John 8:1-11: Casting the first stone

[PJM]

=Jerome81;10638603]In the previous chapter Jesus accuses the Pharisees of not keeping the law

‘‘Did not Moses give you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law.’’ (John 7:19)

Jesus also seems to be winning over a lot of the Jews including Nicodemus.

''When they heard these words, some of the people said, “This is really the prophet.” 41 Others said, “This is the Christ.” (Jn 7:40-4)

In response the Pharisees set up a trap for Jesus. ‘‘Oh really Jesus, we are law breakers? Let’s see how you keep the law!!’’ The trap is set up in such a way that there seems to be only two possible outcomes:

1. In the first century the Jews could not carry out capital punishment. The Romans had forbidden them to do so which is why they try to get Pilate to put Jesus to death but

''Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.” (Jn 18:31)

If Jesus authorizes the stoning, the Pharisees will tell the Romans who will execute Jesus for being an insurrectionist rebelling against their law.

1. If Jesus does not authorize the stoning he will appear to his new followers to be rejecting the law of Moses. This will totally discredit him in the eyes of his new followers. What Messiah would go against the law of Moses?

So it seems that they have set up the perfect trap, how can he possibly get out of this? the Pharisees believe that they are blameless based on the law (i.e sinless Phil 3:5-6). Jesus, knowing what they think of themselves, turns their trap right around on them by saying ''Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Now the tables are turned. The Pharisees believe they are without sin and so qualified to stone her but what happens if they do? There are two possible outcomes.

1. If they stone her, the Romans will hear and the Pharisees will be seen as the insurrectionists, and therefore fall into the hands of the Romans.

1. If they don’t stone her they will appear to the crowd as sinners who are not qualified to throw the stone.

And so with brilliance Jesus evades the trap and exposes the pharisees for the sinners compromisers that they really are.

Then Jesus turns to the woman and shows her his mercy. Now that Jesus has brought about forgiveness of sins he forgives the woman and tells her to sin no more.

I THINK [that in itself it note worthy], that there is more that can be added.

The First point IS as I suggested in my previous post on this string; a NEW level of Justice being introduced here. Under Christ New Covenant which SUPERCEDEDS but does not delete the Old Covenant.

Christ is say in effect proclaiming a New level of “fairness.” That because we ARE all sinners; we are not in a unbiased position to make a “fair” judgment, as we ALL ARE sinners too and then inflict the judgement which ought to be God’s TASK. God IS Judge.

Second here is the issue under the New Covenant of Love and Mercy at levels that are NEW to the Traditions of the past.

Keep in mind these were man-originated “commandments” added to GOD’s ten Commandments. It’s the diffference of todays church- Doctrine, compared to a “church practice.” A practice CAN be changed but a Doctrine cannot.

THIS IS A NEW Teaching

 

[Blackshirtproud]

This is a bit off topic , but I have been searching out the truths of Mary to gain better understanding and some of the explanation has been that Jesus called her “Woman” .
From what was being explained as to why he called her that instead of mother or Mary was because of the link to Eve, the Arc etc.

Can somebody explain to me better about why he would of called the adulteress Woman also, please.

TIA.

 

[PJM]

=Blackshirtproud;10641650]This is a bit off topic , but I have been searching out the truths of Mary to gain better understanding and some of the explanation has been that Jesus called her “Woman” .
From what was being explained as to why he called her that instead of mother or Mary was because of the link to Eve, the Arc etc.

Can somebody explain to me better about why he would of called the adulteress Woman also, please.

TIA.

OK, I’ll try

The information on Eve and the Ark, relating to Mary, do have some foundation; HOWEVER the message of the passage you question is all togeater DIFFERENT in this teaching and context.

John 19:25-28
"So the soldiers did this. But standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Mag’dalene. When Jesus saw his mother, and the disciple whom he loved standing near, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!” And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home. After this Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfil the scripture), “I thirst.”

Placed back into its Lesson context; the mesage is far more clear.

1. Mary is twicw identifed as "the MOTHER of Christ
2. The “deciple” however is NOT named, which is signifiant, because he [as the deciple; what we are ALL called to be], REPRESENTS in this Teachaing and Moral Story, all of humanity.
3. Christ soon to be dead has one more task to accomplish
4. First Jesus seeks out Mary, His Mother and [ASKed] but in the language: a mandate, for Her to accept John ] REALLY ALL of humanity] as Her “son”; i.e. Her “Children”
5. Then trurning to the deciple [who represents all of humanity] he mandates “John the deciple” to accept Mary NOW as HIS “OUR”] Mother
6. The term “women”…no-longer JUST His Mother, is used to signify that Christ GIVES his Mother to all of humanity:thumbsup: And that She will be a Spiritual Mother to ALL who accept Her as such.

Hope that clarifies it for you?

God Bless,
Pat

 

[butbob]

I THINK [that in itself it note worthy], that there is more that can be added.

The First point IS as I suggested in my previous post on this string; a NEW level of Justice being introduced here. Under Christ New Covenant which SUPERCEDEDS but does not delete the Old Covenant.

Christ is say in effect proclaiming a New level of “fairness.” That because we ARE all sinners; we are not in a unbiased position to make a “fair” judgment, as we ALL ARE sinners too and then inflict the judgement which ought to be God’s TASK. God IS Judge.

Second here is the issue under the New Covenant of Love and Mercy at levels that are NEW to the Traditions of the past.

Keep in mind these were man-originated “commandments” added to GOD’s ten Commandments. It’s the diffference of todays church- Doctrine, compared to a “church practice.” A practice CAN be changed but a Doctrine cannot.

THIS IS A NEW Teaching

it is interesting that Jeusus said about his actions–

John 5:19 Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son …
bible.cc/john/5-19.htm
He does only what he sees the Father doing. … So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. … So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say.

so it might have had something to do with “mercy”

and on stoning --moses people will do what they think is right

youtu.be/MIaORknS1Dk

 

[Nita]

Of course the Pharisees were wanting to** trap Jesus**.** If He condemned **the woman then the Romans would arrest Him for inciting the killing of a civilian **and if Jesus didn’t condemn **the woman then He would lose face as the heralded Jewish Messiah upholding Jewish law.

…

I agree with you abucs.

We know the Romans did not allow the Jews to execute lawbreakers*.John 18:31 Pilate said to them, “Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.” The Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put any man to death.”*God’s command to stone those guilty of adultery was part of the Mosaic civil/penal code (not the moral code) God established for the Israelites when they were to be an independent nation. But at the time of Jesus they were no longer an independent people; they were a conquered people and subject to the civil/penal laws of the nation who had conquered them.

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sorry for pressing you further, but what is the innovation? Don’t punish others for their sin unless you are without sin?

I don’t think that’s quite it. If it were strictly a matter of “you cannot lead unless you’re sinless”, then there’d be no human leadership anywhere! So, I think the innovation is the suggestion that divine justice is not lost when divine mercy is granted.

OK, so he’s saying that you can only enforce the law if the way in which you have enforced the law is sinless?

No, not at all. This situation is clearly a trap, as others have noted: punish (and run afoul of Roman law) or don’t punish (and run afoul of Jewish law). But, why were the Pharisees so worked up about enforcing the law? I’ve read that what the Pharisees were interested in was the coming of the Messiah: they believed that total adherence to the Mosaic law was essential – when the Mosaic law was obeyed completely by all, then and only then would the Messiah appear. So, in a way, Jesus provides them a trap of his own: if they are sinful themselves, will killing the adulteress bring about the appearance of the Messiah? (Nope.) But if they are without sin, and therefore they’re able to wipe the adulteress’s sin from the face of the earth, haven’t they just made the appearance of the Messiah possible, and therefore, the claim that Jesus is the Messiah is plausible? (Yep.) Neither outcome suits them well… so they drop their stones and leave.

Well I think it’s fair to say that it’s flawed if it requires us to do something which we cannot do (enforce it).

Right. Which is why the Pharisees wouldn’t agree that it’s unenforceable (nor would Jesus).