ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
The Woman caught in adultery.... -
August 25th, 2007, 02:08 PM
Often when this verse is brought up in debate it is pointed out that the pharisees were trying to trick Jesus over a point of law, this being that it would be unlawful to stone the woman in the scenario anyway, this being the case then I have a question
Why did Jesus not just say so instead of writing on the ground and saying the powerful words that he did? He had no need to tell the crowd that they could only cast a stone if they were without sin so why did he if he only needed to escape the pharisees attempt at a legal trap?
I believe those words were given to make a point, they convicted a whole crowd by their conscience that they had no right to hurl any rocks once they had heard those words whether it would have been 'lawful' to stone the woman or not, if not does anyone have any reasons as to why Jesus said and wrote what he did?
Last edited by red77; August 25th, 2007 at 02:39 PM.
Slogan/motto:
The falcon cannot see the falconer
Who me? What do I know?
Reputation:
August 25th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Oh you know Jesus knew that these stone throwers were all bad little boys and girls in their own way, none of them were perfect, but they were trying to act like to were perfect righteous little pigs. Therefore, Jesus had to put them straight. They were lucky Jesus did not turn them into pigs and run them off a cliff.
They were trying to trick Him, and He didn't fall for it! Go Jesus!
♠
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning!
Oh you know Jesus knew that these stone throwers were all bad little boys and girls in their own way, none of them were perfect, but they were trying to act like to were perfect righteous little pigs. Therefore, Jesus had to put them straight. They were lucky Jesus did not turn them into pigs and run them off a cliff.
They were trying to trick Him, and He didn't fall for it! Go Jesus!
Um, c'mon Delmar, I'm a bit disappointed with this response because I hoped you would respond but with something that actually answered the premise of the OP, I've already acknowledged that the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus under some legal point of law but I've asked why Jesus went on to say what he did when he obviously didn't have to, why would he make a point of convicting the crowd and saying what he did if all he had to do to avoid being trapped was to say that it would have been unlawful to stone the woman? Why say those words and write on the ground? Why convict a crowd that unless they were without sin they had no right to throw stones?
Slogan/motto:
The falcon cannot see the falconer
Who me? What do I know?
Reputation:
August 25th, 2007, 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delmar
They were trying to trick Him, and He didn't fall for it! Go Jesus!
The Grace of Jesus is apparent in what He did not do. I would have done a little miracle, had them all in stocks, and then proceed to paddle their behinds. That is a human with power, not God.
Um, c'mon Delmar, I'm a bit disappointed with this response because I hoped you would respond but with something that actually answered the premise of the OP, I've already acknowledged that the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus under some legal point of law but I've asked why Jesus went on to say what he did when he obviously didn't have to, why would he make a point of convicting the crowd and saying what he did if all he had to do to avoid being trapped was to say that it would have been unlawful to stone the woman? Why say those words and write on the ground? Why convict a crowd that unless they were without sin they had no right to throw stones?
I was on my way out the door, and now I am too tired to think straight. I will probably get back to this thread in the AM. It is an important subject.
♠
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning!
I believe those words were given to make a point, they convicted a whole crowd by their conscience that they had no right to hurl any rocks once they had heard those words whether it would have been 'lawful' to stone the woman or not, if not does anyone have any reasons as to why Jesus said and wrote what he did?
Don't underestimate the trap that was being set for Jesus.
On the surface it seemed like a "lose - lose" situation for Jesus, either A. instruct them that the woman should be stoned and overstep Roman law or B. Obey Roman law and disobey the Jewish law that the woman should be put to death. Pretty sneaky trap!
Yet God knowing all things knew these men were themselves guilty of capital crimes and therefore wrote in the sand something that let them know that He knew they were also guilty o such crimes, most likely He wrote the names of the women they had committed adultery with.
After all, what else would convict them when said in association with “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ?
Therefore, not only does this verse teach us that Jesus was God (because He could know something so secret about these men) but also teaches us that Jesus acknowledged that adultery was (and should be) a capital crime.
And it also shows us one final thing which is that Jesus did not tolerate the womens sin as He made sure to let her know in no uncertain terms "go and sin no more."
Slogan/motto:
opinions vary - don't let the facts trouble you . . .
Reputation:
August 25th, 2007, 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by red77
Um, c'mon Delmar, I'm a bit disappointed with this response because I hoped you would respond but with something that actually answered the premise of the OP, I've already acknowledged that the pharisees were trying to trap Jesus under some legal point of law but I've asked why Jesus went on to say what he did when he obviously didn't have to, why would he make a point of convicting the crowd and saying what he did if all he had to do to avoid being trapped was to say that it would have been unlawful to stone the woman? Why say those words and write on the ground? Why convict a crowd that unless they were without sin they had no right to throw stones?
imho, He was there for the woman. after all, it was her life that was changed forever Jesus was letting it all sink in to her heart and let the accusers know He was just a wee bit smarter at the same time kewlies
how many times does God intervene and bring someone to Himself under the most strange and unusual events? He is Awesome
Slogan/motto:
I am a sick man . . . I am a spiteful man.
Reputation:
August 25th, 2007, 11:51 PM
With [some] of his followers fascinated with the prospect of Mosaic law [or at least the parts they personally like] returning, you'd think there would have been one instance in the NT where Jesus directly spoke of putting someone to death and that person eventually did [justly] die, but instead he has to be all anti-Christian...
A fascinating world we live in where grace and the old method of ending sin can coexist.
Location: A bubble of my own self-satisfaction. Which is in the New Forest somewhere in Hampshire.
Rep Power: 67742
Agnostic
Left Winger
Slogan/motto:
Some that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Do not be so eager to deal out justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends.
Reputation:
August 26th, 2007, 06:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knight
Don't underestimate the trap that was being set for Jesus.
On the surface it seemed like a "lose - lose" situation for Jesus, either A. instruct them that the woman should be stoned and overstep Roman law or B. Obey Roman law and disobey the Jewish law that the woman should be put to death. Pretty sneaky trap!
Yet God knowing all things knew these men were themselves guilty of capital crimes and therefore wrote in the sand something that let them know that He knew they were also guilty o such crimes, most likely He wrote the names of the women they had committed adultery with.
After all, what else would convict them when said in association with “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ?
Therefore, not only does this verse teach us that Jesus was God (because He could know something so secret about these men) but also teaches us that Jesus acknowledged that adultery was (and should be) a capital crime.
And it also shows us one final thing which is that Jesus did not tolerate the womens sin as He made sure to let her know in no uncertain terms "go and sin no more."
Is there scriptural evidence that the writing in the sand was anything to do with adultery? After all, the passage says that young and old dispersed - it's quite possible there were members of the crowd too young to commit adultery (I know there isn't evidence for this either, but if you're going to jump to conclusions so am I )
And if your going to take the stance that you are, you might as well be encouraging vigilantism and lynching - if we're all responsible for being God's arbiters, and most people have committed capital crimes, could we not simply roam the land, killing (sorry, executing) whoever we want to, as they've probably done something wrong?
Slogan/motto:
If you say it loud enough, you'll always sound precocious.
Reputation:
August 26th, 2007, 08:01 AM
It still was not Jesus' time. Had he addressed the issue directly he would have either ran into conflict with Rome, or gone against God's law.
Instead Jesus appealed to something unknown and not recorded in the Bible. Since we can only speculate on what Jesus wrote in the dirt. It would be extremely wrong to make a doctrine out of what he might have wrote. Obviously if this whole scene had some profound doctrinal point, God would have felt we should know what was written.
As for what Jesus said, "he who is without sin...", the Bible doesn't suggest that judges who put people to death be without any sin at all ... but Jesus did stress that people not judge hypocrtically, having committed the very same sin as what they are accusing someone else as doing. Jesus would have known what adulterous affairs these men had thought they had gotten away with and could have touched their heart that they too deserved to be stoned according to the law.
Also consider that what he said, is very likely related to what was written in the dirt, in which case it too is also suspect as only having half of the story of what was going on. One should be careful of making a doctrine based on what Jesus said either ... even though this is a favorite quote of those that prefer to ignore everything else Jesus has said about judging.
A 'touchy-feely' CNN reporter, while interviewing an Army sniper asked, "What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?" The Soldier shrugged and replied..... "Recoil."
Don't underestimate the trap that was being set for Jesus.
On the surface it seemed like a "lose - lose" situation for Jesus, either A. instruct them that the woman should be stoned and overstep Roman law or B. Obey Roman law and disobey the Jewish law that the woman should be put to death. Pretty sneaky trap!
Yet God knowing all things knew these men were themselves guilty of capital crimes and therefore wrote in the sand something that let them know that He knew they were also guilty o such crimes, most likely He wrote the names of the women they had committed adultery with.
After all, what else would convict them when said in association with “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ?
Therefore, not only does this verse teach us that Jesus was God (because He could know something so secret about these men) but also teaches us that Jesus acknowledged that adultery was (and should be) a capital crime.
And it also shows us one final thing which is that Jesus did not tolerate the womens sin as He made sure to let her know in no uncertain terms "go and sin no more."
I don't have a lot to add to what Knight said, but my Grandpa used to give an example of the importance of context which I would like to restate.
The Bible says that Judas hung himself. Jesus said "go now and do likewise"!
It is important to understand that not everything that Jesus ever said in a particular context should be applied in every context!
♠
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning!
Don't underestimate the trap that was being set for Jesus.
On the surface it seemed like a "lose - lose" situation for Jesus, either A. instruct them that the woman should be stoned and overstep Roman law or B. Obey Roman law and disobey the Jewish law that the woman should be put to death. Pretty sneaky trap!
Yet God knowing all things knew these men were themselves guilty of capital crimes and therefore wrote in the sand something that let them know that He knew they were also guilty o such crimes, most likely He wrote the names of the women they had committed adultery with.
After all, what else would convict them when said in association with “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” ?
Therefore, not only does this verse teach us that Jesus was God (because He could know something so secret about these men) but also teaches us that Jesus acknowledged that adultery was (and should be) a capital crime.
And it also shows us one final thing which is that Jesus did not tolerate the womens sin as He made sure to let her know in no uncertain terms "go and sin no more."
Indeed, the pharisees were trying to lay a sneaky trap, but even under jewish law was it not mandatory to have the man present as well before a stoning could take place?
I have to disagree with the rest of your post though, I think it's a pretty wild leap of the imagination to presume that Jesus may have been writing the names of women that the crowd may have committed adultery with, after all, Jesus knowing all things would know that all men have sinned and fallen short, it wouldn't have to be adultery, it could be lying or stealing, it's subjecture on my part as well but it seems to make more sense that Jesus was writing a list of sinful behaviours as well as adultery on the ground, everyone in the crowd would have been guilty of at least some of those behaviours if not adultery itself, I doubt that the entire crowd would have been composed of purely adulterers, if that was the case then when Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" He might as well have said the sin of adultery....
Except he doesn't.....the crowd are convicted by their conscience, probably some of them had committed adultery along with other sins, hypocrisy probably not being the least of them, but Jesus does not condemn the woman either, Jesus being God i think he already knew what was going to happen on that day, avoided a trap, showed compassion and convicted people to take a look at their own lives before self righteously and hypocritically condemning another human being,
Yes, Jesus says to the woman to go and sin no more, he also says 'neither do I condemn thee' beforehand....no-one is arguing that Jesus would tolerate adultery as ok, but I also do not think that the woman was just exceedingly fortunate that day where Jesus would normally have advocated death for her crime either, not by a long shot.....
Indeed, the pharisees were trying to lay a sneaky trap, but even under jewish law was it not mandatory to have the man present as well before a stoning could take place?
It's sort of hard to say why that never came up.
Quote:
I have to disagree with the rest of your post though, I think it's a pretty wild leap of the imagination to presume that Jesus may have been writing the names of women that the crowd may have committed adultery with, after all, Jesus knowing all things would know that all men have sinned and fallen short, it wouldn't have to be adultery, it could be lying or stealing, it's subjecture on my part as well but it seems to make more sense that Jesus was writing a list of sinful behaviours as well as adultery on the ground, everyone in the crowd would have been guilty of at least some of those behaviours if not adultery itself, I doubt that the entire crowd would have been composed of purely adulterers,
I agree that it doesn't do a lot of good to guess exactly what He wrote, but what He wrote would not have needed to address every single person in the crowd. Just the ones who were accusing her.
Quote:
if that was the case then when Jesus says "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" He might as well have said the sin of adultery....
Except he doesn't.....the crowd are convicted by their conscience, probably some of them had committed adultery along with other sins, hypocrisy probably not being the least of them, but Jesus does not condemn the woman either,
Of coarse He did not condemn her. This was to be her trial and there were not 2 or 3 wittnesses who stuck around to acuse her.
Quote:
Jesus being God i think he already knew what was going to happen on that day, avoided a trap, showed compassion and convicted people to take a look at their own lives before self righteously and hypocritically condemning another human being,
Yes, Jesus says to the woman to go and sin no more, he also says 'neither do I condemn thee' beforehand....no-one is arguing that Jesus would tolerate adultery as ok, but I also do not think that the woman was just exceedingly fortunate that day where Jesus would normally have advocated death for her crime either, not by a long shot.....
I have no idea why you think Jesus would not have advocated the punishment that God the Father prescribed for that crime. It seems like a disconnect in logic to me.
♠
"A day is as a thousand years" is about perspective. Two hours on the highway, to a five year old, seems like an eternity! To a 50 year old trucker, it's just the start of a good morning!
Jesus was letting it all sink in to her heart and let the accusers know He was just a wee bit smarter at the same time 
kewlies 
Linear Mode
