How should we feel about a megachurch pastor’s comment regarding same-sex “marriage” that “his church has a stance about love and has a conversation about everything else”? What did Jesus mean when He cried out on the cross, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?” How do we respond who claim that biblical morality cannot be taken seriously today, since it included laws like the stoning of adulterers? Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.
Hour 1:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: As we bow down to worship a soveriegn God let us remember that He makes His own nature and character clear throughout Scripture. There’s no ambiguity in Him.
Hour 2:
Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: We would do well to look at the condition of a dying world rather than fighting over minor issues, and give ourselves to bring health and healing and salvation to the lost.
SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!
Get Dr. Brown’s just-written and recently released 420 page book Authentic Fire: A Response to John MacArthur’s Strange Fire. This print edition is only available through AskDrBrown Ministries and it’s yours postage paid for a suggested donation of $25. US ONLY
Call 1-800-278-9978 or Order Online!
Other Resources:
Malachi 4
4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments.
5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.
YHWH’s law is perfect…with the statutes and judgments. Biblical laws that enacted the death penalty are righteous. It is the correct and loving way to deal with terrible situations. If all murderers and adulterers and Homosexuals and wicked teen gang members were put to death, we would live in a better society. The evil would be put from our midst. Those that realized the cost of doing such things would be less likely to go the way of wickedness. Of course we would also need to have the Biblical 2-3 eye witnesses for such judgement to be implemented.
All this said. The body of Messiah is part of a kingdom that is not of this world and thus has no authority to institute such laws. We only have the authority to excommunicate unrepentant members of our assemblies and to turn them over Satan for the destruction of the flesh. The governments of the countries of this world are responsible to carry out justice. To the degree that they do so in a Biblical manner, is the degree that there is peace and freedom and prosperity. To the degree that they corrupt righteous judgment, is the degree of fear, resentment and the curse are upon that society.
Of course the people of this world do not want real righteous justice. They want harsh judgment for hate speech and easy sentences for murderers. They want to enjoy elicit sex with no consequences and to murder their babies as a right. So why would they want the death penalty for murderers, adulterers and homosexuals? They want to take guns away from the law abiding citizen to supposedly keep them out of the hands of criminals. They vote to let the government steal through unjust taxes and distribute it to them.
The church is under the false idea that Y’shua did away with the law of YHWH. They think that loving their neighbor is being nice to them instead of rebuking them so that their sin will not remain upon them. They think that grace means freedom from obeying YHWH instead of freedom from sin.
How can someone expect to convince the world we live in of YHWH’s righteousness when they do not want it for themselves?
Jeremiah 5
30 A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land;
31 The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?
Do we love to have it so? What will be the end thereof?
Bo, the Elija you speak of (John the Baptist) came and instead of preaching “the law, the law, the law” and the importance of putting to death sinners worthy of death, he preached repentance and prepared people to receive Christ.
Bo, in your opinion,should someone be put to death for looking at a woman in order to lust after her? Should the governments of this world have such a law in force?
Today we live under the grace of God, not law, and we are to use it to reconcile sinners to God.
This does not mean saying that what is sin, is not sin. It means we are to identify sin, know what it is, teach what things are sin, and work to restore sinners by the gospel.
The message of the cross is still our most powerful tool.
In my opioninon, a man who seeks to use Jesus to keep all the written law as if he is a man who is under it for righteousness, is not in a very good position to use the law in order to judge even what sin is, for such a one is backwards.
We should be learning what we can from the law in order to better follow Christ, instead.
It seems to me , Bo, that what you are saying in post 1, as concerning adultery for example, is that worldly governments should enact the death penalty for it, thereby keeping with God’s righteous and just law, and the Church would then, what?…. turn over the adulterer to the law keeping government to be put to death?
But that’s not what Jesus did with the woman caught in adultery.
Would we really be following him if we were to go back into the law of condemnation? (see II Cor 3:7-14. KJV)
Whether our government punishes sin or not, the consequence with God is death which results in separation from God and hardness of heart. That is the Kingdom of God which is spiritual.
Many of us would be perfectly fine living in a society that punishes adultery or other such sins with physical death because we wouldn’t commit those sins anyway. Those of us who hold to the teaching of Jesus and walk with him know that we are not of this world. We belong to the Kingdom of God. A kingdom of an impossible standard. A kingdom those without Christ can’t even imagine being a part of because it is a spiritual kingdom that exists within us.
The first covenant law was perfectly just. I don’t know if it a fear of death that gets people, but people don’t seem to understand why a lot of the laws in Leviticus were punishable by death. Why did God purge the Earth with the Flood? Why did Sodom burn and melt to nothing?
God is holy. Holy as in 100%. He has no choice but to punish sin. He would be perfectly just to wipe us all out, and he could have. He created us after all. He chose grace and mercy through Christ. We don’t have to live in a country that punishes more of those who sin because their spiritual death is punishment enough.
We live in a society where by just saying something is a sin is considered condemnation and hatred. We live in a society where a growing number of people want to punish those which stand for God’s righteousness. Isn’t “progress” man progressing away from God? Do we ever “progress” towards God’s righteousness? In the history of man, have we ever? Isn’t it always man’s rebellion and tolerance of wickedness?
Ray,
Messiah upheld the law in the case of the woman caught in adultery. There were not any witnesses that agreed to testify because they knew that they would also have to implicate the man involved. Without 2 or more witnesses willing to testify against the man and the woman there it is against Torah to enact the death penalty. Your statements proves that you do not know YHWH’s righteous judgments.
Maybe you should study this topic a little bit more. You would find that the vast majority of divorced and remarried people are living in adultery according to both YHWH’s law and Y’shua’s statements. They say the same thing because He is the word of YHWH made flesh.
Living in adultery causes one to loose their inheritance in the kingdom of YWHH…according to Paul. We have inherited lies from our fathers and our society and our churches. We do no know YHWH’s righteous ways and continue to stumble in the dark blind to the truth.
I am signing off for Shabbat.
Shabbat Shalom!
I thank God that he is not only just, but also the justifier of those that believe in Jesus. (Romans 3:26)
Bo, where does it say in the Bible that there were not enough witnesses that agreed together against the woman caught in adultery, in order to stone her?
It’s not there.
Some want to follow Jesus back under the ministry of condemnation. There’s one problem that I see with that…..Jesus isn’t going there.
Bo, if what you say is true, that there really wasn’t enough evidence to go ahead and stone the woman caught in adultery, why did Jesus go ahead and let the people know that the one among them which was without sin, he was allowed to throw the first stone?
Are you saying that Jesus didn’t know the law as well as you or what?
Bo said,
>> If all murderers and adulterers and Homosexuals and wicked teen gang members were put to death, we would live in a better society.
That’s just creepy, Bo.
Do you have any idea of what kind of bloodshed you are talking about?
And if you apply Leviticus literally, it would not just be teen gang members!
Greg is absolutely right, Bo. May the Lord forgive you for writing, “If all murderers and adulterers and Homosexuals and wicked teen gang members were put to death, we would live in a better society. The evil would be put from our midst.”
I will not debate this point with you, but I will tell you if you want to argue for it, you’ll have to find another place to do so. Statements like that are unacceptable here.
I believe John 3:16 says it about as good as it can be said.
For (this shows me that God had a reason and it’s connected to what has just been said) God (the one who created all things by Jesus Christ his Son, the one who is the highest authority, the one who Jesus always is aligned with and in complete agreement with) so (this amount) loved (as God did, so he does today, just as much as then) the (seems to me to be identifying something) world (everyone and everything he created in the beginning that is a part of it)that (again a reminder of purpose and reason) he (God) gave (had something and someone to give, something and someone for salvation that he had that was with him, that survived the ages prior to this time) his (God’s) only (just one of these, only one exactly like this one) begotten (something and someone he conceived, was in him, and that he brought forth in due time) Son (the one that was and is his very own by conception, birth, and obedience) that (purpose again) whosoever (anyone that will) believeth (This is what God requires. He even sent us faith on the wings of his word that he sent us) in (something about entering, I suppose) him (Jesus) should (purpose again) not (means this should not be) perish (corrupt, become useless for anything good, get ruined, and come to a horrible end) but (contrast, something different) have (own and enjoy as a purposeful gift) everlasting (never ending) life. (the greatest gift, because of Jesus)
This message should be what we are about.
It’s clear as Christians we are called to call for life rather than death. We know God has to punish sin with death. When we see sinners living outside of God’s will we need to pray for them. That is how we love our neighbors. The pagan world loves to hate. When a non believer gets cut off in traffic they might spew profanities to the other driver. That is hatred, is it not? Knowing God’s grace and mercy he has provided for you, do you give out grace and mercy to others? Basically, we need to live our lives consistently forgiving others.
It’s a temptation for us to be like Jonah. He wanted Nineveh to be destroyed for their wickedness but , ” I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity.” Jonah was calling for death, but we don’t know who will turn and be saved or not. God does. We have to trust his will and his word.
Dr. Brown,
Perhaps I am mistaken but isn’t Gary Demar a friend of yours? Gary Demar and his partner Gary North want to replace our Constitution with Old Testament law including the laws and punishments for homosexuality and disobedience to one’s parents. I find it a bit hypocritical for you to criticize Bo for holding a position held by some of your associates. Now if you want to try to distance yourself from the Reconstructionists like Demar and North I’d love to see your reply.
Van, What is your purpose? Are you here because you know, or want to know that God exists? Are you here to stir up something out of nonthing? Are you wanting to learn, or cause a meaningless arguement?
Read 1 john 2:22- Does this apply to someone like you??
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
Dr. Brown,
Do you believe that the law of YHWH is perfect as David said? Do you believe that it is righteous, just and good as Paul says? What are you doing if it is not just a form of political correctness? If YHWH judgments are not correct for justice and truth, what are they good for? Do they not tell us what is the correct judgment for sin? I have argued this many times before on your website and you have not disputed the comments.
I want you to truly answer the questions. This is not rhetorical. This is not a slam on you. You have time and again said that I was welcome to post on topic comments even though you disagreed with me. What is the deal?
Shalom
Ray,
Please read the following link about the woman caught in adultery. It is from the perspective of a scholar that is not in may camp. He does not agree with me on the law. He would, for the most part agree with you. Please read it an comment back.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
Shalom
Dr. Brown,
I am honestly wondering what is the difference between what I said and what Paul said here:
Romans 1
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet…
29 Being filled…fornication… murder…
30…disobedient to parents…
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Are they not worthy of death? Would the world be a better place if there were more of this type of thing going on?
Sincerely,
Bo
Van,
I’ve never met Gary Demar (he was on one my show twice; we strongly differ on eschatology), and in no way do I support the views you mention. Misinformation (and stirring up dissension) is not welcome here, FYI.
Bo,
I have no time to debate the Law with you here, and you can post differing views — BUT I WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO USE THIS WEBSITE AS A PLATFORM FOR ESPOUSING THE DEATH PENALTY TODAY FOR THOSE YOU LISTED. So, either drop the subject here or refrain from posting (on any subject at any time here). You’ve had free reign for months and your comments have not been moderated; I’m glad I personally happen to catch one that totally violates the purpose of this website. Again, there’s nothing to discuss or argue, and you’ll simply have to accept our guidelines. Thanks for complying (by dropping the rhetoric or by ceasing to post).
Yes, I saw Michael on with Piers Morgan, and at one point this is what Morgan tried to do, is to blast biblical morality, maybe it was with this example. It was frustrating seeing that, and it challenged me to have a ready response. And NO, Bo, the response is not that Jesus would have stoned that lady too, except for a shortage of witnesses! The context argues that they had all the witnesses and then some, so that is not very honest.
So here is what I would say: First, adultery IS a horrible crime, and it does lead to eternal death, if not repented of. It is a horrible betrayal of a sacred bond. It is like a bird abandoning its nest. It breaks what God united in the covenant of marriage, instituted at the beginning of creation.
But with regard to the punishment itself in the Law, that was given in a very unique context, which was the context of a people who daily saw a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. Who daily ate manna in the wilderness, bread from heaven. So to whom much is given, much is required. It’s the same kind of thing with the man who lit a fire on Sabbath, also in Moses’ time. In that context, you can only interpret what he did as willful rebellion against God and Moses’ leadership. Likewise, in the New Testament, a simple seemingly white lie by Ananias got him killed in like manner.
Today we live in a time when whatever God tells us to do, is what we are responsible for, rather than all the written ordinances of the law.
For example, today a man can go camping on a weekend and no matter what day of the week it is, he may light a fire. Unless God tells him not to, he may do so because he is no longer under such laws.
Some people want to put the law ahead of Jesus, and it doesn’t work because that’s not the gospel.
The law of Moses is not the kingdom of heaven.
Here’s a very short quiz.
T or F ?
1. Jesus came to re-establish the law of Moses which would include Jew and Gentile under it.
Reply to quiz
True
Luke 5:14
and immediately the leprosy departed from him.
14 And he enjoined him to tell no one; but go, shew thyself to the priest, and offer for thy cleansing as Moses ordained, for a testimony to them.
Did Jesus do away with the things of old?
jon, Some of the things of the old covenant still remain, even though the old is done away in Christ.
See Jer 31:31-34, II Cor 3:2-11, I Cor 13:10, Heb 9:12-10:10.
Heb 10:9
…..he taketh away the first, that he may establish the second.
Therefore my answer to the quiz in post 22 is F for false.
jon, Today if a man is healed of leprosy by Jesus Christ, is he always required to show himself to a Jewish priest?
I am not saying that Jesus would never tell someone he healed of leprosy, to do that today.
Let’s try this one:
T or F ?
Jesus came not to re-establish the law of Moses, nor to destroy it, but to fulfill it, and take it away.
————————————————–
See in my mind, I consider the law of Moses as the first covenant. That’s how I think of it. Jesus came to do all of that above, in order to establish the second covenant, in us who came to God by him, for refuge. Therefore my answer to this one is T for true.
Dr. Brown,
OK. I agree. Thank you for allowing views other than your own to be discussed on this site and for providing a forum for sharpening our Biblical thought processes. I realize that you do not have time to interact extensively, but if you could take a few minutes more in my behalf, I would be grateful.
That said, I think that you have done to me what A&E did to Phil Robertson, though. I think that you have done the same thing to me that Piers Morgan did to you when he brushed off your question by calling you, “silly.” You have not answered my sincere questions, but have simply put your foot down. I agree that you have that right and I will comply as I have always attempted to do. And I still think that you have misunderstood me. Please read the following carefully. It is not for advocating, it is for clarification.
I was not advocating for bringing back the death penalty for such things. I was stating a fact that society would be better place if the nations of this world followed the justice system of YHWH’s law concerning these things. Not just the penalty but the criteria of valid witnesses and a true and quick court case with the hands of the witnesses being first upon the guilty party. If I am not mistaken, 1st degree murder is punishable by death penalty even today in some states in this country? Until relatively recently there were adultery and sodomy laws on the books.
You will not find me signing petitions or voting for such laws to come back onto the books, but I will agree with Paul that they deserve the death penalty and that those that continue to do such things and those that have pleasure in those that do them will experience the wrath of YHWH revealed against them, whether or not the country they live in enacts justice.
You will not find me stoning anyone or taking the law into my own hands. The body of Messiah has no civil authority until the Messianic Kingdom comes to earth for a thousand years. But it is required to kick out unrepentant doers of such things.
I was answering your question, “How do we respond [to those] who claim that biblical morality cannot be taken seriously today, since it included laws like the stoning of adulterers?”
I do not see how my answer was in any way out of bounds. My response is that it is completely righteous, holy, just and good for those laws to exist and that those practices are still just as grievous of sins and crimes against society and YHWH as they ever were. If we agree with the modernist that those things do not deserve what Moses and Paul said they deserve, we have no solid ground to stand on to argue the rest of YHWH’s morality and holiness laws. If we are going to go along with those that claim that there is no sin or crime between consenting adults, which the church never went along with for 1900 years, we are becoming moral relativists…just slower than the heathens around us.
Is the above post within the limits? Is there something that I am not understanding?
There are posts above that are addressing me and want me to answer. Do I have the liberty to answer them? I await your reply so as to know what you allow.
Shalom
Nicholas, Ray and Josh,
Please read this short article about the woman caught in adultery. It explains why the passage belongs in the scripture (which is contrary to the modern scholars view) and what transpired with the law of Moses in mind. It is eye opening. It is not written by someone of my persuasion concerning the law, but of yours.
I will not respond to your questions or ideas unless I have clearance from Dr. Brown.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
Shalom
If I was a sinner in the midst of scribes and Pharisees at the temple, being accused of them before the Lord, at that time, I would have wanted a humble, wise, discerning, fair, and merciful judge, a delivering one, one who looked at everything that was going on, not just one who looked only at the letter of one thing written in the law.
I would have wanted a delivering judge, who would be willing to lay down his own life for me, if he could save me from death.
I would have wanted one who would distance himself from deceivers and their manipulative ways of corruption.
I would want someone who would stoop down, who would come down to my level, yet not in any way partake of sin, if I had any reason to hope for mercy.
Perhaps the Lord was simply writing on the ground as a man might be doodle in a casual way, as if to communicate that though things were serious, they were not quite as formal as things might appear to the accused at that time.
Where the accusers seemed intent on the formalities, Jesus may have been showing the accused that he was about a different way, thus giving her a ray of light and hope during a very dark time in her life.
It could be that Jesus was showing everyone there that he did not find this situation to be as strict and serious as it seemed to be, though the very nature of sin is very serious.
This man who stooped down to write on the ground was different, and no doubt, her hope.
I think of the woman who (assuming she was as guilty as her accusers had made her out to be, and I have no reason to doubt this) was there among so many…..trapped,.. and finding no way out.
Her only hope seemed to be Jesus.
I trust she was not disapointed in her deliverer who came to teach in the temple that morning.
This man did indeed lay down his life for her. He went all the way through with it, not only for her, but for the sins of the whole world also.
ok Ray, I failed the quiz,
However was Jesus circumcised on the 1st day, the 5th day, or the 8th day?
I agree with you that he did not come to fulfill the law- I do not think it has been done away with.
Now, I have the book Hyper Grace, I have not started the book yet- This book likely covers this issue extensively. Let’s read the book, and get back to this issue.
Re above- mistake I agree that HE CAME TO FULLFILL THE LAW!!! IT WAS FULFILLED- IT IS FULLFILLED… The rest I will read the book and have a more complete view on this soon. Good topic for discussion.
Ray,
Did you read the article?
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
Shalom
Jon,
I think that you will gain some good from the article also.
Shalom
Bo, I skimmed through the article.
Ray,
Please take the time to read it carefully.
Shalom
Van (AKA Boris)
I replied to your question (your second comment) in the Dec. 20th blog. I did not have any response to your first response to my question as to your flawed theory of moral absolutes, as your comment was vacuous. You did not provide any rational reason why we should believe your standard , just some nonsense about not expecting ” a Bible beleiver to grasp the concept”. That hardly answers the question.
Bo,
Please don’t compare me to A&E or to Piers. We’ve allowed you to post thousands of comments here without restriction! You’ve posted hundreds of comments for every single comment of mine.
In short, to answer those asking you questions, you can renounce your statement that it would be good to carry out the death penalty against the people you listed, you can say, “Sorry, but I’m dropping the subject now,” or you can drop out of this forum. We are not living in a theocracy where God appeared to our entire nation and gave us His laws, and many of us would have been dead long before the Lord saved us if your wishes were the Law.
I felt years ago that some of your views were dangerous and told you plainly, but I’ve appreciated many other things you’ve shared and allowed you endless posts that I differed with on other levels. But to repeat (for the last time, and without further explanation): You can renounce the statement; you can drop the subject and not reply (and I’m asking others to drop it as well); or you can drop out of the forum. (I’m assuming you won’t take another course of action, namely, to ignore our directives so you are then banned from the forum).
Thanks for complying, and this IS the last post from me about this.
God brought me to Romans 3:31 and here it is:
Rom 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
See post 27.
The reason why I say that Jesus wasn’t sent to re-establish the law, is because he didn’t come to restore Israel to the very letter of it in order that they might exactly carry out every jot and tittle of it, and also bring all the Gentiles they could reach under it also, such as, for example that every leper ever healed would always show himself to a priest, now and forever more, or that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd (and so on) century Church would always have cities of refuge set up to protect certain killers, (see Num 35:11) or that they would not forget to do all the stonings for sin, etc.
That’s not why Jesus was sent and that’s not what he did. That isn’t what he was about. It isn’t that a prophet needed to be sent to get them back into and under every jot and tittle of it, by the letter, in order that they might practice every bit of it.
No, Jesus came to restore people to God, to reconcile them back to God, to be the payment for sin, and to bring them into the new covenant that was prophesied. (see Jer 31:33 & II Cor 3:2-11)
I believe what Paul was refering to in Romans 3:31 about establishing the law, is in reference to establishing the righteousness of it.
I say this because of the context in which he wrote. Notice how many times the word righteousness appears just prior.
Now if someone says, “I believe Jesus was sent to establish the law, because of what I read in Rom 3:31, and I understand that to mean not all the letter of it but rather the righteousness of it by the spirit of God, as directed by God, according to Christ.” , then yes I can agree with that.
Dr. Brown,
Quick question. The Davidic promise to have someone sit on the throne always seems to be unconditional. During the exile, it appears that the throne was empty for 70 years. Does this not mean that the promise failed?
Thx.
Right now in Samammish Wa. There is a Catholic school that fired a vise principal (I think it was)because he being a man recently “married” another man, and there is quite a protest by many of the students going on and they say they are prepared to continue all of this, for they say they are about equality.
One talked of how if the school system is going to “lay down the law” concerning a prior agreement of faculty about marriage, then if they don’t do the same for every other infraction, then they are clearly discriminating.
Because of the times we live in, I hope pastors take a clear stand on the matter of marriage. I believe it’s a good time for clarity.
I too found the statement about same sex “marriage” (see top of page) to be rather difficult to figure out as far as what was meant.
I believe people today need moral clarity, especially the younger generation.
I believe not all infractions of school policies are all deserving of the same actions or consequences for violations. I believe we need to be discerning and prudent about these things. (Prov 2:11)
These young people want to continue their protest and hope to get the attention of the Pope.
I wish these young people were all about pleading the cause of the oppressed, and about doing what they can according to Christ Jesus.
I see no oppression here but rather a clear violation according to a prior understanding of school policy. I believe it was grounds for termination.
As far as I know the man is still “married” to another man and has not come to repentance in that respect.
I bring this up because I believe we should all see the need for moral clarity.
Dr. Brown,
I cannot renounce my statement, for I believe it to be true.
I will cease from posting concerning the death penalty and its applicability in our day and age.
I will assume that I can answer questions other than on this direct topic until further notice.
Thank you for your grace in the past and the opportunity to discuss many things in which you are on the opposite side of the issue.
Shalom
Nicholas,
You wrote:
“Bo, the response is not that Jesus would have stoned that lady too, except for a shortage of witnesses! The context argues that they had all the witnesses and then some, so that is not very honest…
But with regard to the punishment itself in the Law, that was given in a very unique context, which was the context of a people who daily saw a pillar of cloud by day and of fire by night. Who daily ate manna in the wilderness, bread from heaven. So to whom much is given, much is required.”
I never said that Messiah would have had her stoned. I was as honest as possible in the short post, hoping that people would do their own homework. Messiah would have agreed with the Torah, though…that is what He did in this case and in every other thing that He taught and did. If He didn’t, then He is not a perfect sacrifice for our sins.
The law was not for just in the context of when the pillar of cloud or fire was among them. The law was also for when they came into the land. They were perpetual statutes throughout their generations. These laws were to be looked upon by the nations around them and be seen as wisdom and righteousness and YHWH being close to them.
De 4:6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
Did you read the article about the woman caught in adultery?
Do you see that Messiah could not righteously have the woman stoned to death because the law states that the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death?
Le 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
It is against the law to apply it only to one party and not the other.
De 16:19 Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous.
Any witness that would only testify against one of the parties involved would be a false witness and would receive the punishment that he had hoped would fall upon the accused. If she was taken in the very act, the man must also have been there when she was taken.
De 19:16 If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong;
17 Then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days;
18 And the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;
19 Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.
20 And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.
Pr 19:5 A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.
By asking for the one that was without sin in this matter to step forward and be the first to lay hands/cast the first stone upon her, Messiah was putting the responsibility back in their court to produce true witnesses that would also implicate the man involved in this adultery.
De 17:5 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.
6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
Messiah did not break the law or change it. He said as much in Matthew 5. He called the religious leader’s bluff. He confounded their plans to discredit Him. Also, he could not enact judgment because He was not a duly authorized judge in Israel. He even said that He was not here to judge in Luke 12 and John 8 and 12.
The religious leaders could not even stone her if they had also produced the man because Rome had reserved the right of capital punishment to themselves.
Joh 18:31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
The religious leaders were trying to trap Him in His words, as usual. He perfectly upheld His Father’s torah/law and “disarmed principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Col. 2:15)
Shalom
Bo, can a bank robber not be prosecuted if they can’t find the get away driver?
Bo,Where does it say in the law that they should keep all the laws about stoning people unless the inhabitants of the land (the Romans for example) say they only have the authority to use capital punishment?
I believe the woman could have been stoned without the man involved being present. Maybe you agree also. I may have read something wrong that you wrote about this.
Greetings Dr Brown
I’ve been catching up with podcasts of shows, and am enjoying them immensely. I loved your stand-in hosts, they were great listening.
Sometimes there is nothing on the radio but the four horsemen of the Apocalypse — Death, Debt, Disaster and Depravity — and then I love to be able to educate myself and get a lift.
I did notice that you had a cough when you came back from India. Everyone has coughs here in Essex. I do feel for you.
To all of you getting so het up about how or why or whether other folks’ sins should be punished: I am very glad that my sins are not on show to the world, and that they are all paid for.
Just another little point. If someone is living as an unrepentant God-defying, loose-living Lost Person, I don’t want them to behave better, I want them saved and in Christ, then He can fix ’em up! I have seen this happen. Before I was saved I was a “good girl” who did her homework and stayed in at night — but I was still going to Hell.
I will now run away before someone throw s a grenade at me
Bo, I read the article.. Actually this is an interesting topic- and you can understand also,it is a topic that could be taken to an extreme by the enemies of the christian to take one completely out of context. No one can walk through this mine field of what your truely saying, and come out understood correctly. I could write what your saying in a different light- That if someone chooses to go into sin, that person chooses death. There is only life with a Saviour with his endless mercy for out lives. We can not point the finger of fire down onto other people, that is only in the realm of the almighty creator of the universe. When we try to define it, we could be misunderstood and sound silly to say for example Pier’s Morgan. Ultimately what your saying is that to sin is too choose death..TO CHOOSE LIFE, ONE ACCEPTS THE FREE GIFT OF LIFE.
Ray,
You misunderstand me. Both parties had to be present otherwise it is respecting persons in judgment. Please read post 43 closely and go back are read carefully this article:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
Shalom
If the woman who was accused of adultery could not have been stoned according to the law, (for lack of witnesses or any other reason) I believe Jesus would have simply called them on it and the scribes and Pharisees would have gone away with their tails between their legs.
Ray,
How can they not find the man if they (the man and the woman) were in the very act? This is a set up by the religious leaders. A whole crowd of men should be able to get hold of the naked man…or if he happened to escape there would be plenty of people on the street that could help them locate where he went. Your bank robber question is a straw man and you show that you do not know what the torah says…but Messiah did. He was the word of YHWH become flesh. Plus he is the one that spoke to Moses face to face in a theophany.
John 8
4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
What would they have to accuse Him of? That He did not uphold the law by having respect of persons in judgment or that He did not uphold the law by saying that she should not be stoned. He did not fall for either. Further they could accuse him to Rome for either being part of a stoning or even teaching that an adulterer should be stoned, since Rome’s laws did not agree.
Shalom