John 8 and the woman caught in adultry.

[mondar]

I was reading the thread started by Orion on the bible and one of his lasts posts caught my eye. Orion alluded to John 8 and the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Okay, I understand that perhaps these may have been for "that old covenant". But again, God is supposed to be the same yesterday, today, and forever. How does that work in how God isn't being the same to adulterers?

In the Old Testiment, adulterers are to be stoned.

In the New Testiment, Jesus said to the lady caught in the act of adultery, "Who is here to accuse you?" When the lady said, "No one." Jesus replied, "Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more".

That seems like a 180 degree turn around in thought, does it not?

Since my comments really do not apply to either Orions post above, nor does it apply to the subject of that thread, I am starting a new thread. My interest is more in a proper understanding of John 8, and the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultry. Since the story is undoubtably commonly known, I will not post it in toto, but will mention only certain details.

First, it is often assumed that Jesus objected to the stoning of the woman. I do not see that in what I think is a correct reading. In fact Jesus is asking for the woman to be stoned. In 8:7 he said...
7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

The common question, and obvious inquiry, the repeated objection is why did Jesus say that the person who casts the first stone must be without sin. I think this is one of the keys to the reading of the text.

One reason the passage is commonly misread is because not enough stress is placed upon the issue of Jesus being the like Moses Prophet (IE-- the law giver). In verse 5 we read of the real issue. The Pharisees quote Moses.
5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?

So the question comes up, who is the real correct interpreter of Moses. Then Jesus does something that goes over the head of many modern readers. He stoops twice, writes in the dust, and in the middle of these two actions he makes his pronouncement in verse 7. Notice that the two actions are "bookends" with the pronouncement of verse 7.

6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

So many commentators miss the point. The question is not what did Jesus write in the dust. The question is the finger. God wrote the law in tablets of stone with his finger. When Jesus used his finger to write, he was claiming to be the lawgiver of Moses. I think the Pharisees in the audience missed the point too. So then, John did not record what Jesus wrote for a good reason. What Jesus wrote was immaterial to the point of who knows the Mosaic Law from verse 5.

So then, if you have followed the logic of this understanding, you will understand why I would suggest that the phrase "without sin" has to do with some aspect of the Law of Moses. Jesus is alluding to a specific law in the Mosaic Code of Laws. It is not just any sin that he is speaking of, but a specific sin.

Deuteronomy called for the person who casts the first stone to be what? What legal requirement is there in Deuteronomy for the person who casts the first stone?

If you answer that question, you will know why Jesus was the law giver.

A FEW CONCLUSIONS
If Jesus is the law giver, there is a sense that he is not under the law, but over the law. He is the sovereign of the Mosaic Law. Yes, he was born of a virgin, and lived under the law, but he is sovereign over the law and can make whatever law he chooses.

Jesus was calling for the stoning of the woman, but was calling for the Law to be kept in the stoning. Not only was the laws on adultery to be kept, but there was to be proper jurisprudence. While the woman may have been an adulterer, or may not have been an adulterer, Jesus demands that the jurisprudence of the Law also be kept (a point from Deuteronomy that the pharisees had missed until Jesus caught them red handed).

 

[stovebolts]

Hi Mondar,

What do you make of these verses in connection to John 8? I’d say that the Pharisees (known for keeping the law of Moses) were pretty hypocritical since the man was nowhere around…

Remember, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not break it...

Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:22-24 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

 

[stovebolts]

A key question to ask yourself might simply be this.

If those with the stones were to throw a stone at the woman (since the man was not there), would they be in compliance with the law of Moses? If they were not in compliance, what would that make them?

 

[Vic C.]

Deuteronomy called for the person who casts the first stone to be what? What legal requirement is there in Deuteronomy for the person who casts the first stone?

If you answer that question, you will know why Jesus was the law giver.

If I remember correctly and without giving it much thought, the one to cast the first stone in this case, would be one had to be a witness and innocent of ever committing adultery, the sin for which the woman was to be stoned.

Once Jesus started drawing, they all began to realize none of them were innocent and left, one by one.

John 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

No accusers, no conviction, no condemnation.

John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

 

[JayR]

Keep in mind that Jesus knew that He was on the way to the cross to suffer and die for that act of adultery and for the rest of that woman's sins, so He had the authority to forgive her and pardon her because He was about to be punished in her place.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; to declare I say, at this time His righteousness: that He might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus."

The death that woman deserved to die for her adultery and the deaths and the hell she deserved for all of her sins was paid in full on the cross.

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Jay, in theory (for lack of a better word) you are correct, He could forgive whomever He chooses. But in adherence to the Law, He couldn't convict, else He'd be breaking Law, just as the ones wanting to do the stoning. StoveBolts alluded to this on his last post.

I did do some quick research and find the key is in the last two verses I quoted above:

John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

I found this online:

In halakha (Jewish Law) the penalty for adultery is stoning for both the man and the woman, but this is only enacted when there are two independent witnesses who warned the offenders prior to the crime being committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery

We have a similar code in the US law; innocent until prover guilty or more properly, innocent unless prover guilty.

 

[JayR]

I see what you're saying but I don't think that's the primary reason why Jesus pardoned her. She committed the sin. That's evident in the fact that Jesus said to her, go and sin no more. Obviously she was a sinner and the act of adultery that she was accused of wasn't her only sin, but Jesus didn't indicate at all that she didn't commit the crime.

 

[Rick W]

In addition...

Why did Jesus chasten the pharisees for their adherence to the Law?
Because they just didn't get it.
Their adherence was a cold, hard following of the Law with no love in them. And they used the Law to hold power over the people, to claim the high places in the synogogues and the marketplace.

Matthew 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
Matthew 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
Matthew 12:5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
Matthew 12:6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
Matthew 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Matthew 12:8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

We don't know the details of her sin, just that she was an adultress. That's it. And obviously those who would stone her didn't care about anything else either.
But we do know the details of David's unlawful act of feeding his men with bread that was unlawful for him to eat. Why wasn't David punished by the Law?

I wouldn't be too quick to cite the Law in the same cold, hard manner as the pharisees did. Or those who were willing to stone the adultress. They had erred as Christ had so pointedly demonstrated.

 

[mondar]

Deuteronomy called for the person who casts the first stone to be what? What legal requirement is there in Deuteronomy for the person who casts the first stone?

If you answer that question, you will know why Jesus was the law giver.

If I remember correctly and without giving it much thought, the one to cast the first stone in this case, would be one had to be a witness and innocent of ever committing adultery, the sin for which the woman was to be stoned.

The person to cast the first stone had to be an eyewitness. The rest of the crowd was only to follow after the eyewitness had cast a stone.

Deuteronomy 17:7 The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.

While the context of Deut 17:7 is about Idolatry, I think Jesus was taking this as a principle of jurisprudence and calling for the eyewitness to step forward and begin the stoning. Remember in John 8:4 the Pharisees said "they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act."

If what they said was true, there would have been an eyewitness. Someone else correctly stated above, why did they not bring the man who was caught in adultry! If there was an eyewitness, they would also stone the man.

In verse 7 when Jesus says " But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. I dont think he is calling for someone sinless to cast the first stone, he is calling for a specific person, the eyewitness.

EVALUATION OF THE ABOVE INTERPRETATION
STRENGTH---In this persons opinion, there is much contextually to lend itself to this interpretation. This context is a dual over who is correctly interpreting the Mosaic Law. Within the context, Jesus is not merely to be the correct interpreter of the Law in the face of a Pharisaical challenge, he is claiming more. He is claiming he knows the law, because he is the origional lawgiver. This claim is made by his act of taking his "finger" and writing in the dust just as God took his "finger" and wrote in tablets of stone. Unfortunately, this act of Jesus goes over the head of most modern readers of this text.
These book ends of writing in the dust are on each side of verse 7. This would be pictured...
A Vs 6-- Jesus immitates Gods finger in writing the tablets of the law using dust.
B Vs 7-- Jesus quotes the law
A Vs 8-- Jesus immitates Gods finger in writing the tablets of the law using dust.
This Mosiac Law dual or debate over the Mosaic Law is then settled in a complete victory for Jesus. No eyewitness steps forward, and the crowd melts away. Had an actual eyewitness steped forward, Jesus would have questioned him concerning his eyewitness account. Had this potential eyewitness been convicted of being a false witness, he would have to suffer the penalty that he would have put upon an innocent party.. in this case, stoning. While the woman may have been guilty, there was most likely no actual eyewitness, and no one was willing to risk the same penalty of the woman.

WEAKNESS---The weakness is upon the interpretation of the word "amartano" (sin). The word amartano (sin) has to be seen not as personal sin, but a missing of the mark with regard to the Mosaic Law. This "sin" of verse 7 is then a simple act of violation of Mosaic jurisprudence.

A great difficulty that people will have in reading John 8 is tradition. All of us have been taught to read John 8 that Jesus did not allow these Pharisees to stone the adulterous woman according to the law. This traditional interpretation is deep and strong, but is this traditional interpretation what John is saying? Did Jesus violate the Law being Lord of the Law? Or did he ask for the correct keeping of the entire law even the jurisprudence of the Law? In doing so, he showed the Pharisees who was the true Lord of the Law, but Jesus was staying under the Law.

 

[Vic C.]

I'm at work right now so I can't do the research again. But after I logged off last night, I did some more study on this and found there are two other interpretations of this passage, similar to the one Mondar offered. When I get home, I will look up the info' I may still have the browser open to the link. :-D
____________________

I was sure it had something to do with being a witness. One source on Levitical Law said it was two witnesses; one to hold down the offender and one to cast the first stone.

 

[Orion]

If both the woman AND the man were brought forward to Jesus, what do you suppose his answer to the question of "shall we stone them" be?

 

[Vic C.]

If both the woman AND the man were brought forward to Jesus, what do you suppose his answer to the question of "shall we stone them" be?

He would have still demanded a witness come forth.

Jes was about upholding the law, not misusing it.

 

[Orion]

Okay, . . . .. if the witness brought both of them to Jesus, then.. . . ?

 

[Vic C.]

Okay, . . . .. if the witness brought both of them to Jesus, then.. . . ?

LOL :crazyeyes: This has been explained. Then the Law could have been carried out the way it was intended... and written, which was one of Modar's reasons for starting the topic. 8-)

They ware still under the Law; Christ hadn't yet died and risen. <<< That's in anticipation to your next question. ;-)

 

[mondar]

Okay, . . . .. if the witness brought both of them to Jesus, then.. . . ?

The only reason that it was mentioned that the man was not included in the charges against the woman is because it suggests the witnesses were indeed not eyewitnesses. However, I consider that to be much smaller evidence then compared to the the context. What I mean by the context is the A--B--A structure of verses 6-8. Especially with regard to Jesus writing in the dust. Read the following OT verses with regard to the tablets of the Law.

Exo 31:18 And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, the two tables of the testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.
Deu 9:10 And Jehovah delivered unto me the two tables of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which Jehovah spake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.

Both Deuteronomy and Exodus record that the tablets were written by the finger of God. Thats why John writes....

Joh 8:6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:7 But when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Joh 8:8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.

So then the question is not what did he write, but it was the act of writing with his finger. It was truely the finger of God. In fact Jesus, as part of the triune God, was the one who did the writing with his finger in the original law tablets. Jesus was laying his claim to be the true and real divine lawgiver. Who can interpret the law more accurately, the divine law giver, or the Pharisees? That is what I think the story is about. It is not about Jesus letting an adulterous woman go free. It is about Jesus keeping the Law, but keeping all the LAw perfectly, and not the flawed keeping of the law as the Pharisees would have done.

Now I also see this as a part of a greater theme within the book of John. I think there is an issue John is presenting. He sees Jesus as the like Moses prophet. But that would be a wider and far bigger discussion.

The gospel of John is a masterful weaving of thematic stories to present a symphony of theological themes. In some of the previous stories there are allusions to Mosaic issues. Notice John 7:19... "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you doeth the law? Why seek ye to kill me?" Also John 6:14 the crowd asks if this is the prophet (see your cross references to Deut 18), the like Moses prophet. The same issue occurs in John 1. But this is another discussion.

There are other questions to ask of the material in 7:53-8:11. It is considered by many evangelicals to be possibly a later addition by a western scribe and not part of the original Johnine MSS. The Egyptian MSS seems to not include the story. It is missing in the papyri (p66 and p75) and is not found in Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. Yet, it fits well in with some of the themes of the Gospel of John (IE-Jesus is the greater Moses from Deut 18:15, 18). The introduction of the Majority Text (Hodges and Farstad) has a good discussion on the MSS in this section.

In any case, I don't see that the fact that the man is missing is critical to a correct reading of the text. Why would that be important?

 

[Orion]

Okay, . . . .. if the witness brought both of them to Jesus, then.. . . ?

LOL :crazyeyes: This has been explained. Then the Law could have been carried out the way it was intended... and written, which was one of Modar's reasons for starting the topic. 8-)

They ware still under the Law; Christ hadn't yet died and risen. <<< That's in anticipation to your next question. ;-)

I'm curious as to what you think my next question is going to be, vic. What do you think it was going to be? I'll ask my question if it is different than yours.

 

[Vic C.]

I made an assumption, based on the conversation in another thread. I assumed you might ask why it was alright to stone back then, but not now. 8-) (it's a "cross thing" ;-) )

 

[Orion]

I made an assumption, based on the conversation in another thread. I assumed you might ask why it was alright to stone back then, but not now. 8-) (it's a "cross thing" ;-) )

No, not exactly, but this converstation has opened up a level to it that I had not thought on before. I always saw this story as one where Jesus dumbfounded them with his words, causing them to see that they were just as much sinners, and that he showed them a new way of thinking. But apparently, that may not be the case. It would see that, IF there were the witnesses AND both of the adulterers, Jesus would have agreed with the stoning. So it wasn't some "new way of thinking" to where Jesus "tumped them with his logic", or whatever, . . . .but it was just that Jesus happened to know the law regarding those caught in adultery and since there was only the one (the woman), there was no grounds for the stoning. Thus, it wasn't a "new message of love and how to handle those caught in sin", but just a fact that all the pieces needed for stoning weren't there. :-?

 

[Vic C.]

... but it was just that Jesus happened to know the law regarding those caught in adultery and since there was only the one (the woman), there was no grounds for the stoning. Thus, it wasn't a "new message of love and how to handle those caught in sin", but just a fact that all the pieces needed for stoning weren't there. :-?

He knew the Law because He was the Law.

When reading passages like the one being discussed, we should always keep this verse in mind:

Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

Actually, as Mondar suggested, He is the Lord of the Law.

 

[Orion]

So then, this wasn't anything to do with some "new way of thinking", but just because there was no witness and no second adulterer, or otherwise, Jesus would have said, "Yes, the law of Moses is correct. They should be stoned." Would Jesus have picked up the first stone, being that he had no sin?

And what is the purpose, then, of even saying "let him who is without sin. . . . . ", when the obvious statement should have been, "without the second adulterer and a witness, it is not lawful to stone this woman.". . . ?