Bump for author of thread.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4572638&postcount=15
Please respond.
Woman caught in adultery - lesson
- Thread starter iouae
- Start date
Bump for author of thread.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4572638&postcount=15
Please respond.
iouae
Well-known member
I did not answer your first question because the answer is so obvious as to render the question frivolous.
At Christ's first coming He had no authority over the Roman or Jewish government.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.
There was every evidence she was an adulterer since she was caught in the very act. Her guilt is never called into question. Her guilt is acknowledged by Christ telling her to "Go, and sin no more".
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Now here are questions that no one seems to be able to answer:
If Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh was indeed an anarchist like many are implying, why is this the only case recorded where He let an accused criminal go? Why didn't He intervene in arrests by civil authorities for other crimes? Why didn't He go to the prisons and demand that these convicted criminals be set free?
God ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of man (the Church and Family being the other two).
He is no anarchist, He let the woman go (with a stern warning to sin no more) because there was lack of evidence to arrest her for the crime of adultery.
You are implying that Jesus Christ (God) doesn't believe in the rule of law (i.e. a nation's criminal justice system).
But if He thought that the criminal justice systems were unjust (the penalty phase was...the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals...He rescinded the penalty phase along with dietary laws) He would have spoken often about it.
Taken totally out of context. Christians are not to partake in worldly (immoral) behaviors. It has nothing to do with prosecuting criminals.
By whom? And why did her accusers not state who her counterpart was?
Tell me that Jesus would denounce westernized criminal justice systems. Tell me that He would denounce the arrest and prosecution of rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. etc. by saying to them:
"Go and sin no more".
That is nothing but a prescription for pure chaos and anarchy, and God isn't an anarchist.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior View Post
Now here are questions that no one seems to be able to answer:
If Jesus Christ/the Son of God/God in the flesh was indeed an anarchist like many are implying, why is this the only case recorded where He let an accused criminal go? Why didn't He intervene in arrests by civil authorities for other crimes? Why didn't He go to the prisons and demand that these convicted criminals be set free?
God ordained civil government as one of three institutions for the governance of man (the Church and Family being the other two).
He is no anarchist, He let the woman go (with a stern warning to sin no more) because there was lack of evidence to arrest her for the crime of adultery.
You are implying that Jesus Christ (God) doesn't believe in the rule of law (i.e. a nation's criminal justice system).
But if He thought that the criminal justice systems were unjust (the penalty phase was...the stoning of adulterers and homosexuals...He rescinded the penalty phase along with dietary laws) He would have spoken often about it.
Taken totally out of context. Christians are not to partake in worldly (immoral) behaviors. It has nothing to do with prosecuting criminals.
By whom? And why did her accusers not state who her counterpart was?
Tell me that Jesus would denounce westernized criminal justice systems. Tell me that He would denounce the arrest and prosecution of rapists, murderers, thieves, etc. etc. by saying to them:
"Go and sin no more".
That is nothing but a prescription for pure chaos and anarchy, and God isn't an anarchist.
WeberHome
New member
-
That's especially pertinent in capital cases.
†. Deut 17:6-7 . . 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. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou
shalt put the evil away from among you.
Just before the woman's accusers walked out, Jesus wrote something on the
ground. Well; I think it was the names of girlfriends that they all thought
nobody knew about. So when Jesus said "He that's without sin, let him cast
the first stone" he wasn't talking about nondescript sin, he was talking about
the same sin: the sin of adultery.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That's especially pertinent in capital cases.
†. Deut 17:6-7 . . 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. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon
him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou
shalt put the evil away from among you.
Just before the woman's accusers walked out, Jesus wrote something on the
ground. Well; I think it was the names of girlfriends that they all thought
nobody knew about. So when Jesus said "He that's without sin, let him cast
the first stone" he wasn't talking about nondescript sin, he was talking about
the same sin: the sin of adultery.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
That's his choice (Ro 9:21). Only he knows one's heart (Jn 12:47).
Last edited:
iouae
Well-known member
I agree
I agree except there obviously was evidence.
Where did I ever say that?
I cannot figure out what you are saying here. I believe the dietary laws are to be kept, and the sex prohibitions of the OT still pertain today. Christ did not condemn her because their society was so rotten, He would have had to condemn all.
Again I don't understand you. I agree Christians are not to partake in worldly, immoral behaviour. Which Christian does not?
Did you read my OP? She may have been framed, or their society was misogynistic. They obviously knew the male offender, if he even offended since she may have been framed.
Jesus still has not taken authority over these. He will not let the wicked go unpunished when He returns. Christ assumes power at the 6th seal of Rev.
I agree
Rev. 5:6, 13, 5:5 :king:
iouae
Well-known member
I agree with you
I don't see the difference between this woman caught in adultery and the woman of Samaria whom Christ spoke to at the well who had 5 "husbands". Did he condemn her?
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
So did Jesus get you off on a technicality?
Is that you think the Savoir is a guy who gets people off on technicalities?
The view is so morally, spiritually and theological bankrupt it doesn't deserve a response.
Is that you think the Savoir is a guy who gets people off on technicalities?
The view is so morally, spiritually and theological bankrupt it doesn't deserve a response.
[Adulteress in act] I agree with you
I don't see the difference between this woman caught in adultery and the woman of Samaria whom Christ spoke to at the well who had 5 "husbands". Did he condemn her?
This man you are living with is not your husband. She had four non-husbands.
For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. The Holy Bible: King James Version. (2009). (Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version., Jn 4:18). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
See:
Divorce & Remarriage: A Position Paper by John Piper
iouae
Well-known member
Christ interacted with sinners all the time, and He did not directly condemn them. He spoke of sin and righteousness which indirectly may have caused their consciences to prick them.
Can anyone think of sinners whom Christ condemned?
The impotent man at the pool He healed and told not to sin.
Christ's torrent of condemnation was saved for the Pharisees with His "Woe to thee..." speech in Matt 23.
Can anyone think of sinners whom Christ condemned?
The impotent man at the pool He healed and told not to sin.
Christ's torrent of condemnation was saved for the Pharisees with His "Woe to thee..." speech in Matt 23.
Some had still functioning consciences (2 Cor. 1:12). It's best to repent while one still can (Lk 19:44).
Last edited:
Here's an excellent article talking about how the pharisees attempted to trap Jesus into condemning the woman, which pretty much mirrors what I've been saying:
Go and Sin No More – Misinterpreting Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery
...But we do know that when Jesus tells them that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, he isn’t just talking about typical human sins of weakness. He was not talking to honest men who have fallen short of an ideal in which they truly believe. He is talking to evil men whose secret plot to murder and get power is far more wicked than anything the woman may have done.
Unable to legally stone the woman, unwilling to step forward and act as the witnesses who would throw the first stone in violation of the Roman law and face cross examination, and confronted with the fact that their trap had failed, the pharisees left in silence.
Jesus then asked the woman, “where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?”
The law required two witnesses. But nobody was willing to step forward and claim to be a witness.
“No man, Lord,” she responds.
And Jesus declares, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Whether or not she is guilty, to be judged guilty the law requires witnesses, and since Jesus himself did not witness her alleged adultery himself (even though being the Son of God he knows), and there are no witnesses, he cannot condemn her either.
...Furthermore, when he did not condemn the woman, Jesus wasn’t being merciful at the expense of the law. He was following the letter and intent of the law: Jesus didn’t condemn the woman because there were no legal witnesses and because Roman law did not allow capital punishment. So his words toward her do not imply that love is more important than law. To the contrary, his strict adherence to the law, including not condemning another to punishment without witnesses, shows how important the law is.
And seeing that his lack of condemnation was primarily an act of strict adherence to the law, the only thing he says regarding the woman’s adultery is that she should “go and sin no more.” So he clearly calls her actions sinful and exhorts her to repent and abstain from sin.
It seems clear that there is nothing in this story that can be legitimately used to support a blanket doctrine of non-judgmentalism.
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/g...reting-jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultery/
Go and Sin No More – Misinterpreting Jesus and the Woman Taken in Adultery
...But we do know that when Jesus tells them that he who is without sin should cast the first stone, he isn’t just talking about typical human sins of weakness. He was not talking to honest men who have fallen short of an ideal in which they truly believe. He is talking to evil men whose secret plot to murder and get power is far more wicked than anything the woman may have done.
Unable to legally stone the woman, unwilling to step forward and act as the witnesses who would throw the first stone in violation of the Roman law and face cross examination, and confronted with the fact that their trap had failed, the pharisees left in silence.
Jesus then asked the woman, “where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?”
The law required two witnesses. But nobody was willing to step forward and claim to be a witness.
“No man, Lord,” she responds.
And Jesus declares, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Whether or not she is guilty, to be judged guilty the law requires witnesses, and since Jesus himself did not witness her alleged adultery himself (even though being the Son of God he knows), and there are no witnesses, he cannot condemn her either.
...Furthermore, when he did not condemn the woman, Jesus wasn’t being merciful at the expense of the law. He was following the letter and intent of the law: Jesus didn’t condemn the woman because there were no legal witnesses and because Roman law did not allow capital punishment. So his words toward her do not imply that love is more important than law. To the contrary, his strict adherence to the law, including not condemning another to punishment without witnesses, shows how important the law is.
And seeing that his lack of condemnation was primarily an act of strict adherence to the law, the only thing he says regarding the woman’s adultery is that she should “go and sin no more.” So he clearly calls her actions sinful and exhorts her to repent and abstain from sin.
It seems clear that there is nothing in this story that can be legitimately used to support a blanket doctrine of non-judgmentalism.
http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/g...reting-jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultery/
iouae
Well-known member
This article raises an interesting point which I had forgotten, viz. that the Jews were not allowed to execute people. So it was a trick question. If Christ said "stone adulterers" it would be going against Rome, and if He said "Don't stone adulterers" it would be going against OT law.
They were trying to trap Him. But the key to the article is what I've quoted numerous times in other threads:
Jesus then asked the woman, “where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?”
The law required two witnesses. But nobody was willing to step forward and claim to be a witness.
“No man, Lord,” she responds.
And Jesus declares, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.”
Whether or not she is guilty, to be judged guilty the law requires witnesses, and since Jesus himself did not witness her alleged adultery himself (even though being the Son of God he knows), and there are no witnesses, he cannot condemn her either.
iouae
Well-known member
Sorry CultureWarrior, but I don't believe it has anything to do with a lack of witnesses, since they had their witnesses when they approached Christ. This would be a way folks regularly bypass the law today, by intimidating witnesses. Christ was not intimidating witnesses.
To me it still boils down to the fact that Christ came to save the likes of her, rather than to condemn the likes of her. The situation of having to judge was forced on Christ, and His judgment was that I do not judge [now].
They weren't witnesses, they were men that brought this woman to Jesus and accused her of a crime.
witness:
1. to see, hear, or know by personal presence and perception:
to witness an accident.
2. to be present at (an occurrence) as a formal witness, spectator, bystander, etc.:
Asking someone to come forward and testify as to what they "saw, heard or know" is a far cry from 'intimidating a witness'.
Wrong again: He "judged" her as innocent (according to Roman law because no witnesses came forward even though as God He knew she was guilty) and allowed her to leave with a stern warning.