• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

The woman caught in adultery

Discussion in 'Messianic Judaism' started by Temptinfates, Jan 2, 2012.

  1. mercy1061

    mercy1061 Newbie

    +114
    Messianic
    Married
    Question 1: Where was her husband?

    Question 2: According to the law, what was the purpose of stoning the adulterous woman?

    Question 3: Why did they ask Yeshua for his advice, if they already had the legal authority passed down from Moses?

    Question 4: Did a rabbi in those days have the right to answer any questions concerning the law?
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2012
  2. yedida

    yedida Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

    +1,405
    In Relationship
    Now, I refer you to what you quoted. Offering a perspective is one thing, pushing it is another. That has crossed the line in the SoP. I, now, also would refer you to the SoP.
    Thank you.
     
  3. mercy1061

    mercy1061 Newbie

    +114
    Messianic
    Married
    I was "modifying" my post to only questions; I did not push anything.
     
  4. yedida

    yedida Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

    +1,405
    In Relationship
    Okay. Point noted. I think all the posts probably passed in cyber space. Difficulties of this venue. ;)
     
  5. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach based Messianic Jew

    +344
    Messianic
    Married
    I think perhaps that we are all missing the point. Sure there were legalities concerning the death penalty in ancient Judea. But there were also many instances of mobs attempting to take the law into their own hands recorded in scripture. Need examples? So those objections about legalalities or even moral considerations are put to rest. Mob rule is not conducive to such things.

    This story has all of the earmarks of just such an incident. The motive of the instigators is revealed in the text too. This was supposed to be an attempt to trap Messiah. So lets start there.

    For those that contend that this story has appeared elsewhere, I would wholeheartedly agree. This is indeed an old and time-tested ploy that has played out in many places, cultures and circumstances. It is based on the actions of individuals with evil intent, a carefully conceived plan and a mob to manipulate. Gee, that original, right? Sounds more like basic human nature. Consider:

    The antagonist thrust the hero into a physically dangerous and politically volatile situation and then the hero is called upon to make a critical and crucial decision with little or no warning. I can almost hear the instigators whipping the crowd into a frenzy before the other shoe drops. Does this sound familiar to anyone? Really?

    They find a prostitute to demonize (pretty easy to do).
    "She did this!" "She did that!" they accuse.
    A crowd gathers.
    More accusations are made.
    Oh, she is everything that is wrong in this place. She is pure evil!
    "Stone her!" someone cries out.
    The crowd reaches to take her from her accusers, but wait!
    "No" the leaders say. "Let's take her to that guy that thinks he's so special!" (fill in the underlined with the designations of your choosing, Rabbi and Messiah, 'sheriff' and 'so quick', 'presidential candidate' and 'so smart', etc.)

    So the incensed crowd responds with cries for blood and torches held high in the dead of night... oops, wrong movie. :blush: So the incensed crowd follows the accusers as they drag the poor woman to where the Messiah was last seen. (He's easy to find 'cause He hangs out and teaches a lot.)

    "Here Rabbi, you are soooo knowledgeable and cool and groovy. This and that and the other about all this wicked woman has done, so what should we do?" they ask innocently - not! This of course, with the angry crowd looking on and knowing that almost any response will be the wrong one in the eyes of the crowd - because they are looking for blood not justice!

    Now I think you might be getting the picture. OK, back to the OP. What do you think would happen the second time?
     
  6. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others

    Christ came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. With the example of John 8 and the situation of the adulterous woman, this is seen clearly.
    Others came claiming to support "Law", which Jesus in Matthew 5 already claimed that He was about/often referenced or pointed others to when questioned.


    Reading John 8 is interesting when seeing how the Jewish leaders had already disregarded the Law by arresting the woman without the man being present...for the Law required that both parties to adultery be stoned (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). The leaders were trying to use the woman was a trap so that they could trick Jesus. For if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they could EASILY accuse Him of violating the Torah/Mosaic Law.

    However, if he urged them to execute her, they would report hm to the Romans since they did not permit Jewws to carry out their own executions (John 18:31).

    Jesus was not helpless, thankfully. Anyone studying Jesus knows that he was often seen as one who was a MASTER at persuasion/avoiding traps and cornering others who tried to pin him in a debate---as seen in Matthew 22:15-22 (Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26) when he was questioned about payiong taxes or Matthew 21:23-27 (Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8) when the Pharisees tried to trap him by asking where he gained his authority to do as he did......and the same when he was questioned about healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6 (Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 6:6-11). Mark 12:28-35 (Matthew 22:23-33) also comes to mind when Christ quoted the OT to a lawyer trying to trap him, as Jesus showed that God's laws were not meant to be burdensome---and can be summed up into two simple principles: love God and love others (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18).


    The Pharisees, who had classified over 600 laws, often tried to distinguish the more important from the less important....but in that instance when the "expert in the law" asked Jesus to identify the most Important, Jesus showed the Lawyer that when you love God completely and care for others as you care for yourself, then you have fulfilled the intent of the Ten Commandments/Decalouge and the other OT Laws.


    Later, Jesus also went further in inditing the religious leaders for not truly living out the heart of God's Law that was meant to give freedom when it came to their not loving LOVE/JUSTICE and Mercy (Matthew 23:23)--with another lawyer being put in check later when trying to go around what Jesus said about loving our neighbors by asking who ones' neighbor was....as seen in the Good Samaritan Parable (Luke 10:25-37). There were many other instances besides the ones mentioned thus far...but all of that is stated to show how Jesus truly lived out the expression we use in the hood to express tact---the phrase being "Mamma didn't raise no fool." :)

    Jesus was truly the ultimate teacher/student of the Law.... and with those in John 8 trying to trap it, Jesus flipped it on all of them by saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone".....for because Christ upheld the legal penalty for adultery (stoning), Jesus could not be accussed of being against the Law. And if the leaders did all things in order and for right reasons, there's no reason to think Jesus would have said stonning was not permissible. Jesus was a Jew who lived under the Law and said in Matthew 5:17-20 that he did not come to break it. However, by saying only a sinless person could throw the first stone, he highlighted the importance of compassion and forgiveness that was to always be remembered whenever administering the Law occurred.



    When Jesus said only the sinless could throw the first stone, the leaders slipped quietly awat from the eldest to the youngest. Some may claim others thought, "Man, mabye the woman doesn't deserve death..I'm not perfect, after all.."---but its most probable to consider that they were walking away due to how Jesus's comment highlighted their OWN sins in the process.


    The older men were more aware of their sins than the yougner...and for the sake of humour, if stonning someone without going through PROPER chain of command/process, they could ALSO be killed themselves for violating God's command......as they already were false witnesses (Exodus 23:1-3, Exodus 20:15-17 , Numbers 35:29-31, Deuteronomy 17:1-8, Deuteronomy 19:14-20, Psalm 27:11-13 , Psalm 35:11, ).


    Queen Jezebel --the most WICKED woman in Scripture ( 1 Kings 16:30-32, 1 Kings 18:3-5, 1 Kings 19:1-3 , 1 Kings 21:24-26, 2 Kings 9:6-11, 2 Kings 9:30-37, Revelation 2:19-21, etc) did that, if you recall, when she sought to use the Law in gaining the vineyard of Naboth in I Kings 21. She devised a scheme that appeared legal to get the land for her husband.


    Two witnesses were required to establish guilt, and the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (Acts 6:11, Exodus 22:28, Leviticus 24:15-16). In that instance, she was like those who twist the law and legal procedures to get what they want.....being more sophisticated in how they go about it, but still being guilty of the same sins.


    Jezebel used the Law craftily to make it seems as if the man was guilty of a crime he didn't commit----and then, when the smoke cleared, she took it while maintaining the public image that her husband was innocent. That was directly in violation of what the WORD ALReady said on how to do justice and not bearing false testimony against your neighbor since it could endanger another's life( Exodus 20:15-17 , Exodus 22:28, Deuteronomy 5:19-21 , Deuteronomy 19:17-19 , Proverbs 6:18-20, Proverbs 12:17, Proverbs 14:5, Proverbs 14:25, Proverbs 19:5 , Proverbs 19:9, Proverbs 21:28, Proverbs 25:17-19 . Matthew 19:17-19 , Leviticus 24:15-16, Matthew 26:59, Acts 6:11).


    The scriptures make clear that anyone bringing a false witness against another out of malicious intent and not being in line with all procedures of the Law was to be treated as they desired others to be. Something else that stands out to me is that my mom once noted something saying that for them to have caught the woman in the very ACT of adultery could easily mean that they had to actively be WATCHING the process to see what went down (voyureism, pornagraphy in seeking to see people having sex).

    They had to be looking at someone's window seeing the act of perversion---and thus, they could be said to have been perverted in that sense as well.


    This becomes especially relevant when seeing how Jesus in Matthew 5:27-30 made clear that the act of Adultery was not simply in physical interaction. For adultery begins in the heart. The OT Law said it was wrong for a person to have sex with someone other than his or her spouse (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronmy 5:18) ). But Jesus said that the desire to have sex with someone other than your spouse and lust is MENTAL adultery...and thus, sin. Jesus emphasized that if the act is wrong, then so is the intention.

    To be faithful to your spouse with your body but not your mind is to break the trust so vital to a strong marriage.....and thus, it could've easily been the case that the men accusing the woman caught in adultery were also guilty of ADULTERY themselves. They simply were engaging in it in differing forms..



    Ultimately, as they were ready to throw stones, Jesus utilized the situation to ensure the equivalent of a "Mexican standoff"..and if unaware of what that means, it is a slang term defined as a stalemate or impasse-- a confrontation that neither side can foreseeably win. The term is most often used in lieu of 'stalemate' when the confrontational situation is exceptionally dangerous for all parties involved since in popular culture, the Mexican standoff is usually portrayed as two or more opponents with guns drawn and ready, creating a tense situation. For neither side is willing to shoot for fear of being shot in return, yet neither side wants to relinquish its weapons for fear that its opponents will shoot them.

    Jesus's questions placed everyone in check since what he did was essentially say, "If you want someone to die, Fine. But be ready to go ALL THE WAY with it since EVERYONE'S ABOUT to go down hard." Jesus tested them, as they tried to do with him...and He proved he was more "Gangsta" than all of them since NO one wanted to "pull the trigger" (so to speak)/do something.

    When it came to the Law, Jesus showed consistency with it. aAnd with the woman, Jesus didn't condemn the woman accussed of adultery, but neither did he ignore or condone her sin. He told her to leave her life of sin. For Jesus stands ready to forgive any sin in our life as long as we confess and repent. Something else to consider is that Jesus technically was never in the POSITION to declare her in need of dying.

    With John 8:11, where he says "Neither do I accuse you", this evidently can be taken in the sense of judicial condemnation, or of passing sentence as a magistrate. For this was what they (her accusers) had set her up for her for. It was not to obtain his opinion about adultery, but to obtain the condemnation of the woman. As Jesus claimed no civil authority, he said that he did not exercise it, and should not condemn her to die.

    As said best by one Commentary:

    -


    Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
    Neither do I condemn thee - Bishop Pearce says: "It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them, and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees, and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin.
    Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
    She saith, no man, Lord,.... No man said a word to me, or lift up his hand against me, or moved a stone at me:
    and Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee; Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Luke 12:13. Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved, John 3:17; nor would he pass any other sentence on this woman, than what he had done; nor would he inflict any punishment on her himself; but suitably and agreeably to his office; as a prophet, he declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her go and sin no more; lest as he said to the man he cured at Bethesda's pool, a worse thing should come unto her. Wherefore the Jew (s) has no reason to object to this conduct of Christ, as if he acted contrary to the law, in Deuteronomy 13:5. "Thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee"; and also to the sanctions of all civil laws among men, which order the removal of evil, by putting delinquents to death; and he observes, that those that believe in him, do not follow him in this, but put adulterers and adulteresses to death; and that indeed, should his example and instructions take place, all courts of judicature must cease, and order be subverted among men: but it should be observed, that our Lord manifested a regard, even to the law of Moses, when he bid this woman's accusers that were without sin, to cast the first stone at her; though as for the law in Deuteronomy 13:5, that respects a false prophet, and not an adulterer or an adulteress; nor do the civil laws of all nations require death in the case of adultery; and did they, Christ here, neither by his words nor actions, contradicts and sets aside any such laws of God or man; he left this fact to be inquired into, examined, and judged, and sentence passed by proper persons, whose business it was: as for himself, his office was not that of a civil magistrate, but of a Saviour and Redeemer; and suitably to that he acted in this case; he did not connive at the sin, he reproved for it; nor did he deny that she ought to suffer according to the law of Moses, but rather suggests she ought; but as this was not his province, he did not take upon him to pronounce any sentence of condemnation on her; but called her to repentance, and, as the merciful and compassionate Saviour, gave her reason to hope pardon and eternal life.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
    8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.
     
  7. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others

    Honestly, even if the woman came back for the same offense, the reality is that it seems most likely the Lord would've said the SAME thing to her due to the fact that Jesus was not a MAGISTRATE--and thus, didn't have the power to give her up. During the first time she was brought forth, the people bringing the woman to Christ were also in error on THAT front as well since she should have been brought toward the judges of the town. One witness wasn't enough ( Deuteronomy 19:15-21 )--and one needed to be a WITNESS to stone anyway.


    And in many ways, as much as people focus on the woman recieving mercy from Christ, it could also be said that Jesus was showing the PEOPLE mercy as well. For if they had truly applied the Law as they claimed they were concerned for, again, they would ALL have been dead very quickly. Jesus diffused the situation in a way where all could see why it was so important to understand the GRACE of the Lord.

    But even if He was to say she deserved to die for committing adultery, Roman Law would not allow the Jews to do Public executions. Not being allowed to do public executions was the reason the religious leaders of Christ's day had to bring Him to Pilate in order to do the deed:
    As Clarke's Commentary said best:
    Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
    It is not lawful for us to put any man to death - They might have judged Jesus according to their law, as Pilate bade them do; but they could only excommunicate or scourge him. They might have voted him worthy of death; but they could not put him to death, if any thing of a secular nature were charged against him. The power of life and death was in all probability taken from the Jews when Archelaus, king of Judea, was banished to Vienna, and Judea was made a Roman province; and this happened more than fifty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. But the Romans suffered Herod, mentioned Acts 12:1, etc., to exercise the power of life and death during his reign. See much on this point in Calmet and Pearce. After all, I think it probable that, though the power of life and death was taken away from the Jews, as far as it concerned affairs of state, yet it was continued to them in matters which were wholly of an ecclesiastical nature; and that they only applied thus to Pilate to persuade him that they were proceeding against Christ as an enemy of the state, and not as a transgressor of their own peculiar laws and customs. Hence, though they assert that he should die according to their law, because he made himself the Son of God, John 19:7, yet they lay peculiar stress on his being an enemy to the Roman government; and, when they found Pilate disposed to let him go, they asserted that if he did he was not Caesar's friend, John 18:12. It was this that intimidated Pilate, and induced him to give him up, that they might crucify him.
    Also, according to Barnes Notes on the Bible:
    The Jews were accustomed to put persons to death still in a popular tumult Acts 7:59-60, but they had not the power to do it in any case in a regular way of justice. When they first laid the plan of arresting the Saviour, they did it to kill him Matthew 26:4; but whether they intended to do this secretly, or in a tumult, or by the concurrence of the Roman governor, is uncertain. The Jews themselves say that the power of inflicting capital punishment was taken away about 40 years before the destruction of the temple; but still it is probable that in the time of Christ they had the power of determining on capital cases in instances that pertained to religion (Josephus, Antiq., b. 14: John 10, Section 2; compare Jewish Wars, b. 6 chapter 2, Section 4). In this case, however, it is supposed that their sentence was to be confirmed by the Roman governor. But it is admitted on all hands that they had not this power in the case of seditions, tumults, or treason against the Roman government. If they had this power in the case of blasphemy and irreligion, they did not dare to exert it here, because they were afraid of tumult among the people Matthew 26:5; hence, they sought to bring in the authority of Pilate. To do this, they endeavored to make it appear that it was a case of sedition and treason, and one which therefore demanded the interference of the Roman governor. Hence, it was on this charge that they arraigned him, Luke 23:2. Thus, a tumult might be avoided, and the odium of putting him to death which they expected would fall, not on themselves, but upon Pilate!
    Jewish authorities, Jesus was brought--under all but Peter's account--to the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate. The reason, according to John, was that the death penalty was not an available option for the Sanhedrin under Roman law. It should be noted, however, that the Sanhedrin operated during these times with less than complete independence to implement Jewish law, having a dual political and religious status. There is, however, strong reason to believe that Jewish authorities could, had they so desired, executed Jesus. The well-substantiated executions--by stoning--of two first-century Christians, Jesus's brother James in 62 C.E. and Stephen, show that capital punishment was--at least within a few decades of Jesus' trial--practiced by Jewish authorities. Moreover, Temple inscriptions from the period warn of death to Gentiles that pass into certain restricted areas.

    At those points, it may've been the case that the Jews were allowed to get away with more than they could due to the Romans turning a blind eye on some cases since the relationship between Rome and the Jews was very hostile---and at times, it was easier to let others simply get away with things not legal just as governments may allow "black market" activities/illegal activities to occur in certain cases.


    Those bringing Christ before the woman had no right to try to get Christ to declare judgement on her--and trying to get Him to do so would mean He'd possibly get in trouble. As Christ was wise, He would probably work within the regulation of the law to save her...just as He did before (even though she was guilty).

    As another said best here
    What we should acknowledge is that this woman has been caught. No one disputes her sin.

    Jesus’ Word to the Accusers was silence.(vs 6b-9a) Instead of words He stooped and wrote in the dirt. Jesus relies on the due process built into Torah to expose this rush to judgment.

    Perhaps Jesus first wrote:
    Deut 19 v 15 “A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed. “If a malicious witness rises up against a man to accuse him of wrongdoing, then both the men who have the dispute shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges who will be in office in those days. “The judges shall investigate thoroughly, and if the witness is a false witness and he has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him just as he had intended to do to his brother. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you. “The rest will hear and be afraid, and will never again do such an evil thing among you. “Thus you shall not show pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

    Jewish civil law had very strict conditions under which this crime was punishable by execution. God is clear, “On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness.” It required more than one!


    There are numerous witnesses. The Torah is clear that the witness should be the ones to cast the first stone. They must be the ones to cast the first stone of execution so perjury becomes murder, if they are false. It is no small thing to be a wit*ness as you are also the first to carry out the judgment.
    Those false witnesses would not only guilty of perjury. They risked the same death penalty their perjury supported and they were required to carry out her execution.
    Jesus did not ignore them.

    Instead, He used the due process of Torah to free her!


    The charge of adultery required that they be caught in the act (Num. 5:13). Rabbi Samuel said, “In the case of adulterers, they (the witnesses) must have seen them in the posture of adulterers.” Another scholar of Talmudic law says, (It is not just an issue) of their having seen the couple in a ‘compromising situation,’ for example, coming from a room in which they were alone, or even lying together on the same bed. The actual physical movements of the couple must have been capable of no other explanation, and the witnesses must have seen exactly the same acts at exactly the same time, in the pres*ence of each other, so that their depositions would be identical in every respect.

    But the same law stated that both parties were to be produced and prosecuted.
    Jesus is one who came bringing grace (John 1:17) in harmony with the Law. LAw and grace are both aspects of God's nature that he uses in dealing with us. ....as seen in Exodus 32:9-14 when God was ready to DESTROY the whole nation because of their sin. For there, Moses pleaded for MERCY ..and God spared them. Its one of the countless examples in the Bible of God's Mercy. For although we deserve his anger, he is willing to forgive/restore us to Himself.....and when God showed Mercy, he did not go against his desire for Justice. When God relented in the Golden Calf incident, he was acting consistently with his mercy---just as he was acting consistently with his Justice when he first wanted to destroy the people. Though God's Mercy was often seen in the OT/Law, Moses emphasized God's Law and justice,

    But with Christ, it was always so much more...and His PRIMARY mission while on the Earth was one of Mercy/pointing others to where that could be found---regardless of how messed up they may've
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2012
  8. mathetes123

    mathetes123 Newbie

    +42
    Baptist
    Married
    There would still be the problem of finding someone who is without sin to stone her.
     
  9. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Excellent questions...and on the subject, part of me is reminded of what occurred with Christ when He of all people had the right to destory the world--and yet, because He said His mission was to save the world rather than condemn it, it's not surprising to see how much grace/mercy He demostrated throughout His entirety of life. He never failed to mentioned where sin has consequences---and yet He walked in forgiveness. As he said of those on the Cross who harmed him:

    Luke 23:34
    Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
    Luke 23:33-35


    The Lord later mentioned (through Peter) to many who were amongst the people calling for His death that they did as they did in ignorance---and the Lord pardoned them for it, but called them to account ( Acts 3:16-18 /Acts 3 , Acts 4:26-28 , Acts 13:27-29 / Acts 13 )
     
  10. Phillip Hawley

    Phillip Hawley Y'shua HaMoshiach based Messianic Jew

    +344
    Messianic
    Married
    Oh, I have been soooo snubbed. :D
     
  11. yedida

    yedida Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

    +1,405
    In Relationship
    There's still a bit of room in the boat!! come on in :D
     
  12. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Odd...where were you snubbed:confused: If you mean no one has seemed to tackle your posting yet, I could see that...but that may be more of a matter of either missing something or not being able to get to it quickly rather than the negative connotation of what "snub" implies (as if someone intentionally has it out for you).
     
  13. mercy1061

    mercy1061 Newbie

    +114
    Messianic
    Married
    Dear easyG,

    You have made some excellent comments in your post. I was wondering what was your oppinion of the husband's involvement in this case? Does this woman's husbands have any authority over his wife? Could they stone his wife without his consent?

    Let's just presume for simplicity sake, that this woman had no husband like the woman at the well. If the woman at the well would have married the man she was currently with she would have committed adultery; since she already had four husbands. Yeshua tells her "Go and get your husband"; so apparently her sin of adultery must naturally offend her husband. This adulterous woman at the well, was given a command to obey "Go and get your husband" so that she may drink living water. Yeshua told the woman caught in adultery "Go and sin no more"......
     
  14. Avodat

    Avodat Contending for Biblical truth

    +277
    Other Religion
    Private
    She couldn't commit adultery if she wasn't married. The woman at the well did have a husband and so was married but living with another man - she was an adultress.
     
  15. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Shalom mercy :)



    Honestly, I really don't think the woman caught in the act of adultery was even married...and I say that due to the fact that the husband would've been present if the community was preparing to stone her. From what I understand, he would have had to give permission--and cast the first stone himself. The example of Joseph in Matthew 1:18-20 Matthew 1 comes to mind when there was the possibility of Mary committing adultery--and him having the option of either exposing her to public disgrace/threat of death..or divorcing her quietly to keep it secret. That he decided to marry her/take on the shame of either appearing that he was the father/had messed around pre-maturely or that he was covering up for an illegitimate child is significant enough...especially when considering how bethrothals were seen as binding/serious as marriages

    As said earlier, Jewish executions were not permissible by Roman law---but even if they wanted to stone someone, they had to follow protocal....and since the woman wasn't with the husband present, one has to wonder on how legitimate the accusations were of those accussing. It's possible the woman was a prostitute involved sleeping with a man married to another (which is adultery) and in that case the accusers were in error for not bringing the married man forth....but ultimately, the accusers were out of order. Going from a New Testament perspective, men have authority over the wives only in the sense that they are responsible for giving account for the status of their families---and thus, their word counted more/was taken serious when not heeded.

    Apart from that, I'm not fully certain of what you're asking. What I see with the woman at the well in John 4 and the adulterous woman in John 8 is that both were called to cease their lifestyles of sin---and both were shown mercy/confronted, with Christ being more of a man than any of the men they were involved with. With the woman at the well, the men marrying her would've already been directly counter to the Law for marrying a divorced woman who committed adultery in a previous marriage or simply broke it off ( Matthew 5:31-33 , Matthew 19:8-10 / Matthew 19, Luke 16:17-19 )--thus making those men in great violation of the authority they had since they were not honoring the concept of covenant that the Lord took VERY seriously ( Malachi 2:13-15 / Malachi 2, Deuteronomy 24:1-22 )---and even though there is the reality of women as seducers (As often happens with single woman seducing married men) and them destroying marriages, men choosing to pursue those women does not make the themselves innocent. Since women couldn't, by law, have more than one husband, any sexual encounter with another man-married or single-was adultery. God vehemently condemns it (Lev. 20:10) and listed the punishment as death. (Deut. 22:22).




    The men involved with the woman caught in adultery were cowardly since the man involved with her didn't even show up to confirm what she was doing and declare himself as guilty for allowing it...letting her take the fall for something he deserved to die for as well. It's possible she was a prostitute, which wouldn't make things better since God stated He detests prostitution. (Deut. 23:17-18)--and in that scenario, the men accusing would have been lying when saying they "caught her in the act of adultery".....another reason why Yeshua was able to put them all in check since those making an accusation/wishing to punish must be free from crime itself...and men lying on the real status would have been in serious error/danger of death. It'd be no different, of course, than what happened with Christ when the Pharisees/Saduccees often lied outright about Christ to see what would stick in court (a kangeroo court)--and with John 8, just because they say they caught the woman doesn't mean that she was "guilty" when considering how many people they were willing to get out of the way just to harm Christ.


    In both cases, the women were in need of mercy---especially in a culture already notorious for looking down upon women/frequently trampelling upon them.

    Hope what I'm saying makes sense...
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2012
  16. Avodat

    Avodat Contending for Biblical truth

    +277
    Other Religion
    Private

    Better hurry up - it's filling up fast!
     
  17. yedida

    yedida Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

    +1,405
    In Relationship
    I may be muddying the issue here and speaking out of line, if so, pardon me. But, as I see it, the law is the law regardless of the husband's desires. (Isn't that why Joseph chose to secretly put Mary away before it would be known of her status? If it had come to light, the "Law" doesn't need his permission if the judges choose to make an example of her.)
    Anyway, this woman could have been "known" to be an adulteress wtihout her husband's knowledge (it happens) or he could have been one of those men so smitten that he choose to overlook it (yes, facilitating the breaking of the law, again, it happens).
    So, the above scenarios go along the lines I was wanting to come to, I thought that it was the witnesses for the accusers that threw the first stones; therefore, the husband would only figure in if he was one of the witnesses. Even as an accuser, the husband would only be the third or fourth to chime in, then the rest of the community at large. No?
     
  18. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Thankfully, this isn't congress or the Senate so speak away:D

    That's understandable...


    All too often sadly...secretly living a double life and being undercover with others while looking tame at home.

    Just in love with the wrong kind of women.....

    Well worth considering
     
  19. yedida

    yedida Ruth Messianic, joining Israel, Na'aseh v'nishma!

    +1,405
    In Relationship
    Sorry to hear that, really. :cry:That's not a good thing.
     
  20. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Ambassadors

    +1,182
    Oriental Orthodox
    Private
    US-Others
    Found somethingrecently found out that made me think. For it is already appparent that the sin the accusers brought up against the woman cannot be committed by one individul alone (as goes the question of why only one offender was brought in)--and it seems provision was made for the man to escape, giving the impression that the woman's accusers must have been especially eager to humiliate here, since they could have kept here in private custody while they spoke to Yeshua.

    However, what's interesting is that it seems the accusers altered the law slightly....specifically when considering how stoning was not in fact prescribed unless the woman was a betrothed virgin
    Deuteronomy 22:23-24
    23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

     
Loading...