John 8 and the woman caught in adultry.

[Vic C.]

1-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, 2- Jesus would have said, "Yes, the law of Moses is correct. They should be stoned." Would Jesus have picked up the first stone, 3- being that he had no sin?

1- Yes

2- no

3- it had nothing to do with having "no sin", but rather the particular sin of the accused. If you were a witness who was also guilty of adultery, you'd be disqualified. You can surely see the potential hypocrisy in pointing a finger at someone when you were just as guilty for the same 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.". . . ?

Jewish idiom... it was well known among those in His time... and to those who knew Jewish law, what He meant by it. That is explained in the context of the passage. They all began to walk away once they realized the message of Jesus' words and actions.

Idiom, wikipedia

An idiom is generally a colloquial metaphor  a term which requires some foundational knowledge, information, or experience, to use only within a culture where parties must have common reference. Idioms are therefore not considered a part of the language, but rather a part of the culture. As cultures are typically localized, idioms are more often not useful for outside of that local context. However some idioms can be more universally used than others, and they can be easily translated, metaphorical meaning can be more easily deduced.

I can't stress enough the importance of history and culture when reading the Bible.

 

[Arphaxad]

Hi Everyone!

I haven't read the entire topic here yet so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fact that the OT commandments in Lev 20:10 and Deut. 22:22 call for the man to be stoned as well as the woman. Obviously the Pharisees neglected to bring or even identify the man "taken in the very act" along with the woman:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deu 22:22 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.

Lev 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. (underlines and color are my own).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So my best guess is that Jesus first wrote the OT law regarding adultery on the ground (Lev 20:10 and Deut. 22:22), thus putting the Pharisees to total shame for not obeying God's law by their neglecting to bring the man along with the woman.

Now this is where it gets REALLY interesting!: The SECOND time Jesus wrote on the ground he most likely wrote something more from God's Law that the Pharisees supposedly carefully honored :smt009 :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and [is] a witness, whether he hath seen or known [of it]; if he do not utter [it], then he shall bear his iniquity.

Leviticus 5:1 "When someone sins [in any of these ways]: [If] he has seen, heard, or known about something he has witnessed, and did not respond to a public call to testify, he is guilty.

Leviticus 5:1 " 'If a person sins because he does not speak up when he hears a public charge to testify regarding something he has seen or learned about, he will be held responsible. (underlines and color are my own.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Lev 5:1 basically says: "when an inquiry is made, If you have witnessed a crime and do not report all you know about it , you become guilty of that crime." (In modern terms: "Aiding and abetting," "accessory after the fact").

Therefore all the Pharisees who had opted not to bring the man involved in this violation of God's Law were as guilty of adultery as the woman they had brought to Jesus.:o So when Jesus said: "He among you who has not sinned," He was talking about RIGHT NOW! So needless to say, all the Pharisees began leaving as soon as possible, beginning with the eldest down to the youngest. The reason the eldest left first was probably because, being the eldest, he would have borne the greatest responsibility for this total "mess-up," and would have been the first to be stoned. And after he left, the next youngest wasted no time doing the same.

So VERY soon all this woman's accusers were long gone! And Jewish Law required at least two witnesses to convict anyone of a capital crime. That's why Jesus asked the woman: "Where are your accusers?" So with no accusers/witnesses present, the woman could not legally be convicted of any crime.

Jesus also very wisely wrote His messages to the Pharisees on the ground, thus eliminating the woman from the His interaction with the Pharisees altogether. This was because women were not educated in Jesus time and couldn't read or write.

I think it was not only very merciful of Jesus to act as this woman's defense lawyer, but He also allowed the Pharisees to live when all of them could have legally been stoned.

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
-------------

 

[Vic C.]

Hi Everyone!

I haven't read the entire topic here yet so I don't know if anyone has mentioned the fact that the OT commandments in Lev 20:10 and Deut. 22:22 call for the man to be stoned as well as the woman. Obviously the Pharisees "forgot" to bring or even identify the man "taken in the very act" along with the woman:...

Yup, you just summarized much of what was posted in this thread. ;-)

 

[Arphaxad]

Hi again Everyone! :D

After carefully reading this entire topic and seeing many references to "a witness," I hasten to point out that, as today, absolutely no one could be convicted of a crime on the testimony of just one witness. In fact in jurisprudence today there is a well-known saying: "One witness is no witness." Only on the testimony of two or three witnesses could a thing be established:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deu 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.

Deu 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (underlines and color emphases are my own).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also good to remember that any two or three Pharisees coming forward as independent witnesses to begin the stoning of the woman, would have had to explain WHY they, being eyewitnesses, opted to totally flout God's Law by not bringing or even identifying the man involved in the crime. Thus they would have become as responsible for the crime as the woman they were witnessing against.:o

Also, IMHO it seems likely that one of the Pharisees was "the man." (Just a theory though). Evidence: When Jesus was invited to dine in a Pharisee's house, the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her own hair and tears seemed to have no problem being present there in the Pharisee's home. Was she who was called "a sinner" by the Pharisees, invited to dinner??? :o :o So how did she get in so easily without getting stopped at the door?:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luk 7:36-39 And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat.

37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that [Jesus] sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment,

38 And stood at his feet behind [him] weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe [them] with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed [them] with the ointment.

39 Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw [it], he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman [this is] that toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

Luk 7:44-48 And he (Jesus) turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped [them] with the hairs of her head.

45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, [the same] loveth little.

48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

(underline and color emphasis is my own).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think life for a poor single woman was not easy in Jesus' time. Women were not even considered worthy of salvation by Jewish society :

Best Blessings,
"Arph"
-----------