The Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible traditionally attributed to Moses, contains a detailed legal code governing ancient Israelite society. Within this code are numerous offenses punishable by death, with stoning as the prescribed method of execution for many violations including adultery, blasphemy, and male homosexual acts.1 These laws were not peripheral regulations but central commands attributed directly to God, presented as part of the covenant between YHWH and Israel at Mount Sinai.2 The presence of these capital laws in Scripture raises fundamental questions about the nature of biblical morality and whether these ancient legal standards reflect timeless divine principles or the values of a specific historical and cultural context.
Adultery
The law against adultery appears in both legal and narrative contexts throughout the Hebrew Bible. The seventh commandment in the Decalogue states simply, "You shall not commit adultery," establishing the prohibition as one of the foundational moral norms of ancient Israel.3 However, the penalty for violating this commandment is specified elsewhere in the legal code.
Leviticus 20:10 prescribes the death penalty for both parties in an adulterous relationship:
"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." Leviticus 20:10 (English Standard Version)4
The Hebrew verb "mot yumat" (מוֹת יוּמָת), translated "shall surely be put to death," is an emphatic construction using both the infinitive absolute and imperfect forms of the verb "to die," indicating the certainty and seriousness of the prescribed punishment.5 Deuteronomy 22:22 repeats this law with nearly identical language, demonstrating its central importance in the legal corpus.6
While Leviticus 20:10 does not specify the method of execution, Deuteronomy 22:23-24 details a specific case involving a betrothed virgin and prescribes stoning:
"If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife." Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (English Standard Version)7
This passage illustrates several features of the adultery laws. First, betrothal was treated as legally binding as marriage itself, making sexual relations with a betrothed woman tantamount to adultery.8 Second, the law required public execution "at the gate of that city," making the punishment a communal act and public deterrent.9 Third, both parties received the death penalty, reflecting the legal principle of equal culpability for consensual adultery.10
However, the law distinguished between consensual adultery and rape. Deuteronomy 22:25-27 specifies that if the encounter occurred in a field where the woman's cries for help would not be heard, only the man was to be executed, with the woman considered an innocent victim.11 The underlying presumption was that in the city, where help was available, failure to cry out indicated consent, while in the isolated countryside, the woman would have had no recourse.12
The method of execution for adultery, when specified, was stoning. This form of capital punishment involved the community gathering stones and throwing them at the condemned until death occurred.13 Deuteronomy 17:7 establishes the procedure: "The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people."14 The witnesses who testified against the accused were required to throw the first stones, followed by the broader community, ensuring communal participation in the execution and deterring false testimony by making witnesses directly responsible for the consequences of their words.15
Blasphemy
Blasphemy, defined as speaking against or cursing God, was another capital offense under Mosaic Law. The clearest statement of this law appears in Leviticus 24:
"Whoever blasphemes the name of the LORD shall surely be put to death. All the congregation shall stone him. The sojourner as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death." Leviticus 24:16 (English Standard Version)16
This verse appears within a narrative context. In Leviticus 24:10-23, a man whose father was Egyptian and mother was Israelite "blasphemed the Name" (a reverent circumlocution for YHWH) during a fight in the camp.17 The Israelites imprisoned him while Moses consulted God about the appropriate punishment. God's response was the law quoted above, followed by its immediate application: "Then the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 'Bring out of the camp the one who cursed, and let all who heard him lay their hands on his head, and let all the congregation stone him.'"18
The laying of hands on the blasphemer's head before execution had symbolic significance. Some interpreters understand this as transferring the guilt or defilement caused by the blasphemy back onto the offender, removing its taint from the community.19 Others see it as a solemn testimony by the witnesses that they heard the blasphemous words and accept responsibility for the execution.20 Either way, the ritual demonstrates the gravity of the offense: blasphemy was understood not merely as a crime against social order but as a direct affront to God that defiled the entire community.21
The text emphasizes that this law applied equally to native Israelites and resident foreigners ("the sojourner as well as the native"), indicating that the prohibition against blasphemy was absolute for all who lived within the covenant community.16 The theological rationale was that Israel's identity was fundamentally theocratic: YHWH was not merely their deity but their king, and blasphemy was therefore tantamount to treason against the sovereign.22
The New Testament records the trial of Jesus, in which blasphemy charges played a central role. When Jesus answered the high priest's question "Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" by saying "I am," the high priest tore his garments and said, "You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" The council condemned him as deserving death.23 The scene directly invokes the Levitical law, including the high priest's dramatic response to hearing blasphemy.
Homosexuality
The Levitical code contains two prohibitions against male homosexual acts, known as the Holiness Code. Leviticus 18:22 states: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."24 Leviticus 20:13 repeats the prohibition and specifies the penalty:
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." Leviticus 20:13 (English Standard Version)25
The Hebrew word translated "abomination" is "to'evah" (תּוֹעֵבָה), which appears frequently in Leviticus to describe practices considered ritually or morally repugnant, often in contexts involving purity laws or foreign religious practices.26 The term is also used for idolatry, child sacrifice, and eating unclean animals, suggesting it denoted practices fundamentally incompatible with Israelite identity and covenant relationship with YHWH.27
Like the law against adultery, this prohibition uses the emphatic "mot yumat" construction, and the phrase "their blood is upon them" indicates personal responsibility for the consequences.28 Leviticus 20:9, which prescribes death for cursing one's parents, uses the same phrase: "his blood is upon him."29 The expression appears to be a legal formula indicating that the death penalty is just and the executed persons bear responsibility for their own deaths.30
Scholarly debate continues regarding the precise scope and intent of these laws. Some interpreters argue the prohibitions target specific practices such as cultic prostitution or pederasty rather than all same-sex relationships.31 However, the text itself does not make such distinctions; the language is broad and unqualified.32 Others note that the laws appear within the Holiness Code alongside numerous ritual purity regulations that most modern readers, including most Christians, do not observe, such as prohibitions against wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19) or trimming the edges of one's beard (Leviticus 19:27).33
What is textually clear is that Leviticus 20:13 prescribes the death penalty for male homosexual acts. While the passage does not specify stoning as the method, the broader legal context indicates that stoning was the standard method for executing capital sentences under Mosaic Law.13 Deuteronomy 17:5-7, which establishes general procedures for capital cases, specifies stoning, and the specific cases detailed in the law consistently use this method.14
Other capital offenses
Adultery, blasphemy, and homosexual acts were far from the only offenses punishable by death under Mosaic Law. The legal codes of the Torah prescribed capital punishment for numerous violations, many involving stoning as the method of execution.
Capital offenses requiring stoning in the Torah1, 34
| Offense | Reference | Additional notes |
|---|---|---|
| Adultery | Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22-24 | Both parties executed |
| Blasphemy | Leviticus 24:16 | Applies to foreigners and natives alike |
| Male homosexual acts | Leviticus 20:13 | Both participants executed |
| Breaking the Sabbath | Exodus 31:14-15, Numbers 15:32-36 | Man stoned for gathering sticks on Sabbath |
| Child sacrifice | Leviticus 20:2 | Offering children to Molech |
| Rebellion against parents | Deuteronomy 21:18-21 | Stubborn and rebellious son |
| False prophecy | Deuteronomy 13:1-11 | Leading others to worship other gods |
| Witchcraft and spiritism | Leviticus 20:27 | Medium or necromancer |
| Worshiping other gods | Deuteronomy 17:2-7 | Idolatry among Israelites |
Some of these offenses strike modern readers as shockingly severe. Numbers 15:32-36 records an incident during the wilderness wandering where a man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath. When the Israelites were uncertain how to punish him, God commanded Moses: "The man shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp."35 The narrative concludes: "And all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death with stones, as the LORD commanded Moses."36
The law concerning a rebellious son in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 mandates that if parents have "a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey," they should bring him to the elders and testify against him. The prescribed outcome: "Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones."37 While rabbinic tradition later interpreted this law so narrowly that it could rarely if ever be applied, the plain text prescribes execution for persistent disobedience to parents.38
Historical practice
Scholars debate the extent to which these capital laws were actually enforced in ancient Israel. The Hebrew Bible contains surprisingly few narratives of judicial executions by stoning, particularly for offenses like adultery or homosexuality.39 The most detailed stoning narrative concerns Achan, who violated the ban on taking plunder from Jericho; after being identified by lot, he and his entire family were stoned to death in the Valley of Achor (Joshua 7:25).40
The case of the Sabbath-breaker in Numbers 15 is presented as requiring special divine consultation, suggesting that even during the wilderness period, application of the death penalty was not automatic or routine.35 Similarly, the blasphemy case in Leviticus 24 required Moses to seek God's judgment, implying that clear legal precedents had not yet been established.17
By the Second Temple period, rabbinic tradition developed extensive procedural requirements that made capital convictions extraordinarily difficult to obtain. The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE but reflecting earlier oral traditions, required two eyewitnesses, advance warning to the perpetrator that the act was forbidden and punishable by death, acknowledgment by the perpetrator that they understood the warning, and then commission of the offense in the witnesses' sight.41 The Mishnah records that a Sanhedrin that executed one person in seven years was called "destructive," and Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah said one execution in seventy years earned this designation.42
However, these later rabbinic restrictions should not be read back into the biblical period. The prophetic books contain multiple references to executions for religious offenses. King Josiah's reform in 2 Kings 23 included executing the priests of the high places.43 The prophet Elijah executed 450 prophets of Baal after the contest on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18:40).44 While these examples may reflect royal or prophetic authority rather than normal judicial procedure, they demonstrate that capital punishment for religious violations was practiced, not merely theoretical.
The New Testament context
The New Testament records one attempted stoning for adultery in the famous pericope of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11).45 The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman to Jesus, saying, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?"46 Jesus' response, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her," dispersed the accusers and saved the woman's life.47
This passage is textually complex—it does not appear in the earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel and was likely not original to the text—but it reflects some memory of how the law functioned (or failed to function) in first-century Jewish practice.48 The account shows religious leaders invoking Mosaic Law to justify execution by stoning, yet also shows the practice being challenged and abandoned.
The first Christian martyr, Stephen, was executed by stoning for blasphemy. Acts 7:57-60 records that after Stephen's speech before the Sanhedrin, the crowd "rushed together at him" and "cast him out of the city and stoned him."49 This execution followed the pattern established in Leviticus 24: accusation of blasphemy, removal from the city, and communal stoning.50
Theological questions
The capital laws in the Torah raise profound theological questions for those who regard the Bible as divine revelation. If God prescribed death by stoning for adultery, blasphemy, homosexual acts, Sabbath-breaking, and rebellion against parents, what does this reveal about God's character and values?
Traditional Christian theology distinguishes between the "civil" and "ceremonial" laws of ancient Israel and the "moral law" that remains binding. On this view, dietary restrictions and ritual purity laws were specific to Israel's theocratic administration and are no longer applicable, while moral prohibitions (often summarized by the Ten Commandments) remain universally valid.51 However, this framework faces difficulties with the capital laws. If the prohibition of adultery is a universal moral law, what about the penalty? If stoning for adultery was just when God commanded it in Leviticus, why would it become unjust later?
Some theologians argue that the specific punishments were culturally conditioned applications of universal moral principles. God accommodated the divine law to the cultural context of ancient Near Eastern society, where capital punishment for severe offenses was the norm.52 On this view, the moral principles (sexual fidelity, honoring God, maintaining social order) are permanent, but the penalties were adapted to their historical setting and need not be applied identically today.
This accommodation theory raises further questions. If God accommodated the law to ancient Near Eastern values, does that mean the penalties reflect human cultural standards rather than God's perfect justice? If executing people for gathering sticks on the Sabbath or being a rebellious son reflected cultural adaptation rather than divine moral ideals, how do we determine which parts of the law reflect God's character and which merely reflect ancient culture?
Other interpreters take the laws at face value as reflections of God's justice in a theocratic context. On this view, these penalties were appropriate for a nation in direct covenant relationship with God, where violations of the law were not merely civil crimes but covenant breaches that threatened the entire community's standing before God.53 The severity of the punishments demonstrated the seriousness of sin and maintained the holiness of the community.
However, this position must grapple with the moral implications. Does executing a man for gathering firewood on the wrong day reflect perfect justice? Does stoning sexually active gay men reflect the righteous judgment of a perfectly good God? If these punishments were just and good when God commanded them, why do most modern readers—including most Christians and Jews—find them morally abhorrent?
Ancient Near Eastern context
The Mosaic legal codes did not emerge in a vacuum but were part of the broader ancient Near Eastern legal tradition. Comparison with other ancient law codes illuminates what was distinctive and what was common about Israelite law.
The Code of Hammurabi, dating to approximately 1750 BCE, prescribed death for adultery, though by drowning rather than stoning: "If the wife of a man has been caught lying with another man, they shall bind them and throw them into the water."54 However, the husband had the option to pardon his wife, in which case the king could pardon the adulterer.55 The Middle Assyrian Laws (circa 1076 BCE) gave the husband full discretion over punishment for his adulterous wife: he could execute her, mutilate her, or pardon her.56
Compared to these codes, the Mosaic Law was both more egalitarian and more severe. It was more egalitarian in that both the man and woman received the same penalty, rather than treating the woman as the husband's property whose fate was at his discretion.57 It was more severe in that it allowed no option for pardon or monetary compensation—the penalty was death, not subject to negotiation or commutation.58
Capital punishment for blasphemy appears to be more distinctive to Israelite law. While other ancient cultures punished offenses against the gods, the systematic application of capital punishment specifically for verbal offenses against deity is not widely paralleled in surviving ancient Near Eastern legal codes.59 This likely reflects Israel's strict monotheism and understanding of YHWH as the divine king whose honor was the foundation of the covenant community's existence.60
Modern application and moral evaluation
No mainstream Jewish or Christian denomination today advocates for implementing these capital laws. Orthodox Judaism does not carry out capital punishment based on biblical law, both because the Sanhedrin (required for capital cases) no longer exists and because the strict procedural requirements make conviction nearly impossible.61 Christianity broadly teaches that Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law and that its civil penalties no longer apply, though denominations differ on which of its moral prohibitions remain binding.62
However, some theocratic movements have advocated for biblical law. Christian Reconstructionism, a movement primarily associated with theologian R.J. Rushdoony, argued for implementing Old Testament civil law, including capital punishment for adultery, homosexuality, blasphemy, and other offenses.63 While this remains a fringe position within Christianity, it represents a logically consistent application of the claim that biblical law reflects God's unchanging moral standards.
Several nations with Islamic legal systems continue to prescribe capital punishment for adultery (though typically requiring extremely stringent evidentiary standards), and a small number have applied death penalties for blasphemy or homosexuality.64 These modern applications of ancient religious law codes demonstrate that the question of whether scripture prescribes such penalties is not purely academic—it has real-world implications for how religious texts are interpreted and applied.
For those who do not accept biblical law as a binding legal code, the capital laws raise questions about the moral character of biblical religion. A God who commands that people be stoned to death for consensual sexual acts, for working on the Sabbath, or for speaking irreverently is difficult to reconcile with modern moral intuitions about justice, proportionality, and human dignity. Defenders of biblical morality must either argue that these commands were never meant to reflect ideal justice, that our moral intuitions are simply wrong, or that the commands should be understood differently than they appear on the surface.
What the text says
Whatever one's theological interpretation, the text of the Torah is clear. According to Leviticus 20:10, both parties in an adulterous relationship "shall surely be put to death."4 According to Leviticus 24:16, the person who blasphemes the name of the LORD "shall surely be put to death" and "all the congregation shall stone him."16 According to Leviticus 20:13, if a man lies with a male as with a woman, "they shall surely be put to death."25
These are not obscure regulations buried in lists of ritual requirements. They are explicit statements in major legal sections of the Torah, presented as direct divine commands given to Moses at Sinai. The method of execution, when specified, was stoning—a communal act that required witnesses to throw the first stones, followed by the broader community, ensuring collective participation in enforcing the covenant law.14
Readers of the Bible must decide how to understand these texts. They can accept them as reflecting God's justice in a specific historical context not intended for universal application. They can view them as human constructions reflecting ancient cultural values rather than divine commands. They can argue that the principles remain valid while the specific penalties were culturally conditioned. Or they can accept them as permanent moral standards that modern society has simply rejected.
What readers cannot credibly claim is that these laws are not present in the biblical text or that they are ambiguous about their meaning. The God of the Hebrew Bible, as presented in the Torah, prescribed death by stoning for adultery, blasphemy, and male homosexual acts, among numerous other offenses. Whether that God is worthy of worship, and whether these laws should inform contemporary morality, are questions each person must answer based on their own ethical framework.