Deuteronomy 22:21 (that ol' stoning conundrum)

[Lief_Erikson]

How do you know what I understand or agree with? I asked questions about others’ understanding and opinions. I never revealed my own.

It was the emotionally charged tone of your question that led me to draw inferences about what your opinions are. Also the fact that you have received lengthy answers to these questions more than once, but just kept rephrasing your question rather than addressing any of the points offered. I don’t mean to be annoying; I’m just explaining why I drew the conclusions I did.

This is a message board with a lot of diverse people on it, and not every tough-sounding question is coming from a person who is uneducated in or opposed to the Catholic faith. Please do not confuse the fact that I am in RCIA for a lack of in depth instruction in and/or understanding of Christian and Catholic-specific theology. I was asked last Sunday by my Parish to help teach a class on the Church Fathers, for example.

Good luck, and God bless you in the effort!

 

[SonofMonica]

It was the emotionally charged tone of your question that led me to draw inferences about what your opinions are. Also the fact that you have received lengthy answers to these questions more than once, but just kept rephrasing your question rather than addressing any of the points offered. I don’t mean to be annoying; I’m just explaining why I drew the conclusions I did.

Good luck, and God bless you in the effort!

Well, I suppose I should apologize for not acknowledging the good points about sin that you made in your post. But I cross-examine people for a living and when I ask a yes or no question and the answer doesn’t start with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ I tend to rephrase the question.

I assure you, I am not without an in-depth understanding of the orthodox teaching on the nature of sin, its effects, nature and end. I happen to have a bit of interest in the way the Old Testament is written and intended, and in how much some passages which seem to attribute words/action to God might have to say about God vs. how much they might have to say about the Jewish people, or both.

I am interested in the lenses through which we view God. I am considering writing a book in this area, but one of things I’d like to know are peoples’ reactions to some of the sort of actions that are attributed to God in the Old Testament. I quickly noted by the few responses here that folks are quick to defend their theology when confronted with brutal questions like mine, but not so quick to let their yes be yes and their no be no.

We are often quick to correct people for claiming that God “sends” people to Hell, reminding them that they send themselves there. But we often have no problem saying that in the Old Testament God directly smote folks or purposely instructed the infliction of severe pain and death.

 

[Shin]

God has not changed at all, from the New Testament to the Old. You have to love and respect and believe in the same God, before and after. You have to approve of all the deeds of God from both the Old and New Testaments.

The literal sense is the first and primary sense scriptures are to be interpreted in, this is what the Popes have had to say, and that other senses are not to contradict it… We are also to pay attention to the traditional interpretion of the fathers and saints as the reliable and foundation of our understandings.

Literal does not necessarily mean flat and out of context, and especially out of the spiritual context, but it does mean literal.

We should especially be keen on the spiritual sense of the Old Testament as well, understanding the literal sense with this in mind and not only exteriorly – but the true meaning behind it as part of it.

The Old Testament is primarily to be considered the literal way first. But, if you need extra help – the New Testament clearly states I will add that this is the true teaching and penalty from God, Christ in St. John does not deny it, when the woman is condemned for adultery and He forgives her.

If you read about the first priests of God, made after the episode of the Ten Commandments… why He chose them was because they killed their relatives who had committed idolotry, without regard for the fact they were relatives, preferring God. The spiritual meaning of this is echoed by Christ in the New Testament – we must not prefer our families to God’s will, our hearts are to be His first and last, and this has real literal consequences that can put us in direct conflict with our families.

If you have trouble dealing with the Old Testament and are tempted to think of it figuratively and not literally, and interpret out the meanings of it:

Go read Revelation instead. The Old Testament is back there, with a vengeance. And this time it is Christ Himself who is executing it, not the Father, but the Son who executes the Justice of God.

 

[SonofMonica]

God has not changed at all, from the New Testament to the Old. You have to love and respect and believe in the same God, before and after. You have to approve of all the deeds of God from both the Old and New Testaments.

The literal sense is the first and primary sense scriptures are to be interpreted in, this is what the Popes have had to say, and that other senses are not to contradict it… We are also to pay attention to the traditional interpretion of the fathers and saints as the reliable and foundation of our understandings.

Literal does not necessarily mean flat and out of context, and especially out of the spiritual context, but it does mean literal.

We should especially be keen on the spiritual sense of the Old Testament as well, understanding the literal sense with this in mind and not only exteriorly – but the true meaning behind it as part of it.

The Old Testament is primarily to be considered the literal way first. But, if you need extra help – the New Testament clearly states I will add that this is the true teaching and penalty from God, Christ in St. John does not deny it, when the woman is condemned for adultery and He forgives her.

If you read about the first priests of God, made after the episode of the Ten Commandments… why He chose them was because they killed their relatives who had committed idolotry, without regard for the fact they were relatives, preferring God. The spiritual meaning of this is echoed by Christ in the New Testament – we must not prefer our families to God’s will, our hearts are to be His first and last, and this has real literal consequences that can put us in direct conflict with our families.

If you have trouble dealing with the Old Testament and are tempted to think of it figuratively and not literally, and interpret out the meanings of it:

Go read Revelation instead. The Old Testament is back there, with a vengeance. And this time it is Christ Himself who is executing it, not the Father, but the Son who executes the Justice of God.

Okay, okay. I’ll put you down squarely in the “I would throw the first stone” category.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I’ve read every word. And your lengthy posts make it seem like you’re being apologetic for having to say that you would indeed stone the woman. I never said what I would do. I merely tried to put the situation in real, graphic terms and put the question to you. You’ve finally answered it, but seem insistent upon couching it in terms that make you feel comfortable with what obviously makes you queasy. I never asked you to justify it one way or the other.

I think he’s trying to explain it in a way that makes you able to accept and understand it. Not in a way that makes him “comfortable” with it. Though “comfortable” really isn’t the right word to use. Truth, especially as pertains to judgment, does not have to make us feel “comfortable.” It just has to be truth.

As to believing the Bible, certainly you would agree with me that there is a longstanding history of textual interpretation in the Catholic Church that does not always necessitate a literal reading of scripture, wouldn’t you?

The Jews interpreted it that way. The Early Church Fathers interpreted it that way, from what I’ve read of their work. It is the logical interpretation, considering penalties of the time. God certainly confused a heck of a lot of Jews if He was trying to give them spiritual meaning alone in the Law. The belief that this was not meant to be interpreted literally stands on very shaky moorings, and appears to essentially be an attempt to reconcile the past with modern sensibilities and moral viewpoints, which have changed a lot since the time when the Old Testament was written and its laws practiced. These passages, like many passages of the Old Testament, tended to be interpreted by the Early Church Fathers as having both literal and spiritual meanings simultaneously.

I take it that you see it necessary to the Catholic faith that God must have actually told Jews to stone women.

Did he, or I, say that? There is no dogma on the matter.

Did the Old Testament God lack the attribute of mercy?

Nope, tons of stories go against this. The story of Jonah is one of the best examples, a case where God goes out of His way to save an extremely wicked, heathen, Gentile nation from disaster. But there are lots of examples in the Old Testament.

Did he change from Old Testament to New?

The vast majority of the Bible’s Hell passages are in the New Testament. His justice and mercy are both very visible in both Testaments.

He is supposed to be the same yesterday, today and forever. Was Jesus’s message a new message, or do you think the Jews just weren’t getting it?

The Beatitudes are not written in the Old Covenant. A lot of Jesus’ teaching was new, though mercy certainly was encouraged in parts of the Old Testament as well. Christ did make some radical shifts in people’s understanding as He “filled in the gaps,” and brought the Law to its fulfillment. Which is not its “ending,” or “abolishment.” It is fulfillment, which is about bringing to completeness. Rituals, like the Passover, were fulfilled in the Passion and Eucharist, and circumcision was fulfilled in baptism, and the laws about putting the ceremonially unclean out of the camp were fulfilled in the putting of sin out of the soul. The Law was in no way abolished, but its rituals were fulfilled.

The civil elements of the Law, which pertain to justice in the community, were also fulfilled, but these were fulfilled in a different way. Since the punishments are intrinsically just penalties for sins, and governments are called to govern justly, these are not “done away with,” but the nature of the civil law is fulfilled in two ways: Mercy and Love. Mercy is the modification of Law so that its full penalty is not always exacted, but depending on the circumstances, a lighter penalty, or even no penalty, might be levied. This is the fulfillment from the government’s side. The fulfillment from the citizen’s side is that when the love of Christ’s fills their hearts and they live in obedience to His will, they won’t break the civil laws anyway, for they wouldn’t do evil. Therefore the civil law has no hold on them. This is my understanding, anyway.

I’m not pontificating. I’m asking. Haven’t seen any of this in the Creeds, so I figure it’s open for discussion.

Jesus never contradicted the Law. He said the Law could not be changed in the smallest “jot or tittle,” and the Psalms declare roundly that the Law is perfect.

 

[Shin]

I have nothing against saying God sends people to Hell. It is His justice that determines it, though it is people’s choices that determine it as well.

It is often semantics when people say that, saying it to appeal to sensibilities. Both statements are true. One at the moment is more popular than the other.

There are reasons good and bad for that popularity. The good would be the emphasis on why people go, the bad the idea that it is unjust for people to be sent there and so the ‘hands off’ approach in regards to God’s justice.

 

[SonofMonica]

The civil elements of the Law, which pertain to justice in the community, were also fulfilled, but these were fulfilled in a different way. Since the punishments are intrinsically just penalties for sins, and governments are called to govern justly, these are not “done away with,” but the nature of the civil law is fulfilled in two ways: Mercy and Love. Mercy is the modification of Law so that its full penalty is not always exacted, but depending on the circumstances, a lighter penalty, or even no penalty, might be levied. This is the fulfillment from the government’s side. The fulfillment from the citizen’s side is that when the love of Christ’s fills their hearts and they live in obedience to His will, they won’t break the civil laws anyway, for they wouldn’t do evil. Therefore the civil law has no hold on them. This is my understanding, anyway.

Excellent perspective. Why do you suppose the Law was not endowed with these modifications in the first place?

Jesus never contradicted the Law. He said the Law could not be changed in the smallest “jot or tittle,” and the Psalms declare roundly that the Law is perfect.

I would modify this statement a little. He said it wouldn’t pass away. Obviously the application of the penalty was changed, as you noted in your previous paragraph, above.

 

[SonofMonica]

I have nothing against saying God sends people to Hell. It is His justice that determines it, though it is people’s choices that determine it as well.

It is often semantics when people say that, saying it to appeal to sensibilities. Both statements are true. One at the moment is more popular than the other.

There are reasons good and bad for that popularity. The good would be the emphasis on why people go, the bad the idea that it is unjust for people to be sent there and so the ‘hands off’ approach in regards to God’s justice.

I agree that your both/and perspective represents orthodoxy, and find it to be a breath of fresh air. Thanks for being honest.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Excellent perspective. Why do you suppose the Law was not endowed with these modifications in the first place?

This is the whole mystery of “growing revelation.” Jesus described its existence a little when He told His disciples, “For I tell you that many prophets and kings wanted to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it” (Luke 10:24). The Church’s understanding of theology develops over time. The Patriarchs’ understanding, then Israel’s understanding, also grew with time. Books of Sacred Scripture were written over centuries before Christ, rather than all at once. The growth of divine knowledge in humanity parallels the growth of a child to adulthood. One man became twelve tribes, twelve tribes became one kingdom, and one kingdom became one Heavenly Kingdom with members throughout the entire world. Christ Himself was born an infant and grew in knowledge throughout His life on Earth. I don’t understand the mystery; I only know God works in remarkable and beautiful ways.

By the way, these “modifications” aren’t modifications but fulfillments. That’s an important distinction to me, for “modification” suggests to me a change in what is, and there is no change. Only greater union with the fullness of the Mysteries of the Law has been given. Before, only part of this mystery was known. Now, more of it is.

I would modify this statement a little. He said it wouldn’t pass away. Obviously the application of the penalty was changed, as you noted in your previous paragraph, above.

The maximum penalty of the Law is still just. As Shin pointed out, in the scene involving the woman caught in adultery, Jesus never said, “This Law is to be changed.” Instead, He chose not to apply it, using His divine authority, saying, “Neither do I condemn you.” The fact that the Law never passes away, but is fulfilled in every jot and tittle, shows that it is not changed. The Law remains as just as it ever was, and depending on the circumstances, can still justly be applied in its full measure. The Law is not wholly rescinded; governments remain called to judge justly. Mercy does not call us to a world of anarchy.

Romans
Chapter 13
1
1 Let every person be subordinate to the higher authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been established by God.
2
Therefore, whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed, and those who oppose it will bring judgment upon themselves.
3
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,
4
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.
5
Therefore, it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath but also because of conscience.

As the Scripture points out, God’s justice endures forever (Ps. 111:3), as Jesus says, the Law will never pass away and cannot be altered in any jot or tittle. Since the responsibility of governments is to govern justly, it is reasonable that depending on the circumstances, they can ethically apply the full principles of the civil Law in today’s society, punishing evildoers exactly as God’s Law requires, and in so doing, they would do justice. I’m simply trying to point out that while the application of justice can be lightened for the sake of mercy, Paul is quite clear that the ruler “does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.” Law is not abolished and its full penalty, death by the sword, according to Paul, can be meted out justly. But we do live in an age where Christ’s mercy has been marvelously revealed and fills the application of the Law, staying the sword of justice, so we will continue to see and approve of cases like the time where Jesus saved the woman that committed adultery rather than allowing her to be stoned. Justice is not eliminated by mercy, nor mercy by justice; both united are the responsibility of the state, and love without ceasing, the perfect fulfillment of the Law, is everyone’s calling.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I agree that your both/and perspective represents orthodoxy, and find it to be a breath of fresh air.

Me too. I find it instructive too. Non-Christians I’ve argued with about Hell tend to only think about an angry God damning people, so when I talk with them, I talk about how people send themselves to Hell. Which is a good thing to do, IMO. I emphasized that for so long, though, that I think I became somewhat deaf to the element of truth that God also sends people to Hell in accordance with His justice.

A couple months ago, I started thinking to myself one day on my way back from Mass, “but it really is interesting that everyone who goes to Hell, even though they choose it for themselves, really are going there in exact accordance with justice.” Then I started seeing that the nature of Love is bigger than I had conceived, that God is in control as well, but I hadn’t fully accepted this until Shin just stated it straight out, exactly as I’ve been coming to perceive it.

It’s a little embarrassing to be behind the times on such a basic concept . I think I have this weakness of sometimes just centering on what I need for apologetics, but not on knowing everything I could.

 

[Wowbagger]

If all we had was the Old Testament, (1) would you throw rocks at a woman who gave into lust until her face split open and her internal organs were visible as she choked up blood and died in front of her family?

I don’t know.

I do not dispute that the just penalty for grave sin, including most sexual sin, is death. I do not dispute that we are only spared that just penalty because God’s justice is tempered by His mercy. This much seems clear. But whether the penalty is or was ever for humans to carry out… that is a much thornier question, I think.

On the one hand, it seems that God was quite clear in Deutoronomy that humans were to carry out the punishments without mercy, and I can’t dispute this bit of the Law without disputing the validity of the whole Law, and Jesus believed in the Law, so… the Law must be right, mustn’t it?

On the other hand, it strikes me as a load of bollocks to say that nowadays God reserves justice to Himself whereas back then He was cool with any old circumsized beardy dude carrying out Ultimate Punishment. Jesus’s sacrifice redeemed us and threw open the gates of heaven, but it didn’t change the fundamental rules of morality, the natural law, and legitimate civil authority by one iota! Jesus himself revealed the fatal flaw in this precept, before making His sacrifice, in just ten words: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”! It’s not as if this flaw was new; it’d been around since the time of Moses. So what the heck is going on? God and Jesus can’t conflict on a moral teaching! So how can the Law mean what it appears to mean?

So I’m back where I started. I don’t know what I’d do. Reason tears me in two directions. It is a confusing theological point for me.

I hope that helps you with your book. I’ll be lurking and reading as this continues.

 

[Shin]

It is clear that the death penalty has been applied throughout New Testament times as well, the Vatican guillotine is an illustration of this, though it is gathering dust at the moment.

However it is true that since New Testament times the spiritual reasons behind the exterior law were revealed and so there is more room for mercy rather than the letter of the law which cannot fit every situation as well as the principles behind it spiritually can.

Also God can especially decide to devote certain times or ages of the earth to certain attributes of Himself… one in which He desires to display His Justice another His Mercy…

God sparing Isaac in the Old Testament shows the mercy in there too, in fact the Old Testament is full of mercy, especially from the spiritual perspective.

Here is something for thought. If you think the punishment for the adultery of that woman in St. John’s Gospel was waived, you are incorrect.

It was not.

Think about it.

And that is one reason exactly why that part of the Gospel is not a passage one can use against corporeal punishment for sins.

 

[lyc70]

I wonder why the poor woman did not keep her secret carefully, it’s horrible to hearing the death penalty on such incident----just personal affairs, really?

 

[CWBetts]

It is clear that the death penalty has been applied throughout New Testament times as well, the Vatican guillotine is an illustration of this, though it is gathering dust at the moment.

However it is true that since New Testament times the spiritual reasons behind the exterior law were revealed and so there is more room for mercy rather than the letter of the law which cannot fit every situation as well as the principles behind it spiritually can.

Also God can especially decide to devote certain times or ages of the earth to certain attributes of Himself… one in which He desires to display His Justice another His Mercy…

God sparing Isaac in the Old Testament shows the mercy in there too, in fact the Old Testament is full of mercy, especially from the spiritual perspective.

Here is something for thought. If you think the punishment for the adultery of that woman in St. John’s Gospel was waived, you are incorrect.

It was not.

Think about it.

And that is one reason exactly why that part of the Gospel is not a passage one can use against corporeal punishment for sins.

What incident are you referring to with God sparing Isaac? The only real major blunder on his part that comes to mind was when he tried to pass off Rachel as his siter to preserve their lives.

 

[SonofMonica]

I don’t know.

I do not dispute that the just penalty for grave sin, including most sexual sin, is death. I do not dispute that we are only spared that just penalty because God’s justice is tempered by His mercy. This much seems clear. But whether the penalty is or was ever for humans to carry out… that is a much thornier question, I think.

On the one hand, it seems that God was quite clear in Deutoronomy that humans were to carry out the punishments without mercy, and I can’t dispute this bit of the Law without disputing the validity of the whole Law, and Jesus believed in the Law, so… the Law must be right, mustn’t it?

On the other hand, it strikes me as a load of bollocks to say that nowadays God reserves justice to Himself whereas back then He was cool with any old circumsized beardy dude carrying out Ultimate Punishment. Jesus’s sacrifice redeemed us and threw open the gates of heaven, but it didn’t change the fundamental rules of morality, the natural law, and legitimate civil authority by one iota! Jesus himself revealed the fatal flaw in this precept, before making His sacrifice, in just ten words: “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”! It’s not as if this flaw was new; it’d been around since the time of Moses. So what the heck is going on? God and Jesus can’t conflict on a moral teaching! So how can the Law mean what it appears to mean?

So I’m back where I started. I don’t know what I’d do. Reason tears me in two directions. It is a confusing theological point for me.

I hope that helps you with your book. I’ll be lurking and reading as this continues.

Thank you very, very much. This conflict or apparent conflict between the moral teaching of God and Jesus that I’m interested in. Those ten words can say a lot.

 

[SonofMonica]

It is clear that the death penalty has been applied throughout New Testament times as well, the Vatican guillotine is an illustration of this, though it is gathering dust at the moment.

However it is true that since New Testament times the spiritual reasons behind the exterior law were revealed and so there is more room for mercy rather than the letter of the law which cannot fit every situation as well as the principles behind it spiritually can.

Also God can especially decide to devote certain times or ages of the earth to certain attributes of Himself… one in which He desires to display His Justice another His Mercy…

God sparing Isaac in the Old Testament shows the mercy in there too, in fact the Old Testament is full of mercy, especially from the spiritual perspective.

Here is something for thought. If you think the punishment for the adultery of that woman in St. John’s Gospel was waived, you are incorrect.

It was not.

Think about it.

And that is one reason exactly why that part of the Gospel is not a passage one can use against corporeal punishment for sins.

But Shin, isn’t morality about what humans should do? Morality is not “what the punishment is” for act X, but about how humans should respond to act X. And if we base our morality on what God tells us to do, then one could say that morality for us has changed, and he would be correct in that sense, wouldn’t he? God said throw rocks, Jesus essentially said not to. Today, my own moral compass is repulsed by the idea of throwing rocks. No one teaches their children to throw rocks. It isn’t on the radar. Muslims don’t have the New Testament (from a dogmatic perspective), and some still stone people. Yet they will say that they understand justice and mercy just fine. And you’re saying there was justice and mercy in the Old Testament, too. Yet, in the New Testament we are given a moral teaching not to stone.

 

[CWBetts]

Again, Deuteronomy was a response to repeated failings in the wilderness wanderings. It was not a mere repeating of the covenant at Sinai, but a modification that was made due to continued sin. The penalties of death were only given to three groups of sin: rebellion against authority, idolatry, and promiscuity. Why? These were sins that Israel kept falling into. To fully understand why the death penalty was demanded, you have to understand that a covenant carries with it a death curse. Even the marriage covenant, as celebrated today includes the words “until death do us part”. By violating the covenant, Israel brought death upon themselves. This relates to Jesus because He established the New and Everlasting Covenant. Wherein God brought death upon Himself to fulfill his Covenant with Abraham (which came at Pentecost). In the New Covenant, the terms changed. Instead of death, a way was established to reconcile violators with God (Confession and Penance).

 

[SonofMonica]

Again, Deuteronomy was a response to repeated failings in the wilderness wanderings. It was not a mere repeating of the covenant at Sinai, but a modification that was made due to continued sin. The penalties of death were only given to three groups of sin: rebellion against authority, idolatry, and promiscuity. Why? These were sins that Israel kept falling into. To fully understand why the death penalty was demanded, you have to understand that a covenant carries with it a death curse. Even the marriage covenant, as celebrated today includes the words “until death do us part”. By violating the covenant, Israel brought death upon themselves. This relates to Jesus because He established the New and Everlasting Covenant. Wherein God brought death upon Himself to fulfill his Covenant with Abraham (which came at Pentecost). In the New Covenant, the terms changed. Instead of death, a way was established to reconcile violators with God (Confession and Penance).

Thank you, CWBetts. I understand the point that you’re trying to make that certain sins carry a death penalty. Are you suggesting that it means that you and I should stone adulterers today? If not, then the reason for that is what I’m talking about. Morality is a code of human behavior, and I’m interested in why we are called not to kill adulterers any more. I’m not so much concerned with the death penalty as punishment, as I am with the morality of humans killing an adulterer. Let me know if you have any ideas about that.

EDIT: Or are you saying that the Old Testament passage about stoning adulterers was never meant to apply to humanity as a whole, but only to this select group of Israelites? I want to be clear about your position because I’m about to introduce an additional question into the mix.

 

[CWBetts]

Thank you, CWBetts. I understand the point that you’re trying to make that certain sins carry a death penalty. Are you suggesting that it means that you and I should stone adulterers today? If not, then the reason for that is what I’m talking about. Morality is a code of human behavior, and I’m interested in why we are called not to kill adulterers any more. I’m not so much concerned with the death penalty as punishment, as I am with the morality of humans killing an adulterer. Let me know if you have any ideas about that.

EDIT: Or are you saying that the Old Testament passage about stoning adulterers was never meant to apply to humanity as a whole, but only to this select group of Israelites? I want to be clear about your position because I’m about to introduce an additional question into the mix.

Not a select group of Israelites, but the whole nation. We are not to stone adulterers today because we are under a New Covenant.

 

[SonofMonica]

Not a select group of Israelites, but the whole nation. We are not to stone adulterers today because we are under a New Covenant.

I meant a select group of people, called the Israelites. Could you elaborate on how the New Covenant leads to an understanding that we are not to stone adulterers? Does it make it immoral to stone adulterers? If so, how?