Well, the man in the story was under no illusion that he was doing the will of God. It was in direct defiance of a clear command.

To answer your question, if we're executing him just for picking up a banana on Thursday, of course that would not be OK. But this is a very different matter. He knew it was not the will of God. Numbers 15.30 sets the context of the story, and it speaks plainly about defiant sin. That's what's going on here.

As to your second paragraph, let's suppose you lived in Germany at the height of Naziism, and you and some friends met together to plan the assassination of Der Fuhrer. Suppose you and others are gathered around a table drawing out some plans. In burst the Gestapo, grab all of you, drag you outside and execute you on the spot.

According to your logic, no one was harmed by writing on the paper, and you were executed for drawing a picture. See, but this is where the deeper meaning of such tiny actions comes into play. You were not just "drawing on a piece of paper," you were planning an act of treason and assassination, though you never did any harm. The man in the story of Numbers 15.30-32 is committing an act of defiant rebellion (treason, if you will) and blasphemy. It's a capital crime, just as it was in Nazi Germany, or would be in any country in the world today. Treason against the king is not just "drawing on paper," "picking up a banana," or "gathering sticks."

"The crime is far deeper and more meaningful than the sticks." That's in YOUR opinion according to YOUR religious text. If another religion said "we must execute this person for picking up a bannana on a thursday" would that be ok? If he thought it was the will of God, and the crime is far deeper and more meaningful than the banana?

Most modern people would be appalled by the actions described in the Bible. You said, "That's like saying a person is executed in our culture for pulling a trigger." No, it's because someone can be killed when they pull a gun trigger. No one is harmed when sticks are picked up. This is morality and philosophy 101.

That's like saying a person is executed in our culture for pulling a trigger. No, it's because the crime is more than the action. The crime is actually the offense perpetrated by the action.

That person was not executed for picking up sticks. He was executed for defying and blaspheming God. The crime is the offense perpetrated by the action.

It's the nature of crime. A sex offender can't say, "You're punishing me because I touched her with my finger." Absolutely not. There is a crime far deeper and more meaningful than the contact. So also here. The crime is far deeper and more meaningful than the sticks.

You're quoting Copan endorsing the idea of killing someone for picking up sticks.

I'm happy to say 100% of the time in 100% of the past and future killing someone just because they pick up sticks is immoral. It's murder, even if it's execution, and it's deeply immoral.

Your response is to quote someone who says it's ok.

I'll give you Paul Copan's comments on Numbers 15.32-36, rather than trying to summarize them and pretend they're my thoughts:

"This story comes on the heels of legislation regarding unintentional sin and defiant or “high-handed” sins. The stick-gathering Sabbath-breaker illustrates a defiant act; it’s a direct violation of God’s clear commands in Ex. 31 & 35. The one working on the Sabbath was to be put to death (Ex. 31.14-15). Then we have the son who blasphemes or slanders God (Lev. 24), as well as the stubborn, rebellious son (Dt. 21). These also are flagrant violations of what God had commanded. Often, when first-time violations were committed in the midst of the community, a harsh punishment came with it (Ex. 32; Lev. 10; Num. 25; 2 Sam. 6.1-7; Acts 5). Especially in exemplary or first-time cases, God seems especially heavy-handed. God isn’t to be trifled with; he takes sin seriously, and he is often setting a precedent with first-time offenses. For the people of God, these punishments are to be sobering reminders of what God expected, and the judgments for violating the covenant contract."

Thanks for your answer.

Can I just clarify, in talking about Numbers 15:32-36:

"they found a man gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and to the whole community. 34 They put him in custody, because there was no clear instruction about what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must surely be put to death; the whole community must stone him with stones outside the camp.” 36 So the whole community took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as the Lord commanded"

Was God moral in commanding this? Was he right?

Jesus didn't come to throw out the Mosaic law, but to fulfill it. The law was all about showing people how to live in relationship with God. The Mosaic law in itself was a temporary measure—showing us what God is like and how we can have a love relationship with him. When Jesus came, he did exactly that: showed us what God is like and how we can have a love relationship with him. So he fulfilled the Law. According to John, he showed us the glory of God, as well as godly attitudes and actions. Moses brought a revelation from God; Jesus was the revelation of God. But even though Jesus was the complete revelation of the person of God, he wasn't dissolving the Law. It's more accurate to say the law of Christ was superimposed over the Mosaic Law.

Jesus is also consistent and not hypocritical. Any teacher (v. 19) needs to practice what he preaches, applying his own teachings to his own life. The test of greatness before God is one who is able to live consistently by their own teachings. There are plenty who teach good things, but do their lives measure up? In verse 20, Jesus is saying that the religious leaders of their day were not getting it all right. If you claim to live by the law (as the Pharisees did), then you have to practice it all and not fail. Their hypocrisy revealed the inadequacy of their whole system. Jesus, on the other hand, fulfilled God's revelation completely.

Can you please explain this text to me?