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

[Lazy afternoon]

Adultery by Divorce!
"I would put the episode in a specific historical context:
Jesus had declared that a woman whose husband had divorced her and who remarried committed adultery (Matt 5,31-32; 19,3-9; Mark 10,2-9.)
The woman brought to Jesus was, I suggest, a remarried divorcée. By Jesus’ own claim she was thus an adulteress, but not for the Pharisees. Moses allowed divorce, Jesus forbade it (cf. Mark 10:11-12).
The trap of the Pharisees for Jesus was this: the law of Moses demanded death by stoning for an adulteress; Jesus claimed remarried divorcées were adulteresses though Moses did not, and neither did the Pharisees.
Would Jesus follow his argument to its logical conclusion and impose death on a remarried divorcée? The scribes and Pharisees brought the woman to Jesus very precisely to test him.

Not true according to better translations.

The practice of putting the women away without a legal divorce as under the law of Moses was the problem.

Jesus did not forbid lawful divorce.

If people are in Christ's Kingdom, it is another matter.

The idea that the accusers would come under conviction of sin, is false.

The whole story is an addition.

-

Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.


Joh 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.


Joh 8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one,

Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

because--

Act 7:53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
Act 7:54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

The Right to Remarry

With this in mind, let us proceed to study the law of remarriage. Deut. 24:2 (KJV) tells us,

2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.

In other words, Moses, speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, gives us the word of God, saying that remarriage after divorce is not a sin. The only stipulation that Moses gives is that she must have written proof in order to validate her divorce. Conversely, if she were put away without the evidence of a written divorce, she could not remarry, because by law she was still married to her first husband, even though her husband had sinned against her by sending her away without divorce papers.

Jesus commented upon this in Matt. 5:31, 32. The biggest hurdle that we all face is that many translators have not made a proper distinction between “divorce” (apostasion) and “put away” (apoluo), even though these are two separate acts, described by two distinct Greek words. For this reason, we must resort to quoting from Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, even though the language is somewhat archaic:

31 And it was said that whoever may put away [apoluo] his wife, let him give to her a writing of divorce [apostasion]; 32 but I—I say to you, that whoever may put away [apoluo] his wife, save for the matter of whoredom, doth make her to commit adultery; and whoever may marry her who hath been put away [apoluo] doth commit adultery.

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries....aw-speech-7/chapter-1-divorce-and-remarriage/

Read the whole article.

LA

 

[kayaker]

Nazaroo:

Well, when you don't know the truth... you confuse with facts exalting yourself. Jesus' temptation was to summon the dude she was caught in the act with. You stopped short of John 8:15 KJV in your OP. Jesus knew the Law. His own accusers knew the Law. Had Jesus summoned the adulterer, He would have invoked Judgment. Clean, clear, and simple. Btw... Jesus' indirectly convicted the hearts of her accusers writing their names in the dirt who likely tangoed with this likely temple harlot. You totally underestimate the power of Jesus' literal words, Nazaroo. Furthermore, Jesus didn't directly forgive the adulteress... He simply told her He didn't condemn her, and to go and sin no more. Had Jesus directly forgiven her, He would again have violated John 8:15 KJV. Two-edged sword.

kayaker

 

[intojoy]

Side fact: this was the only case where the Jews challenged Yeshua with Mosaic Law. And it will be their last attempt.

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Perhaps it was one of the witnesses with her that committed adultery with her which eliminated him from throwing the first stone.

 

[Simon Baker]

Nazaroo:

Well, when you don't know the truth... you confuse with facts exalting yourself. Jesus' temptation was to summon the dude she was caught in the act with. You stopped short of John 8:15 KJV in your OP. Jesus knew the Law. His own accusers knew the Law. Had Jesus summoned the adulterer, He would have invoked Judgment. Clean, clear, and simple. this Btw..Jesus' indirectly convicted the hearts of her accusers writing their names in the dirt who likely tangoed with likely temple harlot. You totally underestimate the power of Jesus' literal words, Nazaroo. Furthermore, Jesus didn't directly forgive the adulteress... He simply told her He didn't condemn her, and to go and sin no more. Had Jesus directly forgiven her, He would again have violated John 8:15 KJV. Two-edged sword.

kayaker

And Who Among Us Can Go And Sin No More ?

 

[kayaker]

And Who Among Us Can Go And Sin No More ?

Least of all me! Yet, I proclaim the blood of One who is without sin!

kayaker

 

[kayaker]

Side fact: this was the only case where the Jews challenged Yeshua with Mosaic Law. And it will be their last attempt.

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Perhaps it was one of the witnesses with her that committed adultery with her which eliminated him from throwing the first stone.

Appreciating your point, Intojoy... I might beg to differ that Jesus' accusers declared they were not born of fornication in John 8:41 KJV. Jesus held those accusers' feet to the fire. I proffer had Jesus identified the adulterer, who I propose were all those accusers guilty of being, the audience would have stoned the adulteress along with her accusers. I don't see Jesus forgiving her based on John 8:15 KJV. There's only one unique case where forgiveness was not based on the faith of those Jesus healed. Do you have any explicit scripture when Jesus directly said to a specific individual, "I forgive thee"? With that one exception of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears, and dried His feet with her hair... all other cases Jesus acknowledged their faith made them whole. Where did Jesus actually directly say "I forgive thee" to a specific individual? He didn't directly forgive this adulteress on those same grounds. She never asked for forgiveness, btw.

kayaker

 

[intojoy]

Don't worry about what scripture doesn't say. If you just focus on what it does say you will have a lifetime of learning.

 

[kayaker]

Don't worry about what scripture doesn't say. If you just focus on what it does say you will have a lifetime of learning.

With sincere respect, intojoy... I don't "worry about what scripture doesn't say." I indeed start with what scripture says, and invariably wind up with countless questions exploring scripture. What was the explicit temptation of Jesus in the OP? To convict the adulteress? How is that fair? Who was she caught in the act with, and why aren't his naked buttocks in the hot seat? Why didn't Jesus summon the dude? What was Jesus actually writing in the ground? Is there some correlation with what Jesus wrote on the ground impacting the conscience of her accusers? Or, was Jesus writing on the ground some 'undesignated coincidence,' a Jewish expression suggesting the dots don't connect? Only One among the entire crowd was innocent. Why is there no scripture that Jesus directly forgave the adulteress? Why didn't she ask forgiveness? Why didn't Jesus say, "Thy sins be forgiven thee, go and sin no more"?

I tend to think we gloss over too much, intojoy! And, I don't surrender my God-given curiosity to any man or woman, while considering perspectives of others. Thank you for your advice.

kayaker

 

[intojoy]

Couldn't control yourself could you G I mean K?

 

[kayaker]

Couldn't control yourself could you G I mean K?

ROFLOL!!! Maybe you should consult almighty Dr. Frucktenheimer so you will know what to think, LOL! Messyain'tit crystallography...You totally crack me up, Intoyourself... does he let you live in his basement? Maybe outhouse, LOL! So, how about tendering your master's rendering of what happened in John 8:1-11 so we all might be so gloriously illuminated by your betrothed. Maybe Dr. Frucktenheimer's is longer than Nazaroo's, ROFLOL.

kayakityyacker

 

[kayaker]

Side fact: this was the only case where the Jews challenged Yeshua with Mosaic Law. And it will be their last attempt.

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Perhaps it was one of the witnesses with her that committed adultery with her which eliminated him from throwing the first stone.

Is that some of Frucktenheimer's magnificence? The adulteress never asked forgiveness. She was caught in the act, was she not? And, Dr. Frucktenheimer hasn't figured out that was Jesus' temptation, to summon the DUDE according to MOSAIC LAW that they BOTH be stoned? But, your master seems to think Jesus' temptation was to condemn JUST the adulteress? And, let HER off on a technicality? I think your boss is a few bricks short of a load on the Books of Moses. Did your master not get to John 8:15 KJV, either?

Your faith is in Dr. Frucktenheimer... and, once again... you're floundering in the Gulf. Jesus could summon a legion of angels... and, his majesty thinks Jesus was concerned about getting stoned to death? Seriously? But, you suggest I shouldn't worry about what's not written in the Bible? And do what, then? Listen to your master? He needs to brush-up on the Books of Moshe.

kayaker

 

[dialm]

Adultery is no longer punishable by death. The reason may be because of the power of Jesus. He refused to give the woman the death sentence. Whether or not the woman was a real person is not as important as the viewpoint of Christ. If Jesus had consented to her death then the penalty would be enforce today.

It is easy to believe that Jesus would forgive. But it is not so easy to believe that Jesus would have ever stoned her.

 

[intojoy]

Delicious

 

[dialm]

Yes intojoy it is a positive. That Jesus can countermand Moses. Not that Jesus always countermanded Moses but the Jesus is able to. This is power.

The woman taken in adultery can be any of us. The death sentence is a just end to all of us. Christ has the power to forgive our sins and Moses cannot touch us.

Oh praise His Holy name! That in the name of Jesus we can have fellowship with Our Father God in Heaven.

 

[intojoy]

We can not enter the kingdom of God without God's righteousness.
Duh
So whether or not God was big hearted enough to forgive the woman is the mis focused view shared by haymaker and others. It is irrelevant

Who's name do you pray in?
Is it in the name of kaymaker? And in Kaymaker's righteousness?

Why not?

 

[kayaker]

We can not enter the kingdom of God without God's righteousness.
Duh
So whether or not God was big hearted enough to forgive the woman is the mis focused view shared by haymaker and others. It is irrelevant

Who's name do you pray in?
Is it in the name of kaymaker? And in Kaymaker's righteousness?

Why not?

intoyourself... you know, I really think your probably a nice fellow. You can forgive the adulteress, I can forgive the adulteress, but our forgiveness or condemnation doesn't invoke eternal Judgment. Jesus' condemnation or forgiveness would have been eternal. Jesus could not preempt His Father's decision to invoke the end of flesh (Matthew 24:36 KJV), not for a single individual. Jesus had the divine knowledge and power to judge (John 8:16 KJV, John 8:26 KJV), He just wasn't given the authority to condemn or advocate AT THAT TIME. Had Jesus isolated the adulterer summoning him (more likely, THEM), Jesus would have invoked eternal Judgment upon that/those individual(s). Likewise, had Jesus directly forgiven the adulteress, He would have invoked eternal Judgment upon her.

You might want to go back and read up on Job. It was Job's sense of self-righteousness that got him in hot water. Human sense of righteousness doesn't hold a candle to the knowledge and wisdom of Almighty God. God's righteousness is seen through His Son (at least in the NT). Jesus didn't summon the adulterer(s) condemning him(them) to eternal damnation. And, Jesus didn't directly forgive the adulteress forgiving her to eternal salvation. So, when the end of flesh arrives, I'll make a special effort to ask the adulteress if she was forgiven, or only not condemned. I think "go and sin no more" speaks to the continuation of flesh life which proceeds until the end of flesh life.

So, pray tell, intoyourself, I never said God's forgiveness was relevant. Then, your rabbi thinks Jesus was concerned about Himself being stoned? And, he thinks Jesus let the adulteress off on a technicality? And, talk about MY sense of righteousness???

Yeshua did not forgive the adultery. He simply let her go on a technicality because she was only brought before him by the Pharisees in an attempt to make him break the law. If Yeshua forgave her adultery then he would have been stoned to death by those in the group.

Break what law, intoyourself? The law said BOTH the adulterer and adulteress were to be stoned. The technicality was for Jesus to summon the dude! Had Jesus summoned the dude, that dude would have been isolated, identified, and eternally judged. Furthermore, no one in the entire "group" was without sin except Jesus. And, you suggest they would have stoned Jesus? Do you and your Rabbi have authority to judge Jesus??? I think you're treading on thin ice over the deep blue sea! Had Jesus condemned or forgiven the adulteress, it would have been eternal... beam her up, Scottie! The technicality you and your rabbi guru are glossing over is the utterly stark absence of the dude she was caught IN THE ACT with. And, that's not my imagination, that's you and your master glossing over a documented fact... speaking of Mosaic Law. That is, unless her being caught IN THE ACT was some 'undesignated coincidence', spoken by uninspired Jews who cannot connect the dots.

It's not about my sense of righteousness, intoyourself. It's about Jesus following the command of His Father (John 8:15 KJV). Whether or not someone gets off on a technicality is God's decision, not you and your betrothed, rabbi. And, from what I read, I wouldn't bet on it. But, from what I hear... your rabbi has salvation gift-wrapped for you. If you don't like the gift when the fat lady sings... you can just tell God it was a technicality, and point your finger at your rabbi like Adam pointed his finger at Eve. For the time being, you'll be just fine in you and your rabbi's moot court conspiring technicalities in your sense of righteousness.

kayaker

 

[intojoy]

Lol

 

[Nazaroo]

The law said BOTH the adulterer and adulteress were to be stoned. The technicality was for Jesus to summon the dude! Had Jesus summoned the dude, that dude would have been isolated, identified, and eternally judged. .

Here again you haven't bothered to read the commentary.

The Law of Moses DOESN'T say both are to be stoned.

It says only the MAN is to be stoned,
unless one can prove the woman was also guilty,
and not raped, coerced or threatened or silenced into complicity.

For examples of this very danger being well-known,
just read the story of Susanna in the Greek version of Daniel.

It doesn't matter whether that story is 'canonical' or 'accepted' by
various sects of Jews or Christians.

The fact is, the story of Susanna was popular throughout the Middle East,
for 200 years before Jesus, and was included in the Septuagint (LXX),
and other translations like Aquinas and Theodotion.

Jesus was well aware of the story of Susanna, as were all Jews in His day.

The story establishes or tries to establish a case where a woman was
threatened, attempted extortion, and disbelieved, but proven to be innocent.

Women innocent of adultery (the charge in question) are released.

The other reason your interpretation has no weight, is because
its perfectly possible that the MAN is already dead, having been
stoned already without issue, since the MAN is ALWAYS put to death,
and no consultation with Jesus was necessary nor possible under the Law.

 

[kiwimacahau]

Actually most scholarly opinion hold this to have been an addition to the scriptures rather than original to the Gospel within which it appears.

 

[kayaker]

Here again you haven't bothered to read the commentary.

The Law of Moses DOESN'T say both are to be stoned.

It says only the MAN is to be stoned,
unless one can prove the woman was also guilty,
and not raped, coerced or threatened or silenced into complicity.

For examples of this very danger being well-known,
just read the story of Susanna in the Greek version of Daniel.

It doesn't matter whether that story is 'canonical' or 'accepted' by
various sects of Jews or Christians.

The fact is, the story of Susanna was popular throughout the Middle East,
for 200 years before Jesus, and was included in the Septuagint (LXX),
and other translations like Aquinas and Theodotion.

Jesus was well aware of the story of Susanna, as were all Jews in His day.

The story establishes or tries to establish a case where a woman was
threatened, attempted extortion, and disbelieved, but proven to be innocent.

Women innocent of adultery (the charge in question) are released.

The other reason your interpretation has no weight, is because
its perfectly possible that the MAN is already dead, having been
stoned already without issue, since the MAN is ALWAYS put to death,
and no consultation with Jesus was necessary nor possible under the Law.

Hey Nazarite! Glad you're back...

Leviticus 20:10 "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer AND the adulteress shall surely be put to death."​

Aren't you Nazarites into the law? Rather presumptuous that the man would already have been dead, don't think? If he were already dead, as in already stoned, then why wouldn't her accusers have stoned them both? Since she was caught in adultery... then, where were the witnesses? Don't tell me... the witnesses were ALSO guilty... as in their names were written in the ground. WHERE's the DUDE? Produce the body, Nazaroo, man of the law. Dead, or alive. You really give those 'Jewish' Pharisees a lot of credit! They'd have had a little better LEGAL case had BOTH the adulterer and adulteress been thrown before the crowd. And, you suggest the dude was dead? LOL! Did you not read John 8:15 KJV? John 8:16 KJV? John 8:26 KJV? I didn't think so. Did any of those extensive, verbose commentaries even mention those verses? I seriously doubt it. All just a bunch of Jerry Springer wanna bee's. Or, Judge Joe Brown's... Give me a break!

kayaker