Rosangela,

Where in the Bible do you get this? I mean, where does it say that the death penalty was "primarily" for those who witnessed God's presence at Sinai? Give me a reference for this please.

I would tend to believe that the law was the same at Sinai as it was in Jesus' time as it should be now. The difference is that God's people at that time were in a theocracy, and when the government changed to a monarchy, God permitted, in His grace and mercy, for some things to left unretributed. Later governments, of the world, received the same treatment. In Jesus' day, the woman caught in adultery could not have been stoned, simply because the Roman government had not given the Jews that authority. Jesus could not have commanded at that time that she be stoned without at the same time advocating rebellion against government.

And rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft.

So, was it that Jesus had abandoned the law of Moses? Far from it. He was simply not in a position to enforce it. The time will yet come when all sins are judged. There need be no question about that. What people may think they are "getting away with" now will later come back to visit them. And the laws of Moses will have something to do with it, don't you think?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Before answering, I would like to ask you a question.
The government didn't change from theocracy to monarchy. Although Israel possessed kings, the nation still was (or should have been) ruled by God.
But, according to you, God was more graceful and merciful during what you classify as "monarchy" than during what you classify as "theocracy." Could you explain the reason for this?

(By the way, I'm speaking about the immediate enforcement of the death penalty. I, like you, believe that the enforcement of the death penalty is just being postponed until the Day of Judgment.)

When God permitted Israel to have a king like the surrounding nations, it was a similar concession to that of God providing them quail upon their request. It is a lesson for us that not always what we think best is best, and the reason why we are counseled to pray "if it be Thy will."

When God provided King Saul, He provided just what the people thought they wanted. He was tall, handsome, and of noble appearance. He looked like a king. But God was at the same time judging Israel for their wrong choice in choosing to have a king, and giving Israel a lesson in what's wrong with looking on the outward appearance. The monarchical system was not God's ideal for the people. But God allowed it, as they had coveted it.

The reason why God was more tolerant of sins under the monarchy...?

Consider the following:

Numbers chapter 30 makes it clear that if a man makes an oath to God, or vows a vow to God, he is under strict obligation to fulfill it. If a woman, however, makes a vow, she is only obligated to keep it if her husband or father permits it. In other words, when we are dependent upon someone else as an authority figure in our life, God allows that authority figure to trump certain other things.

In the case of an entire nation having a king, the king stands, symbolically, at the head of the law. He is the lawgiver, protector and provider for the nation. The citizens of that nation are in subjection to their king. If the king asks them to do something, what do they do? Suppose the king has asked them to send their young sons to the army.... Do they have a right to say "I don't think we should be involved in this war, so I'm going to keep my son at home"? Technically, no. God would have them be obedient. Maybe God also feels the war is not right. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Basically, when there is a king involved, the justice system gets more complicated. It sets up possible conflicts of interest or of law. In the case of a monarchy, capital punishment is generally done only on authority of the king. Such was the case with Israel.

Whereas before, there were courts and witnesses, but there was also individual duty for vengeance provided in the law; now there was the royal court and the individual duties became subject to some degree to the king.

God, in allowing them to have a king, was also allowing an adjusted system of justice. God knew what the effects of a kingship would mean. God did not desire them to have a king. But God did not force the people against their will. They willed to have a king, and He allowed them to have their willful desire.

Keep in mind the reason for such punishments in the theocracy as capital punishment: To keep the people pure. When sins are not dealt with in a clear manner, what happens? The history of Israel shows it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "more graceful and merciful" (as you put it) response of God was actually a lower level of quality, a bit like God's allowance of meat eating following the flood, which then shortened men's lives significantly.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you think that if Israel was still a theocracy at His time, Jesus would have commanded the woman caught in adultery to be stoned? Do you think this would have been the best thing to be done? If yes, why? If not, why not?

I think I am not near enough to the mind of God to know this answer. Here is what I see, from my perspective:

Two possibilities.

1) Keep the people pure for as long as possible by stamping out sin where it is egregious and public, thus enticing others to follow in the same example. This would mean that, yes, the woman AND her men should be stoned.

2) Allow sin to continue to grow while giving the people an example of God's mercy and hoping they will still prefer His ways over their own, even with increased "opportunity" to engage in sinful behaviors. This would mean that, no, the woman nor her men should be stoned.

In either case, the woman should not be stoned alone. It was more the men, if anything, at fault here, and a proper example should be made of them.

In the second case, the Great Controversy deepens in the contrast between the two sides. As sin proliferates on the earth, God's righteousness appears to shine so much the brighter in comparison to the moral darkness. The watching Universe is benefited to see this stark contrast.

Should God, then, permit sin so that this contrast becomes so much clearer? Is that not what God ultimately chose when the war began in Heaven?

It seems that the trend has to be such...downhill all the way to the end. Which means it seems impossible to forever hold to the same high standards of morality as were once possible. Once people have become increasingly infected, God stands to lose a higher percentage of them overall, without later option of redeeming them, if the capital punishments are still enforced.

If you have a barrel of apples, and one is rotten, removing it will save the rest and preserve them yet for a good while. If that same barrel has about 25% or more apples that are beginning to spoil, far better it would be to process the apples, cutting out the bad spots, than to throw every bad one completely away, especially when those remaining are likely already exposed to the spores of the mold.

I think we've long since passed that kind of a threshold. I'm not sure if what I'm trying to communicate here makes any sense to you.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Thank you so much for all your comments Rosangela and your replies to them GC. I think what you both have shared was very good and needed to be discussed. GC, that was an excellent post( #136066). Very well expressed and you brought out very important points and dimensions in understanding the law in the time of theocracy, kings, and today.


I believe Jesus judged the woman according to the law of Moses and address her case correctly and righteously.

Below is only addressing Jesus judgment in John 8. What He did is show that there are some difficult cases that needs to be brought to a higher court of law. I will come back to this later on and expand relating to the Doctrine of Hell Fire.

Jesus Judgment of the woman caught in Adultery
So the leaders motive was to force Jesus into judging the woman caught in adultery according to the law of Moses in Deut 22 so to catch Jesus in either breaking Moses Laws or the Roman Laws. First, they only brought the woman and not the man that commited adultery with her. This alone brought suspicion about the case. So this gave ground for Jesus to judge according to the law of Jealousy in Num 5. This law is for a woman which is suspected she commited adultery but there’s no proof. In that law the priest are to “uncover the woman’s head”v.18 which means that she’s not under the covering of her husband for this potential sin but directly under God. Also v. 16 says that “the priest shall bring her near, and set her(stand) before the Lord ”. So in another word the case is judge directly by God and it is God that is to judge the woman by making her conceive or not a child (v.21,22,28). So Jesus acted as the Priest in Num 5:23 to write the curses down on a scroll. Jesus didn’t have paper with him so he stoop down and was writing them on the ground. These curses is what God will bring on the woman if she is guilty (v.18,21,23,24).

However, the jewish leaders didn’t emmediatly caught on that Jesus was judging her according ot Num 5 instead of Deut 22. So they “continued asking him and he lifted up himself, and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. ” John 8:7 Another word, if you are a proper witness(without malecious intentions according to Deut 19:16) in this case, the law says that the witnesses are to cast the first stone.

Deut 17:6 “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. 7 The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting that person to death, and then the hands of all the people. You must purge the evil from among you. ”

Of course if they did they would of broken the Roman law. However before a witness can cast the first stone there’s another law that needs to come into effect. The validity of the witness would of needed to be investigated prior. Just like any earthly court of law. Witnesses are first screened before being validated as a witness.

Deut 19:16 “ If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime, 17 the two people involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, 19 then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party. You must purge the evil from among you. ”

For sure these leaders were malicious, against both Jesus and the woman. If they would of proceeded with their accusations on her, by this law alone they were to received the penalty of death that they sought to give to the woman. Let say, the woman was guilty of adultery, since their intention were malecious they were to be judge first(by God Himself) and die first and they wouldn’t of had the satisfaction of seeing the woman stoned. The only way to save themselves from God's judgment against them was to drop the charges. Since there were no witnesses left and Jesus was not a witness of the crime, the case was drop.

So Jesus had judged righteously according to the Law of Moses, as a Priest, in bringing this case to the Father directly.

Wasn't a Roman law broken when Stephen was stoned to death?

Amen! And, in reality, even those who were executed by direct decree of God (for example, the Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer) did not experience true, genuine judgment. The penalty they experienced back then was merely a type. Not until they suffer and perish in the lake of fire will justice be satisfied. Hellfire was typified at the altar of burnt offerings.

I see a fundamental difference between the woman caught in adultery and the man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath. The woman caught in adultery could be brought to repentance. The man who gathered sticks on the Sabbath couldn't. Or do you think that God would command someone to be stoned who could still be brought to repentance and be saved?

Amen. Good point, Rosangela.