March 20, 2018 Show with Douglas Wilson & Joel McDurmon on “How Does the Old Covenant Civil Penal Code Apply to Homosexuality Today?”

Iron Sharpens Iron

Subscribe

Download

Share

00

00:01

Live from the historic parsonage of 19th century gospel minister George Norcross in downtown

00:08

Carlisle, Pennsylvania, it's Iron Sharpens Iron, a radio platform on which pastors,

00:16

Christian scholars, and theologians address the burning issues facing the church and the world today.

00:23

Proverbs 27 verse 17 tells us, Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

00:32

Matthew Henry said that in this passage, quote, we are cautioned to take heed whom we converse with and directed to have in view in conversation to make one another wiser and better.

00:46

It is our hope that this goal will be accomplished over the next hour and we hope to hear from you, the listener, with your own questions.

00:57

Now here's our host, Chris Arnton. Good afternoon,

01:05

Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, Lake City, Florida, and the rest of humanity living on the planet Earth who are listening via live streaming at ironsharpensironradio .com.

01:13

This is Chris Arnton, your host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, wishing you all a happy Tuesday on this 20th day of March 2018.

01:21

I'm so thrilled about today's event. It's going to be an unusual event for Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. We are having a debate today, and one of the reasons that's very good news for you, the listener, is that you will hardly hear me say anything today.

01:36

It's going to be predominantly our two guests who will be debating each other that you will be listening to, and I'm not going to go into any lengthy introductions of them.

01:47

I'm assuming most of you know who they are, but you could also find out later on when we announce the contact information how you can learn more about our two debating opponents, but we have debating today on the program

02:01

Douglas Wilson, who is an author and he's also the pastor of Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, and his opponent today will be

02:08

Joel McDermott. He's an author and he's the president of American Vision. The thesis of the debate is how does the

02:15

Old Covenant civil penal code apply to homosexuality today, and the debate is going to begin with a 25 -minute opening statement from Douglas Wilson, and Doug, you have the floor.

02:30

Great. First, let me thank you for having me on, and let me thank Joel for the interaction that we've had online up to this point, and also for today.

02:40

I'm looking forward to this. Let me just set the stage for this. Last September, I posted a piece on my blog called the death penalty as our only hope, and the death penalty that is our hope,

02:54

I was referring to, is the death of Jesus. Jesus dying on the cross as the fulfillment of all the executions that we so richly deserved.

03:05

As a result of my interaction with the text of Scripture, that post was about how the

03:14

Bible, Genesis to Revelation, deals with the issue of homosexuality as a civil issue, and as a result of that,

03:24

I got into, well among other things, not just civil, but as a result of that, I got into a brief

03:29

Facebook back -and -forth with Joel over some of the issues involved, and then as it happens, we are continuing that today.

03:40

We didn't really get into the weeds in that back -and -forth, so hopefully we will get into the weeds today and be able to get some things resolved.

03:52

When we talk about returning our culture to a biblical footing, which

03:59

I would argue we self -evidently need to do, we need to return to God's law, we need to return to the foundation of biblical law, when we argue for that, as both

04:11

Joel and I would do, one of the most obvious questions for unbelievers or outsiders or people who are not persuaded to ask is, what about all those draconian death penalties in the

04:23

Old Testament? Are we going to be dragging people out to the city square and stoning them to death for, you know, this and that?

04:31

Because of the obvious presence of those penalties, any

04:36

Christians who are theonomic or who lean theonomic are often relegated to the role of Ayatollah Weirdbeards who want to chop off hands in the name of Jesus, and so the theonomic or theocratic wing of conservative

04:52

Christianity is just assumed to be something very much like radical

04:58

Islam. So radical Islam and radical Christianity are thought to be just birds of a feather.

05:06

And it's a, I think it's a very reasonable question. In his book on the subject of God's law,

05:14

The Bounds of Love, Joel seeks to address this question in terms of the Karam principle.

05:21

Now let me say before getting into this that I'm going to be getting into some areas of disagreement, but if you, oh it's been a year or two now since the book came out, when the book came out,

05:33

I selected it as one of my books of the month, so I promote a book that I think is well worth reading, and this was one of them.

05:42

I really enjoyed the book, but there are places in the book where I believe that Joel's more ardent form of libertarian political theory is driving the exegesis.

06:00

So, and this area that we're going to be getting into is one of them. Well, Joel seeks to address this question about the

06:07

Old Testament death penalties for sodomy in terms of the

06:12

Karam principle. So if something was Karam, as Joel says, it was, quote, specially devoted to destruction.

06:21

Quoting Joel again, when in the context of a punishment for a crime against God's holiness, idolatry, paganism, etc.,

06:29

it meant to be put under the curse of immediate death. So there were

06:37

Karam principles in the laws of Israel, and there was also a special category of Karam warfare.

06:45

So Jericho was one of the cities that was devoted to destruction, and because Achan violated that and took some of the pillage for his own, then he and his household were devoted to destruction.

07:00

That was an example of Karam warfare. So Joel says this. He reiterates this special devotion to destruction in the laws of warfare,

07:11

Deuteronomy 20, 16 through 18. And then he says again, but in the

07:17

Canaanite cities, devoted to complete destruction, nothing and no one was to be spared.

07:23

So in a city that was devoted to Karam destruction, they were basically to nuke it down to glass and go skating on the, you know, go skating on it afterwards.

07:35

In such a play, in such a case, Joel says, the whole city was to be devoted and destroyed, including all the property within it.

07:43

All the property was to be burned specifically as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. And then

07:49

Joel adds, this detail is crucial. Now I want to, I'm citing this because at this, coming up to this point,

07:57

Joel and I are in agreement. I believe that Joel is correct in his interpretation that such offenses and penalties in the

08:05

Old Testament were in a special Karam category. I also agree that this means that such laws cannot be simply picked up and transferred across and applied without transformation to our time.

08:18

You can't just take a grappling hook, reach into the Mosaic Code, lift, you know, lift whatever laws there are up and drop them down on our society.

08:29

The idea that theonomy means that we have to ignore the special role that Israel had in God's redemptive economy, not to mention the impact of the

08:39

Christ arriving to be crucified for our sins, to be buried, to be raised, and to ascend into heaven, thus remaking heaven and earth.

08:49

If theonomy means that we need to ignore all that, then it really is drifting away from the gospel.

08:57

But that's not what theonomy actually means. Joel and I agree thus far.

09:03

But there are a couple of things that I, a couple of issues that I think Joel leaves unaddressed, and I think they're key, they're key questions that are left unaddressed.

09:13

The first is that he, is that Joel simply assumes that the transfer from the old economy to the new was one of abrogation, not abrogation and incremental replacement.

09:27

So it's not just the erasure of the Mosaic Code, it's the erasure of the

09:33

Mosaic Code fulfilled in Christ, and then the erasure of all the pagan codes of law, and then replacing it with what?

09:41

We have to replace it with something. In other words, when the old Mosaic Code was fulfilled by the coming of the

09:48

Messiah, as Joel and I agree that it was, it was fulfilled during a time when the pagan law of Rome was the established order.

09:56

Legal paganism was not to be replaced for a few centuries yet, but it was going to be replaced, and when

10:03

Christians came into possession of political power, they were going to have to decide what to do exactly.

10:09

So after Constantine first made the practice of Christianity legal, and then when it flipped over later even more strongly to a

10:18

Christian establishment, and Christians were running the show, now they have to say, okay, what are we going to do with all, what are we going to do with the

10:30

Mosaic law? How does it apply? When does it apply? What did the coming of Christ actually alter and change, and what did it not change at all?

10:40

So, put this another way. Christ came at a time when believers would have no political power for centuries.

10:49

He abrogated, through fulfillment, the Mosaic Code, and he began the process of abrogating the pagan codes through gospel triumph.

10:59

But I think it's a major mistake to take the civil state of affairs in, say, 120

11:05

AD as representing God's de facto intention for the laws a thousand years later.

11:12

The leaven works through the loaf, and a significant part of that loaf is the legal system. This applies to laws about slavery, laws about abortion and infanticide, laws about sodomy.

11:22

We have to answer the question why there were no laws against slavery, abortion, and sodomy in 120

11:28

AD. And it boils down to this. Was it because Christ had now come, or was it because the

11:34

Spirit of Christ had not yet gotten that far in abrogating and erasing and overthrowing the pagan legal system yet?

11:42

So, slavery didn't just disappear overnight, abortion didn't just disappear overnight, and neither did sodomy.

11:50

We can't say, well, it's not against the law because Christ has come. It might be not against the law because the pagans are still in control of the legal system.

11:59

So, Joel's discussion of this seems to mark the coming of the

12:06

Christ as the reason for the shift in how we treat these crimes, treat these sins.

12:12

Do we treat them as crimes or not? And I think it may have been much more of a de facto situation that, well, the pagans are running the show.

12:24

So, my second concern is this one, and he brings this up right at the tail end of his discussion of these issues in the

12:36

Bounds of Love. So, Joel says, it's my conclusion that civil governments no longer have authority to apply carom punishments in the

12:47

New Covenant, right? So, no carom punishments, no carom penalties by the civil government.

12:54

He says a little bit later, while all of these sexual sins, adultery, sodomy, and bestiality remain abominable sins, with the coming of Christ and the abolition of the

13:04

Old Covenant administration, they can no longer be said to be capital crimes. And let me just interject here, my question is, given what he has argued about the carom penalties being fulfilled in Christ, the question arises, why would they be crimes at all?

13:22

And if they're crimes at all, on what basis, by what standard?

13:28

Joel says this, there are still, however, sanctions that can be imposed, talking about these sorts of sins, and he's talking here about civil sanctions.

13:39

Joel and I agree that the Church can still discipline for these sins as sins, and we still agree that families can still discipline by means of disinheritance.

13:51

So, you've got the Church equivalent of execution, which is excommunication.

13:57

You would have the family's equivalent of execution, which would be disinheritance.

14:03

But Joel is saying there's no carom penalties from the civil magistrate. But you can have penalties.

14:10

He says, Joel says, I also do not see why local civil governments would not be warranted to punish flagrant cases with loss of citizenship or banishment.

14:21

All right, so you have, Joel suggests local civil governments doing it, he's suggesting doing something about it in flagrant cases, and he's suggesting loss of citizenship or banishment.

14:32

But here's my problem with this. It should be a problem that Reconstructionists and theonomists are familiar with.

14:42

By what standard? If we're going to apply civil penalties at all, then where do we get them?

14:49

Where should we get our information about what penalties ought to be applied?

14:55

When Joel argues that the carom principle applies, I think he needs to show how that interpretation does not remove all penalties altogether.

15:05

In other words, in a biblical republic, you know, 500 years from now, why any civil penalties at all for such sexual crime?

15:14

Joel argues that with the New Covenant, quote, comes a transfer of the seat of judgment from the earthly land to the heavenly throne of Christ.

15:22

Well, close quote. Now, if that's the case, if Christ is the one administering the judgments from his heavenly throne, and we've transferred the seat of judgment from the earthly land up to heaven, if that's the case, where do we get off banishing anybody or taking away their citizenship?

15:41

So, banishment or loss of citizenship would be decided here on earth, and not from the heavenly throne of Christ.

15:49

So, how are we to process this? Now, one thing Joel could say is that sodomy is now considered as simply a second table offense, the carom principle having been applied back when it was also a first table offense.

16:08

And Joel says in his book, quote, civil government no longer has jurisdiction over first table offenses.

16:16

Now, this is a question I don't want to assert beyond what Joel has said. I don't know if he means there civil government no longer has capital punishment jurisdiction over first table offenses, or do they have nothing whatever to say about first table offenses at all.

16:36

But if it's the latter, if civil government has no jurisdiction over first table offenses, then this creates new questions.

16:45

How can the magistrate kiss the sun? How can kings bring their honor and glory into the

16:53

New Jerusalem if they're not allowed to have any opinion on first table issues?

17:00

Does it mean that civil government no longer has carom jurisdiction over first table offenses, or does it mean there's no jurisdiction whatever?

17:10

Joel appears to me to be saying that blasphemy, for example, should only be a civil issue if it is conducted in such an outrageous manner that it slops over into second table issues, disturbing the peace, inciting revolution, etc.

17:25

Joel says this, only an extreme or aggravated cases in which blasphemy or false worship aims to lead to revolution, sedition, terrorism, or treason would civil government intervention be appropriate.

17:48

So blasphemy, the government can react to blasphemy when it gets to the bomb -throwing stage, but they don't touch it, or do they have no opinion about it at all?

18:01

Is blasphemy not even a misdemeanor? How are we to deal with that?

18:08

So to say that something in the Old Testament fell under the carom ban does not mean that it does not apply to us today.

18:16

This is what I would urge. I agree that the penalties in the

18:23

Old Testament are part and parcel with God's protection of the messianic steed and God's preservation of the land, and I agree with Joel on that, but I want to argue that this, to say that the carom ban does not apply straight across, that affects how the carom penalty should be applied, not whether they should be.

18:45

So I want the carom penalties to be applied in a new covenant fashion.

18:53

In other words, we can learn from the severity of the carom penalties that even though we are no longer keeping the

18:59

Holy Land pure, or keeping the Holy Seed free from defilement, sodomy is a spin that a civil order needs to take with the utmost seriousness.

19:10

It's no misdemeanor. We have to recognize and remember that when

19:17

God judged Sodom and the other cities of the plain, there was no carom principle involved at all.

19:24

This was just a city among men, misbehaving in a major way.

19:30

There was no Holy Seed there, there was no messianic promise there in Sodom, and yet God judged them from the heavens.

19:39

So in Jude 7, it tells us that even as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities about them, in like manner giving themselves over to fornication and going after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

19:56

So the rulers of Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities round about them ought to have paid attention to God's law written in their own bodies, written in the sky, given through whatever prophet may have come by to tell them to knock it off.

20:14

They had a responsibility not to have been living the way they were living. And to the end of the world, we have a responsibility to look at what happened to those cities as an example.

20:28

And I'm not sure that the lesson that we should draw is, oh look,

20:35

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with fire from the sky, so let's make sure that we don't have any penalties for first -table offenses, or let's, you know,

20:48

I agree that the specific penalties of stoning and, you know, that sort of thing are wrapped up in this

20:57

Charim principle. But there's something, we learned something about the heinousness of the offense, that the offense is a big deal.

21:05

So the destruction of these cities, these municipalities, Sodom and Gomorrah, is set out according to the

21:12

Lord's brother Jude. It's set out as an example, and I would suggest that it's an example that should stand until the end of the world.

21:22

We ought to look at that, and we ought to say, jeepers, we need to make sure that we're not indulging this kind of sin.

21:34

We need to make sure that we not give it a foothold. Now, I should say one other thing, and that is, going back to my initial comments about talking this way, it makes everybody think of the

21:54

Ayatollah Weirdbeards, you know, how dare you not treat sodomy as a sacrament?

22:00

How dare you not treat abortion as a sacrament? How dare you bring in your morality, trying to impose it on all of us this way?

22:11

Well, I'm not trying to get us back to some medieval

22:18

Muslim paradise. You know, in the first part of my adult ministry, when

22:24

I was a young minister, sodomy was a felony in virtually all 50 states.

22:32

It's hard for us to recognize how swiftly and how completely our standard against this sort of behavior has collapsed, and it's moved from, you can't ban that, to you must celebrate it.

22:50

And this takes us back to what I think the Reconstructionists were best at, and that is presenting us with the inescapable concept.

23:01

It's not whether, but which. It's not whether you're going to have blasphemy codes, it's which blasphemy codes you're going to have.

23:10

It's not whether you impose the first table of the law, but whose first table of the law are you going to impose?

23:19

And I think that we have to get back to the point, get back to the position where we see the

23:26

Karam principle as being fulfilled in Christ, and so we, that's noted, so we are not obligated to grab someone guilty of homosexual behavior, take him outside the city, and stone him with stones.

23:43

But we don't have to apply the law straight across. But we should look at, examine the law carefully, and as the

23:52

Confession says, the particular laws that were applied to Israel, as far as that nation and that state was concerned, do not apply today, except as the general equity thereof may require.

24:09

So I'm posing this question, even given the fact of Karam fulfillment in Christ, which

24:17

I grant and accept, is there a general equity principle there that we still have to be cognizant of, we still have to take on board, we still have to apply?

24:29

And I would argue that there is. And you have two more minutes. I have two more minutes.

24:37

So in summary, overview, I would say I agree with, I agree with Joel's take on applying and interpreting the

24:47

Karam principle, and saying that that has something to do with how we interpret and apply these laws.

24:54

But my two major questions, my two major concerns, are key questions that he has left unaddressed.

25:01

The first one is that, is he attributing to the coming of Christ simply the de facto reality that pagans ran the show when the

25:13

Christian Church was established? So Christians didn't, you know, it was some centuries before Christians had the responsibility of deciding what kind of laws they would make.

25:29

And so once that moment arrived, once Constantine did his thing, and Christian jurists were trying to figure out how the

25:40

Old Testament law applied, how the New Testament law applied, what do we do with this responsibility that we now have?

25:46

I believe that it's not as, you can't just say, well that was before Christ fulfilled the

25:53

Karam penalties. Okay, granted, but we still have, we still have to figure out what we're going to do with people who are guilty of this kind of offense.

26:03

So that's the first thing, is he overlooking the fact that the transition of the

26:09

Covenants happened during a time when pagan law was paramount.

26:15

And then the second question, the second concern, is given his understanding of Karam fulfillment, why any penalties at all?

26:27

Why does the local government, why local, you know, I would say local probably because of Joel's localism and libertarianism, which

26:37

I would be in agreement with, but he says local civil governments could be warranted to punish flagrant cases.

26:44

Why flagrant cases? And we're out of time. Clear cases. All right. Well, thank you very much,

26:49

Douglas Wilson. And now Joel McDermott will have 25 minutes for his opening remarks.

26:57

Thank you, Chris. And again, thank you, Doug. Guys, I really appreciate having this venue. I will say this up front,

27:04

I had no idea until literally we came on that we'd be having 25 minutes to present a view, and I don't think my view will take that that much to present.

27:14

In fact, I think Doug has done a fairly decent job presenting much of it already. I'd also say that from now on, if I'm going to have future debate partners in the future,

27:27

I might choose Doug just from now on for everything so he can promote my books for me. Happy to do it.

27:37

Yeah, yeah, and I do appreciate that. Yeah, Doug mentioned some disagreements we had over the views expressed in my book on what's called the

27:47

Karam principle, and maybe I'll talk about that a little bit in a second. I'll try to get to those in our rebuttal time that we've set out here.

27:56

The original disagreement, as Doug said, came up over him publishing an article on the death penalty as our only hope.

28:05

Well, now, of course, that's our first agreement, because I had thought it was Obi -Wan Kenobi, but that's a different matter, being our only hope.

28:15

You know, some people might say the latest Star Wars has, you know, changed things a bit, so maybe there's a Karam principle thing there.

28:21

Okay, enough with the jokes. You know, Doug publishes this article, and in the process of it, arguing through the many cases the

28:29

Old Testament defines homosexual relations as a sin, defines certain penalties, and he comes to the

28:36

Leviticus passage that's so often talked about, that if a man lies with a man as he lies with a woman, they shall both be put to death.

28:45

And then he says, so this is where we encounter problems, particularly, I think he was talking about liberal types who would say, oh, why do you push so hard on this verse and say this law applies to us today, but you don't push very hard on the penalty.

28:59

We don't hear Christians, we don't hear the album holders of the world on the radio quoting Leviticus, saying homosexuality is a grave sin, and therefore we should put them to death by the civil government.

29:11

Why not? Why this disparity? Why do you pick and choose? And you know, that would be my argument also, if we're going to appeal to that verse as a simple application.

29:23

And for full disclosure, many of your listeners who know me in my ministry know that I used to hold that view.

29:29

As a theonomist, in my understanding at the time of the law, I said, look, we're going to apply the law, we should apply what the law says, you know, and so that should be the law that's on the books.

29:41

Whether we get there in history at any particular point or not, that's what it should be, and if we're going to appeal to that verse, we should appeal to the penalty also.

29:51

And as I was reading Douglass's article, he goes on and says this, you know, makes a few comments about that.

29:59

First of all, he says the death penalty in this instance was not a minimum penalty, but rather one of the options, depending on the circumstances.

30:07

And you know, I would have a strong disagreement with that. The text doesn't say this or imply this anywhere.

30:14

The text is very clear, and it's only stated like that in one place as a law code.

30:21

You know, if a man lies with a man as you would lie with a woman, they shall be both put to death, okay?

30:29

There's no...they may be put to death in an extreme case or in certain circumstances.

30:34

It's unequivocal, and in fact in the Hebrew, it is a emphatic construct known as a pleonasm.

30:41

It literally translates as, in dying they shall die. It is emphatic.

30:47

There is no appeal here. It's over with. There is no other circumstance. And so that would be one disagreement

30:53

I would have, and this is relevant for many reasons. Many people who want to apply

30:59

Old Testament death penalties in regard to having other gods, sacrificing to other gods wrong forms of worship, blasphemy, bearing the

31:09

Lord's name in vain, sodomy was another one, breaking the Sabbath was another one, and there are actually case examples in the

31:17

Scripture where some of these are applied unto death. I mean, with no appeal, with no consideration of circumstances, very simple cases, that these are applied death penalties.

31:31

And I think a lot of people who want to uphold the Old Testament law, specifically in the

31:36

Christian Reconstruction and theonomic tradition, but also in the tradition Doug speaks from, which might be considered or called a

31:45

Westminster theonomy view, what is the Westminster Confession, what did the divines hold, and some of them did hold this view, was that well, these are maximum penalties.

31:56

We kind of hold them out there as, this is worthy of death, but you know, if you're nice about it, if you say you won't do it again, we might go easy on you, or in some cases there were, in history, there was benefit of clergy and there were other outs you could take to escape a death penalty and get something else, or in some cases they just didn't apply it.

32:16

They would fine you or banish you, they would whip you or whatever, and not apply the death penalty as it was written.

32:22

So that's one of my problems with this type of thinking, is that this is, you know, that the law itself gives us this kind of construct in which the death penalty is this threat hanging out here as a maximum penalty.

32:36

Like, oh, if you do it again, or if you cross this line, or if you cross this line, okay, now we're going to kill you.

32:43

That's not the way the law is written. It was stark, and there was no appeal. Now, there were some exceptions to that.

32:49

When there was a victim who could, in my opinion anyway, when there was a victim who could offer forgiveness, that they could escape that, but that's a separate issue.

33:00

And it certainly doesn't apply in the cases where it is a law stated with the pleonasm, with the emphatic construct, in dying this person shall die.

33:11

And those are generally ones that are attached to what we would consider today religious offenses.

33:17

Blasphemy, breaking the Sabbath, but also in these cases, as we could go on the show, with sodomy.

33:25

So that was one thing Doug said that kind of bothered me, but then he went on in the article, and by the way, he showed some circumstances from the history books that seem to mitigate that and support his view.

33:39

I'll address those in a second. But then he goes on in the article and transitioned into, you know, why don't we hammer on this death penalty?

33:50

Well, and then he goes on, and I'm kind of reading down the article here, so the death penalty for homosexual lust and behavior still applies.

33:58

Okay, so that seems to me like we're trying to leverage what the law says, but then he transitions into the gospel.

34:05

The glory of the gospel is that Jesus died on the cross as a perfect substitute for these sins and for all others.

34:13

In other words, the New Testament did not see an abrogation of the death penalty for sodomy. Rather, it is the

34:19

New Testament where we receive the final fulfillment of it, a final execution for sodomy.

34:25

That is in Christ. And it's that kind of thing that bothers me with Doug's article, is that there seems to be an equivocation going on here.

34:34

We want to be transitioning into a kind of a Christology, if you will, that, oh, Christ fulfilled this death penalty.

34:42

Well, does that mean we don't call for the death penalty for the Homosexual Act today? Or do we, in the civil government?

34:50

And that was really what started the argument on Facebook, as I was trying to push Doug to clarify that, because it seems like, on the one hand, we are upholding that law, contra the liberal critics that say we don't, but on the other hand, it sounds like we're trying to mitigate it and soften it and say, well,

35:05

Christ fulfilled it for us. And, you know, if that were the case, I would have numerous problems with it, the chief one being,

35:12

Christ fulfilled all the death penalties for us. Does this mean we should therefore also let rapists and murderers go free?

35:19

Does this mean there should be no civil penalty for anything, because Christ fulfilled it on the cross?

35:24

Well, certainly, Doug or I, neither one believe anything close to that. But that, of course, just leaves open the question of what we do believe.

35:33

What do we believe about the civil death penalty? So I think, if that's two things, why don't we state clearly what we believe?

35:41

And second of all, why does it not line up with the text? And so when Doug and I engaged in this further discussion, it seemed to me that there was some reticence on his part to say, well, these things have to take time and history.

35:57

You know, I can imagine a case maybe 500 years from now, an extreme case where a grown male pastor, so to speak, is sodomizing a young boy.

36:10

In which case, in that case, we would impose the death penalty. Perhaps, you know, after we've had a lot of exegetical maturity down the line, and I'm saying, my concern with that is it doesn't take the text seriously.

36:24

The text says, if a man lies with a man as with a woman, they shall both be put to death. Okay, that the case of an older man sodomizing young boy is more akin, in my case, to the case of rape rather than of homosexual, consensual homosexual conduct.

36:41

So obviously the death penalty for rape still applies, and because it's not a care and penalty.

36:47

The text in the law specifically says cases of rape are like cases of murder.

36:53

Okay, this is not a religious offense that has to do with the relationship to God, and his presence in the land, and the whole

37:00

Karam construct, which Doug says he agrees with. However, sodomy does, because it has to do with the continuation of the seed.

37:09

There's a lot we could say about that, by the way. I just don't want to get into an aside on these kind of details so that the listener gets distracted from the main point that's under discussion here, is do we continue this law, or don't we?

37:22

And if we do, why do we create all of these kind of constructs where we basically exonerate ourselves from actually applying it?

37:32

So, you know, those would be my main point. That would be my main point. If we're going to apply this law and appeal to it, and say that the law, the civil law, still applies today, then why don't we do it as the text reads?

37:46

Okay, now one of Doug's main arguments against that would be, well, this was a minimum penalty, it wasn't required, it only depended on the circumstances, and there were three instances in the

38:00

Kings that were quoted to show that this is how the law was meant to be applied.

38:07

The first one is the case of Asa in 1st Kings 15. And in 1st

38:15

Kings 15, we're told that Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made.

38:27

Okay, and here we're told that Asa took the sodomites out of the land, but we're not told that he executed them according to the

38:36

Mosaic law, and therefore this is evidence that the death penalty was not required.

38:44

Well, we're on dangerous ground here. Anytime we appeal to a description of what happened in history as a prescription for what the law says, okay, that's the whole difference between law and history.

38:57

Law tells us what ought to be, and history tells us what actually happened. The fact that Asa did what was right in the eyes of the

39:06

Lord does not mean he did everything that was right in the eyes of the Lord. And we know this for a fact, because if you read verse 14 in that narrative, it tells us specifically that Asa fell short.

39:17

He did not remove the high places. In other words, there was idolatry that continued under his watch, and certainly that didn't please the

39:25

Lord. So even if we take the argument from silence, that when it says the sodomites were taken out of the land, that that means that he didn't impose the death penalty on them.

39:36

Which, by the way, he could very well have. We're just not told whether he did or not. But even if we were to take the argument from silence and say that he did not, we would still not be left with the ability to judge that this pleased the

39:51

Lord and that it lined up with the law and that it was right, because Asa obviously infracted in other areas as well.

39:58

So the other examples fall along the same lines. First Kings 22, we're given the example,

40:06

I forget exactly who was the king in this case, was it Jeroboam maybe?

40:12

And it says that the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father

40:18

Asa, he took out of the land. Okay, but again in that narrative we're told the exact same thing in verse 43.

40:25

The high places were not taken away. The people still made sacrifices to idols in the high places.

40:33

So certainly we can't take this as a complete justification that he was fulfilling the law in God's eyes.

40:40

It's simply noting that there was some progress made in this one area. Notice also, by the way, what it says there that's relevant to the first case we just read.

40:52

In the first case we just read that Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord and took away the sodomites out of the land.

40:58

Now if you read that by itself, you might think that this was a successful mission, that this was done, that it was complete.

41:05

But then we read in Kings 22 that the remnant of the sodomites, which remained in the days of his father

41:13

Asa, he took out of the land. So even Asa didn't fully do what he was supposed to do in the eyes of the law.

41:21

And the third example we're told was Josiah in 2nd Kings 23, and he broke down the houses of the sodomites that were by the house of the

41:31

Lord where the women wove hangings for the grove. Okay. Even Josiah, if you read verse 5, did not execute all of the idolaters who were taking place.

41:44

At least that's what I read from it. But then later in that narrative it tells us that he did all according to the

41:49

Mosaic law. So we don't know how he treated those sodomites. We don't know anything other than that he broke down their house.

41:58

And the significance of that is not that he was trying to apply the laws of sodomy or not, or the death penalty or not.

42:07

It's simply silent on that issue. What was going on here in Josiah's time was that they had built a house of sodomy, an

42:18

Asherah, an Ashtaroth, a house of an idolatrous female pagan deity, literally right next to the temple in Jerusalem.

42:28

And so they're worshipping this pagan goddess through the form of sodomy and probably female prostitution as well, literally right next to the temple.

42:39

So what's going on here is not a simple case of sodomy. What's going on here is a case of idolatrous worship.

42:45

And Asherah, I'm sorry, Josiah breaks this down and removes it out of the land. Did he execute those people?

42:52

Those people in particular were not told either way, and so we can't draw a conclusion from that.

42:59

But in all three of these cases, the problem is in trying to interpret what the law itself says based on what particular kings did.

43:08

You know, if we're going to do that and follow, well, the king did what was right in God's eyes, and therefore justify everything else that king did, then we're going to be on shaky ground.

43:20

Shall we all therefore conspire to commit murder, commit adultery, and become voyeurs, sexual voyeurs, because of King David?

43:32

There was no other king whom it said he was a man after God's own heart, and yet he did all those things.

43:38

You know, the right relationship he has with God and the good things he does does not justify in any way, shape, or form the other ways he applies the law or the other mistakes he makes.

43:50

And I would say the same thing is true of all these other kings. The argument between me and Douglas is not what did the kings do right or wrong.

44:00

The argument between us is not what happened in the first century AD when the

44:06

Christianity first came on the scene. What was the historical situation? Were they actually able, pragmatically, practically, to fulfill and to apply these laws in the civil government?

44:17

Both of us would obviously concede that's not possible, but that's not the dispute between us.

44:22

The dispute between us is what does Leviticus 19, or I'm sorry, Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20 mean when they say that the homosexual shall be put to death?

44:33

And by the way, I'd like to be very clear about this. It does not say that a homosexual should be put to death.

44:39

It says that if a man lies with a man, as with he lies with a woman, they shall both be put to death. It's talking about the act of sodomy between two males.

44:49

And even the patriarch of the theonomic movement, R .J. Rushduni, has acknowledged and made a significant point out of the fact that it did not say the same thing about lesbians.

45:01

This is not specified in the law as a death penalty. We assume that it's sin.

45:07

We accept it as a sin in scripture, an ecclesiastical sin, but we do not see a death penalty for it anyway.

45:14

In other words, the civil government's not involved here. In my book, I would argue that that is because there is not the ceremonial aspect of protecting the seed involved in a lesbian act.

45:28

People need to really come to grips with this and how central it is to the

45:34

Old Testament law in many ways. And it has helped me to see that many of the things we have in the past seen as purely judicial laws are actually also ceremonial laws.

45:46

And that is often often why the stoning penalty is specified. So that there is a ceremonial aspect to some of the death penalties in the

45:58

Old Testament. And when Christ comes, it's not a matter of trying to determine whether this is abrogated or advocated in, and then, you know, gradually reinstated.

46:09

And I, by the way, I'll address that point in rebuttal. But when Christ comes, it's a matter of seeing how the law is, dies, and resurrects with him.

46:20

So that all Christians, all Christians have to grapple with this message. What does

46:25

Galatians mean when it says the law was given until the seed should come?

46:31

Okay. We all recognize that that seed is not talking, as many people have supposed, of the

46:37

Jewish people as a plurality. It's not the offspring of Abraham. Many, Paul says.

46:44

But it's one. It's one seed. It's Christ. The law was given until the seed should come. There is this intense relationship between the

46:54

Mosaic Code as a whole and the seed that should come.

47:00

And when we study the details, we find out. Of course, I write all of this in the book. The book is free online on our website.

47:08

I say this because many times I talk about what's in my book for those who want to read more details, but then people sometimes can't afford, or they don't want to buy a book from someone they don't know.

47:19

So we're a ministry. We put all of our important books online for free, so you can read them in HTML, so you can go to our website,

47:26

AmericanVision .org, and read it right there. It's stuck as the top post.

47:32

But I explain in the book, as Doug so well outlined in the beginning, that there is this

47:39

Kerem principle. That is a Hebrew word, Kerem, that literally means devoted to God.

47:44

This is a special category of the law, within the law. Not all punishments are

47:50

Kerem. Not all aspects of the law are Kerem, but some are. And I think those are ceremonial.

47:57

In the New Testament, the equivalent word for that word Kerem, you know, people aren't familiar with the word

48:04

Kerem, but they are familiar with the Greek equivalent of it in the New Testament, and that's the word anathema.

48:11

And where do we see the word anathema applied? Do we see it applied or even mentioned in terms of civil government?

48:19

Civil government is mentioned many times in the New Testament. They don't apply any anathemas through civil government anymore, but they do do so in terms of false

48:31

Gospels, in terms of people denying Christ, in terms of what we would consider, using the vernacular vocabulary, religious laws.

48:40

And so that's where I see the application of them, and that's where I see a transformation when

48:46

Christ comes. So that every Christian has to answer this question, when the seed comes, how does the law die, but also how is the law resurrected, so to speak?

48:58

I'm using kind of a metaphor, if you will. We see the law is dead in Christ, but we also see in Hebrews 8 and 10, quoting

49:07

Jeremiah, that in the New Covenant, I will write my law on their hearts.

49:13

It's not like the Old Covenant, which was on stone, which they broke, but it's a new covenant,

49:19

I'm going to write on the hearts, and it specifically says, I will write my law on their hearts. Well, you know, that means some of the law continues in the

49:26

New Testament, but also we recognize that some of it doesn't continue. And so, you know, in history we've had some of these discussions and theology books written saying what laws apply and which ones don't, and there are people all across the spectrum of different degrees saying, well, none of the laws apply anymore, the only law that applies now is the law of love.

49:49

And, you know, I disagree with that. And then there are some people who would say, well, virtually all of the law applies.

49:55

There are some very extreme forms of Hebrew name, I forget the name of the particular cults, that want us to keep virtually all the law.

50:03

Grow your corners of your hair out, wear the tassels and the whole bit. You know, I disagree with that.

50:09

But I think we can't be picking and choosing which laws apply and which ones don't continue based upon how we feel, or how our culture is, or what we think, or how we think the first century was progressing, or anything like that.

50:25

We have to have a biblical theological reason for it. And that's why I spent the time studying this, and this is why

50:33

I developed, I shouldn't say I developed it, there are several former theologians who noticed this principle before I did, called the

50:42

Charon Principle. And I see that when it applies in this special way that it does, and the moment you see it in the

50:49

Old Testament, you begin to see the details of it, such as the fact that this was only applied to two males engaged in the homosexual relationship, not females.

50:58

Okay? And you have one minute. Thank you. However, if you move on to the law of bestiality, for example, it does specify women.

51:08

If a man approaches a beast, or a woman approaches a beast, they shall both be stoned to death.

51:14

So they're all the hallmarks of the ceremonial aspects of this law, in this case it's applied to women too.

51:20

So in summing up this view, I don't see a biblical theological argument behind Doug's view, and that makes the appeal to the death penalty of the

51:29

Old Testament highly dangerous, because there are a lot of people who follow

51:34

Doug's view that want to impose the death penalty on homosexuals. They want to have a big, powerful state, and I know

51:41

Doug said at one point, you know, we don't want to make this a medieval Ayatollah weird beard type of thing, but there are a lot of people following Doug who do want to make it a medieval

51:51

Constantinian tyranny, and that greatly concerns me that if you don't have a biblical theological reason for dividing what continues and what doesn't, then you're going to end up in some form of tyranny, whether it's run by the liberals today, or whether it's run by the

52:07

Constantinians. And we are—I want to find that biblical balance and support it. And we are out of time. And before we go to the break,

52:14

I just have a question. It seems to me, and I knew this before the debate, but it seems to me that, and I'm sure that a lot of our listeners may be surprised by what they are hearing, because it seems to me that we have a non -theonomist debating a theonomist, but the answers given and the defenses given for either side seem to be reversed.

52:36

Am I right on this? These are crazy times. In other words,

52:43

Doug Wilson, you have publicly said, even on my program, that you are not a theonomist, even though you have a lot of respect and empathy for a lot of what is taught amongst theonomists.

52:55

And I know that, Joel, you have openly declared to be a theonomist and even defended theonomy in a debate.

53:04

And American Vision has its entire history, from what I know, as a theonomic and Christian Reconstructionist organization.

53:11

And it seems that the defenses being given on the question on how the

53:18

Old Covenant civil penal codes apply to homosexuality today, they seem to be reversed. Am I correct on that,

53:24

Joel? I would say, according to the popular perception, that's absolutely true, but I would say the question has been, historically, has there been a biblical outworking?

53:36

And all those who have professed to be theonomists, whether it's Rush Dooney, Bonson, or some of the other bigger names, the only one who has done a systematic exegesis of the text to try to see what continues and what doesn't has been

53:50

Gary North, and he is far closer to my view, which I've basically taken his view and run with it.

53:56

He's far closer to my view, and so the question is, is this theonomy or not? Well, it is, if you consider the outworkings of a very, you know, intensely exegetical theonomy, yes.

54:07

And I think we're approaching a greater system of liberty as we do that. Well, we're going to our midway break right now.

54:13

It's a longer break than normal because Grace Life Radio 90 .1 FM in Lake City, Florida requires a 12 -minute break between our two larger segments, so please be patient with us.

54:23

We are not taking listener questions today, so I thank all of you who already submitted questions, but we are not taking questions today from our listeners.

54:30

And when we return, the order will be reversed. Joel McDermott will question

54:36

Doug Wilson for 15 minutes, and then Doug Wilson will question or cross -examine

54:41

Joel McDermott for 15 minutes, so don't go away. We'll be right back right after these messages with the debate over how the

54:48

Old Covenant civil penal code is applied to homosexuality today. Hi, I'm Chris Arnsen, host of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio, here to tell you about an exciting offer from World magazine, my trusted source for news from a

55:06

Christian perspective. Try World at no charge for 90 days and get a free copy of R .C.

55:12

Sproul's book, Relationship Between Church and State. I rely on World because I trust the reporting,

55:19

I gain insight from the analysis, and World provides clarity to the news stories that really matter.

55:25

I believe you'll also find World to be an invaluable resource to better understand critical topics with a depth that's simply not found in other media outlets.

55:34

Armed with this coverage, World can help you to be a voice of wisdom in your family and your community. This trial includes bi -weekly issues of World magazine, on -scene reporting from World Radio, and the fully shareable content of World Digital.

55:49

Simply visit wng .org forward slash iron sharpens to get your

55:55

World trial and Dr. Sproul's book all free, no obligation with no credit card required.

56:02

Visit World News Group at wng .org forward slash iron sharpens today.

56:19

Have you been blessed by Iron Sharpens Iron Radio? We remain on the air because of our faithful sponsors and because of listeners like you.

56:27

There are four ways you can help. First, do you know potential sponsors who may wish to advertise their goods or services on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio?

56:37

Second, whenever possible, purchase the products or use the services that our sponsors advertise, and then let them know that you heard about them on Iron Sharpens Iron Radio.

56:48

Thirdly, you can also donate to Iron Sharpens Iron Radio by going to our website at ironsharpensironradio .com

56:55

and click support at the top of the page. But most importantly, keep Iron Sharpens Iron Radio in your prayers.

57:02

We hope that Iron Sharpens Iron Radio blesses you for many years to come. One sure way all

57:16

Iron Sharpens Iron Radio listeners can help keep my show on the air is to support my advertisers. I know you all use batteries every day, so I'm urging you all from now on to exclusively use batterydepot .com

57:30

for all your battery needs. At batterydepot .com, they're changing the status quo.

57:37

They're flipping the script. They're sticking it to the man. In other words, they'd like to change the battery industry for good by providing an extensive inventory of top -of -the -line batteries that are uniformly new, dependable, and affordable.

57:51

Ordering from batterydepot .com ensures you'll always get fresh out -of -the -box batteries you can count on to work properly at competitive prices.

58:00

Whether you need batteries for cordless phones, cell phones, radios, PCs, laptops, tablets, baby monitors, hearing aids, smoke detectors, credit card readers, digital cameras, electronic cigarettes,

58:15

GPSs, mp3 players, watches, or nearly anything else you own that needs batteries, go to batterydepot .com.

58:25

Next day shipping available. All products protected by 30 day guarantees and six -month warranties.

58:31

Call 866 -403 -3768. That's 866 -403 -3768.

58:40

Or go to batterydepot .com. That's batterydepot .com. Every day at thousands of community centers, high schools, middle schools, juvenile institutions, coffee shops, and local hangouts,

59:02

Long Island Youth for Christ staff and volunteers meet with young people who need Jesus. We are rural and urban and we are always about the message of Jesus.

59:11

Our mission is to have a noticeable spiritual impact on Long Island, New York by engaging young people in the lifelong journey of following Christ.

59:19

Long Island Youth for Christ has been a stalwart bedrock ministry since 1959. We have a world -class staff and a proven track record of bringing consistent love and encouragement to youths in need all over the country and around the world.

59:33

Help honor our history by becoming a part of our future. Volunteer, donate, pray, or all of the above.

59:40

For details call Long Island Youth for Christ at 631 -385 -8333.

59:46

That's 631 -385 -8333. Or visit liyfc .org.

59:56

That's liyfc .org. Tired of box store

01:00:05

Christianity? Of doing church in a warehouse with all the trappings of a rock concert? Do you long for a more traditional and reverent style of worship?

01:00:13

And how about the preaching? Perhaps you've begun to think that in -depth biblical exposition has vanished from Long Island.

01:00:20

Well, there's good news. Wedding River Baptist Church exists to provide believers with a meaningful and reverent worship experience featuring the systematic exposition of God's Word.

01:00:30

And this loving congregation looks forward to meeting you. Call them at 631 -929 -3512 for service times.

01:00:39

631 -929 -3512. Or check out their website at wrbc .us.

01:00:46

That's wrbc .us. I'm James White of Alpha Omega Ministries.

01:00:52

The New American Standard Bible is perfect for daily reading or in -depth study. Used by pastors, scholars, and everyday readers, the

01:00:58

NASV is widely embraced and trusted as a literal and readable Bible translation. The NASV offers clarity and readability while maintaining high accuracy to the original languages which the

01:01:07

NASV is known for. The NASV is available in many editions like a topical reference Bible. Researched and prepared by biblical scholars devoted to accuracy, the new topical reference

01:01:16

Bible includes contemporary topics relevant to today's issues. From compact to giant print

01:01:22

Bibles, find an NASV that fits your needs very affordably at nasbible .com. Whichever edition you choose, trust, discover, and enjoy the

01:01:30

NASV for yourself today. Go to nasbible .com. That's nasbible .com.

01:01:42

Iron Sharpens Iron welcomes Solid Rock Remodeling to our family of sponsors. Serving South Central Pennsylvania, Solid Rock Remodeling is focused on discovering, understanding, and exceeding your expectations.

01:01:57

They deliver personalized project solutions with exceptional results. Solid Rock Remodeling offers a full range of home renovations including kitchen and bath remodeling, decks, porches, windows and doors, roof and siding, and more.

01:02:15

For a clear, detailed, professional estimate, call this trustworthy team of problem solvers who provide superior results that stand to the test of time.

01:02:26

Call Solid Rock Remodeling at 717 -697 -1981.

01:02:32

717 -697 -1981. Or visit solidrockremodeling .com.

01:02:39

That's solidrockremodeling .com. Solid Rock Remodeling, bringing new life to your home.

01:02:49

Hi, I'm Pastor Bill Shishko, inviting you to tune in to a visit to the Pastors Study every

01:02:54

Saturday from 12 noon to 1 pm Eastern Time on WLIE Radio.

01:03:00

www .wlie540am .com.

01:03:06

We bring biblically faithful pastoral ministry to you, and we invite you to visit the Pastors Study by calling in with your questions.

01:03:13

Our time will be lively, useful, and I assure you, never dull. Join us this Saturday at 12 noon

01:03:19

Eastern Time for a visit to the Pastors Study because everyone needs a pastor. Charles Haddon Spurgeon once said,

01:03:30

Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read. He who never quotes will never be quoted.

01:03:37

He who will not use the thoughts of other men's brains proves he has no brains of his own.

01:03:43

You need to read. Solid Ground Christian Books is a publisher and book distributor who takes these words of the

01:03:49

Prince of Preachers to heart. The mission of Solid Ground Christian Books is to bring back treasures of the past to minister to Christians in the present and future, and to publish new titles that address burning issues in the church and the world.

01:04:02

Since its beginning in 2001, Solid Ground has been committed to publish God -centered,

01:04:07

Christ -exalting books for all ages. We invite you to go treasure hunting at Solid -Ground -Books .com.

01:04:15

That's Solid -Ground -Books .com and see what priceless literary gems from the past to present you can unearth from Solid Ground.

01:04:24

Solid Ground Christian Books is honored to be a weekly sponsor of Iron Sharpens Iron Radio. And you can take advantage of a phenomenal pre -publication sale on the complete works of Thomas Manton.

01:04:37

This is a 22 -volume hardback series that retails for $1 ,000.

01:04:42

Well, if you get involved with this pre -publication sale that Solid Ground Christian Books is offering, you will get that 22 -volume hardback set for less than $300.

01:04:52

$299 .95. That offer is only available until midnight March 31st.

01:04:59

The caveat is that enough people need to order this set in the pre -publication phase in order for them to go to print.

01:05:07

You can rest assured, however, that your credit card and debit card will not be charged until the books do go into print.

01:05:15

So if you want more information on this phenomenal deal on the complete works of Thomas Manton, which Charles Haddon Spurgeon called a mountain of sound theology, go to Solid -Ground -Books .com.

01:05:25

Solid -Ground -Books .com. And before I return to the debate between Douglas Wilson and Joel McDermott on how does the

01:05:33

Old Covenant civil penal code apply to homosexuality today, I just have a couple of brief announcements.

01:05:39

First of all, the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals is having their Philadelphia Conference on Reform Theology coming up this

01:05:46

April. It is only named the Philadelphia Conference on Reform Theology in tribute to Dr.

01:05:53

James Montgomery Boyce who started this series of conferences well over two decades ago at the 10th

01:06:02

Presbyterian Church in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They are now being held at different locations. The first is going to be held from April 13th through the 15th at the

01:06:12

First Christian Reformed Church of Byron Center, Michigan, and the second is being held at the Proclamation Presbyterian Church April 27th through the 30th in Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania.

01:06:24

The speakers include Daniel Aiken, Richard Gaffin, Daniel Hyde, my favorite preacher of all time,

01:06:30

I think he's the most powerful preacher alive on the planet Earth, Conrad M. Beyway, pastor of Kabwata Baptist Church, Lusaka, Zambia, Africa.

01:06:38

Richard Phillips who's my friend from the Second Presbyterian Church of Greenville, South Carolina.

01:06:43

Jonathan Master who's been on this program, David Murray who's also been on this program, and Scott Oliphant of Westminster Theological Seminary who

01:06:50

I'm still trying to get an interview with. If you'd like to register for this conference, by the way it's on the theme

01:06:56

The Spirit of the Age and the Age of the Spirit, just go to AllianceNet .org,

01:07:02

AllianceNet .org, and then click on Events, and then click on the Philadelphia Conference on Reform Theology.

01:07:09

Please tell the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals that you heard about these events from Chris Arnzen on Iron Trap and Zion Radio.

01:07:16

Last but not least, it's my most uncomfortable time of the program, and that is to beg you for money.

01:07:22

As many of you know, going back to 2005, I went for years without making a single public appeal for donations, but my advertisers who spend their hard -earned money keeping this program on the air have urged me to make these public appeals for donations, so I finally caved in to their pressure, and out of respect to them,

01:07:40

I am asking you for donations if indeed you love this program and don't want it to go away. Please never ever ever siphon money out of your regular giving to your local church where you are a member.

01:07:50

If you're not a member of a local Bible -believing church, you are living in disobedience to God, and you need to rectify that situation and join a local

01:07:59

Bible -believing church. Please never siphon money out of your giving to them in order to give to Iron Trap and Zion Radio, and never put your family in financial jeopardy by giving to Iron Trap and Zion Radio if you're having trouble making ends meet.

01:08:13

If you can though, however, financially obey those two commands to provide for your church and home, and you are blessed above and beyond your financial ability to do that, please consider donating to Iron Trap and Zion Radio.

01:08:27

Go to irontrapandzionradio .com, click support, and within the click of a button, you can donate to us with your credit or debit card by clicking on click to donate now.

01:08:37

You can also send in checks the old -fashioned way via snail mail, and the address will be given to you.

01:08:42

And if you want to advertise with us, send us an email to chrisarnsonatgmail .com, chrisarnsonatgmail .com,

01:08:49

and put advertising in the subject line, whether it's your church, your parachurch organization, whether it's your professional practice, whether you're a doctor, a lawyer, a dentist, a chiropractor, whether you are advertising your business or a special event that you are having, as long as whatever it is you're doing is compatible with the theology we express here on Iron Trap and Zion Radio, we would love to help you launch an ad campaign.

01:09:13

You don't have to believe exactly as I do, you just need to be promoting something that is compatible with what

01:09:18

I believe and what we promote on Iron Trap and Zion Radio. Well, we are now back to the debate, which has already proven to be a very fascinating debate.

01:09:29

In my opinion, we are having a debate on how does the Old Covenant Civil Penal Code apply to homosexuality today?

01:09:36

And our debating opponents are Douglas Wilson, author and pastor of Christ Church Moscow Idaho, and Joel McDermott, author and president of American Vision.

01:09:47

And now it is time for Joel McDermott to cross -examine or question Douglas Wilson for 15 minutes before we have the reverse.

01:09:56

And Joel McDermott, you now have the floor. Okay, just so I'm clear,

01:10:02

Chris, this is supposed to be a traditional cross -examination where I'm asking him questions? Yes, and he is not to ask questions at all other than to clarify, you know, if he's confused by a question or something.

01:10:14

Okay, well I think we can do that. Would it be objectionable to you if I use this time instead for a rebuttal period, or are you saving that for the end?

01:10:24

That's for the end. Okay, all right then, we'll stick with that. Douglas, you said you agreed with my carom principle as it was laid out, but there were a couple of areas you had a disagreement with me.

01:10:40

One of those disagreements was that I seem to treat the law, the change in the carom principle, as an abrogation, and not as an abrogation and replacement.

01:10:56

Are you familiar with the places in my book where I talked about fulfillment and replacement?

01:11:03

Yeah, I read the whole book. That's what's interesting to me.

01:11:10

So could you comment on the places where I talked about those laws that are fulfilled and replaced in Christ, versus those laws that are fulfilled and apply forever?

01:11:23

I'm not sure I get the question. My statement there is what you seem to me to be doing, had to do with the content of the laws under discussion with the carom principle.

01:11:40

In other words, carom means that, okay, we don't have to stone them with stones, we don't have to burn

01:11:48

San Francisco with fire. We don't have to do that. That's not the penalty that we apply to this.

01:11:56

But we can look at that carom law and determine the general equity.

01:12:03

What is being disapproved of here? And should we penalize it at all?

01:12:11

Should we make that behavior illegal? And if so, what penalties do we apply?

01:12:16

That's the replacement part. And I didn't think that your treatment of the carom principle gave us any guidance on what to do with homosexual behavior, for example.

01:12:28

I see. Well, okay, I'll address that and rebuttal then. What would you say, if we're seeking general equity in a law like that, for example, the law specifies death for two men engaging in a homosexual act, and it's emphatic, dying they shall die.

01:12:47

What general equity is there in that? I guess what I should say, first of all, what is the general equity?

01:12:53

And second of all, how do you determine what parts of that are general equity and which aren't?

01:12:58

What standard do you use? Well, the standard always has to be

01:13:04

Scripture compared with Scripture, okay? So if I could just answer that with a thought experiment, and Spurgeon once talked about certain ministers who handled the text the way a donkey chews a thistle, you know, very carefully.

01:13:21

I'm not trying to be coy or cute about these things. I really believe these issues need to be talked through and judicially debated by well -intentioned good -hearted

01:13:34

Christians. But I know that the things I say, if I say, for example, yeah,

01:13:41

I think the death penalty still applies under certain circumstances, which I do. If I say that, then there are certain

01:13:49

Internet outlaws who are going to go nuts with that. And so I just want to be very careful.

01:13:56

I want to carefully bound what I'm saying so that we can have the discussion. I'm not trying to avoid the discussion.

01:14:04

But to illustrate the principle, suppose some unnamed African country arrests a couple of homosexual men who were caught in the act, and they try them, and they have a fair trial, no kangaroo court at all.

01:14:28

Nobody denies that they were engaged in that activity. That's not the defense.

01:14:33

There's all sorts of international pressure brought to bear on this country for trying them at all. But let's say at the end of the day, they try them and execute them.

01:14:45

Now, if someone comes up to me and asks me about that, and said, what do you think about this country doing this thing?

01:14:54

I would say, number one, that's not what they're doing is not my agenda. I'm not trying to argue that that's the first thing we ought to do, because I believe there's a whole bunch of other things that we ought to do first.

01:15:08

But if they were to ask me point blank, straight up, do you think an injustice was done to the men who were executed?

01:15:18

I would have to say no. No injustice was being done to them because of the passage in Leviticus, because of what

01:15:29

Paul says in Romans, in Romans chapter 1, where people who live like this deserve to die, he says at the end of the first chapter.

01:15:42

There's no injustice that's being done to them. They are dying because of their sin.

01:15:48

Now, that's not the same thing as saying that the government was correct to execute them, but I'm trying to parse the issue carefully.

01:15:57

No injustice is done if someone dies for that sin. You would say that for any sin, though, right?

01:16:07

Yeah, actually, yes. We all die. And there's no injustice done when we all die.

01:16:14

But I want to say that if they were executed for that sin, that execution was not an injustice.

01:16:25

It may not have been what the government ought to have been doing. They ought to have been pursuing bigger fish to fry, etc.

01:16:34

I'm not saying that that ought to be their priority, given the way the world is. But if you isolated that one thing,

01:16:42

I can't find a text that would say that was ungodly, unjust, or wicked for the government to do.

01:16:55

I'm trying to figure out how you would decide, then, if scriptures are only standard, how do we decide which biblical laws to apply and which ones not to?

01:17:02

What sets one as a priority and what does not? Yeah. So, as my understanding of—I think you summarized it well—I'm a

01:17:13

Westminster theonomist. I'm sort of in the classical

01:17:19

Reformed tradition with a great deal of respect for the high -octane theonomist.

01:17:30

When I look at this, it's not just the content of the law that we should adopt.

01:17:39

It's the system of law that is adopted. So, in the

01:17:45

Mosaic Law, it was a case law system. And that case law system was adopted both with regard to content and with regard to process by King Alfred, and that was the foundation of our common law system.

01:18:02

So, I think we all agree you have to have due process for any biblical law to work, and that's a question of how do we get there in history.

01:18:10

But the question of what ought to be done and is it just, I think, is separate. Right. But there are two things about a case law system.

01:18:19

One is the due process and all the checks and balances and the jury system and those sorts of things.

01:18:25

But there's also the element of precedent. So, in a case law system, there are standards that are set up.

01:18:34

You know, you need to put a parapet around the roof of your house. And the general equity would today require a householder to put a rail around a second -story deck, but he doesn't have to put one around the roof of his house because nobody goes up there anymore.

01:18:49

The general equity applies, and that decision has to be made by wise judges.

01:18:56

So, a judge looks at the precedent that was established 50 years ago in a decision.

01:19:03

He sees the general equity of it and he applies it to the new situation. So, that's why you have to have wise men who hate covetousness, who are men of truth, you know, as it says in Exodus.

01:19:18

But you would agree that their standard for applying a particular precedent is not the precedent itself, because those could be wrong.

01:19:24

It's the Scripture. Yes, the foundational precedent is biblical law.

01:19:33

And so, a wise judge is going to see if a previous decision to his was unbiblical, he would have the authority to overturn it.

01:19:44

How am I doing on time, Chris? You have six minutes. Okay, sorry,

01:19:51

Doug. I don't mean to interrupt you, Doug. It's just, you know, I'm a little more ready than I'm prepared to be. Let me ask you this. What about, for example, other

01:19:58

Karam penalties besides the home of the sodomite penalty between two males?

01:20:05

What about, for example, the man who was killed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath? Is that abrogated?

01:20:11

And if so, why is that abrogated, but the other one is not? Yeah, that's a great example.

01:20:21

So, in a biblical, ideal biblical republic, would there be blue laws?

01:20:28

Would there be Sabbath laws? And I would say yes. Okay. So you could be killed for not participating in the

01:20:39

Sabbath? No. Remember this Karam penalty is fulfilled. So I look at the

01:20:46

I look at that incident where the man is executed for picking up sticks on the Sabbath, and I would want to examine the text very closely.

01:20:55

That happens right after Moses has declared the law, and this guy goes out in a very high -handed,

01:21:04

I take it as a high -handed rebellious oh yeah, watch me do this. And so it was not just Sabbath -breaking.

01:21:14

It was sort of a high -handed, rebellious, and arrogant Sabbath -breaking. Yeah, I'm not trying to justify that one instance, but does the penalty still apply?

01:21:23

So you would say the penalty still applies for that. The death penalty does not still apply for Sabbath -breaking, but it would possibly still apply for homosexuality.

01:21:33

Right. Okay. So how does the end of Karam do it for Sabbath, get rid of that penalty, but not the death penalty in terms of homosexuality?

01:21:43

How do you make that judgment? Well, this is one of the reasons why in your initial piece you talked about how

01:21:51

I was wanting to have us do the exegesis carefully over decades and centuries, because these are complicated issues, and I want to make sure that we get them right, because in my mind,

01:22:05

I think we share this, coercion by the state is a big deal. And I don't want to coerce anybody to do anything unless I have a slam -dunk, black -letter argument from Scripture that that's what

01:22:19

I need to do. Okay? Now, having said that... Hey, let me pray an amen right there, brother.

01:22:26

Let me just give you an amen right there next to promoting my book. That's great.

01:22:32

Okay. So as I read through Genesis to Revelation over and over and over again,

01:22:39

I see a disproportionate reaction on the part of God and the Apostles and the

01:22:45

Lord Jesus to sexual sin and Sabbath -breaking.

01:22:52

Okay? So the premier Sabbath -breaker in the New Testament was

01:22:57

Jesus. Now, he wasn't really, truly a Sabbath -breaker, but one of his big collisions was with the so -called guardians of the

01:23:09

Sabbath. And if I look at the sexual corruptions of the world, and you look at Sodom and Gomorrah and God raining down fire and brimstone from above, and the sort of periodic and very fierce denunciations of this behavior all the way through the

01:23:29

Bible, and then the fact that Sabbath -keeping, the way

01:23:36

Sabbath -keeping looks is transformed in the New Covenant, it's very clear that we're dealing with a different critter.

01:23:47

So, it's not that... Basically, I draw a distinction between what

01:23:53

I call redemption law and creation law. Creation law is law that obedience to which looks the same, whether it's 500

01:24:01

B .C. or 500 A .D. If I don't steal my neighbor's mule, that looks the same, 500

01:24:07

B .C., as it does 500 A .D. If I don't commit adultery with his wife, that looks the same, 500

01:24:13

B .C., 500 A .D. Sabbath -keeping looks different. Right? So, I believe that Scripture, if I just steep myself in the

01:24:22

Scripture, I am forced to treat Sabbath -keeping and covenant -keeping sexually, and put them in different categories.

01:24:37

And Joel, you have one minute. One minute left? Okay, let me see here.

01:24:46

You know what? I'm just going to end my questioning there. I'll pick up at the rebuttal. Okay, and now

01:24:52

Doug Wilson, you now have 15 minutes to cross -examine or question Joel McDermott.

01:24:59

All right. I've got three basic areas that I'd like to pursue. Maybe we can do five minutes on each one.

01:25:06

Chris, if you could give me a flag at five -minute markers. Sure. So, I guess my fundamental question,

01:25:15

Joel, is why any penalty at all for these sexual crimes?

01:25:22

And how would you ground civil penalties of banishment or loss of citizenship?

01:25:29

How would you make a biblical case for those penalties being applied today? Absolutely. You know what?

01:25:38

Let me just say a couple things. First of all, this book, when I brought it out, is just an introduction. I mean, it's got a lot to fill into it.

01:25:44

And I said in the back of it that there's a lot of work to be done here, exegetically. And I'm certainly not above going back and clarifying or revising a sentence.

01:25:53

And if there was any one single sentence in the whole book I would take out, it would be that one. Because people have written me saying, you know, where did this come from?

01:26:01

And I think what I'm struggling to do in my mind at the time, and I dashed some of this off,

01:26:06

I admit, was try to deal with cases where, what do you have with these really extreme flagrant cases of, like, not just a gay pride parade, which is bad enough in itself, but where they're actually exposing themselves nude, they're involving children in it, and it's just very across the board grotesque.

01:26:25

And, you know, I think you actually helped me quite a bit in your opening statement. You said, you used the phrase, do these kind of flop over into second table issues?

01:26:35

And I think I wouldn't look at it necessarily like that, but it really is a second table issue. You mentioned disturbing the peace, and that's a concept

01:26:43

I've been working on very hard right now. As you know, I'm doing a book on, I'm working on the foundations for a book on criminal justice, and that's a category that doesn't come to us in biblical law, you know.

01:26:55

That is a category that comes to us from English common law. It also has precedence in other systems, so I want to really get to the bottom of it, because it's hard to dispense with this idea of disturbing the peace as not being a crime, but at the same time you don't see it explicitly in the

01:27:10

Bible. But I've talked to a couple people I really respect on this that are

01:27:15

Christian lawyers, and they're like, you know, there is a basic, it comes out of the castle doctrine to begin with. A man's got his individual peace with God that's protected.

01:27:23

A man's got his home peace that's protected. There's also a social peace. And so I think you're looking at something like a second table offense there.

01:27:31

Now what the punishment should be, I'm certainly open to exploring. I light it upon banishment based on this concept

01:27:38

I hear many times in the Old Testament of that they shall be cut off from their people. To me that's not necessarily signaling a death penalty, but it's more like an excommunication.

01:27:50

And can there be a civil version of excommunication for the protection of the peace of the nation?

01:27:56

I kind of toyed with that at the time. I'm open to actually retracting that at this time until I understand it better.

01:28:03

But as far as the simple sodomy question goes, the Leviticus passage we're arguing over, and Charem principles in general,

01:28:12

I'm fine with saying those penalties don't apply anymore at all. And if there are protections out there, they should be subsumed under the protections of privacy, tolerance, and those kind of things that are protected by the second table of law.

01:28:29

Okay, let's take the penalty off the table for a minute.

01:28:35

Do you have any problem with the civil magistrate going on the record as saying these things are abominations?

01:28:50

I mean, that's actually a good question. Is the speech of the civil magistrate regulated?

01:28:57

I think part of the problem there is our history of what the composition of the law is completely...the

01:29:09

composition of the government is messed up. For example, there is no clearly stated executive department in Old Testament law.

01:29:18

You don't have a standing police force. All you have are kind of a citizen police force that can be, for lack of a better word, deputized in cases where the courts need them.

01:29:31

And the driving institution there is the law that comes from God and the courts.

01:29:36

So I would say in a system like that I would have no problem with the court saying these things are an abomination.

01:29:44

The question is how do you get somebody in court for that, and can there be a charge? Does the civil government have jurisdiction?

01:29:50

I would say in most cases they don't. I'm trying to get away from...what

01:29:56

I want to do is get away from the idea of penalties, and the court, they're only going to say something if someone's been arraigned in front of them.

01:30:05

By the way, Doug, you've passed your first five -minute segment. Just wanted to let you know. Okay, thanks. So would you have any problem,

01:30:13

Joel, if the king announced one day, hey, you guys, I'm not going to penalize anybody for this, you know, the

01:30:20

Karen principle and all, but you really need to knock that off, because God's going to send you to hell. Well, a couple things.

01:30:28

I mean, first of all, I felt this debate was supposed to be on the civil penalties, so anything outside of that is, you know,

01:30:36

I'm kind of going off the seat of my pants here. Or maybe the top of my head, or maybe that's the same thing,

01:30:41

I don't know. But am I okay with a king saying something? Well, first of all,

01:30:47

I don't want a king, Doug. I don't want a king. Sorry. But since Deuteronomy 17 makes an allowance for a millic king of this certain type,

01:31:00

I think if there was a situation where there was one and he made a proclamation,

01:31:07

I don't think I would have a problem with that kind of a bully pulpit system, because he has freedom of speech also.

01:31:14

His hands aren't tied by the fact that he's a civil ruler. Okay. All right. Let me move on to my next set of questions.

01:31:24

I'd like to go to Asa and Josiah and that thing, that point he made. Now, I quite agree that when the

01:31:32

Bible tells us that Asa and Josiah were good kings, they were on the side of the angels.

01:31:38

I agree completely. That doesn't mean that they've got a blank check that we should read anything they did as a good thing, because as you pointed out, they didn't remove the high places.

01:31:51

Solomon was a good king, and yet he took all those wives and he built some temples that he shouldn't have.

01:31:56

So Solomon sinned. David was a man after God's own heart, and he sinned.

01:32:03

But when the Bible tells us that a king was a good guy, and it's very specific about the sinfulness of the sins that that king committed, then

01:32:16

I don't have a problem taking descriptions that are not rejected or not disparaged as being the sacred historian praising

01:32:28

Asa. So it says Asa did what was right in the sight of the Lord and he exiled the sodomites from the land.

01:32:36

I take that, exiling the sodomites, not as not removing the high places, but as a place where the historian is praising

01:32:46

Asa for having done that. Would you agree? I would take that as a place where he is being praised for having done an action, whether that's exile or not.

01:33:00

I'm not sure. I looked at Hebrew. It says took away in the translation I have. But in general, yeah, he's being praised for that particular act, yes.

01:33:11

It may not have gone as completely as it should have, but it's a good start and that sort of thing, right?

01:33:20

I don't know if you'd say it's a good start. I'd say looking back on that, it praises that one act, yes.

01:33:27

Okay, now, if you take the Leviticus 18, this is, I'm trying to explain,

01:33:32

I guess, my exegetical basis for approaching this the way

01:33:37

I do. So in Leviticus 18, if the only verse I had was that verse,

01:33:43

I think your argument dying he shall die is a compelling argument.

01:33:49

I mean, there it is. But if I look at Scripture and I see that, yeah, it looks like a mandatory capital punishment here, but Asa is praised for something that isn't that.

01:34:06

Asa is praised for doing something that falls short of the mandatory penalty. That tells me that Leviticus 18 is qualified by the subsequent history of the kings.

01:34:24

Would you agree? No, not at all. No, I do not take

01:34:30

Asa's actions or the commendation of Asa's partial actions as a commentary on the fulfillment of that law.

01:34:39

You can say it's a good thing that it happened in history, and again, in reality, this gets into our other debate we've had online regarding incrementalism versus ax to the root mentality, and some of the debates we had over that.

01:34:55

What is it we are to aim at going forward? What are we supposed to say the law is?

01:35:00

Which this debate, in my opinion, is on what is the law and its proper application. To me, there's no quarter there.

01:35:08

We're not supposed to aim at a law that just limits gay pride parades to 3 o 'clock on Sundays in parts of town or whatever.

01:35:17

I know you wouldn't support that. I don't want to sell a man his position. But we're not supposed to aim at these limitations.

01:35:24

If in the process of fighting this, you arrive at what is not a full fulfillment of the law, and you look back on it and say, well, at least we did that much.

01:35:34

That's good. And God commends you for doing that. Your heart was in the right place. You fought. You did what you could.

01:35:40

That is what I would consider a godly incrementalism. But if you aim at the outset to say, oh, well, we can just impose this law a little bit here and there because we don't have the political clout to get it all the way or whatever reason you come up with, if you aim at something that is less than the law says...

01:36:02

You're doing what the prophets call out. That is decreeing iniquitous decrees. And I don't want to be involved in anything like that.

01:36:13

Before I leave Leviticus, first, I wanted to take your point on there's no prohibition of lesbianism in the

01:36:23

Old Testament. There's certainly no criminal prohibition of it. And there is some indication, again, in Romans 1, that Paul seems to be arguing by analogy and lumping it in with a very

01:36:40

Talmudic condemnation of the way the pagans live.

01:36:48

But when I look at Leviticus 18 and it says a man lies with a man as with a woman,

01:36:55

I take that as anal intercourse and not as other aberrant forms of sexual behavior.

01:37:03

So one of the reasons I want to go slowly in our discussion of this and deliberation of it is

01:37:11

I don't want Reconstructionists on a hair trigger thinking they know what the verse says and executing people, you know, the ultimate coercive act of the state.

01:37:23

And then three years later they'd read an article in the theological journal that said, oops, that verse didn't mean that.

01:37:33

So would you agree with me that, for example, oral sex fallatio between homosexual men is not addressed directly in the

01:37:47

Leviticus 18 passage? Well, I don't know. I'd like to take my time on that.

01:37:53

If you get centuries to figure out how these laws apply, surely I can get more than 30 seconds to figure it out.

01:38:01

No, no. No, you get seconds. I get centuries. That is a very double standard,

01:38:09

I'm afraid of, when it comes to government. Honestly, I'll just say,

01:38:15

I'll give you my honest answer. I'm not completely assertive. I mean, any sex between two gay men,

01:38:21

I think, is a sin. Whether it was meant to fall under that Karam penalty or not, I'm not entirely certain.

01:38:28

But again, to me that's a side issue to whether or it would be a side issue or it would be kind of a particular case example to be figured out by men wiser than me, hopefully, of the law we're talking about and that stark application of the death penalty for it and how that applies today.

01:38:48

Right. And I think we agree there that these things are complicated, and that's why

01:38:54

I think all of us should be taking our time to answer this question. Well, I would agree that aspects of it are complicated.

01:39:01

Not all of it is. And by the way, Doug, you have a minute left. They shall both be put to death, to me, is not complicated.

01:39:10

Right, but for what is? You're asking me for what?

01:39:16

If a man lies to a man... Somebody, it's clear that Leviticus 18, it's clear that somebody gets put to death for something.

01:39:27

Right? Well, I think the anal intercourse aspect is clear. Whether it applies to other aspects that's, you know, even whatever,

01:39:35

I don't know, but some of it's clear. So some of it to me is not complicated. Some of it is.

01:39:40

Right. Got it. I'm with you. So, Chris, how much time do

01:39:46

I have left? You have 10 seconds left. I cede the rest of my time.

01:39:54

Okay. Well, we are going to go to our final break. When you say cede, are you talking about cede laws?

01:40:00

Okay, never mind. We are going to our final break right now, and when we return,

01:40:08

Doug Wilson will begin with a final summation of his arguments, and then he will be followed by Joel McDermott, who will also give a final summation of his arguments.

01:40:19

They will get an equal amount of time, depending upon how much time we have left. So don't go away, God willing, we will be right back after these final messages from our sponsors.

01:41:00

... ... ... ...

01:41:13

... ... ... ...

01:41:25

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:41:39

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:41:52

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:41:58

... ... ... ...

01:42:07

... ... ... ...

01:42:22

... ... ... ...

01:42:27

... ... ...

01:42:38

... ... ... ...

01:42:48

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:42:53

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:43:00

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:43:30

... ... ... ... ...

01:43:41

... ...

01:43:50

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:43:56

... ... ...

01:44:07

... ... ... ... ...

01:44:20

... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:44:32

... ... ... ...

01:44:38

... ...

01:45:17

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:45:24

... ... ...

01:45:37

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:45:49

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:46:06

... ... ... ... ...

01:46:17

... ... ... ... ...

01:46:29

... ... ...

01:46:38

... ... ... ...

01:46:47

... ...

01:46:54

... ... ... ... ... ... ...

01:47:10

... ... ... ...

01:47:15

... ...

01:47:25

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:47:31

...

01:47:42

... ... ...

01:47:51

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:48:04

... ... ...

01:48:09

... ... ...

01:48:20

... ... ...

01:48:30

... ... ... ...

01:48:42

... ... ...

01:48:50

... ... ... ...

01:49:03

... ... ... ... ...

01:49:18

... ... ...

01:49:23

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:49:40

... ... ... ... ...

01:49:51

... ...

01:49:59

... ... ...

01:50:06

... ...

01:50:18

... ... ...

01:50:27

... ... ... ... ...

01:50:41

... ... ... ... ...

01:50:54

... ... ...

01:51:00

... ... ... ... ...

01:51:15

... ...

01:51:22

... ... ...

01:51:34

... ... ...

01:51:40

... ...

01:51:46

... ... ...

01:51:55

... ... ... ... ...

01:52:12

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:52:28

... ... ... ...

01:52:33

... ... ...

01:52:46

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:52:59

... ... ... ... ...

01:53:04

... ... ...

01:53:17

... ... ...

01:53:26

... ... ...

01:53:38

... ... ... ... ...

01:53:44

... ...

01:53:55

... ... ... ... ...

01:54:09

... ... ... ...

01:54:19

... ... ...

01:54:29

... ...

01:54:34

... ... ... ... ...

01:54:47

... ...

01:54:53

... ... ... ...

01:55:04

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:55:12

... ...

01:55:25

... ... ... ... ...

01:55:34

... ... ...

01:55:44

... ... ... ...

01:55:54

... ... ...

01:56:00

... ... ... ... ...

01:56:16

... ... ... ...

01:56:29

... ... ...

01:56:36

... ...

01:56:43

... ... ...

01:56:55

... ... ... ...

01:57:07

... ... ... ... ...

01:57:19

... ...

01:57:26

... ... ...

01:57:34

... ... ... ...

01:57:44

... ... ...

01:57:51

... ... ...

01:58:01

... ... ... ...

01:58:13

... ... ...

01:58:25

... ...

01:58:31

... ... ...

01:58:37

... ...

01:58:48

... ...

01:58:54

... ... ... ... ... ...

01:59:10

... ...

01:59:16

... ... ...

01:59:23

... ...