the Church has not been charged with the task of keeping order and punishing the guilty in our society. That task has been given to the government.

Well, in one sense, the Church has been charged with the task of keeping order. The Church in disarray is in danger of its light being snuffed out. Then where would the world be? A handbasket, perhaps? But I digress.

If the government is given the task to keep order and punish the guilty, then how is it to determine the proper punishment for the crime?

It would be odd to think of God requiring more harsh punishments from the Israelites because of their role in the world, wouldn't you think? After all, isn't the punishment suppose to fit the crime? But you are right. The Law was to set the nation of Israel apart from the other nations, but only because it was the wisdom of Israel, not because it was tailored to Israel, which is what your comments seem to imply.

As I wrote above to EE: Transgression of His Law is, first and foremost, a trangression against Him. So when it comes to the penology, including the death penalty, it is what God requires of man for transgressing against Him. This cannot be limited to the locality of Israel. Though other nations' governments were not given God's Law, they were still established by God to bear the sword, and were responsible to punish trangressors justly. God did not have one standard (Law) for Israel, and another for the Gentiles nations.

I think that, generally, some laws reflected universal principles, and some existed for the purpose of setting apart the nation from other nations to illustrate God's singular holiness. Regarding those laws that called for the death penalty, I suspect that the harsh punishment of the death penalty for more than just murder (the death penalty for murder was given to everyone before the Mosaic Law) was prescribed because of the purpose of Israel. Israel was supposed to show the holiness of God to the world as a nation. Hence, those who were imperfect (e.g., with skin diseases) were sent outside the city, and other moral imperfections had to be cut off completely if they were to continue to reveal God to the world. In other words, God required more harsh punishments from the Israelites than from the rest of the world because of their role in the world.

No nation serves as God's mirror today. We, as a nation, are not charged with revealing God's perfection, so we don't need to enforce perfection through the justice system. Jesus now reveals God to the world, and He, of course, is perfect. As the body of Christ, we are Christ's ambassadors to the world, so in the same way, Paul does tell us to remove people from the midst of our fellowship who persist, unrepentant, in sin. However, we don't kill those people, even though we represent Christ, because 1) it's not necessary; the body of Christ lives among the people of the world and we don't need to achieve absolute, physical separation–people can leave our fellowship and still live in our lands without affecting the purity of the Church because we're not a physical, political nation; 2) I think there's a difference between the charge to reveal God to the world (which demands perfection) and the charge to represent God and His message–to act as His messenger. Christ reveals, the Church represents. Christ has the parallel role to Israel in this case, not the Church. Even with their punishments, Israel did not perfectly reveal God; only Christ succeeded in this. And 3) the Church has not been charged with the task of keeping order and punishing the guilty in our society. That task has been given to the government.

As for that I am asking, I'll try to be specific.

In Israel's justice system, were the case laws that prescribed the death penalty only applicable to the Israel commonwealth? Or were they universal where other nations' justice system should have had?

God's Law tells us of the kind of punishment that is to be rendered in a case of such-and-such transgression. This is not gray. What is gray is when we come across a case where it is difficult to determine if said transgression was committed. An example would be figuring out the difference between murder and manslaughter. In your view, even if it was determined murder, the death penalty should not apply. You cite:

…perhaps my conservative values come forward in terms of my belief in the sanctity of all life and trust that ultimately only God is the arbitrator between life and death.

But has not God, through His Law, given us stewardship in judging over crimes? Or are we to judge crimes apart from the imparted knowledge that God has given us through His Law?

Transgression of His Law is, first and foremost, a trangression against Him. And since He is “the arbitrator of life and death,” He has outlined what punishment fits the crime. Since God's knowledge of the “sanctity of life” far exceeds our own, He sought fit to put to death those who would violate it.

To dismiss the clear prescription of the death penalty is to dismiss God's judgement and justice against those who violate the sanctity of life.

The Law is a huge subject, so that's as far as I really have time to go with it at the moment. I'm still working out what I think about its place today, but right now, my thinking is very similar to the article, so you can check that out.