C
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Yes, it's a nice parable. The only problem is we are quoting Yeshua here in order to exonerate Yeshua for alleged Torah violation in the adulterous woman episode.
My claim is that torah law (which defines what sin is according to Paul), required the painful deed of execution to be passed on the adulteress.
So for me, this combined with the fact that the oldest reliable Greek witnesses don't have this story in them (such a great story who would forget it!), makes me fairly certain it never happened. Plus it's such a rare event that the critical text agrees so clearly with "this certainly never happened". I even can't think of another example from my perusings in Johanian literature.
I used to like the story until I got my Greek on...
C
Cap
Guest
Nice logic, sounds good, what could be more important than spiritual nourishment of the wife?
Well apparently avoiding divorce. As the NT writers in a few different places instructed the wife to STAY with the unbelieving husband. This is the problem with logic, it can construct great sounding reasons which are totally at odds with God's will.
C
Cap
Guest
Staying in a marriage has got to be the first option in any relationship. Seeking God's help and guidance and trying to figure out what path He wants one to take is primary. But, life is real and the mechanism for peace is offered for those who can't find it otherwise, and so maybe for some there is a second option.
Too bad G-d said "love the L-rd your G-d with all your mind..." yep that's the proper translation...
People want there to be a second option. But God hates divorce. What did Paul say to the wife? Stay, but if you must leave, remain single (i.e. lest you commit adultery) or go back to your husband. That wasn't permission, but council on how to avoid sin should you be unable to bring yourself to stay.
But what do we do? We don't tell her to stay single or go back, we look for excuses why she can remarry.
If only people put the same energy into reconciling marriages that they did in excusing divorces.
Ya, so? That's not permission to construct drawn out logical reasonings why not A really does equal A.
It's a command not permission, an outright command to use our minds in application, deriving, etc.
Hey, I think today divorce is only allowed if the wife sleeps with another man, period.
Seems pretty clearly laid out that way by the Messiah; no way to reason one's way out of it so I'm in agreement of that.
C
Cap
Guest
So let's talk about Paul's authority.
To clarify, I meant it is a command to stay single or reconcile. But not necessarily permission to leave him in the first place. More a, "if you do leave, you should do this" sort of thing.
I double checked and it is stronger than I remembered. Paul goes to pains to make it clear the Lord commands the wife not to leave your husband. And he does not find it necessary to provide any exceptions for extenuating circumstances, love, peace, or whatever other logic we might grasp onto to justify leaving. Even if he is a rotten, no good, unbelieving sinner.
I double checked and it is stronger than I remembered. Paul goes to pains to make it clear the Lord commands the wife not to leave your husband. And he does not find it necessary to provide any exceptions for extenuating circumstances, love, peace, or whatever other logic we might grasp onto to justify leaving. Even if he is a rotten, no good, unbelieving sinner.
As for the woman who was taken in adultery...
For me, there are some things that don't quite add up about this.
They, and the narrator, say she was taken in adultery, so the man must have been with her. Why did they not present him along with her? The Law commands that the man and the woman be stoned, yet, they only presented the woman. I do not believe that they presented the case to Him according to the Law, and He was therefore, among other reasons; unwilling to hear it. Other possible reasons might include... As far as I know, the Romans claimed sole authority to put people to death. In v6 we read "tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.". I expect that had Yeshua condemned her, they would have accused Him to the Romans. Additionally, in v15 He says "...I judge no man.". Within the earthly structure of authority that they had at the time, did others recognize Him as holding the position of a judge? This isn't a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer, though given v15 I would expect not. If He wasn't a judge, then they might have accused Him to those who were judges.
More treatment on this topic is available here
https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/women_sin.html
Search within that page for "You claim that Jesus taught nothing new" to find the relevant section.
For me, there are some things that don't quite add up about this.
They, and the narrator, say she was taken in adultery, so the man must have been with her. Why did they not present him along with her? The Law commands that the man and the woman be stoned, yet, they only presented the woman. I do not believe that they presented the case to Him according to the Law, and He was therefore, among other reasons; unwilling to hear it. Other possible reasons might include... As far as I know, the Romans claimed sole authority to put people to death. In v6 we read "tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.". I expect that had Yeshua condemned her, they would have accused Him to the Romans. Additionally, in v15 He says "...I judge no man.". Within the earthly structure of authority that they had at the time, did others recognize Him as holding the position of a judge? This isn't a rhetorical question, I don't know the answer, though given v15 I would expect not. If He wasn't a judge, then they might have accused Him to those who were judges.
More treatment on this topic is available here
https://www.ecclesia.org/truth/women_sin.html
Search within that page for "You claim that Jesus taught nothing new" to find the relevant section.
Thank you @eye4them , I've already made the point that Lev. 20:10 clearly says "THEY shall certainly be put to death, the adulterer AND the adulteress." Schottenstein Chumash.
Yeshua did exactly the right thing by NOT condemning her. Doesn't mean she wasn't guilty, does mean He would break the Torah by not also condemning the man!
Yeshua did exactly the right thing by NOT condemning her. Doesn't mean she wasn't guilty, does mean He would break the Torah by not also condemning the man!
Doesn't matter what commentary you quote the law is clear the captured offenders get punished.
Do you really believe that's the intent of the "and" there? The point is they are both guilty, it doesn't mean if one gets away the other is not guilty?
If a woman sleeps with an animal they are also both to be killed; are you seriously going to say if the horse runs off and escapes the woman gets to live?
You don't need a commentary to clarify this text; it's self evident. Adulterers and adulteresses get killed. they don't get to live if their beast partner or human partner escapes.
That is an entirely untenable position and if we're appealing to chumashim and such I guarantee you wont' find a single rabbi who would agree with that position you've outlined. no way, not one.
WHen I say rabbi I mean orthodox i.e. a real rabbi not a liberal rabbi like reform or something ... hehe just to be clear so you don't come back at me with rabbi Sarah
Last edited:
@ish,
They caught the woman "in the act," John 8:4. IN THE ACT. They knew who the other party was but in their stiff-necked unrighteousness, they chose not to bring both parties. They let one go and wanted to judge the other. Dude! Wake up. This is a classic trap to cause the Creator to act unjustly.
They caught the woman "in the act," John 8:4. IN THE ACT. They knew who the other party was but in their stiff-necked unrighteousness, they chose not to bring both parties. They let one go and wanted to judge the other. Dude! Wake up. This is a classic trap to cause the Creator to act unjustly.
So your argument is that because this group of Pharisees allegedly let one of the guilty party escape (which you don't know maybe he was just speedy ganzales) that the guilty woman gets a pass?
What about her husband? He's screwed over because they didn't apprehend the man?
I'm awake just not getting your reasoning someone else wanna jump in here and help me understand how 2 wrongs make a right here?
As I said before if her lover was a horse and the horse got away or they were frightened by it or whatever, she deserves to live then ? scripture clearly says to kill the lady and the animal. Its parallel to your claims.
Each persons sin his his own; I don't see how she is not culpable just because another sinner escaped, was let go, whatever
I've tried to toss this about in my mind before too. I'm not taking a side on the veracity of the inclusion of this narrative because I haven't studied it in enough detail...
But...
If he gives her a pass, he shows the power of forgiveness and his divine ability to forgive sins.
However, if he forgives, he shows that he is unjust, and the Law is void (contradicting himself because he said he did not come to destroy it).
But...
If he gives her a pass, he shows the power of forgiveness and his divine ability to forgive sins.
However, if he forgives, he shows that he is unjust, and the Law is void (contradicting himself because he said he did not come to destroy it).
Last edited:
Is this a completely unprovoked and irrelevant jab at my wife, who has had little or no input into this discussion? Please explain, and if so apologise to her and refrain from any such comments in future, this was quite upsetting for her to read today.WHen I say rabbi I mean orthodox i.e. a real rabbi not a liberal rabbi like reform or something ... hehe just to be clear so you don't come back at me with rabbi Sarah
This whole woman in adultery thing is going round and round in circles. I'd like to summarise it if I may, in the hope that if my summary is somewhere close to fair people won't have a need to restate the same points over and over again.
It is reasonable to question whether this account is scriptural. There are three possibilities - 1) It was originally part of John, 2) It was not originally in John, but was a true account recorded elsewhere (ie is midrash / apocryphal) that had such high validity it was copied into John later by scribes who were genuinely trying to preserve records of the facts, 3) It is a later fabrication. However a significant discussion on the scriptural validity or otherwise of this passage is scheduled for another thread soon, once @IshChayil has his notes in order.
If 3 is correct, there's no point discussing the passage at all and this can all be thrown out as irrelevant. Conversation over (on this thread anyway).
If 1 or 2 is correct and the passage has at least enough historical merit to warrant discussion:
Yeshua was approached by men with a woman they claimed was caught in adultery, who said "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?". This was entrapment. They were trying to catch him out. If he said "don't stone her", they'd say he was saying the law did not apply. If he said "stone her" they'd say he advocated disobeying Roman laws that forbade the Jews from putting anyone to death - if he started the stoning himself they'd have him red handed. If he came to either judgement they'd accuse him of presuming to be a judge and take the place of the Sanhedrin. If he refused to issue any advice they'd say he didn't understand scripture well enough and was no Rabbi. It was a cunningly devised minefield.
His response was in two parts, firstly "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." This was an application of Deuteronomy 17:7 - the hands of the accusers should be first to stone the accused, and after then the assembly. In other words, it was not Yeshua's business to start any stoning, it was their problem, they were the accusers. What would they do? Were they truly confident that their evidence and determination was strong enough for them to risk the wrath of the Roman authorities for sentencing someone to death against secular law? Remembering that they too were sinners... At this the accusers chickened out and sneaked away.
His second statement was "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.". This applied Deuteronomy 17:6 & Numbers 35:30 - two witnesses were required for her to be stoned. Without two witnesses, Torah is very clear that she could not be stoned. Even if, knowing everything, he did know she was guilty, he was only one witness and Torah required two (and she may have been innocent anyway).
His response was a direct application of the due process in Torah, embedded with his flavour of grace.
More could be said about how His response was directly based on Torah, and has been said by many previous posters. I see no reason to rehash all of this. My point is simply:
It is reasonable to question whether this account is scriptural. There are three possibilities - 1) It was originally part of John, 2) It was not originally in John, but was a true account recorded elsewhere (ie is midrash / apocryphal) that had such high validity it was copied into John later by scribes who were genuinely trying to preserve records of the facts, 3) It is a later fabrication. However a significant discussion on the scriptural validity or otherwise of this passage is scheduled for another thread soon, once @IshChayil has his notes in order.
If 3 is correct, there's no point discussing the passage at all and this can all be thrown out as irrelevant. Conversation over (on this thread anyway).
If 1 or 2 is correct and the passage has at least enough historical merit to warrant discussion:
Yeshua was approached by men with a woman they claimed was caught in adultery, who said "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?". This was entrapment. They were trying to catch him out. If he said "don't stone her", they'd say he was saying the law did not apply. If he said "stone her" they'd say he advocated disobeying Roman laws that forbade the Jews from putting anyone to death - if he started the stoning himself they'd have him red handed. If he came to either judgement they'd accuse him of presuming to be a judge and take the place of the Sanhedrin. If he refused to issue any advice they'd say he didn't understand scripture well enough and was no Rabbi. It was a cunningly devised minefield.
His response was in two parts, firstly "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." This was an application of Deuteronomy 17:7 - the hands of the accusers should be first to stone the accused, and after then the assembly. In other words, it was not Yeshua's business to start any stoning, it was their problem, they were the accusers. What would they do? Were they truly confident that their evidence and determination was strong enough for them to risk the wrath of the Roman authorities for sentencing someone to death against secular law? Remembering that they too were sinners... At this the accusers chickened out and sneaked away.
His second statement was "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? ... Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.". This applied Deuteronomy 17:6 & Numbers 35:30 - two witnesses were required for her to be stoned. Without two witnesses, Torah is very clear that she could not be stoned. Even if, knowing everything, he did know she was guilty, he was only one witness and Torah required two (and she may have been innocent anyway).
His response was a direct application of the due process in Torah, embedded with his flavour of grace.
More could be said about how His response was directly based on Torah, and has been said by many previous posters. I see no reason to rehash all of this. My point is simply:
- If valid, this account does not in any way say that Yeshua went against Torah, on the contrary He followed it to the letter.
- If invalid, this account is not worth discussing anyway.
Well this may be straining at gnats but technically Jesus was two to three witnesses depending on where you fall on the binitarian/Trinitarian thing...