The woman caught in adultery

[Avodat]

No case was proven against this woman. All she received from Yeshua was what a judge might say to someone today against whom a charge was made that failed due to lack of witnesses: 'You are free to go. I don't expect to see you before me again'. She left without a stain on her character (but greatly challenged by what had happened, I'm sure). It is libel to say she was the woman caught in adultery because no case against her was ever made according to the Law - the man who should have been condemned with her was not there to be stoned. There appeared to be no witnesses - bear in mind that if the witness was false they received the punishment their victim would have received! The whole case was a white-out.

 

[yonah_mishael]

"We have taken her in the act" = There are witnesses. Two witnesses is enough for a case. I don't know what you mean.

 

[Avodat]

"We have taken her in the act" = There are witnesses. Two witnesses is enough for a case. I don't know what you mean.

Two 'witnesses' - had they been sure of their case they would have pressed the matter and one would have had to throw the first stone. No one did, as the point was made. If they were truly witnesses why did they not obey the Law and bring the man with whom the woman was caught? Seems clear to me that the 'witnesses' were not what they made out to be. False witnesses are not witnesses according to the Law.

Can you justify their actions, or inaction?

 

[jcpro]

The standards for death penalty were so high at that time that I find this whole episode very unlikely.

 

[Avodat]

The standards for death penalty were so high at that time that I find this whole episode very unlikely.

To a certain extent that is irrelevant - the point I am making is that there was no case to answer because there were no credible witnesses and only one person was charged; you cannot commit physical adultery on your own!

 

[jcpro]

To a certain extent that is irrelevant - the point I am making is that there was no case to answer because there were no credible witnesses and only one person was charged; you cannot commit physical adultery on your own!

You're speculating about the lack of witnesses. As another poster mentioned, she was caught in the act, so there was at least one eye witness. But, that is a mute point as well. Even with two impeccable witnesses it still would've been not enough for a death penalty.

 

[Avodat]

You're speculating about the lack of witnesses. As another poster mentioned, she was caught in the act, so there was at least one eye witness. But, that is a mute point as well. Even with two impeccable witnesses it still would've been not enough for a death penalty.

The simple fact remains that:

a) the accused should have been accompanied by the man involved. I repeat, you cannot commit physical adultery on your own, regardless of any witness saying you have.

b) if the witnesses were true witnesses where was the man involved? Why did they fail to bring him along as well?

c) if they were true witnesses why did one of them NOT throw the first stone, if they were trying to fulfil the Law?

d) in the light of 'a' through 'c' we have to conclude that the 'witnesses' were there, yes, but they were lying. Why is it so hard for people to accept that even in those days witnesses perjured themselves - that's why there was a law specifically about just that - that false witnesses must suffer the punishment the accused would have received. In this case they walked away when challenged. They were liars! Seems to be that so many people want to condemn the woman but haven't the ability to face facts and realise that the witnesses were condemned by their own words and actions. The witnesses violated the law - that is what it was all about! Yeshua was enforcing the Law as it was written and, as the Law stood, she was not guilty because the witnesses withdrew and, in so doing, halted any further action against her.

 

[jcpro]

The simple fact remains that:

a) the accused should have been accompanied by the man involved. I repeat, you cannot commit physical adultery on your own, regardless of any witness saying you have.

b) if the witnesses were true witnesses where was the man involved? Why did they fail to bring him along as well?

c) if they were true witnesses why did one of them NOT throw the first stone, if they were trying to fulfil the Law?

d) in the light of 'a' through 'c' we have to conclude that the 'witnesses' were there, yes, but they were lying. Why is it so hard for people to accept that even in those days witnesses perjured themselves - that's why there was a law specifically about just that - that false witnesses must suffer the punishment the accused would have received. In this case they walked away when challenged. They were liars! Seems to be that so many people want to condemn the woman but haven't the ability to face facts and realise that the witnesses were condemned by their own words and actions. The witnesses violated the law - that is what it was all about! Yeshua was enforcing the Law as it was written and, as the Law stood, she was not guilty because the witnesses withdrew and, in so doing, halted any further action against her.

I think you may be reading too much into this. This is one of those instances when the plain meaning of the text matches the context and the message it conveys. The rest is hidden in the fog of time, therefore a speculation.

 

[Avodat]

I think you may be reading too much into this. This is one of those instances when the plain meaning of the text matches the context and the message it conveys. The rest is hidden in the fog of time, therefore a speculation.

I agree - that is what I have been saying. The Law is very clear on these issues. Time doesn't affect the application of G_d's Law.

We must agree to differ on this, it seems.

 

[A_Pioneer]

She couldn't have committed the act alone. She was presented alone.

 

[Avodat]

She couldn't have committed the act alone. She was presented alone.

Yeah! Someone else has spotted the obvious flaw in this account! It takes two to have sex! Where was the man, as the law required?

I knew a lady many, many years ago who was accused of adultery in a court case... summonses were issued against her, claiming she had committed adultery with a guy she was having an affair with - seemed an open and shut case - until she pointed out that she and the man she was having sex with were not married to each other and that, in any case, she was a spinster - totally un-married! You have to be married, as well, to commit adultery.

 

[yonah_mishael]

I've always been told that this was a misogynistic thing - that they didn't take the man but only the woman. ...

 

[Avodat]

I've always been told that this was a misogynistic thing - that they didn't take the man but only the woman. ...

Sounds feasible, but no trial could be carried out in that case, so what would be the point? Maybe just to test Yeshua - to see if he would either reject the case and so uphold the Law or have her stoned and so break the Law? The whole account raises more questions the deeper we look into it.

 

[jcpro]

I've always been told that this was a misogynistic thing - that they didn't take the man but only the woman. ...

That's what I've been thinking as well.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Sounds feasible, but no trial could be carried out in that case, so what would be the point? Maybe just to test Yeshua - to see if he would either reject the case and so uphold the Law or have her stoned and so break the Law? The whole account raises more questions the deeper we look into it.

But, would they really bring a woman to Jesus to put her on TRIAL? I don't think this was a trial so much as a test of Jesus' ethical/moral principles. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[mercy1061]

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......

A rabbi had authority to answer questions concerning the law....

Where was this woman's husband? It was not about the adulterous woman, they wanted to stone Yeshua. If Yeshua would have ordered her execution, he would have been executed next; Yeshua could not legally prove his birthright. After all Joseph thought to put Mary away privately (Matt 1).

They thought Yeshua was born from fornication or adultery (John 8). The man was not there to accuse the adulterous woman; the man was never there to claim Yeshua as his son. The man who caused this woman to commit adultery was not present at trial; neither was her husband. They could not stone her anyway; the whole purpose for stoning the wife was to appease the husband's anger (Prov 6).

Therefore the stones they picked up were to be throwed at Yeshua............

If the husband forgave his wife, and decided to only put her away because he himself did not see her in the act (he could not prove it); then he could most certainly send her away out of his house with a "certificate of divorce". If the husband found the man who caused his wife to commit adultery (two witnesses); then they both would be stoned to death.

How did this adulterous woman offend the pharisees? She did not; but Yeshua did.

 

[Avodat]

But, would they really bring a woman to Jesus to put her on TRIAL? I don't think this was a trial so much as a test of Jesus' ethical/moral principles. Wouldn't you agree?

I thought that was what I was suggesting - to see whether he would uphold the law or break the law. His moral /ethical principles would have guided him in this. Mind you, I don't agree that that is what happened, but it is a possibility, I suppose.

 

[Avodat]

Where was this woman's husband? It was not about the adulterous woman, they wanted to stone Yeshua. If Yeshua would have ordered her execution, he would have been executed next; Yeshua could not legally prove his birthright. After all Joseph thought to put Mary away privately (Matt 1).

They thought Yeshua was born from fornication or adultery (John 8). The man was not there to accuse the adulterous woman; the man was never there to claim Yeshua as his son. The man who caused this woman to commit adultery was not present at trial; neither was her husband. They could not stone her anyway; the whole purpose for stoning the wife was to appease the husband's anger (Prov 6). If the husband forgave his wife, and decided to only put her away because he himself did not see her in the act (he could not prove it); then he could most certainly send her away out of his house with a "certificate of divorce". If the husband found the man who caused his wife to commit adultery (two witnesses); then they both would be stoned to death.

How did this adulterous woman offend the pharisees? She did not; but Yeshua did.

Hi there Mercy 1061.

As you appear not to be a Messianic Jew or Gentile (looking at your icon), you are permitted only to ask questions or to post in fellowship. You may not teach or debate. Please read the SOP at the head of this forum to see our forum specific rules.

 

[yedida]

Hi there Mercy 1061.

As you appear not to be a Messianic Jew or Gentile (looking at your icon), you are permitted only to ask questions or to post in fellowship. You may not teach or debate. Please read the SOP at the head of this forum to see our forum specific rules.

I think he was fellowshipping - he would be crossing the line if he persisted that he was absolutely correct. Just offering his view isn't really teaching, and definitely not debating. It's a fine line, but one, imho, not crossed.
That's how we all learn. And somethings he said, could fly.

 

[Avodat]

I think he was fellowshipping - he would be crossing the line if he persisted that he was absolutely correct. Just offering his view isn't really teaching, and definitely not debating. It's a fine line, but one, imho, not crossed.
That's how we all learn. And somethings he said, could fly.

Ok - thanks for that, we'll see how it goes.

Night night!