Why Jesus could not condemn the Woman who was caught in the very act of adultery?

[Hekuran]

She should have been stoned. She never asked for forgiveness. Women can be so unfaithful to their husbands. Hints why The LORD made the adultery test for wives only NOT husband's! Numbers 5.

No need for a test in this case. She was caught in the act. By definition there are exactly as many adulterous acts committed by men as women. Should the man have been stoned too, as Deuteronomy 22 requires?

 

[Godfearingman777]

No need for a test in this case. She was caught in the act. By definition there are exactly as many adulterous acts committed by men as women. Should the man have been stoned too, as Deuteronomy 22 requires?

Yes he should have. She was another man's wife. Now if she was single than no the man shouldn't have been stoned.

 

[Godfearingman777]

As I recall in that passage -- when Jesus challenged the men in that crowd of people -- no one was willing to caste that first stone. After they'd all left -- Jesus Christ acknowledged to her that she had no one condemning her - so He Also said He would not condemn her and told her to go and sin no more.

The man she was with was as guilty as she was -- no one did anything to him. Why Not. Men don't have to worry about a potential pregnancy -- the woman does. And men can spread disease all over the place as can women.

Women were pretty much only property back then. Women were dependent on their fathers and then a husband to support them.

And men can Also be So unfaithful to their wives.

Yes, Numbers 5 -- if a husband suspects his wife of unfaithfulness, there is the test of bitter waters administered by the priest. Just how wonderful of husbands were the men. Both back then and now. This is a sin-damaged world we live in.
'we' need to guard our marriages.

Oh yeah? If men were so unfaithful to their wives then why is there no test for adultery for husband's then? Bet you don't have a good answer for me. The women needed to be tested. They obviously were harlots who didn't respect their husbands.

 

[Sue D.]

Oh, my goodness. "Bet you don't have a good answer for me". Back Then, men had the say in pretty much Everything. Maybe their 'organ' would shrink even More if they were tested and found guilty.

Your bio says you're 36 yrs of age. You're so Young to have such an attitude towards women. I'll assume you're single.

 

[Godfearingman777]

Oh, my goodness. "Bet you don't have a good answer for me". Back Then, men had the say in pretty much Everything. Maybe their 'organ' would shrink even More if they were tested and found guilty.

Your bio says you're 36 yrs of age. You're so Young to have such an attitude towards women. I'll assume you're single.

God is the one who told Moses to require the test. Take it up with God. I actually am married. I've been married for five years. I honor my marriage to my wife. I stopped looking up porn. I don't even look at other women with lust. And if I do I feel ashamed and ask God for forgiveness.

 

[Sue D.]

Backing up to a previous post -- the man she was with was as guilty as she was. Maybe her husband wasn't being a very good husband and this other guy was at least being attentive. He should have been stoned too.

Ya know something -- just Maybe IF society Did follow those Old Testament laws there would be much less less cheating on spouses cause most would be Dead.

Thanks for your honestly. Porn has been known to ruin lives, marriages.

but I still think you're being to hard on that woman in the Bible.

 

[PloughBoy]

Not meaning no harm. I will Try to say this with a humble mind, but strong intentions to the text. The Word of God or God Himself did not want to put the man in this portion of the text. If He wanted us to address it, HE would of had it put there or Had Jesus bring it up in His conversation to the accuser. He didn’t. Now let us stay within the perimeters of the “post” and the text of this story and feel free to “attack” my exegesis of the text of this story and prove me wrong and not by any “imaginary or speculation”or how you like the text to be.
“Why Jesus could not condemn the Woman who was caught in the very act of adultery?” That is a question? Or am I loosing my mind? “ let us do things decently and in order” maybe I will start another post to beat up men, and I will cast the first Stone! I think I will just do that. So everybody get your stone bag ready! And I am quite sure, you have plenty to cast because it seems I can see it in your eyes! Because I sure do not feel or see any “Agape” for sinners. Only “Cherry Pickers” for truth! You may call my reply “harsh” and “mean” , but I think in comes into the category of “Agape” as define in a “Greek Lexicon “ humbly your brother in Christ Jesus, who is our Lord and Savior “ who taketh away the sins of the world.

 

[Hekuran]

I )

Now let us stay within the perimeters of the “post” and the text of this story and feel free to “attack” my exegesis of the text of this story and prove me wrong and not by any “imaginary or speculation”or how you like the text to be.

I've done this a couple of times, but you've not yet responded to the content of it.

 

[PloughBoy]

I have no understanding of your meaning of this inquiring:

You said:
“I've done this a couple of times, but you've not yet responded to the content of it.”

I say this, with “sincere”, you have not address my exegesis of the text of requirement but you have with surety presented your own “eisegesis” of the text, presented in the post. now, how say you?
“Agape”always for the “edification” of “The Saints of God”. “ For those who understand”

 

[Sue D.]

Ive been Trying to follow this conversation, but it's very hard to.

 

[PloughBoy]

I know Sue,

 

[Sue D.]

The thread question -- does it really Matter? The people were usually trying to find a reason to get Jesus in trouble. He knew that -- He knew what His purpose in this world was. He would be pointing people to His Father while He was here. He would be convicting people of their sins.

 

[Hekuran]

I'll try again. The first part of the text.

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him.

What's the test?

The scribes had set a trap. If Jesus said 'stone her' he would be accused of defying occupying Rome who alone could pass the death penalty. If he said 'don't stone her' he'd be contradicting the law of Moses.

Jesus dodges the trap and turns the tables on the accusers.

The issue of sufficient witnesses is mentioned, and it's not necessary to refer to it in order to understand the passage.

This, I think is the most straightforward way to understand the story.

 

[PloughBoy]

I am not going to address this type of “eisegesis “ again, please do more investigation of your Roman law concerning this era of the text parallel also Jewish law in Judaea at that time. I can give you multitudes of justification by biblical text to justify my examination and explanation of the concern text, in which does not come under the title of a “problem text”. But just to show a little more light in your statement concerning Roman law about stoning, getting Jesus in trouble. Please take note: “where was Roman Law? When the “Religious Jews” stone “Stephen” for his religious views and what did The “Roman Citizen” name “Saul do? He held their garments, when they stone him to “death”. Please my brother and sister forgive me of my pride, for in which I am ashamed to express my ways in such matter, but I find it so hard in such a era of time as this!Please may I have your prayers.. Maybe I cherish not the abundance of revelations I receive of the biblical text might be my greatest of all of my sins. I tried to be as kind as I could, because “whitewash won’t do”! We have to be able to “interpret “Holy Scripture “ rightly. And in light of “Holy Scripture “. If we don’t ,we will error in other parts of it. And it will spread as if it was “gangrene”. “But please let it not begin with me” Ok I have calm down Next order of business.

 

[Hekuran]

John 18:31

Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him according to your law.” The Jews replied, “We are not permitted to put anyone to death.”

In Acts chapter 7, Stephen is stoned by a mob. There is no trial or due process - it's murder at the hands of the crowd.

 

[PloughBoy]

So you say: The law of God is subordinate to the “law of Caesar”.

and The Roman Citizen, who witness the Stoning of Stephen, held their garments did not report the crime? There was a witness to the Crime! And Pilate said: concerning Jesus , I find no fault in Him. Jesus had not broke a “Roman Law”.! [maybe He excited riots]? Mmmm But he did not break the law of God. Mmm ( I am having a “Polycarp” moment) but always in a “Athanasius” mode. The explanation of the text stand sure.

 

[Hekuran]

Certainly not saying the Torah was subordinate to Roman law. Merely that if the scribes and Pharisees found a way to accuse Jesus of breaking Roman law, they could have had him put in prison and neutralised his ministry.

Saul approved of the mob stoning Stephen, so was unlikely to report it as a crime. Perhaps his presence lent the crowd some legitimacy and protection.

 

[PloughBoy]

Back on subject here, I think there are a lot of “Adultery” going in these “institutional churches” and there is a lot Christian women trap in this mess! And they don’t know what to do and afraid to say anything, They have become afraid of their “bibles” because when they read it. It condemns them because it paints a vivid picture of themselves. “Israel” is picture as a woman, Judah is picture as a woman, Babylon the Great, as a woman, and we have our mother “Eve”! Then God, has curse them with the pain of bearing children [ the pain is a curse from God]. and He has “curse” them by having their husband Rule over them! That is a curse! Plus here is the other curse God has place on them: I will do better here, I will give a better rendering of the text with a better “translation”concerning this text of “Holy Scripture”. Because most think the word “desire” to your husband is a good thing. It does not mean you will like your husband. It means you will dislike your husband ruling over you! “It is a curse from God” most “Theologians” knows this. Most all regular “pastors” don’t. Why, because they are lazy and many don’t want to up set the women, because then that will upset the “pastor’s little kingdom!
Now read this ( and please read using “English syntax”. Pains [sorrows]. And child birth pains are different in the text. If you see this, you will understand, why most of you are not happy with your married life. But if you stick around I will present you the “Good News”! And show you it is worth every tear! Now take I breath, calm down!Breathe

 

[PloughBoy]

Brenton Septuagint Translation
And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children, and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Take note: “for the woman who has eyes to see” If you hold on! I will show you the riches of your pains the results of the. “Fruits of your pains”. For the sufferings is the will of God for you. You will understand, others “will not”

 

[Godfearingman777]

I take back what I said. I was in a very bad place of mind and soul at that moment. She should have been forgiven. God even forgives worse sexual sins like homosexuality and pedophilia. This woman deserved her forgiveness for lack of a better word.

God bless.

David.