The woman caught in adultery

[Temptinfates]

I believe everyone knows the story that would be here..

My question is this..

What do you think Yeshua's position would have been if they brought her back a few days later for the same offense?

Do you believe he would tell her the same thing again? Or do you think he would hand her over to those wanting the penalty enforced?

Can of worms here, so play nice.

Temptinfates

 

[JRSut1000]

Well for one, it wasnt a real trial or anything, it couldnt have been. If the woman truly was 'caught in the act', then where was the man? Both had to be present.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Do you guys think this text was really part of the gospel text?

 

[Temptinfates]

Oh my. A Yonah post. YAY.
Now you have a monkey wrench. Do you mean that it wasn't Yonah? Out of all possible replies, I was not expecting that one. Please explain.

Temptinfates

 

[Temptinfates]

Perhaps something along these lines is what Yonah is referring to...

https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4519

 

[Seeking Him]

Well for one, it wasnt a real trial or anything, it couldnt have been. If the woman truly was 'caught in the act', then where was the man? Both had to be present.

The only thing about that was, the pharisees would not be that stupid, they knew the law, and were earnestly seeking to kill the Lord, I'm sure the man was present ot hey had some kind of legal president. Besides, the Lord's reply did not mention the fact that they had no legal rights, which I"m sure he would have done, if they were not legal.

David was allowed to live for his crimes also.

 

[mfaust]

Well I know for one thing, many people who believe the Eastern Peshitta has the original reading vs the Greek MSS, (and there are quite a few out there) notice that the Eastern Peshitta does not contain this story. And looking at it in that light, it is not unusual for some to reject it and classify it as a later addition.

Just my 0.02

 

[yonah_mishael]

This pericope is actually found in many different places. It's not original to its current location (at the end of John 7 and for the first half of John 8). I can't say too much about the consequences of this fact, but it's something you should take into consideration if you believe in the plenary inspiration of the text - since this is certainly a textual import from somewhere else.

 

[Temptinfates]

Thanx, Yonah. I made the mistake of just assuming that it was part if the original text. I'm stunned for the time-being like a fish floating to the top of the water after the dynamite has exploded. Yikes.
Temptinfates

 

[yedida]

David lived because he went directly to the Lord for forgiveness. It is evident these guys did NOT see Yeshua as the Lord. So that doesn't fly.
They were to present the woman AND the man before the High Priest. Yeshua was not of that office at this time - so that doesn't fly.


It doesn't bother me whether it was or wasn't a part of the original because of the way I see it played out. Yeshua was in no position at that moment to condemn her legally, nor to exonerate her legally either. If the man were present, why would no one come forward when Yeshua asked them too. I see them hanging back, because they finally realized more was at stake than the woman's life, and Yeshua. Their very livee were at stake for being false witnesses. Torah said that the punishment they were wishing for the woman would fall on them if their witness was untrue......

 

[yonah_mishael]

So, the general question could be raised without too much of a connection to this section. We could just ask - do you think that Jesus would approve of the condemnatory issues of the Torah? Would he condemn an adulterous to death? Would he insist on mercy for those who seek it? Would it be within his moral teachings to condemn someone to death? What if they didn't ask for forgiveness? Would he support the death penalty? Do you have reasons to believe the way you do? What about in cases of murder?

It's an interesting question. Of course, the whole 70×7 thing comes to mind. Would this fall into that category? What do you guys think?

 

[yedida]

Ah, I forgot one - neither the High Priest nor the Sanhedrin could put a man to death, only Rome could do that.

As to all your other questions, Yonah. Good thoughts. We're told that Yeshua had no need for man to tell him of man, he knew their hearts. Perhaps he saw into her heart that she wasn't where she would like to be spiritually. That she, like some women today, fell into that because it seemed the only way to survive and she would be grateful to know that she wasn't stuck there. That there were some who could see beyond the present and beyond the ugly.

 

[Temptinfates]

My main point was that in the story....he forgives her and tells her not to sin/commit adultery again. What jf she were brought back for committing adultery a few days later. What do you suppose his response might have been, after telling her not to do it any more. Thanx
Temptinfates

 

[yedida]

I think he would either have continued to tell her to clean up her act and to stop acting so stupidly or he might turn and rail on her as he did many Pharisees. He was walking still as a man - one many loved and adored and one that many feared and hated, but still a man with little authority to put a person to death. I have a feeling that the Spirit that was all over him was sensed by this woman and there would not be a second time, ever for her to do that kind of deed. (I'm not even convinced that she was "taken in the act" anyway. Perhaps she had that reputation, but a reputation and caught in the act are two entirely different things.)

 

[aniello]

My main point was that in the story....he forgives her and tells her not to sin/commit adultery again. What jf she were brought back for committing adultery a few days later. What do you suppose his response might have been, after telling her not to do it any more. Thanx
Temptinfates

Perhaps His response might have been something along the line of 'forgive seven times seventy'?

aniello

 

[Jase]

Do you guys think this text was really part of the gospel text?

Nope. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" doesn't exist in the originals.

 

[Jase]

So, the general question could be raised without too much of a connection to this section. We could just ask - do you think that Jesus would approve of the condemnatory issues of the Torah? Would he condemn an adulterous to death? Would he insist on mercy for those who seek it? Would it be within his moral teachings to condemn someone to death? What if they didn't ask for forgiveness? Would he support the death penalty? Do you have reasons to believe the way you do? What about in cases of murder?

It's an interesting question. Of course, the whole 70×7 thing comes to mind. Would this fall into that category? What do you guys think?

I don't believe he'd support the death penalty. The death penalty under Jewish law was more of a deterrent than a practice. If even the Rabbis of the day viewed a Sanhedrin who would execute someone as destructive, I don't think Jesus would have viewed it as merciful or appropriate, especially for an earthly judge to control.

 

[pat34lee]

So, the general question could be raised without too much of a connection to this section. We could just ask - do you think that Jesus would approve of the condemnatory issues of the Torah? Would he condemn an adulterous to death? Would he insist on mercy for those who seek it? Would it be within his moral teachings to condemn someone to death? What if they didn't ask for forgiveness? Would he support the death penalty? Do you have reasons to believe the way you do? What about in cases of murder?

It's an interesting question. Of course, the whole 70×7 thing comes to mind. Would this fall into that category? What do you guys think?

The 70x7 falls outside this because that is for one brother offending another, not dealing with a criminal issue.

Would he support the death penalty? Of course. But only when it was the appropriate punishment. As a messianic, I believe him to be the living Torah. He wrote the death penalties in it. This case was never about the death penalty, but his popularity with the people.

The reason it was such a big deal might be because they rarely or never carried out the sentence of stoning for adultery by that time. I don't know enough about 1st century customs to know for sure though.

 

[Jase]

The 70x7 falls outside this because that is for one brother offending another, not dealing with a criminal issue.

Would he support the death penalty? Of course. But only when it was the appropriate punishment. As a messianic, I believe him to be the living Torah. He wrote the death penalties in it. This case was never about the death penalty, but his popularity with the people.

The reason it was such a big deal might be because they rarely or never carried out the sentence of stoning for adultery by that time. I don't know enough about 1st century customs to know for sure though.

The death penalty in the Torah was never intended to be carried out. Jewish law made this impossible. It was merely a deterrent to prevent the Israelites from doing things that the Egyptians and Caananites were doing.

 

[pat34lee]

The death penalty in the Torah was never intended to be carried out. Jewish law made this impossible. It was merely a deterrent to prevent the Israelites from doing things that the Egyptians and Caananites were doing.

The first man caught breaking the Sabbath was taken outside the camp and stoned at YHWH's command. Why? Because he did so knowing the law, and openly defying it: defying YHWH.

In some legal matters, death would have been sentenced only for extreme circumstances, but it was not just to be an idle threat.