M
Mattjolley
Guest
stone the woman in adultery but not put a man to death? was a stoning a punishment that did not result in death but just pain and humiliation?
Matt
Matt
- Status
H
HelenRose
Guest
It is hard to know if this was an action that was technically illegal or not: or even if the Roman government would have bothered with this particular situation, if it was illegal.
Mobs often take actions into their own hands that may or may not be legal.
Mobs often take actions into their own hands that may or may not be legal.
N
Nita
Guest
I seem to recall that there were one or two offenses for which the Romans allowed the Jewish authorities to impose the death penalty - but adultery was not one of them.
The Jews could not stone the woman in adultery without getting into trouble with the Roman authorities. This was precisely why it was a trap in which they hoped to ensnare Jesus. If He said the woman should not be stoned, they could accuse Him of teaching against the laws of the Torah and the Jewish crowds would lose their respect for Him as a teacher; if He said they should stone her, they could go to the Roman authorities and report Him for inciting them to break the laws laid down by the Roman authorities. When Jesus told the one without guilt to cast the first stone, the leaders found themselves (instead of Jesus) in the trap they had set!!
The Jewish Law decreed stoning for both the man and the woman guilty of adultery.
Nita
B
bengal_fan
Guest
i wonder if it has anything to do with what i bolded. maybe a woman’s life was deemed dispensable, while it was illegal to kill a man. just a thought.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Nita (post #3) has it right. This was a trap set by the pharisees. If Jesus said to stone her they’d have the Romans after Him. If He said not to, He’d be violating the law.
So what does He do? He tells them to go ahead and stone her - but they should do it. In fact, if I recall correctly, the chief priest was known as “he who is without sin,” so Jesus was saying that Caiaphas ought to stone her. This way, He didn’t violate any Roman laws, and He kept with the Torah. Once everyone had gone away, there were no longer 3 or more witnesses, and so stoning her was no longer required or permissible under the Torah.
Peace and God bless
So what does He do? He tells them to go ahead and stone her - but they should do it. In fact, if I recall correctly, the chief priest was known as “he who is without sin,” so Jesus was saying that Caiaphas ought to stone her. This way, He didn’t violate any Roman laws, and He kept with the Torah. Once everyone had gone away, there were no longer 3 or more witnesses, and so stoning her was no longer required or permissible under the Torah.
Peace and God bless
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi, Lazerlike!
…but Jesus would be guilty of a greater sin… note that the woman was claimed to have been caught in the act of adultery… what happened to the man?
It had become a practice to punish only the woman.
By circumventing the Law Jewish men guaranteed that they themselves would be treated in kind; darker still, there was a financial incentive not to pass judgment (that is ignore the male committing the adulterous act): males had the land, the animals, the money and the power. By looking the other way the “witnesses” would have access to whatever wealth and power the male perpetrators possessed.
Had Jesus passed judgment on only the female He would have been no better than the average Jew.
Maran atha!
Angel
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
See Acts 7:55-8:1
L
LilyM
Guest
I don’t think the Romans ever cared enough about provincial women that they would’ve cared if an insignificant Jewish woman was stoned to death. If she was the Queen or something, maybe.
A though occurs to me - if I remember correctly under Roman law fathers had complete (life and death) control over their wives and children, and also over at least some of their slaves. So if the woman’s own husband (presumably she was under his care if she was still validly married for it to be adultery) condemned her, or her master, if she was a slave, then the Romans wouldn’t have interfered.
A though occurs to me - if I remember correctly under Roman law fathers had complete (life and death) control over their wives and children, and also over at least some of their slaves. So if the woman’s own husband (presumably she was under his care if she was still validly married for it to be adultery) condemned her, or her master, if she was a slave, then the Romans wouldn’t have interfered.
G
guanophore
Guest
Stoning did most often result in death. I think it was hypocritical to bring the woman,and not the man. I always wondered if the woman in the Gospel was with a member of the Sanhedrin.
G
guanophore
Guest
At the time, a woman was considered property. She did not have legal rights, apart from her husband or father, just as is the case in most Islamic nations today.
17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s **wife, **or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ***, or anything that is your neighbor’s.”
Ex 20:17
M
Mattjolley
Guest
Ah yes, I should have recalled Stephen’s martyrdom.
What I was getting at, was why couldn’t the jewish leaders have simply stoned Jesus to death, but I realise that, that way, had it happened on the quiet, (not to incite a riot) Jesus would not have been publicly humiliated and discredited.
I suppose Crucifixion gave the proceedings a more legal appearance, as it was given by the romans, so the criminal, in this case Jesus, was completely discredited.
Wheras if he was just taken outside the city and stoned by the jews, a riot may have occurred. The whole roman trial and execution gave the jews a way to discredit Christ. Thanks for your help everyone! Sorted!
Matt
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Maybe it was like Susanna in the Book of Daniel; they couldn’t catch him.Stoning did most often result in death. I think it was hypocritical to bring the woman,and not the man. I always wondered if the woman in the Gospel was with a member of the Sanhedrin.
N
Nita
Guest
Stoning Jesus might not have been so quiet because of His popularity with the people. The Pharisees were afraid of how the people would react.
*Luke 19:47 And he was teaching daily in the temple. The chief priests and the scribes and the principal men of the people sought to destroy him; 19:48 but they did not find anything they could do, for all the people hung upon his words.
John 11:19 The Pharisees then said to one another, “You see that you can do nothing; look, the world has gone after Him*.”
Nita
M
Mattjolley
Guest
yes but by having him suffer a roman execution, the risk of an uprising was minimal, i mean to say, it reinforced rome’s dominance in the region. it would have been seen as a deterrent to disciples of Jesus from a jewish perspective. if you follow?
V
Valke2
Guest
The penalty for adultry was death for the man as well. That being said, the Court almost never imposed the death penalty against anyone.
H
hasikelee
Guest
I thought the reason he was crucified had to do with crucifixion being the most demeaning punishment during that time.
L
lak611
Guest
Crucifixion was only allowed as punishment for someone who was not a Roman citizen. That is why Paul was not crucified.
Z
Zooey
Guest
Thank you,
Valke!! I thought that was the case, but I was hoping you might tell us for sure.
V
Voco_proTatiano
Guest
No!!!
You need to read carefully and understand the context.
This is not a case of actual adultery under Judean Law, but is a case of adultery according to the teachings of Our Lord.
Clearly, the woman is a divorcee who has re-married.
This is/was perfectly acceptable under Judean Law, but was an offence to Our Lord’s teaching.
Had it been otherwise, being caught in flagrante delicto, the male adulterer would also be under arrest on the same charge, but he is not. Judean Law also required that he should also be stoned.
So this re-married divorcee is presented to Our Lord as an adulteress under His definition of the LAW, and He is required to judge her.
He escapes the trap by demanding to see the innocent party of the offence, which of course does not exist, so without that witness, the case cannot stand.
So he dismisses her with a rebuke.
J
jcrichton
Guest
Hi!
…I’ve hightlighted part of your post… is the highlighted text in reference to the Scriptural passage found in St John 8:1-11?
If it is, what text demonstrate that this is, explicitly, a remarried woman and that the teachers of the Law and the Pharisees are challenging Christ’s Teachings and not attempting to trap Christ if He contradicts tha Law of Moses?
Maran atha!
Angel
- Status