By James McDermott
Part I: Crime and Punishment
There is great confusion among Christians when it comes to the area of politics. Some believe we should preach the Gospel and leave politics alone. Others are consumed in the politics of the day: abortion rights, homosexual rights, and public education. My belief is that the church should concentrate on preaching the Gospel and making disciples, but part of discipleship is being good stewards of the political rights we enjoy in this country. If we aren't good stewards with our political rights and abandon politics to the ungodly, we will find out soon enough that the political climate does, indeed, affect our ability to spread the Gospel. If politics aren't important, how would you like to be an evangelist or raise a large Christian family in Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Sudan, China, Cuba, or Pakistan? Satan does use the coercive power of government to keep people from hearing God's word, from meeting together, and from passing their faith on to their children. Do you think we could be homeschooling our eleven children if we lived in North Korea? We read in the Old Testament of men like Joseph, Moses, Joshua, David, Hezekiah, Josiah, Daniel, and Mordecai, who wielded political power for the glory of God and the protection of His people. No, we must not leave politics to the ungodly.

It isn't a matter of choosing politics or the Gospel. Our faith should affect every area of life - including our politics. We live in a country with a very pervasive and powerful government that affects us in so many ways. We should all know, therefore, what the Bible says about how people should relate to their government. However, we also live in a country where almost all of us have a small say in who runs the government and in what the policies of the government will be. Some Christians have even managed to get themselves elected to high public office or appointed to influential positions. Therefore, we should also know what the Bible says about how the government is to relate to its people. However, many Christians are ignorant on these issues. Many of us get so wrapped up in the issues surrounding our personal lives that we ignore issues that don't seem as direct or pressing - such as politics. Also, much of what the Bible says about government is located in books of the Bible some of us rarely, if ever, read. If it weren't for Psalms and Proverbs, many Christians would ignore the Old Testament. But it is in the Old Testament that much of the useful information concerning government can be found. We Christians are also ignorant because, frankly, it is easier to be ignorant than to tackle difficult and complex issues. Some of us are just lazy, but others don't want to think too deeply about things lest our complacency be exposed. We fear the unknown and potentially radical changes a truly thought-through Christian life would demand. In Romans 13, God said the governing authority is to do good and punish evil. In order to do its job, therefore, the government must be able to discern good from evil. It must also know what good it should bestow and upon whom. It must also determine what evils deserve punishment and what the punishment for each evil will be.

It would take a book to do this subject justice, but, for now, I thought it would be fun to compare the only civil government God made for a fallen people (The Mosaic civil code) and the government we have in our country today (What the Supreme Court says our Constitution says). I realize that Christians are divided over the relevance of the Mosaic laws and I'm not going to tackle the relevancy of the Mosaic civil code here. Still, you will notice that there are some interesting differences between the Mosaic laws and our own system of government. My hope is that you find the comparison interesting and that you will indulge me for my commentary. Hopefully, the differences between the law God authored and the one we have today will stimulate you to think a little more thoroughly about what God expects and doesn't expect from a government. (Before we get started, let me make one point clear: I am not comparing our government with the monarchy that existed at the time of King David. Although God allowed the Israelites to have a king, God was displeased with them for wanting to be like the nations around them. He considered their request for a king a rejection of God. I am comparing our government to the laws that were given to Moses.)

Church & State Current U.S.: The principle we hear most about is separation of church and state. Theoretically, the church isn't supposed to meddle in government affairs and the government isn't supposed to meddle in church affairs. Historically, when state and church have worked closely together, the results have not been encouraging. State supported churches have a tendency to use their special relationship with the state to persecute religious people with whom they disagree, and they also have a notorious reputation for compromising principles to accommodate forceful and evil political rulers. Therefore, the state is to protect our freedom to worship (or not worship) as we please and is to be completely impartial in matters of religion. Most American Christians believe that this kind of religious freedom - one defined by a tolerance of almost any religion - is God's best for us. We are proud of the fact that Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus can all worship freely in America and we credit our Christian heritage for protecting the religious rights of all. Isn't it interesting that we Christians in America, who understand that the governing authorities are tasked with punishing evildoers, don't see idolatry or the worship of false gods and demons as an evil the government should punish?

Mosaic Code: God did not allow freedom of religion under the Mosaic code. God tells the Israelites, "He who sacrifices to any god, other than to the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed." (Ex. 22:20) "You shall not permit a sorceress to live." (Ex. 22:18) "You shall not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds; but you shall utterly overthrow them and break their sacred pillars in pieces." (Ex. 23:24) Deuteronomy 18 says, "When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to imitate the detestable things of those nations. There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, one who uses divination, one who practices witchcraft, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who casts a spell, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For whoever does these things is detestable to the LORD; and because of these detestable things the LORD your God will drive them out before you. You shall be blameless before the LORD your God. For those nations, which you shall dispossess, listen to those who practice witchcraft and to diviners, but as for you, the LORD your God has not allowed you to do so." (Deut. 18:9-14) Thus, God was not impartial, neutral, or even tolerant of other religions. The tolerance of foreign gods was a snare to the Israelites, a root cause of their destruction, and a heinous evil. Perhaps in a culture like ours where religious tolerance is honored and condemnation of another's religion is considered rude, God's command that anyone who "sacrifices to any God, other than the LORD alone, shall be utterly destroyed," seems extremely harsh. Yet, we Christians understand the governing authorities' obligation to punish evildoers. We agree that a person who follows a false god or a false religious system is an evildoer. Have we become so accustomed to the godlessness among us that we no longer consider the worship of foreign gods a great evil? In America, it could cost a preacher and his congregation money if he says, "Hillary Clinton is evil and you shouldn't vote for her," but the worship of Satan is a constitutionally protected freedom.

Adultery Current U.S.: Although most in our culture would consider adultery morally wrong, it is certainly not criminal. There is generally no loss of life, liberty, or property associated with adultery. Attorney J. Richard Kulerski, on his website devoted to Illinois divorce law, writes, "Contrary to popular belief and myth, our legal system does not 'punish' cheating spouses. While adultery is one of Illinois' twelve grounds for divorce, that is really all that it is - a ground just like any other. Grounds have to do with the question of whether or not a divorce will be granted and do not have to do with the monetary rights of either party." (www.illinoisdivorcelaw.com) A Maryland family law website states, "Even a philandering and abusive spouse who stays away for 2 years is entitled to a divorce." (www.divorcenet.com/md) We are forced, if we stand in line at the grocery store, to be aware of the adulteries of people honored as celebrities - actors, athletes, and politicians. Adultery is rampant in our nation, but there is hardly a Christian that thinks the government should do anything about it.

Mosaic Code: In a section that begins with, "The LORD said to Moses," we read, "'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife - with the wife of his neighbor - both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Lev. 20:10) God wasn't lenient with adulterers. Not only was it criminal, it carried the ultimate penalty. In America we may throw a man in jail for stealing a merchant's dress, but there is no penalty for stealing the merchant's wife. Anyone have a problem with that?

Homosexuality Current U.S.: After the latest Supreme Court ruling, it should be clear to everyone that homosexuality is legal anywhere in America. In some jurisdictions and in some corporations, homosexual "partners" are offered the same benefits formerly reserved only for spouses. There are many laws that protect homosexuals from "discrimination" based on "sexual orientation." Even the words "sexual orientation" suggest that homosexuals are made that way and, therefore, cannot be held responsible for their homosexual actions. Again, we Christians agree that homosexuality is wrong, but few believe the government should criminalize it - especially if the penalty would be significant. I don't think a referendum to give convicted homosexuals the death penalty would fare well among Christians. Mosaic Code: God said to the Israelites, "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (Lev. 20:13) Do we think God was barbaric to make sexual sins punishable by death? Are we civilized and enlightened for legalizing homosexuality and adultery? I think not. God has never been barbaric and we are not enlightened unless "enlightened" is defined as becoming more like Sodom and Gomorrah. Polygamy Current U.S.: In 1862, Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill anti-bigamy law. In 1879 the Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds that this law was, indeed, constitutional. Polygamists are still occasionally prosecuted, as Tom Green, the 52-year-old with 5 wives and 29 children, found out in 2001. U.S. law against polygamy developed in the 19th century in response to Mormon belief and practice and the law remains unchanged. However, recent court decisions have given some liberals and libertarians hope that the polygamy laws will be struck down. "The ACLU's Clark believes there is growing support to change that. 'The bigamy statute, like the sodomy statute and like other anachronistic moralistic legislation, goes to the core of what the Supreme Court identifies as important fundamental privacy rights,' he said." That being said, I don't believe most people are sitting around hoping and praying that the polygamy laws will be struck down. It is not a politically popular issue. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has made up a Constitutional "right to privacy" and applied it to protect abortion and homosexuality. If this right to privacy as it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court is followed to its logical conclusion, I believe polygamy laws will be struck down as well.

Mosaic Code: It is interesting that after considering issues where the Mosaic Law demanded death for acts we no longer consider crimes, we have the opposite outcome here. I'm quite certain God created marriage for one man and one woman. The Scriptures say, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24) Jesus said, "Haven't you read …that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh,' so they are no longer two, but one." Notice the word "two" mentioned twice in this passage. Adam was given only one wife. Polygamy, therefore, is a perversion of the institution of marriage. Yet, God didn't make the sin of polygamy a crime when He gave His laws to Moses. To be honest, I'm surprised. But consider this contradiction. In America, a man could commit adultery with a thousand men's wives and there would be no penalty. If a man marries two unattached women, however, he may be fined and thrown in jail.

Murder Current U.S.: Laws vary from state to state, but murder is still a crime that in most jurisdictions offers the theoretical possibility of the death penalty. I say theoretical because there were 15,980 murders in 2001 according to the FBI, but there were only 66 executions. That makes the execution rate about 0.4% of the murder rate. Convicted murderers on average are actually serving much shorter sentences than life imprisonment. Statistics made available by Crime Victims United state that in Oregon the average sentence for a murderer sentenced under the sentencing guidelines was 16.6 years. These sentences were eventually reduced 17% on average for good behavior while incarcerated. Of course, in most states there are several different degrees of murder. Premeditated murder carries the toughest penalty, but there is also second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter. Manslaughter sentences are generally much less severe than murder convictions. Basically, the difference between degrees of murder is the killer's state of mind at the time of the killing. In our system, the importance of the killer's state of mind has led to some interesting defenses - defenses that would be humorous if there wasn't a murder victim involved. One example is the infamous "Twinkie Defense," in which a man's sentence for killing the mayor of San Francisco and a councilman was reduced from murder to manslaughter because his diet of junk food prior to the killings was said to have exacerbated his depression. Of course, we haven't accounted at all for the million legal murders performed each year by abortion providers. Killing an unborn child is perfectly legal. Most Christians oppose abortion, but how many would advocate the death penalty for the abortionist? For the mother? Is abortion murder or not?

Mosaic Code: God said, "'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him." (Num. 35:16-21) Thus, there is no distinction between first-degree and second-degree murder and all murders carried the death penalty. If a man kills another indirectly through negligence, he, too, may be killed. It is interesting to note, however, that he may be able to buy-off the family of his victim. God said, "If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded. This law also applies if the bull gores a son or daughter. (Ex. 21:28-31) Even if a person kills another by accident, there may still be negative consequences. "But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations. The assembly must protect the one accused of murder from the avenger of blood and send him back to the city of refuge to which he fled. He must stay there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the holy oil. "But if the accused ever goes outside the limits of the city of refuge to which he has fled and the avenger of blood finds him outside the city, the avenger of blood may kill the accused without being guilty of murder. The accused must stay in his city of refuge until the death of the high priest; only after the death of the high priest may he return to his own property. … Do not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a city of refuge and so allow him to go back and live on his own land before the death of the high priest." (Num. 35:22-28,32) Thus, even a man who kills someone accidentally would have to leave his property and stay within the city of refuge until the death of the high priest - potentially a life-long punishment. The Law of Moses did not allow exceptions because the killer was a minor, retarded, insane, had a rough childhood, was on drugs, on Prozac, or on an all-Twinkie diet. Murderers were to be put to death. This even applied to those who killed an unborn child. The Scriptures say this: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (Ex. 21:22-25) So much for our concept that an unborn child is not a person and deserves no protection.

Stealing Current U.S.: Punishment for stealing tends to become more severe when the value of the thing stolen is greater and when the thief has had prior convictions. However, because laws vary from state to state and because judges can have significant discretion in sentencing, it is difficult to say exactly what the penalty for stealing is. According to the website of the California criminal defense law firm of Takakjian, Sowers, and Sitkoff, theft is considered a misdemeanor if the stolen items are valued at under $400 and carries a potential sentence of up to 6 months in jail and a fine of up to $1000. If the items are valued at over $400 the thief could serve a longer state prison term and fined up to $10,000. "If convicted, a mandatory jail sentence and restitution to the victim is almost always ordered as a condition of probation." In a lengthy and technical article on new sentencing standards for larger fraud cases, Jefferson M. Gray and Breckinridge write that a "straightforward" case of fraud of $1,000,000 involving a first time offender would involve a prison sentence of roughly 4 years. A fraudulent scheme by a person in a position of trust, such as a physician, or someone who involved a large number of people in his theft would incur a greater penalty. Of course, I also read an Associated Press article about a man who had 51 previous arrests who got a 40-year sentence for stealing 22 rolls of toilet paper from a landfill. On the other hand, I read a Washington Post article called "The Rosa Lee Story" which chronicled the exploits of a Washington D.C. woman who had made shoplifting her lifelong profession. Despite numerous convictions she was never in jail more than a few months and never stopped stealing. She even brought her children and then her grandchildren along to help her. Through deceit and the ability to make herself pitiful, she was able to win the sympathy of judges who perpetually gave her another chance. What has evolved is a system that is unfair to all. One never knows for sure what the penalty will be. How could a man who had been convicted 51 times have foreseen a 40-year sentence for stealing toilet paper?

Mosaic Code: In the book of Exodus we read, "If a man steals an ox or a sheep and slaughters it or sells it, he must pay back five head of cattle for the ox and four sheep for the sheep. If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, he is guilty of bloodshed. A thief must certainly make restitution, but if he has nothing, he must be sold to pay for his theft. If the stolen animal is found alive in his possession - whether ox or donkey or sheep - he must pay back double." (Ex. 22:1-4) The previous section involved a direct form of stealing. The following verses show how less direct forms of stealing were to be handled. "The LORD said to Moses, 'If anyone sins and is unfaithful to the LORD by deceiving his neighbor about something entrusted to him or left in his care or stolen, or if he cheats him, or if he finds lost property and lies about it, or if he swears falsely, or if he commits any such sin that people may do - when he thus sins and becomes guilty, he must return what he has stolen or taken by extortion, or what was entrusted to him, or the lost property he found, or whatever it was he swore falsely about. He must make restitution in full, add a fifth of the value to it and give it all to the owner on the day he presents his guilt offering.'" (Lev. 6:1-5) This is a much simpler and understandable system. God didn't change the penalty depending on the history of the thief or whether the thief was in a position of trust. He had no separate punishment schedule for thefts of greater amounts. The penalty wasn't based on a person's ability to get sympathy from the judge. If a man stole sheep and sold them, the number of sheep was multiplied by 4 and the penalty determined. How might this apply today? If a teenager stole $250 worth of department store clothes, she would have to pay $1000. If the penalty couldn't be paid, then she would be sold as a slave to pay the debt. Besides being less complex, God's system did not mention jail time. In fact, none of the penalties we have discussed from the Mosaic code mention jail time. For property crimes, restitution plus a penalty was involved. Other crimes carried the death penalty. God didn't choose to use prison as a means of dealing with criminals. Is that because God wasn't enlightened and humane - as we are now? Or, could there be a better, more effective, less expensive way of dealing with criminals that we have rejected?

Concluding Part 1 (Crime and Punishment) If the Law of Moses hadn't been authored by God, many American Christians would call the originator of this law uncivilized and harsh. The liberal use of the death penalty and the selling of thieves into slavery grates against our Western sensibilities. Yet, when we take a closer look, we can see that our law is inconsistent. Our laws over time reflect less and less the Law of Moses and increasingly reflect what we consider to be a more reasonable, compassionate, and civilized code. But how do we account for the fact that the more "civilized" our laws have become the more uncivilized our behavior has become? This phenomenon is consistent with what happened to the Israelites as well. When they abandoned God, they abandoned His law and became more violent and more corrupt. God thought the Israelites should be proud of His law. He said through Moses: "See, I have taught you decrees and laws as the LORD my God commanded me, so that you may follow them in the land you are entering to take possession of it. Observe them carefully, for this will show your wisdom and understanding to the nations, who will hear about all these decrees and say, 'Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.' What other nation is so great as to have their gods near them the way the LORD our God is near us whenever we pray to him? And what other nation is so great as to have such righteous decrees and laws as this body of laws I am setting before you today?" (Deut. 4:5-8) Apparently, God didn't think His law was uncivilized. Do you think it is possible that God knows better than we, or Sigmund Freud, or the Supreme Court, or even James Madison what a righteous body of laws should be like?