P
PeteZaHut
Guest
If the Law of Moses said that adultrerers should be stoned, why did Jesus stop this from happening if he came to fulfill the Law?
- Status
H
Heuchler
Guest
I would assume that this is because everyone deserves to die because of sinning in God’s law and Christ came to save humanity from their sins. So, Christ wanted no one to die and be stoned but wanted all of humanity to reach their full potential as followers of Him. As we saw many sinners were made into disciples and apostles. And,Christ fulfilled the Law by actually paying for the consequences of the Law Himself on a cross outside of Jerusalem.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…read St. Matthew 5 though 7–this is an excellent exegesis on the fulfillment of the Law; Jesus, as the New Covenant, came to bring the Law into its fullness:
16 To Abraham were the promises made and to his seed. He saith not: And to his seeds as of many. But as of one: And to thy seed, which is Christ. 17 Now this I say: that the testament which was confirmed by God, the law which was made after four hundred and thirty years doth not disannul, to make the promise of no effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise. But God gave it to Abraham by promise. 19 Why then was the law? It was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he made the promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not of one: but God is one. 21 Was the law then against the promises of God: God forbid! For if there had been a law given which could give life, verily justice should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise, by the faith of Jesus Christ, might be given to them that believe. 23 But before the faith came, we were kept under the law shut up, unto that faith which was to be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our pedagogue in Christ: that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after the faith is come, we are no longer under a pedagogue. 26 For you are all the children of God, by faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you be Christ’s, then are you the seed of Abraham, heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3:16-29–DRV)
…as I understand the original intent of the Law was to deter Israel from carrying on as the pagans around them (multiple relations and orgies); the problem with the written Law is the problem with almost anything in the hands of man… eventually (perhaps even from the start) it was applied only to the female spouse (I can recall every incident of adultery as a judgment against a woman); Jesus saw through the crowd’s feigned concern for the transgression of the Law; though the woman was “caught in the act,” only the woman was brought for judgment… would Jesus have acted differently if both adulterous partners were to have been brought to Him? I think not, because Jesus did not come to condemn but to Save the world; He came to fulfill Scriptures and to demonstrate God’s Mercy: “…go, and sin no more!”
Maran atha!
Angel
G
guestseeking
Guest
i think she must have in her heart beleived He is the savior when he was writing down things in the sand. I think she must have believed on the prophecies that he is Savior even though she might not have understood it. I think she must have believed he forgave he, or that he would that he is Merciful. otherwise i think she would have stepped back along with everyone else instead of standing where she was. How do you think she was told by Jesus to “go and sin no more” if he didnt know she could? why is that in every bible if it isnt literal?
G
guestseeking
Guest
i think i like you, cause i like how you put it. i am not so clear when i use as many words, i admire that you are. how is it i still dont know what it is you have to believe to be catholic? i’m doing better since i came to this website, I’ve gotten through a breakdown and some family problems. i think people here are praying for me. i dont know yet if i can be catholic but i feel more protected by God since i been on this site. i enjoyed the things you can watch the other day, there are videos explain things like mass, and radio brocasts and magazine articles not just postings. i’ve got a long way to go though, cause no one has given me an outline of what the beliefs you have to say amen honestly are exactly. but i am doing so much better since i been on this site. i like you guys, even the people with the challenges who arent catholic here.
meltzerboy
New member
According to the Oral Law (Talmud) and perhaps the Written Law (Torah) as well, the death penalty for adultery as well as murder requires two witnesses of good character and forewarning prior to committing the crime, understanding of the forewarning, and committing the crime regardless. This is a very high threshold for carrying out the ultimate punishment. It also serves as a deterrent against vigilante justice, forbidden in Judaism. Furthermore, both parties are guilty of the adulterous act, although it is defined in terms of the woman’s marital status and the punishment is unequal. A husband is forced to divorce his wife if she is found guilty of adultery. Assuming in the case of Jesus’ pardon that the adulteress had not been falsely accused, He was exercising what rabbis call a leniency, perhaps due to extenuating circumstances on the part of the woman who had sinned. This had always been a feature of Torah Law, combined with just and humane punishment. If the woman were to repeat the same act, Jesus might not have been so merciful, but who knows for sure?
R
Ron_in_minden
Guest
because it was a trick question meant to dis-credit Jesus. At that time capital punishment was reserved for the Romans to decide, if He said yes, stone her, the Pharrissees would have labeled him a collaborator with the Romans, thus how could He be the Messiah? And if He said no, do not stone her, they would have accused Him of not following the law of Moses thus discrediting Him form being the Messiah. since Jesus is God He knows the heart of man and saw through their duplicity and tried to turn their hearts to repent. And to boot He saved her mortal life and gave her instructions to save her immortal soul.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…I think that the fact that she did stick around even when all others left demonstrates that she was aware of Jesus’ status as a “Prophet;” being a habitual sinner (adultery is something planned and practiced, even the very first instance), I doubt that she had much more in her heart than fear and relief; the call to “go and sin no more” does not necessarily mean that the sinner will be hunble and obedient to Christ’s Command… it is Christ’s Command for all to give up our sinful lives (Ezekiel 18); it is a fact that we, Believers, have, in Christ, the power to avoid sin… or at least the opportunity to reject the sinful life and Repent and start afresh (Isaiah 1:15-20; 1 St. John 2:1-6, 1:8-10); as an example, we have the passage of the ten lepers… though Jesus healed all of them only one returned to glorify God and to acknowledge Jesus’ Gift–this one did not only receive temporal healing but also Spiritual healing!
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
…there’s no specific credo that you must learn/pronounce… it is a way of life; there are many things that add up to being Catholic… must are as simple as that feeling that you have experience… we call it the Communion of the Saints; it is our Belief that the Church exists both in time and outside of since the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ… we are connected with Him through the Holy Spirit and all of her members (the Church is also known as the Bride of Christ) share in on this connection through Faith in Christ, through prayer, through life’s experience–as St. Paul said though we are many parts we are members of One Body… if you want to learn more about the Catholic Church start by learning about the Seven Sacraments (check with newadvent.com’s online encyclopedia); you can also find the Catechism of the Catholic Church online (newadvent.com; ewtn.com; vatican.com); there are several other ways that you can learn about the Catholic Church… you can visit your local parish (you do not have to be an active member from the get go) and ask the Pastor for assistance… and you can post specific questions on this site.
I commend you for your conviction… many times our bad experiences cause us to turn from God; it is in Christ where we will find Peace, Strength, and Completeness…
…I do tend to get into it (studying and sharing Sacred Scriptures is my thing) and go on and on…
Catholic Answers (P O Box 119000, San Diego CA 92159) publish a little booklet (Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth) that offers a general overview of the Church; the single issue is free for the asking…
If you do decide to post your questions, please ask one or two at a time to allow both for clearer responses and to make it easier to digest.
…feel free to call me on it if I wear you down with too much info or if my responses are not clear enough!
Maran atha!
Angel
B
bogeydogg
Guest
I think there is further thought here.
What was the purpose of bringing the woman? To trap Jesus by saying He is rebelling against Rome if He says to stone her or to say that He is rebelling against Moses by saying not to stone her. However what the Lord did was throw His accusers (not hers because really they couldn’t have cared less about her sin) onto the horns of their own dilemma.
First off if they had wanted her executed they would have taken her to Pilate since Roman Law forbade executing criminals outside of a Roman Court (which is why they took Christ to Pilate instead of executing Him themselves) but in bringing her to Christ instead they had tacitly acknowledged that His authority was supreme over Rome’s and thus had fallen on their own sword. So at the first accusal Christ knelt down and ignored them altogether.
When they raised the accusation again He told them to let the one without sin cast the first stone. Well this is far from a simple “Check yourself before judging others” statement. I think He is daring them to accept His judgment. Keep in mind they have brought this woman to Him to accuse Him of treason against Rome, but in so doing have committed treason. Furthermore by accepting His judgment of the Law and by stoning her they will also have admitted His authority in the Law as well as His sinlessness (after all Jesus would be the one to cast the first stone) which they knew right well, and in not stoning her have committed treason against Moses as well.
Then Christ deals with the woman’s sin.
He had just commanded this woman to be stoned and her accusers had fled at His command. Therefore we see clearly He thinks that adultery warrants death. However since those who accused her were also the witnesses against her He allows her to leave. But in so doing admonishes her to sin no more.
I think for us the lesson is that Christ’s authority is higher than the law, that the Law of Moses is the moral foundation of our lives and cannot be tampered with, and that God is willing to forgive us so that we will sin no more.
God Bless
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note that He reversed the trap. The Pharisees considered themselves sinless. They were now in the trap of stoning her and being prosecuted by the Romans, or not stone her and admit that they were sinners. Note that the oldest, and presumably wisest figured this our first and got out quickly.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…though this argument has been expressed before, there’s that matter of Roman Law–the Romans did not get involved in the religious matters of the people under their governance; the issue of capital punishment was a political/power one since it made Roman’s subjects appeal to Roman Law… as was the case with Jesus–the Roman advocate refused to sentence Jesus to death because he clearly saw that he was broght to him under false pretense… it was only when political pressure was applied (we have no other king but ceassar…); conversely, when the Jews determined to stone Stephen to death there was no fear of Rome’s replisal since Romans would interfere only when national security was threatened (ditto for the crowd, which included Temple guards, that went to capture Jesus)–though I am not a scholar/historian, I’m pretty sure that, given the various rabbinic teachings, even posted Roman soldiers would seldomly be allerted when the vociferous groups of people would gather to argue religion right in the open… I’m not saying that it was common to find dead Jews about the place… but I doubt Rome would care very little unless that Jew happened, as with Saul/St. Paul, to be a Roman citizen.
…so they did come to Jesus with ill-intent… but the Roman connection is very unlikely.
Maran atha!
Angel
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
I read it as a simple case of false accusation.
Don’t need Jesus to see that one coming full on.
Don’t need Jesus to see that one coming full on.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…again, the Romans had very little interest (other them adopt the religious symbols/images and other attributes that they could incorporate into their own theosophy) Judaism so they would not concern themselves with religious fanaticism–there had to be a direct threat to their regime (ie: Paul’s revelation that he was a Roman citizen and that he appealed to Rome caused everyone seeking to kill him to quiet down and for the officials to secure his wellbeing–till then he was about to get linched!).
Maran atha!
Angel
J
jcrichton
Guest
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
This is entirely possible.
J
jcrichton
Guest
…it was claimed that she was found committing the actual act–this gives very little room for falsehood; further, the woman never utters a word to deny the adulterous act–which to me is the final thud on the final nail…
Maran atha!
Angel
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
She was found in the act by who or whom?…it was claimed that she was found committing the actual act–this gives very little room for falsehood; further, the woman never utters a word to deny the adulterous act–which to me is the final thud on the final nail…
Maran atha!
Angel
The woman does not need to say anything, she has her attorney standing by.
P
patrick457
Guest
My two cents.
There is some uncertainty as to how capital punishment worked in the time of Jesus. One camp thinks that Jews did have limited right to give out death sentences, but only did so in the traditional methods (stoning, beheading, burning, and strangulating) and mostly in religious matters; secular cases being tried under Roman law. Another (more plausible IMHO) camp meanwhile thinks that only the Roman governor had this right, citing the fact that the Romans seldom granted anyone capital power, preferring to keep it to themselves in order to avoid any abuse of authority that might occur, such as local courts in Roman-unfriendly areas turning on Roman collaborators. Hence, all cases would have to be submitted to the prefect after the responsible local officials have reviewed them and made recommendations, as in the case of Jesus. If this authority was jealously withheld from other provinces (a decree of Augustus to the proconsul of Cyrene, dated 7-6 BC, in fact specifically excludes capital power from the province of the native court), why would Judaea be an exception?
During the 1st century, the provincial ruler’s power was very considerable; it was only in the following century that authority was severely limited by the emperor himself. In these outposts of the empire, the prefect had to be able to do whatever he thought necessary for the good of Rome, and this included the power to discipline the army. The prefect’s right to sentence people to death was not only exclusive but also absolute; he could execute a citizen, and he did not have to formulate a charge that would stand up in a court at Rome.
The only undisputed occasion the Jews are allowed to put people to death is when gentiles transgressed the allotted boundaries of the Temple. The Jews were allowed to kill any non-Jew who entered the sacred inner court, even if they were a Roman citizen. But this is somewhat an exception from the rule, in line with the custom of granting provincial subjects as much freedom as possible in practicing their religion.
As for Stephen’s death, if we go by the opinion that only the prefect had the sole right of handing out death sentences, it would then be a lynching rather than an execution. His listeners just had enough and decided to put an end to him right then and there without any official sentence:
Now when they heard these things they were enraged, and they ground their teeth at him. But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul.
Why would Stephen’s ‘lynching’ and this woman fly past under the radar then?
Judaea was a province ruled by a prefect (or after AD 41, a procurator), who commanded auxiliaries recruited from peregrini, local non-citizens: being an equestrian, he was not of high rank enough to command a legion; his immediate superior, the legate of Syria, meanwhile, had four legions under his belt. And even then, unlike in standard retellings of the Jesus story where Romans are barbarians who roam, loot and pillage around the countryside, all the while kicking old men and forcing people to carry their loads, in reality the prefect and the majority of his soldiers stayed in the capital of Caesarea Maritima for most of the year far away from the sight of Jews, preferring instead to let the native rulers (in this case, the high priest and his council) run daily affairs for him. These locals were the responsible officials for the area and was normally in charge of ordinary police and judicial procedures, though the prefect would have the final word. All in all, the prefect only had 3,000 troops at his disposal, which is not sufficient to handle serious trouble, thus in emergencies he would need the aid of the Syrian legate and his legions.
The Romans were totally unable to police the internal life of the provinces closely; and would not have done so if they had been able. So yes, they generally cared little about whatever excesses the provincial courts had in dealing with alleged offenses as long as Roman citizens were not involved. So it’s more like a ‘yeah, I know them locals are exercising vigilante justice, but so what?’-type of situation.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
Lost me at stoning, beheading, burning and strangeling.
- Status