Libertarianism and The Bible

I'm not writing this to defend myself, being a Biblical Fundamentalist who often calls himself a Libertarian,  I'm doing it as a general guide to help other Bible believers. While I do call myself a Libertarian from time to time, I do also question if I really qualify.

 I'm certainly closer then a number of Libertarians in the public eye, like Glenn Beck and other Fox News Libertarians, who call themselves Libertarians without any hesitation even though their really just slightly more mild Neo-Cons at worst and Paleo-Conservatives at best.

I'm not sure what else to call myself, "Constitutionalist" is meaningless today, since every American thinks their beliefs match the Constitution, and the so called "Constitution Party" too often falls inline with the Republican party on Social Issues.   I love Ron Paul but I have a few disagreements with him, as well as with Gary Johnson and Chuck Baldwin, both of whom I've also voted for.

The Bible on politics is complicated.  The New Testament doesn't feature any clear

instruction manual for government, certain passages like Romans 13 are misused and abused in support of bind loyalty to the State, when their really only stating that the State does have a valid role to play and therefore we shouldn't be anarchists (I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's material on Romans 13).  The Hebrew Bible's detailed rules we know from Acts 10, 15 and Galatians and Hebrews shouldn't be strictly legalistically followed by Christians, or at-least we shouldn't feel obligated to do so. So strictly speaking a Christian isn't quite required to hold any specific political philosophy.

The Covenant Code (Exodus 20:19-23-33), The Deuteronomic Code and parts of Leviticus and Numbers deal with the Civil Laws and Government of ancient Israel. Their obviously not a Libertarian law code. No nation has ever been truly Libertarian, and Ancient Israel wasn't even as close as our Constitution was/is.   But, this was the Law for God's Chosen people, who he had a special relationship with.

Roger Williams, a seventeenth-century Christian minister and founder of Rhode Island, interpreted several passages in the Old and New Testament to support limiting government interference in religious matters. Williams published The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution, describing his analysis of why a civil government should be separate from religion according to the Bible. Williams believed that Israel was a unique covenant kingdom and not an appropriate model for New Testament Christians who believed that the Old Testament covenant had been fulfilled. Therefore, the more informative Old Testament examples of civil government were "good" non-covenant kings such as Artaxerxes {and Cyrus}, who tolerated the Jews and did not insist that they follow his state religion. James P. Byrd, The challenges of Roger Williams: Religious Liberty, Violent Persecution, and the Bible (Mercer University Press, 2002) http://books.google.com/books?id=M4FK-j35y...=gbs_navlinks_s(accessed on Google Book on July 20, 2009)

But even then, The Law of Moses is surprisingly more Libertarian then you might think. And was so on the very matters that often keeps Christians from being Libertarian, Libertarians believing vices shouldn't be outlawed.  The Law Code of Moses never outlaws Prostitution, (not in general only temple prostitution), or drinking/drunkenness, and both are clearly painted as sinful.  And Alcohol is the only narcotic it addressed at all.

I have a separate article on Capital Punishment.  I believe despite it's being in The Torah that New Testament believers should oppose it on this side of The Cross.

The Bible has a lot to say about Private Property but I won't get into that here.

1 Chronicles 21 condemns David for attempting to carry out a Census.

Many Atheist Libertarians are inclined to distrust Christian Libertarians in actual positions of power, they fear no matter how much they want to be against theocracy inevitably their faith will subconsciously influence them. Well I'm not claiming my Libertarian tendencies are in-spite of my faith, they're because of it.

 For one I firmly believe the New Testament is against Organized religion all together, The Holy Spirit is supposed to lead us,  It is a doctrine of my faith to oppose institutional religion. And a State religion is by definition organized, and as we Libertarians know that's the worst organizer of all.

Jesus defined Satan as the "Ruler of the world" (John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11) Paul affirms that in 2 Corinthian 4:4. When Satan tempted Jesus he offered him all the kingdoms of the world, and Jesus didn't deny he had the authority to do that. Ephesians 6:12 and Daniel 10 show that Fallen Angels and Demonic forced control the nations behind the scenes. And we see in David and Solomon even the best leaders can be corrupted by power.

In a sense, someone who has a very strict moral code can even easier come to the Libertarian conclusion that the state can't regulate Morality. Since even our thoughts can be sinful, and "All have sinned". The issue is where to draw the line, I'm firmly Libertarian on "social issues" for Federal, State and Local governments. Now it doesn't turn out that way with many Christians of course, but that's an argument I recommend Libertarians make to Christians.

I've seen some Christians claim there is no such thing as a "Victimless Crime" while their arguments for saying that are nice philosophical points to make when discussing Moral or Ethical behavior, it does not contradict the Jeffersonian principle that unless what you're doing violates or hinders the right to Life, Liberty or Property of someone else, the state has no business telling you that you can of can't do it.

Christians should oppose Capital Punishment

Don't simply throw all the Old Testament passages on Capital Punishment at me, we are under the New Testament, and are no longer bound by The Law. We are under the dispensation of Grace.

People will try to gather NT support for Capital Punishment by misusing a few passages.

Romans 13, is one of the most abused passages of The Bible, constantly twisted by Evil Governments to make Christians think they should have blind loyalty to Government. This is definitely a passage that should only be read in the KJV, and I highly recommend Chuck Baldwin's sermons on it. But that's immaterial to it's relevance here.

"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."

First off this passage is about acknowledging Government, not what Christians should do if they ever wield civil authority. But bearing the sword for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and punishing evil doers, is not something limited to capital punishment. Any time a police officer or prison guard has to use a weapon that fits this verse. This really doesn't address Capital Punishment at all.

I've seen people cite Roman 1:32, about sins being "worthy of death", this is about the same thing as "the wages of sin is death".

People also cite Acts 25:11 where Paul says he is willing to be killed if he has done anything wrong. He is merely acknowledging the law of the land he lived under. And because he knew Roman law he knew he had not broken it. This was still before Roman law ever outlawed Christianity itself.

Christians should oppose Capital Punishment because of John 8

John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.". I really get annoyed at all the absurd conjectural arguments supposed "Christians" use to write off what the clear message of this verse is. That no one has the right kill another person for their Sin since we're all Sinners. I don't care about all your "they were trying to trap him" or "she was innocent since the guy wasn't there too", for the latter Jesus would have just said that.

Or some will argue Jesus really meant being guilty of the same specific Sin.  That is ridiculous, not only does nothing Jesus said indicate such a qualifier, but it's absurd to think this massive crowd of people contained not a single person who never committed blatant adultery.

Now people will throw out Matthew 15 where they seem to think the point is Jesus is condemning the Pharisees for not obeying the Torah's law about stoning rebellious children as evidence Jesus didn't intend to do away with such laws. The point here is He's condemning the Hypocrisy of men who obey man made traditions dogmatically and try to impose them on others, but not the actual Law. And for the example He chose a law they had a good loving reason for not enforcing.

On The Old Testament

Now, because Capital Punishment first shows up in Genesis 9, and this is before Abraham much less Moses, people say it's not eligible to be something done away with, only things unique to Israel are what the Church isn't held to.

The Problem is the number one thing fulfilled and thus done away with is the Sacrificial System. And that goes back at least to Genesis 4 (probably implied in Genesis 3). It's why Noah brought seven rather then just two of the clean animals on the Ark, so that when everything was over he could make offerings without committing genocide.

In fact, the origin of Capital Punishment in Genesis 9 is intricately linked to the concept of Blood Sacrifices.

4 But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
5 And 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.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Verse 4's command against digesting Blood is repeated in Acts 15 as something Christians should still obey. But that's there for the opposite reason as the other two commands here, that's condemning something Pagans did in their perverted blood sacrifice rituals.

Verse 5 is the first clear stating of the concept given in Leviticus as "the Blood is the life" and clearly defined in Hebrews as "without the shedding of Blood there is no remission of sins".

The way verse 6 follows that kind of gives me the impression that Capital Punishment is a type of sacrifice, the one form of Human Sacrifice that the Mosaic Law was okay with. That some passages say executed people were to have their bodies burned I think adds support to that.

And indeed, the true Sacrifice that all the others were merely rehearsals for was carried out in the form of Capital Punishment. The Temple Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls confirms that Jews of the Greco-Roman period viewed Crucifixion as fulfilling the requirement of Deuteronomy 21:22-23

"And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death, and he be to be put to death, and thou hang him on a tree: His body shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day; (for he that is hanged is accursed of God;) that thy land be not defiled, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance."

Crucifixion unlike Hanging with a rope (which people might at first assume being meant here) fits the Genesis 9 requirement that Blood be shed.

Joshua 8:29 documented this form of execution being carried out on the King of Ai, and chapter 10 on the Five Kings allied against Israel, where there the hung victims are specified to be buried in caves with stones rolled in front of them. When The Book of Esther says Haman and his sons were "hanged", those familiar with Persian custom and the Hebrew text speculate they were Crucified. The Persians are usually credited with inventing Crucifixion, which the Greeks adopted and the Romans perfected.

Jesus was made Sin for us. Even though he was completely without Sin, God poured out his Wrath upon him as if he where just as evil as Haman or Hitler.

In Second Samuel 21 innocent people are hung on a Tree.  Seven descendants of Saul, the two by his concubine and the 5 sons of Merab.  They were killed to appease the Gibeonites and atone of Saul's sin against them.  Likewise Jesus died to atone for the Sin of Adam, because he was the Son of Adam.

Christians who are pro-Capital Punishment like to point out how God explicitly prevented Cain from being killed for his act of murder, and seemingly likewise did the same for his descendant Lamech, in Genesis 4. And suggest that because of this lack of capital punishment the Earth became filled with violence and that's why The Flood was necessary, and so God instituted capital punishment in Genesis 9.

This argument amazes me, these are "conservative" Christians and yet they're effectively arguing that God himself made a mistake not allowing Cain to be executed.

The reason for The Flood is explained in Genesis 6 not 4, it's the Nephilim activity (whatever you think that means).

Biblical History is supposed to come full circle. So if anything the fact that God was clearly against men killing other men for their sins, even murder, before he allowed it in Genesis 9, shows God is against it in principle and that it was always meant to be done away with once The Law was fulfilled.

Ezekiel 40-48 contains no references to any Capital Punishment being carried out in the Messianic Kingdom.