_PENAL SANCTIONS._
LEV. xx. 1-27.
In no age or community has it been found sufficient, to secure
obedience, that one should appeal to the conscience of men, or depend,
as a sufficient motive, upon the natural painful consequences of
violated law. Wherever there is civil and criminal law, there, in all
cases, human government, whether in its lowest or in its most highly
developed forms, has found it necessary to declare penalties for
various crimes. It is the peculiar interest of this chapter that it
gives us certain important sections of the penal code of a people
whose government was theocratic, whose only King was the Most Holy and
Righteous God. In view of the manifold difficulties which are
inseparable from the enactment and enforcement of a just and equitable
penal code, it must be to every man who believes that Israel, in that
period of its history, was, in the most literal sense, a theocracy, a
matter of the highest civil and governmental interest to observe what
penalties for crime were ordained by infinite wisdom, goodness, and
righteousness as the law of that nation.
This penal code (vv. 1-21) is given in two sections. Of these, the
first (vv. 1-6) relates to those who give of their seed to Molech, or
who are accessory to such crime by their concealment of the fact; and
also to those who consult wizards or familiar spirits. Under this last
head also comes ver. 27, which appears to have become misplaced, as it
follows the formal conclusion of the chapter, and by its subject--the
penalty for the wizard, or him who claims to have a familiar
spirit--evidently belongs immediately after ver. 6.
The second section (vv. 9-21) enumerates, first (vv. 9-16), other
cases for which capital punishment was ordered; and then (vv. 17-21)
certain offences for which a lesser penalty is prescribed. These two
sections are separated (vv. 7, 8) by a command, in view of these
penalties, to sanctification of life, and obedience to the Lord, as
the God who has redeemed and consecrated Israel to be a nation to
Himself.
These penal sections are followed (vv. 22-26) by a general conclusion
to the whole law of holiness, as contained in these three chapters, as
also to the law concerning clean and unclean meats (xi.); which would
thus appear to have been originally connected more closely than now
with these chapters. This closing part of the section consists of an
exhortation and argument against disobedience, in walking after the
wicked customs of the Canaanitish nations; enforced by the declaration
that their impending expulsion was brought about by God in punishment
for their practice of these crimes; and, also, by the reminder that
God in His special grace had separated them to be a holy nation to
Himself, and that He was about to give them the good land of Canaan as
their possession.
It is perhaps hardly necessary to observe that the law of this chapter
does not profess to give the penal code of Israel with completeness.
Murder, for example, is not mentioned here, though death is expressly
denounced against it elsewhere (Numb. xxxv. 31). So, again, in the
Book of Exodus (xxi. 15) death is declared as the penalty for smiting
father or mother. Indeed, the chapter itself contains evidence that it
is essentially a selection of certain parts of a more extended code,
which has been nowhere preserved in its entirety.
In this chapter death is ordained as the penalty for the following
crimes: viz., giving of one's seed to Molech (vv. 2-5); professing to
be a wizard, or to have dealings with the spirits of the dead (ver.
27); adultery, incest with a mother or step-mother, a daughter-in-law
or mother-in-law (vv. 10-12, 14); and sodomy and bestiality (ver. 13).
In a single case--that of incest with a wife's mother--it is added
(ver. 14) that both the guilty parties shall be burnt with fire;
_i.e._, after the usual infliction of death by stoning. Of him who
becomes accessory by concealment to the crime of sacrifice to Molech,
it is said (ver. 5) that God Himself will set His face against that
man, and will cut off both the man himself and his family. The same
phraseology is used (ver. 6) of those who consult familiar spirits;
and the cutting off is also threatened, ver. 18. The law concerning
incest with a full- or half-sister requires (ver. 17) that this
excision shall be "in the sight of the children of their people;"
_i.e._, that the sentence shall be executed in the most public way,
thus to affix the more certainly to the crime the stigma of an
indelible ignominy and disgrace. A lesser grade of penalty is attached
to an alliance with the wife of an uncle or of a brother; in the
latter case (ver. 21) that they shall be childless, in the former
(ver. 20), that they shall die childless; that is, though they have
children, they shall all be prematurely cut off; none shall outlive
their parents. To incest with an aunt by blood no specific penalty is
affixed; it is only said that "they shall bear their iniquity,"
_i.e._, God will hold them guilty.
The chapter, directly or indirectly, casts no little light on some
most fundamental and practical questions regarding the administration
of justice in dealing with criminals.
We may learn here what, in the mind of the King of kings, is the
primary object of the punishment of criminals against society.
Certainly there is no hint in this code of law that these penalties
were specially intended for the reformation of the offender. Were this
so, we should not find the death-penalty applied with such unsparing
severity. This does not indeed mean that the reformation of the
criminal was a matter of no concern to the Lord; we know to the
contrary. But one cannot resist the conviction in reading this
chapter, as also other similar portions of the law, that in a
governmental point of view this was not the chief object of
punishment. Even where the penalty was not death, the reformation of
the guilty persons is in no way brought before us as an object of the
penal sentence. In the governmental aspect of the case, this is, at
least, so far in the background that it does not once come into view.
In our day, however, an increasing number maintain that the
death-penalty ought never to be inflicted, because, in the nature of
the case, it precludes the possibility of the criminal being reclaimed
and made a useful member of society; and so, out of regard to this and
other like humanitarian considerations, in not a few instances, the
death penalty, even for wilful murder, has been abrogated. It is thus,
to a Christian citizen, of very practical concern to observe that in
this theocratic penal code there is not so much as an allusion to the
reformation of the criminal, as one object which by means of
punishment it was intended to secure. Penalty was to be inflicted,
according to this code, without any apparent reference to its bearing
on this matter. The wisdom of the Omniscient King of Israel,
therefore, must certainly have contemplated in the punishment of crime
some object or objects of more weighty moment than this.
What those objects were, it does not seem hard to discern. First and
supreme in the intention of this law is the satisfaction of outraged
justice, and of the regal majesty of the supreme and holy God, defied;
the vindication of the holiness of the Most High against that
wickedness of men which would set at nought the Holy One and overturn
that moral order which He has established. Again and again the crime
itself is given as the reason for the penalty, inasmuch as by such
iniquity in the midst of Israel the holy sanctuary of God among them
was profaned. We read, for example, "I will cut him off ... because he
hath defiled My sanctuary, and hath profaned My holy name;" "they have
wrought confusion," _i.e._, in the moral and physical order of the
family; "their blood shall be upon them;" "they have committed
abomination; they shall surely be put to death;" "it is a shameful
thing; they shall be cut off." Such are the expressions which again
and again ring through this chapter; and they teach with unmistakable
clearness that the prime object of the Divine King of Israel in the
punishment was, not the reformation of the individual sinner, but the
satisfaction of justice and the vindication of the majesty of broken
law. And if we have no more explicit statement of the matter here, we
yet have it elsewhere; as in Numb. xxxv. 33, where we are expressly
told that the death-penalty to be visited with unrelenting severity on
the murderer is of the nature of an expiation. Very clear and solemn
are the words, "Blood, it polluteth the land: and no expiation can be
made for the land for the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood
of him that shed it."
But if this is set forth as the fundamental reason for the infliction
of the punishment, it is not represented as the only object. If, as
regards the criminal himself, the punishment is a satisfaction and
expiation to justice for his crime, on the other hand, as regards the
people, the punishment is intended for their moral good and
purification. This is expressly stated, as in ver. 14: "They shall be
burnt with fire, that there be no wickedness among you." Both of these
principles are of such a nature that they must be of perpetual
validity. The government or legislative power that loses sight of
either of them is certain to go wrong, and the people will be sure,
sooner or later, to suffer in morals by the error.
In the light we have now, it is easy to see what are the principles
according to which, in various cases, the punishments were measured
out. Evidently, in the first place, the penalty was determined, even
as equity demands, by the intrinsic heinousness of the crime. With the
possible exception of a single case, it is easy to see this. No one
will question the horrible iniquity of the sacrifice of innocent
children to Molech; or of incest with a mother, or of sodomy, or
bestiality. A second consideration which evidently had place, was the
danger involved in each crime to the moral and spiritual well-being of
the community; and, we may add, in the third place, also the degree to
which the people were likely to be exposed to the contagion of
certain crimes prevalent in the nations immediately about them.
But although these principles are manifestly so equitable and
benevolent as to be valid for all ages, Christendom seems to be
forgetting the fact. The modern penal codes vary as widely from the
Mosaic in respect of their great leniency, as those of a few centuries
ago in respect of their undiscriminating severity. In particular, the
past few generations have seen a great change with regard to the
infliction of capital punishment. Formerly, in England, for example,
death was inflicted, with intolerable injustice, for a large number of
comparatively trivial offences; the death-penalty is now restricted to
high treason and killing with malice aforethought; while in some parts
of Christendom it is already wholly abolished. In the Mosaic law,
according to this chapter and other parts of the law, it was much more
extensively inflicted, though, it may be noted in passing, always
without torture. In this chapter it is made the penalty for actual or
constructive idolatry, for sorcery, etc., for cursing father or
mother, for adultery, for the grosser degrees of incest, and for
sodomy and bestiality. To this list of capital offences the law
elsewhere adds, not only murder, but blasphemy, sabbath-breaking,
unchastity in a betrothed woman when discovered after marriage, rape,
rebellion against a priest or judge, and man-stealing.
As regards the crimes specified in this particular chapter, the
criminal law of modern Christendom does not inflict the penalty of
death in a single possible case here mentioned; and, to the mind of
many, the contrasted severity of the Mosaic code presents a grave
difficulty. And yet, if one believes, on the authority of the teaching
of Christ, that the theocratic government of Israel is not a fable,
but a historic fact, although he may still have much difficulty in
recognising the righteousness of this code, he will be slow on this
account either to renounce his faith in the Divine authority of this
chapter, or to impugn the justice of the holy King of Israel in
charging Him with undue severity; and will rather patiently await some
other solution of the problem, than the denial of the essential equity
of these laws. But there are several considerations which, for many,
will greatly lessen, if they do not wholly remove, the difficulty
which the case presents.
In the first place, as regards the punishment of idolatry with death,
we have to remember that, from a theocratic point of view, idolatry
was essentially high treason, the most formal repudiation possible of
the supreme authority of Israel's King. If, even in our modern states,
the gravity of the issues involved in high treason has led men to
believe that death is not too severe a penalty for an offence aimed
directly at the subversion of governmental order, how much more must
this be admitted when the government is not of fallible man, but of
the most holy and infallible God? And when, besides this, we recall
the atrocious cruelties and revolting impurities which were
inseparably associated with that idolatry, we shall have still less
difficulty in seeing that it was just that the worshipper of Molech
should die. And as decreeing the penalty of death for sorcery and
similar practices, it is probable that the reason for this is to be
found in the close connection of these with the prevailing idolatry.
But it is in regard to crimes against the integrity and purity of the
family that we find the most impressive contrast between this penal
code and those of modern times. Although, unhappily, adultery and,
less commonly, incest, and even, rarely, the unnatural crimes
mentioned in this chapter, are not unknown in modern Christendom, yet,
while the law of Moses punished all these with death, modern law
treats them with comparative leniency, or even refuses to regard some
forms of these offences as crimes. What then? Shall we hasten to the
conclusion that we have advanced on Moses? that this law was certainly
unjust in its severity? or is it possible that modern law is at fault,
in that it has fallen below those standards of righteousness which
rule in the kingdom of God?
One would think that by any man who believes in the Divine origin of
the theocracy only one answer could be given. Assuredly, one cannot
suppose that God judged of a crime with undue severity; and if not, is
not then Christendom, as it were, summoned by this penal code of the
theocracy--after making all due allowance for different conditions of
society--to revise its estimate of the moral gravity of these and
other offences? In these days of continually progressive relaxation of
the laws regulating the relations of the sexes, this seems indeed to
be one of the chief lessons from this chapter of Leviticus; namely,
that in God's sight sins against the seventh commandment are not the
comparative trifles which much over-charitable and easy-going morality
imagines, but crimes of the first order of heinousness. We do well to
heed this fact, that not merely unnatural crimes, such as sodomy,
bestiality, and the grosser forms of incest, but adultery, is by God
ranked in the same category as murder. Is it strange? For what are
crimes of this kind but assaults on the very being of the family?
Where there is incest or adultery, we may truly say the family is
murdered; what murder is to the individual, that, precisely, are
crimes of this class to the family. In the theocratic code these were,
therefore, made punishable with death; and, we venture to believe,
with abundant reason. Is it likely that God was too severe? or must we
not rather fear that man, ever lenient to prevailing sins, in our day
has become falsely and unmercifully merciful, kind with a most
perilous and unholy kindness?
Still harder will it be for most of us to understand why the
death-penalty should have been also affixed to cursing or smiting a
father or a mother, an extreme form of rebellion against parental
authority. We must, no doubt, bear in mind, as in all these cases,
that a rough people, like those just emancipated slaves, required a
severity of dealing which with finer natures would not be needed; and,
also, that the fact of Israel's call to be a priestly nation bearing
salvation to mankind, made every disobedience among them the graver
crime, as tending to so disastrous issues, not for Israel alone, but
for the whole race of man which Israel was appointed to bless. On an
analogous principle we justify military authority in shooting the
sentry found asleep at his post. Still, while allowing for all this,
one can hardly escape the inference that, in the sight of God,
rebellion against parents must be a more serious offence than many in
our time have been wont to imagine. And the more that we consider how
truly basal to the order of government and of society is both sexual
purity and the maintenance of a spirit of reverence and subordination
to parents, the easier we shall find it to recognise the fact that if
in this penal code there is doubtless great severity, it is yet the
severity of governmental wisdom and true paternal kindness on the part
of the high King of Israel: who governed that nation with intent,
above all, that they might become in the highest sense "a holy nation"
in the midst of an ungodly world, and so become the vehicle of
blessing to others. And God thus judged that it was better that
sinning individuals should die without mercy, than that family
government and family purity should perish, and Israel, instead of
being a blessing to the nations, should sink with them into the mire
of universal moral corruption.
And it is well to observe that this law, if severe, was most equitable
and impartial in its application. We have here, in no instance,
torture; the scourging which in one case is enjoined, is limited
elsewhere to the forty stripes save one. Neither have we
discrimination against any class, or either sex; nothing like that
detestable injustice of modern society which turns the fallen woman
into the street with pious scorn, while it often receives the betrayer
and even the adulterer--in most cases the more guilty of the two--into
"the best society." Nothing have we here, again, which could justify
by example the insistence of many, through a perverted humanity, when
a murderess is sentenced for her crime to the scaffold, her sex should
purchase a partial immunity from the penalty of crime. The Levitical
law is as impartial as its Author; even if death be the penalty, the
guilty one must die, whether man or woman.
Quite apart, then, from any question of detail, as to how far this
penal code ought to be applied under the different conditions of
modern society, this chapter of Leviticus assuredly stands as a most
impressive testimony from God against the humanitarianism of our age.
It is more and more the fashion, in some parts of Christendom, to pet
criminals; to lionize murderers and adulterers, especially if in high
social station. We have even heard of bouquets and such-like
sentimental attentions bestowed by ladies on blood-red criminals in
their cells awaiting the halter; and a maudlin pity quite too often
usurps among us the place of moral horror at crime and intense
sympathy with the holy justice and righteousness of God. But this
Divine government of old did not deal in flowers and perfumes; it
never indulged criminals, but punished them with an inexorable
righteousness. And yet this was not because Israel's King was hard and
cruel. For it was this same law which with equal kindness and equity
kept a constant eye of fatherly care upon the poor and the stranger,
and commanded the Israelite that he love even the stranger as himself.
But, none the less, the Lord God who declared Himself as merciful and
gracious and of great kindness, also herein revealed Himself,
according to His word, as one who would "by no means clear the
guilty." This fact is luminously witnessed by this penal code; and,
let us note, it is witnessed by that penal law of God which is
revealed in nature also. For this too punishes without mercy the
drunkard, for example, or the licentious man, and never diminishes one
stroke because by the full execution of penalty the sinner must suffer
often so terribly. Which is just what we should expect to find, if
indeed the God of nature is the One who spake in Leviticus.
Finally, as already suggested, this chapter gives a most weighty
testimony against the modern tendency to a relaxation of the laws
which regulate the relations of the sexes. That such a tendency is a
fact is admitted by all; by some with gratulation, by others with
regret and grave concern. French law, for instance, has explicitly
legalised various alliances which in this law God explicitly forbids,
under heavy penal sanctions, as incestuous; German legislation has
moved about as far in the same direction; and the same tendency is to
be observed, more or less, in all the English-speaking world. In some
of the United States, especially, the utmost laxity has been reached,
in laws which, under the name of divorce, legalize gross
adultery,--laws which had been a disgrace to pagan Rome. So it goes.
Where God denounced the death-penalty, man first apologises for the
crime, then lightens the penalty, then abolishes it, and at last
formally legalises the crime. This modern drift bodes no good; in the
end it can only bring disaster alike to the well-being of the family
and of the State. The maintenance of the family in its integrity and
purity is nothing less than essential to the conservation of society
and the stability of good government.
To meet this growing evil, the Church needs to come back to the full
recognition of the principles which underlie this Levitical code;
especially of the fact that marriage and the family are not merely
civil arrangements, but Divine institutions; so that God has not left
it to the caprice of a majority to settle what shall be lawful in
these matters. Where God has declared certain alliances and
connections to be criminal, we shall permit or condone them at our
peril. God rules, whether modern majorities will it or not; and we
must adopt the moral standards of the kingdom of God in our
legislation, or we shall suffer. God has declared that not merely the
material well-being of man, but _holiness_, is the moral end of
government and of life; and He will find ways to enforce His will in
this respect. "The nation that will not serve Him shall perish." All
this is not theology, merely, or ethics, but history. All history
witnesses that moral corruption and relaxed legislation, especially in
matters affecting the relations of the sexes, bring in their train
sure retribution, not in Hades, but here on earth. Let us not miss of
taking the lesson by imagining that this law was for Israel, but not
for other peoples. The contrary is affirmed in this very chapter (vv.
23, 24), where we are reminded that God visited His heavy judgments
upon the Canaanitish nations precisely for this very thing, their
doing of these things which are in this law of holiness forbidden.
Hence "the land spued them out." Our modern democracies, English,
American, French, German, or whatever they be, would do well to pause
in their progressive repudiation of the law of God in many social
questions, and heed this solemn warning. For, despite the unbelief of
multitudes, the Holy One still governs the world, and it is certain
that He will never abdicate His throne of righteousness to submit any
of His laws to the sanction of a popular vote.