Death Penalty and 'cast the first stone' passage

[dominikus28]

When Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, doesn’t that basically say that the death penalty is wrong?
I understand that the Church didn’t condemn the death penalty in its early years, and even until recently (middle ages - the Church allowed the death penalty and there was no opposition to it).
I understand where people are coming from when they support the death penalty, but doesn’t that passage make the death penalty wrong?

 

[Luke65]

No, because stoning for adultery comes from the Mosaic Law, which was “set aside” (Hebrews 7:18). But capital punishment for murder comes from the Noahic Covenant which is universal, and for all time…

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (Genesis 9:6)

Catechism: “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.” (#58)

God bless.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Jesus also said, “Go! And sin no more”.

[but what if … she did sin again and got caught?]

 

[Joe_Kelley]

It appears that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. If He said don’t stone her, He would be denying the Mosaic Law and be rejected by the people. If He said stone her, He would would be breaking Roman Law and be arrested.

Jesus’ answer is not a rejection of the Death Penalty, but a reversal of the trap. The Pharisees claimed to be without sin. If they failed to stone her, they admitted their sinfulness. If they did stone her they would be arrested by the Romans.

But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.

Liking neither choice they slipped away. Notice that the eldest caught on the quickest; leaving the youngest to face the music. Noticing this the youngest followed their example.

Not Church teaching, but a reasonable explanation I think.

 

[diggerdomer]

When Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, doesn’t that basically say that the death penalty is wrong?

no

 

[zarthan]

No, because stoning for adultery comes from the Mosaic Law, which was “set aside” (Hebrews 7:18). But capital punishment for murder comes from the Noahic Covenant which is universal, and for all time…

“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.” (Genesis 9:6)

Catechism: “The covenant with Noah remains in force during the times of the Gentiles, until the universal proclamation of the Gospel.” (#58)

God bless.

It seems as though (#58) is a summation of (#56). Regardless, capital punishment for the body of Christ should be an issue like other moral issues which are on a higher moral plain than for unbelievers. Such as the prohibition against against usury, suing people before the civil authorities, taking revenge in our own hands, etc.

The problem for the body of Christ is that the higher moral law that we are commanded to keep, we possess and keep only in and through our Lord Jesus Christ. We can not expect civil law to achieve this for unbelievers. The fear of punishment is what is required.

We are taught to “love our enemies, and bless those who curse us, and to pray for those who despitefully use us and persecute us”. We can not expect civil authorities to do the same on behalf of unbelievers. Romans:13:3-4 “For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose, it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.”

Capital punishment is a complex issue for a nation which has a Christian heritage.
The Noachic law of punishing murder is not addressed by the Catechism, but nevertheless, is addressed by the apostle Paul.

 

[DaveBj]

Under the Torah, the ones who were supposed to cast the first stones were the witnesses who had testified against the wrong-doer at his/her trial.

In this case, there had been no trial, and Jesus used His statement to make the accusers stop and think about themselves. Portrayals of this event in films frequently show the accusers dropping the stones they held and walking away; however, there is no evidence from the text that they were even preparing to stone her. In point of fact, according to the Law, they could not have stoned her there; they were in the Temple courts, in which executions of any kind were forbidden. Executions were to take place outside the city.

This passage does not cancel the case for capital punishment, as Paul would later confirm in the 13th chapter of Romans.

DaveBj

 

[ChadS]

Under the Torah, the ones who were supposed to cast the first stones were the witnesses who had testified against the wrong-doer at his/her trial.

In this case, there had been no trial, and Jesus used His statement to make the accusers stop and think about themselves. Portrayals of this event in films frequently show the accusers dropping the stones they held and walking away; however, there is no evidence from the text that they were even preparing to stone her. In point of fact, according to the Law, they could not have stoned her there; they were in the Temple courts, in which executions of any kind were forbidden. Executions were to take place outside the city.

This passage does not cancel the case for capital punishment, as Paul would later confirm in the 13th chapter of Romans.

DaveBj

In a homily once, our priest says he likes to call the story of the woman caught in adultery the story of the couple caught in adultery. Like you said the person testifying against the woman would’ve been allowed to cast the first stone. The priest surmises that since the story focuses solely on the woman, the man whom she was having the affair with was probably in the crowd ready to stone her and had either accused her of adultery or at least testified against her. But, he wasn’t about to get stoned during any of this. So when Jesus says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” he wasn’t talking about the group in general, but was speaking specifically to the adulterous man – since he had committed adultery (a sin) but stood among those as if he hadn’t committed a sin.

ChadS

 

[DaveBj]

In a homily once, our priest says he likes to call the story of the woman caught in adultery the story of the couple caught in adultery. Like you said the person testifying against the woman would’ve been allowed to cast the first stone. The priest surmises that since the story focuses solely on the woman, the man whom she was having the affair with was probably in the crowd ready to stone her and had either accused her of adultery or at least testified against her. But, he wasn’t about to get stoned during any of this. So when Jesus says “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone” he wasn’t talking about the group in general, but was speaking specifically to the adulterous man – since he had committed adultery (a sin) but stood among those as if he hadn’t committed a sin.

ChadS

That’s an interesting interpretation, but it runs very hard in the direction of speculation.

He’s not the first to wonder what happened to the man. I’ve wondered that myself, as well as wondering what happened to the man with whom the Iranian woman due to be stoned is alleged to have committed adultery. Nowhere to be seen.

DaveBj

 

[diggerdomer]

I

Capital punishment is a complex issue for a nation which has a Christian heritage.
The Noachic law of punishing murder is not addressed by the Catechism, but nevertheless, is addressed by the apostle Paul.

I don’t think capital punishment is a complex issue for Catholics, regardless of nationality. IT’s clearly a last resort, an exception, as the Church teaches (Catechism 2267)

 

[zarthan]

I don’t think capital punishment is a complex issue for Catholics, regardless of nationality. IT’s clearly a last resort, an exception, as the Church teaches (Catechism 2267)/QUOTE

Going to war, or even invading another country should be the last resort, but they become political like all issues that have a moral element to them. Then, what happens is that politics trumps our Christian faith. There is always the complexity in my own mind, of how do we as the body of Christ expect unbelievers to embrace and comply with our morality
which is infused with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ? We know that the Mosaic law did not work for Israel, so how to we expect civil law to work for unbelievers?

 

[ChadS]

That’s an interesting interpretation, but it runs very hard in the direction of speculation.

He’s not the first to wonder what happened to the man. I’ve wondered that myself, as well as wondering what happened to the man with whom the Iranian woman due to be stoned is alleged to have committed adultery. Nowhere to be seen.

DaveBj

Sure it may be speculative, but is this interpretation injurious to one’s faith or does it in any way contradict divine revelation or faith and morals as taught by the Catholic Church? As such it is speculative, but it’s allowed. Anyhow, this particular interpretation comes from a good and holy priest who I trust.

ChadS

 

[Joe_Kelley]

That’s an interesting interpretation, but it runs very hard in the direction of speculation.

He’s not the first to wonder what happened to the man. I’ve wondered that myself, as well as wondering what happened to the man with whom the Iranian woman due to be stoned is alleged to have committed adultery. Nowhere to be seen.

DaveBj

See also Daniel 13:37-40

37 Then a young man, who had been hidden, came to her and lay with her. 38 We were in a corner of the garden, and when we saw this wickedness we ran to them. 39 We saw them embracing, but we could not hold the man, for he was too strong for us, and he opened the doors and dashed out. 40 So we seized this woman and asked her who the young man was, but she would not tell us. These things we testify."

Where the woman is condemned without the man being identified.

 

[diggerdomer]

See also Daniel 13:37-40 Where the woman is condemned without the man being identified.

Back to the topic of this thread…this relates to the death penalty how?

 

[dominikus28]

Back to the topic of this thread…this relates to the death penalty how?

Stoning usually ends in death, right?

 

[diggerdomer]

Stoning usually ends in death, right?

Yes. So, your point regarding the original post to this thread is…?

 

[dominikus28]

Yes. So, your point regarding the original post to this thread is…?

Well, Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman, so he prevented her from being punished with the death penalty. I am wondering why this doesn’t mean that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstance.

 

[diggerdomer]

Well, Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman, so he prevented her from being punished with the death penalty. I am wondering why this doesn’t mean that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstance.

Good point.

The Catholic Church teaching on the death penalty is clear. It may be morally licit, in extreme circumstances. Catholics are also free to completely object to the death penalty and not support it in any circumstance.

 

[DaveBj]

Sure it may be speculative, but is this interpretation injurious to one’s faith or does it in any way contradict divine revelation or faith and morals as taught by the Catholic Church? As such it is speculative, but it’s allowed. Anyhow, this particular interpretation comes from a good and holy priest who I trust.

ChadS

Not a problem, as long as speculation is labeled as such before it comes out of the mouth, so listeners don’t think that the speaker is teaching dogma.

Well, Jesus stopped the stoning of a woman, so he prevented her from being punished with the death penalty. I am wondering why this doesn’t mean that the death penalty is wrong in all circumstance.

Jesus didn’t actually stop a stoning; as I have already pointed out, they were in a place where an execution could not take place. This was an artificial situation created by His opponents to try to get him into a situation where, one way or another, he was going to say something that would offend one or another major group.

With regard to the death penalty, it was established in the Noahic Covenant, and it has never been abrogated. Both Jesus and Paul explicitly acknowledged the right of the established govenment to execute people, and that this right had been given to the government officials by God. Let us remember that the purpose of capital punishment is not to punish the offender, but to permanently remove from human society someone who has proved by his/her actions that s/he no longer belongs in that society.

DaveBj

 

[ChadS]

Not a problem, as long as speculation is labeled as such before it comes out of the mouth, so listeners don’t think that the speaker is teaching dogma.

DaveBj

Just about anything any priest has to say about this passage is going to be speculation, some of it more speculative than others. As far as I know there is no “definitive” Church teaching on this passage and as long as it doesn’t run afoul of anthing that is defined then saying the man who committed adultery was the one Jesus was talking to in particular or the Pharisees in general seems fine to me.

If we need priests to tell us what is speculation and dogma with some sort of verbal bookends then the great majority of Catholics are in trouble since I’ve heard very few, if any, priests indicate in their homilys what is dogma and what isn’t and none with something as neat and convenient as “Now begins the dogmatic portion of my homily…”

ChadS