Hello Crowmaw,
Originally posted by crowMAW
Deuteronomy 13: 1-18
But specifically: Deuteromomy 13:5 "And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn you away from the LORD your God..."
And Deut 13:8-9 "thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him but thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people"
Crowmaw, please understand that these verses are applied in one of three ways by bible believing Christians. In none of them is the verse simply carried over and the assertion made that we should establish a theocracy in which false prophets are put to death by stoning. In giving you a thorough answer, I'm going to end up boring most people to tears.
For instance, let me start with the majority report amongst American Evangelicals - Arminian Dispensationalism, and as I do so, please let me stress that I am neither an Arminian nor a Dispensationalist, so I am merely reporting, in a simplified fashion, how other Christians who would identify themselves as bible-believing & evangelical understand these verses.
Dispensationalists make a definite break between the theology of the Old Testament and the theology of the New. They believe that the law applied to a different group of believers (Old Testament Jews) and was never intended to be observed by New Covenant gentiles who are saved apart from the works of the Law. They stress that Paul and the Apostles affirmed that the Law was given to the Jewish people and that only they were called upon to keep it (which they also point out they failed to do) and hold that unless a law is repeated in the New Testament, its force is abrogated. Therefore Dispensationalists would hold that they are subject only to the "law of Christ" and His commands for holiness. This theology has predominated amongst American evangelicals since the publication of the Schofield Reference Bible in the 19th century. Therefore there are no Dispensational schools advocating the stoning of false prophets, this is providential because there are a lot of modern Charismatic/Pentecostal leaders who have made reams of prophecies which have subsequently turned out to be false.
Prior to the rise of Dispensational theology in the 19th century, the major stream of interpretation in evangelical protestant circles was Reformed theology, which draws its name from the Reformation. This is the theological school that I fall into (I wasn't raised in it, I just happen to believe it accurately reflects the theology taught in the bible). The Reformed discern a tripartite division in the law, into ceremonial, moral, and civil (or judicial) catagories.
The ceremonial law, pointed forward to or foreshadowed Christ and He is the fulfillment of what the signs pointed to, therefore it is fulfilled and its requirements no longer binding.
The Moral law, which is summarized in the Ten Commandments is an expression of the moral holiness of God and is forever binding on all. It in turn serves a three-fold purpose, first in driving us to Christ, the only one who ever kept it, second as a guide for our own civil laws, and third as rule of life for believers directing them to walk in accordance with it, so that "Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, are delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; ... it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead ... thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience." [Quote from the Westminster Larger Catechism, circa 1648]
The third part of the law is the Judicial Law, made up of particular civil laws given by God to the nation Israel as a theocracy, all of which expired when that state passed away and which are no longer binding. Deut. 13 is actually part of this law, and was an application of the 1st and 3rd commandments made directly by God to Israel.
There are other streams of Christian interpretation, the Lutheran for instance, which is close to the Reformed but which views OT law for the most part as the antithesis to gospel as far as salvation is concerned and only having a condemning role rather than a normative one in the life of the believer.
But I should stress that there is within the Christian faith no active and expanding network of terrorist groups pressing for the implementation of OT Juduical law, and when "fringe groups" arise pressing for an unorthodox implementation of the OT law (even though it is usually only pressed on believers in their movement as in the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Worldwide Church of God under Armstrong) arise, the rest of us condemn them and spend considerable effort in "counter-cult" ministry showing why these beliefs are false. None of which can be said of Islam and Sharia.
But beyond Old Testiment, I'm confused by Luke 19:27 "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
These seem to advocate killing in the name of God and Christ, especially those who refuse to convert or be subjugated.
The context of this verse is in the midst of a parable referring to the return of Christ and the final judgment. That judgment is to be rendered at the end of time by Christ. This is not a verdict to rendered or a sentence to be carried out prior to that final judgment. We live in the age of grace, where the command is not to slay the unbelieving but to carry the gospel message to them. Christ made this clear in his rebuke to his disciples who wished to destroy the unbelieving Samaritans who refused to accept the gospel message:
"Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, and sent messengers before His face. And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, "Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?" But He turned and rebuked them, and said, "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. "For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives but to save them." And they went to another village." (Luke 9:51-56) Even when the Martyrs cry out in Revelation 6 to Christ asking how long it will be till their blood is avenged on those who wickedly put them to death, Christ answers that this will not happen till the final judgment after the last of their brethren is slain.
In any event, properly understood, Luke 19:11-27 should be more convicting, frightening, and sobering to those within the church than without it. I preached on this section back in May. Not my best sermon, by any stretch of the imagination in fact if you are bored by the above, listening to this just might kill you stone dead, I was definitely having a bad week, but I hope it explains the general meaning of this pericope.
Luke 19:11-27Come to think of it, a friend of mine in Long Island,
did a much better job with this same section: - SEAGOON
