Troublesome Topic: WHAT WAS THE PROCEDURE FOR STONING SOMEONE?
Matthew 1:19
Translation
Moreover, her husband, JOSEPH, being a righteous man, and not willing to make her into a disgraceful public show,
Go to footnote numberpurposed to release
Go to footnote numberher privately.
Go to footnote numberParaphrase
But her husband, THE ONE WHO IS INCREASING, being 1) a righteous Torah-following man, and 2) unwilling to make the disgrace she already felt into a public show purposed within himself to divorce her without bringing any formal charges against her. (see full comment below.)
The procedure for stoning was this: First the charges of wrongdoing and the evidence of the act were brought before the proper leaders of the community, and the opportunity of giving a defense was also granted. Witnesses were called as well, for the law required two or more witnesses. However, some things were so private as to have no eye witnesses thus other evidence was considered. If the city leaders determined the party was guilty, and if the Law called for the consequence to be stoning, then off they all went to make that happen. It was immediate. There was no jail time involved.
To carry out a stoning they would usually take the guilty party to the edge of a cliff, bind him (or her,) throw him over the cliff and then each one who was making the accusation, and those convinced of his guilt, would get one chance to throw a stone. The stone could be of any size, but only one was allowed per person. If the thrower missed, he missed, no second chance was given. If the person being stoned lived through it, he lived; if he died, he died.
In the case of a bride who got pregnant by a man who was not her betrothed, she was stoned in front of her father’s house, with the betrothed husband being the one to bring the accusation and cast the first stone, and the community leaders who were convinced by the evidence to be the others who also cast stones upon her. The location was intended to bring great shame to the father for not protecting his daughter properly while under his authority. If she lived, she would stay in her father’s house the rest of her life, living in disgrace, with a very unhappy father whom she had caused to suffer unspeakable shame.
The next lesson is: What Were Joseph’s Options?
Footnotes
1
This word means “to make a show, to make a public display, to disgrace publicly.” The idea of doing it “publicly” is a key part of this word. He could not change the fact that she was already feeling shame and disgrace; that was a product of her turning up pregnant. And that knowledge was already public. Here “privetly” means that he did not make this big deal into a bigger deal by going through the legal process of proving she had sex with another man and proving who that man was.
2
This verb means “to release completely from existing bonds, to set free fully, to let go completely free, discharge, dismiss, or divorce.”
3: “divorce her privately”
This word means either “privately or secretely”. “Privately” seems to fit this situation the best. In that culture an engagement was serious enough that it required a type of divorce ritual in order to be negated. How could Joseph do this privately since people knew they were engaged and they could see, or would soon see, that she was pregnant? Besides that, there are no secrets in a small town. What is meant by this statement is that he would not make formal charges against her.