The Adulteress Brought Before Jesus

[LoAmmi]

I saw this story come up the other day and I realized that something about it has bothered me for a long time and I finally put my finger on it. Taking the story at face value, all those people who brought the woman before Jesus were guilty of committing a sin just by doing that. The Torah talks about what happens when a person is accused of violating the Torah, and I can tell you the answer was not to drag the person in front of the nearest street preacher and ask them what should happen. You were supposed to let the authorities know what had happened and let the courts decide.

Is it possible that the nature of the story changes if you understand that every person in that crowd were committing a sin at that very moment as opposed to the story being against punishing criminals in general?

 

[Red Fox]

What I know and understand about the story is that Jesus put the woman's accusers back in their place and reminded them that they weren't without sin either.

 

[LoAmmi]

What I know and understand about the story is that Jesus put the woman's accusers back in their place and reminded them that they weren't without sin either.

Does that mean anybody who sins is unable to judge a person for crimes? Should we remove our court system and let criminals run amok because none of us are sinless? A murderer cannot be put in prison because there's nobody that can judge them guilty for that crime. How would that work in society?

 

[Songsmith]

What you said in the OP is at play here. Jesus would have recognized that the people standing as accusers were usurping the authority of the courts. Those people tested him time and time again. They inflamed the passions of the laypersons and then asked Jesus what they should do in order to get him to say something incriminating. You see it with them asking Jesus by what authority he cast out demons, in asking him if they were to pay taxes to Rome, and so on and so on. Every time he turned their traps back around on them. He was wise beyond those trying to get dirt on him.

 

[LoAmmi]

What you said in the OP is at play here. Jesus would have recognized that the people standing as accusers were usurping the authority of the courts. Those people tested him time and time again. They inflamed the passions of the laypersons and then asked Jesus what they should do in order to get him to say something incriminating. You see it with them asking Jesus by what authority he cast out demons, in asking him if they were to pay taxes to Rome, and so on and so on. Every time he turned their traps back around on them. He was wise beyond those trying to get dirt on him.

I've always said that either these things didn't actually happen or he was being attacked by the least educated, least intelligent Jews I can think of. Any Jew with a decent Jewish education could beat them and it wasn't a measure of wisdom to be able to do so. I know people who could have easily defeated them in their teens.

But the question I have is if the point is that those who are with sin cannot punish criminals, how do Christians and those who believe this justify punishing criminals in society?

 

[Songsmith]

I've always said that either these things didn't actually happen or he was being attacked by the least educated, least intelligent Jews I can think of. Any Jew with a decent Jewish education could beat them and it wasn't a measure of wisdom to be able to do so. I know people who could have easily defeated them in their teens.

But the question I have is if the point is that those who are with sin cannot punish criminals, how do Christians and those who believe this justify punishing criminals in society?

While on some level I agree with you, I also think we are seeing a nutshell of what the situation is for the purposes of brevity. I'd be willing to venture a guess that the questions posed to him and the situations revolving around those questions were more complicated than the tidbits that we see.

 

[LoAmmi]

While on some level I agree with you, I also think we are seeing a nutshell of what the situation is for the purposes of brevity. I'd be willing to venture a guess that the questions posed to him and the situations revolving around those questions were more complicated than the tidbits that we see.

You can see evolving terms in the text too as we go from earlier written to later written. I'd look it up if I had the time, but I know that in an instance in Mark the Jews come up to debate with him, which is a pretty positive term in general, and by the time we get to John's Gospel we get to the Jews coming to test him. The words used are very important.

 

[Songsmith]

I'll have to do some checking into that. Not that you are wrong, simply that I usually need to see those things and the context in which they are said before I can comment. Thanks for the study point.

 

[Celticflower]

I've always said that either these things didn't actually happen or he was being attacked by the least educated, least intelligent Jews I can think of. Any Jew with a decent Jewish education could beat them and it wasn't a measure of wisdom to be able to do so. I know people who could have easily defeated them in their teens.

But the question I have is if the point is that those who are with sin cannot punish criminals, how do Christians and those who believe this justify punishing criminals in society?

I don't think it is so much a matter of who can or can't punish criminals, but that those who wish to sit in judgement need to be sure that they are not overstepping the bounds of legality. The people brought a woman to Jesus to be judged - but where was the man who was also involved? And did those who were ready to stone the woman turn away because of some hidden sin or because they knew what they were doing was outside the bounds of the law and was an offense that could result in a similar punishment for themselves?

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think it is so much a matter of who can or can't punish criminals, but that those who wish to sit in judgement need to be sure that they are not overstepping the bounds of legality. The people brought a woman to Jesus to be judged - but where was the man who was also involved? And did those who were ready to stone the woman turn away because of some hidden sin or because they knew what they were doing was outside the bounds of the law and was an offense that could result in a similar punishment for themselves?

I often see this used to say that the Torah laws were wrong because they included the death penalty for these kinds of offenses and I wonder if it is the case that the story is actually saying that. I would agree with you that if the story is genuine, it probably has more to do with the people recognizing that they were not following the Torah commands.

The man being involved or not doesn't matter though. Each person is responsible for their own sin and each person involved would receive their own trial. It may have been found that the man or woman was not culpable for their actions while the other one was.

 

[Architeuthus]

Is it possible that the nature of the story changes if you understand that every person in that crowd were committing a sin at that very moment as opposed to the story being against punishing criminals in general?

I don't think the story is "against punishing criminals in general."

Also, read the story:

"Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. 'Teacher,' they said to Him, 'this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?' They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him. Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, 'The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.' Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. When Jesus stood up, He said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' 'No one, Lord,' she answered. 'Neither do I condemn you,' said Jesus. 'Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.' "

She was "caught in the act of committing adultery," but yet the man involved is mysteriously absent.

 

[Messy]

I often see this used to say that the Torah laws were wrong because they included the death penalty for these kinds of offenses and I wonder if it is the case that the story is actually saying that. I would agree with you that if the story is genuine, it probably has more to do with the people recognizing that they were not following the Torah commands.

The man being involved or not doesn't matter though. Each person is responsible for their own sin and each person involved would receive their own trial. It may have been found that the man or woman was not culpable for their actions while the other one was.

The Torah laws were not wrong, but she didn't need to get stoned. He also spoke with the woman at the well, He didn't bring her or this woman or the one that was weeping at His feet to court. If He thought that was the right thing to do why didn't He do it? He took that punishment by dying, so her old nature could die with Him and she didn't need to get stoned. If all adulterers still needed to get stoned, why did He reach out to the prostitutes?
Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you

 

[LoAmmi]

I don't think the story is "against punishing criminals in general."

Also, read the story:

"Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, making her stand in the center. 'Teacher,' they said to Him, 'this woman was caught in the act of committing adultery. In the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do You say?' They asked this to trap Him, in order that they might have evidence to accuse Him. Jesus stooped down and started writing on the ground with His finger. When they persisted in questioning Him, He stood up and said to them, 'The one without sin among you should be the first to throw a stone at her.' Then He stooped down again and continued writing on the ground. When they heard this, they left one by one, starting with the older men. Only He was left, with the woman in the center. When Jesus stood up, He said to her, 'Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?' 'No one, Lord,' she answered. 'Neither do I condemn you,' said Jesus. 'Go, and from now on do not sin anymore.' "

She was "caught in the act of committing adultery," but yet the man involved is mysteriously absent.

As I said, the presence of the man is not important in the same way that if we catch two people robbing a bank, the second person being at the trial isn't important to convicting the first.

What is the trap, by the way? If he had said "we should follow the Law of Moses", what would they have accused him of? Wanting to keep the Torah?

 

[LoAmmi]

The Torah laws were not wrong, but she didn't need to get stoned. He also spoke with the woman at the well, He didn't bring her or this woman or the one that was weeping at His feet to court. If He thought that was the right thing to do why didn't He do it? He took that punishment by dying, so her old nature could die with Him and she didn't need to get stoned. If all adulterers still needed to get stoned, why did He reach out to the prostitutes?
Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes go into the kingdom of God before you

An unmarried prostitute would not be committing adultery according to the Torah.

 

[Messy]

An unmarried prostitute would not be committing adultery according to the Torah.

Oops, now you see how much I know about the Torah, but the other two should have been stoned then too.
But if a single prostitute had sex with a married man shouldn't she be stoned? What about Tamar?

 

[Messy]

https://erikbrewer.wordpress.com/20...-by-not-stoning-the-woman-caught-in-adultery/

• They did not bring the man.

• They were not seeking justice.

• In order to uphold the Law of Moses, both participants were to be tried and put to death.

• If Jesus would have condemned her to death He would have broken the Law of Moses

• There is no contradiction here.

• Jesus actually works according to the Law of Moses by not breaking it.

• When He asked, “he who is without sin” they all left because they were all sinning in this specific situation by showing partiality and not bringing the man to be tried as well.

• Jesus took the Law of Moses one step further (He perfected It) by forgiving the woman (something that the Law could not do because It could only condemn).

 

[Songsmith]

As I said, the presence of the man is not important in the same way that if we catch two people robbing a bank, the second person being at the trial isn't important to convicting the first.

What is the trap, by the way? If he had said "we should follow the Law of Moses", what would they have accused him of? Wanting to keep the Torah?

The trap is, as it always was, trying to get him to either deny the Torah or to go against the Roman authority. The Jews did not have the right to carry out capital(sp?) punishment as a part of the Roman Empire. Had he said, Yes, let's stone her, they would have brought accusation against him to Pilate, if he says no, let's not (stone her, pay taxes, etc.) then he is proven to be a fraud because he is unwilling to follow Torah.

 

[LoAmmi]

The trap is, as it always was, trying to get him to either deny the Torah or to go against the Roman authority. The Jews did not have the right to carry out capital(sp?) punishment as a part of the Roman Empire. Had he said, Yes, let's stone her, they would have brought accusation against him to Pilate, if he says no, let's not (stone her, pay taxes, etc.) then he is proven to be a fraud because he is unwilling to follow Torah.

And yet Acts shows the Jews having the authority to stone Stephen. As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't much care if the Jews policed their own and it was an invention that the Jews lacked that authority.

 

[Songsmith]

And yet Acts shows the Jews having the authority to stone Stephen. As far as I'm aware, the Romans didn't much care if the Jews policed their own and it was an invention that the Jews lacked that authority.

I'd have to be shown that. As I understand it they had the ability to do anything short of capital punishment. I'm not sure how to prove that one way or the other though.

 

[LoAmmi]

I'd have to be shown that. As I understand it they had the ability to do anything short of capital punishment. I'm not sure how to prove that one way or the other though.

Acts 7. Stephen appears before the Sanhedrin and in the end he is stoned. Nothing is recorded of them being unable to do this or getting in trouble later for doing it. The New Testament seems to want them to be able to do it or not be able to do it when it suits their narrative.

Of course, I'd be pretty desperate to figure out a way to turn a man condemned and killed by the Roman Empire into a man killed and condemned by the Jews when trying to convince Romans to join my new religion too.