Jesus' sparing the adulteress
- Thread starter AndrewMorgan
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
There is a requirement for witnesses to formally attest to what they saw. Jesus wrote something in the sand that spooked the accusers enough that they left and therefore implicitly withdrew their testimonies.
Without the required witnesses for her adultery, Jesus was not in a legal position to sentence the woman.
The speculation is that Jesus wrote the unrealized crimes of the accusers in the sand to demonstrate that He was in a position to sentence them if He would so choose.
It fits in with the theme of "do unto others" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "everyone (save one) is a sinner"
Without the required witnesses for her adultery, Jesus was not in a legal position to sentence the woman.
The speculation is that Jesus wrote the unrealized crimes of the accusers in the sand to demonstrate that He was in a position to sentence them if He would so choose.
It fits in with the theme of "do unto others" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "everyone (save one) is a sinner"
-
3
- Show all
The woman was caught in flagrante, that is in the act by several people, who brought her to Jesus to have Him pronounce whether or not she should be stoned to death according to the law.
A law dictating a death sentence can by no means be considered as containing mercy.
The men did not leave because of anytiing J Jesus Yeshua drew in the dust but because all had sinned.
You are here to discuss what eh Bible says, so you should already know this.
A law dictating a death sentence can by no means be considered as containing mercy.
The men did not leave because of anytiing J Jesus Yeshua drew in the dust but because all had sinned.
You are here to discuss what eh Bible says, so you should already know this.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
If there was a need to formally attest to what they saw, why didn't they get that opportunity?
Do you think Jesus didn't believe them?
As for Jesus' suggestion that "the one who has not sinned" cast the first stone - Jesus was of course not expecting to find such a person, as his stance on this is clear.
So why was this woman set free? Was it to show an NT change to a softening of dealing with sin?
I've wondered that particular point. To what extent was the Mosaic Law restricted by secular law? I've wondered that in the case of homosexual acts. In Romans, Paul describes these as being worthy of death, but doesn't seem to specify whether the death penalty were to be carried out in the Roman occupation or secular society generally.
So you agree mercy is not involved in stoning someone to death! That seems self-explanatory.
I don't see how one can know (because it isn't stated) what Jesus wrote in the sand, or if it was intelligible. If, as I've heard before, He was expressing previous conduct by the accusers, I can see this may have pricked their consciences and caused then to leave.
I'm not aware that the account specifically stated why the accusers left, but I think there is an implication of guilt.
So I don't "know" why they left and it seems no-one else does either - they can only speculate.
It seems, according to Mosaic Law, if guilty, she should have been stoned - unless there were "extraordinary" circumstances, as has been speculated here.
Yes only Rome could give the punishment of death.
Paul mentioned a lot more than homosexual acts.
Romans 1:26-32
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Although I'm don't think homosexuality was a crime in Rome.
I think the death here is the what will happen to those who practice such things when judged by God.
Paul mentioned a lot more than homosexual acts.
Romans 1:26-32
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Although I'm don't think homosexuality was a crime in Rome.
I think the death here is the what will happen to those who practice such things when judged by God.
Something that just occurred to me about this passage in John:
I've often read and heard that one of the reasons that Jesus called the woman's accusers out for hypocrisy is because they didn't bring the man who was involved with her.
But what if one of the accusers ACTUALLY WAS the man that the woman had an adulterous relationship with? I don't want to read more into the text than what it says (eisegesis), but it is an interesting perspective.
If that is the case, then Jesus not only allowed the woman to live, but He allowed the man to live as well.
Also, it is quite possible that the things Jesus wrote in the ground were the unconfessed sins of the accusers. If that is true, then Jesus didn't just SAY they could stone the woman if they were without sin, He SHOWED them their sins.
I've often read and heard that one of the reasons that Jesus called the woman's accusers out for hypocrisy is because they didn't bring the man who was involved with her.
But what if one of the accusers ACTUALLY WAS the man that the woman had an adulterous relationship with? I don't want to read more into the text than what it says (eisegesis), but it is an interesting perspective.
If that is the case, then Jesus not only allowed the woman to live, but He allowed the man to live as well.
Also, it is quite possible that the things Jesus wrote in the ground were the unconfessed sins of the accusers. If that is true, then Jesus didn't just SAY they could stone the woman if they were without sin, He SHOWED them their sins.
-
1
- Show all
