Why did they stone in the OT?

[BibleCatholic7]

When God brought the Israelites out of Egypt, He did not originally command stoning to be practiced. The practice of stoning was common in the ancient world and preceded the commands eventually given by Moses. For example, Moses feared that the Egyptians would stone them to death for sacrificing the idols in front of them (Ex 8:26).

God had originally given the ten commandments and some other civil laws but the practice of stoning is not mentioned. However, after the idolatrous worship of the golden calf things changed. In worshiping the golden calf and participating in all the sexual activity that it involved, Israel had shown that it wanted to be like the pagan nations. The golden calf incident resulted in more laws being given (Leviticus) and as Israel continued to commit grave sins and practice Idolatry, God continued to add laws forbidding the practices committed.

These laws were tailored to meet Israel where they were at and God allowed Moses to give them laws that were “not good” (Ezekiel 20:25). Laws that were like the laws of the nations around them.

God basically stooped down and gave them lesser laws but His plan was to eventually raise the people of Israel up to a higher standard of morality and to be a light to these pagan nations and be the instrument He could use to bring blessing to the nations and so fulfill the promise he made to Abraham (Gen 22:18).

God did not want people to die or be stoned to death, He did not want to hand them over to these kinds of laws, he did not want to have to stoop down to meet them where they were at spiritually but he did it in order to eventually raise them up. In Jesus God became man and took these punishments on himself in order to show his people how much He loves them and by his death he set them free from these laws, and gave them the opportunity to enter the new covenant. By the first century the time had come to finally send out his people to bring his salvation to the nations (Matt 28:20).

“As I live, says the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways; for why will you die, O house of Israel?” (Ezekiel 33:11)

 

[Faxero]

God’s morals are unchanging?
I would say the shift from “an eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek” is a big, big change!

When comparing the events recorded in the Old and New Testaments, be aware of how things were before and after Christ’s arrival. God’s rules, the ways of sin, and the state of this Earth remain the same in both testaments, but the levels of punishments have been altered.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Ok I’ll explain a little more in depth. The OT (Old Testament) was a forerunner to the NT. It all basically pointed the finger at Christ. The Messiah. Now the laws you are having trouble dealing with are found in the Torah. Most are in the book of Leviticus. This was a book given to the Jews to show the severity of sins (such as adultery) and show what the just appropriate punishment is. So when it says ‘‘any man lying with a married woman is an adulterer and shall be put to death’’ It is showing 1) lying with a married person is wrong and adultery. 2) the punishment for such a crime is death. Now Moses delivered this law to the Israelites. They read it and interpreted it as a physical death. But in the light of the New Testament we can clearly see that it was talking about spiritual death; the same death God told Adam and Eve about. ‘‘in that day (that you eat of the fruit) you shall surely die’’. Making any sense?

So you’re saying that when the OT talks about stoning a woman to death for adultery, they were actually misunderstanding the law to mean that adultery caused “spiritual death”?

 

[God_I_Love]

So you’re saying that when the OT talks about stoning a woman to death for adultery, they were actually misunderstanding the law to mean that adultery caused “spiritual death”?

Let’s take a look.
''20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.” (Deut. 22:20-21)

So here we have a virgin whom lies and gets married to a man. The guy finds out she’s not a virgin. A big affair goes on to determine her guilt. Lots of people get involved… ok so It then tells that the men will bring her outside after determining her guilt, and the men of the city (assuming having heard by this point in the affairs) will come and stone her. Which is true. The righteous men of the nation of Israel would be so filled with judgment that they would feel the obligation to remove what they saw as evil. Now keep in mind that culturally that was exactly the mindset socially for such horrific things. Other cultures, if they did not kill her, made her an exile in the wilderness. So God was telling them about how she, in His eyes, should be put to death (spiritually) but because He was talking with Moses and the nation of Israel, He rightly tells Moses what the result of His command would be; a gathering of judges to pass judgment through stoning. He says ‘‘shall be put to death’’ and they see that as carnally killing that person. Instead of spiritual death. Now the last part when it says ‘‘because she etc.’’ is Moses being told how they will purge evil, because the result of the law being brought to the carnal minded Israelites is that they would purge evil from among them. Which is true. The evil goes with the soul. So the only way for the Israelites to remove this soul, at that time, was by killing the vessel that carried it. That was the only way they saw to remove evil. Because they did not have Jesus Christ the ransom, the innocent removing the debt of transgression being held, not by God (whom is Jesus and would not remove a debt to Himself), but by anyone whom accused. He took righteousness to Himself and judgment. And revealed the true understanding of Himself, through Himself. We have confession that removes this evil. They did not know of it in the manner we see it.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Let’s take a look.
''20 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, 21 then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel, by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.” (Deut. 22:20-21)

So here we have a virgin whom lies and gets married to a man. The guy finds out she’s not a virgin. A big affair goes on to determine her guilt. Lots of people get involved… ok so It then tells that the men will bring her outside after determining her guilt, and the men of the city (assuming having heard by this point in the affairs) will come and stone her. Which is true. The righteous men of the nation of Israel would be so filled with judgment that they would feel the obligation to remove what they saw as evil. Now keep in mind that culturally that was exactly the mindset socially for such horrific things. Other cultures, if they did not kill her, made her an exile in the wilderness. So God was telling them about how she, in His eyes, should be put to death (spiritually) but because He was talking with Moses and the nation of Israel, He rightly tells Moses what the result of His command would be; a gathering of judges to pass judgment through stoning. He says ‘‘shall be put to death’’ and they see that as carnally killing that person. Instead of spiritual death. Now the last part when it says ‘‘because she etc.’’ is Moses being told how they will purge evil, because the result of the law being brought to the carnal minded Israelites is that they would purge evil from among them. Which is true. The evil goes with the soul. So the only way for the Israelites to remove this soul, at that time, was by killing the vessel that carried it. That was the only way they saw to remove evil. Because they did not have Jesus Christ the ransom, the innocent removing the debt of transgression being held, not by God (whom is Jesus and would not remove a debt to Himself), but by anyone whom accused. He took righteousness to Himself and judgment. And revealed the true understanding of Himself, through Himself. We have confession that removes this evil. They did not know of it in the manner we see it.

Do you understand why I don’t accept an explanation like this? This is a “just so” story to justify a barbaric practice.

You have an all powerful God, who communicates directly with the human lawmaker, and the best punishment they can devise for the crime of adultery (which in my opinion, isn’t that serious and shouldn’t be a crime at all) is to hit a woman with rocks until she hemorages to death. And all of this because Jesus hadn’t come on the scene yet.

You say your God is the author of everything. He makes all the rules. He could set up the laws any way he way he wanted. The judges could have thrown pillows at the girl and, if God commanded it, that would purge the “evil”. Why go with pain? Why hurt the weakest of society?

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Honestly it was their culture to do this, god didnt make it up, humans did due to their hardness, as someone said earlier in this, human-kind was almost like an infant and still is, but they pretty much just came out of the womb and sometimes did wrong things, this is what my rcia teacher said, whether it is true or not i dont care the past is the past and it helps me sleep at night.

 

[Sparkythedog]

When comparing the events recorded in the Old and New Testaments, be aware of how things were before and after Christ’s arrival. God’s rules, the ways of sin, and the state of this Earth remain the same in both testaments, but the levels of punishments have been altered.

Sounds like Jesus showed up a bit late. He could have saved people from a lot of pain and anguish.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Honestly it was their culture to do this, god didnt make it up, humans did due to their hardness, as someone said earlier in this, human-kind was almost like an infant and still is, but they pretty much just came out of the womb and sometimes did wrong things, this is what my rcia teacher said, whether it is true or not i dont care the past is the past and it helps me sleep at night.

Stoning was the law handed down by the prophets of God. And God did nothing to stop it.

I can only imagine your RCIA teacher’s parenting techniques:

Toddler one swipes a toy from toddler two. Toddler two picks up a building block and bashes in toddler one’s head as retaliation. Your RCIA teacher says “Oh well, they’re just infants, they haven’t quite worked out morality yet.” Toddler one dies in a pool of his own blood.

This doesn’t make sense as a parent and it doesn’t make sense as an analogy. And there’s a reason it should keep you up at night.

 

[Gorgias]

Stoning was the law handed down by the prophets of God. And God did nothing to stop it.

Right – God permitted it.

My confidence in your understanding of this concept is somewhat clouded by the fact of your colorful, yet inaccurate lampooning of it:

Toddler one swipes a toy from toddler two. Toddler two picks up a building block and bashes in toddler one’s head as retaliation.

Yet, that’s retaliation, not civil justice. In the Mosaic law, “an eye for an eye” was prescribed, but in the context of civil justice, not vigilantism.

You made a claim earlier that is more insightful than you may realize; and yet, even in light of that insight, you haven’t glommed onto what’s in play here: you noted that God “could set up the laws any way he way he wanted,” and you’re right! He could have! Yet, that’s not what’s in play in this context. In U.S. history, we have more than our share of examples of instances in which we’ve gone into foreign countries, quelled whatever civil or military disturbances were on-going, and set up a democratic form of government, before pulling our forces out. And you know what happens? The people of these countries, if they aren’t ready for a democracy, ignore the ‘laws’ and ‘systems’ that we’ve set up, and devolve back into whatever state of morality or governance they were in. It’s human nature: you can’t force moral behavior onto people; you have to walk with them and allow them to develop to the point at which they can adopt it of their own free will.

That’s what’s in play here. Sure, God could’ve just said, “ok, here’s the most just, upright, perfect society that you could possibly have on earth. I’m going to give you the rulebook, and it’s up to you to follow it.” And you know what? They weren’t ready. (Heck, we’re not ready, and we think that, 3000 years later, we’re sooo superior to them!) In other words, God could’ve given them rules that they weren’t able to follow… and they would have ignored them. Instead, God gave them rules that – although not perfect – were better than the systems that were currently in place. He asked them to follow these new rules – not because they were the pinnacle of His desires for them, but because they were a baby step in the direction He wanted them to go. Were they even able to follow these rules, as barbaric as they sound to 21st century ears? If you say ‘yes’, then you need to go back and re-read the Bible.

The Mosaic Law wasn’t perfect; but it was better than what preceded it. It wasn’t meant as God’s final expression of moral behavior (the Gospel of Christ takes that role), but it was meant as a rule of life for people who had fallen into slavery in a polytheistic society in a time in which “might made right” and people could condemn others without any process or attempt to find the truth of a controversy.

This doesn’t make sense as a parent and it doesn’t make sense as an analogy. And there’s a reason it should keep you up at night.

There’s a reason this should keep you up at night: you’ve horribly misunderstood and misrepresented what’s going on in the OT, to the point that you’ve blamed God for the failings of humans.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

Please dont be mean, i made up the infant thing.

 

[Ilovejesus1234]

This thread is kind of going too far

 

[Kaninchen]

This discussion is the equivalent of talking about New Testament texts without taking cognisance of the understandings of tradition and Church teaching.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Right – God permitted it.

Agreed.

Yet, that’s retaliation, not civil justice. In the Mosaic law, “an eye for an eye” was prescribed, but in the context of civil justice, not vigilantism.

No, this is not an eye for an eye. If it were, the punishment for a woman’s adultery would be that the man should have sex with someone else other than his wife.

I’m curious what your definition of “justice” is. Crushing a young girls brain with rocks seems like retaliation to me. It seems like jealousy on a monstrous scale, codified into law.

You made a claim earlier that is more insightful than you may realize; and yet, even in light of that insight, you haven’t glommed onto what’s in play here: you noted that God “could set up the laws any way he way he wanted,” and you’re right! He could have! Yet, that’s not what’s in play in this context. In U.S. history, we have more than our share of examples of instances in which we’ve gone into foreign countries, quelled whatever civil or military disturbances were on-going, and set up a democratic form of government, before pulling our forces out. And you know what happens? The people of these countries, if they aren’t ready for a democracy, ignore the ‘laws’ and ‘systems’ that we’ve set up, and devolve back into whatever state of morality or governance they were in. It’s human nature: you can’t force moral behavior onto people; you have to walk with them and allow them to develop to the point at which they can adopt it of their own free will.

Is your God the same as a country? Is He an invading army? Or is He the all powerful creator of the universe? Does he have no other recourse than to let men stone young girls?

Regardless, the people here are not being forced not to stone a woman they are being commanded to do it. The law says “You shall…” not “If you must…”. Furthermore a law by it’s definition is forcing someone to abide by certain precepts.

If God was just trying to ween people off of violence, why didn’t he make a law saying, “Don’t stone young women for adultery. Have compassion for them.”? Then, if the Israelites didn’t follow the law, that would be on them not God and his prophets.

That’s what’s in play here. Sure, God could’ve just said, “ok, here’s the most just, upright, perfect society that you could possibly have on earth. I’m going to give you the rulebook, and it’s up to you to follow it.” And you know what? They weren’t ready. (Heck, we’re not ready, and we think that, 3000 years later, we’re sooo superior to them!) In other words, God could’ve given them rules that they weren’t able to follow… and they would have ignored them. Instead, God gave them rules that – although not perfect – were better than the systems that were currently in place. He asked them to follow these new rules – not because they were the pinnacle of His desires for them, but because they were a baby step in the direction He wanted them to go. Were they even able to follow these rules, as barbaric as they sound to 21st century ears? If you say ‘yes’, then you need to go back and re-read the Bible.

We are absolutely superior to any society, at any time in history, that condones stoning. This baby step argument is ridiculous. What would have happened if God had laid out the best long term plan for society instead of (arguably) one of the worst short term plans for society?

The Mosaic Law wasn’t perfect; but it was better than what preceded it. It wasn’t meant as God’s final expression of moral behavior (the Gospel of Christ takes that role), but it was meant as a rule of life for people who had fallen into slavery in a polytheistic society in a time in which “might made right” and people could condemn others without any process or attempt to find the truth of a controversy.

Catholics are a group that continuously say morals are not relative. But when it come to explaining away these bible atrocities, absolute morals get a little hazy. Would it be right to stone a woman today? No. Was it right back then? Yes. That’s textbook moral relativity.

There’s a reason this should keep you up at night: you’ve horribly misunderstood and misrepresented what’s going on in the OT, to the point that you’ve blamed God for the failings of humans.

What keeps me up at night is the knowledge that there are people in our modern western culture who feel the need to defend stoning. Have you ever seen a video of someone being stoned. Those videos are out there. And I think everyone on this thread should find and watch what stoning really is and then come back and defend the practice.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Please dont be mean, i made up the infant thing.

I have no intention of being mean. My goal is to make you think about your beliefs. Take a look at what your fellow posters are defending. Do you think their positions are defensible?

 

[Kaninchen]

God’s morals are unchanging?
I would say the shift from “an eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek” is a big, big change!.

The ‘eye for eye’ etc formula was not a punishment formula, it was a recompense formula (what if a blind man knocked somebody’s eye out, what if a toothless man knocked somebody’s teeth out . . ?). So it would have been, say, a lamb for a tooth and a flock for an eye . . . a matter of proportion.

 

[Achilles6129]

Who were those young women? What made them so bad that they deserved to have their brains dashed out.

Study Scripture a little more thoroughly and you’ll find out. One of the main problems with antitheism is that it tends to paint the enemies of God in a very charitable light. If you read what the Bible really has to say about mankind in rebellion against God then you’ll see why she was stoned to death.

Do you understand why I don’t accept an explanation like this? This is a “just so” story to justify a barbaric practice.

You’re absolutely correct in the fact that modern Christians should not be saying that God is giving in to the “cultural limitations of the time” or taking “baby steps until Christ gets here.” You’re correct when you state that these explanations are absurd: either these are the immutable, inviolable laws of God (the Creator of the cosmos) or they are not. Period.

You have an all powerful God, who communicates directly with the human lawmaker, and the best punishment they can devise for the crime of adultery (which in my opinion, isn’t that serious and shouldn’t be a crime at all) is to hit a woman with rocks until she hemorages to death. And all of this because Jesus hadn’t come on the scene yet.

Very good. Like I said, either these are the immutable, inviolable laws of God or they aren’t. Modern Christianity is clearly uncomfortable with many of these things and I believe that shows that their theology is seriously and fundamentally flawed.

Sounds like Jesus showed up a bit late. He could have saved people from a lot of pain and anguish.

He didn’t need to because he didn’t believe that any of these things were unjust at all. As I said, you’re looking at things from the wrong perspective.

Stoning was the law handed down by the prophets of God. And God did nothing to stop it.

Of course not: he thinks its simply just punishment for a monstrous crime.

I can only imagine your RCIA teacher’s parenting techniques:

Toddler one swipes a toy from toddler two. Toddler two picks up a building block and bashes in toddler one’s head as retaliation. Your RCIA teacher says “Oh well, they’re just infants, they haven’t quite worked out morality yet.” Toddler one dies in a pool of his own blood.

This doesn’t make sense as a parent and it doesn’t make sense as an analogy. And there’s a reason it should keep you up at night.

You’re absolutely right. Modern Christian theology is fatally flawed.

No, this is not an eye for an eye. If it were, the punishment for a woman’s adultery would be that the man should have sex with someone else other than his wife.

Aha! Is it really adultery she’s being punished for, or is it something else altogether? Study Scripture a little more and you might be surprised

This baby step argument is ridiculous.

Absolutely agreed.

What would have happened if God had laid out the best long term plan for society instead of (arguably) one of the worst short term plans for society?

He did lay out the best long-term plan for society You’re sure, now, that you haven’t miscalculated and that you truly understand the nature of good/evil?

Would it be right to stone a woman today? No. Was it right back then? Yes. That’s textbook moral relativity.

That’s because it depends on whether it’s human law or God’s law. There’s a huge difference, because God, as the most intelligent Being, knows the true nature of good/evil. Humans do not and are not fit to judge and judicially execute one another because they don’t understand the true nature of good/evil without God.

 

[Achilles6129]

God’s morals are unchanging?
I would say the shift from “an eye for an eye” to “turn the other cheek” is a big, big change!

Was it a change, or is it simply two different responses under a different set of circumstances? I would argue that God’s judgment is “an eye for an eye” in the NT as well as the OT - that sounds perfectly fair and reasonable, doesn’t it?

And I certainly wouldn’t acknowledge that all the crimes listed for stoning are immoral.
Deuteronomy (21:18-21) says you should stone your son (but not daughter!) if they disobey the mother or father. Disobeying is not immoral. There may be very good, solid, moral reasons to disobey a parent.

No, it doesn’t say you were stoned for disobeying:

“18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, 19 then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. 20 They shall say to the elders of his town, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid.” Deut. 21:18-21 (NRSV)

It says he was stubborn, rebellious, a glutton, and a drunkard.

We (or God?) has changed their view re working on Sabbath, too.
Used to be you’d get stoned to death for that.
(Numbers 15:32-56)
.

Correct: keeping the Sabbath was symbolic of something else. Hence, it was in effect in OT times but not in New.

 

[Achilles6129]

When comparing the events recorded in the Old and New Testaments, be aware of how things were before and after Christ’s arrival. God’s rules, the ways of sin, and the state of this Earth remain the same in both testaments, but the levels of punishments have been altered.

God’s levels of punishment have not been altered in the slightest. The difference is that in the OT these levels of punishment were executed by Israelite judges, in the NT they are executed by God.

 

[God_I_Love]

Do you understand why I don’t accept an explanation like this? This is a “just so” story to justify a barbaric practice.

I understand you don’t accept this explanation. But what I gave you was not a ‘‘just so’’ explanation. Back that up. If I said ‘‘well that’s just what they did back then’’ then you would be justified. But I gave you much more. Now the above explanation is the truth. It’s that simple. The reason it gets complicated in terms of acceptance is because we have free will, knowledge of good and evil, angelic powers ruling over us, suffering, etc. And those factors work together with why God showed us Himself the way He did. If you truly wish understanding regarding this you should read the Gospel. Specifically John. If not it’s very hard to see why anything God does makes any sense at all.

You have an all powerful God, who communicates directly with the human lawmaker, and the best punishment they can devise for the crime of adultery (which in my opinion, isn’t that serious and shouldn’t be a crime at all) is to hit a woman with rocks until she hemorages to death. And all of this because Jesus hadn’t come on the scene yet.

We have an All Powerful God. Also an all wise one. And all knowing. Moses was none of these things and had to work with an unbelieving nation, whom after seeing God’s hand in Egypt, started worshipping a golden calf. This is why understanding ‘‘hardness of heart’’ would go a long way to opening the door to understanding on this issue. Now the punishment for the crime was not stoning. It was death. God just said how carnal minded Israelites would handle that by gathering and throwing stones. And it was because Jesus had not arrived. Why did He arrive in 0AD and not 2700BC? Lots of reasons including time for fulfillment of prophecy. Good thread topic though.

You say your God is the author of everything. He makes all the rules. He could set up the laws any way he way he wanted. The judges could have thrown pillows at the girl and, if God commanded it, that would purge the “evil”. Why go with pain? Why hurt the weakest of society?

God makes all the rules. and as long as He remains the rule maker in that realm things go well. Like Gravity. It always does what God ordained it to do. Now when it comes to the development of good and evil in the human consciousness combined with free will, the rule maker cedes some authority over for a time. Which is what He did with Satan and the angels after our fall. He gave them rule over us.
Now he could have designed the Law in Moses differently. But if He had commanded anything less than death we would have a false idea of what sin causes. Death. and suffering. I wish there was another way other than pain myself but it is part of living in a world where good and bad things happen. People choose horrific things. Say God stepped in and stopped you every time you were going to do something wrong… not only did he remove your free will, but He would remove your chance to suffer the consequences and learn. But the beauty of God is He works with us despite our obstinacy and still guides us true.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Let me first say that you are the most honest and internally consistent poster on this thread.

Study Scripture a little more thoroughly and you’ll find out. One of the main problems with antitheism is that it tends to paint the enemies of God in a very charitable light. If you read what the Bible really has to say about mankind in rebellion against God then you’ll see why she was stoned to death.

I agree with you that the bible absolutely condemns the “enemies of God”. I’m not sure that any amount of study is going to convince me to agree with it. But I’m willing to take a look if you want to provide some chapter and verse.

You’re absolutely correct in the fact that modern Christians should not be saying that God is giving in to the “cultural limitations of the time” or taking “baby steps until Christ gets here.” You’re correct when you state that these explanations are absurd: either these are the immutable, inviolable laws of God (the Creator of the cosmos) or they are not. Period.

He didn’t need to because he didn’t believe that any of these things were unjust at all. As I said, you’re looking at things from the wrong perspective.

Finally! Thank you for being consistent.

You’re absolutely right. Modern Christian theology is fatally flawed.

No arguments from me.

ha! Is it really adultery she’s being punished for, or is it something else altogether? Study Scripture a little more and you might be surprised

It just says adultery in the passage. What passages should I read to find out what this young really did.

He did lay out the best long-term plan for society You’re sure, now, that you haven’t miscalculated and that you truly understand the nature of good/evil?

Yup!

That’s because it depends on whether it’s human law or God’s law. There’s a huge difference, because God, as the most intelligent Being, knows the true nature of good/evil. Humans do not and are not fit to judge and judicially execute one another because they don’t understand the true nature of good/evil without God.

This is the only thing I don’t understand about what you wrote. It seems to contradict what you said above. Do you agree that humans should have stoned or continue to stone other humans as punishment for committing adultery?