-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
why was david not stoned?
- Thread starter steve
- Start date
Absolutely, Steve.
The Bible NOWHERE suggests that there were any witnesses, other than David and Bathsheba themselves. Nathan knew, however, and David understood and repented.
Those who do not understand the distinction made clear here, and elsewhere throughout Scripture, should study the "remedy for the jealous husband" in Numbers 5 (note v. 13). Just as Yeshua taught the lesson with great understanding (if she was "caught in the act" - then WHERE was the male!?) so does the Bible ALWAYS provide two or more witnesses (note even Deut. 30:19, for example!) for such teaching.
The message of Numbers 5 -- and the message that our Savior taught -- is about repentance and RECONCILIATION. The "midrash" or history of that particular passage is telling: evidently most couples where the remedy was applied never got to the point of drinking the "water that causeth the curse" (which was referenced by Yeshua writing in the dust) -- there was confession and forgiveness before the curse took effect.
People who get too focused on the "penalty" of "the Law" miss the point all too often. It has far more to do with the "teaching and instruction" intended to address the hardness of our hearts.
Blessings,
Mark
The Bible NOWHERE suggests that there were any witnesses, other than David and Bathsheba themselves. Nathan knew, however, and David understood and repented.
Those who do not understand the distinction made clear here, and elsewhere throughout Scripture, should study the "remedy for the jealous husband" in Numbers 5 (note v. 13). Just as Yeshua taught the lesson with great understanding (if she was "caught in the act" - then WHERE was the male!?) so does the Bible ALWAYS provide two or more witnesses (note even Deut. 30:19, for example!) for such teaching.
The message of Numbers 5 -- and the message that our Savior taught -- is about repentance and RECONCILIATION. The "midrash" or history of that particular passage is telling: evidently most couples where the remedy was applied never got to the point of drinking the "water that causeth the curse" (which was referenced by Yeshua writing in the dust) -- there was confession and forgiveness before the curse took effect.
People who get too focused on the "penalty" of "the Law" miss the point all too often. It has far more to do with the "teaching and instruction" intended to address the hardness of our hearts.
Blessings,
Mark
David confessed his sin. Clearly there were two or three witnesses, David being one of them, Joab being another. David is King and his judge is God. God does not exact the full penalty from David that God may exact.
Nathan:
Nathan:King David said:
This is the part where God is identified as David's judge. Uriah is a foreigner, and has no family, though Ahithophel arguably attempts vengeance against David, Ahithophel being Bathsheba's Grandfather.King David said:
Nathan:
Mercy from God, as with Cain. Who can go against God, David's sentence is pronounced as the death of his child with Bathsheba, and the sword never departing from David's house.
not clearly at all, hugh. there were no witnesses to the act of adultery other than the participants (that we are told about). joab was only a witness to the murder-by-proxy. he may suspected what the reason for it was, but he did not witness the act of adultery (he was away at war).Hugh McBryde said:
i thought about that. i mean, who should pick up a stone to throw at the king. david modeled that extremely well when he refused to take any action against saul even when he was trying to kill him.Tlaloc said:
but the no witnesses part would take precedent anyway
PolyPride
Member
steve said:
Luckily with the advent of technology, i.e., surveillance (esp. hidden cameras), etc, it's easier to witness a crime without having to be in the same room as the person.
Why wasn't David stoned?
Because not all acts of adultery required stoning, only when adultery involves a man and a betrothed "virgin" is stoning specified as a punishment. Also, even if no one in the community steps up to the plate and administers justice God sometimes steps in as He did in punishing David. Notice that even when David "repents" God takes away his sin but still leaves him with the consequences, one being killing one of his babies (which I would say it was DAVID that should've died, not a baby who did nothing). Also God mentions that he will not remove the sword from David's house, and God mentions that DAvid's wives would be given away to someone close to him. This is all done despite the fact of David's repentance which again shows me that repentance or forgiveness does not necessarily cancel out punishment in this lifetime. With that said, I still believe you can make it in the afterlife on good terms with God, just as long as you repented in this lifetime. Despite repenting though, for there to be accountability in this lifetime, you still have to suffer consequences.
Craig Skinner
New Member
For David to be put to death for the crime of adultery, a court case would have to be called by an accuser. No court case was called because he was not accused - well God later accused him via Nathan, but God sits as judge and jury without needing men's courts.
At the trial, two or three credible witnesses would be called into the hearing separately, and then removed separately (as in British law), and the independent testimonies would have to tally. (This is why Christ could not be convicted, each false witness was called separately, telling a load of rubbish, and when cross examined their stories did not match because they weren't present when the others were cross examined.) There were not two or three witnesses.
God may forgive the penitent man, to cancel out the penalty of his sin (i.e. death for adultery), but that does not mean that he will necessarily remove the consequences of our sin.
At the trial, two or three credible witnesses would be called into the hearing separately, and then removed separately (as in British law), and the independent testimonies would have to tally. (This is why Christ could not be convicted, each false witness was called separately, telling a load of rubbish, and when cross examined their stories did not match because they weren't present when the others were cross examined.) There were not two or three witnesses.
God may forgive the penitent man, to cancel out the penalty of his sin (i.e. death for adultery), but that does not mean that he will necessarily remove the consequences of our sin.
Craig Skinner
New Member
Mark C said:
A male was not needed for her crime. She was caught in the act of 'spiritual adultery', i.e. idolatry, for which the law commands stoning. Christ wrote in the dust to the clergy present about breaking the 1st commandment, that is why the clergy walked away as they were unable to level a charge at her with clean hands.
Christ did not forgive her, but as there were no witnesses to hold a trial in which to condemn her, she was told to stop sinning. (Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. (John 8:11))
The story is a parable acted out in real life of the House of Judah accusing the House of Israel of idolatry, but as the House of Judah was just as guilty of the same crime as her sister (Jeremiah 3), she was not fit to be a witness. The violent wanted to take the Kingdom by force.
Craig Skinner
New Member
steve said:
1) No man. There are 2 parties to sexual adultery, and both are commanded to be put to death, not just one. In John 8:6 the clergy raised this case to test Jesus. If it was sexual adultery, Christ would have accused them of not bringing the man and being partial in the law (Malachi 2:7-9). They would have been very careful to have a watertight case to test him with as they knew Christ was not a fool and would spot any faults on their part.
2) Stoning is reserved for certain crimes, not to be used willy nilly for all death sentences. I'm not aware of it being commanded for sexual adultery. e.g. blasphemy, slander, disobedience, Sunday working, harlotry (Duet 22:21), rape (Duet 22:23-24) and idolatry:
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5)
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)
Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Lev 20:2 (KJV))
A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (Lev 20:27 (KJV))
So it looks like she was in some sort of spiritual adultery, going whoring after other gods. My guess is that the clergy tramped down the main street and went into a tarrot card/spiritualist house and dragged out the gypsy.
If it was sexual adultery, why did the clergy walk away in shame, and not the rag tag crowd present who would be more likely to have low sexual morals, where as the clergy are more likely to have low spiritual morals?
No???
Interesting theory, Craig.
Personally, I'm satisfied that the author of the text was reasonably articulate and possessed of sufficient vocabulary to have written "idolatry" had that been what he meant instead of "adultery". In consequence, for me at least, the theory fails to persuade.
:idea: Pulling it down to the low shelf for simple folks like Steve and me ... :ugeek:
Hunh? Then why din't da dude SAY so? Din't he know how to tawk raht? Cou'n't he say wha' he MEANT? :lol:
Personally, I'm satisfied that the author of the text was reasonably articulate and possessed of sufficient vocabulary to have written "idolatry" had that been what he meant instead of "adultery". In consequence, for me at least, the theory fails to persuade.
:idea: Pulling it down to the low shelf for simple folks like Steve and me ... :ugeek:
Hunh? Then why din't da dude SAY so? Din't he know how to tawk raht? Cou'n't he say wha' he MEANT? :lol:
Craig Skinner
New Member
Aye, but it doesnae stack up. Ye ken wha' I mean big man? Nae man fur stoning & clergy gittin' their knickers in a twist.
Or dae we take this literally:
Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: ..... her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (Rev 17:1 ~ 4,5(KJV))
Nope, this is the spiritual adultery of the roman catholic 'church', the whore is the idol worship of Catholic Mary/Diana of Ephesus/Venus/Aphrodite/Ashtoreth/Isis/Devaki/Shing Moo/Sermiramis/'Queen of Heaven'. Which goes right back to Egypt. There is nothing new under the sun, and that old whore is going to die soon enough.
Consider Rahab, whom is twice called a harlot in the New Testament.
Or dae we take this literally:
Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters: ..... her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. (Rev 17:1 ~ 4,5(KJV))
Nope, this is the spiritual adultery of the roman catholic 'church', the whore is the idol worship of Catholic Mary/Diana of Ephesus/Venus/Aphrodite/Ashtoreth/Isis/Devaki/Shing Moo/Sermiramis/'Queen of Heaven'. Which goes right back to Egypt. There is nothing new under the sun, and that old whore is going to die soon enough.
Consider Rahab, whom is twice called a harlot in the New Testament.
Craig Skinner said:
Oh YES! Love the Scottish sound of it.
However, these'uns were trying to trip up and kill the Lord of Creation. Who says they were playing fair? P'r'aps the missing male was one of their own. Or they were prepared to claim that he'd escaped, or ...
All I know is that I had my ever-lovin' FILL of "It SAYS ... but it MEANS ..." when it came to the Word in the first 35 years or so of my life. Anymore, I'm satisfied with "It says ..."
Personal anecdote: Sitting in my office at work on day, the question came to mind, "Did Jesus have Alzheimer's? Having existed from the foundations of the world, He was, after all, very, very old! Maybe He just spouted vague nice sounding stuff without really knowing what it meant, or understanding the full implications. Then couldn't remember it anyway.
"The alternative is that He was intelligent, literate, articulate, said what He meant, and meant what He said. Equally
important, left unsaid what He didn't want said. So which is it?"
Along with the question came an inkling of the implications of either conclusion, along with the realization that the church CLAIMS to teach the second but in actual practice teaches the first. *sigh*
Turned out to be a tough decision, but I did come down on the "articulate" side. Life has never been the same. And the implications keep unfolding.
I'm getting thumped on the subject of Divine vs Human healing at the moment, and having to face the same questions all over again. *gulp* So when it comes to something as simple as "She was taken in adultery", I find it easier to accept the writer's articulate-ness and the inconsistency of Jesus' attackers. But who knows? I wasn't there.
Well, the old ho in Rev17 is riding on a dragon with 10 horns, if memory serves. It's a symbolic vision.
The woman taken in adultery was a literal human, literally described.
And check out Judges. Rahab WAS a harlot by profession, at least until Joshua and his buddies destroyed her clientele.
The woman taken in adultery was a literal human, literally described.
And check out Judges. Rahab WAS a harlot by profession, at least until Joshua and his buddies destroyed her clientele.
ahh, i finally figured out where you went. you are assuming that the "no man" in vs 11 indicates that no man was involved. the problem with that idea is that it was her response to his question "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"
that does not fit in the least bit
they had jello :?:
well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit!!!!!!!!!!!!!
who'd athunk it, jello-boarded to death :lol:
Clearly, you are right. Then I'm going to enlist God as a witness, since Nathan speaks for him as a prophet. Nevertheless, David confessed. I imagine Bathsheba didn't contradict him.steve said:
I'd also like to remark that not all acts of Adultery required stoning for the simple reason that there was divorce. For instance, Joseph, being a just man, sought to put Mary away quietly, having every reason to believe she was an adulteress. The 2 or 3 witnesses thing was in the case where there was a dispute as to the facts. I don't think anyone was rushing forward to claim David's child, as theirs.