Stoned to death

[GodsGrace]

wondering
Job 42:1-7
Then Job replied to the LORD:

2“I know that You can do all things

and that no plan of Yours can be thwarted.

3You asked, ‘Who is this

who conceals My counsel without knowledge?’

Surely I spoke of things I did not understand,

things too wonderful for me to know.

4You said, ‘Listen now, and I will speak.

I will question you, and you shall answer.’

5My ears had heard of You,

but now my eyes have seen You.

6Therefore I retract my words,

and I repent in dust and ashes.


Job was a true innocent. He was rather blameless even though his "friends" tried to blame him and label him with some kind of sin.
But notice especially verse 7... even though Job was a truly good guy he despised himself... meaning he hated himself for his own wickedness and felt the need for all kinds of repentance when he seen God. Job, in his own defense, explained the great and expensive lengths he went to in order to avoid sin in his household and cleanse himself of anything that might possibly be displeasing to God.

But yet... he hated himself when he met God. He felt completely unworthy.

So... even though I'm not going to hand over the answers (the posts would be horrendously long) I have hinted strongly about where the answers lie.
Context is King...and flat, face isolated value with inaccurate pictures formed by Atheists would be the last place I'd start looking for answers.
No one was ever told by God to go out and stone grade school aged children. (Which is what the Atheists would like for people to believe)
If someone forced you into a compromised and sinful lifestyle God would hold the forcer and not the forcee accountable. And God doesn't deprive us of things for arbitrary reasons. I once tried this dish spoken about... tastes great but you won't be able to leave the bathroom afterwards. I can't even imagine doing it with unpasteurized milk. (Which is what they would have used) And there is evidence that this was symbolic of bad practices...but I'm forgetting the stuff at the moment.

You brought out two interesting points:

1. The closer we get to God, the more we feel sinful. But somehow we can accept it and know we are forgiven or otherwise this feeling of sinfulness would become unbearable. We could say that the closer we get to God...the more we see His light..or the more brilliant His light becomes and so our darkness, in contrast, becomes more noticeable.

2. Unpasteurized milk. I used to drink this when I used to come to Italy in the 60's. We just brought it to the boil....I think our system gets used to what you give it. Mexicans DO NOT get sick by drinking their own water. If WE go to Mexico,,,we get "Montezuma's revenge"! Our system is used to different bacteria.

I never argued that GOD did not give very good rules for our own benefit.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I would never venture, as you do, to claim that I consider some of the OT 'rules were not of God's word'. Have you checked to see if the Jewish MSS evidence supported those OT rules?

As for the adulterous woman (John 7:53-8:11) some scholars consider this was not in the NT. See: 'Pericope adulterae', in FL Cross (ed.), The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Of this passage the NIV states: '[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]'.

I don't use this adulterous woman passage as there is too much doubt over its authenticity.

Notice the question of the Pharisees to Jesus: 'Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”' (Matt 19:3). They asked about divorce 'for any and every reason'.

What was Jesus' response?


It is incorrect to say 'He (Jesus) said there is to be no divorce. Moses allowed divorce'. Jesus said Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of people's heart. However, Jesus allowed divorce 'for sexual immorality'.

Paul later taught that divorce is permitted if the unbeliever leaves the marriage (1 Cor 7:15).

I'll let other posters deal with your statement about OT hate and Jesus' no hate.

Oz

I know that the adulteress woman passage may not be in any manuscript...or has been added many years later.

However, we can all testify that Jesus would NOT have said to go ahead and stone her.

In any case, this passage was put there precisely to end stoning,,,which was still going on as evidenced by the stoning of Stephen in Acts 7:54.....

 

[GodsGrace]

Interesting...
But it's all conjecture by the scholars.
Many scholars agree that the passage is scripture...they just disagree with where it belongs. Others don't believe that it is scripture but is some kind of insertion.
I looked at several different scholars thoughts and research decades ago and came up with what I expressed previously.
I'm not going to rely upon this one controversial passage for any groundbreaking theological position and I believe the same to be true of you.

The action in the passage does seem to be consistent with what we know about Jesus. The main problem with it is thematic inconsistency it provides in John and stylistic difference from John's writing style. (As well as it's missing existence in many other manuscripts as stated by Gleason and many others.) Gleason might not see a thematic problem...but others do.

It's all conjecture...interesting conjecture but conjecture nonetheless. The evidence is all fairly circumstantial at best.

I agree that the passage is consistent with what we know about Jesus and that He would most probably reacted in this way to this situation.

In a different thread I posted that I believe this is how Jesus would have reacted because stoning had to come to an end, as it was still being practiced even in Acts with the stoning of Stephen.
Acts 7:54.....

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

The giving of a divorce certificate by Moses is interesting.

God did not begin by wanting divorce. Adam and Eve were supposed to stay together forever.

But man, with his hard heart, would leave his wife and his children ot go with another woman, or for whatever reason. So Moses made it more difficult to just leave a woman....he required that a certificate of divorce would be necessary. A man could not just up and leave his wife/family.

However, Jesus fixed this problem by declaring, as it was in the beginning, that divorce is absolutely not wanted by God and is to be rejected.

We could debate whether or not infidelity was given by Him as a good reason for divorce. I understand both sides of the issue but am unable to decide for either side.

But, once again, we find Jesus adjusting a law of Moses to bring it back to its original state.

There are a lot of reasons why people leave eachother. Adultery is just one of the many. Some of those things people work through them and their marriage is stronger from it. Others, well sometimes it's one or three big reasons that tear people apart and one or both of the people are unwilling or unable to work through them. Sometimes it's just keeping a tally of every infraction and every fault that builds into the relationship until one makes excuses to leave, excuses to drunk away their sorrows, or to be abusive themselves to their spouse.

I would count all of these as a hardening of the heart, regardless of the cause, or if there even was a cause. In this way I think divorce is a decree of mercy with our sins and many wrongs that are part of society. The stipulations on divorce are given with I think some careful wisdom. In the old Testiment, if you give a note of divorce then you could not remarry the same person later. If I remember it right that was compared to making it like prostution. In the anew Testiment, if you divorce and remarry while the other person is still alive, then that is an act of adultery. Worse it forces the other person to be in the same situation too.

I don't ever want to be divorced. But I watched a friend go through it some time ago, and the choice of divorce or to stay in the toxic relationship was something I was sorry he had to make a choice on. From watching that it makes me wonder if God put laws in place for divorce because He knew mankind better then we know ourselves.

 

[GodsGrace]

There are a lot of reasons why people leave eachother. Adultery is just one of the many. Some of those things people work through them and their marriage is stronger from it. Others, well sometimes it's one or three big reasons that tear people apart and one or both of the people are unwilling or unable to work through them. Sometimes it's just keeping a tally of every infraction and every fault that builds into the relationship until one makes excuses to leave, excuses to drunk away their sorrows, or to be abusive themselves to their spouse.

I would count all of these as a hardening of the heart, regardless of the cause, or if there even was a cause. In this way I think divorce is a decree of mercy with our sins and many wrongs that are part of society. The stipulations on divorce are given with I think some careful wisdom. In the old Testiment, if you give a note of divorce then you could not remarry the same person later. If I remember it right that was compared to making it like prostution. In the anew Testiment, if you divorce and remarry while the other person is still alive, then that is an act of adultery. Worse it forces the other person to be in the same situation too.

I don't ever want to be divorced. But I watched a friend go through it some time ago, and the choice of divorce or to stay in the toxic relationship was something I was sorry he had to make a choice on. From watching that it makes me wonder if God put laws in place for divorce because He knew mankind better then we know ourselves.

Of course on a human level I can agree with all you've said.
But...are there children involved?
Who's thinking and caring about them?
They deserve a mother and a father that love them and are devoted to them.

God means for us to stay in our marriage.

There's a saint, can't remember who, that stayed in her abusive marriage for the sake of her children.

It's unfortunate that we cannot follow the laws of God:
A woman is to be obedient to her husband...
BUT
Her husband is to love her as he loves his own body.

Marriages would work out so much better!
But, alas, there is much selfishness in relationships these day.

 

[for_his_glory]

I've heard from several scholars who believe that this section of John 8 actually belongs in Mark instead of John... that somehow it got confused/lost in an early transcribing/copying session of NT scriptures and wrongly re-inserted into John.
I don't toss it out but I do tend to isolate the story if I am in one of the very few instances of discussing it.

Marks Gospel from chapter 1 through 16 all deals with Jesus as presenting the servant, opposition to the servant, instruction by the servant and rejection of the servant so I can't see anywhere where John 8 would fit in any of what Mark wrote about Jesus.

If you start with John 7 during the midst of the feast Jesus went into the temple and started teaching. Israel is divided over Christ and the Sanhedrin is confused over Christ. Beginning in Chapter 8 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives and in the morning He came back to the temple and as many gathered to Him He began to teach. The scribes and Pharisee's brought to Him a woman caught in adultery and told Jesus according to the laws of Moses she needs to be stoned to death. They were tempting Jesus so they could accuse Him as the scribes and Pharisees were always trying to find fault in Jesus to have Him arrested.

Chapter 8 fits with Chapter 7 if you take away the numbering of chapters and verses and read them like the letters that were written that makes up the Gospels.

 

[JohnDB]

Women weren't considered equal with men at the time of the action in John 8...they couldn't access the courts without their husband. Men could beat their wives...but not severely as a man would receive or else he would face the wrath of the city.

There was a practice mentioned in the Old Testament and in the New called "Putting Away" a spouse. It basically consisted of kicking the wife out of the house. The husband still had to provide for her but three balls of food equivalent to the measure of a walnut each was all he had to provide each week... meanwhile since polygamy was acceptable he could marry a new wife. And the husband would keep the children.

So these "Put Away Wives" couldn't access the courts for a divorce where the husband would have to give her the dowry he received when they married. They also were very limited in getting a career.
So often these women would either starve to death or become prostitutes or more commonly would move to a new town and try to get married again with no dowry or bride price. (A string of convincing lies was necessary)
Men, suspicious of the true status of their wives, would treat these women more like cattle than anything. Wife swapping/trading had a whole new level of meaning... meanwhile all being inside the confines of the Law and claiming to be "taken advantage of by a lying adulterous woman" if ever caught. (Which held no penalty especially if he could provide witnesses...and he could)

So...it was one of these caught "Put Away Wives" that they brought to Jesus for stoning. God had already said that the adultery was going to be held against the husbands and not the women. Jesus reiterated this sentiment.

When talking to the Pharisees and others engaged in this wife divorcing and remarrying in turnstile fashion (it was a very well known scandal at the time) Jesus said that they were guilty of adultery. (Duh!)

The Micah passage where God says that He hates divorce it also says that God hates abuse more and this putting away without divorcing was tantamount to abuse.



Finally the goat cooked in it's mother's milk tastes wonderful. It's flavorful, juicy, and rich tasting meat. BUT it will cause a case of diareahh something fierce...and in a place that has limited water supplies or even fecal contamination of water supplies this would definitely be problematic.
God may bless people with plenty at times but that is no excuse for them to be wasteful and full of avarice to the point of making themselves sick is the other lesson from this. Which the Jews took to mean no cheeseburgers...or even butter or coffee creamer on the table when meat is present.

 

[for_his_glory]

The giving of a divorce certificate by Moses is interesting.

God did not begin by wanting divorce. Adam and Eve were supposed to stay together forever.

But man, with his hard heart, would leave his wife and his children ot go with another woman, or for whatever reason. So Moses made it more difficult to just leave a woman....he required that a certificate of divorce would be necessary. A man could not just up and leave his wife/family.

However, Jesus fixed this problem by declaring, as it was in the beginning, that divorce is absolutely not wanted by God and is to be rejected.

We could debate whether or not infidelity was given by Him as a good reason for divorce. I understand both sides of the issue but am unable to decide for either side.

But, once again, we find Jesus adjusting a law of Moses to bring it back to its original state.

Even with the laws God gave to Moses for the people, mans sin hardened hearts now turned to fornication, lust of self and covertness of others property including another mans wife. New laws were added continuously for the transgressions of man and this is how we got the law for divorce which was handed down by Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-4.

1 Corinthians 7:10, Jesus commands the woman not to leave her husband and if she does she should remain unmarried, but in Malachi 2:10-16 the treachery that man commits against a woman which leads him to have an affair outside of the marriage or abuses the wife whether it be physical or emotional gives place to what was said by Moses in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 that if a woman is no longer pleasing to her husband then the husband should give his wife a written bill of divorcement and send her out of the house and this gives the woman the right to marry again, but she can never go back to her former husband if that marriage does not work out or her husband dies for now she is defiled to be with her first husband and this is an abomination to God.

 

[Serving Zion]

But the son was killed for being stubborn, rebellious, a glutton and a drunkard.
It damages the religious case for abortion

Oh no! .. that's terrible! .. how can an unborn baby be stubborn and rebellious, refusing to listen to his father's instruction?

Look also at the wording in the Hebrew:

If has to man son.

Notice the word laish (man). Aish is the word for man, or husband. The lamed (letter "l") is a grammatical mark to show the relationship between that word and the topic of the sentence, in this case, that there is a son who is stubborn and rebellious. The lamed shows it is "toward" or "for" the man.

So there is special emphasis on that point: it isn't only that the man's son is rebellious, but that the son is rebellious toward the father.

I can't imagine anybody trying to put that past me as an excuse for legitimising abortion. I'd say you're probably going dangerously past the limit of what is reasonable: beyond patience.

 

[Christ the King]

Oh no! .. that's terrible! .. how can an unborn baby be stubborn and rebellious, refusing to listen to his father's instruction?

Look also at the wording in the Hebrew:

If has to man son.

Notice the word laish (man). Aish is the word for man, or husband. The lamed (letter "l") is a grammatical mark to show the relationship between that word and the topic of the sentence, in this case, that there is a son who is stubborn and rebellious. The lamed shows it is "toward" or "for" the man.

So there is special emphasis on that point: it isn't only that the man's son is rebellious, but that the son is rebellious toward the father.

I can't imagine anybody trying to put that past me as an excuse for legitimising abortion. I'd say you're probably going dangerously past the limit of what is reasonable: beyond patience.

Thanks for addressing my post.

Lets look at it from the atheists perspective.

1- In modern law being stubborn and rebellious doesn't earn you the death penalty, it may not even land you in jail.
Given that morality is a major component of the abortion argument this isn't a good start.

2- A mother and father can have their son or daughter killed at any age without even being heard. The son never even gets the chance to defend himself against the allegations, it's the decision of the parents.

So given a parent can have their child put to death that easily, without trial, then there should be no problem putting their unborn child to death without trial.

 

[JohnDB]

The fool has said in his heart "There is no God".

 

[Serving Zion]

Thanks for addressing my post.

Lets look at it from the atheists perspective.

1- In modern law being stubborn and rebellious doesn't earn you the death penalty, it may not even land you in jail.
Given that morality is a major component of the abortion argument this isn't a good start.

2- A mother and father can have their son or daughter killed at any age without even being heard. The son never even gets the chance to defend himself against the allegations, it's the decision of the parents.

So given a parent can have their child put to death that easily, without trial, then there should be no problem putting their unborn child to death without trial.

I wouldn't stand for any of that argument. It's completely devoid of understanding. I am sorry you have that on your hands.

 

[GodsGrace]

Thanks for addressing my post.

Lets look at it from the atheists perspective.

1- In modern law being stubborn and rebellious doesn't earn you the death penalty, it may not even land you in jail.
Given that morality is a major component of the abortion argument this isn't a good start.

2- A mother and father can have their son or daughter killed at any age without even being heard. The son never even gets the chance to defend himself against the allegations, it's the decision of the parents.

So given a parent can have their child put to death that easily, without trial, then there should be no problem putting their unborn child to death without trial.

1. First of all, we're not living 4,000 years ago.
Is what the atheist believes valid for today?
No. No child is allowed to be stoned to death today.
We're trying to make progress...not go backwards.

2. The rebellious child knew the law and knew that if he dishonored his mother and/or father he might be put to death.
He had A CHOICE.

Does the unborn have a CHOICE??

 

[Christ the King]

The fool has said in his heart "There is no God".

Off course that's the definition of an atheist

I wouldn't stand for any of that argument. It's completely devoid of understanding. I am sorry you have that on your hands.

Ye that's why I left the discussion.
Arguing against an atheist can be futile with their mentality.

1. First of all, we're not living 4,000 years ago.
Is what the atheist believes valid for today?
No. No child is allowed to be stoned to death today.
We're trying to make progress...not go backwards.

2. The rebellious child knew the law and knew that if he dishonored his mother and/or father he might be put to death.
He had A CHOICE.

Does the unborn have a CHOICE??

Its the fact that he was put to death without trial that is the main issue.

Don't get me wrong I understand and totally agree with you guys, im just presenting the thinking of the atheist.

I think debating atheists on God is futile but i do like to debate them on morality

Abortion and morals probably need their own threads

 

[GodsGrace]

Off course that's the definition of an atheist



Ye that's why I left the discussion.
Arguing against an atheist can be futile with their mentality.



Its the fact that he was put to death without trial that is the main issue.

Don't get me wrong I understand and totally agree with you guys, im just presenting the thinking of the atheist.

I think debating atheists on God is futile but i do like to debate them on morality

Abortion and morals probably need their own threads

The son was put to death without a trial...
Is this true?
The parents turned him in and then the elders had to decide.
Isn't this a type of trial?

Also, whether it was or not is irrelevant...the son knew that he might be stoned if he dishonored his parents...so he still had a choice not to and behave himself. The fetus has no choice. It is truly a helpless little human.

 

[JohnDB]

The son was put to death without a trial...
Is this true?
The parents turned him in and then the elders had to decide.
Isn't this a type of trial?

Also, whether it was or not is irrelevant...the son knew that he might be stoned if he dishonored his parents...so he still had a choice not to and behave himself. The fetus has no choice. It is truly a helpless little human.

And in a true Patriarchal society the whole family would bear the cost and punishment of damages outside the family if they did not turn this son into the elders.

 

[GodsGrace]

And in a true Patriarchal society the whole family would bear the cost and punishment of damages outside the family if they did not turn this son into the elders.

Thanks John.
Yes,,,it was a totally different culture back then.
Most of the laws, as I can see, were for protection and for creating a system where neighbors would respect each other, not steal from each other, etc. This made for a civilized society.

 

[Brock]

we who are in Christ are not held captive by that law?

There we go

 

[for_his_glory]

Notice how laws have changed since stoning someone to death. Now kids have the legal right to sue their parents even if they receive a spanking for doing wrong. Talk about culture change, it's no wonder why kids are rebellious towards their parents today as they are not allowed to be disciplined. They should have lived in the baby boomer era where discipline meant respecting your elders, or in Biblical days being taken before the Elders who were judge and jury before God.

 

[Serving Zion]

Notice how laws have changed since stoning someone to death. Now kids have the legal right to sue their parents even if they receive a spanking for doing wrong. Talk about culture change, it's no wonder why kids are rebellious towards their parents today as they are not allowed to be disciplined. They should have lived in the baby boomer era where discipline meant respecting your elders, or in Biblical days being taken before the Elders who were judge and jury before God.

"Make a tree good and its fruit will be good". There is no reason for violence against children.