Stoning to death in the OT and the situation now after the NT.

[Christianbookworm]

So... like the "bad crowd" that you don't want kids to hang out with?

[Jedidiah]

This is probably a derail, I have not read all of this thread, but the real problem is with human obedience. By and large the stoning punishment of the OT was done to women - the men normally got off scott free. Recall the woman taken in adultery in the NT. I am wondering how she managed to commit adultery all by herself.

[Darth Ovious]

This is probably a derail, I have not read all of this thread, but the real problem is with human obedience. By and large the stoning punishment of the OT was done to women - the men normally got off scott free. Recall the woman taken in adultery in the NT. I am wondering how she managed to commit adultery all by herself.

I think that some have indicated that a reason to show that the Pharisee's weren't serious about what they trying to do. The old trstament law in regards to stoning did include the men as well in order to be stoned.

[Jedidiah]

I think that some have indicated that a reason to show that the Pharisee's weren't serious about what they trying to do. The old trstament law in regards to stoning did include the men as well in order to be stoned.

In theory, not always in practice I understand.

[Obsidian]

I am convinced that "he who is without sin" refers to the sin of adultery. If you know anything about the law, you know that it is common for people with unclean hands (especially in criminal cases) to bring allegations against a defendant. Government prosecutors give favorable deals to one defendant to have him tell lies against the other. Or police officers entice people to commit crimes, and then testify against them. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they not only needed two witnesses as the law specifically commanded (and which they had not produced), but that these two witnesses must not be complicit themselves. Obviously, by only producing the woman and not the man, the Pharisees must have been guilty of something -- although the Bible never specifically says what.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

In this verse, "sin" refers to the specific sin being tried.

[Littlejoe]

Well there seems to be a challenge that pre-marital sex isn't covered by the use of the word adultery under Hebrew. I always thought pre-marital sex was considered a sin because of this very distinction.

I don't think I am doing very good here. A lot of what I thought I knew before seems to be getting challenged as being wrong.

EDIT: Anyway time for bed for me I think. I'll pick this up tomorrow. Hopefully some more people with post.

Ok, maybe this helps...maybe it derails but, the correct Biblical definition of these terms with respect to sexual sins is this:

Adultery is: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Adulterer) is currently Married.

Fornication is: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Fornicator) is currently NOT married. So, obviously, one partner may be a Fornicator, while the other partner may be an Adulterer (such as a married man with a prostitute).

So, they are two different offenses depending on your state of matrimony.

ETA: Fornication was also a stoning offense in the Old Testament. See Deut. 22:20, 21

Source: Deut. 22:20-21 ESV

²⁰ But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, ²¹ then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

© Copyright Original Source

[Adrift]

I am convinced that "he who is without sin" refers to the sin of adultery. If you know anything about the law, you know that it is common for people with unclean hands (especially in criminal cases) to bring allegations against a defendant. Government prosecutors give favorable deals to one defendant to have him tell lies against the other. Or police officers entice people to commit crimes, and then testify against them. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they not only needed two witnesses as the law specifically commanded (and which they had not produced), but that these two witnesses must not be complicit themselves. Obviously, by only producing the woman and not the man, the Pharisees must have been guilty of something -- although the Bible never specifically says what.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

In this verse, "sin" refers to the specific sin being tried.

That seems to be a view shared by D.A. Carson

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991

If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7 (cf. Lv 24:14) - the witnesses of the crime must be the first to throw the stones, and they must not be participants in the crime itself. Jesus' saying does not mean that the authorities must be paragons of sinless perfection before the death sentence can properly be meted out, nor does it mean that one must be free even from lust before one can legitimately condemn adultery (even though lust and adultery belong to the same genus, Mt. 5:28). It means, rather, that they must not be guilty of this particular sin. As in many societies around the world, so here: when it comes to sexual sins, the woman was much more likely to be in legal and social jeopardy than her paramour. The man could lead a 'respectable' life while masking the same sexual sins with a knowing wink. Jesus' simple condition, without calling into question the Mosaic code, cuts through the double standard and drives hard to reach the conscience.

© Copyright Original Source

He goes on to say, though:

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991

Only now does Jesus come close to answering the question that was first set him. Regardless of the exigencies of the law of Moses, in this instance Jesus says neither do I condemn you. The confidence and personal absoluteness of Jesus' words not only call to mind that Jesus came not to condemn but to save (3:17; 12:47), but prompt us to remember the Synoptic accounts that assign Jesus, like God himself, the right to forgive sin (Mt. 9:1-8 par.). The proper response to mercy received on account of past sins is purity in the future.

© Copyright Original Source

Ben Witherington agrees with Carson's first point: "If anyone is without sin . . ." This last phrase alludes to Deut. 13:9 (cf. 17:7) and makes clear that the issue is anyone without sin in this particular matter. Jewish law required that the witnesses to a crime be the first to throw the stones against the guilty part, and they must not have any guilt in or legal responsibility for this particular crime themselves.

But points out: Jesus, by saying, "do not sin again," does not pronounce this woman's sin forgiven since she has not repented; rather, He shows her the balance of mercy and justice calculated to lead one away from a sinful life to repentance and salvation.

One interesting point mentioned or hinted by scholars is that as least some of the men who are about to throw the stones may have been culpable, not by committing the sin of adultery themselves, but by springing the trap; either by setting the woman up so that she would commit adultery, or by allowing it to happen so that they could put Jesus on the spot after the fact. The fact that the man who co-committed the adultery is not present kind of speaks to this a bit.

[Darth Ovious]

I am convinced that "he who is without sin" refers to the sin of adultery. If you know anything about the law, you know that it is common for people with unclean hands (especially in criminal cases) to bring allegations against a defendant. Government prosecutors give favorable deals to one defendant to have him tell lies against the other. Or police officers entice people to commit crimes, and then testify against them. Jesus was telling the Pharisees that they not only needed two witnesses as the law specifically commanded (and which they had not produced), but that these two witnesses must not be complicit themselves. Obviously, by only producing the woman and not the man, the Pharisees must have been guilty of something -- although the Bible never specifically says what.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.

In this verse, "sin" refers to the specific sin being tried.

Thank you for the response. When reading the passage though I get the impression that there is a larger group of Pharisee's. Ultimately it says one by one they left starting with the oldest after Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

[Darth Ovious]

Ok, maybe this helps...maybe it derails but, the correct Biblical definition of these terms with respect to sexual sins is this:

Adultery is: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Adulterer) is currently Married.

Fornication is: Illicit intimate sex between one man and one woman whereby the offender (the Fornicator) is currently NOT married. So, obviously, one partner may be a Fornicator, while the other partner may be an Adulterer (such as a married man with a prostitute).

So, they are two different offenses depending on your state of matrimony.

ETA: Fornication was also a stoning offense in the Old Testament. See Deut. 22:20, 21

Source: Deut. 22:20-21 ESV

²⁰ But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, ²¹ then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

© Copyright Original Source

Thanks for your response. What's you view on the laws? Do you consider them an expansion of what is stated in the ten commandments or do you think that these laws were specifically commanded by God as well?

[Darth Ovious]

That seems to be a view shared by D.A. Carson

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991

If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 13:9; 17:7 (cf. Lv 24:14) - the witnesses of the crime must be the first to throw the stones, and they must not be participants in the crime itself. Jesus' saying does not mean that the authorities must be paragons of sinless perfection before the death sentence can properly be meted out, nor does it mean that one must be free even from lust before one can legitimately condemn adultery (even though lust and adultery belong to the same genus, Mt. 5:28). It means, rather, that they must not be guilty of this particular sin. As in many societies around the world, so here: when it comes to sexual sins, the woman was much more likely to be in legal and social jeopardy than her paramour. The man could lead a 'respectable' life while masking the same sexual sins with a knowing wink. Jesus' simple condition, without calling into question the Mosaic code, cuts through the double standard and drives hard to reach the conscience.

© Copyright Original Source

He goes on to say, though:

Source: The Gospel According to John by D. A. Carson, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1991

Only now does Jesus come close to answering the question that was first set him. Regardless of the exigencies of the law of Moses, in this instance Jesus says neither do I condemn you. The confidence and personal absoluteness of Jesus' words not only call to mind that Jesus came not to condemn but to save (3:17; 12:47), but prompt us to remember the Synoptic accounts that assign Jesus, like God himself, the right to forgive sin (Mt. 9:1-8 par.). The proper response to mercy received on account of past sins is purity in the future.

© Copyright Original Source

Ben Witherington agrees with Carson's first point: "If anyone is without sin . . ." This last phrase alludes to Deut. 13:9 (cf. 17:7) and makes clear that the issue is anyone without sin in this particular matter. Jewish law required that the witnesses to a crime be the first to throw the stones against the guilty part, and they must not have any guilt in or legal responsibility for this particular crime themselves.

But points out: Jesus, by saying, "do not sin again," does not pronounce this woman's sin forgiven since she has not repented; rather, He shows her the balance of mercy and justice calculated to lead one away from a sinful life to repentance and salvation.

One interesting point mentioned or hinted by scholars is that as least some of the men who are about to throw the stones may have been culpable, not by committing the sin of adultery themselves, but by springing the trap; either by setting the woman up so that she would commit adultery, or by allowing it to happen so that they could put Jesus on the spot after the fact. The fact that the man who co-committed the adultery is not present kind of speaks to this a bit.

Thanks Adrift, this is helpful. I did look for the commentaries you mentioned before, I didn't realise they were books though, so I will need to get them whenever I can.

[Darth Ovious]

OK, I have a question in regards to this. It's a hypothetical. If a country were to pass laws upholding the laws in Leviticus in regards to stoning, what should a Christians take on this be? Should be OK with it? or should we be concerned about it in regards to the new covenant? For instance perhaps Russia is a country where they probably wouldn't pass this law in concerns to some groups but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

[Adrift]

OK, I have a question in regards to this. It's a hypothetical. If a country were to pass laws upholding the laws in Leviticus in regards to stoning, what should a Christians take on this be? Should be OK with it? or should we be concerned about it in regards to the new covenant? For instance perhaps Russia is a country where they probably wouldn't pass this law in concerns to some groups but it's not outside the realm of possibility.

I don't think we have to imagine a hypothetical. Many Islamic countries still practice stoning for adultery. My own personal view on the practice is that it is unnecessary, and, well, barbaric. It served it's purpose in it's time and place, but it has no place under a spiritual administration of grace (Romans 6:14). I'm one of those few American Christians, though, that also opposes capital punishment entirely. I believe that while a person is still alive they still have an opportunity to make Christ Lord, and that the death penalty removes that opportunity. But I understand that there are plenty who would disagree, and I don't think their arguments are entirely faulty.

[Littlejoe]

Thanks for your response. What's you view on the laws? Do you consider them an expansion of what is stated in the ten commandments or do you think that these laws were specifically commanded by God as well?

It's part of the purity laws of the OT IMO, but, as Adrift said, they served their purpose in their time, but if Christ did not condone the stoning of the Woman caught in adultery, neither should we. Notice however, Christ did not say it's ok, go back to what you were doing...He said, go and sin no more.

[Darth Ovious]

I don't think we have to imagine a hypothetical. Many Islamic countries still practice stoning for adultery. My own personal view on the practice is that it is unnecessary, and, well, barbaric. It served it's purpose in it's time and place, but it has no place under a spiritual administration of grace (Romans 6:14). I'm one of those few American Christians, though, that also opposes capital punishment entirely. I believe that while a person is still alive they still have an opportunity to make Christ Lord, and that the death penalty removes that opportunity. But I understand that there are plenty who would disagree, and I don't think their arguments are entirely faulty.

Your view here was closely similar to mine. I thought it a practice for the circumstances as a means to an end in order to help civilisation from anarchy. However I was challenged on it so I wanted to get an idea on what peoples thoughts on this were since I want to keep an open mind on these issues.

[Truthseeker]

. . . two witnesses must not be complicit themselves.

I'm not certain what you mean here by "complicit."