Why Were So Many Non-Violent Offenses Punishable By Death In The Old Testament?

“If God is really a God of mercy and forgiveness, why was capital punishment such a common practice under the Old Testament law? Oh sure, I can understand putting murderers to death, but the Law of Moses did not stop there. Sexual sin was also punishable by execution. So was the disobedience of children!”

Nobody can deny the importance of this question. It is extremely sympathetic. It keeps honest seekers from accepting the inspiration of Scripture. It also puzzles Christians and Orthodox Jews who accept the entire Law of Moses as the Word of God. Yes, even Bible believers who defend God’s right to exhibit His wrath, have an impossible time defending such practices. We accept that humans are sinful. We accept that God is within His rights to fry all of us at any time should He so desire, but therein lies the problem: He has no such desire. So much of the Bible is spent on God proclaiming His love and forgiveness, any honest reader must admit that these passages with a contrary tone do not seem to fit the mainstream of Scripture.

Although many today object to any kind of capital punishment, most people will admit that putting somebody to death for cold blooded, calculated murder is vastly different than mandatory death for a sexual offense or mere rebellion on the part of children. And yet these darker, more ominous, commands are crystal clear, at least, upon first glance.

” ‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death” (Lev 20:10).

“Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death” (Exodus 21:17).

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death” (Deut. 21:18-210)

The ages of the children are not given. People did continue to live with their parents even as young adults. They were gathered into clans. So we can relax at least a little bit here. God is not talking about stoning some toddler for throwing a temper tantrum.

Be that as it may, stoning even a young adult for a mere rebellious attitude still staggers the imagination.

And the capital offenses did not stop there. People were stoned for blasphemy, worshiping false gods, seeking the guidance of a medium, and many others things.

I’m going to both startle my readers and put them at ease, all in one sentence: With the exception of murder, I do not believe the ancient Hebrews felt compelled to carry out capital punishment for any other offense, provided genuine repentance took place.

Perhaps my thesis sounds too good to be true and impossible to defend. Just keep on reading. You may be surprised.

A good place to start would be with Jesus Himself. How did He react when confronted with a legitimate situation for capital punishment? The Apostle John gives us an opportunity to find out. The specific trespass was adultery.

In John 8 we read the interesting and popular narrative in which the Son of God actually rescued a woman who was about to be stoned to death.

Jesus did not seem to condone the flat out stoning of a self confessed, adulterous woman. And yet, if it was really an expectation of the Law, He should have condoned it.

“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” (John 8:4-5)

Technically, these rabbis were correct. Under Moses, adultery was punishable by death. Of course it is also true that Jesus came to introduce a new covenant that would supersede the Law of Moses but that covenant was not yet in operation.

You see, even though we read about Jesus’ ministry in a book that we call the New Testament, the Old Testament (covenant, agreement) was actually still in operation at the time and Jesus was honoring this older testament. Any future changes under the New Covenant would not be set into place until Jesus’ death on the cross. At that time, the curtain to the Holy of Hollies in the Jerusalem temple was supernaturally rent in two, signaling that end of the Law of Moses and beginning of the Gospel Age (John 19:30, Matt. 27:51)

The way into God’s presence was no longer acquired through a High Priest once a year. Jesus Himself became our ultimate sacrifice and ultimate High Priest. Through His blood and forgiveness, anyone can now enter God’s presence.

Prior to those pivotal moments of history, Jesus spoke very respectfully of the Law:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”

Yes, Jesus was in the process of setting up a whole new arrangement in which adultery or any other sin could be forgiven. But at the moment, God’s commands (as revealed through Moses) prevailed. Although atonement for sin was also offered under Moses through the sacrifice of animals, certain sins were still punishable by death. Adultery was one such sin. If Jesus taught His disciples to continue obeying the law until “everything is accomplished” (I.E. His death on the cross) then He had no reason not to cooperate with the stoning.

And yet, something was obviously up. The motives of the rabbis were disingenuous and Jesus knew it:

“They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him” (John 8:6).

Anyway, you probably know the rest of the story:

“When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 “No one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:7-11).

It is important to point out that Jesus still commanded her to stop sinning. He was not at all condoning the action of adultery. Instead, he was stressing God’s forgiveness and showing that one particular sin should not be isolated as if certain actions keep us from God’s grace more than others.

Naturally this incident offers a rather obvious hint for the gospel of grace that will characterize the primary message of Christianity. It also highlights religious hypocrisy and the arrogance of people thinking they are somehow less sinful than others.

Still, once again, we cannot escape the Old Testament era in which this incident is taking place. Not only was Jesus forgiving the woman, He seems to be in disagreement that capital punishment is necessary at all. Otherwise, why not tell the woman that although she must die, she will still end up in heaven?

If Jesus’ actions protested the form of punishment, indeed if the very set up was only an attempt to somehow trap Jesus, we are left with an important question: How seriously did any of the Jews take their capital punishment laws as far as sexual sin was concerned?

Evidently they did not take them seriously at all. Consider Jesus’ words in which He describes sexual immorality as the only excuse for divorce:

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ 32 But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery”(
Matthew 5:31-32)

Why was Jesus discussing divorce as the penalty for marital unfaithfulness instead of stoning? We must conclude that Jews did not immediately resort to capital punishment for such an offense.

As a matter of fact, Jesus is referring here to an Old Testament law:

“If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce,…”(Deuteronomy 24: 1-4).

As you can see, even in the days of Moses, death was not the only penalty for sexual sin. A divorce which might result in financial hardship on the part or the woman was considered an equally acceptable penalty.

How do we deal with this apparent tension in scripture?

The answer to this paradox may be a lot simpler than one would guess. It is true that God literally commanded capital punishment for a wide variety of offenses. It is also true that a financial penalty could be offered as a substitute! If the guilty parties paid monetary restitution, they could avoid being put to death.

When God delivered the Hebrews from Egypt, it was very important to introduce a radical change of lifestyle. People needed to understand how sinful they were before a holy God. In all likelihood, capital punishment was ordered so that the Israelites would have an understanding of the depth of their sin. In other words, God wanted them to know that certain practices were so heinous that the offenders deserved to die! Once the fairness of the verdict was understood, God in His mercy, had no problem excepting a lessor penalty.

In Exodus 21 we read about an offense deserving the death penalty. We also see financial compensation as an alternative to death:

“If a bull gores a man or a woman to death, the bull must be stoned to death, and its meat must not be eaten. But the owner of the bull will not be held responsible. 29 If, however, the bull has had the habit of goring and the owner has been warned but has not kept it penned up and it kills a man or woman, the bull must be stoned and the owner also must be put to death. 30 However, if payment is demanded of him, he may redeem his life by paying whatever is demanded” (Exodus 21:28-30).

Long after the time of Moses, financial substitution continued as a practice. Notice the words of an unnamed prophet to the wicked King Ahab:

“”“As the king passed by, the prophet called out to him, “Your servant went into the thick of the battle, and someone came to me with a captive and said, ‘Guard this man. If he is missing, it will be your life for his life, or you must pay a talent of silver'”(1 Kings 20:39).

The exception was murder. In the case of intentional murder, no financial substitution was acceptable:

“Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death.” (Numbers 35:31).

“OK, so far this looks quite interesting. But just because financial restitution was accepted with some offenses, should we assume this was the case with everything?”

That’s a good question. Yes, I would make that assumption. First of all, if murder is listed as the one offense uncovered by financial restitution, the implication is that all other offenses can be satisfied with money.

“That makes sense. But can you point to a verse which states this precisely?”

I cannot point to one verse where this truth is explicitly stated. However, a reading of several verses together makes a great case that this practice was assumed by the Israelites.

One particular Old Testament law went to the heart of justice and fairness. In fact, America would do well to adopt this same law for all criminal offenses. It says that if a man falsely accuses somebody of a crime, he will pay whatever penalty the accused might have suffered:

“If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse a man of a crime, 17 the two men involved in the dispute must stand in the presence of the LORD before the priests and the judges who are in office at the time. 18 The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against his brother, 19 then do to him as he intended to do to his brother. You must purge the evil from among you. 20 The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you” (Deut. 19:16-20).

Getting back to the subject of sexual immorality, we see this same system of justice in operation. Notice what happens when a man falsely accuses a woman:

“If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the girl’s father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl’s father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl’s father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives. 20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you..” (Deut 22:13-21)

The subtle truth should be obvious. If this woman was indeed guilty, she was deserving of death. If she wasn’t guilty, then according to what we previously read in Deuteronomy 19, whatever penalty the woman might have uncured will instead be administered to the false witness. And yet, does the lying man get stoned to death? No, instead he pays financial restitution!

OK. Let’s add it up: A) The man deserves the same penalty that the woman would have received had she been guilty. B) His penalty was satisfied with the payment of money. C) We conclude that her penalty could also have been satisfied with financial restitution. Once again, the capital punishment was described only to show the seriousness of the offense.

Of course not everybody could afford a monetary penalty. In such cases, others could pay on their behalf.

There was no need for Jesus to pay for the woman caught in adultery. She had not been brought before any official council. This was mob violence. Under the Romans, Jewish leaders were not allowed to carry out the death penalty anyway. It is true that sometimes matters got out of hand and Roman officials looked the other way (as in the case of Stephen’s stoning) so Jesus’ rescue and bravery are still noteworthy. But financial restitution was no longer an issue. We still see Jesus challenging the very heart of capital punishment. He does so by pointing out the hypocrisy of the crowd, not by reminding them of what the Romans will or will not allow them to do.

And yet, the principle was still the same. After all, Jesus did pay for the woman’s trespass in a much more final manner. He died for her sins on the cross!

As you can see, the ultimate expression of forgiveness, exhibited in our Savior, was foreshadowed in the Old Testament. Rather than showing us a harsher God, we see the same God with the same love and mercy offered to undeserving human beings.

Scripture taken from THE HOLY BIBLE

New International Version NIV

Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House.