The woman caught in adultery

[Robert]

You know the story, but let's examine the context closer:

"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses (see Lev 20:10) commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 

Now according to 1 John 1:8 & Romans 3:23 (and other texts) everyone has sinned and therefore there is none without sin.  

The question is why did God allow sinners to execute sinners in the OT, but in the context above opposed the execution of the adulteress?  

 

[Unity]

In the Old Testament, God never gave such permission to those who knowingly and unrepentantly sinned. The people covenanted with God to keep His commandments, but if they rebelled then they no longer had God's blessing for things like executions. In the same way God no longer respected their sacrifices and prayers.

That same principle continues in the New Testament. It is made clear earlier in the gospel of John that the leaders were knowing and unrepentantly sinning, because it states they were trying to murder a man they knew to be innocent (Jesus). And furthermore, throughout the NT gospels it is made clear that they were knowingly and unrepentantly committing many sins. It is commonly agreed that Jesus was writing the sins of the witnesses to the adultery in the sand. So Jesus was simply effectively saying, go ahead and throw the first stone if any of you aren't knowingly and unrepentantly breaking the very covenant with God that you claim to be upholding at this moment by stoning this woman.

[LifeHiscost]

 

  

Now according to 1 John 1:8 & Romans 3:23 (and other texts) everyone has sinned and therefore there is none without sin.  

The question is why did God allow sinners to execute sinners in the OT, but in the context above opposed the execution of the adulteress?  

 

 

Because He Who knows the end from beginning, He Who has the power to save or keep alive is well aware of the heart that will eventually succumb to the Words of Life as opposed to those who will never yield their life willingly to their rightful Master. The apostle Paul is a primary example of that, despite the fact that he had been slaughtering the body of Christ.

³ And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

⁴ And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

⁵ And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks....Acts 9

10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure....Isaiah 46

 

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.....Exodus 25

 

God is Love!`Jesus saves! 

[Robert]

3 hours ago, Unity said:

In the Old Testament, God never gave such permission to those who knowingly and unrepentantly sinned. The people covenanted with God to keep His commandments, but if they rebelled then they no longer had God's blessing for things like executions.

Do you have any proof texts for your supposition?

Keep in mind Christ said, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”  He didn't say, " “Let any one of you who is without unconfessed sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”   Besides Christ was without sin and He didn't execute her.  If you read the context she neither confessed her sin or asked for mercy.

Also keep in mind that it was Christ who was the giver of the law.  Now read the following:

Number 15:32   While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33 Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34 and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord (Jesus) said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 

Notice no mercy was extended towards this man by Christ, but in the NT there was no condemnation.  Why?

 

[Wingnut]

Robert

First of all, nice question  

Read Josephus [Flavius'] account of life in Judea at the time of Christ.  It makes today's Western corruption look like a Sunday School picnic.

I think I have seen it all on TV but reading Josephus distresses me.  Life then was putrid, evil, rotten.  The Pharisees were no different.

With that background, this bunch of snakes bring a woman caught in adultery to Christ for the express purpose of catching Him out.

Adultery back then was as common as adultery today.  The Pharisees had figured out that Jesus was REALLY progressive in his attitude towards, and treatment of women.  They watched Him treat women with never-before seen respect, watched him have women friends, heard He healed a Gentile woman's son of a demon etc.  Here they thought they had an Achillies heel.  So they deliberately go seeking a sinful woman.  There were so many, it was not hard to find one, and they may even have set her up since no man is brought before Him.

They want to get Jesus to speak against the OT law, and they hope his love and grace will get Him to deny the operation of the law in this case.

Jesus is aware of all of this.

The woman is thrown at His feet, probably with her dress in a state of disarray as she is trying to cover herself to look more modest.

Jesus knows He cannot deny or renounce His own law.  What they do not know is that Justice rests on two pillars viz. Law AND Grace.  Even today's legal system makes allowance for extenuating circumstances.

Jesus thus makes a qualifying statement.  "Let him who is without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7)

Jesus was not just stalling for time writing on the ground.  He MUST [imho] have been writing the sins of each accuser in the dust, not necessarily the name of the accuser, but a sin only he knew about.  This was like Christ will do when He sits to judge the world.  He started with the hidden sins of the most influential, who probably appeared the most righteous.  This guy read his sin, and left convicted by his conscience and the next hypocrite stepped up to see what Christ was writing.  Christ had erased the previous sin like an Etch-A-Sketch, and was busy writing the sins of the observing Pharisee without so much as looking up to see the face.  Christ was shown the whole life of that sinner in an instant.

When all had left, Christ then exercised His discretion as the only one without sin - NOT to cast the first stone.  

Notice His judgement was to "Go, and sin no more" (John 8:11).  Thus Christ had confirmed the existence and penalty of the law as still in operation (by calling what she did a "sin"), while at the same time letting her off with a warning [don't we all love it when the traffic policeman does that to us? Do we ever question whether the traffic policeman has done away with the traffic laws by giving a warning?].

If Christ had just been doodling randomly, why would the most self-righteous brood of snakes ever have had a conscience attack right then?

When Christ rules the earth, which I believe He will do at His return, during the 7th millennium, those surviving the Great Tribulation will gather around Him in Jerusalem, and begin living by all the OT laws, including Sabbath and Feast days. (Zech 14:16).

THEN when ALL are keeping all of the law, and some one in a thousand person commits adultery, they will probably be given a warning, and if they do it again, will be stoned.  If it were a second offence, they might go straight to the stoning.

If we had to try to apply OT law to today's society, nobody would be left alive who had not committed a Biblical capital crime.

 

 

[Robert]

4 hours ago, Wingnut said:

 The Pharisees had figured out that Jesus was REALLY progressive in his attitude towards, and treatment of women.  

Then doesn't this imply that Christ wasn't progressive in the OT?  Is that problematic because of Himself He said, "I change not"?

Quote

What they do not know is that Justice rests on two pillars viz. Law AND Grace.  

Justice never rests on grace. For example if the policeman tears up your speeding ticket he is breaking the law he was employed to enforce!

So really the question, in my mind, remains unanswered:  

Why wasn't mercy extended in the OT towards the man gathering wood on the Sabbath, but in the NT not once did Christ demand the sinner's death for the transgression of the law?   

[Robert]

I think EGW gives us all a clue in her following statement:

The terms of the "old covenant" were, Obey and live: "If a man do, he shall even live in them" (Eze. 20: 11; Lev. 18: 5); but "cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them" (Deut. 27: 26). The "new covenant" was established upon "better promises"-- the promise of forgiveness of sins and of the grace of God to renew the heart and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law.

 

[Robert]

And yet another clue:

Complete obedience is the only condition that meets the requirement of the law. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” God’s law is the rule of His government. He says, “This do, and thou shalt live.” But to the disobedient He says, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them.” “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God has given the promise that those who obey His law will be rewarded, not only in the present life, but in the life to come. He declares just as decidedly that those who do not obey His requirements shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on them. By lips that never lie the obedient are blessed, and the disobedient are pronounced guilty. {Ellen White RH, May 7, 1901 par. 9}

The Bible states the same:

Obey & live:

Matt 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven...48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Disobey & die:

Gal 3:10 “Cursed is everyone who does not observe and obey all the things written in the book of the law.” 

[Tom Wetmore]

I have to disagree that justice from a divine perspective never rests on grace. If God's Justice never rested on grace/mercy, Adam and Eve would never have survived the Garden and we would not exist. Salvation would never have even been considered.  From a human perspective the idea of justice without mercy may be very true.  But I am becoming more convinced that when Scripture is speaking of God's justice, it is inextricably wedded to mercy. God's Justice is always an act of mercy.  Not necessarily or obviously for the wrong doer, but it is about having mercy on the victims of the wrong that is done.  His supreme objective is restoration, of humanity and his entire creation. The end of the story in Revelation is a final declaration of restoration - "I make all things new."  

From a Hebrew language standpoint, a frequent parallelism, especially if in reference to God, is justice and mercy. The Hebrew puts them together as two sides of the same coin.  One cannot exist without the other.  

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I have to disagree that justice from a divine perspective never rests on grace. If God's Justice never rested on grace/mercy, Adam and Eve would never have survived the Garden and we would not exist.

God's justice was fulfilled "in Christ" from the foundation of the world.  That's why Adam and Eve didn't die the 2nd death, i.e., the curse of the law. The justice of the law was legally established in the doing & dying of Christ as the Son of Man.

 

[Wingnut]

Robert, you misunderstand both the Bible and Ellen.

Christ came to forgive sin.  In that very concept we establish the law with the penalty of death still pertains today, by admitting sin exists.

And we establish grace by saying forgiveness is possible.

The woman caught in adultery was exactly the demographic that Christ came to save (and that includes all of us).

But Christ did not come to condemn the world but to save it.

It would not need saving if sin had been abolished, or if Christ had removed it from the foundation of the world.

We went through this whole topic in the thread "Who is the One New Man created on the cross?"

God left the law in place precisely so that all men stand condemned before His throne needing grace.

And that grace is freely given when one accepts Christ as saviour.

Grace is not blanket-given at the foundation of the world.

Grace is extended to each person when they accept Christ, and daily forgive others.

I don't believe Adam and Eve were saved because they never sought God's grace.  Only Abel, Enoch and Noah's family were saved pre-flood.

And a traffic policeman is operating perfectly within the law to exercise discretion and only issue a warning and not a ticket.  That discretion might be based only on the good attitude of the driver, and his saying sorry and admitting guilt.

[Wingnut]

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[Robert]

Why wasn't mercy extended in the OT towards the man gathering wood on the Sabbath, but in the NT not once did Christ demand the sinner's death for the transgression of the law?   

It's not just the man gathering wood on the Sabbath.  Many were put to death under law in the OT.

[Wingnut]

Why did God condemn the man who blasphemed in the wilderness?

Because God had condemned that wicked and unbelieving generation to death, but on the begging of Moses, God commuted that sentence to life imprisonment in the desert.  God was not trying to save them, but to destroy them.  But that did not mean they could spend 40 years blaspheming Him.  Thus the man with an even worse attitude than the others, was condemned to death.

 

By contrast, the woman showed no hostility to Christ.  And She was the type of person He had come to save.

[Robert]

38 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Robert, you misunderstand both the Bible and Ellen.

Christ came to forgive sin.  

We have a fundamental disagreement here.  Christ came to deliver sinners from under law to under no condemnation (grace).  

Gal 4:4 "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law,

Why?  To forgive sin as you suggested?

No:  verse 5 "in order to redeem those who were under the law"

Even though we disagree, thanks for your feedback.

[Wingnut]

1 minute ago, Robert said:

We have a fundamental disagreement here.  Christ came to deliver sinners from under law to under no condemnation (grace).  

 

Do you believe that from the foundation of the world, because Christ was slain then, all are now under no condemnation?

[Robert]

5 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

By contrast, the woman showed no hostility to Christ.  And She was the type of person He had come to save.

Christ came to save all sinners....

[Wingnut]

5 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Do you believe that from the foundation of the world, because Christ was slain then, all are now under no condemnation?

I repeat my question.  We know Christ came to save sinners.  You added "all". 

What is your mechanism whereby all sinners are saved?  Does it involve the phrase "foundation of the world"?

[Robert]

11 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Do you believe that from the foundation of the world, because Christ was slain then, all are now under no condemnation?

Legally Christ hadn't fulfilled God's law at the foundation of the world, yet before there was sin there was a Savior.

There was no condemnation "because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed" in OT times. See Romans 3:25 NASB

 At the cross Christ legally established the law and therefore "through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Rom 5:18 NASB)

[Wingnut]

5 minutes ago, Robert said:

Legally Christ hadn't fulfilled God's law at the foundation of the world, yet before there was sin there was a Savior.

There was no condemnation "Because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed" in OT times. See Romans 3:25

 At the cross Christ legally established the law and therefore "through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men" (Rom 5:18 NASB)

Do you believe that only those who accept Jesus as their personal Saviour can be saved?  That is a Yes or no answer?

[Tom Wetmore]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

God's justice was fulfilled "in Christ" from the foundation of the world.  That's why Adam and Eve didn't die the 2nd death, i.e., the curse of the law. The justice of the law was legally established in the doing & dying of Christ as the Son of Man.

 

Why?  Answer that question and you will see the truth of what I posted.  Why have any plan to save them from what we like to call the second death.  A second death means someone gets resurrected from a first death to either face the death again or not die ever again.  Why?  Why go to all that trouble if mercy is not the ultimate goal of divine justice? Just let Adam and Eve die and stay that way.  If divine justice is just about demanding death for sinners then why would He put himself through all the substitutionary death part?  Mercy.  Give the humans a chance at redemption.  Even though they should die and stay that way if it is only about paying the price of breaking the law.  Understand that Jesus did't stay dead.  He too was resurrected. 

Your response is basically a rote recital of the letter of what we understand as the "legal" processing of divine justice.  It makes human sense.  I am trying to get at the spirit behind the law, the heart of the law giver.  God is love.  God isn't law.  And the law isn't a god.

Another way I have often approached this question is to ask,  "Which is more important to God, people or the law?"

[Robert]

31 minutes ago, Robert said:

Why wasn't mercy extended in the OT towards the man gathering wood on the Sabbath, but in the NT not once did Christ demand the sinner's death for the transgression of the law?   

It's not just the man gathering wood on the Sabbath.  Many were put to death under law in the OT.

 

I guess the best thing to do at this point is answer my own question and then if you disagree please show me where I am wrong.  I have been wrong before. 

The man gathering wood on the Sabbath was "under law".  Remember what Israel said when Christ gave the law on Mount Sinai?

 "All that the Lord has said we will do".  In other words we will obey your law and in return you owe us heaven.  That's the OC.  So Christ entered that covenant with them.  

What were the terms of the OC?  "Obey and live", "disobey and die".

Now didn't  Christ know that by the works of the law no flesh can be justified? (See Romans 3:20) Yes!  Then why did He enter into this covenant?

Answer: They didn't know! .

 

 

[Wingnut]

6 minutes ago, Robert said:

 

Now didn't  Christ know that by the works of the law no flesh can be justified? (See Romans 3:20) Yes!  Then why did He enter into this covenant?

Answer: They didn't know! .

 

 

They did not know what?

[Robert]

18 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Do you believe that only those who accept Jesus as their personal Saviour can be saved?  That is a Yes or no answer?

That's not a yes or no answer.

For example, infants who die before the age of accountability are saved, but they didn't know or could they accept Christ as their personal Savior.

And folks in heathen lands, who didn't know Jesus as their personal Savior, but through what was created believed in that which they didn't know, will also be saved.

 

[Tom Wetmore]

I think that Jesus explained and demonstrated that the OT system was imperfect.  It could not save anyone.   That was not its purpose.  It was to teach the people about the real plan.  And to keep fresh and in the forefront of these slow learners (not at all unlike us) that disobedience has consequences. If not, mercy is not needed.  Redemption is not needed.  

And then there is the very distinct possibility that there was a serious amount of human embellishment of the details of the Sabbath rule.  Jesus clearly showed that to be true and rather pointedly referred to "Moses law" in distinction from God's law.   "You have heard that its has been said..."  There were a number of times where He pointedly brought in to sharp distinction the OT mosaic law vs. His own.