- Nov 16, 2005
- 2,680
- 222
- Faith
- Presbyterian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
OK, so let's liven this up a bit by considering one of the most misunderstood passages from the Bible: The Adulterous Woman
John 1:8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say? 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? 11 She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more. from the NASB, cutpasted from Biblegateway.com
Most people forget to reference the Mosaic Law at this point: Leviticus 20: 10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another mans wife, one who commits adultery with his friends wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
NASB again
Please note BOTH shall be killed.
That woman was caught "in the very act" so there was no question who the man was. Why was she to be killed alone?
I do not know what Jesus wrote on the ground, but I have a few guesses. He might have first written the Levitical passage and emphazised the fact that BOTH were to be killed. He may have then heard a whisper from the crowd, bent sown and written the man's name as well. This is sheer speculation about what Christ wrote but what is clear is that the Pharisees were guilty of violating the Levitical law. Killing the woman alone was a VIOLATION of the Law just as much as not killing her together with the man she was "caught in the act" with.
Clearly the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Mosaic Law and the Roman law (the Jews no longer had the right of execution) Why was the man not brought out? Could it be that killing a woman was for the Romans barely worth noting, but killing a man was something else entirely? Could it be that unlike the adulteress the adulterer had clout?
What JC did was not to set aside the Law, but rather to insist it be followed precisely, not just under whatever convenient re-interpretations the Pharisees gave. By doing so He set the matter back on those that sought to trap Him. Now JC had publicly shown the Pharisees were cowards (by bringing a woman but not a man) and that they in fact were not willing to confront Rome.
So why did not JC stone her Himself? Because He had not seen the adulterous act. He was therefore not in a position to condemn her. Those that WERE in a position to accuse, put on trial and then condemn her had left. Therefore JC was again following the strict letter of the Law by not condemning her based on hearsay, without witnesses present and a formal trial.
This was NOT a case of Jesus "caring more about people than the Law" This was a case of JC following the strict letter of the Law.
Also, JC never said "judge not", what He actually said in John 6:37 the Greek is:
"kai mē krinō, kai mē krinō; kai mē katadikazō, kai ou mē katadikazō; apolyō, kai ou apolyō; "
In strong numbers that is 2532 3361 2919 2532 3756 2919 2532 3361 2613 0630
In Greek there is a difference between an absolute no (ou 3756) and a qualified no (me 3361). In English "no" is meant as an absolute but there is no exact equivalent for , but the word "lest" is sometimes used, though it really does not fit. The qualified no would be like saying "probably not" or "in most cases" or "very little,"
Keeping that in mind a better translation would be, "judge very little" or "judge in a qualified careful way" so that you will not be judged at all and avoid possibly being condemned but rather set free.
So, Jesus the Christ never said "judge not" but rather "judge very little and carefully" so that you be not judged at all.
This is borne out throughout Scripture and in Jesus' own actions where He did, in fact, very often judge people.
So, my brothers, we are to sometimes judge, but we are to do so with carefully and in fear that "the same yardstick you apply to others will be applied to you."
As often the case with the words of Jesus, the real meaning is nearly the opposite of what people believe, because He did not come to make the Truth plain, but spoke to the crowds in parables so that they would not understand. Jesus did not want the masses to repent, because if they did, then they would trun from their wicked ways and be forgiven. Repentance and forgiveness was meant to occur AFTER the resurrection. Jesus did not come so that many would be saved. He came to get Himself killed, and then, after He died alone and forsaken, that the few to whom He spoke clearly would lead many to salvation. He came not to save the many, but to make it possible to save by the preaching of the Church.
JR
John 1:8 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, 4 they *said to Him, Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say? 6 They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. 7 But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her. 8 Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. 10 Straightening up, Jesus said to her, Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? 11 She said, No one, Lord. And Jesus said, I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more. from the NASB, cutpasted from Biblegateway.com
Most people forget to reference the Mosaic Law at this point: Leviticus 20: 10 If there is a man who commits adultery with another mans wife, one who commits adultery with his friends wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
NASB again
Please note BOTH shall be killed.
That woman was caught "in the very act" so there was no question who the man was. Why was she to be killed alone?
I do not know what Jesus wrote on the ground, but I have a few guesses. He might have first written the Levitical passage and emphazised the fact that BOTH were to be killed. He may have then heard a whisper from the crowd, bent sown and written the man's name as well. This is sheer speculation about what Christ wrote but what is clear is that the Pharisees were guilty of violating the Levitical law. Killing the woman alone was a VIOLATION of the Law just as much as not killing her together with the man she was "caught in the act" with.
Clearly the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus between the Mosaic Law and the Roman law (the Jews no longer had the right of execution) Why was the man not brought out? Could it be that killing a woman was for the Romans barely worth noting, but killing a man was something else entirely? Could it be that unlike the adulteress the adulterer had clout?
What JC did was not to set aside the Law, but rather to insist it be followed precisely, not just under whatever convenient re-interpretations the Pharisees gave. By doing so He set the matter back on those that sought to trap Him. Now JC had publicly shown the Pharisees were cowards (by bringing a woman but not a man) and that they in fact were not willing to confront Rome.
So why did not JC stone her Himself? Because He had not seen the adulterous act. He was therefore not in a position to condemn her. Those that WERE in a position to accuse, put on trial and then condemn her had left. Therefore JC was again following the strict letter of the Law by not condemning her based on hearsay, without witnesses present and a formal trial.
This was NOT a case of Jesus "caring more about people than the Law" This was a case of JC following the strict letter of the Law.
Also, JC never said "judge not", what He actually said in John 6:37 the Greek is:
"kai mē krinō, kai mē krinō; kai mē katadikazō, kai ou mē katadikazō; apolyō, kai ou apolyō; "
In strong numbers that is 2532 3361 2919 2532 3756 2919 2532 3361 2613 0630
In Greek there is a difference between an absolute no (ou 3756) and a qualified no (me 3361). In English "no" is meant as an absolute but there is no exact equivalent for , but the word "lest" is sometimes used, though it really does not fit. The qualified no would be like saying "probably not" or "in most cases" or "very little,"
Keeping that in mind a better translation would be, "judge very little" or "judge in a qualified careful way" so that you will not be judged at all and avoid possibly being condemned but rather set free.
So, Jesus the Christ never said "judge not" but rather "judge very little and carefully" so that you be not judged at all.
This is borne out throughout Scripture and in Jesus' own actions where He did, in fact, very often judge people.
So, my brothers, we are to sometimes judge, but we are to do so with carefully and in fear that "the same yardstick you apply to others will be applied to you."
As often the case with the words of Jesus, the real meaning is nearly the opposite of what people believe, because He did not come to make the Truth plain, but spoke to the crowds in parables so that they would not understand. Jesus did not want the masses to repent, because if they did, then they would trun from their wicked ways and be forgiven. Repentance and forgiveness was meant to occur AFTER the resurrection. Jesus did not come so that many would be saved. He came to get Himself killed, and then, after He died alone and forsaken, that the few to whom He spoke clearly would lead many to salvation. He came not to save the many, but to make it possible to save by the preaching of the Church.
JR
