Why arent Adventist stoning the Sabbath Breaker?

Those who excuse themselves of keeping the Sabbath because of this civil law will find it difficult to deal with the 5th commandment... for it to was given a civil law:

Exodus 21:17
(17) “And he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.”

Moses inquired of Jesus the right course of action to be taken in the case of the Sabbath-breaker. It was Jesus who commanded that he be stoned to death. The reason it doesn't nowadays is the fact Jesus doesn't command it.

Jesus never left it up to the Jews to stone Sabbath-breakers. He reserved the right to make the final decision.

There is only one OT incident of the Jews stoning a Sabbath-breaker, which is found in Numbers 15:36. However, this does not explain the "logic" of why, if Jesus commanded both actions, (keeping the Sabbath and stoning Sabbath-breakers) the one is still binding and the other is not.

Jesus never left it up to the Jews to stone Sabbath-breakers. He reserved the right to make the final decision.

Chapter and verse on this, please. Where does Jesus say he reserves the right to make the final decision? This speculation is entirely unsupported.

Good answer. You cited a text and gave your interpretation/application of it.

Ya dinna' convince me, but it's much better theology. I can at least follow your reasoning, even if I do not change my mind immediately.

Theology (to the Western mind) is like science; one must show step by step how they got to their conclusions, so others can perform the same experiment (ie: exegesis) and, if not come to the same conclusion, at least see how it was done.

Moses inquired of Jesus the right course of action to be taken in the case of the Sabbath-breaker. It was Jesus who commanded that he be stoned to death. The reason it doesn't nowadays is the fact Jesus doesn't command it.

Too funny. Can you name a time the Jews stoned a Sabbath-breaker without Jesus' consent and command? I'm referring to Jesus in the OT.

Jesus never left it up to the Jews to stone Sabbath-breakers. He reserved the right to make the final decision.

Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. (Leviticus 20:2)

A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. (Leviticus 20:27)

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death. (Leviticus 24:16)

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)

Mike, why would you ask for a sign from God (Urim and Thummim) on something for which His will has already been revealed? If God said to stone witches, and you find a witch, do you need to use Urim and Thummim to ask His permission to stone the witch? Do you need to know the motives of the witch? If so, why? Is there anything written in the law which says "If the person rebelliously chose to be a witch..." OR "if the witch did not repent, then...?" I'm not seeing it. Help me here.

Can we trust ourselves to get it right without consulting Jesus? Are all cases so obvious that we need never ask Jesus? Not even the RCC executed witches and heretics without first seeking a sign.

God has made known His will, and it is folly for man to question that which has gone out of His lips. After Infinite Wisdom has spoken, there can be no doubtful questions for man to settle, no wavering possibilities for him to adjust. All that is required of him is a frank, earnest concurrence in the expressed will of God. Obedience is the highest dictate of reason as well as of conscience. {AA 506.2}

There are thousands at the present day who are pursuing a similar course. They would have no difficulty in understanding their duty if it were in harmony with their inclinations. It is plainly set before them in the Bible or is clearly indicated by circumstances and reason. But because these evidences are contrary to their desires and inclinations they frequently set them aside and presume to go to God to learn their duty. With great apparent conscientiousness they pray long and earnestly for light. But God will not be trifled with. He often permits such persons to follow their own desires and to suffer the result. "My people would not hearken to My voice. . . . So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lust: and they walked in their own counsels." Psalm 81:11, 12. When one clearly sees a duty, let him not presume to go to God with the prayer that he may be excused from performing it. He should rather, with a humble, submissive spirit, ask for divine strength and wisdom to meet its claims. {PP 440.4}

GC, I believe mercy is an inherent part of God's character and law. To exercise mercy rather than justice, however, requires knowing motive. Since only Jesus knows motives, only Jesus can determine whether mercy or justice is appropriate. Were it not the law, it would not occur to us to inquire of Jesus the best course of action to pursue.

This discussion is scary.

Indeed when God shows us the way in which we are to walk, we should obey.

Yet to apply this fundamental principle of obedience to include executing judgment upon other people which we deem to be guilty of certain sins is the very root and foundation of terrible persecutions, bigotry and terror.

Basically this is saying it's OK to committ murder if you think someone is guilty of blaspheming God or breaking the Sabbath!

Lev. 24:16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death.

Obviously people were using this for murder without consulting God.

In 1Kings 21 Jezebel got rid of Naboth on the charge of blasphemy so Ahab could get his vineyard.

Stephen was stoned on charges of blasphemy.
They even tried to stone Christ on charges of blasphemy (John 8:59 and 10:31-33)

And yes, one of their reasons for wanting to destroy Christ was because He broke the Sabbath!!! (No He didn't but they were convinced that He did)

Dedication, you are using a fallacy of logic known as the "Straw Man" fallacy.
Green Cochoa.

More on topic--do you believe God gave laws that He did not want the people to follow without them asking Him if they should follow them?

When it comes to the principles governing my life -- of course I am to follow and not try to find a loophole.
Principles should become so much a part of my life that I should not want to find a loophole to excuse disobedience.

But the "rules" you are addressing in this thread (at least if the application of them is a, just do it don't inquire of the Lord or ask questions), go against everything the NEW TESTAMENT teaches.
By observing a strict "JUST STONE THEM" and don't ask any questions type of "obedience" a person is going against everything that salvation stands for -- grace, mercy, forgiveness, restoration.

True, in civic law there are hardened lawbreakers who must be stopped, but hopefully there would be a fair trial preceding the execution. In God's theocracy I would expect a fair trial to include INVOLVING GOD!

Why didn't David get stoned, he committed adultery and murdered the woman's husband. Yet he is called "a man after God's heart"?

Until you have begun to understand my position, this post of yours is almost unanswerable. It's a bit like the "Are you still beating your wife?" question that has no correct answer for a bachelor or a gentleman.

However, you brought up David. Let me bring up Abraham. Perhaps this will help you to better understand what I'm trying (with little success so far) to express.

Should Abraham have spent several days of fasting and prayer to seek God's will over whether or not to offer Isaac his son upon the altar after God had told him to do so? (Remember, there was no Urim and Thummim in Abraham's time yet, so he did not have that option.)

On another related point, should the Israelites have sought the priests, with the Urim and Thummim, to know whether or not they should follow the laws of clean and unclean meats, or the law of circumcision, or the laws of sacrifices? Should they seek God's sign to know His will regarding the laws of marriage and divorce? Did God give the Israelites these laws while not expecting them to have sufficient wisdom on their own to understand the laws and to follow them? Did God want them to yet inquire, knowing the law, whether or not God wanted them to follow it?

Do you think the law of stoning was in this category of "God said but you better ask Him again to be sure that this is what He wants done?"

Or do you think, as I do, that God expected people to follow His law without questioning whether or not it was His will for them to follow it?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

True, in civic law there are hardened lawbreakers who must be stopped, but hopefully there would be a fair trial preceding the execution. In God's theocracy I would expect a fair trial to include INVOLVING GOD!

Dedication,

There are two basic categories that I'm aware of: Moral Law and Ceremonial Law. Which category is stoning in?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

But marriage and divorce YES THEY SHOULD ask the Lord about that. As we learned later, out of the hardness of their hearts Moses allowed for divorce but it wasn't really God's plan from the beginning. (See Mark 10) It would have been far better to earnestly seek the Lord on those issues.

Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy daughter in law: she is thy son's wife; thou shalt not uncover her nakedness. (Leviticus 18:15)

What other laws are in the "civic" category?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

13:24 He presented another parable unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field:
13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, didn't you sow good seed in your field? where did these tares come from?
13:28 He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said unto him, do you want us to go and gather them up?
13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them.
13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, you gather together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Jesus' servants ask -- should we pull out and get rid of the tares?
Translate -- should we stone the evil doers?

Dedication,

Why did they ask God in the case of the Sabbath breaker?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Soon after the return into the wilderness, an instance of Sabbath violation occurred, under circumstances that rendered it a case of peculiar guilt. The Lord's announcement that He would disinherit Israel had roused a spirit of rebellion. One of the people, angry at being excluded from Canaan, and determined to show his defiance of God's law, ventured upon the open transgression of the fourth commandment by going out to gather sticks upon the Sabbath. During the sojourn in the wilderness the kindling of fires upon the seventh day had been strictly prohibited. The prohibition was not to extend to the land of Canaan, where the severity of the climate would often render fires a necessity; but in the wilderness, fire was not needed for warmth. The act of this man was a willful and deliberate violation of the fourth commandment--a sin, not of thoughtlessness or ignorance, but of presumption. {PP 408.4}

He was taken in the act and brought before Moses. It had already been declared that Sabbathbreaking should be punished with death, but it had not yet been revealed how the penalty was to be inflicted. The case was brought by Moses before the Lord, and the direction was given, "The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp." Numbers 15:35. The sins of blasphemy and willful Sabbathbreaking received the same punishment, being equally an expression of contempt for the authority of God. {PP 409.1}

It is clear that the people had a reason to ask God about it which had nothing to do with knowing or understanding the man's heart. It is also clear that the man's heart was not right anyway, and he would have been unlikely to exhibit any sort of repentance. But the people did not go to ask God if the man were repentant. They asked to know the manner of his execution. And God told them it should be by stoning.

Had it already been declared that Sabbath breakers should be stoned, they would have had no need to ask God what to do. His will would have been already sufficiently clear on the matter, and the people could have gone ahead and executed judgment accordingly.

Lost in translation?

We don't need to assume such dire measures were intended. What about "disfellowship?" The fact is, "stoning" is not mentioned. Furthermore, this may be a realm of action which does not involve us. After all, we are either the wheat or the tares. We are not God's angels. As a wheat or a tare, it is not in our power to purge the field of all tares, is it?
Green Cochoa.

Thou shalt not commit adultery. (Exodus 20:14)

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. (Leviticus 20:10)

25:6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who [were] weeping [before] the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
25:7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw [it], he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
25:8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
25:9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
25:10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
25:11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
25:12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, [even] the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
25:14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, [even] that was slain with the Midianitish woman, [was] Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.
25:15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain [was] Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he [was] head over a people, [and] of a chief house in Midian.
(Numbers)

M: GC, I believe mercy is an inherent part of God's character and law. To exercise mercy rather than justice, however, requires knowing motive. Since only Jesus knows motives, only Jesus can determine whether mercy or justice is appropriate. Were it not the law, it would not occur to us to inquire of Jesus the best course of action to pursue.

G: So Saul was supposed to have asked God if it were His will to execute the witch of Endor? I do not believe so. If this were the case, why would God give the law to stone such people? Does God give us a law without giving us the wisdom to follow it? Let us not forget that God did give some specifics in how to follow the law--such as having at least two or three witnesses before executing capital punishments. But, provided the witnesses, in light of the law, God's will was known on certain cases and the people were obligated to follow it.

I cannot help thinking it makes perfect sense to include Jesus in the decision making process. I absolutely cannot imagine executing someone without consulting Jesus

Dedication,

You are obviously rather exercised about this issue, yet you are so strongly opposed to what you perceive my position to be that you are not understanding what I'm trying to say (i.e. my actual position).

I'm not sure if I should attempt to explain further or not.

Green Cochoa.

No, why should you explain it further -- I think you've made your point that according to your understanding they were not to first consult God before stoning Sabbath breakers. (Or applying other death penalties)

Why don't you want to touch the issue...

Remember they were ready to stone Jesus Himself on the charge of Sabbath breaking.

Luke 9:54 And when his disciples James and John saw [this], they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did?

Luke 9:55 But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

2 Kings
1:9 Then the king sent unto him a captain of fifty with his fifty. And he went up to him: and, behold, he sat on the top of an hill. And he spake unto him, Thou man of God, the king hath said, Come down.
1:10 And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty, If I [be] a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And there came down fire from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
1:11 Again also he sent unto him another captain of fifty with his fifty. And he answered and said unto him, O man of God, thus hath the king said, Come down quickly.
1:12 And Elijah answered and said unto them, If I [be] a man of God, let fire come down from heaven, and consume thee and thy fifty. And the fire of God came down from heaven, and consumed him and his fifty.
1:13 And he sent again a captain of the third fifty with his fifty. And the third captain of fifty went up, and came and fell on his knees before Elijah, and besought him, and said unto him, O man of God, I pray thee, let my life, and the life of these fifty thy servants, be precious in thy sight.

Your example of Elijah makes a point.

Elijah was in communion with God as to what to do. God had a purpose in what was done.

The disciples were acting on their own impulses of slighted ego and THOUGHT they were coming up with what God wanted. At least they had the knowledge that they should ask Christ and He set them straight. NO it was not God's will for people to call down fire because someone slighted you.

Both these stories only illustrate that A person MUST be in communion with God when such drastic steps are contemplated.

Because of the wicked departure of the Jews from God, he had allowed them to come under the power of a heathen nation. Only a certain limited power was granted the Jews; even the Sanhedrim was not allowed to pronounce final judgment upon any important case which involved the infliction of capital punishment. A people controlled, as were the Jews, by bigotry and superstition, are most cruel and unrelenting. {3SP 180.2}

Dedication,

Which of God's laws required stoning Jesus? (Or crucifying Him, for that matter?)

I think perhaps that question will help you to see that this is a rabbit trail you have taken us on.

The fact is, we were not discussing a case like this. It is a straw man and a red herring argument. It leads us away from the real subject here, which was enforcement of God's law.

Jesus did not sin. So it was impossible that He should have been stoned. End of story. End of analogy. His story does not fit this discussion.

Now, back on topic...

If God gave us a law to stone a sinner, should we trust Him and follow it?

That seems more in line with the subject of this thread.

(Again, Jesus was not a sinner, and there was no law to stone perfect people.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

In the case of the Sabbath breaker who was stoned in the Old Testament, he knew what he was doing. People saw him. There were witnesses. He likely confessed to it himself. He was disgruntled. And rebellious. Just the kind that needed to be purged from the camp to stop the sinful infection from spreading.

Then, in his (satan's) assumed character of Christ, he claims to have changed the Sabbath to Sunday, and commands all to hallow the day which he has blessed. He declares that those who persist in keeping holy the seventh day are blaspheming his name by refusing to listen to his angels sent to them with light and truth. This is the strong, almost overmastering delusion....
Only those who have been diligent students of the Scriptures, and who have received the love of the truth, will be shielded from the powerful delusion that takes the world captive. By the Bible testimony these will detect the deceiver in his disguise. To all, the testing time will come. By the sifting of temptation, the genuine Christian will be revealed. Are the people of God now so firmly established upon his Word that they would not yield to the evidence of their senses? GC 626

"It is expedient for us," said the wily Caiaphas, "that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not." [JOHN 11:50.] This argument will appear conclusive; and a decree will finally be issued against those who hallow the Sabbath of the fourth commandment, denouncing them as deserving of the severest punishment, and giving the people liberty, after a certain time, to put them to death.GC 616

Conscientious obedience to the Word of God will be treated as rebellion. GC 608

Romans 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." So, let Him do it.

I hope you are not meaning that the stoning commands are in force today, for no, the ancient civil laws are NOT in operation today.

And I think that is the main question to this topic, Why not?

It seems so simple - seek Jesus' counsel before enforcing certain laws, in particular laws regulating the death penalty and matters which require knowing motive.

I think Jesus told us that capital punishment for sins pertaining to worship are no longer in human hands.

There will be a movement to enforce a false Sabbath that will claim to have the authorization of Christ Himself to kill those who refuse to forsake the OT Sabbath and embrace the so called "Lord's Day".

Where? The parable isn't talking about the death penalty or stoning, but about wicked people being among the righteous to the end.

How does one uproot the tare OUT OF THE WORLD?
The reapers (angels) will uproot the tares -- how do they do it?

Matt. 13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

Matt. 24:30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

24:31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

M: It seems so simple - seek Jesus' counsel before enforcing certain laws, in particular laws regulating the death penalty and matters which require knowing motive.

K: What if someone else chose a different law to consult Jesus on? Why did you choose only the death penalty? Do you have scriptural support for that?

Dedication,

I did not say the law of stoning has been changed. Not at all. It may not be the law which has changed in this case so much as that it has been trumped by another.....


The law, however, is not changed. Capital punishments are still exercised today by most governments of the world. Such punishments have, nonetheless, passed from the realm of church members' hands and out of the hands of an individual or group of individuals. God has allowed governments to exercise their authority over matters of capital offense and punishment.

In the hypothetical situation (and non-existent case in today's world) where God's people were not under the rule of a civil government and they were returned to a theocracy, I believe the law of stoning may still be in force.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

That law was fulfilled in Jesus and in the sanctuary doctrine.

In the old testament the types show that death results from sin.

The repentant sinner transferred his sin upon the head of the lamb which was killed; the lamb representing Jesus Christ Who would bear the sins and die.

The rebellious sinner had his sins on his own head, and was subjected to death. Stoning being a graphic example of a sinner dying for his own sins.

But now the old types are gone. The reality is Jesus death and sanctuary ministry.

The repentant sinner today, comes to Jesus for forgiveness, accepting Christ's death in his stead.
The rebellious sinner has his sins still on his own head and will die with the tares at the second coming and bear his own sins in the last judgement into everlasting death.

But the laws to slay lambs, and to stone people on issues relating to religion, are no longer in force.

The wheat and the tares are to grow together till the harvest, when the rebellious die, and the saved are gathered into the sky to go home with Jesus.

". . . seek Jesus' counsel before enforcing certain laws". Seems so simple.

Now the person who refuses to accept Christ's justification and righteousness still carries his own sins on his own head.
But now the account is registered and judged in heaven, not in any earthly court system. Those who have accepted Christ's merits and justification, having confessed and repented of their sins and are living by faith in Christ, have PARDONED written in their records. Those who reject Christ still have their sins standing against them. They will die with the tares in the harvest.

Hebrews 10
26 Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins. 27 There is only the terrible expectation of God’s judgment and the raging fire that will consume his enemies. 28 For anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was put to death without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 29 Just think how much worse the punishment will be for those who have trampled on the Son of God, and have treated the blood of the covenant, which made us holy, as if it were common and unholy, and have insulted and disdained the Holy Spirit who brings God’s mercy to us. 30 For we know the one who said,

“I will take revenge.
I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

But the laws to slay lambs, and to stone people on issues relating to religion, are no longer in force.

The wheat and the tares are to grow together till the harvest, when the rebellious die, and the saved are gathered into the sky to go home with Jesus.

Yes, the stoning laws ended at the cross when Christ paid the death penalty for ALL mankind and sent His Holy Spirit to urge people to come to Christ and accept the gift of life which He, at the price of much suffering and death, is offering to them.

Are we confusing using force to make people serve God with the need of civil laws to keep society reasonably safe?

Have we totally forgotten the issues that have confronted the true followers of Christ from the beginning of Christianity?

I gave you scripture --

The parable of the wheat and tares
Col. 2:16 forbids men to judge us concerning the Sabbath.
And Hebrews 10:26-30
contrasts the punishment in Moses time with how it is after Christ's death.




but it seems you still want to stone Sabbath keepers.

I'm sure you'll get a lot of support for your position. It fits in beautifully with what will be in the very near future. But it won't be of God.

Obviously you can't understand the principle.

Anyway I've wasted enough time here --


I already told you that the stoning laws ended when the sacrificial laws ended. So why keep pushing that point?

God has never taken pleasure in the death of the wicked. He much rather that people turn from their sins, that was true even under the old covenant. (see Ez. 18:32)

I gave you scripture --

I already told you that the stoning laws ended when the sacrificial laws ended.

God has never taken pleasure in the death of the wicked. He much rather that people turn from their sins, that was true even under the old covenant. (see Ez. 18:32)

You're kidding, right? Scriptural support was the request.

So why do we still kill / electrocute / or shoot down the murderer? Or are you narrowing it to a very specific form of capital punishment?

Since you say, however, that stoning ended at the cross, and when I have plied you with questions regarding if it might have ended earlier you consistently maintain that it ended at that time when Christ died, then I do have a question for you.

What about the woman taken in adultery? Why did Jesus not command that she be stoned (and the men who led her into sin as well)? If the law was in effect still, as you have maintained, would it not be a disregard for the very law which Jesus had given His people that He would not have upheld it while it was still in force? Why would Jesus disregard His own law?

Was Jesus afraid of the Romans? Was He more cowardly than Daniel's three friends at the golden image? Did Jesus kow-tow to the Roman authority instead of upholding God's law?

What say you?
Blessings,
Green Cochoa.

The Jews definitely considered the stoning laws still in effect at the time of Christ. Just as they knew the sacrificial laws were still in effect.

Why did righteous Joseph want to put away Mary privately, who was with child prior to marriage, so as not to make a public example of her"? (Matt.1:18-19)

Two courses were open to Joseph who thought his betrothed had committed adultery:
1. To charge Mary with adultery and thus to make her a public example letting the Jewish stoning laws to take their course.
2. To make use of the divorce laws of the Jews without charging her with any crime and simply give her a letter of divorcement.

Twice the Jews attempted to stone Jesus.
1. John 8:56-59 -- Jesus tells them "before Abraham I AM" claiming the title of the ever present God. They consider it blasphemy and pick up stones to stone Him.
2. John 10:30-33 -- Jesus tells them "I and my Father are One" again they pick up stones to stone Him "for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."

Stephen -- Acts 6:11-15 shows he is brought before a council of elders and scribes and accused of blasphemy. After he gives a powerful sermon, they drag him outside of the city and stone him. (7:58)

Jesus said "He who is without sin cast the first stone".

Obviously most of the accounts of "stoning" shows those throwing the stones were steeped in sin. And they ended up stoning all the wrong people.
Joseph (Mary's betrothed) was saved from making a terrible mistake because he was a righteous man in communication with heaven.

In the case where stoning was the will of God --
I would assume that Joshua and those involved in Achan's case had confessed and repented of all their sins and partaken in the sacrificial provision for forgiveness.

Scripture (Joshua 7)tells us that he and the elders spent all day at the sanctuary in prone position talking to the Lord. The Lord tells him to sanctify the people. Joshua 7:13 Up, sanctify the people, and say, Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow.

So yes, the people were sinless at that point --
Not in themselves but thanks to repentance, confession and trusting in the provisions of the substitute.

Neither of those times was for anything legitimate, as we all well know.

The law to stone sabbath keepers and blasphemers was NEVER given to the Romans.
That is a great fallacy in your position.
The stoning laws ENDED with the sacrificial laws, they are NO LONGER IN FORCE, and definitely not given to Rome to execute!

If they trumpt it, it was ILLEGAL FOR THEM TO DO SO. It was NEVER given them by God. For secular power to trump authority over how people are to worship God is called ABOMINATION.

They may have taken over civil authority, but their taking over religious authority over God's people was WRONG and very bad behavior.

The discipline of the Roman army was very severe. A sentinel found sleeping at his post was punishable with death. The Jews realized the advantage of having such a guard about the tomb of Jesus. They placed a seal upon the stone that closed the sepulcher, that it might not be disturbed without the fact being known, and took every precaution against the disciples practicing any deception in regard to the body of Jesus. But all their plans and precautions only served to make the triumph of the resurrection more complete, and to more fully establish its truth. {3SP 179.1}

How must God and his holy angels have looked upon all those preparations to guard the body of the world's Redeemer! How weak and foolish must those efforts have seemed! The words of the psalmist picture this scene: "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord, and against his Anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision." Roman guards and Roman arms were powerless to confine the Lord of life within the narrow inclosure of the sepulcher. Christ had declared that he had power to lay down his life and to take it up again. The hour of his victory was near. {3SP 179.2}

God had ruled the events clustering around the birth of Christ. There was an appointed time for him to appear in the form of humanity. A long line of inspired prophecy pointed to the coming of Christ to our world, and minutely described the manner of his reception. Had the Saviour appeared at an earlier period in the world's history, the advantages gained to Christians would not have been so great, as their faith would not have been developed and strengthened by dwelling upon the prophecies which stretched into the far future, and recounted the events which were to transpire. {3SP 180.1}

Because of the wicked departure of the Jews from God, he had allowed them to come under the power of a heathen nation. Only a certain limited power was granted the Jews; even the Sanhedrim was not allowed to pronounce final judgment upon any important case which involved the infliction of capital punishment. A people controlled, as were the Jews, by bigotry and superstition, are most cruel and unrelenting. The wisdom of God was displayed in sending his Son to the world at a time when the Roman power held sway. Had the Jewish economy possessed full authority, we should not now have a history of the life and ministry of Christ among men. The jealous priests and rulers would have quickly made away with so formidable a rival. He would have been stoned to death on the false accusation of breaking the law of God. The Jews put no one to death by crucifixion; that was a Roman method of punishment; there would therefore have been no cross upon Calvary. Prophecy would not then have been fulfilled; for Christ was to be lifted up in the most public manner on the cross, as the serpent was lifted up in the wilderness. {3SP 180.2}

The Roman power was the instrument in God's hand to prevent the Light of the world from going out in darkness. The cross was lifted, according to the plan of God, in the sight of all nations, tongues, and people, calling their attention to the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world. {3SP 181.1}

Had the coming of Christ been deferred many years later, until the Jewish power had become still less, prophecy would have failed of its fulfillment; for it would not have been possible for the Jews, with their waning power, to have influenced the Roman authorities to sign the death-warrant of Jesus upon the lying charges presented, and there would have been no cross of Christ erected upon Calvary. Soon after the Saviour's execution the method of death by crucifixion was abolished. The scenes which took place at the death of Jesus, the inhuman conduct of the people, the supernatural darkness which veiled the earth, and the agony of nature displayed in the rending of the rocks and the flashing of the lightning, struck them with such remorse and terror, that the cross, as an instrument of death, soon fell into disuse. At the destruction of Jerusalem, when mob power again obtained control, crucifixion was again revived for a time, and many crosses stood upon Calvary. {3SP 181.2}

Christ coming at the time and in the manner which he did was a direct and complete fulfillment of prophecy. The evidence of this, given to the world through the testimony of the apostles and that of their contemporaries, is among the strongest proofs of the Christian faith. We were not eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus, which attest his divinity; but we have the statements of his disciples who were eye-witnesses of them, and we see by faith through their eyes, and hear through their ears; and our faith with theirs grasps the evidence given. {3SP 182.1}

{Quoted EGW}

So now, does the above passage make it appear that the Romans were illegally doing God's bidding? Did God view their prevention of Jesus' stoning by the Pharisees as an "abomination?" You have used some strong words--in all caps. Where is your scripture to support them?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son:
5:27 And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

Col 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath

Romans 14:10 But why do you judge your brother? or why do you set at nought your brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
14:12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.

M: ". . . seek Jesus' counsel before enforcing certain laws". Seems so simple.

k: You're kidding, right? Scriptural support was the request.

M: Note the many times Jews sought answers to difficult cases through the Urim and Thummin. In particular, note how godly men, like Moses, first sought answers from Jesus before proceeding with matters dealing with the death of law-breakers. Is it possible such biblical precedence recommends others do the same?

we aren't talking about keeping murderers and thieves off the street, we are talking about BREAKING COMMANDMENTS that are part of our commitment to God.

there is still need for civil authorities to keep some kind of law and order.

but civil authorities are NOT to legislate or enforce matters pertaining to worship and commitment to God.

It should be basic understanding that no religious organization is to kill anyone.

Religion is NOT to mix with civil law.

It's called "spiritual adultery" when religion uses civil power to enforce worship laws.

Civil law has the right to deal with thieves and murderers BUT NOT with how or on which day we celebrate the Sabbath and how we worship God.
God's people are to keep all ten of the commandments and love God with all their heart soul and strength and their neighbor as themselves.

So -- yes there is no question that the Romans were in control. And yes, God allowed it.

However, that is not the issue in this discussion.

The issue is whether the stoning laws are still in effect for Sabbath breakers.

M: ". . . seek Jesus' counsel before enforcing certain laws". Seems so simple.

k: You're kidding, right? Scriptural support was the request.

M: Note the many times Jews sought answers to difficult cases through the Urim and Thummin. In particular, note how godly men, like Moses, first sought answers from Jesus before proceeding with matters dealing with the death of law-breakers. Is it possible such biblical precedence recommends others do the same?

K: It seems you are exchanging laws with cases. Did the Jews and Moses seek answers through the Urim and Thummin before proceeding with matters only dealing with "death" of law-breakers? The death of Jesus stands in stark contradiction on the opposing side. Which was decided before the death of Jesus.

I really didn't read through this whole thread, therefore, forgive me if the following question was already asked and answered:

Why wasn't the women caught in the act of adultery stoned when brought before Christ? The answer to this may also answer the topic title, "Why arent Adventist stoning the Sabbath Breaker?"