 6’s interdiction against biblical leadership requirements and Amendment 1’s provision for non-Christian religions are principally responsible for the wicked having surrounded the righteous here in America. The consequences are precisely as described by Habakkuk.

This desertion of implementing and executing Yahweh’s judgments by Christians is also one of the primary means by which Christian dominion has been lost. Whoever defines criminal behavior and dispenses judgment clearly rules society. This aversion to Yahweh’s judgments can only mean that such antinomians believe man’s judgments are superior to Yahweh’s and that non-Christians are more competent than Christians at dispensing judgment, which in turn means that most modern Christians – antinomians and “pronomians” alike – do not believe the following passages:

…the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether. (Psalm 19:9)

…thy judgments are good…. Righteous art thou, O YHWH, and upright are thy judgments…. Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (Psalm 119:137, 160)

Even so, Lord God Almighty, true and righteous are thy judgments…. (Revelation 16:7)

Christians who do not believe Psalm 19:9 (“the judgments of YHWH are true and righteous altogether”) also do not believe Psalm 19:7 (“the law of Yahweh is perfect”), because any law void of its judgments is an imperfect law, lacking one third of its indispensable components.

To abolish a Commandment’s judgment is to make impotent the Commandment the judgment enforces. North explains this exegetical incongruity:

There has been an ancient tradition on the part of Christian commentators of appealing selectively to Old Testament laws whenever convenient in moral arguments, but almost never to the God specified sanctions…. This is wholly illegitimate exegetically, and it has led to the accusation by consistent critics that Christians who uphold “the moral law of God” apart from God’s specified civil sanctions are hypocritical, that they want all the moral benefits of theocracy without any of the embarrassing theocratic sanctions.80

Antinomian author Roy L. Aldrich eloquently makes this very point and, in so doing, exposes a glaring inconsistency of any alleged pronomian who does not believe in the enforcement of Yahweh’s judgments:

If the Ten Commandments of the law are still binding then all of the penalties must remain the same. The death penalties should be imposed for Sabbath-breaking, idolatry, adultery, rebellion against parents, etc. To change the penalty of a law means to abolish that law. A law without a penalty is an anomaly. A law with its penalty abolished becomes only good advice.81

Not only do most of today’s Christians not believe in Yahweh’s righteous judgments, they are horrified at the idea of them – particularly stoning – being implemented despite the fact that the Scriptures declare that the execution of Yahweh’s judgments are preferred by Him above sacrifices and are a joy to a righteous man:

For YHWH loveth judgment…. The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment. (Psalm 37:28-30)

To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to YHWH than sacrifice…. It is joy to the just to do judgment: but destruction shall be to the workers of iniquity. (Proverbs 21:3, 15)

It is also through Yahweh’s judgments that the rest of the world learns of His righteousness and is led to His truth:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as YHWH my God commanded me…. Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people. For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as YHWH our God is in all things that we call upon him for? And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? (Deuteronomy 4:5-8)

…when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. (Isaiah 26:9)

Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? For thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest. (Revelation 15:6)

Wickedness is described as turning away from not only Yahweh’s statutes, but also His judgments:

For I have kept the ways of YHWH, and have not wickedly departed from my God. For all his judgments were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from me. (Psalm 18:21-22)

This also means that those opposed to Yahweh’s judgments prefer crime over judgment, criminals over the innocent, and man’s laws – at least man’s judgments – over Yahweh’s. Put another way, they would prefer people be murdered, kidnapped, raped, and plundered rather than claim responsibility for administering Yahweh’s altogether righteous judgments:

The robbery of the wicked shall destroy them; because they refuse to do judgment. (Proverbs 21:7)

Despite most pronomians’ strong belief in capital punishment, they ironically turn over the determination for what should and should not be capital offenses to the heathen. History demonstrates that their dereliction of duty may one day result in the unjust deaths of their children or grandchildren for proclaiming Yeshua as Lord and Savior.

The national punishments, prescribed in Leviticus 26 as the consequence of disobedience to Yahweh, are a result of disobeying not only Yahweh’s commandments and statutes but also His judgments:

But if ye will not hearken unto me, and will not do all these commandments; and if you shall despise my statutes, or if your soul abhor my judgments, so that ye will not do all my commandments, but that ye break my covenant: I also will do this unto you; I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague…. (Leviticus 26:14-16)

Conversely, national blessings result from keeping Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and particularly His judgments. In the following passage, do not miss the double emphasis on the judgments:

Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that YHWH thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers: And he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: he will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep…. Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle. And YHWH will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all them that hate thee. (Deuteronomy 7:11-15)

The truth is: most Christians prefer Amendment 8 of the United States Constitution over Psalm 19:9. They are guilty of the same thing Job was:

Wilt thou also disannul my [Yahweh’s] judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? (Job 40:8)

In order to return to Yahweh, we must return to His laws, including His righteous judgments:

…judgment shall return unto righteousness: and all the upright in heart shall follow it. Who will rise up for me against the evildoers? Or who will stand up for me against the workers of iniquity? (Psalm 94:15-16)

…bring them again unto thy law: yet they dealt proudly, and hearkened not unto thy commandments, but sinned against thy judgments, (which if a man do, he shall live in them;) and withdrew the shoulder, and hardened their neck, and would not hear. (Nehemiah 9:29)

North clearly depicts the problem:

The modern church simply pays no attention to God’s ecclesiastical sanctions. Therefore, pagans pay very little attention to the churches. Why should they? The church is like an army without hierarchical order and without sanctions against mutiny. Such an army cannot win a battle. Pagans instinctively recognize this; Christians may also sense it, but then they blame eschatology rather than their own judicial cowardice.82

The Apostle Paul looked forward to a day when Christians would rule and carry out Yahweh’s judgments as described in His law:

…I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. (1 Corinthians 4:8)

Paul desired Christians to reign over Yahweh’s enemies rather than be servants of Yahweh’s enemies. What righteous man doesn’t desire the same? 1 Corinthians 6:1-6 establishes Paul’s expectation for Christians to set up their own courts of law. (See Chapter 6, “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation.”) By whose laws these courts are to be run, and whose judgments are to be administered?

Romans 13:1-7 establishes Paul’s anticipation of the day when righteous ministers of God would carry out judgment upon the wicked. Judgments, based upon whose standard?

1 Timothy 1:8-11 declares that Yahweh’s “law is good” and that “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God….” The only aspect of the law that applies to such non-repentant criminals is Yahweh’s judgments. When Christians rule, Yahweh expects them to execute His judgments upon criminals.

2 Corinthians 10:4-6 establishes that Paul expected Christians to take dominion of every aspect of society, including the punishment of the wicked:

For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in a readiness to revenge [punish, NASB] all disobedience, when your obedience is fulfilled. (2 Corinthians 10:4-6)

Think about verse 6 in particular. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever if Paul is only talking about punishing disobedience in the church. Why would he wait until their obedience was complete to finally punish their disobedience? There is no precedent for Paul doing this in other instances. Instead, Paul was looking forward to the time when the ecclesia had matured, grown, and become powerful enough to control the civil body politic and thereby carry out Yahweh’s judgments upon the wicked, including what the Constitutional framers and the Constitutional Republic’s justices would consider cruel and unusual.

If Christians ever hope to regain dominion from the non-Christians, they must be prepared to not only implement Yahweh’s commandments and statutes, but also enforce His judgments – or otherwise continue to face the consequences:

[You have] … changed my judgments into wickedness … for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them. Therefore thus saith the Lord YHWH; Because ye … have not walked in my statutes, neither have kept my judgments … behold, I, even I, am against thee, and will execute judgments in the midst of thee in the sight of the nations. (Ezekiel 5:6-8)

Click Here to read Chapter 18



Click to order the Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution CDs:

End Notes

1. Legal Encyclopedia, “Bail: Getting Out of Jail After an Arrest: Everything you need to know about bail: what it is, how it’s set, and how to pay it,” <http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/article-30225.html>.

2. J. Franklin Snook, To Heal the Nation (Salem, OR: J. Franklin Snook, 1977) p. 162.

3. Judiciary Act of 1789, Section 33, <http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/judiciary_1789.htm>.

4. “Bail,” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bail>.

5. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

6. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.

7. Martin Luther, “Martin Luther’s Sermon on Trade and Usury,” .

8. Browning-Ferris Industries v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989).

9. 492 U.S. at 265.

10. 492 U.S. at 266.

11. 492 U.S. at 268.

12. Onecle Court Opinions, “Excessive Fines,” <http://law.onecle.com/constitution/amendment-08/02-excessive-fines.html>.

13. Edward A. Powell and Rousas John Rushdoony, Tithing and Dominion (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 1979) pp. 67-68.

14. Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH – the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God – has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

15. Stephen Schafer, Restitution to Victims of Crime (Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books, 1960) p. vii, quoted in Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 274.

16. W. Cleon Skousen, The Third Thousand Years (Salt Lake City, UT: Bookcraft, 1964) p. 354, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 395.

17. In March 2009, Bernard “Bernie” Madoff, former Chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange, pleaded guilty to eleven felonies and admitted to turning his wealth management business into a massive Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors of billions of dollars.

18. Snook, p. 163.

19. The book Capital Punishment: Deterrent or Catalyst? may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*

20. The book Prisons: Shut Them All Down! may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $3 donation.*

21. For more regarding the Eighth Commandment’s restitution requirements, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for suggested $6 donation.*

22. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973/1984) p. 277.

23. Robert Winthrop, “An Address Delivered at the Annual Meeting of the Massachusetts Bible Society in Boston, May 28, 1849,” Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company, 1852) p. 172.

24. For more regarding intentional and justifiable homicide, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for suggested $4 donation.*

25. Robert L. Shevin, quoted in International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/punish.html>.

26. International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/punish.html>.

27. Michael H. Reggio, “History of the Death Penalty,” <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/history.html>.

28. Ibid.

29. Gregg v. Georgia (1976).

30. International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/punish.html>.

31. Justice Frank Murphy, draft of an unpublished dissent (1946), quoted in International Information Programs, USInfo.org, “Cruel or Unusual Punishment,” Rights of the People: Individual Freedom and the Bill of Rights, <http://usinfo.org/zhtw/DOCS/RightsPeople/punish.html>.

32. Friedrich Nietzsche, Helen Zimmern, trans., Human, All Too Human (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986) p. 313.

33. Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958).

34. “Supreme Court Rules on Juvenile Life Sentences; Federal Authority to Detain ‘Sexually Dangerous’ Inmates,” American Constitution Society, 17 May 2010, <http://www.acslaw.org/node/16119>.

35. Ronald L. Dart, Capital Punishment: A Christian Dilemma (Whitehouse, TX: Christian Educational Ministries, 1998) pp. 13-14.

36. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior’s given Hebrew name. Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the of Savior’s Hebrew name Yeshua. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God, “The Third Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

37. For more regarding the biblical injunction against forbidden lineage, and by extension interracial relationships, “The Seventh Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for suggested $6 donation.*

38. Daniel J. Borstin, The Americans: The Colonial Experience (Norwalk, CT: The Easton Press, 1958/1987) pp. 13-14.

39. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

40. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, “Baptism by the Scriptures” and “Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered” may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.

41. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 324.

42. Dart, p. 11.

43. Philip G. Kayser, Is the Death Penalty Just? (Omaha, NE: Biblical Blueprints, 2007/2009) p. 31.

44. Ibid., p. 35.

45. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 581.

46. Lynching is sometimes believed to be one of Yahweh’s methods of execution. In actuality, the corpse was sometimes hanged for public display, as an additional deterrent, after having been stoned.

47. Contempt of a biblical court is a First Commandment transgression because such defiance not only circumvents the authority of the court, but also defies Yahweh, who ordained the court.

48. This might also be considered a First Commandment transgression because such child rebellion circumvents Yahweh’s authority delegated to parents.

49. For a biblical explanation of why the prohibition against kidnapping is a Sixth Commandment rather than an Eighth Commandment statute, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

50. Some pronomians have concluded from Deuteronomy 22:23-25 that only a forced sexual violation against a married or engaged woman constitutes rape. However, because the rape of any woman constitutes a kidnapping (which is itself a capital crime), it matters not whether the woman is another man’s wife, engaged, or single. Whether it is committed against a husband’s wife or a father’s daughter, this sexual violation constitutes the forced abduction of what belongs to another man.

51. For additional documentation regarding the heretical nature of the Babylonian Talmud, God’s Covenant People: Yesterday, Today and Forever may be read online or ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $14 donation.*

52. “Retaliation,” Cecil Roth, ed., The Standard Jewish Encyclopedia (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1966) p. 1598.

53. “Retaliation, Law of,” Isaac Landman, ed., The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, 10 vols. (New York, NY: The Universal Jewish Encyclopedia, Inc., 1943) vol. 9, pp. 142-44.

54. “Assault and Battery,” Isidore Singer, ed., The Jewish Encyclopedia, 12 vols. (New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1902/1916) vol. 2, p. 225.

55. Rabbi Moses ben Nachman [Rambam], Commentary on the Torah: Exodus (New York, NY: Shiloh, [circa 1267] 1973) p. 368, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 419.

56. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch Translated and Explained, trans. Isaac Levy, 5 vols., Exodus (London, England: Honig & Sons, 1967) p. 315, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) p. 420.

57. Rushdoony, p. 229.

58. Ibid., pp. 272-73.

59. John Eidsmoe, God and Caesar: Christian Faith and Political Action (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1997) p. 201.

60. Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1990/1997) pp. 420-21.

61. Ibid, pp. 398-99.

62. Ibid., p. 429.

63. For more regarding lex talionis, “The Sixth Commandment,” “The Eighth Commandment,” and “The Ninth Commandment” may be read online, or the books Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4, $6, and $4 donation, respectively.*

64. John Calvin, Calvin On Civil Government, Book IV, Chapter 20, quoted in Harro Hopfl, trans., Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1993) pp. 66-67.

65. Westminster Confession, Chapter XIX, Section IV.

66. Ronald L. Dart, Law & Covenant (Shelbyville, KY: Wasteland Press, 2007) pp. 192-93.

67. Ibid., p. 60.

68. Ibid., p. 230.

69. for more regarding infanticide, “The Sixth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not kill may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*

70. For more regarding the biblical injunctions against homosexuality, pornography, and other abominations, “The Seventh Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not commit adultery may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for suggested $6 donation.*

71. For more regarding the biblical injunction against idolatry, “The Second Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for suggested $4 donation.*

72. For more regarding the United States’ counterfeit monetary system, property and income taxes, welfare, and other forms of theft, “The Eighth Commandment” may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not steal may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for suggested $6 donation.*

73. For more regarding the biblical mandate to be armed, “Firearms, Scripturally Defended” may be read online.

74. John Calvin, Calvin On Civil Government, Book IV, Chapter 20, quoted in Harro Hopfl, trans., Luther and Calvin on Secular Authority (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991, 1993) pp. 76-78.

75. Ibid., p. 82.

76. Samuel West, “A Sermon Preached before the Honorable Council, and the Honorable House of Representatives of the Colony of the Massachusetts-Bay, in New-England, May 29th, 1776,” quoted in John Wingate Thornton, (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) p. 291.

77. Jonathan Mayhew, “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers,” quoted in John Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution: Political Sermons of the Period of 1776 (New York, NY: Da Capo Press, 1970) pp. 70-71.

78. James Strong, “Greek Dictionary of the New Testament,” The New Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1990) p. 26.

79. Christian Duty Under Corrupt Government, an expository explanation of Romans 13:1-7, may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $7 donation.*

80. North, p. 915.

81. Roy L. Aldrich, “Causes for Confusion of Law and Grace,” Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 116 (July 1959) p. 226, quoted in Gary North, Tools of Dominion: The Case Laws of Exodus (Tyler, TX: The Institute for Christian Economics, 1997) pp. 913-14.

82. Gary North, Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989) p. 600.

*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 “freely ye have received, freely give.” Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.

Mission to Israel · P.O. Box 248 · Scottsbluff, NE 69363