Posted on 06/06/2015 10:16:05 AM PDT by RnMomof7
It has been pointed out to me that I tend to pick on those more theologically aligned with me than with those who are rather liberal in their theology. Upon reflection, this is a fair criticism, as I guess I would think folks who take the Bible seriously (which, my liberal mainline brothers may claim with their mouths but often not with their actions) would know better. In looking to my own Rabbi as an example, he was much harder on the Pharisees (who were of the same theological stripe) than on the Sadducees and Herodians (Hebrews who were in bed with the Romans for the sake of power) or the zealots (who were zealous for the Lord, but wanted to use violence) or the pagan Romans.
With that said, though, the scripture I’d like to examine today is one that tends to be abused by those who pay lip service to scripture on a normal day, but who all the sudden consider it highly important when talking about law and order.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
   But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
 ”No one, sir,” she said.
      ”Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.” (John 8:1-11)
Where this gets used today is in criticism of tough laws and in opposition to the death penalty. In reality, this narrative in its original context, is more about the incompatibility of hypocrisy and the Kingdom of God (including social justice, mind you), than about justice systems and sentencing.
Stoning
According to numerous first-century sources, the approved method of execution by stoning in the Jewish culture is thus: You take the accused person to a drop-off that is 18-feet high, or higher, and bind their hands behind their back. The two (or more) eyewitnesses of the crime then must push the person off the edge. All those who believe the accused is guilty then pick up a single stone (you only get one) and throw/drop it on the person from the edge of the drop-off. If they die (which was often the case), that is God’s judgement upon them. If they live, then it is His judgement, as well (which is why Paul lives to write about himself being stoned).
The two witnesses are very important. These two to three witnesses cannot be complicit in the crime, and without them, you cannot condemn the person. These witnesses must also be the first to cast the stones on the guilty person.Â
On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. The hands of the witnesses must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. (Deut 17:6 -7a)
(I think it would be a fair debate to decide what constitutes a ‘witness’ today, now that we have forensic science with DNA, fingerprints and such that are considered to be more reliable than an eyewitness.)
The Case at Hand
When the woman is brought before Jesus, instantly there should be some questions in the mind of the observer – If their purpose was to trap Jesus, how did they know where to catch the woman in the act? Where is the man who was part of the act of adultery? The law they were asking Jesus to rule on required both partners be stoned.
‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.’ (Leviticus 20:10)
That the man who was not there should be a red flag that there is some injustice going on, as the man should have been present, as well. The woman was of lower social status than the man, and so to demand consequences for her sin, but not that of her accomplice – who would have been seen as more responsible for the sin – would have been seen as mistreatment of someone of lower status, such oppression as forbidden in both the written and oral Torah. It is possible that the woman was a prostitute (since neither the man, nor her husband, were present), which would indicate an even lower social status. In any case, without the man with whom she committed the sin or a wronged husband asking for justice, there could be no reasonably just ruling involving only the woman.Â
And I charged your judges at that time: Hear the disputes between your brothers and judge fairly, whether the case is between brother Israelites or between one of them and an alien. Do not show partiality in judging; hear both small and great alike. Do not be afraid of any man, for judgment belongs to God. Bring me any case too hard for you, and I will hear it. (Deuteronomy 1:16-17)
Also, since they were bringing her to Jesus, who had no formal authority in the Temple, and they were not taking her to the Sanhedrin, who had the formal religious authority over such matters (but who could no longer pronounce death sentences at this time, as a result of Roman law), they were asking him to make a legal ruling that even their own rulers could not make. However, his actions give us distinct clues as to what his ruling was, and what it might mean to us.
Jesus’ Response
Jesus first response when the woman was brought to him was to bend over and write with his finger in the dust. He continued doing this, even as they questioned him. We, as westerners, always want to ask the question – WHAT did he write? To the listener in the first century, particularly a Jewish listener with intimate knowledge of Torah (as most observent Jews had), what he may have been superfluous, as they would have understood the story without it. It is his act of writing in the dust which brings to mind (as an unspoken remez) the prophet Jeremiah:
“I the LORD search the heart
      and examine the mind,
      to reward a man according to his conduct,
      according to what his deeds deserve.” Like a partridge that hatches eggs it did not lay
      is the man who gains riches by unjust means.
      When his life is half gone, they will desert him,
      and in the end he will prove to be a fool. A glorious throne, exalted from the beginning,
      is the place of our sanctuary. O LORD, the hope of Israel,
      all who forsake you will be put to shame.
      Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
      because they have forsaken the LORD,
      the spring of living water.
So, from the verses around the remez, what should we conclude about Jesus’ action? I suspect it was the names of the individuals standing there that Jesus was writing in the dust, but (as noted) the very act of writing in the dust would call this passage to mind. And what is the sin for which those who turn away from God? From this passage, it is “the man who gains riches by unjust means”.
And so, after writing in the dust, Jesus tells the men that ”If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her”, which as part of the ritual of stoning would mean “If any one of you is without this sin…”. Which sin, though? As suggested by David Flusser, Ray VanderLaan and others, I would suggest it is the sin of injustice – which Jesus was referencing by writing in the dust. However, it may also be the sin of adultery – for how would the men know how/where to catch the woman if they were not in some way complicit in her crime (if she was a prostitute), or in only partially prosecuting it (by leaving the adulterer out of the judicial proceedings). Remember also that the two witnesses had to push her off of a drop-off, and that they had to stone her first – as witnesses.
At this point, the men – the oldest (and therefore, culturally, the wisest) leaving first, followed by the youngest. And then, when Jesus is alone with the woman, he gives her his ruling, as well. Without any witnesses as accusers, she had no one to condemn her. And so, Jesus sent her away, telling her not to sin any more.
So What?
While a number of people who like to quote this passage use it to support arguments for leniency/absence of consequences (particularly the death penalty) for crimes or sins committed, Jesus was not making such an argument. Neither here, nor elsewhere, does he undermine the authority of the government to maintain order (which later Paul affirms that Christians are to obey their governmental leaders), nor does he advocate leniency toward sin.
Instead, what he gives us is a reminder to seek justice, particularly for those of lesser status, and to not take advantage of others less fortunate than ourselves.
So when I read this , it brought back some memories of that
Context ping
We are getting daily lessons of both types of stoning courtesy of ISIS these days. May we find unity in our Christianity to spread the Gospel in front of their threat.
And many non-Christian folks use the hyprocisy point against Christians without realizing or ignoring that Jesus told the woman to change her ways, thus Jesus did uphold the greater ‘law’ of turning away from ones sinful ways.
It is rarely brought up that Jesus told the woman “Go and sin no more.” Question: what if she did commit adultery once more? What would Christ have said if a Sodomite was brought before him as being caught in the act?(The old testament decreed death for man laying with man.) What would Christ have said if a Sodomite was brought before him and 300 chanting Sodomites arrived and did demand he approve of such “Love?”
Gen 19:5 They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.”Gen19:27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the Lord. 28 He looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, toward all the land of the plain, and he saw dense smoke rising from the land, like smoke from a furnace.
Stones?
How quaintly old fashioned.
Gimme the boiling oil anytime!
Instead, what he gives us is a reminder to seek justice, particularly for those of lesser status, and to not take advantage of others less fortunate than ourselves.
So I believe that is one good explanation.
In politics capital punishment seems to be the main theme concerning the scripture but in Bible study some one might jump down your throat for judging if you are doing nothing but reading scripture,( I have had it happen )
Paul said to obey authorities but if the apostles had of obeyed the authorities we would not have the Gospel Jesus gave us, they disobeyed and preached in the name of Jesus.
Luke 13
31 The same day there came certain of the Pharisees, saying unto him, Get thee out, and depart hence: for Herod will kill thee.
32 And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.
Don`t sound like Jesus had much respect for the authorities either.
Roger that. Heat it 7 times hotter too. After all, isn't that what happened to Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah? 😂😇😆😊😄😃😎
Today it is...
They called to American parents: “Where are your children? Bring them to us in the public schools so that we can teach them our perversions and have sex with them.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.