Why did they stone in the OT?

[Ilovejesus1234]

im walking away from this discussion have fun

 

[Sparkythedog]

im walking away from this discussion have fun

Averting your eyes to a problem does not make that problem go away. Hopefully you will think about what’s been said here.

 

[mdgspencer]

I thought the question of the original poster an interesting question, and looked up what John McKenzie’s “Dictionary of the Bible” says of this. Here are some of his thoughts. The laws of the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Bible) prescribe stoning for a number of things, he points out. Then he says “since Palestine is perhaps the stoniest of all areas in the world, one may suspect that the penalty came into use because of its convenience; in the laws of Hammurabi the most common penalty is drowning in the river,likewise convenient… But the penalty involves more than convenience. It is a community action in which each member takes part, thus sharing the judgment and the punishment, in which no single person strikes the fatal blow. Originally the penalty reflected the conception of blood guilt; stoning is not the shedding of blood as the Israelites understood it, and thus no one incurred blood guilt.”

 

[JamalChristophr]

Far as I can see, this discussion has wandered fairly far afield from the OP’s original intent.

 

[Faxero]

This thread is kind of going too far

You feel guilty, don’t you?

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.

You fueled my argument. In the Old Testament, God worked through judges, who used their own cultural notions as a basis for their worldview, and subsequently, their actions. In the New Testament, God was personally in charge, and so the punishments became less drastic.

 

[JamalChristophr]

St Paul was stoned to death at least once, maybe twice…he faired pretty well.

So many people cannot see anything beyond the here and now- espeically those who don’t believe in a God or an afterlife so how in the world could they possibly come to understand stoning or bring anything substantive to the discussion except sarcasm and mockery.

 

[Sparkythedog]

St Paul was stoned to death at least once, maybe twice…he faired pretty well.

If Paul liked it, he can keep it.

So many people cannot see anything beyond the here and now- espeically those who don’t believe in a God or an afterlife so how in the world could they possibly come to understand stoning or bring anything substantive to the discussion except sarcasm and mockery.

I will look beyond the here and now when evidence is presented for it. In the mean time I will always come down on the side of those who face the brunt of this painful, torturous death.

 

[ericc]

I am always surprised at armchair critics of punishments meted out for culprits 3500 years, ago, 2000 yrs ago 500 yrs ago etc. Somehow they believe that ancient punishments must be measured against current methods without considering the stage of civilization development those people are in. A thousand years from now, perhaps we will be judged as barbaric as we are judging people 3500 yrs ago.

The question would be: are the punishments extraordinary harsh in those days? Are our current punishments given our stage of civilization development even harsher? A related question is whether our standard of moral any better relatively speaking than those living 3500 yrs ago? Barely a few decades ago, we nucleared 2 cities, millions of Jews suffered and died in holocaust camp in unspeakable suffering, millions died elsewhere in China, Africa, SE Asia, and even today we have beheadings. Our moral standards continue to “progress” with millions of abortion done each year, sexual behaviour even looser (and that’s why some view adultery as a no-big-deal and hence death penalty an overreaction). online child pornography, substance abuse etc. And we think it is ok? And yet, if people in the future think we are barbaric, isn’t our excuse the same as those people from 3500 yrs ago? That is the norm of our times?

So now we sit in our comfy armchairs and criticise others for bad behaviour while never putting our feet in their shoes. If you grew up in such times, you would demand the same punishment without batting an eyelid would you not? Today, if a vicious criminal is let off with a slight tap of the wrist would be met with tremendous uproar. But a thousand years from now, perhaps current death penalty methods would be viewed with such revulsion as we do now to those living in ancient times. Barely 200 yrs ago, slaves were so ill treated with unnecessary cruelty and so on. This is regardless of religion. Civilization moves at its own speed and behaviour norms do reflect the times.

If anyone is trying not to get a religion by finding excuses in OT, you will always find excuses at any time, any age. The Hebrew God knows civilization moves at its own speed, when you are an infant, you are fed infant food not adult food. We know that everyone will be judged accordingly and fairly since God knows your every thought. I won’t bother pulling a fast one on Him. So if you think God is not worth it, then I suppose on judgement day you won’t be surprised by the verdict, would you? Well, if you guess right and God didn’t exist, you have nothing to fear but if you are wrong… never mind, a fitting place will be prepared for you just the same.

 

[Xeyed818]

I am always surprised at armchair critics of punishments meted out for culprits 3500 years, ago, 2000 yrs ago 500 yrs ago etc. Somehow they believe that ancient punishments must be measured against current methods without considering the stage of civilization development those people are in. A thousand years from now, perhaps we will be judged as barbaric as we are judging people 3500 yrs ago.

---

If anyone is trying not to get a religion by finding excuses in OT, you will always find excuses at any time, any age. The Hebrew God knows civilization moves at its own speed, when you are an infant, you are fed infant food not adult food. We know that everyone will be judged accordingly and fairly since God knows your every thought. I won’t bother pulling a fast one on Him. So if you think God is not worth it, then I suppose on judgement day you won’t be surprised by the verdict, would you? Well, if you guess right and God didn’t exist, you have nothing to fear but if you are wrong… never mind, a fitting place will be prepared for you just the same.

I don’t think any of us are surprised at mankind’s evil inclinations to torture others. It’s part of the ‘heart of bitterness’ (that is angry at being ‘cast down’, perhaps?).

However, when it’s God determining a particular type of punishment, there is likely significance to it.

To ask, “Why?” is a God-given crucial ability of humans. Moses (and others) probably asked questions - and I trust received Answers. Many of those Answers are imbedded in Scripture for those who become willing to seek them (as well as elsewhere, where spiritual insight has been given to others and passed on).

Agreed, that as long as I was finding fault with God and the Bible accounts, I was not capable of feeling love and gratitude for the Word. It was the AA program which taught me how to set aside prejudices (‘suspend disbelief’) so that new thinking could be allowed to enter in. Later, when I (an agnostic) felt the pull to return to the Bible of my up-bringing, I felt the same old resistance. So, I applied AA principles to Bible study and that resistance…melted into ‘Godly thirst’.

I don’t question to criticize today…I question and study to grow in Understanding. I have patience with those who do ‘find fault with the ways of God’ - because I was once there myself (and others were patient with me).

According to Paul in the NT, if we don’t come to Know the Holy Spirit for ourselves, we don’t know Christ. (1Cor. 12:3) Paul also says that if we don’t know, personally, that Christ has risen (because He has risen within us) (1Cor. 12-19), then we’ve missed the Point; presumably to then be judged under the Law at death.

Honestly, I don’t know yet how to reconcile, in some NT passages, how ‘just believing is sufficient’ …with Paul’s other definite teachings. But that would be another thread.

Best to All,

Pamela

 

[Gorgias]

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

No… he just agrees with you. Big difference, there.

either these are the immutable, inviolable laws of God (the Creator of the cosmos) or they are not. Period.

Finally! Thank you for being consistent.

No; he’s not being consistent; in fact, he’s demonstrably wrong. Is the Mosaic law “immutable, inviolable laws of God”? Certainly not. If it were immutable, then we’d all be unable to enjoy shrimp cocktail or bacon.

Mosaic law was brought to perfection by Christ. That implies that they weren’t immutable. The New Covenant prescribes different behavior; that implies that they aren’t inviolable. Achilles is just plain mistaken (sorry).

 

[Gorgias]

Study Scripture a little more thoroughly and you’ll find out. … 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. … 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

Despite the flaws in your arguments in this post, this point is insightful and well-stated. What is being punished is bringing evil into the community of the people of God, a community of priests, a community set apart and dedicated to God. God isn’t punishing ‘sex’, as Sparky claims.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Hold on: you’re twisting my words. I’m responding to your “violent infants” example, in which you cast ‘retaliation’ as if it were ‘civil justice’. It was a poor example; moreover, it was an example that you attempted to claim was in line with Mosaic law, which it was not.

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 seem quite set in your position, such that you’re unwilling to entertain others’ ideas (except, of course, the ones that explicitly agree with yours). Be that as it may, let’s look at this in a brutally honest way. It’s critical that we look to understand it from the perspective of the people of the era, if we’re going to understand this in context.

In that age, women were essentially chattel – the ‘property’, as it were, of their husbands. A wife’s role was providing progeny for her husbands and his extended family. Having children meant that inheritances were established and more resources were available for the family community. Finally, it was critical to the Israelites that they kept themselves ‘separate’ from Gentiles.

What are the implications of these notions, vis-a-vis adultery? First, by committing adultery, a woman committed theft: she allowed a man who had no right to her fertility to have access to it. Worse, if this man were not part of the family, she was depriving a man of his rights to have an heir of his own. Adultery was, on a human level, theft and criminal fraud.

Worst of all, clandestinely bearing a child to a Gentile meant that she was bringing a non-Jew into full rights in the community. Adultery was an offense against the community.

So, let’s look at it from the “eye for an eye” perspective. Without paternity tests, giving birth via adultery deprived a man his ability to have his own descendants. In those days, they didn’t understand the notion of ‘eternal life in heaven.’ The only way a person had ‘eternal life’ was through their descendants keeping their memory alive. A woman who gave birth to another man’s baby was, in their eyes, depriving her husband of his potential to have ‘eternal life’. “An eye for an eye”, remember?

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?

God creates rules to inform our consciences; He does not “let” people do things or “prevent” them from doing others. You’re mistaking “justice” with “free will” here.

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.

Good technique.

You talked about child-rearing techniques; let’s go with that example. You tell your child to maintain an impossible standard of behavior – and make sure you have punishments in place for failing to uphold that standard! – and I’ll set rules for mine that are appropriate to their age and maturity. Then, twenty years down the line, let’s compare results. Your child will have lived a life characterized by letting down Mom & Dad – at each step, his inability to be a perfect adult will teach him that he’s incapable of doing the right thing – and his experience will be punishment that’s “on him”. I’ll have a child who, since he was given the opportunity to meet standards that were appropriate to him, and will have learned – albeit slowly and in stages – that he’s capable of making both good and bad decisions, and is punished not for what an well-formed adult is able to do, but what a child is able to handle. That child knows his parents as loving; the other child only knows a parent who punishes him at every turn. Good luck with that one…

We are absolutely superior to any society, at any time in history, that condones stoning.

We are? We kill our babies in the womb by tearing them limb from limb. And we do it not for any offense they’ve committed, but only in the name of convenience. We are absolutely inferior to almost any society in the history of humanity, as far as that goes.

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?

Then society would have learned that they are always wrong, all the time, and their God is a God who only punishes them for being imperfect. That society would quickly learn that, since perfection is impossible, they might as well just give up and be hedonists – after all, if they’re doomed to certain damnation, they might as well have fun now while they can.

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.

No; this isn’t a question of morality of an action, but of the appropriateness of a punishment. Unless, of course, you’re saying that capital punishment is never or nowhere morally viable, but that’s a different argument altogether. Let’s ask the question a bit differently: was it right to perform capital punishment via the guillotine in 18th century France? It’s not, today; is that moral relativity? Of course not; insisting that it is, is textbook anachronism.

 

[Achilles6129]

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

Thanks for the compliment.

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.

In my estimation, there are only two things that could convince you to agree with it:

1. You believe that Biblical theology is true and is the word of God
2. You can recognize how evil human beings are through philosophy

I think you could go with “2” and reason that human beings are monstrously evil creatures based off of things like weapons, prisons, police, militaries, wars, countries, etc. - the list goes on.

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

So here’s the deal, and here’s what I was talking about: adultery is only the surface manifestation of the real crime. Let me explain.

In order to understand why adulterers, blasphemers (of the name of God), homosexuals, etc., are put to death by God in the OT you have to understand something about Biblical theology. Biblical theology says that everyone who disobeys God’s commands is monstrously evil; they are, in fact, a murderer by God’s standards. So in your case (with the adultery passage), the adulterer/adulteress aren’t actually put to death for adultery: they’re put to death for murder. Here’s the proof:

“38 the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one,” Mt. 13:38 (NRSV)

“44 You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. **He was a murderer from the beginning **and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” Jn. 8:44 (NRSV)

The line of reasoning is as follows:

1. Everyone who disobeys God’s commands is a child of Satan
2. Satan is a murderer
3. “Children” is a way to describe those who share in the nature of their parents
4. The children of Satan share Satan’s nature
5. The children of Satan are murderers
6. Everyone who disobeys God’s commands is a murderer (by God’s standards)

So what we’re talking about is simple: adultery, gossip, homosexuality, etc., are just surface manifestations of the real crime. The real crime is that they’re murderers by God’s standards and for this they’re put to death. See the end of Romans 1:

“29 They were filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, craftiness, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters,[f] insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, rebellious toward parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die—yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them.” Rom. 1:29-32 (NRSV)

Here Paul lists a litany of crimes which are worthy of death by God’s standards. The reason why they’re worthy of death is because the person who does these things is actually a murderer by God’s standards. These things are only a surface manifestation.

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?

No, humans should not currently stone for adultery. The reason is because we’re not in the land of Israel 2,500 years ago. If we were, my answer would be different

 

[Achilles6129]

No; he’s not being consistent; in fact, he’s demonstrably wrong. Is the Mosaic law “immutable, inviolable laws of God”? Certainly not. If it were immutable, then we’d all be unable to enjoy shrimp cocktail or bacon.

The food laws in the OT are symbolic of something else. What they are symbolic of is in fact immutable and inviolable.

Mosaic law was brought to perfection by Christ. That implies that they weren’t immutable.

“20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.”” Deut. 18:20 (NRSV)

“Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them.” All the people shall say, “Amen!”” Deut. 27:26 (NRSV)

“17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[c] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” Mt. 5:17-18 (NRSV)

If the bolded/underlined passage is true, then the Torah is immutable.

The New Covenant prescribes different behavior; that implies that they aren’t inviolable. Achilles is just plain mistaken (sorry).

Yes, different behavior for humans because God is now directly in charge of his kingdom. In the Old Testament it was mediated by Israelite judges and therefore human beings sometimes had the responsibility of executing God’s law. In the NT he executes his own lawn.

 

[ericc]

The food laws in the OT are symbolic of something else. What they are symbolic of is in fact immutable and inviolable.

“20 But any prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, or who presumes to speak in my name a word that I have not commanded the prophet to speak—that prophet shall die.”” Deut. 18:20 (NRSV)

“Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them.” All the people shall say, “Amen!”” Deut. 27:26 (NRSV)

“17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[c] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” Mt. 5:17-18 (NRSV)

If the bolded/underlined passage is true, then the Torah is immutable.

Yes, different behavior for humans because God is now directly in charge of his kingdom. In the Old Testament it was mediated by Israelite judges and therefore human beings sometimes had the responsibility of executing God’s law. In the NT he executes his own lawn.

Well if the Torah is immutable, then Jesus critique of the Pharisees and Sadducees is wrong and calling them devils sinful and poor judgement. So either you have Jesus who gets it right and the generations of temple priests and Pharisees have gotten it wrong for hundreds of years or the other way round.

I don’t think so. The Law is immutable. The understanding of the (spirit of the ) Law and implementation of the Law was done by non-perfect men, some of them evil. Jesus corrected them. During those times, the Jews didn’t have proper guidance from their prophets anymore i.e. God didn’t speak to them for a long time (last prophet was Malachi I believe) . So the ones in charge have a field day. With no spiritual insight, they went by the blind letter of the Law. So you have ancient version of lawyers quoting legal case law (scriptures) going up against the person who gave it to them.

 

[irenaeuslyons]

*"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: *Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? ** He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."

credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-nt-book-matthew-mt-chapter-19/47/19/7

Divine Law is immutable. But mosaic law is not perfected Divine Law. Hence, when Jesus improved an eye for an eye with love your enemies, he was showing how Divine Law perfected a mosaic law which was good but not perfect. Same with marriage quoted above.

 

[Achilles6129]

"Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? Who answering, said to them: Have ye not read, that he who made man from the beginning, Made them male and female? And he said: For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder. They say to him: **Why then did Moses command to give a bill of divorce, and to put away? ** He saith to them: Because Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery."

credobiblestudy.com/roman/en/catholic-bible-douay-rheims-nt-book-matthew-mt-chapter-19/47/19/7

Divine Law is immutable. But mosaic law is not perfected Divine Law. Hence, when Jesus improved an eye for an eye with love your enemies, he was showing how Divine Law perfected a mosaic law which was good but not perfect. Same with marriage quoted above.

Hi,

Christ is saying that the individuals still committed adultery. God allowed this at the time because of the hardness of their hearts, just as he also allowed David/Solomon to have different wives, etc. There are different types of law in the Torah: some definitely revolve around the cultural aspects of the time, like laws about oxen, etc. The same applies here: this is a particular law which God permitted the Israelites at that time, just like laws about oxen and so on. But that doesn’t mean that the Torah isn’t immutable (see Mt. 5:17-18).

EDITED TO ADD: This is obviously a very interesting passage that you raised, as it does imply a contradiction. I’ll have to study this more and see where it comes out. The Torah is clearly stated to be immutable in Scripture (Mt. 5:17-18, etc.), but you are correct that here Christ does seem to say that God allowed adultery (a certain form of it) in the Torah. Excellent point, and I’ll have to study this out more.

 

[Gorgias]

The food laws in the OT are symbolic of something else. What they are symbolic of is in fact immutable and inviolable.

Fair enough. The dietary restrictions in the OT are part of the Mosaic law. So, then, what you’re saying is that the Mosaic law is “symbolic of something else… that is immutable”? That sounds reasonable. That means, of course, that the Mosaic law, as symbol, isn’t what’s immutable.

“Cursed be anyone who does not uphold the words of this law by observing them.” All the people shall say, “Amen!”” Deut. 27:26 (NRSV)

So, are Gentile Christians cursed because they don’t abide by circumcision or the dietary laws of the Mosaic covenant? Of course not! Therefore, the Mosaic covenant is not immutable for all people and all times. That, after all, is the very definition of immutable!

“17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter,[c] not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished.” Mt. 5:17-18 (NRSV)

If the bolded/underlined passage is true, then the Torah is immutable.

For those who are under the Law. Are you under the Mosaic law? Of course not… and Paul speaks extensively about how we’re under Christ’s grace, not the old covenant. In a word: mutable!

Yes, different behavior for humans because God is now directly in charge of his kingdom. In the Old Testament it was mediated by Israelite judges and therefore human beings sometimes had the responsibility of executing God’s law. In the NT he executes his own lawn.

Hmm… here, you seem to be saying that the Mosaic law is the law of “Israelite judges”, not of God, since you seem to be drawing a distinction between God’s law in His kingdom and the Mosaic law in the Israelite kingdom? That’s still pretty far afield…

Merry Christmas!

 

[ericc]

Shall we get back to the stoning and not the immutable bit before this thread get closed for non-conformance? I apologize for wandering off earlier.