Is Biblical Stoning An Objectively Better Form of Capital Punishment Than What We Currently Have?

Warning, the following message may be offensive to some audiences. These audiences may include, but are not limited to, professing Christians who never read their

Bible, sissies, sodomites, men with man buns, those who approve of men with man buns, man bun enablers, white knights for men with man buns, homemakers who have finished

Netflix but don't know how to meal plan, and people who refer to their pets as fur babies. Viewer discretion is advised. People are tired of hearing nothing but doom and despair on the radio.

The message of Christianity is that salvation is found in Christ alone, and any who reject

Christ therefore forfeit any hope of salvation, any hope of heaven.

The issue is that humanity is in sin, and the wrath of almighty

God is hanging over our heads. They will hear his words, they will not act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment, when the fires of wrath come, they will be consumed, and they will perish.

God wrapped himself in flesh, condescended, and became a man, died on the cross for sin, was resurrected on the third day, has ascended to the right hand of the

Father, where he sits now to make intercession for us. Jesus is saying there is a group of people who will hear his words, they will act upon them, and when the floods of divine judgment come in that final day, their house will stand.

Welcome to Bible Bash, where we aim to equip the saints for the works of ministry by answering the questions you're not allowed to ask.

We're your hosts, Harrison Kerrig and Pastor Tim Mullett, and today we'll answer the age -old question, is biblical stoning an objectively better form of capital punishment than what we currently have?

Now Tim, what's the sort of thinking or reasoning behind a question like this?

I'm sure most people probably don't even or have ever even thought, had the thought in their mind that there's one form of capital punishment that might be better than another, or if they have had that thought, it's probably been, hey, the most humane way to do it is probably the best form of capital punishment.

So what's the reasoning behind a question like this? Certainly people think that humane is better, and that's something that as you read through the law, one of the things you'll find is

God in the law commands stoning at various points, and this is a point of deep embarrassment and shame for most

Christians. So when the atheist wants to point out the moral bankruptcy of the

Bible, this is one of those places they go to point out that we're people who believe in a

Bronze Age religion or whatever that's so primitive and barbaric where they basically, where God is commanding stoning as a form of capital punishment.

So there's no shortage of atheists who are going to come along and basically say that this is evil, immoral.

You're basically Muslims, and even Christians will come along and if you were to say, hey, maybe we should consider stoning, they will look at you and say, hey, yeah,

I guess you want to institute Sharia law or something like that. And I had people mentioning that on some Twitter polls

I did related to this topic in general. But the point, though, is just to say that this is what

God prescribed under the Old Covenant, and you have to ask, well, why did He prescribe it?

And so if God gave us a law, told us statutes that are righteous and just, then you have to ask, well, what is

His moral reasoning behind doing that? And did He institute that for a reason? Did He have purposes for instituting stoning as a form of capital punishment?

And should we be so quick to respond in moral indignation against the lawgiver, right?

So if we're just going to rail against stoning as a form of capital punishment, in a certain sense you're railing against God and that should be a pretty dangerous place to be in.

So part of the impulse is just to say, well, why did God give this to us?

And He obviously didn't think it was a bad idea, so what about it was good, right?

And should we consider it better than what we have now based on the fact that God taught it?

Or was it just arbitrary, basically? Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah. So was it, you know,

I mean, was it arbitrary? Because, I mean, you think of, that was one of the first questions that popped into my mind is, you know, we're talking about Israelites thousands of years ago, right?

They just, well, I guess they didn't just escape slavery in Egypt, but it's been 40 years since they escaped slavery in Egypt.

The Egyptians are, you know, they're the main power at this point in history.

They're the most powerful country in history up to that point. And, you know, electricity hadn't even been discovered yet, right?

And so maybe part of it is just like, hey, you know, God would have prescribed the electric chair if they knew what electricity was.

Or, you know, maybe he would have chosen lethal injection if they had known what a needle was or whatever, you know, whatever chemical compound that,

I don't know what they use to do that. But, you know, like guns weren't around yet, right?

So you have all of these, you have these new methods for capital punishment that were just,

I mean, they were impossible back then. And so, you know, he gave them stoning as like, look, you guys are one step up from cavemen, basically.

Just grab your stone. Grab your stone and, you know, get to work.

Hey, now, in defense of these cavemen that you just mocked, you know, they built the pyramids and, you know, they were alive at that time where the pyramids were being built.

And, you know, there's like, you can look at scientists today have no idea how they built the pyramids.

And so, you know, I think we think we're so technologically advanced. This is a society in general, because some of the things that we have, but I mean, they, you know,

I think that all evidence points to the fact that we only have technological marvels because you have, you know, technological advancement, built upon technological advancement is basically the advantage of pooled knowledge.

But I think we're getting dumber as a society and weaker as a society. Yeah, there certainly, there certainly is.

Yeah. I was kind of joking, but there is certainly a, you know, a reason that there are seven ancient wonders of the world.

Right. And the pyramids are one of them. Right. Yeah. I mean, there are thousands of, they have no idea how they lifted those heavy rocks to get them there.

You know, like, well, it was aliens, obviously. Well, they, they, there's alien theories and now it's like magic.

Like they're literally, they're literally theorizing like magic, you know, as a, as a way that they levitated these stones.

Just as a side, just as a side note, could you imagine if an Egyptian was somehow able to, you know, come to our day and age and understand us.

And we told them, you know, ask, Hey, how do you think we did it? And, and we were like, well, we think it was magic.

And the guy's just like, Oh God, come on, man. These are the best you have to offer.

These are the best people. You know, and, and quite frankly, I mean, it very well could be, you know, I mean the, if the

Egyptians could turn, you know, the, the water into blood and the snakes and everything.

I mean, it could be demonic stuff too. So I don't know, but I don't have the answers to all that. But so I think our starting point has to be that God knows what he's doing and that everything he commands is wise.

And so Deuteronomy 4, 6 says, of the law, he says, well,

I'll start with Deuteronomy 4, 5. So Moses says, see,

I've taught you statutes and rules as the Lord, my God commanded me that you should do them in the land that you're entering to take possession of it, keep them and do them for they will be your wisdom and understanding in the sight of the peoples who, when they hear of all these statutes will say, surely this great nation is a wise nation and understanding people for what great nation is there that has a

God so near to it as Lord our God is to us whenever we call upon him. And what great nation is there that has statutes and rules so righteous as all this law that I set before you today.

So like these statutes would be the wisdom of the Israelites in the sight of the people. And the other people will look at them and say, what nation has a

God so near to them as this to give them these rules, which are so wise. So I think our starting point, when you think about the law is to say that God knows what he's doing.

And, you know, whatever we're reacting against them today, that wasn't the reaction at the time. The reaction at the time was this was the wisest thing that ever came to exist.

And in fact, you know, most legal codes are built upon the knowledge that we find here in a variety of ways.

So I think your starting point is just to say God gave the best law that existed, right?

And they were meant to be wise. And, you know, I think the more that we learn about modern science, the more that you realize that like all those unclean laws, you know, unclean food laws, they were given and they were wise.

And we didn't, the Israelites weren't even told all the hidden motivations behind all of them. But, you know, they, they didn't understand things like bacteria.

They didn't understand things like germs. They didn't understand, you know, like germ disease theory and all that.

But the clean, unclean laws were wisdom to them and kept them healthy in ways that they didn't even comprehend at the time.

So I think what you want to do when you think about like laws like these is to say, God had a bunch of purposes, maybe way more purposes than we could realize.

Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. As a starting point. Now you were joking about, you know, they don't have lethal injection and they don't have the electric electric chair.

And so, you know, best they could do the bunch of primitive barely caveman people is just give them a bunch of rocks and like throw them out.

I guess he could have been hanging. I guess they would have known. They had swords at the time.

Sure. Yeah. So like if the idea was if you wanted a humane death, they had swords.

Yeah. You can chop the head off beheading. So the point was to say God intentionally did not use that like a quick and painless death.

He, he wanted to drag it out. Okay. Right. So you keep picked a form of debt, a form of execution available at the time that intentionally drug out the death.

And so you have to ask yourself, why did he do that? Does that make sense? Yeah. Yeah. When he could, I mean, so yeah, no, he didn't have,

I mean, electric chair, you know, maybe drags out longer than a lethal injection does, you know, but, but I mean like he could have picked other forms, but that wasn't the one this is.

So, so basically God, when he instituted a government, he didn't like he violated the principle of cruel and unusual punishment by our standards.

Right. So he's breaking the Geneva convention. He did. Yeah. So now what is the, so think about it.

I think there's a variety of biblical rationale that really come out of the text. So this isn't just me making it up.

I just tell you like motivations that you can find as you read through the laws on capital punishment.

And I'll give you a kind of a rationale for why I think stoning, he used stoning and not a sword for instance.

Okay. Okay. So one of it, well one principle is the principle of shared responsibility essentially.

So the principle of shared responsibility is like, if you see the false prophet, the Bible says, you're the first one to throw the rock at them.

Right. And then afterwards, all the rest of the people will throw rocks. Right.

So you throw a rock and then the rest of the people, uh, the rock. So what that does is that encourages both individual responsibility and corporate responsibility in a way that like someone with an ax beheading someone, it's just an individual act.

Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. So it's just an individual act right there. Now what, like what's happened is like we're living in a profoundly unjust society as it relates to some of these dynamics.

So we're living in a very unjust society. So you can have someone make an accusation and if the accusation doesn't stick, like literally nothing will happen to them whatsoever.

Right. And then if it does stick, then other people are going to handle the justice component of it for you.

Does that make sense? So you don't have to get your hands dirty. Like what's going to happen is other people are going to take care of it.

And normally it's just a blind, impersonal kind of process that set up like the lethal injection or something like that to where no one has to feel the weight of the severity of your making an accusation against this individual to take their life.

Does that make sense? Yeah. So like, there's a variety of like differences between what stoning is and what is happening now.

But one of them is the sense in which like if you make an accusation biblically, your hand needs to be the first one to come against it, meaning you're throwing the first rock.

So there's this principle of like, you have to own what you're doing. You can't, you can't get the mob stirred up and get everyone all crazy.

And then like, no one knows what's happening anymore. Right? Like, and then at some point, someone, someone getting someone else to do your dirty work.

If you're going to get them start up, you're the first one to do it. So that would make you think. So the way biblical justice works is if you make a false accusation, then what you thought to do to them would be done to you.

So not only like, like if you're going to make an accusation against someone, do you, do you have the knowledge in the back of your mind that if this goes, like if, if, if there isn't evidence to substantiate it, you're going to have it done to you, but you need to be willing to be the one throwing the first stone.

Does that make sense? Yeah. Like, meaning you have to take responsibility, what you're doing. You can't just like, you know, you know, throw a match out there and see what happens, right?

You have to, you have to take responsibility for it. But then not only that, it's a community project, meaning everyone has to take responsibility for it.

So meaning like everyone, so like, it's a form of justice, I guess, a form of execution that requires the whole community to decisively act against this one individual in every, like there's a sense in which like no one individually killed them, but everyone together killed them.

They all took responsibility for what's happened. And it's a way of like morally training the entire, you know, village or whatever to put away the evil from among them.

Right. So now if you imagine if we had any kind of correspondence to that, like we can't even do church discipline. So society, right.

Yeah. Because the reason why we can't do church discipline is because we have so depersonalized this element of justice.

Does that make sense? Like we're handing it off to other people. We can't even think to kick someone out of a church, let alone like be instruments in their capital punishment.

So like what the, the advantage of stoning of it against like beheading is that you have a bunch of individuals who are basically assuming both like corporate and collective responsibility to purge the evil from among their myths.

Does that make sense? All right. So that's one component of stoning that makes it,

I think superior to what we have going on now is that everyone's involved and you're going to make the accusation.

You need to be the first one to stand behind what you're saying and not just cop out. Right. But then it's also kind of a public spectacle.

So as you read through the law, you'll hear over and over again that everyone would hear and fear and never again do such wickedness.

Right. Yeah. So like, there's this sense in which this is meant to be a curve. So what happens in our modern justice system is someone does something that's worthy of a death penalty 40 years later, later at cap at the expense of society.

Right. So basically they live 40 years later and we're paying for them, you know, with our tax money to have a, you know, limited freedom life in jail for extended periods of time.

But then at some point, by the time justice is about ready to happen, it happens.

And by that time, everyone's dead or forgot about it. You know what I'm saying? Except for maybe just a few people.

And it's not really a big deal. And what happens is like the way that we've done it, then it, it doesn't become like a curve towards immorality in the way that law is designed to be.

Law is designed to be a curve to immorality, meaning it's, it's meant that like the end result of it is that everyone would hear in fear and never again do such wickedness.

So like, if you, you know you know, if you're some, you know, gang member, you know, shooting someone up on the street and you knew that you would get a fair trial.

And then, you know, in about a month you would be taken out in the middle of the public square and you'd be stoned to death.

I assume that that would be a deterrent for that person. Right. But that would also be a deterrent for everyone around them to say,

I don't want to be that person. Sure. Right. Like it would have a much greater effect to clean things up.

Right. And so, and then you think about the kind of things that were stoning offenses in the old covenant law, like adultery, um, um, um, like manslaughter, murder, you know, all the kinds of things that home sodomy, you know, all these things that are death penalty offenses.

If we're there, these kinds of things are running rampant in our society because the law is not being a curve to these kinds of things.

So we're treating them with kid gloves and we get what you said was subsidized essentially. So, so, so one component of it is, um, this principle of individual and shared responsibility.

Another component of it is that it would be a curb to, um, immorality. And then it's just, you know, it's a principle of eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, retributive justice.

Like it basically teaches everyone that severity of, um, like crimes in general.

Right. So an eye for an eye, like it's all based on like stallion is, you know, I have an eye tooth for tooth life, life for life, retributive justice.

You can do certain things that require you to forfeit your life in any form of capital punishment is going to be an eye for an eye life for a life kind of principle.

Uh, they kind of lose their public spectacle effect because we kind of depersonalize it, wait so long, but then like the principle of individual shared responsibility,

I think that's something that's retained in the stoning and I don't want to, I mean, I, and I just, I guess I just, I'm looking at this and I have a real desire to say,

I'm going to defend God, you know, he's smarter than us. And if he says things, whatever I do, I'm not going to say that I'm more moral than God.

Right. Yeah. So if God put that up and he intentionally put that up as a form of capital punishment,

I'm not smarter than him. So I can't criticize it. Uh, you know, whether or not, like, like if someone wants to argue that, you know, like you're arguing that it was just purely art, like you're hypothetically arguing that, that, you know, it's just, they just had stones, you know, as cheap, you know, cheap and easy down, man.

Yeah. Yeah. But you know, if you want to make that case, that's fine. But what you can't say, what you can't say is like, if you, if you don't buy the principle of, you know, individual shared responsibility with it,

I think you're wrong, but. Okay. But whatever you do, you can't say stoning was immoral. Does that make sense?

Mm. Yeah. I mean, God was, was telling them to do something immoral, right? Right. So you can't go there with it, whatever you say, maybe it was just arbitrary use of rocks because they just happened to be an abundant supply, you know?

And, uh, okay. I don't think so, but whatever, you know, but whatever you say, you can't criticize

God. And you at least can't be ashamed of when he did clearly prescribe it.

Right? Yeah. So it couldn't, so it can't be wrong. Okay. It can't be morally, objectively wrong.

Whatever you say, even maybe even now, like we, maybe we don't, we weren't meant to follow that example.

We're at least, maybe we're at least given freedom to use other methods. Yeah. At the very least, you can say that, but you can't say it'd be wrong.

If you say it would be wrong, then, you know, we're having a different discussion at that point. you know, there's obviously, um, the account and the gospels where Jesus encounters, um, a woman who is being accused of adultery in some form, um, or, or at least fornication.

I can't remember if it was adultery or fornication, but, um, uh, she's about to be stoned.

Right. And, um, Jesus comes up to the group and, you know, he says, the, the famous pagan

Bible memory verse, um, you know, uh, you without sin or the one without sin can cast the first stone, essentially.

Yep. So in a verse like that, is he basically saying do away with stoning or is he saying, or is he saying like stone or a possible second,

I guess, interpretation could be is, uh, stoning is an acceptable method, but then, uh, we're all sinful.

And therefore, none of us are able to faithfully participate in it.

Yeah. I didn't know. Like no one asked that. Yeah. I didn't know if you're going to ask that or not. And, um, so I guess, well, here we are.

The problem is not that I don't have like many answers to this objection. The problem is like how willing anyone will be able to hear, uh, we'll be able to be, well, it's our podcast.

So we can say whatever we want. We have a trigger warning at the beginning of our podcast.

That's not just a joke. After you say the trigger warning, you say whatever you want. You can say whatever you want.

Yeah. Legally allowed. That's a legally binding trigger warning at the beginning.

Yeah, definitely. Um, so this is one of the, so there's two passages in the

New Testament that conservative Bible scholars don't think are real.

Okay. Okay. So this, there's two, you know, it's the ending of Mark where it talks about snake handling.

Um, these signs will accompany, you know, all of my disciples. And it's John eight. Okay. So if you look at any of your, like, if you think that, um,

I've said something crazy, look at any of your new ESVs or NASB Bibles, and you're going to realize that John eight is bracketed in those

Bibles. And the bracket say, you know, the, the earliest manuscripts do not include this section.

Now like that, you know, there's a type of person who immediately will think, well, can I trust any of the

Bible? It's like, it's only these two passages. Conservative scholars are conservative ones.

Liberal ones think they're all made up, but, but what's happened is essentially when the King James came out, I mean,

Erasmus had like five manuscripts or something like that, that he used to, like, so he was commissioned to put together a

Greek test text because, you know, a Renaissance and all that, they're going back to the classical languages.

So he's commissioned that the Latin Vulgate held sway, Vulgate held sway in the church for thousand years.

He's been asked to come up with a Greek manuscript, a series of Greek manuscripts.

He was going to collate into one. And that's what form was called the Texas, Texas receptus. But he only had five, like five to eight manuscripts or something like that in order to do that, which is just parts of the, of the new

Testament. And so he had access to, and then he was missing parts of revelation. So he translated from Latin into Greek in order to put together the

Texas receptus, which is the basis for the King James. And so the King James basically is just held sway in the church for many years.

But one of the things that's happened is we've found so many Greek manuscripts since then we have like 5 ,800

Greek manuscripts. Yeah. We have more manuscripts of the Bible than any other ancient texts.

Right. And they're all the same, you know, I mean, they're all like, I mean, it's, there's just small little, you know,

Mark errors, word error here and there, which are normal from transcribing things.

But the, like, like the major, like two sections we're talking about are

John eight and the end of Mark. And you with this

John eight section, you have it show up in three different places in John. And it also shows up in Luke, but all the earliest ones don't include it at all.

So it's not there, you know? So like the issue is some group wanted this in there and they couldn't find a place to put it.

So they put it in three different locations in John.

And then they, and then it was put in one low, like in Luke in, in, in a certain place. And that just tells you, this is not legit.

Like this past. Now the theology of the thing is bad. Like it's a bad, like, it's just a, like, it's a ridiculous encounter and people read it exactly the way it sounds.

Okay. So like meaning, so like you think about the, um, um, uh, the theology of it, the theology of it is antinomian.

It's an antinomian theology. What do you mean? Well, I just say, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone.

No one is without sin. So like, in other words, like what you have is you have

Jesus coming along and claiming that God was in moral for prescribing capital punishment. Like that's absurd, right?

So like that, like Jesus says, like Jesus didn't come to just overturn the law, but to fulfill the law,

Jesus, isn't going to come along and basically be the nice guy and make God into the bad guy. Right?

That the one who is without sin, like that was not like the requirement in the old covenant law.

In order to engage in capital punishment was never that, like the only way that is morally permissible to do it is to be sinlessly perfect.

Right? Like, and so like when people read it that way, like they're reading it the way the story is read.

Do you get what I mean? Yeah. At least for it to make sense. Yeah. To make more sense in the, in the context of the

Bible, Jesus would have been the one to pick up the first stone then. Right? Yeah. I mean,

Jesus would, because he, he has to, he would have vindicated God. So he's not nicer than the old covenant. He's not nicer than Yahweh.

You know, he is Yahweh, you know, he and Yahweh are one. Right? So like, so the, the issue there is just to say that when you think about this passage, like they're theologically, the theology of it is basically the thou shalt not judge theology.

Yeah. And that's how everyone understands it. That's how it's being used in a way that it's like, that's not

Jesus is consistent teaching throughout the Bible. It's not like, that's not his teaching now.

But then when you think about the, when you think about the scenario itself, the scenario is ridiculous.

Okay. Like the scenario is absolutely, totally ridiculously absurd, like meaning like, so like where, where, where it like plays on your sympathies is it's one of these like trick passages where the, you know, the

Pharisees are in the scribes are going to come along and try to trick Jesus. And they're going to try to give him a moral dilemma.

Like, what are you going to do, Jesus? You know, the law says to kill this woman, but you're really loving, you know? And so are you going to be a meanie?

Are you going to obey the law? You know, what are you going to do? And then Jesus like comes up with the solution to say, yeah, you know, that law is stupid.

The only way you obey it is if you're perfect. Right. Right. So, but like the problem though, is the scenario itself is ridiculous.

Meaning like they didn't stone Jesus. Do you know what I'm saying? Well, what do you mean?

Well, I mean, I know they didn't stone Jesus, but I, so at this point, the power of capital punishment has been removed from Israel.

So in order to put Jesus to death, they have to petition the Romans to do it essentially. Right. Yeah.

So they have to petition him to do it. Like that's the rules that they're governed. They're a conquered state at this point.

You know, the Romans were so tired of all their executions that they took away their power of capital punishment from them.

And so when they want to put Jesus death, they go along and they petition him to do it. That's the way that they do it. Right. So what they didn't do was just like, okay, like, um,

I see it. And what never happened, um, what never happened within Israel in general was like, this was a capital punishment issue.

It wasn't like, Hey, you saw someone committing adultery and you come along and you start throwing rocks at them and you like, you know, do a kangaroo court kind of thing itself.

You bring them to the appropriate authorities and then you, uh, like, so you're not having a moral dilemma, like the moral dilemma in those kinds of things.

It's not just, well, I see someone in sin. I go and I execute it myself. They weren't allowed to do that at the time because that's why they went and took

Jesus to the Romans to have the petition, the Romans to let them. But then it wasn't an individual thing in general.

It was, you bring them before government and the government, they have a capital punishment procedure there.

So what I'm trying to say is that the situation itself is unrealistic. It has a theology that requires you to pit

Jesus against, you know, God, the father that doesn't make any sense. Right. And then you have the textual critical issues where this passage is showing up in three or four different places, three different places in John and one

Luke. And all of that should just be enough to say, Hey, like, I think we're good. You know, when you're saying it's showing up and this is just kind of like a side question, but when you're saying it's showing up in three different places, but then we're only talking about John eight, are you talking about in the manuscripts?

Yeah. So in your other, in your other manuscripts, basically this same section, it isn't in John eight, but it's in two other different spots within John in different manuscripts.

Okay. Not, I mean, they didn't have the verse divisions, but like it's showing up in two different spots in John.

And then it's also showing up in Luke too. Yeah. So that shows you that some group was really attached to the story and just trying to get it in there.

So I guess not original. Okay. Yeah. Like if it was original, I wouldn't show up in four different places and it would be in the earliest ones.

It wouldn't be in the later one showing up in four different places. Does that make sense? Yeah. So basically the answer to the question then is simply no,

Jesus is not, you know, condemning stoning as a form of capital punishment.

Because really the passage just, it doesn't actually exist. Basically. It doesn't actually exist.

And if he were to do so, he, you know, he would be basically saying that he was wrong in the old covenant to institute it because it would be fundamentally immoral.

I guess it doesn't, it doesn't really make sense either. If you think about like the fact that they continue to do this and acts even like stoning remains.

Now, I guess you, I guess you could make the argument. Well, yeah, they're Jews. They rejected, you know, the Jews who are, who are trying to stone

Christians, for example, they're rejecting Jesus anyways, right?

Because they don't believe that he was the actual Messiah. So why would they listen to anything he had to say? But then, you know, there's no sort of like objection by the

Christians that's stated anywhere, at least that like, this is, this is wrong, you know, like you shouldn't be stoning anyone anymore.

So, so I think that makes sense. But, um, okay.

So stoning, stoning in your mind, basically, if we could just kind of wrap this up, um, if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is stoning

God, God, um, at minimum, you have to, as a

Christian, be able to say that stoning is a good form of capital punishment.

Even though it was, it was good back then. It's good now, right? At a bare minimum, you have to say that it was not, it's not immoral, right?

You're not, God wasn't, you know, some crazy Taliban leader for Taliban leader for instituting it.

Yeah. It's morally, morally permissible form of capital punishment. At the very least. Yeah. But then you would, you would go even further and say, no, it's actually a good and maybe probably even the best form of capital punishment for the reasons that you stated earlier, right?

Yeah. I think, I, yeah, I would, I think you can't improve upon what God said and, you know, he didn't give anything arbitrarily or capriciously.

And so in the absence of finding some kind of, um, um, like you have to understand his intention for giving it now.

I mean, I think maybe the most I would want to say is it might get a little bit unwieldy in a, in our society and the way that we are right now.

Um, so like, you know, going beyond like, it's, uh, righteous and just and wise.

And God knew what he was doing. It wasn't arbitrary. Then asking the question, well, does he prescribe it for all nations in this particular age?

That can be a little bit of a thorny issue considering just the different types of societies that we live in, but at the very least it's not immoral.

At the very least it's not wise. And I just have a very difficult time thinking we can improve upon anything that he said.

And, and, and in the absence of having some kind of comparable, uh, form of capital punishment,

I would just say, you know, we'd probably be, if we, if we went back to it, we'd probably see, we'd clean up society pretty well.

Okay. All right. Well, I think, I think that's a good place for us to wrap up this episode on. and that's certainly, um, an interesting thing that I don't know that I've ever thought about before.

I don't, you know, we've been doing, we've been doing this, um, read through the

Bible in a month plan, right? Or challenge or whatever, whatever you want to call it.

And, and I think the more that I familiar, uh, familiarize myself with the old

Testament, um, the easier it becomes to understand, like, especially with all of the laws that God gave the mosaic law that God gave, uh, to understand why he gave them.

And the purpose behind them and honestly really appreciate them. If I'm being honest, just reading through the old

Testament more and more, it's given me a much deeper appreciation for those laws. And so personally, just as a personal note,

I've never, well, never, um, you know, within like the last five years or so,

I don't know that I've ever had like a problem with feeling embarrassed that God, you know, stoned people or, you know, that God flooded the earth.

I mean, people try to make a big deal out of that. Like he kills, he killed literally the whole world besides what, seven or eight people.

Um, and I have no problem with any of that, uh, because God is above us.

And, you know, I think the more you read through the Bible, the more you understand that, uh, we typically tend to have a lofty opinion of ourselves and forget that we have a creator who has authority over us to do whatever, uh, he wants with us.

And, uh, we tend to forget the fact that God, like the fact that we live at all past the first sin we ever commit, uh, is, is like incredible mercy that no one deserves.

And, and I think people kind of forget all of those things. And so I've never, I don't really feel any sort of like Apollo, you know, reason to apologize for those things, but then

I don't know that I've ever thought about it being like, uh, Hey, this is an, you know, uh, like the best form of capital punishment.

But then I think you present a kind of argument that is, um, it's hard to get around, especially if you're making the caveat that like at bare minimum, you have to be able to say it's a good, you know, like it's a good and permissible form of capital punishment.

Even now, even if we might have the freedom to go about it through other means or other methods.

And so I, I have a hard time imagining what the argument for the other side is other than trying to go towards the whole, you know, he, who is without sin cast the first stone kind of thing.

But we already talked about that as well, obviously. So hopefully this has been, um, a conversation that's encouraging for people and really like,

I mean, just capital punishment in general is even if you want it to put the stoning thing aside is really controversial right now, which is strange.

And you know, maybe we should do a, a, an episode on just capital punishment in general sometime.

But then, um, it seemed people are very much against it.

But then our society is also strangely obsessed with making people, uh, force people to face the consequences for, uh, the crimes that they commit or even, um, uh, or even, you know, crimes that it hasn't been proven that they've, uh, committed, but people just think they committed those crimes.

You know, they're guilty in the court of public opinion. And so it's strange that the same society is very much against capital punishment.

Yeah. They'll destroy your life. They'll cancel you. You'll destroy your job. But then, you know, I guess they still want you to limp along maybe.

Yeah. I guess, I guess part of that, you know, um, is, is due to the fact that probably a lot of them don't believe it.

They probably view it as like a easy way out. Cause I know I have, I have heard from, you know, women who are, who are rape victims before who have said they want, they want the person who raped them to suffer and they want them to suffer in the worst way possible.

But then they never want that to really be like the death penalty because they don't view that as the, um, you know, worst way to suffer possible.

But hopefully this has been a helpful and thought provoking conversation for you guys and, and, um, encourages, encourages you to go back and read through the old

Testament, especially, you know, the aspects of it that refer to the mosaic law and stoning and, um, capital punishment in this way.

And, and really think through, um, and ask yourself, like, are you actually embarrassed of these things or do you think that they are good?

Uh, they were good back then and they, they would be good now just as good now. Um, and that would probably be a pretty interesting way to sort of gauge your heart in terms of, um, you know, uh, how much you trust

God and his goodness and the things that he promises, especially, I think those Bible verses you read at the beginning,

Tim, we're pretty convicting about, um, God's ways being righteous and his law being righteous and set, you know, setting the

Israelites apart. Uh, I think that's pretty convicting and, and, um, pretty tough to get around.

So, but like always, we thank you guys for supporting us week in and week out.

We thank you for giving us the opportunity to, uh, talk about these things and, and, uh, talk about difficult subjects that honestly, like most people,

I don't know anyone who's really talking about these things. Um, and it's a lot of fun to get to talk about them honestly.

So we thank you guys and we look forward to having you on the next one. This has been another episode of Bible bashed.

We hope you have been encouraged and blessed through our discussion. We thank you for all your support and ask you to continue to like, and subscribe to Bible bashed and share our podcast with your friends and on social media, please reach out to us with your questions, pushback and potential topics for us to discuss in future episodes at Bible bashed podcast at gmail .com

and consider supporting us through Patreon. If you would like to be Bible bashed personally, then please know that we also offer free biblical counseling, which you can take advantage of by emailing us.

Now go boldly and obey the truth in the midst of a biblically illiterate world who will be perpetually offended by your every move.