The Death Penalty

[Neal of Zebulun]

Here's my case study of the differences between the Mosaic and Christian Covenants regarding the punishment for breaking a Law requiring the death penalty.

In 1 Corinthians 5 we read about a man who had sexual relations with his father's wife.

Under the Mosaic Covenant, in Leviticus 20:11 we read that the penalty is death, presumably by stoning.

But here's how Paul handles it under the Christian Covenant: first, he rightly calls this an act of fornication and castigates the Corinthian congregation for not taking action.

He commands the congregation to cast the fornicator out, and give him up to Satan, perhaps in the hopes that in any event his spirit might be saved by Yahweh.

He explains that they are not to keep company with brothers who have committed fornication. He makes clear that it's alright to meet with fornicators who aren't yet brothers, in order to covert them.

But once they are a brother, and they fornicate, they are to be cast out, and we leave that person to be dealt with by Yahweh.

In 1 John 5:16-18 John relates the same basic message, that the brother who has committed a sin unto death is cast out of the Body of Christ and delivered to the wicked one. He adds that he does not say to pray for them, as we would for a brother who hasn't committed a sin unto death, so that they may rejoin the Body.

In 2 Peter 2:20-22 we read a very strong condemnation of those who have known the way of righteousness in Christ but turn from the holy commandment, and that they are like dogs returning to their vomit, and pigs to their mire.

And likewise in Hebrews 10:26-31 we read a very clear distinction between the two Covenants, that in the event one rejects Christ's blood, their sin can no longer be covered with an animal sacrifice as before, and so certainly someone who commits a sin unto death is left in a very wretched state and has only a worse punishment to look forward to than they did under the previous Covenant.

So, the message is clear. When someone has committed a sin which in the previous Covenant required the death penalty, such as laying with the father's wife, we cast that sinner out of the congregation and let Yahweh deal with them as He sees fit.

Thanks for reading my study!

Praise Yahweh!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

wow I can imagine people saying, I'm not sure if I want to be your brother yet, you'd probably cast me out.

 

[Soyeong]

Here's my case study of the differences between the Mosaic and Christian Covenants regarding the punishment for breaking a Law requiring the death penalty.

In 1 Corinthians 5 we read about a man who had sexual relations with his father's wife.

Under the Mosaic Covenant, in Leviticus 20:11 we read that the penalty is death, presumably by stoning.

But here's how Paul handles it under the Christian Covenant: first, he rightly calls this an act of fornication and castigates the Corinthian congregation for not taking action.

He commands the congregation to cast the fornicator out, and give him up to Satan, perhaps in the hopes that in any event his spirit might be saved by Yahweh.

He explains that they are not to keep company with brothers who have committed fornication. He makes clear that it's alright to meet with fornicators who aren't yet brothers, in order to covert them.

But once they are a brother, and they fornicate, they are to be cast out, and we leave that person to be dealt with by Yahweh.

In 1 John 5:16-18 John relates the same basic message, that the brother who has committed a sin unto death is cast out of the Body of Christ and delivered to the wicked one. He adds that he does not say to pray for them, as we would for a brother who hasn't committed a sin unto death, so that they may rejoin the Body.

In 2 Peter 2:20-22 we read a very strong condemnation of those who have known the way of righteousness in Christ but turn from the holy commandment, and that they are like dogs returning to their vomit, and pigs to their mire.

And likewise in Hebrews 10:26-31 we read a very clear distinction between the two Covenants, that in the event one rejects Christ's blood, their sin can no longer be covered with an animal sacrifice as before, and so certainly someone who commits a sin unto death is left in a very wretched state and has only a worse punishment to look forward to than they did under the previous Covenant.

So, the message is clear. When someone has committed a sin which in the previous Covenant required the death penalty, such as laying with the father's wife, we cast that sinner out of the congregation and let Yahweh deal with them as He sees fit.

Thanks for reading my study!

Praise Yahweh!

This is not really a change between covenants because even under the Old Covenant, Jews did not have history of enforcing every penalty that the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine or expelled them from the community instead. The harshness of the prescribed penalty was to show the seriousness of the offense to God, while the light penalty given was to show the mercy of God in the hope of reform. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, so someone whose obedience to the Law is not characterized by the attributes of God is not obeying it correctly.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

This is not really a change between covenants because even under the Old Covenant, Jews did not have history of enforcing every penalty that the Law prescribed it, but rather they often imposed a fine or expelled them from the community instead. The harshness of the prescribed penalty was to show the seriousness of the offense to God, while the light penalty given was to show the mercy of God in the hope of reform. In Matthew 23:23, Jesus said that justice, mercy, and faith are weightier matters of the Law, so someone whose obedience to the Law is not characterized by the attributes of God is not obeying it correctly.

Are there a couple of examples of any sins unto death not meted out with the prescribed punishment under the Mosaic? I think that would bolster your point significantly.

The condemnation under the Christian Covenant is said to be "sorer" in Hebrews 10:29, because there is no room for sin offerings anymore.

Thank you for your helpful comment! Don't forget the last part of what Christ said in that quote, "ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone" (i.e. you ought to have done both.)

Hallelu-Yah!

 

[BobRyan]

So, the message is clear. When someone has committed a sin which in the previous Covenant required the death penalty, such as laying with the father's wife, we cast that sinner out of the congregation and let Yahweh deal with them as He sees fit.

Thanks for reading my study!

Praise Yahweh!

True - because the civil laws that apply under a theocracy are void outside of it.

Thus Christ did not call for stoning the woman caught in adultery

And Daniel urged that the sorcerers and magicians in Babylon not be put to death - but rather prayed that God would reveal the king's dream to him.

 

[HARK!]

Thus Christ did not call for stoning the woman caught in adultery

Well it is questionable whether or not this story was in the original text; but even if it was, Yahshua would have violated the law had he cast the first stone. The law calls for two witnesses; and it calls for the man AND the woman to be stoned. ....not one jot nor tittle....

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

True - because the civil laws that apply under a theocracy are void outside of it.

Thus Christ did not call for stoning the woman caught in adultery

And Daniel urged that the sorcerers and magicians in Babylon not be put to death - but rather prayed that God would reveal the king's dream to him.

The Christian Covenant is certainly a clean slate and a beautiful gift, for Yahweh Himself stepped in and offers the blood of His Son to wash away the sins we had accumulated before, should we accept it! Such sins we accumulated that we all deserved death!

So it makes complete sense that Hebrews 10:29 says the punishment for sin is "sorer" than before.

I'm glad we have John's writings that talk about how we can be forgiven for sins not unto death with prayer from a brother, and how Paul hopes that the spirit of one who committed sin unto death can still be saved through destruction of the flesh, even after being cut off and delivered to Satan.

About John 8 and the adulterous woman, I actually think that is one of many examples of Christ obeying the Law under the Mosaic Covenant in a way that surprises us.

In Deuteronomy 17:5-7 we learn that the two or three witnesses actually have to be the first ones to cast stones at the perpetrator before the rest of the people.

When He challenged the witnesses' consciences such that they didn't throw stones, the execution couldn't Lawfully continue.

I love how He asks her if anyone condemned her, and when she says no, He tells her that he doesn't either. Not only is He implying that He's a witness (He knew) but that as the only witness left, there's nothing left to say except, "go and sin no more."

Perfect and merciful obedience to the Law!

Thank you for your thoughtful comment! I need to read Daniel, so I can learn more about your example. That's a meaty book!

 

[HARK!]

True - because the civil laws that apply under a theocracy are void outside of it.

We are under a Theocracy; whether one chooses to recognize our High Priest, and King, or not.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

it calls for the man AND the woman to be stoned. ....not one jot nor tittle....

100% right! Deuteronomy 22:22, had to look that up.

You know, I think what He was writing in the sand were the names of people who slept with her. After writing He told the people "he who is without sin cast the first stone," almost as if all the witnesses would have to stone each other too!

Praise Yahweh!

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

True - because the civil laws that apply under a theocracy are void outside of it.

Oh btw, if I understand you correctly, I agree. I'm reminded of Paul when he wrote:

1 Corinthians 6:

9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,​

10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.​

11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Yahushua, and by the Spirit of our God.​

It's only after becoming a brother in the Body of Christ than we can be cut off and go back to the world of Satan, like a dog to his vomit and a pig to her mire, as Peter would say.

Thanks! And praise Father Yahweh!

 

[HARK!]

100% right! Deuteronomy 22:22, had to look that up.

You know, I think what He was writing in the sand were the names of people who slept with her. After writing He told the people "he who is without sin cast the first stone," almost as if all the witnesses would have to stone each other too!

Praise Yahweh!

Again, I doubt that the story even happened.

See:
History of textual criticism on John 7:53–8:11

That said, our brother RobRyan said that Yahshua didn't call for a stoning. In the "story" it is purported that Yashua did just that; when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Yahshua was without sin! Or was he? If he was without sin; why would he have not cast the first stone? Yahshua had no trouble quoting scripture. It seems like most of the time that his disciples quoted him; he was quoting scripture. It seems out of place that he wouldn't quote the law during a lynching.
YHWH said let there be light; and there was light. Why would the light of the world say, "let the sinless start the stoning," then not himself start stoning? Why wouldn't he follow his Father's example of putting his words into action?

This passage leaves me with more questions than answers.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

Again, I doubt that the story even happened.

See:
History of textual criticism on John 7:53–8:11

That said, our brother RobRyan said that Yahshua didn't call for a stoning. In the "story" it is purported that Yashua did just that; when he said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Yahshua was without sin! Or was he? If he was without sin; why would he have not cast the first stone? Yahshua had no trouble quoting scripture. It seems like most of the time that his disciples quoted him; he was quoting scripture. It seems out of place that he wouldn't quote the law during a lynching.
YHWH said let there be light; and there was light. Why would the light of the world say, "let the sinless start the stoning," then not himself start stoning? Why wouldn't he follow his Father's example of putting his words into action?

This passage leaves me with more questions than answers.

It's interesting you bring the textual criticism up for this passage, I was reading the wikipedia article about it the other day. You bring up good questions. I'm not entirely sure about it myself. But if it's genuine, my thinking goes like this:

It says Christ was writing something on the ground. It would be an almost random detail if it didn't hold meaning in the rest of the passage.

I think He was writing the names of the people who committed adultery with her, and not coincidentally, they were the ones witnessing against her!

Christ would know, and as you pointed out, not just the woman, but the men would have to be stoned too.

It's likely He was writing the Law on the ground as well, which perhaps they didn't remember or thought maybe Christ wouldn't know.

I think when He mentioned being sinless, He was speaking specifically to the witnesses regarding this very crime and not sin generally.

So when He said that to them, and after they saw whatever it was He was writing in the ground, they realized they would have to stone each other.

They may not have known that the other was guilty of the same crime as themself or that Christ would know about their secret and that they could no longer get away with it.

Christ was but one witness, He needed at least another to affirm the execution, but after the other witnesses revealed their complicity in the crime themselves by not throwing the first stone, He was the only one left.

Those are my thoughts.

Btw, this could be important, is there a Law saying that someone who doesn't witness becomes partially guilty of the crime? I can't remember if there is or not!

 

[HARK!]

Btw, this could be important, is there a Law saying that someone who doesn't witness becomes partially guilty of the crime? I can't remember if there is or not!

I think that this is what you're asking of:

Leviticus 5:1

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

I think that this is what you're asking of:

Leviticus 5:1

Thanks!

The way I read that, this particular Law applies only when under oath. I don't think the beginning of John 8 mentions the witnesses going under oath.

This may be an important detail that is missing, but I'm hesitant to speculate any further on the matter than I already have.

Yahweh help us!

 

[HARK!]

The way I read that, this particular Law applies only when under oath.

That's not the way I read it.

I read it like this:

If I heard someone cursing the person who picked up, and stole, his wallet; when he had his back turned, at the bank. If I saw who did it; but I said nothing; then I would be as evil as the thief.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

That's not the way I read it.

I read it like this:

If I heard someone cursing the person who picked up, and stole, his wallet; when he had his back turned, at the bank. If I saw who did it; but I said nothing; then I would be as evil as the thief.

Leviticus 5:

1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.​

I think this would be when a controversy is brought before a judge and he puts the plaintiff, the witnesses, and the defendant under oath. I think this Law is there in the event that the defendant swears that he didn't do the crime but a witness who is within ear range of the trial saw him do it, and yet doesn't testify, making him complicit with the crime.

 

[Neal of Zebulun]

Here's a quick translation of Leviticus 5:1. I left in the genders so that it's easier to see what's being said. Keep in mind that a "soul" is a she in Hebrew, but it can be a man or woman's soul.:

And a soul because she has sinned and she has heard the voice of an oath, then he a witness, or he having seen, or he having known, if he does not testify then he shall bear his iniquity.​

 

[HARK!]

Leviticus 5:
1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

The KJV translates Strong's H423 in the following manner: curse (18x), oath (14x), execration (2x), swearing (2x).

(CLV) Lv 5:1
When a soul sins in that he heard the voice of imprecation, and he was a witness, whether he saw it or knew about it, if he should not profess then he will bear his depravity;

New International Version
"'If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible.

New Living Translation
"If you are called to testify about something you have seen or that you know about, it is sinful to refuse to testify, and you will be punished for your sin.

English Standard Version
“If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity;

New American Standard Bible
Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.


Holman Christian Standard Bible
When someone sins in any of these ways: If he has seen, heard, or known about something he has witnessed, and did not respond to a public call to testify, he is responsible for his sin.

International Standard Version
"If someone sins because he has failed to testify after receiving notice to testify as a witness regarding what he has observed or learned, he is to be held responsible."

NET Bible
"'When a person sins in that he hears a public curse against one who fails to testify and he is a witness (he either saw or knew what had happened) and he does not make it known, then he will bear his punishment for iniquity.

New Heart English Bible
"'If anyone sins, in that he hears the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he has seen or known, if he doesn't report it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

JPS Tanakh 1917
And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;

New American Standard 1977
‘Now if a person sins, after he hears a public adjuration to testify, when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And when a person commits sin, because they were called to testify under oath, and he was a witness that has seen or known of it, if he does not declare it, then he shall bear his iniquity.


There are very few versions which support your understanding; there are even more version, than I posted, that support my understanding.

Of course I would not take argumentum ad populum as truth.

I would encourage you to look at the Hebrew, word by word, in an interlinear bible, and then look at all the possible definitions for any particular word in question. Ask YHWH for discernment; and pray that the Ruach HaKodesh lead you to truth.

Don't put your trust in me, nor in men.

God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written.

 

[HARK!]

Here's a quick translation of Leviticus 5:1. I left in the genders so that it's easier to see what's being said. Keep in mind that a "soul" is a she in Hebrew, but it can be a man or woman's soul.:

And a soul because she has sinned and she has heard the voice of an oath, then he a witness, or he having seen, or he having known, if he does not testify then he shall bear his iniquity.​

Well now I see that you were already digging for the truth while I was responding to your previous post.

...but then it's fairly obvious that seeking the truth is what you do. I love it. It's like coming out of a slumber, into an exciting new day.

 

[HARK!]

Either way I still see it as a sin either way; so for me it is a sin, as it is written.

If I see a victim begging for my eye witness testimony, for justice; it doesn't matter if I'm under oath or not.

The voice of Abel's blood cried to YHWH from the ground; and YHWH responded to Cain.

In that manner injustice to victims, cries out to me.