I can respect the fact that you're being consistent. Thank you. However, your answer is less then convincing with respect to scriptural support for the banishment of capital punishment.

Since you say, however, that stoning ended at the cross, and when I have plied you with questions regarding if it might have ended earlier you consistently maintain that it ended at that time when Christ died, then I do have a question for you.

What about the woman taken in adultery? Why did Jesus not command that she be stoned (and the men who led her into sin as well)? If the law was in effect still, as you have maintained, would it not be a disregard for the very law which Jesus had given His people that He would not have upheld it while it was still in force? Why would Jesus disregard His own law?

Was Jesus afraid of the Romans? Was He more cowardly than Daniel's three friends at the golden image? Did Jesus kow-tow to the Roman authority instead of upholding God's law?

What say you?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

So why do we still kill / electrocute / or shoot down the murderer? Or are you narrowing it to a very specific form of capital punishment?

Except before the cross, He took pleasure in the death of the wicked?

Note the many times Jews sought answers to difficult cases through the Urim and Thummin. In particular, note how godly men, like Moses, first sought answers from Jesus before proceeding with matters dealing with the death of law-breakers. Is it possible such biblical precedence recommends others do the same?

we aren't talking about keeping murderers and thieves off the street, we are talking about BREAKING COMMANDMENTS that are part of our commitment to God.

there is still need for civil authorities to keep some kind of law and order.

but civil authorities are NOT to legislate or enforce matters pertaining to worship and commitment to God.

As I remember you suggested that the law to stone Sabbath breakers was taken over by the civil government (Romans) not that it ended earlier. The Jews now had to get an OK from the Romans before they could carry it out.

However, the Jews didn't seem to worry about asking the Romans when they stoned Stephen. And in John 10, the Jews were picking up stones to stone Jesus without first asking the Romans. Saul went to the priest to get "letters" so he could put Christians to death. They were DEFINITELY still imposing the death penalty on people they deemed worthy according to their understanding of the Mosaic law.

However it is true the Romans had imposed themselves as the higher authority and acted as the "higher court", but were they really supposed to pass sentence on Sabbath breakers? Was that authority given to them?

No, a thousand times NO!

Once Rome became "Christian" and after the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I, established Catholic Christianity as the State Religion in February 380 AD, we see this "Christian Roman Government" labeling people who happened to worship a little differently, as heretics in order to drive them out of the empire by death or exile.

AS TO THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULERY

Jesus did not pronounce any decision.
The whole incident shows the principle Jesus was trying to teach them.

"He that is without sin cast the first stone"

Ahh-- they ALL deserve to die! Even if they weren't involved with the fornication of the woman. They ALL deserved to die.

Jesus was teaching them the true meaning of the types.

"He that is without sin cast the first stone".

Who is without sin? Everyone of those accusers had sin and realized they NEEDED mercy and forgiveness just as much as she did!

Jesus had not set aside the law given through Moses, nor infringed upon the authority of Rome. The accusers had been defeated as they realized they were under the death sentence as well.

I wonder how many of them realized what was happening on Calvary that dark Friday. They must of realized that nothing is hidden to God and that they were under the death penalty, did any of them understand that Jesus was dying in their place? Were they drawn to Christ as He was lifted up between heaven and earth on the terrible cross?

I'm sure the Holy Spirit was working on their hearts and minds.

Dedication,

Which of those people who cast stones at Achan and his family were without sin? Which of those who stoned the Sabbath Breaker were without sin? In fact, which of God's laws specified that only sinless and perfect beings were to carry out the laws of stoning?

How then can you say that Jesus would have been asking the right thing, IF the laws of stoning were still in effect prior to His death?

I agree that Jesus was teaching the true meaning of the types. However, God's teachings never come at the expense of keeping His own law. Jesus would never have broken His law in order to teach a "true meaning" or "principle" of it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

The Jews definitely considered the stoning laws still in effect at the time of Christ. Just as they knew the sacrificial laws were still in effect.

Why did righteous Joseph want to put away Mary privately, who was with child prior to marriage, so as not to make a public example of her"? (Matt.1:18-19)

Two courses were open to Joseph who thought his betrothed had committed adultery:
1. To charge Mary with adultery and thus to make her a public example letting the Jewish stoning laws to take their course.
2. To make use of the divorce laws of the Jews without charging her with any crime and simply give her a letter of divorcement.

Twice the Jews attempted to stone Jesus.
1. John 8:56-59 -- Jesus tells them "before Abraham I AM" claiming the title of the ever present God. They consider it blasphemy and pick up stones to stone Him.
2. John 10:30-33 -- Jesus tells them "I and my Father are One" again they pick up stones to stone Him "for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Stephen -- Acts 6:11-15 shows he is brought before a council of elders and scribes and accused of blasphemy. After he gives a powerful sermon, they drag him outside of the city and stone him. (7:58)


-----

Jesus said "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

Obviously most of the accounts of "stoning" shows those throwing the stones were steeped in sin. And they ended up stoning all the wrong people.
Joseph (Mary's betrothed) was saved from making a terrible mistake because he was a righteous man in communication with heaven.

In the case where stoning was the will of God --
I would assume that Joshua and those involved in Achan's case had confessed and repented of all their sins and partaken in the sacrificial provision for forgiveness.

Scripture (Joshua 7)tells us that he and the elders spent all day at the sanctuary in prone position talking to the Lord. The Lord tells him to sanctify the people. Joshua 7:13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow.

So yes, the people were sinless at that point --
Not in themselves but thanks to repentance, confession and trusting in the provisions of the substitute.

And the laws were in effect still, but had been trumped by the Roman authority.

Choice #1 was not an option for Joseph. The Roman authority had trumped the Jewish legal system.


Neither of those times was for anything legitimate, as we all well know. Using bad behavior like this to argue against appropriate behavior is simply illogical. It's like saying since Judas hung himself, hanging should be wrong, or even, since David used his own army to kill Uriah the Hittite, kings should not have armies. Many people today use this same type of argument to leave the Adventist church. They say Adventists are not following the Bible in some particular, and therefore, they don't want to be associated with them.



Again, the crime was a false charge, but the Jews also stationed lookouts against the Romans, for they knew they were not allowed to stone people.


Again, just because one group of people fails to follow directions does not mean the directions should never be followed. That would be false logic.



The Bible says "There is none righteous, no not one." They may have fasted, prayed, and repented, but they were not sinless beings. Nor did the law require such.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

God considers those who have repented and confessed their sins and been forgiven as JUST AS IF THEY HAD NOT SINNED.

No one said they were sinless beings -- I mentioned it wasn't IN THEMSELVES, but at that point they had NO sins reckoned against them.

Your comparisions don't even touch the subject in question. It's mixing apples and cucumbers.


The law to stone sabbath keepers and blasphemers was NEVER given to the Romans.
That is a great fallacy in your position.
The stoning laws ENDED with the sacrificial laws, they are NO LONGER IN FORCE, and definitely not given to Rome to execute!

If they trumpt it, it was ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO SO. It was NEVER given them by God. For secular power to trump authority over how people are to worship God is called ABOMINATION.

They may have taken over civil authority, but their taking over religious authority over God's people was WRONG and very bad behavior.



The Jews definitely considered the stoning laws still in effect at the time of Christ.

They were fiercely hanging on to the laws of Moses IN SPITE of Roman intervention.

But their own estrangement from God caused them to try and stone all the wrong people.

According to the "letter of the law" they were following Moses code. They were assuming this was a mere man claiming to be God, which was blasphemy and worthy of death. (Lev. 24:16)
Of course they were wrong, but that was because they weren't in connection with God -- if they had been, they would have recognized His Son.