In America, we talk about morality, but in reality we mean popular morality, which changes with the season. The Scriptures provide a more certain morality, one that stands the test of time. We have to be aware that when we stand judgment before that Throne on High, it will not be by the morality of America, but the morality of Scripture that we will be judged.
I want to talk about two areas of Scriptural morality that are in direct contradiction to American morality at this time and place. First, I want to talk about an oil spill. Whoever is responsible for that oil spill is being required to pay for the costs of the oil spill. In the front line asking for payment are the shrimp, crab, and lobster fishermen. The scripture specifically forbids the eating of shrimp, crab, and lobster alone with all crustaceans. So, asking the oil companies to pay them for their loss of profits is sort of like asking the road construction company to pay the prostitutes for messing up their street corners. The shrimpers were immoral to be fishing for shrimp, crab, lobster, clams, oysters, etc. paying them for their lost earnings, earnings based upon immoral activity, is wrong, just plain wrong. In stead, we should rejoice that this immoral activity has ceased in the same way that we do not fret over the loss of income for a prostitute.
Second, Numbers 35:30 according to the New American Bible says:
Whenever someone kills another, the evidence of witnesses is required for the execution of the murderer. The evidence of a single witness is not sufficient for putting a person to death.
Matthew 18:16 says the words of Jesus on the subject and he says:
If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, sot that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
In Kansas City, right now, we have just had a man arrested for murdering his wife; his name is Shon Pernice. His wife’s body has never been found and no one was a witness to her alleged murder. There is apparently enough evidence that, without the challenge of critics, it shows a circumstantial case indicating that she was murdered and that more than likely Shon Pernice was the murderer.
In the ancient times, it was always required that one have a “corpus delicti” in order to try a person for murder. Not so today. And even worse, despite the fact that there is no body, there is no witnesses. Scripture is clear. There must be a witness to the murder and further, for you Christians, there must be two witnesses to the murder. Trying Shon Pernice is immoral, let me say it again; TRYING SHON PERNICE FOR MURDER IS IMMORAL. We should be concerned about what is happening because there have been more than 200 people released from death row after clear evidence was presented showing that they did not commit the murder. Our system of trying people is not particular successful already and to try people without witnesses, solely on circumstantial evidence, is wrong and immoral.
The question should be asked. On the day of judgment who will be sent to Hell, the judge and jury or Shon Pernice. I trust that the Great Judge in Heaven will be just and follow His own law. The Judge and the Jury will go to Hell.
Do not mistake my desire to see morality in my country for coddling criminals. If a man or woman is convicted of murder, he or she should be punished by death, but they should not be convicted unless the State has at least two witnesses to the murder. I would rather that these people go free than stand before the Great Judge and say that I have assisted in the violation of his Law.
While I do not dispute the premise - that scriptural morality and modern morality are often different - I find the examples debatable.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the seafood industry, it has always been my understanding that Mosaic Law is not applicable to Gentiles. Rather, the Noahide Laws apply, which includes a prohibition on sexual immorality. So the comparison of seafood to sex industry seems spurious.
The witnesses topic is intriguing to me as a member of the forensics profession. While scripture is no doubt clear that there should be two witness, I can't help but think that the spirit of the law would include what we in the industry refer to as "silent witnesses" - physical evidence.
Eyewitness testimony has been traditionally valued because it was really the only form of evidence other than a direct accusation. However, modern studies demonstrate over and over again how unreliable eyewitness testimony really is. It is interesting that is pointed out here how so many people have been released from Death Row... Many of those people were convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony!
Now, I cannot say of course how many of those cases involved more than 1 eyewitness. I would argue, as would any prosecutor, that corroborating eyewitness accounts is strong evidence. But the fact remains that a reliable case can be built without eyewitnesses - in fact, a case so strong that it also releases inmates from Death Row.
I respect the idea that circumstantial evidence can be used in non-death penalty cases, but under scriptural law nothing but two or more eyewitnesses may be used to convict. The so called convictions on the basis of circumstantial evidence when no body is found should be thrown out as tainted and immoral.
ReplyDelete