It is perhaps a coincidence that the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath was doing so in willful violation of the commandment. Had he been merely forgetful of the day, or had forgotten to do his preparation the day before, or whatever other circumstance, we do not know. In fact, we do not even have the full details of the story to know exactly how the "willful" part of his act was defined. Was he doing this defiantly? Did he premeditate the act during the week prior? Was there some especially egregious aspect to his act? We do not know.

It seems rather likely, however, that even had he simply forgotten to collect his wood on the preparation day and so was out collecting a bit more to keep his fire going on the Sabbath, it would have been defined as a willful act of breaking the Sabbath. You see, he knew the commandment. Breaking it while knowing it qualifies as a willful violation.

Could someone have been repentant after knowingly breaking one of God's commandments? I think so. In this particular case, perhaps he was not. But repentant or not, the commandment was the same, was it not?

I don't see any part of the situation that involved querying the man to see if he would repent before passing judgment.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you think that, during the time of the theocracy, if a person genuinely repented before being stoned, God would allow him/her to be stoned?

We don't seem to have any record of this kind of situation having ever occurred. The records we have are of admissions of guilt, driven from fear, after having been discovered. Achan is a prime example. He was stoned. But his was not a genuine repentance.

We do not have any record of someone escaping the sentence of stoning via a true repentance. So, to be honest, I simply have no scripture here to go on.

In the case of the Sabbath-breaker, God gave commandment that he be stoned. It was not Moses giving the orders. God cannot be said to have made a mistake on the matter, nor could it be said that God did not know the Sabbath-breaker's heart. God would have known, certainly, if the man were repentant or not, or even if he were salvageable or not.

Schools must turn away even some salvageable students, not because they were past the point of rescue, but because their association with other, more naive, students would risk the pollution of the entire student body.

Perhaps God has had to act similarly at times. God may cause one person to be "cut off" from His people in order to protect the majority. Even if that one person could have been saved, in time, given a longer probation and much mercy.

Remember King Hezekiah? If his life had not been extended, we may not have had the evil reign of his son Manasseh. Manasseh, however, gave his life to God at the end. But 55 long years of evil reign had already wreaked havoc upon the nation at large. What a tremendous loss in order to save wicked Manasseh!

It's about like me telling you that I will give you a penny for a quarter. Or like God paying a quarter to save a penny. (I'm not sure that I'm using the right analogy here, but do you get what I'm trying to say?)

Yes, God loves every soul. Individually. But how many such souls should be sacrificed for one particularly difficult soul?

Sometimes, examples must be made for the good of the rest. I don't have God's wisdom. Ultimately, I feel unqualified to answer your question, Rosangela.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Well, maybe you believe that, when Israel passed from judges to kings, God ceased to rule the nation. I don't believe that. Anyway, at the time of David's affair the civil laws were still in force, and God pronounced Himself upon David's affair and sent him the message: "The Lord has forgiven your sin. You are not going to die."
So what I believe is that God always forgives those who are truly repentant, reprieving the death penalty. God didn't want to annex death penalties to His laws in the first place - He only did this because of continual and willful disobedience (after the laws were given). It's very improbable that someone who sinned willfully in the visible presence of God (in the pillar of cloud and in the pillar of fire) would ever repent. But this was not the case later on in Israel's history.

Well, that's almost like saying "Maybe you believe that when Israel was under Roman authority, God ceased to rule the nation. I don't believe that."

God is always on His throne. He always rules. He sets up kings and takes them down, as many a Bible story tells us. But, to a certain extent, yes, God relinquished the direct governorship of His people in allowing them to have a king.

Regardless of our individual and specific beliefs about this, I'm struggling to see how the discussion of these laws relates to the title of this thread. It seems that we have been looking at the laws for some answer, but are they directly connected to the concept of "hell?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I believe that the death penalty testified to the fact that the wages of sin is death, but I don´t believe the form in which it was executed symbolized what is going to happen in hell, any more than the form in which the victims were sacrificed symbolized what was going to happen on the cross. Christ was not slain with a knife.