2 outlooks regarding Scriptural reading

[david rodriguez]

"4 “Teacher,” they said to Jesus, “this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 The law of Moses says to stone her. What do you say?”

6 They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger. 7 They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, “All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone!” 8 Then he stooped down again and wrote in the dust." -John 8

if those trying to trap Jesus according to the Law of Moses, and if they said that the Law of Moses said to stone the woman caught in adultery, then I speculate 2 things. 1- They did not know the Law of Moses or 2- They wanted to know if Jesus knew the Law of Moses. The verse(s) I believe they were using in this instance is found in Deuteronomy 22:20-22
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’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 an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
22 If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.R)'> You must purge the evil from Israel.

In either cases, the woman needed to be a wife of a man and the only instance stoning was required was if the woman was proven to not be a virgin upon marriage, as in verse 21.

Secondly, in the book of Acts 10:12-15,
"12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. 13 Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
14 “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
15 The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean."-
where Peter refuses to eat anything "unclean" or "uncommon," was food actually shown Peter? If it were so, how would God call clean what is unclean according to dietary rules? Did Peter know the full laws regarding food? In Acts 10:28, it is seen that the 'animals' in the 'sheet' were pointing to Cornelius. "28 He said to them: “You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with or visit a Gentile. But God has shown me that I should not call anyone impure or unclean."

 

[BeStill&Know]

I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

 

[football5680]

I would say your explanation for the adultery passage is incorrect. The people who were asking Jesus this question were the scribes and Pharisees, which means they were the most knowledgeable people in Israel when it came to the Torah so they obviously knew what it said and this rules out explanation #1.

Explanation #2 is incorrect because what you are describing is a trick question, not a trap question. They are obviously alluding to Deuteronomy 22 when they said the law of Moses commanded her to be stoned and in this passage it is a specific form of adultery that is being described. The woman may have not met the requirements described in the passage that specifically calls for stoning but Leviticus 20:10 still says she should be put to death but does not give a specific method. So this is simply somewhat of a trick question but there is a correct answer at the end of the day.

A trap question, which is what the Pharisees were asking, means that either answer, regardless of whether you say "Yes" or "No" can be used against you. If Jesus said "Yes, she should be stoned," then they could have used this against him if they took him to the Roman governor because the Roman Empire had the power of life and death in the land they controlled, not the Jews. This is why Jesus had to be brought before Pilate to be executed. If Jesus said "No, she shouldn't be stoned," he would be opposing the law of God and this would be a sin. Jesus understood what they were trying to do so he simply flipped it around on them and told them to take the initiative. When they refused and simply walked away, there were no more accusers and Jesus told her to go and sin no more.

In the passage with Saint Peter, God says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." The words "has made" denote a change in status from unclean to clean. Saint Peter would have been correct under the law but God is saying that he has made this clean for him and it is permissible.

 

[david rodriguez]

I would say your explanation for the adultery passage is incorrect. The people who were asking Jesus this question were the scribes and Pharisees, which means they were the most knowledgeable people in Israel when it came to the Torah so they obviously knew what it said and this rules out explanation #1.

Explanation #2 is incorrect because what you are describing is a trick question, not a trap question. They are obviously alluding to Deuteronomy 22 when they said the law of Moses commanded her to be stoned and in this passage it is a specific form of adultery that is being described. The woman may have not met the requirements described in the passage that specifically calls for stoning but Leviticus 20:10 still says she should be put to death but does not give a specific method. So this is simply somewhat of a trick question but there is a correct answer at the end of the day.

A trap question, which is what the Pharisees were asking, means that either answer, regardless of whether you say "Yes" or "No" can be used against you. If Jesus said "Yes, she should be stoned," then they could have used this against him if they took him to the Roman governor because the Roman Empire had the power of life and death in the land they controlled, not the Jews. This is why Jesus had to be brought before Pilate to be executed. If Jesus said "No, she shouldn't be stoned," he would be opposing the law of God and this would be a sin. Jesus understood what they were trying to do so he simply flipped it around on them and told them to take the initiative. When they refused and simply walked away, there were no more accusers and Jesus told her to go and sin no more.

In the passage with Saint Peter, God says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." The words "has made" denote a change in status from unclean to clean. Saint Peter would have been correct under the law but God is saying that he has made this clean for him and it is permissible.

Okay.. sounds good so far. For the instance of stoning the woman, the only instance, again, for stoning would be to a bethrothed woman. A woman who was not bethroathed but committed adultery was to become the wife of the man with whom adultery was made, if it wa

I would say your explanation for the adultery passage is incorrect. The people who were asking Jesus this question were the scribes and Pharisees, which means they were the most knowledgeable people in Israel when it came to the Torah so they obviously knew what it said and this rules out explanation #1.

Explanation #2 is incorrect because what you are describing is a trick question, not a trap question. They are obviously alluding to Deuteronomy 22 when they said the law of Moses commanded her to be stoned and in this passage it is a specific form of adultery that is being described. The woman may have not met the requirements described in the passage that specifically calls for stoning but Leviticus 20:10 still says she should be put to death but does not give a specific method. So this is simply somewhat of a trick question but there is a correct answer at the end of the day.

A trap question, which is what the Pharisees were asking, means that either answer, regardless of whether you say "Yes" or "No" can be used against you. If Jesus said "Yes, she should be stoned," then they could have used this against him if they took him to the Roman governor because the Roman Empire had the power of life and death in the land they controlled, not the Jews. This is why Jesus had to be brought before Pilate to be executed. If Jesus said "No, she shouldn't be stoned," he would be opposing the law of God and this would be a sin. Jesus understood what they were trying to do so he simply flipped it around on them and told them to take the initiative. When they refused and simply walked away, there were no more accusers and Jesus told her to go and sin no more.

In the passage with Saint Peter, God says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." The words "has made" denote a change in status from unclean to clean. Saint Peter would have been correct under the law but God is saying that he has made this clean for him and it is permissible.

 

[david rodriguez]

Okay.. sounds good so far. For the instance of stoning the woman, the only instance, again, for stoning would be to a bethrothed woman. A woman who was not bethrothed but committed adultery was to become the wife of the man with whom adultery was made, if it was done in the act of rape. If the woman was bethrothed to a man and committed adultery, then it could be understood why 'adultery' would be in place in which case the Law in Leviticus about bringing the woman to the priests would be applicable and would have to be done by her bethrothed husband.

I would say your explanation for the adultery passage is incorrect. The people who were asking Jesus this question were the scribes and Pharisees, which means they were the most knowledgeable people in Israel when it came to the Torah so they obviously knew what it said and this rules out explanation #1.

Explanation #2 is incorrect because what you are describing is a trick question, not a trap question. They are obviously alluding to Deuteronomy 22 when they said the law of Moses commanded her to be stoned and in this passage it is a specific form of adultery that is being described. The woman may have not met the requirements described in the passage that specifically calls for stoning but Leviticus 20:10 still says she should be put to death but does not give a specific method. So this is simply somewhat of a trick question but there is a correct answer at the end of the day.

A trap question, which is what the Pharisees were asking, means that either answer, regardless of whether you say "Yes" or "No" can be used against you. If Jesus said "Yes, she should be stoned," then they could have used this against him if they took him to the Roman governor because the Roman Empire had the power of life and death in the land they controlled, not the Jews. This is why Jesus had to be brought before Pilate to be executed. If Jesus said "No, she shouldn't be stoned," he would be opposing the law of God and this would be a sin. Jesus understood what they were trying to do so he simply flipped it around on them and told them to take the initiative. When they refused and simply walked away, there were no more accusers and Jesus told her to go and sin no more.

In the passage with Saint Peter, God says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." The words "has made" denote a change in status from unclean to clean. Saint Peter would have been correct under the law but God is saying that he has made this clean for him and it is permissible.

 

[david rodriguez]

Okay.. sounds good so far. For the instance of stoning the woman, the only instance, again, for stoning would be to a bethrothed woman. A woman who was not bethrothed but committed adultery was to become the wife of the man with whom adultery was made, if it was done in the act of rape. If the woman was bethrothed to a man and committed adultery, then it could be understood why 'adultery' would be in place in which case the Law in Leviticus about bringing the woman to the priests would be applicable and would have to be done by her bethrothed husband. If in the one case, the woman who was bethrothed to the man who committed adultery and

I would say your explanation for the adultery passage is incorrect. The people who were asking Jesus this question were the scribes and Pharisees, which means they were the most knowledgeable people in Israel when it came to the Torah so they obviously knew what it said and this rules out explanation #1.

Explanation #2 is incorrect because what you are describing is a trick question, not a trap question. They are obviously alluding to Deuteronomy 22 when they said the law of Moses commanded her to be stoned and in this passage it is a specific form of adultery that is being described. The woman may have not met the requirements described in the passage that specifically calls for stoning but Leviticus 20:10 still says she should be put to death but does not give a specific method. So this is simply somewhat of a trick question but there is a correct answer at the end of the day.

A trap question, which is what the Pharisees were asking, means that either answer, regardless of whether you say "Yes" or "No" can be used against you. If Jesus said "Yes, she should be stoned," then they could have used this against him if they took him to the Roman governor because the Roman Empire had the power of life and death in the land they controlled, not the Jews. This is why Jesus had to be brought before Pilate to be executed. If Jesus said "No, she shouldn't be stoned," he would be opposing the law of God and this would be a sin. Jesus understood what they were trying to do so he simply flipped it around on them and told them to take the initiative. When they refused and simply walked away, there were no more accusers and Jesus told her to go and sin no more.

In the passage with Saint Peter, God says "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." The words "has made" denote a change in status from unclean to clean. Saint Peter would have been correct under the law but God is saying that he has made this clean for him and it is permissible.

I am so sorry.. my computer keeps glitching off while i type. that is why you may see repeated posts. Okay to go on from where I thought I left off. In either case of the woman, the woman needed to be bethrothed in order for the stoning to be Lawful under God. If the woman was not bethrothed but committed adultery, by not crying out, then the man was to marry her. Okay. In the instance when the woman is brought before the priest to examine her virginity upon marriage, which if they did not find, could have her stoned Lawfully under God's Laws which meant that God Almighty was not going to repay those that stoned her with any crime itself. Secondly, the bethrothed woman who was suspected as playing the harlot before her marriage bed, would have needed to be brought forth by her bethrothed husband to the priests. If the woman was in the field and was being in the process of being raped but did not cry out, then it would be punishable by 1-stoning, because she was bethrothed but did not cry out, or 2- she would marry the man. in the case of the virgin not bethrothed but involved, it was in the case of rape.


But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

In all of these instances, only verse 22 would apply for the stoning of the woman.. but why did they not bring forth the man also?

 

[david rodriguez]

Okay.. sounds good so far. For the instance of stoning the woman, the only instance, again, for stoning would be to a bethrothed woman. A woman who was not bethrothed but committed adultery was to become the wife of the man with whom adultery was made, if it was done in the act of rape. If the woman was bethrothed to a man and committed adultery, then it could be understood why 'adultery' would be in place in which case the Law in Leviticus about bringing the woman to the priests would be applicable and would have to be done by her bethrothed husband. If in the one case, the woman who was bethrothed to the man who committed adultery and

I am so sorry.. my computer keeps glitching off while i type. that is why you may see repeated posts. Okay to go on from where I thought I left off. In either case of the woman, the woman needed to be bethrothed in order for the stoning to be Lawful under God. If the woman was not bethrothed but committed adultery, by not crying out, then the man was to marry her. Okay. In the instance when the woman is brought before the priest to examine her virginity upon marriage, which if they did not find, could have her stoned Lawfully under God's Laws which meant that God Almighty was not going to repay those that stoned her with any crime itself. Secondly, the bethrothed woman who was suspected as playing the harlot before her marriage bed, would have needed to be brought forth by her bethrothed husband to the priests. If the woman was in the field and was being in the process of being raped but did not cry out, then it would be punishable by 1-stoning, because she was bethrothed but did not cry out, or 2- she would marry the man. in the case of the virgin not bethrothed but involved, it was in the case of rape.


But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:

26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

In all of these instances, only verse 22 would apply for the stoning of the woman.. but why did they not bring forth the man also?

Also for the unclean and uncommon animals that Peter saw lowered down, it is said in the Bible that God is the same, yesterday and forever. It is also said that Jesus came and abolished the Law, having nailed it to the cross. The penalty of sin could only be cleansed by blood. And the blood of Jesus atoned, once and for all for all sins, to those that come to Him to receive pardon. But we must come to Jesus in order to receive His pardon although His blood for the payment of sin was payed. The penalty for sin, though, were to be done by the requirements of God Himself, who told Moses what the requirements would be, of how to purge Israel from the sins. If the food that was lowered in the sheet had somehow become 'clean' and thus ready to be eaten by any of the israelites, and even Jesus Himself, then it would be needs to say that the Levitical Laws concering food could be taken out of the Holy Bible as unnessary to follow but only there to remind the readers that those Laws were once in place in the community of Israel. So, i guess i can say it like this. Although sin is still measured by which law(s) you 'break' the punishment for sin is no longer needed since Jesus paid the price through the 'pardoning of the punishment' for sin by His Life, Death and Resurrection. Even sin(s) pertaining to food and adultery and the like now have no required punishment for them.

 

[david rodriguez]

Also for the unclean and uncommon animals that Peter saw lowered down, it is said in the Bible that God is the same, yesterday and forever. It is also said that Jesus came and abolished the Law, having nailed it to the cross. The penalty of sin could only be cleansed by blood. And the blood of Jesus atoned, once and for all for all sins, to those that come to Him to receive pardon. But we must come to Jesus in order to receive His pardon although His blood for the payment of sin was payed. The penalty for sin, though, were to be done by the requirements of God Himself, who told Moses what the requirements would be, of how to purge Israel from the sins. If the food that was lowered in the sheet had somehow become 'clean' and thus ready to be eaten by any of the israelites, and even Jesus Himself, then it would be needs to say that the Levitical Laws concering food could be taken out of the Holy Bible as unnessary to follow but only there to remind the readers that those Laws were once in place in the community of Israel. So, i guess i can say it like this. Although sin is still measured by which law(s) you 'break' the punishment for sin is no longer needed since Jesus paid the price through the 'pardoning of the punishment' for sin by His Life, Death and Resurrection. Even sin(s) pertaining to food and adultery and the like now have no required punishment for them.

but sin will still be sin even though it is pardonable through confession and repentance.

 

[football5680]

Okay.. sounds good so far. For the instance of stoning the woman, the only instance, again, for stoning would be to a bethrothed woman. A woman who was not bethrothed but committed adultery was to become the wife of the man with whom adultery was made, if it was done in the act of rape. If the woman was bethrothed to a man and committed adultery, then it could be understood why 'adultery' would be in place in which case the Law in Leviticus about bringing the woman to the priests would be applicable and would have to be done by her bethrothed husband. If in the one case, the woman who was bethrothed to the man who committed adultery and

I am so sorry.. my computer keeps glitching off while i type. that is why you may see repeated posts. Okay to go on from where I thought I left off. In either case of the woman, the woman needed to be bethrothed in order for the stoning to be Lawful under God. If the woman was not bethrothed but committed adultery, by not crying out, then the man was to marry her. Okay. In the instance when the woman is brought before the priest to examine her virginity upon marriage, which if they did not find, could have her stoned Lawfully under God's Laws which meant that God Almighty was not going to repay those that stoned her with any crime itself. Secondly, the bethrothed woman who was suspected as playing the harlot before her marriage bed, would have needed to be brought forth by her bethrothed husband to the priests. If the woman was in the field and was being in the process of being raped but did not cry out, then it would be punishable by 1-stoning, because she was bethrothed but did not cry out, or 2- she would marry the man. in the case of the virgin not bethrothed but involved, it was in the case of rape.

Like I said before, you are correct to say that the only specific mention of the punishment of stoning for adultery involves a bethroned woman, but there is also a general punishment associated with adultery and this says that the man and woman should be put to death. In cases where a specific method of execution was not mentioned, the Jews usually used strangulation as the method of execution but if they chose to stone the man and woman, this would not be breaking any law.

The woman did not need to be bethroned to a man to commit adultery and incur the punishment of death. Betrothal was the first step in the process of marriage and at this time the obligations involved with marriage would first begin to apply which is why it could be considered adultery even though they are not technically married at this time.

(Look at what I highlighted in red in your post)
This would be incorrect because a woman cannot commit adultery in this instance unless she is married. The verse that says that the man must then marry her says that the woman is an unbethroned and unmarried virgin. The sin of adultery is not being committed here, it is the sin of fornication. If this woman was married, it would be impossible for the man to take her as his wife because a woman cannot be married to two men at the same time.

In all of these instances, only verse 22 would apply for the stoning of the woman.. but why did they not bring forth the man also?

Because the Pharisees were hypocrites and had no real interest in upholding God's laws, they simply wanted to attack Jesus and trap him so they had something to use against him. By this point in history, the Jews were not enforcing or following these laws. They followed what was convenient to them which gave them the sense of feeling that they were righteous but ignored the laws that were inconvenient.

Also for the unclean and uncommon animals that Peter saw lowered down, it is said in the Bible that God is the same, yesterday and forever. It is also said that Jesus came and abolished the Law, having nailed it to the cross. The penalty of sin could only be cleansed by blood. And the blood of Jesus atoned, once and for all for all sins, to those that come to Him to receive pardon. But we must come to Jesus in order to receive His pardon although His blood for the payment of sin was payed. The penalty for sin, though, were to be done by the requirements of God Himself, who told Moses what the requirements would be, of how to purge Israel from the sins. If the food that was lowered in the sheet had somehow become 'clean' and thus ready to be eaten by any of the israelites, and even Jesus Himself, then it would be needs to say that the Levitical Laws concering food could be taken out of the Holy Bible as unnessary to follow but only there to remind the readers that those Laws were once in place in the community of Israel. So, i guess i can say it like this. Although sin is still measured by which law(s) you 'break' the punishment for sin is no longer needed since Jesus paid the price through the 'pardoning of the punishment' for sin by His Life, Death and Resurrection. Even sin(s) pertaining to food and adultery and the like now have no required punishment for them.

You cannot really use the fact that the Bible says God is the same Yesterday, today and forever to support this assertion. If this was true the way you are interpreting and using it, only the laws given to Noah would apply or Noah would have been given all the laws that were eventually given to Moses. The food was clean at this time because this occurred after the resurrection and the New Covenant was established. Noah, Abraham and Moses were all given laws that applied to a group of people at a certain time. Noah's laws applied to all humanity but the laws of Abraham and Moses applied to a specific group of people. The Covenant that Jesus established is with all of humanity and the laws that were specifically established for the Israelites to follow do not apply. Other laws in the Old Testament are more general and applicable to all of humanity and we can discern what is still sinful based on what Jesus and the apostles taught.

 

[david rodriguez]

Like I said before, you are correct to say that the only specific mention of the punishment of stoning for adultery involves a bethroned woman, but there is also a general punishment associated with adultery and this says that the man and woman should be put to death. In cases where a specific method of execution was not mentioned, the Jews usually used strangulation as the method of execution but if they chose to stone the man and woman, this would not be breaking any law.

The woman did not need to be bethroned to a man to commit adultery and incur the punishment of death. Betrothal was the first step in the process of marriage and at this time the obligations involved with marriage would first begin to apply which is why it could be considered adultery even though they are not technically married at this time.

(Look at what I highlighted in red in your post)
This would be incorrect because a woman cannot commit adultery in this instance unless she is married. The verse that says that the man must then marry her says that the woman is an unbethroned and unmarried virgin. The sin of adultery is not being committed here, it is the sin of fornication. If this woman was married, it would be impossible for the man to take her as his wife because a woman cannot be married to two men at the same time.


Because the Pharisees were hypocrites and had no real interest in upholding God's laws, they simply wanted to attack Jesus and trap him so they had something to use against him. By this point in history, the Jews were not enforcing or following these laws. They followed what was convenient to them which gave them the sense of feeling that they were righteous but ignored the laws that were inconvenient.


You cannot really use the fact that the Bible says God is the same Yesterday, today and forever to support this assertion. If this was true the way you are interpreting and using it, only the laws given to Noah would apply or Noah would have been given all the laws that were eventually given to Moses. The food was clean at this time because this occurred after the resurrection and the New Covenant was established. Noah, Abraham and Moses were all given laws that applied to a group of people at a certain time. Noah's laws applied to all humanity but the laws of Abraham and Moses applied to a specific group of people. The Covenant that Jesus established is with all of humanity and the laws that were specifically established for the Israelites to follow do not apply. Other laws in the Old Testament are more general and applicable to all of humanity and we can discern what is still sinful based on what Jesus and the apostles taught.

Strangely enough, though, is the fact that the Laws given to Noah, to Moses, to Abraham all follow the same line. There is no law in any singular 'set' of laws, that contradict nor negate any other laws in the other 'set' of laws. As far as the adultery is concerned, although the Pharisees weren't serious about keeping the Law themselves, if the woman was caught in fornication or adultery, where was the man who was caught in the very act with the woman? why was he not brought forth also?

 

[football5680]

As far as the adultery is concerned, although the Pharisees weren't serious about keeping the Law themselves, if the woman was caught in fornication or adultery, where was the man who was caught in the very act with the woman? why was he not brought forth also?

Caught in the act simply means that there were witnesses. If the man ran away and they could not find him, they could still charge the woman if there were at least 2 witnesses.

 

[david rodriguez]

Caught in the act simply means that there were witnesses. If the man ran away and they could not find him, they could still charge the woman if there were at least 2 witnesses.

That would seem, to me, being partial in Law.

 

[football5680]

That would seem, to me, being partial in Law.

It's practical. If the guy dies and cannot be put on trial or be charged, would this make the woman innocent if she actually committed the act? No. God requires the testimony of at least two people before anybody can be convicted of a crime and if this requirement can be met then they can be charged. I just used the example of running away because it's more realistic.

 

[david rodriguez]

It's practical. If the guy dies and cannot be put on trial or be charged, would this make the woman innocent if she actually committed the act? No. God requires the testimony of at least two people before anybody can be convicted of a crime and if this requirement can be met then they can be charged. I just used the example of running away because it's more realistic.

good point.