Stoning

[furay]

From Storico's post in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=97134) over in Apologetics:

Who here thinks women SHOULD be stoned, right now at this period in time, REGARDLESS of culture, for engaging in sexual acts? Raise your hands or wave hello.

Thought I'd make a poll.

[Abigail]

No, I dont believe they should. Paul addressed sexual sins in the Corinthian church and there was no mention of stoning ...only expulsion from the fellowship

[themuzicman]

The Old Covenant is gone.

[The Silent Q]

Yeah, even if John 8 is bracketed, I think it still drives home the point. Throw a stone if you feel you've never committed any sin yourself.

[Soyeong]

We do not currently live in a society governed by old covenant Biblical law.

[Amazing Rando]

Good thread, furay. :thumb: Simple, direct, and to the point, yet also with deeper implications for hermeneutical application. :teeth:

[furay]

Good thread, furay. :thumb: Simple, direct, and to the point, yet also with deeper implications for hermeneutical application. :teeth:
Where were all these reponses in my death penalty thread over in civics? :eh:

[Amazing Rando]

Where were all these reponses in my death penalty thread over in civics? :eh:

I jumped in at the end of that thread, prefering instead to show how God took the tragic circumstances surrounding Mr. Workman's death to further the unstoppable advance of his reign of selfless agape love. :teeth:

[Amazing Rando]

But why limit it to women? I know that's the way Storico's question was posed, but the law stipulated that both partners should be stoned. Gender really should not be an issue in this question.

[furay]

I jumped in at the end of that thread, prefering instead to show how God took the tragic circumstances surrounding Mr. Workman's death to further the unstoppable advance of his reign of selfless agape love. :teeth:
I don't mean you. I mean the people who are saying "the old covenant is dead" and we don't live under mosaic law, etc.

[furay]

But why limit it to women? I know that's the way Storico's question was posed, but the law stipulated that both partners should be stoned. Gender really should not be an issue in this question.
Well, I just used her question as worded and adapted it for the poll.

[Amazing Rando]

I don't mean you. I mean the people who are saying "the old covenant is dead" and we don't live under mosaic law, etc.

I'm reading an excellent book by an OT scholar on just this subject- An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today by Christopher J.H. Wright. His approach to searching for the purpose underlying the various laws of Moses and then applying a covenental understanding to that purpose in the process of moral discernment seems much more fruitful and faithful than running down the 613 mitzvahs with a pen in hand virtually crossing out the ones that "no longer apply" and crowing over the ones that "still apply."

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The poll should not use the word "woman," because this implies only women.

[furay]

The poll should not use the word "woman," because this implies only women.
No it doesn't. Will you vote?

[furay]

I'm reading an excellent book by an OT scholar on just this subject- An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today by Christopher J.H. Wright. His approach to searching for the purpose underlying the various laws of Moses and then applying a covenental understanding to that purpose in the process of moral discernment seems much more fruitful and faithful than running down the 613 mitzvahs with a pen in hand virtually crossing out the ones that "no longer apply" and crowing over the ones that "still apply."
Sounds innaresting! That reminds me, I started reading your thesis, but I've been so busy lately that I've only read the first part (the framework). Great introduction! Looking forward to sitting down and processing the rest.

[Amazing Rando]

I think he was making the same point I did in post 9. Perhaps ask an admin to change the poll's wording to make it say "people" instead of women?

[Amazing Rando]

Sounds innaresting! That reminds me, I started reading your thesis, but I've been so busy lately that I've only read the first part (the framework). Great introduction! Looking forward to sitting down and processing the rest.

Thanks dude!

You can use the table of contents I made up to jump to topics that interest you if you don't have the patience to sit down and plod through the whole thing. Glad you read the intro though because it lays out my critical assumptions on which the rest of the thesis pretty much hangs.

[Little Shepherd]

While it wouldn't be my preference, if the laws of the government called for the death penalty(stoning, in this case) for adultery then I would support it. People who object to this tend to do so on the grounds that we're not under the Mosaic laws. However, the NT makes it abundantly clear that we are still to submit to the laws of the land, and the Jews weren't the only civilization around at that time that ordered the death penalty for things that we, due to our upbringing, would think of as "not that serious."

Of course, in a culture in which stoning for adultery is not the practice, I would not petition for it to be made the practice. And in this regard the "we're not under the Mosaic law" argument is relevant. If, however, in spite of my protests such a penalty was to be enacted I would submit to it. I would not like it, but I would have no moral or Biblical reason not to.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

No it doesn't. Will you vote?Yes it does. No I won't.

[furay]

Yes it does. No I won't.
I'm working on getting it changed to "people" like Amazing Rando suggested. Will you vote then? I didn't mean to be ambiguous or suggest that only women were/are/should be subjected to stoning.

[dizzle]

If the question were changed to, do I think the punishment for adultery could justly be capital? Quite possibly yes.

[NeilUnreal]

I'm working on getting it changed to "people" like Amazing Rando suggested. Will you vote then? I didn't mean to be ambiguous or suggest that only women were/are/should be subjected to stoning.

The fact that when many people read "man" they understand it to mean "people," and yet automatically assume "female not male" when they read "woman" is an interesting sub-problem not unrelated to the topic in the OP.

-Neil

[furay]

Thanks for changing it, Xena.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

The fact that when many people read "man" they understand it to mean "people," and yet automatically assume "female not male" when they read "woman" is an interesting sub-problem not unrelated to the topic in the OP.

-Neil
Meaning is usage, I guess. The term "woman" was never meant to be inclusive, and was never used that way. That's the reason for this perfectly benign assumption.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I have now voted yes, the but results are totally misleading. Everyone who voted "no" did so when the poll asked a different question. So it's ruined.

I'm starting a new thread minus the baggage.

[furay]

Fine with me. Feel free to close this thread, mods. Thanks.

[Amazing Rando]

Meaning is usage, I guess. The term "woman" was never meant to be inclusive, and was never used that way. That's the reason for this perfectly benign assumption.

Completely off-topic, but I don't think "man" ought to include women when used in the generic inclusive sense. I'm happy that the modern trend is to move away from gender specific language. Most academic theologies and biblical scholarship that is published these days tends to use gender-inclusive terminology. I don't envision that trend abating any time soon.

[Amazing Rando]

Fine with me. Feel free to close this thread, mods. Thanks.

Unfortunately the new thread shies away entirely from the stoning issue and the very pointed question which you asked in the OP. :shrug:

[furay]

I asked to close this thread before I saw Theo's new one. His is dissatisfying and I request to keep this one unlocked. Thankee.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Completely off-topic, but I don't think "man" ought to include women when used in the generic inclusive sense. I'm happy that the modern trend is to move away from gender specific language. Most academic theologies and biblical scholarship that is published these days tends to use gender-inclusive terminology. I don't envision that trend abating any time soon.I think that the word "inclusive" has been hijacked and reversed.

I was using "man" in an INclusive way. It's an outrage of language that people can reduced its scope to one gender only and THEN call it more "inclusve." Black has become white.

Modern usage is more exclusive.

[Amazing Rando]

I think that the word "inclusive" has been hijacked and reversed.

I was using "man" in an INclusive way. It's an outrage of language that people can reduced its scope to one gender only and THEN call it more "inclusve." Black has become white.

Modern usage is more exclusive.

I can see where you're coming from. I guess "gender neutral" more accurately captures the flavor of what I was trying to convey.

The reason I try to use words like "people" and "humans" when referring to human beings in general (i.e. instead of "man") is because of some female classmates of mine told me they honestly felt excluded by that type of usage. It was new to me then, but I figured "heck, what's a slight adjustment in my language choice for the sake of my friends?" And ever since, I've just tried to be more "gender neutral" in my preaching and my writing. It's been the trend in recent scholarship I've been reading, and it seems to be the way the culture in general has been moving as of late. (At least on this continent!)

[Soyeong]

I’ve also noticed the movement away from saying “his or her” instead of “their” when referring to people. Like: Everyone should write down his or her opinions. I just use “their” instead, or maybe it’s just me and I’m too lazy to care about that silly rule.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I can see where you're coming from. I guess "gender neutral" more accurately captures the flavor of what I was trying to convey.

The reason I try to use words like "people" and "humans" when referring to human beings in general (i.e. instead of "man") is because of some female classmates of mine told me they honestly felt excluded by that type of usage. It was new to me then, but I figured "heck, what's a slight adjustment in my language choice for the sake of my friends?" And ever since, I've just tried to be more "gender neutral" in my preaching and my writing. It's been the trend in recent scholarship I've been reading, and it seems to be the way the culture in general has been moving as of late. (At least on this continent!)Yes, I try to use more neutral language too.

It does bother me that the ones who first complained about the language are the ones who made women feel this way, however. If nobody had ever insisted that "man" meant male only in the first place, it would never have become a term that bothered other women.

[Nazaroo]

Yeah, even if John 8 is bracketed, I think it still drives home the point. Throw a stone if you feel you've never committed any sin yourself.

John 8:1-11 was prematurely bracketed, by the way. The decision to bracket (1820-1880) was made at a time in which:

(1) A proper understanding of the Koine (NT) Greek language was lacking. Scholars up until 1920 still treated NT Greek as though it were classical Attic Greek, with poor results.

A better understanding of NT Greek would have to await the discovery between 1910 and 1950 of thousands of papyri showing the living language in actual use in Egypt and Palestine, and the analysis of these texts. This would finally provide a more scientific basis for lexicons (dictionaries) and grammars.

But even so, many mistakes concerning NT Greek linguistics would continue to be made right up until the 1990s, such as the absurd controversy over 'aspect', and the imprecise understanding of 'voice' in both Greek and English. These issues still require sorting.

(2) No one had yet done any properly scientific and quantitative studies of the style and diction of the various authors of the NT. And this would have to await (obviously) a huge increase in understanding of the basic language itself. The basic foundations of such studies were not laid until such works as Turner's volume on 'Style' in Moulton's Series on Grammar of NT Greek in the late 1970s. Even so, quantitative analysis still awaits intelligent use of computers in the field of NT linguistics.

(3) The 'science' of literary criticism (i.e. historical) was in its infancy, and the real internal evidences regarding authenticity and composition would have to await many years of experimentation and development of techniques of analysis ranging from historical context, source-criticism, form criticism, and reader/writer relationships.

In a nutshell, the early 19th century critics threw the baby out with the bathwater, and even as late as Metzger (and his followers like Ehrman) they were still talking through their hats about John 8:1-11.

Take a look at 200 years of textual critical effort regarding these verses here on our site:

Pericope de Adultera Homepage (http://adultera.awardspace.com) <-- Click here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

[Jedidiah]

But why limit it to women? I know that's the way Storico's question was posed, but the law stipulated that both partners should be stoned. Gender really should not be an issue in this question.

I'm working on getting it changed to "people" like Amazing Rando suggested. Will you vote then? I didn't mean to be ambiguous or suggest that only women were/are/should be subjected to stoning.

This is a valid question including the "women" version. I voted no under the original question, and I would vote no here.

The law included stoning for men and women caught in adultery, but it became acceptable to pick out only the women. Thus, women were being stoned for adultery. The John 8 example shows just this problem. They brought Jesus a woman taken in adultery. They brought no man to Jesus.

[Storico]

This is a valid question including the "women" version. I voted no under the original question, and I would vote no here.

The law included stoning for men and women caught in adultery, but it became acceptable to pick out only the women. Thus, women were being stoned for adultery. The John 8 example shows just this problem. They brought Jesus a woman taken in adultery. They brought no man to Jesus.

A really good point, Jed.

Here's something else: since the thread's about modern stoning: FYI -- "sexual immorality", in some locales which still support the use of stoning, also includes women who have been raped. That's right. A man can rape a woman, and SHE will be the one stoned for HIS actions. Rape aside, it takes only two men SAYING a woman did something inappropriate for it to be considered 'valid evidence' of her 'inpropriety'. Her own testimony is usually ignored. The last few cases that made the media had these qualities in them, too.

It's important to remember that as 'fair' as some believe the OT to be because it's technically equally opportunistic in who can get stoned ( :ahem: ) the world today isn't appealing to OT law. The countries today who are still stoning people to death aren't doing so in some interest of 'fairness'. Women, specifically, are being stoned to death today because women are seen as less than men, as bringing shame on their families and communities, as being unworthy of life if they either CHOOSE a sexual action OR if it's forced on them.

If anyone says they support stoning, just move away immediately from that vision of Biblical justice you have in your head. It isn't being used today, even if it was properly used at the time the original documents were written. These are secular laws, and laws from another religion, stipulating the "fact" that a woman's life is worth less than a man's, and that her sexual sin is punishable by death.

And whether or not they're religious laws, I happen to think they're wrong.

And guys, I just saw this thread now. Thanks for starting a poll. :thumb:

[Jedidiah]

And whether or not they're religious laws, I happen to think they're wrong.

I definitely do not think such laws are wrong. If laws could be honestly, and equitably applied I would favor extremely harsh punishments. The problem is that people too often get away with things, or the punishments are unequally applied, etc.

[Rahab]

I definitely do not think such laws are wrong. If laws could be honestly, and equitably applied I would favor extremely harsh punishments. The problem is that people too often get away with things, or the punishments are unequally applied, etc. Jed... this thread is specificaly dealing with the death penalty by stoning. Two topics : capital punishment for adultery. Sentence to be executed by stoning.

I will propose that if the source of approving of the harsh punishment of the death penalty for adultery is religious in nature (specificaly Judeo Christian), then those who "lust on a woman" according to Christ ought to also be charged with adultery. We are talking of a society here which somehow can probe the most intimate thoughts of married men and women and place them on trial to be charged with adultery. To be followed by a sentencing to death and stoning.

What did Christ propose in terms of marriages where adultery has been committed? Does He propose that any "harsh punishment" be imposed on the guilty party? Does He promote the concept of sentencing him/her to death by stoning?

Rather He encourages the continuation of the marriage if both parties consent to a renewed committment : the offended party retaining the offender and the offender repenting and recommitting himself/herself. He also legitimizes the offendee's decision to "let the spouse depart" if the offender wishes to depart.
He proposes no terminal and irreversible consequences. He dwells on rehabilitative measures for such marriage.
Nowadays, Christian counselors do exercise such goal when called to provide marital counseling. They do not spout scriptures from the OT suggesting to the couple in trouble that the offender is to be put to death by stoning or any other mean. They explore the real issues which have caused such physical, emotional and mental separation within the couple.

What would a Christian husband or wife learn from the emotionaly devastating experience that his/her spouse has had an affair if such spouse were to be sentenced to death by any means to include stoning? That the death of the offender is somehow supposed to alleviate the hurt they have experienced? Or is not the alley of engaging in marital counseling to explore which intra marital issues have caused the illness leading to the symptom of adultery a more productive way to affect positively both parties? The offendee to either "let go" or to forgive the offense, heal and get a new start with a repenting offender?

We live in a culture willing to work with people from the inside out. We lean to fix problems by exploring their causes rather than zap people.

What are your thoughts on that, Jed?

[Jedidiah]

Jed... this thread is specificaly dealing with the death penalty by stoning. Two topics : capital punishment for adultery. Sentence to be executed by stoning.

Capital punishment I support in general. I am strongly conservative on cases where this 'should' actually be applied.

I voted no in the poll, so keep that in mind as I answer.

[quote]I will propose that if the source of approving of the harsh punishment of the death penalty for adultery is religious in nature (specificaly Judeo Christian), then those who "lust on a woman" according to Christ ought to also be charged with adultery. We are talking of a society here which somehow can probe the most intimate thoughts of married men and women and place them on trial to be charged with adultery. To be followed by a sentencing to death and stoning.It is a very different thing to charge someone with the crime of adultery, if there is adequate evidence that the crime has been committed, and to charge someone for a purely spiritual act that can have no firm evidence ever brought while we live on this earth.

What did Christ propose in terms of marriages where adultery has been committed? Does He propose that any "harsh punishment" be imposed on the guilty party? Does He promote the concept of sentencing him/her to death by stoning?

Rather He encourages the continuation of the marriage if both parties consent to a renewed committment : the offended party retaining the offender and the offender repenting and recommitting himself/herself. He also legitimizes the offendee's decision to "let the spouse depart" if the offender wishes to depart.
He proposes no terminal and irreversible consequences. He dwells on rehabilitative measures for such marriage.I have no problem with reconciliation and healing in such a situation. That seems irrelevant to the question, as I see it.

Nowadays, Christian counselors do exercise such goal when called to provide marital counseling. They do not spout scriptures from the OT suggesting to the couple in trouble that the offender is to be put to death by stoning or any other mean. They explore the real issues which have caused such physical, emotional and mental separation within the couple. No, real Christian counselors do not first explore issues! First they seek repentance from one party, and forgiveness from the other. Then issues that may or may not lie behind the problem may be examined.

It is supremely important to recognize that adultery is not always, perhaps not even usually, caused by any underlying problems beyond sin. People do not live in a perfect world, and they quite often need no 'psychological' issues to lead them to sin. There is no such "illness leading to the symptom of adultery." That is not to say that in some unusual cases there may not be pathological conditions that end up with adultery. The point is that adultery is not a psychological condition, but a spiritual condition called sin.

Edited to add: I am rather offended by your expression, "They do not spout scriptures," as though an appeal to scripture is somehow less than an appeal to psychology.

[Rahab]

Capital punishment I support in general. I am strongly conservative on cases where this 'should' actually be applied.

I voted no in the poll, so keep that in mind as I answer. For "cases where this "should actualy be applied", do you still uphold the notion of any death sentence to be executed by stoning?

It is a very different thing to charge someone with the crime of adultery, if there is adequate evidence that the crime has been committed, and to charge someone for a purely spiritual act that can have no firm evidence ever brought while we live on this earth. Christ does not seem to establish such difference based on "evidence". He points to where the thought originates from and how as a thought itself it constitutes adultery.

I have no problem with reconciliation and healing in such a situation. That seems irrelevant to the question, as I see it. It is relevant as an alternative to promoting the notion of sentencing to death the offender and executing the sentence by stoning.

No, real Christian counselors do not first explore issues! First they seek repentance from one party, and forgiveness from the other. And how do they seek such results? If not by motivating a process of self introspection bound to explore all the pre existing issues feeding such a dysfunctional marriage.

Then issues that may or may not lie behind the problem may be examined. I can guarantee you that marital counselors do explore relational issues and do intend to solve them.

It is supremely important to recognize that adultery is not always, perhaps not even usually, caused by any underlying problems beyond sin. People do not live in a perfect world, and they quite often need no 'psychological' issues to lead them to sin. Obviously, marriages undermined by adultery are lacking relational and emotional stability. When both spouses share mutual love, they have no encline to go outside their marital relationship to find any contentment or fulfillment.



There is no such "illness leading to the symptom of adultery." The metaphoric aspect of the word "illness" has obviously escaped your comprehension. The relational aspect of such marriage is dysfunctional. Emotional distance settles in causing physical distance. Instead of being a healthy relationship between both spouses, the emotional and physical disconnection causes a state of separation between both spouses. Making the marriage vulnerable to one of the spouses seeking to compensate that void on the outside. By seeking counseling and solving the pre existing issues which prompted the initial emotional distance, such couple can hope to experience a healthy relationship.



That is not to say that in some unusual cases there may not be pathological conditions that end up with adultery. Again, you confused my metaphoric use of the word "illness" (as in unhealthy relationship) for a declaration that adultery is related to pathological factors and causes.



The point is that adultery is not a psychological condition, but a spiritual condition called sin. Adultery results from an unhealthy marital relationship. When it comes to human relationships, it is vital to not deny which dynamics either make those relationships functional and healthy or dysfunctional and unhealthy.

Edited to add: I am rather offended by your expression, "They do not spout scriptures," as though an appeal to scripture is somehow less than an appeal to psychology. Considering I used that expression in the context of quoting scriptures promoting the notion of sentencing to death and executing by stoning the offending party, I am not sure what you are being offended about. I certainly would be quite reluctant to recommend seeking marital counseling from a Christian counselor who would approach such couple with such notion of sentencing to death and stoning. Such approach would contradict any intent on the counselor's part to help that couple choose reconciliation and healing (which you stated you support) as it promotes a terminal outcome. Speaking of an example of scriptures being definitly "less than an appeal to psychology".

[Jedidiah]

For "cases where this "should actualy be applied", do you still uphold the notion of any death sentence to be executed by stoning?
This is a sideline question. The official method of execution at the point in time we are addressing was stoning. That is not the official method of execution that would be used in the society in which I live. I would not support making adultery punishable by stoning today. I did point out that I voted no, recall.



Christ does not seem to establish such difference based on "evidence". He points to where the thought originates from and how as a thought itself it constitutes adultery. It is a very different thing to charge someone with the crime of adultery, if there is adequate evidence that the crime has been committed, and to charge someone for a purely spiritual act that can have no firm evidence ever brought while we live on this earth.

We are speaking here of creating, so to speak, a civil law in a modern society, that would make adultery punishable by death (whatever the means would be). Civil law is not able to make the distinction you are pointing to. We are looking at Biblical Ethics rather than at the spiritual condition of a couple (or, as in your point, an individual).



It is relevant as an alternative to promoting the notion of sentencing to death the offender and executing the sentence by stoning.
Accepted. But, since I would not advocate such a law it is not relevant to my post.



And how do they seek such results? If not by motivating a process of self introspection bound to explore all the pre existing issues feeding such a dysfunctional marriage.
I can guarantee you that marital counselors do explore relational issues and do intend to solve them.
Two responses here. First of all nothing I wrote prohibits the resolution of marital problems. You are reading things here that I did not intend. I did say, “Then issues that may or may not lie behind the problem may be examined. The point is that until there is recognition of wrong, there is no beginning to reconciliation.

A second point I would make here, is that all marriages are “dysfunctional” in the sense that the members of the marriage are fallen and imperfect. So while it is good to deal with issues that may cause problems, there are always issues that will remain unresolved (at least from a Christian perspective). Adultery does, I am led to believe by general reading, take place in marriages with no “major” dysfunctions. People are sometimes led astray by situations that deceive them. That is back to my original claim that not all marital infidelity results from pathological characteristics.

Obviously, marriages undermined by adultery are lacking relational and emotional stability. When both spouses share mutual love, they have no encline to go outside their marital relationship to find any contentment or fulfillment.
The metaphoric aspect of the word "illness" has obviously escaped your comprehension. The relational aspect of such marriage is dysfunctional. The reference to illness of the relationship did not escape me. The point is that adultery is not always, even usually (percentages I do not know), the result of an intent to be unfaithful to ones partner. From a Christian perspective sin results from choosing to do the wrong thing. It need not always be pathological. It is, thus, obvious to me that marriages which are attacked by adultery are lacking in relational and emotional stability.

Sin is sin, not the result of poor adjustment.

Adultery results from an unhealthy marital relationship. When it comes to human relationships, it is vital to not deny which dynamics either make those relationships functional and healthy or dysfunctional and unhealthy.
I would restate this to say that “Pressures toward adultery can result from an unhealthy relationship.” I do not deny the existence of such dynamics, I do have some background in psychology, but they do not take the place of making proper choices.

I do notice that you have ignored my reference to sin. My marriage was rather low on the functional scale for many years. I did not opt to find contentment or fulfillment outside my marriage. I made such a choice because it would have been wrong to choose otherwise. Considering I used that expression in the context of quoting scriptures promoting the notion of sentencing to death and executing by stoning the offending party, I am not sure what you are being offended about.
The expression “spouting scripture” is in normal American society a denigrating statement about scripture and those who would apply it to real life problems.

I certainly would be quite reluctant to recommend seeking marital counseling from a Christian counselor who would approach such couple with such notion of sentencing to death and stoning. Such approach would contradict any intent on the counselor's part to help that couple choose reconciliation and healing (which you stated you support) as it promotes a terminal outcome. Speaking of an example of scriptures being definitly "less than an appeal to psychology".
This appears to serve no purpose, and puts forth no argument. Can you restate your point.

[Jedidiah]

Rahab, have you no further comments?