Proper Interpretation of the Woman Taken in Adultery Incident (Jn 8:1-11)

Nazaroo · Jan 31, 2013

Allowing a murderer to go free is one of the most foolish things we could do;

First you have to know that they are a murderer.

Only about 30% of murderers are 'solved' statistically.

Many murders have no viable suspects, let alone convincing evidence.

This means that mere suspicion of a crime, or innuendo,
or unexamined testimony or slander are not valid reasons
to hold someone 'guilty' or punish them.

The Biblical Law of Two Witnesses
requires two innocent trustworthy witnesses,
who are members of the Godly community.
Without those witnesses, the earthly courts under Moses
were required to let suspects go.

Today some 60% of murders are unsolvable.
I don't advocate increasing police budgets,
because this won't solve or prevent more murders.

In many ways, the modern predicament in modern cities
is the result of a whole society built upon sinful lifestyles.
Until those sinful lifestyles are stopped, murder and other crimes
will continue to be a major problem.

If you want real justice, you have to turn to God,
and God has already provided the channels of approach,
namely accepting the Gospel and obeying Christ.

If people are unwilling to accept the Gospel and obey Christ,
then they can expect no Divine protection by God from their fellow criminals.

Criminals, liars, thieves, adulterers and murderers
make lousy judges, courts, police, and governments.
Don't expect much when the bricks you use to make a society
are crap to begin with.

If you can prove someone is a murderer
according to the principles laid out in God's Law,
then by all means bring them to trial, convict them,
and hang them.

If you can't follow God's Law yourself,
don't bother trying to enforce it.

Lighthouse · Feb 1, 2013

Nazaroo said:
First you have to know that they are a murderer.

Only about 30% of murderers are 'solved' statistically.

Many murders have no viable suspects, let alone convincing evidence.

This means that mere suspicion of a crime, or innuendo,
or unexamined testimony or slander are not valid reasons
to hold someone 'guilty' or punish them.

:doh:

You clearly didn't read my post.

I asked If all the requirements of the law are met; i.e. their guilt is undeniable and God's commands are followed, is it okay with God to just let them go?

The Biblical Law of Two Witnesses
requires two innocent trustworthy witnesses,
who are members of the Godly community.
Without those witnesses, the earthly courts under Moses
were required to let suspects go.

I know that. You need to learn to read.

Today some 60% of murders are unsolvable.
I don't advocate increasing police budgets,
because this won't solve or prevent more murders.

How is that even relevant?

In many ways, the modern predicament in modern cities
is the result of a whole society built upon sinful lifestyles.
Until those sinful lifestyles are stopped, murder and other crimes
will continue to be a major problem.

No kidding.

If you want real justice, you have to turn to God,
and God has already provided the channels of approach,
namely accepting the Gospel and obeying Christ.

If people are unwilling to accept the Gospel and obey Christ,
then they can expect no Divine protection by God from their fellow criminals.

Criminals, liars, thieves, adulterers and murderers
make lousy judges, courts, police, and governments.
Don't expect much when the bricks you use to make a society
are crap to begin with.

If you can prove someone is a murderer
according to the principles laid out in God's Law,
then by all means bring them to trial, convict them,
and hang them.

If you can't follow God's Law yourself,
don't bother trying to enforce it.

So you are contradicting yourself or you failed to read what I actually posted.

genuineoriginal · Feb 1, 2013

Lighthouse said:
I asked If all the requirements of the law are met; i.e. their guilt is undeniable and God's commands are followed, is it okay with God to just let them go?

If all the requirements of the law are met, and the guilt is undeniable, the murderer will either be put to death or set free.

Deuteronomy 17:6
6 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.

God has no problem with letting the guilty go free from civil punishment for lack of witnesses.

Deuteronomy 21:7-8
7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

Lighthouse · Feb 1, 2013

genuineoriginal said:
If all the requirements of the law are met, and the guilt is undeniable, the murderer will either be put to death or set free.

Deuteronomy 17:6
6 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.

God has no problem with letting the guilty go free from civil punishment for lack of witnesses.

Deuteronomy 21:7-8
7 And they shall answer and say, Our hands have not shed this blood, neither have our eyes seen it.
8 Be merciful, O Lord, unto thy people Israel, whom thou hast redeemed, and lay not innocent blood unto thy people of Israel's charge. And the blood shall be forgiven them.

If all the requirements of the law are met there will be two or three witnesses.:doh:

genuineoriginal · Feb 1, 2013

Lighthouse said:
If all the requirements of the law are met there will be two or three witnesses.:doh:

That is not the case in the woman caught in adultery.
There were no witnesses at the trial, and the woman was let go with nothing more than a warning.

Nazaroo · Feb 1, 2013

The head of the party of Pharisees did not claim to be a witness.
His opening statement was only a summary of the case he believed
that they had against the woman.

His own testimony concerning the evidence is hearsay,
and has been recognized as invalid as a substitute
for living eyewitness testimony since the time of Daniel (cf. Susanna, Talmud).

Nazaroo · Feb 1, 2013

Lighthouse said:
If all the requirements of the law are met there will be two or three witnesses.:doh:

Got it.
Missed what you were saying first time around.

Agreed.
God's Law requires 2 or 3 (innocent) witnesses,
and if that requirement was met,
a trial should commence.
That is, if God was willing to recognize the authority
of a valid and operative Mosaic Theocracy,
even during the Occupation by the Romans.

However, given the belief by some Jews and Christians
that the Roman Occupation was itself a prophetic condition brought on
by national rebellion, the authority-claim of the Pharisee group
must be seriously examined before it is accepted.

Lighthouse · Feb 2, 2013

genuineoriginal said:
That is not the case in the woman caught in adultery.
There were no witnesses at the trial, and the woman was let go with nothing more than a warning.

I know this.

Nazaroo said:
Got it.
Missed what you were saying first time around.

Agreed.
God's Law requires 2 or 3 (innocent) witnesses,
and if that requirement was met,
a trial should commence.
That is, if God was willing to recognize the authority
of a valid and operative Mosaic Theocracy,
even during the Occupation by the Romans.

However, given the belief by some Jews and Christians
that the Roman Occupation was itself a prophetic condition brought on
by national rebellion, the authority-claim of the Pharisee group
must be seriously examined before it is accepted.

:thumb:

Nazaroo · Apr 13, 2014

genuineoriginal said:
That is not the case in the woman caught in adultery.
There were no witnesses at the trial, and the woman was let go with nothing more than a warning.

This isn't strictly correct as the text reads.
The implication of the initial statement by the Pharisee party
does imply they have or had witnesses, who have perhaps
already testified at a previous trial of the man;
(the man must always be put to death in case of adultery,
whereas the 'city/country law' allows the possibility of rape
or extortion or blackmail, and gives benefit of doubt to a woman's
innocence under a much stricter standard of evidence for guilt).

Secondly, you are assuming a trial, when what appears to have
happened is more like a preliminary hearing, in which charges
were dropped or stayed.

bybee · Apr 13, 2014

Good post. I read through the whole thing. Every time I read this story I am touched by the simplicity of Jesus's words as He parses the situation. His resolution is unassailable. How can anyone doubt that God is at work here?
Love and forgiveness logically lead to the admonition "Go and sin no more"

Nazaroo · Apr 14, 2014

bybee said:
Good post. I read through the whole thing. Every time I read this story I am touched by the simplicity of Jesus's words as He parses the situation. His resolution is unassailable. How can anyone doubt that God is at work here?
Love and forgiveness logically lead to the admonition "Go and sin no more"

Yes there is a certain inevitability to the unfolding of events, with Jesus present.

His power and authority over the whole situation is staggering in the end.

Nazaroo · Feb 20, 2015

*bump* and I think we may see the same kind of intervention in the Last Days.

jamie · Feb 20, 2015

The story of the woman who was alleged to have violated the commandment against adultery had to be let go. The Law of Moses is based on a presumption of innocence and requires two or more credible witnesses for a finding of guilty.

Nazaroo · Feb 21, 2015

jamie said:
The story of the woman who was alleged to have violated the commandment against adultery had to be let go. The Law of Moses is based on a presumption of innocence and requires two or more credible witnesses for a finding of guilty.

Yes. A lot of people confuse the fact that Jesus acknowledged she was a sinner,
with the question of whether she had in fact committed adultery
as the Pharisees claimed.

Nazaroo · Feb 26, 2015

Both the treatment of women, and their legal rights,
and the proper enforcement of the Law of Moses in the courts,
are very important issues for today,
at a time when large numbers of Muslims are attempting to
impose Sharia Law upon Western countries.

The critically important fact is that
Sharia Law is NOTHING LIKE Mosaic Law,
and Sharia Law does not protect women or the truth in any way.

On the contrary, Sharia Law today continues to find innocent women guilty,
and perpetrate horrific punishments on innocent people,
in the main because Sharia Law does not properly understand
nor does it carry out the Law of Moses.

The Law of Moses has critically important safeguards and protections
that ensure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted and punished,
whereas Sharia Law has no such safeguards, and is an unjust system.

Ben Masada · Feb 26, 2015

Lighthouse said:
Is there a summation?

Is the conclusion that the Jesus did not condemn her because the Law did not allow it?

No, I think the summation was because Jesus was a sinner too. Considering the case that, after writing on the sand Jesus said to the ready-to-throw-the-stones gang that the one who was without sin should throw the first stone, and they all left without doing what they had come for and Jesus asked the woman, "Where are your accusers?" And, as the woman answered, "They left, Master." Well, Jesus proceeded and said, neither do I accuse you. Go and sin no more. It means that the accusers left because they were sinners and so did Jesus by saying, "Neither do I accuse you." If the woman had asked, "Why?" Probably he would have said, "Because I am a sinner too. It would have made sense because, according to Eccles. 7:20, "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." And Jesus was a man upon earth for 33 years of his life.

If you guys find hard to believe the above version of what happened, it was simply a parable because that was not the way the Sanhedrin worked. Besides, how could a married woman be so careless to be caught in the act? Then witnesses were needed and it seems that the whole gang had been. Yes, better take the whole thing as a parable.

Nazaroo · Feb 26, 2015

Ben Masada said:
No, I think the summation was because Jesus was a sinner too.

He must be, right?

Because a Godly saint is inconceivable to a jaded modern Jewish philosopher.

Inconceivable!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D58LpHBnvsI

Considering the case that, after writing on the sand Jesus said to the ready-to-throw-the-stones gang that the one who was without sin should throw the first stone, and they all left without doing what they had come for and Jesus asked the woman, "Where are your accusers?" And, as the woman answered, "They left, Master." Well, Jesus proceeded and said, neither do I accuse you. Go and sin no more. It means that the accusers left because they were sinners and so did Jesus by saying, "Neither do I accuse you."

So far so good.
Now it starts to get flakey:

If the woman had asked, "Why?" Probably he would have said, "Because I am a sinner too. It would have made sense because, according to Eccles. 7:20, "There has never been a man upon earth to have done only good and never sinned." And Jesus was a man upon earth for 33 years of his life.

Ah, no. The poetic expression in Ecclesiastes hardly deserves to be
applied universally for all time.

There have been plenty of sinless children born and died,
Jesuit nonsense notwithstanding.

And that lame line was penned long before Jesus, and hardly anticipated Him.

Finally, the whole of Ecclesiastes is certainly mis-attributed to Solomon,
or else he wrote it in his lapse into senility and awhoring,
(1,000 concubines was it? - clearly a man-whore was the aging Solomon.)

In any case, the jaded atheist who wrote Ecclesiastes was hardly inspired.

Another problem with 'Canonical' collections created by committee.

No doubt the dirty old Rabbis felt they had to include Song of Solomon as well,
seeing as literary porn was so rare in them days.

If you guys find hard to believe the above version of what happened, it was simply a parable because that was not the way the Sanhedrin worked. Besides, how could a married woman be so careless to be caught in the act?

Are you serious?

Do you have any experience with women at all?

Or has your Jewish grandmother instilled you with a superstitious fear
and awe that common sense and common knowledge cannot penetrate?

Are you really amazed that women, like the young men that jaded
whores entrap, could be so dumb?

Of course they can, friend.

Then witnesses were needed and it seems that the whole gang had been. Yes, better take the whole thing as a parable.

Better to take your whole thing as a parable:

A parable of how disbelief in the obvious can make a 'scholar' such a fool.

musterion · Feb 26, 2015

It is not a parable.

The woman was not brought before Him according to the Law, which they knew, and He knew they knew. It's really that simple.

Nazaroo · Feb 26, 2015

musterion said:
It is not a parable.

The woman was not brought before Him according to the Law, which they knew, and He knew they knew. It's really that simple.

Finally, common sense.

Parables have morals and obvious proverbs.

This is an ambiguous and difficult incident,
which brands it authentic with a hot iron.

Ben Masada · Feb 27, 2015

Nazaroo said:
He must be, right?

Click to expand...

Wrong! He must have been. The dead no longer can be any thing.

Because a Godly saint is inconceivable to a jaded modern Jewish philosopher.

Click to expand...

That's not what Jesus said. He said that we (the Jews) understand what we worship. Hence, salvation comes from the Jews. (John 4:22)

There have been plenty of sinless children born and died,
Jesuit nonsense notwithstanding.

Click to expand...

Jesuit perhaps but not Jewish. The personal responsibility as the Law is concerned starts in Judaism at 13 years old for the boy and 12 for the girl.

No doubt the dirty old Rabbis felt they had to include Song of Solomon as well, seeing as literary porn was so rare in them days.

Click to expand...

Well, porno if you are a member of the literal interpretation club. Metaphorically, there is a lot to learn from the "Song of Songs."

Do you have any experience with women at all?

Click to expand...

Married twice.

Are you really amazed that women, like the young men that jaded whores entrap, could be so dumb? Of course they can, friend.

Click to expand...

Now, you are contradicting yourself. They would be dumb if they so carelessly exposed themselves to be caught in the act.

Proper Interpretation of the Woman Taken in Adultery Incident (Jn 8:1-11)

New member

The Dark Knight

New member

The Dark Knight

New member

New member

New member

The Dark Knight

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member