• 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.

Adulterers stoned?

steve

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
No, not that one. KingDavid and Bathsheba.
Was there no stoning simply because of a lack of actual witnesses? YHWH did reveal the sin, and the child’s age would have been a witness.
Or was it an authority issue, no one could stone someone above them in authority?
 
God also revealed, through Nathan, that David was not to die. However, he did require the child's life:

2 Samuel 12: 13. David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against Yahweh." Nathan said to David, "Yahweh also has put away your sin. You will not die. 14. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to Yahweh's enemies to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die."​
 
No, not that one. KingDavid and Bathsheba.
Was there no stoning simply because of a lack of actual witnesses? YHWH did reveal the sin, and the child’s age would have been a witness.
Or was it an authority issue, no one could stone someone above them in authority?
Interesting. Who would dare accuse a king?
The required death penalty for transgression was placed upon the son.....a messianic foretelling?
 
Do we have a single example in scripture of this penalty ever being applied? I see mercy throughout scripture in the clear statement of harsh penalties yet the scanty evidence for their actual application. This raises questions about how strictly Torah was ever intended to be applied, but I don't know the answers and the implications of any answer are very large.
 
Proverbs 6:32-35 indicates that the husband could accept a ransom or gifts or whatnot for the sin/crime of adultery against him, yet because of vengeance he probably wouldn’t.

Jeremiah 3:8 also indicates that God didn’t kill his wife for commiting adultery, he simply gave her a bill of divorce and put her away.

Ezekiel 16:38 seems to indicate that the husband is the judge of the adulterous wife. Admittedly, in this passage God is judging, but he is judging his own wife and the judgement is not stoning. The end of the passage concludes with Him calling his adulterous wife to return.

Hosea 4:14 seems to corroborate this idea of the husband judging. “I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall.
 
Do we have a single example in scripture of this penalty ever being applied? I see mercy throughout scripture in the clear statement of harsh penalties yet the scanty evidence for their actual application. This raises questions about how strictly Torah was ever intended to be applied, but I don't know the answers and the implications of any answer are very large.
They sure were not shy when it came to stoning Stephen. This tells me that it wasn’t an unknown experience.
Yes, I know, it was for blasphemy. My point is that they acted in a manner that indicates that it wasn’t a first.
 
God also revealed, through Nathan, that David was not to die. However, he did require the child's life:

2 Samuel 12: 13. David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against Yahweh." Nathan said to David, "Yahweh also has put away your sin. You will not die. 14. However, because by this deed you have given great occasion to Yahweh's enemies to blaspheme, the child also who is born to you shall surely die."​
But why?
 
It is interesting that YHWH laid the death penalty on Ananias and Saphira for lying, and that was in the NT.
 
Josephus says that in their culture that the victim got to determine the level of justice for personal or familial injury, not the judges or the congregation. The judges and congregation were only to determine guilt or innocence and then the sentence was decided by the victim up to the limits of the injury. Someone who had lost an eye could demand an eye if they were found guilty by the assembly, and yet they didn’t have to demand that eye.

It seems to me that the husband or the covering had the final say in the sentence meted out as is indicated in the last post. If the husband brought the adulterous wife before the assembly and they found her guilty, then he could have her stoned but he didn’t necessarily have to do that if he chose not to.

Numbers 5:12-30 is also very relevant to this conversation with the law of Jealousy. There is a difference between this law of Jealousy and the other event in John where the woman was caught in the act. For a woman caught in the act, she wouldn’t have to drink the water that makes her belly swell and her thigh rot because of witnesses. For a woman accused without witnesses, her husband would have to present her, and she would have to be tested but then she would not be stoned but would live with her condition as a warning of the curse of adultery. Seems to me that Christ understood the intricacies of this Law better than those seeking to entrap because His question to her was, Where are your witnesses? No witnesses? Where’s your husband? Neither accuse you - then you’re free to go unless your husband decides to present you for a Law of Jealousy test.

Even if my wife were accused of being caught in the very act, there would be hell to pay if someone decided that they could just kill my wife without my consent and without due process and defense. I am her head and covering and to violate this principle violates a law much much older than Torah.

I think there is another dynamic at play that though not included in our canon, I believe it has relevance to both this thread as well as the John account. That is the historical accounting of a married righteous woman named Suzanna who was framed by two men who each wanted to have her and when she refused, they conspired to witness against her and say that they’d “caught her in the act” with an unidentifiable man under a tree. The assembly meets on short order when they drag her into court and her sentence is given for death until one man shouts out that his hands are clean of the blood of this innocent woman. The crowd stops and a young Daniel steps forward and upbraids them for condemning a daughter of Israel without giving her a chance to defend herself. He then has the two men separated and questioned about what kind of tree she was found under. When the men answered with two different kinds of trees the assembly knew they’d been deceived and the two men were killed instead. I’ve always wondered if Christ was referring in some way to Suzanna’s story when he was writing in the dirt that day. I think that’s one of my questions to ask.
 
No, not that one. KingDavid and Bathsheba.
Was there no stoning simply because of a lack of actual witnesses? YHWH did reveal the sin, and the child’s age would have been a witness.
Or was it an authority issue, no one could stone someone above them in authority?
Here's the Jewish answer which I doubt anyone here will like. Since we are discussing what I consider a midrash (extra biblical story designed to teach us something, aka the adulterous woman story) I'll share with you a popular midrash about the instance you are referencing with King David.

As I explained in one of the other threads, in King David's time the soldiers always gave their wives a "gett" (certificate of divorce) before they went off to war.
This way if the husband was MIA the wives could remarry. If they did not have the gett then they could not remarry because they were still married and the hubby was just missing.
So in the case with Bathsheba (don't yell at me folks), it was not actually adultery;
she was divorced from Uriah because he was ... at war.
When the soldiers would return from war it was customary to remarry their wives.

That said, this is a letter of the law sort of thing and according to Jewish tradition everyone knew it; hence the stink.
OK here comes the part where you may want to stone me.
I'm not saying this is true just sharing it ... ***holding breath****
Uriah in Jewish tradition had tied the knot for Goliath's sword and when David wanted to remove the sword he supposedly said "hey I can't untie this crazy knot
if anyone can untie it he can have the best woman in Israel!" Uriah untied it (because he was the one who had tied it) David then gave him Bathsheba.
The problem is the Holy One Blessed be He had declared Bathsebah to be David's besheret. David is questioned by the prophet (not in the bible) who told you you could give whoever to Uriah now you will suffer because your match will be given to him instead.
Many days later ....
It is discovered that Uriah has disobeyed the King and he must die; David must execute him.
The Problem?
David is already involved with Bathsheba so instead of obeying what he is supposed to do by Torah he is embarrassed because people will surely say "oh He killed Uriah just because he wanted to steal his wife." So ... as the tale goes David had Uriah executed by the Amonite sword (you know the story). This was so he could obey the torah and execute the one deserving death (his sin supposedly was not doing it publicly).
Then that is why David did not have to die because while he supposedly had not broken the letter of the law, he had clearly violated the spirit of it.

Now again don't yell at me, I'm just sharing a midrash the best I can remember it, something may be off. I always thought this was utterly not true.
I still think it's *probably* untrue; but I will say there is a psalm that every time I read it I wonder, hmmmm...

Psalm 51 - my translation for clarity​

1 לַמְנַצֵּ֗חַ מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִֽד ׃
2 בְּֽבוֹא ־ אֵ֭לָיו נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֑יא כַּֽאֲשֶׁר ־ בָּ֝֗א אֶל ־ בַּת־שָֽׁבַע ׃
3 חָנֵּ֣נִי אֱלֹהִ֣ים כְּחַסְדֶּ֑ךָ כְּרֹ֥ב רַ֝חֲמֶ֗יךָ מְחֵ֣ה פְשָׁעָֽי ׃
4 הַרְבֵּה כַּבְּסֵ֣נִי מֵעֲוֺנִ֑י וּֽמֵחַטָּאתִ֥י טַהֲרֵֽנִי ׃
הֶ֭רֶב
5 כִּֽי ־ פְ֭שָׁעַי אֲנִ֣י אֵדָ֑ע וְחַטָּאתִ֖י נֶגְדִּ֣י תָמִֽיד ׃
6 לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨׀ חָטָאתִי֮ וְהָרַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֗יךָ עָ֫שִׂ֥יתִי לְ֭מַעַן תִּצְדַּ֥ק בְּדָבְרֶ֗ךָ
תִּזְכֶּ֥ה בְשָׁפְטֶֽךָ ׃


1. For the conductor, an instrumental song of David
2. When Nathan the prophet came to him, concerning his having come to Bathsheba.
3. Have compassion on me Oh G-d according to your loving kindness, as abundant is your mercy, blot out my transgressions.
4. Wash me completely from my iniquiteies, and from my sin purify me.
5. For my transgressions I indeed know and my sin is continually before me.
6. It is against You ALONE I have sinned, the bad (evil) I have done before your eyes, in order that You may be righteous in your words and pure in your judgements.
Every time I read that psalm, I pause a bit as I pass over the "Lekha l'vadkha chatati" "against You, You alone have I sinned"
If it was a true case of adultery would David have the audacity to say He only sinned against G-d and not against Uriah?

Now I know I know Nathan is pretty clear with his story he tells in David's hearing all I'm saying is that the psalm is interesting because it lends a small bit of credibility to the traditional account.

Hope you enjoyed,
shalom
 
Do we have a single example in scripture of this penalty ever being applied? I see mercy throughout scripture in the clear statement of harsh penalties yet the scanty evidence for their actual application. This raises questions about how strictly Torah was ever intended to be applied, but I don't know the answers and the implications of any answer are very large.
There's a poor bastard who gets stoned in scripture just for picking up sticks on the Sabbath day... is breaking Sabbath worse than adultery? does it rank higher because it's higher on the list? I don't know but there we see it...
Also, there are very few examples of judgements recorded in scripture... the 66 books are big enough you guys want even more stuff in there!
:p
***** late edit******
I was thinking about it and Jewish tradition says that death penalty cases were extremely rare.
This could mean that there just weren't cheaters "back in the day" or it could mean that even in these cases death was commuted to financial compensation (though I've never come across this for adultery, only for other acts in talmud). I know this is the traditional claim for other kinds of damages like from a fight. As someone mentioned (maybe you) the "value of the eye" in lieu of an actual eye...
There's also a saying in chilun that "a sanhedrin which convicted someone to death once in 70 years was called a bloody sanhedrin"... I've always had my doubts about those stories but it's there and lots of people believe those claims so there may be something to it...
 
Last edited:
...
I think there is another dynamic at play that though not included in our canon, I believe it has relevance to both this thread as well as the John account.
Or the Luke account as some manuscripts have it..

.
That is the historical accounting of a married righteous woman named Suzanna who was framed by two men who each wanted to have her and when she refused, they conspired to witness against her and say that they’d “caught her in the act” with an unidentifiable man under a tree. The assembly meets on short order when they drag her into court and her sentence is given for death until one man shouts out that his hands are clean of the blood of this innocent woman. The crowd stops and a young Daniel steps forward and upbraids them for condemning a daughter of Israel without giving her a chance to defend herself. He then has the two men separated and questioned about what kind of tree she was found under. When the men answered with two different kinds of trees the assembly knew they’d been deceived and the two men were killed instead. I’ve always wondered if Christ was referring in some way to Suzanna’s story when he was writing in the dirt that day. I think that’s one of my questions to ask.
I agree with you this story definitely has relevance to the modern day John 8 account. I think it may be the very midrash which was later adopted and attributed to Yeshua.
 
That Psalm has bothered me also.
The only way that I have been able to see it is that sin is disobedience of YHWH’s Law. He stole from Uriah, had him killed and otherwise violated the snot out of any rights that he had, but the sin was against the Laws of YHWH.

The story is an interesting story, but too convoluted and fanciful for me to put any stock in. I cannot count on it to justify what happened. We just may never know, this side of the Divide.
 
Here's the Jewish answer which I doubt anyone here will like. Since we are discussing what I consider a midrash (extra biblical story designed to teach us something, aka the adulterous woman story) I'll share with you a popular midrash about the instance you are referencing with King David.

As I explained in one of the other threads, in King David's time the soldiers always gave their wives a "gett" (certificate of divorce) before they went off to war.
This way if the husband was MIA the wives could remarry. If they did not have the gett then they could not remarry because they were still married and the hubby was just missing.
So in the case with Bathsheba (don't yell at me folks), it was not actually adultery;
she was divorced from Uriah because he was ... at war.
When the soldiers would return from war it was customary to remarry their wives.

That said, this is a letter of the law sort of thing and according to Jewish tradition everyone knew it; hence the stink.
OK here comes the part where you may want to stone me.
I'm not saying this is true just sharing it ... ***holding breath****
Uriah in Jewish tradition had tied the knot for Goliath's sword and when David wanted to remove the sword he supposedly said "hey I can't untie this crazy knot
if anyone can untie it he can have the best woman in Israel!" Uriah untied it (because he was the one who had tied it) David then gave him Bathsheba.
The problem is the Holy One Blessed be He had declared Bathsebah to be David's besheret. David is questioned by the prophet (not in the bible) who told you you could give whoever to Uriah now you will suffer because your match will be given to him instead.
Many days later ....
It is discovered that Uriah has disobeyed the King and he must die; David must execute him.
The Problem?
David is already involved with Bathsheba so instead of obeying what he is supposed to do by Torah he is embarrassed because people will surely say "oh He killed Uriah just because he wanted to steal his wife." So ... as the tale goes David had Uriah executed by the Amonite sword (you know the story). This was so he could obey the torah and execute the one deserving death (his sin supposedly was not doing it publicly).
Then that is why David did not have to die because while he supposedly had not broken the letter of the law, he had clearly violated the spirit of it.

Now again don't yell at me, I'm just sharing a midrash the best I can remember it, something may be off. I always thought this was utterly not true.
I still think it's *probably* untrue; but I will say there is a psalm that every time I read it I wonder, hmmmm...

Psalm 51 - my translation for clarity​

1 לַמְנַצֵּ֗חַ מִזְמ֥וֹר לְדָוִֽד ׃
2 בְּֽבוֹא ־ אֵ֭לָיו נָתָ֣ן הַנָּבִ֑יא כַּֽאֲשֶׁר ־ בָּ֝֗א אֶל ־ בַּת־שָֽׁבַע ׃
3 חָנֵּ֣נִי אֱלֹהִ֣ים כְּחַסְדֶּ֑ךָ כְּרֹ֥ב רַ֝חֲמֶ֗יךָ מְחֵ֣ה פְשָׁעָֽי ׃
4 הַרְבֵּה כַּבְּסֵ֣נִי מֵעֲוֺנִ֑י וּֽמֵחַטָּאתִ֥י טַהֲרֵֽנִי ׃
הֶ֭רֶב
5 כִּֽי ־ פְ֭שָׁעַי אֲנִ֣י אֵדָ֑ע וְחַטָּאתִ֖י נֶגְדִּ֣י תָמִֽיד ׃
6 לְךָ֤ לְבַדְּךָ֨׀ חָטָאתִי֮ וְהָרַ֥ע בְּעֵינֶ֗יךָ עָ֫שִׂ֥יתִי לְ֭מַעַן תִּצְדַּ֥ק בְּדָבְרֶ֗ךָ
תִּזְכֶּ֥ה בְשָׁפְטֶֽךָ ׃


1. For the conductor, an instrumental song of David
2. When Nathan the prophet came to him, concerning his having come to Bathsheba.
3. Have compassion on me Oh G-d according to your loving kindness, as abundant is your mercy, blot out my transgressions.
4. Wash me completely from my iniquiteies, and from my sin purify me.
5. For my transgressions I indeed know and my sin is continually before me.
6. It is against You ALONE I have sinned, the bad (evil) I have done before your eyes, in order that You may be righteous in your words and pure in your judgements.
Every time I read that psalm, I pause a bit as I pass over the "Lekha l'vadkha chatati" "against You, You alone have I sinned"
If it was a true case of adultery would David have the audacity to say He only sinned against G-d and not against Uriah?

Now I know I know Nathan is pretty clear with his story he tells in David's hearing all I'm saying is that the psalm is interesting because it lends a small bit of credibility to the traditional account.

Hope you enjoyed,
shalom
This is why Christians and Hebrew Roots peeps toss the whole Talmud out. ***Now, before stoning me, I do find wisdom and value in some parts...***

The problem is Judaism at least appears to elevate these stories and details to inspired Scripture. That is scary!

My personal belief is that just as Christians are questioning our rejection of Torah and false teaching inherited from our "sages", Judaism will have to go back and find Yeshua and reevaluate much inherited from their sages.

Again, my opinion here, but both Judaism and Christianity are off the narrow and both need to move toward the space between them. They have and currently define themselves less by the Word than against each other....
 
@Ancient Paths, I knew a man studying to be a rabbi who could quote whole portions of Talmud, but was unclear about details of Noah, David and Batshedba, and Daniel. No lie.
 
Back
Top