Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[Thinking]

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I got physically ill when I read this yesterday. Am I not understanding what it's really saying?

[semlogo]

I got physically ill when I read this yesterday. Am I not understanding what it's really saying?

That's why I can't take the Old Testament very seriously. Not only is it completely inaccurate in its descriptions of creation and the world in general, but the morality it teaches is reprehensible. It's a deeply flawed book.

[ELF1024]

That's why I can't take the Old Testament very seriously. Not only is it completely inaccurate in its descriptions of creation and the world in general, but the morality it teaches is reprehensible. It's a deeply flawed book.

I agree that the quoted example is of a morality that is no longer acceptable within normal civilization. I am quite glad we no longer stone people for immoral behavior, otherwise I would be quite dead under a pile of stones.

[CV75]

I got physically ill when I read this yesterday.

Thye were pretty strict back then. From the Institute Manual, http://institute.lds.org/manuals/old-testament-institute-student-manual-1/ot-in1-06-num-deut-20.asp

(20-9) Deuteronomy 21:18

[frankenstein]

Posted An hour ago

Quote

18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.

21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

I got physically ill when I read this yesterday. Am I not understanding what it's really saying?

"Honor thy father and mother that thy days may be LONG in the land."

i.e. If you dishonor your parents you can be stoned to death.

[David T]

A sad Deuteronomistic expansion/interpretation to an inspired principle.

[Bill Hamblin]

I got physically ill when I read this yesterday. Am I not understanding what it's really saying?

As with so many modern responses to the OT, we misunderstand by failing to contextualize. First, in most ancient Law--Roman, for example--the father had absolute right to kill or sell children into slavery. Thus, the Mosaic law was an improvement on the norm for the age. It actually limits the father's generally accepted right to kill his children for any reason, or even no reason.

Second we need to understand the concept of communal guilt. Blood-guilt for particularly heinous acts (rape, murder) could pass to an entire clan. Thus, if a member of your clan murdered a member of another clan, that clan had the right to kill any member of your clan in retaliation. (This belief is still present in various insidious ways in modern Israeli and Palestinian society, where punishment of the group for acts of the individual is not uncommon.) One way to avoid this was to outlaw a particularly violent member of your clan, which in effect was a way of saying we are no longer responsible for his acts. This Mosaic law must be understood in this context. If a member of the clan had repeatedly committed heinous acts, he could be executed by the clan leader to expiate clan blood-guilt.

[frankenstein]

As with so many modern responses to the OT, we misunderstand by failing to contextualize. First, in most ancient Law--Roman, for example--the father had absolute right to kill or sell children into slavery. Thus, the Mosaic law was an improvement on the norm for the age. It actually limits the father's generally accepted right to kill his children for any reason, or even no reason.

Second we need to understand the concept of communal guilt. Blood-guilt for particularly heinous acts (rape, murder) could pass to an entire clan. Thus, if a member of your clan murdered a member of another clan, that clan had the right to kill any member of your clan in retaliation. (This belief is still present in various insidious ways in modern Israeli and Palestinian society, where punishment of the group for acts of the individual is not uncommon.) One way to avoid this was to outlaw a particularly violent member of your clan, which in effect was a way of saying we are no longer responsible for his acts. This Mosaic law must be understood in this context. If a member of the clan had repeatedly committed heinous acts, he could be executed by the clan leader to expiate clan blood-guilt.

was communal guilt a part of the law of Moses? and is communal guilt laid out in the OT and not in the abstract?

[semlogo]

1. This requirement, like all else in the Mosaic law, was given by the Lord, who was the premortal Jesus. It is consistent with all other aspects of His nature.

More likely this was a man made rule/social norm of the primitive tribe and attributed to Yahweh.

[Bill Hamblin]

was communal guilt a part of the law of Moses? and is communal guilt laid out in the OT and not in the abstract?

For example, the children might be punished for the sins of the parents to the fourth generation. That type of thing.

Part of the point of Deut is to limit it.

But you certainly see it in God punishing Israel for the sin of David, or David's son for the sin of David. Things like this.

[frankenstein]

For example, the children might be punished for the sins of the parents to the fourth generation. That type of thing.

Part of the point of Deut is to limit it.

But you certainly see it in God punishing Israel for the sin of David, or David's son for the sin of David. Things like this.

that does not clearly establish "communal guilt".

As for punishing children because of their parents, that can not be true either, see article of faith.

Now, punishing children because they committed the same sins as their parents is a different situation.

[Thinking]

1. This requirement, like all else in the Mosaic law, was given by the Lord, who was the premortal Jesus. It is consistent with all other aspects of His nature.

Please explain how a parent delivering a son (even if he is an adult) to the authorities to be stoned is consistent with all other aspects of Jesus' nature.

[CV75]

Please explain how a parent delivering a son (even if he is an adult) to the authorities to be stoned is consistent with all other aspects of Jesus' nature.

His nature is to give us commandments consistent with what is needed to guide the development of Zion according to His plan, line upon line, precept upon precept. For this people at this time, this was what they could handle until Christ came to fulfill the law. It also has to be looked at with all the other commandments He gave at the same time, which reflect the doctrine of love, mercy, forgiveness, etc. that He taught in the meridian of time.

[Thinking]

His nature is to give us commandments consistent with what is needed to guide the development of Zion according to His plan, line upon line, precept upon precept. For this people at this time, this was what they could handle until Christ came to fulfill the law. It also has to be looked at with all the other commandments He gave at the same time, which reflect the doctrine of love, mercy, forgiveness, etc. that He taught in the meridian of time.

This explanation suggests that God adjusts His laws according to the development of man. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Should not man adjust himself to the laws of God?

[frankenstein]

His nature is to give us commandments consistent with what is needed to guide the development of Zion according to His plan, line upon line, precept upon precept. For this people at this time, this was what they could handle until Christ came to fulfill the law. It also has to be looked at with all the other commandments He gave at the same time, which reflect the doctrine of love, mercy, forgiveness, etc. that He taught in the meridian of time.

do you think Hosea 6:6 is applicable to the situation of stoning a dis honorable child?

[Robert F. Smith]

This explanation suggests that God adjusts His laws according to the development of man. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Should not man adjust himself to the laws of God?

One must not underestimate the bestiality of mankind or imagine that God could simply promulgate some high ethical or moral principle and suddenly have it obeyed. Jesus tried that and look what they did to him!! And that was after centuries of prophetic testimony and miraculous signs. Paul says that the Torah/Law "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" (Galatians 3:24-25), but a great many have failed their practical graduation exams, and don't forget that the most civilized society in the world in the twentieth century also committed the most barbaric acts in history. How to account for that?

Reminds me of Thomas Edward Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in the desert with the Bedouin during World War I having to carry out an execution in order to prevent the blood feud among tribes. This was ordinarily the duty of the ashraf (extra-tribal descendants of the family of Muhammad), but Lawrence found himself having to commit a horrible act instead (see his Seven Pillars of Wisdom). There is the pretend world in which many of us live. Then there is the real world.

God deals with each of us as we are, according to our language and culture.

[semlogo]

One must not underestimate the bestiality of mankind or imagine that God could simply promulgate some high ethical or moral principle and suddenly have it obeyed. Jesus tried that and look what they did to him!! And that was after centuries of prophetic testimony and miraculous signs. Paul says that the Torah/Law "was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ" (Galatians 3:24-25), but a great many have failed their practical graduation exams, and don't forget that the most civilized society in the world in the twentieth century also committed the most barbaric acts in history. How to account for that?

Reminds me of Thomas Edward Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) in the desert with the Bedouin during World War I having to carry out an execution in order to prevent the blood feud among tribes. This was ordinarily the duty of the ashraf (extra-tribal descendants of the family of Muhammad), but Lawrence found himself having to commit a horrible act instead (see his Seven Pillars of Wisdom). There is the pretend world in which many of us live. Then there is the real world.

God deals with each of us as we are, according to our language and culture.

If you believe the OT literally, God actually had to encourage the Hebrews to be MORE brutal. Which is why I don't buy the apologetic response that God was adjusting the law to the limitations of the people.

[rameumptom]

We are shocked by this, but for the stability of the fledgling society, such strictness was necessary. These were people that dwelt for centuries as slaves among the riotous lifestyle of the Egyptians. Pharaohs married their sisters. Idols were omnipresent. To survive as a nation, they needed to be strict.

Perhaps we should not be too hasty in condemning the OT on this. In several of our cities, gangs of violent youth terrorize their neighborhoods, creating chaos, and making it difficult for real civilization to occur. One of my inner city scouts was just murdered last weekend, for example. In most cities, murders are not being done by older, law abiding citizens, but by youth, who are out getting drunk and stoned, seeking to impose their own will forcibly upon their communities.

Given that Israel spent 40 years traveling in the wilderness, they would not have had the option of jails. Stoning was a quick punishment that forever removed the problem/risk, and made an example for all other youth to consider. Perhaps in some of our more dangerous cities and areas, if we were to do something severe to young gangsters to reestablish order, small children could then be raised in safety and away from the danger gangs impose upon them/us. So don't blow off the OT, simply because it doesn't seem civilized. When youth are terrorizing neighborhoods and destroying civilization and society, then drastic measures are required to end it. Otherwise, it becomes an ever growing generational disease, a pandemic.