The woman caught in adultery

[Robert]

6 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

They did not know what?

"That by the works of the law no flesh can be justified? (See Romans 3:20) "

[Wingnut]

12 minutes ago, Robert said:

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.

 

Let me try again.  Do you believe ALL without exclusion, will be saved?

[Robert]

19 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

Let me try again.  Do you believe ALL without exclusion, will be saved?

 

All have been saved in Christ doing & dying, but not all will accept what He has accomplished.

Answer: No

[Robert]

43 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

Why?

Why did the justice of the law have to be legally established?  Is that your question?

[Wingnut]

3 minutes ago, Robert said:

 

All have been saved in Christ doing & dying, but not all will accept what He has accomplished.

Answer: No

You brought up babies and those never hearing the name of Christ.  Are these automatically saved?

[Wingnut]

39 minutes ago, Robert said:

"That by the works of the law no flesh can be justified? (See Romans 3:20) "

I don't get your point in connection with the blasphemer being condemned and the adulterer being excused.

Which of these had a different view as to the works of the law not justifying them.

This sounds like you are down the creek without a paddle to me.

Maybe you are seeing sense in your argument, but to date, I am not.

[Robert]

55 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

I think that Jesus explained and demonstrated that the OT system was imperfect.  It could not save anyone.   That was not its purpose.

Correct.

However the law did have a very, very important purpose and that is explained extremely well in Gal chapter 3:19-24

19 Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions...

What does that mean?  

Romans 5:20 clarifies:

"The Law came in so that the transgression would increase".

In other words the law was given to turn ignorant sin into blatant transgression.  Therefore it made matters worse for the sinner.

Why? 

23 But before faith came, we were kept in prison under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24 So that the law is become our tutor to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25 But now faith that is come, we are no longer under a tutor.

The law placed us in prison awaiting the judgment and the verdict of condemnation.  Of course this is before we accepted Christ.

Therefore the law is used as a lesson (a tutor) to prove to us that "there is none righteous, no, not even one" so that we might see our need of Christ's righteousness and accept Him by faith. This is justification by faith.

[Robert]

 

Quote

I don't get your point in connection with the blasphemer being condemned and the adulterer being excused.

 

One was knowingly under the OC the other wasn't.

The Jews at Sinai entered into an agreement with God.  Keep in mind it was there idea, not God's.  That agreement was basically that the Jews of old would keep God's law in return for eternal life.  So the terms of that agreement were 'obey and live", "disobey and die". If you sinned, you died.  

 

 

 

[Wingnut]

2 minutes ago, Robert said:

 

 

One was knowingly under the OC the other wasn't.

The Jews at Sinai entered into an agreement with God.  Keep in mind it was there idea, not God's.  That agreement was basically that the Jews of old would keep God's law in return for eternal life.  So the terms of that agreement were 'obey and live", "disobey and die". If you sinned, you died.  

 

 

 

First, no israelite under the OC was promised eternal life, unless you can show me a scripture I missed.

Second, the woman knew the law better than the blasphemer.  She was brought up under the law.

Therefore there was no difference in knowing, both were equally under the OT law.  

The reason one was forgiven and one condemned, was because the one had a terrible attitude towards God knowingly.

[Robert]

12 minutes ago, Robert said:

One was knowingly under the OC the other wasn't.

The Jews at Sinai entered into an agreement with God.  Keep in mind it was their idea, not God's.  That agreement was basically that the Jews of old would keep God's law in return for eternal life.  So the terms of that agreement were 'obey and live", "disobey and die". If you sinned, you died.  

Case in point:

Deut 21:18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

In my mind those who stoned this stubborn son were themselves hypocrites and self-righteous.  

So the terms of the Old Covenant not only exposed transgressors, it exposed self-righteousness.  That's why I think Jesus said, in the NT, "he is without sin throw the first stone."

[Robert]

21 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

First, no israelite under the OC was promised eternal life, unless you can show me a scripture I missed.

I can show you this OC promise in the NT:

Matt 19:16 Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 

Notice this man wants eternal life in return for doing something good.

What was Jesus response to this man's question?

verse 17: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 

18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

20 The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” 

BTW, I believe this man was bragging as in "I've been keeping all these rules since I was in Sabbath school, where am I lacking?

21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"

Did you get that?

So  if you come to Christ, self-righteously, and ask him what good thing you can do to earn eternal life, He will give you what the law requires:  Perfection, i.e., is perfect, unblemished, agape love with not an ounce of selfishness. 

If you do this, "you will have treasure in heaven." 

[Robert]

26 minutes ago, Wingnut said:

The reason one was forgiven and one condemned, was because the one had a terrible attitude towards God knowingly.

Supposition....I don't believe you can back this up Biblically, but maybe I'm wrong.....

Anyway, I've got to take a break.  Later....Rob

[Wingnut]

16 minutes ago, Robert said:

I can show you this OC promise in the NT:

Matt 19:16 Then someone came to him and said, “Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?” 

Notice this man wants eternal life in return for doing something good.

What was Jesus response to this man's question?

verse 17: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” 

18 He said to him, “Which ones?” And Jesus said, “You shall not murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; 19 Honor your father and mother; also, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” 

20 The young man said to him, “I have kept all these; what do I still lack?” 

BTW, I believe this man was bragging as in "I've been keeping all these rules since I was in Sabbath school, where am I lacking?

21 Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven"

Did you get that?

So  if you come to Christ, self-righteously, and ask him what good thing you can do to earn eternal life, He will give you what the law requires:  Perfection, i.e., is perfect, unblemished, agape love with not an ounce of selfishness. 

If you do this, "you will have treasure in heaven." 

The Sadducees believed there was no life after death.  Job and David allude to an afterlife, but these are more like NT believers than average OT Israelites who obeyed the Lord for physical blessings and cursing Deut 28.

 

The rich young man may have heard Christ talk of eternal life and that may be what prompted the question.

[Wingnut]

As an aside...

I don't see the difference between this woman caught in adultery and the woman of Samaria whom Christ spoke to at the well who had 5 "husbands". Did he condemn her?

Did Christ condemn any of the sinners He interacted with?  Truly, Christ came not to condemn, but to save.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

 

[Wingnut]

Robert

Instead of have us play "1000 Questions" why don't you just get right to the bottom line?  

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

The rich young man may have heard Christ talk of eternal life and that may be what prompted the question.

"They (the Jews/disciples) had been taught to look upon the rich as the favorites of heaven; worldly power and riches they themselves hoped to receive in the Messiah's kingdom; if the rich were to fail of entering the kingdom, what hope could there be for the rest of men?" [COL 394]

Simply put the Jews had been taught that a rich man is a good man blessed of God because of his obedience to the law.  If you weren't rich, you weren't a good person and hence no heaven for you.

 

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

The Sadducees believed there was no life after death.  Job and David allude to an afterlife, but these are more like NT believers than average OT Israelites who obeyed the Lord for physical blessings and cursing Deut 28.

I think you misunderstand the curse of the law.  The curse of the law is goodbye to life forever with no hope of a resurrection and eternal life.

[Robert]

1 hour ago, Wingnut said:

Robert

Instead of have us play "1000 Questions" why don't you just get right to the bottom line?  

I already answered my own question and I was hoping for some feedback.  Here it is again:

 

Quote

The Jews at Sinai entered into an agreement with God.  Keep in mind it was their idea, not God's.  That agreement was basically that the Jews of old would keep God's law in return for eternal life.  So the terms of that agreement were 'obey and live", "disobey and die". If you sinned, you died. 

 

[Robert]

You say there's no connection between obedience and eternal life?

 

Gal 3:12..." the law does not rest on faith; on the contrary, “Whoever does the works of the law will by them live”

Rom 10:5 For Moses writes about the righteousness which is of the law, “The man who does those things shall by them live."

So in order to obtain life you must  obey the law.  What life?  Eternal life....

 

[Tom Wetmore]

3 hours ago, Robert said:

Why did the justice of the law have to be legally established?  Is that your question?

No. I am asking why did Jesus have to go through all the doing and dying part himself to, as you say, legally establish the justice of the law?    If I am understanding you correctly, what is required to do that is to essentially fulfill the wages of sin - death.  A command (law) of God  disobeyed, the consequence of which is death, legally fulfills the "justice" required of the law.  At the begining, Adam and Eve would have done so when they died as a result of their own sin. Justice would have more than adequately been legally satisfied.  

The death of a person that is sinless (the doing part) doesn't actually establish the justice of the law. That seems a rather unjust result, that an innocent person, not deserving any punishment for any sin, should have to die, except for one purpose and only one purpose. Why this particular person?  If just any innocent person (or creature free of spot or blemish) would do, why not allow for sacrifices of innocent children before they have any opportunity to sin? And how just is it to accept the death of one innocent person in the place of billions of sinners?

The point that I am trying to make, is that God's plan all along was heading toward mercy.  The whole point of the doing and dying was to show mercy to all who did not deserve it. It wasn't about merely satisfying a legal penalty of violating the law.  It was all about mercy and grace.  Nobody else could do it except the  one who had been wronged.  You have to unpack what forgiveness is all about to understand why God went to all the trouble of doing it himself.

If forgiveness is just a matter of paying a debt owed, a legal transaction, then I could forgive you for stealing your neighbor's car and pay your neighbor for his loss. But only your neighbor can forgive you.  Forgiveness is absorbing the harm of the wrong done to you personally, and not requiring that the wrong be made right by the one who in fact wronged you. It is specifically not seeking that justice  be done, giving up the right for revenge. God said "Vengence is mine." He said, "I will take the harm of the sin of all of mankind against me onto my own shoulders and absorb it completely myself and give up my right under the law to let everyone die because they sinned against me."

That is an act of mercy.  It is grace.  It is forgiveness.  

 

 

 

[Robert]

13 minutes ago, Tom Wetmore said:

The death of a person that is sinless (the doing part) doesn't actually establish the justice of the law. That seems a rather unjust result, that an innocent person, not deserving any punishment for any sin, should have to die....

I like the way you think.

Jesus as God never died.  You know that, right?  Even Ellen White states this Biblical fact:

"Humanity died; divinity did not die"

Whose humanity?

Answer: Our fallen, humanity that all of us share with Adam.

That's why Paul states, "our old life was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with" (Rom 6:6) because "when One died, all died" (2 Cor 5:14).  Christ's death as the son of man was a corporate death.  It involved our corporate life from Adam.  That life, our life, died in the humanity of Christ.  

Hence has far as the law is concerned, justice has been served and through faith we as individuals do not have to experience the 2nd death.  We have been delivered from the curse of the law, legally!!!!

Edited January 1, 2016 by Robert

[Tom Wetmore]

How?   Only by an act of mercy, grace, forgiveness.  It really isn't about the law.  

This idea of the second death is an interesting concept.  I think God had to come up with that idea to make the time mechanics of salvation actually work.   But what we should really be talking about is the second life.  When Jesus proved he was more powerful than death, he made all things possible.  He proved that nothing can prevent him from doing the one thing that he most wants to do - save us and give us eternal life.  

[JoeMo]

18 hours ago, Robert said:

"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.” 

 

On the other hand, Jesus was the only One there qualified to stone her.  Yet, He did not.  Jesus was the Guy who made the law about stoning those caught in adultery.  Why did He make an exception to His own Law?

Our church has been preaching one chapter a week out of scripture for the past 2 years (we are now halfway through Numbers).  We have seen throughout our study, that - as harsh as God sounded sometimes - He usually left a way for those who keep His way to escape curses, plagues, famines, etc.  The bad things that happened to people were left as examples to us of what the ultimate destiny is for the unrepentant.

I also tend to think that something (arguably) "changed" at the cross.  While it is true that God's Law is immutable, is it possible that the way He deal with transgressions of the Law has changed?  Several places in the NT say that we were reconciled to God by the sacrifice of His Son.

If we look for Jesus in every passage of scripture, for the most part we can see His love and mercy towards His chosen ones throughout the Bible.  Not so much with the enemies of the elect.

[JoeMo]

6 hours ago, Wingnut said:

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.

 

Sorry Wingnut, I have to disagree.  IMO, grace WAS indeed given as a blanket gist to the entire world.  It has been and always will be (in this age, at least) expended to all who would receive it.  The question is, will we receive it?

A few years ago, I gave one of my children a $5,000 check to help him out.  He tore it up in front of me and told me he didn't need my charity; that He would dig himself out of his situation.  Pride cost him $5,000.  Isn't it similar to us?  God offers everyone a "get out of hell free" card; and some of us say "No thanks, I don't need your charity: I'll work this out myself".

[Tom Wetmore]

20 minutes ago, JoeMo said:

On the other hand, Jesus was the only One there qualified to stone her.  Yet, He did not.  Jesus was the Guy who made the law about stoning those caught in adultery.  Why did He make an exception to His own Law?

* * *

Jesus, the only one who could forgive her, the only one who could extend her mercy and grace. It was an offense against him that only he could choose to seek to penalize or forgive.  It is because his nature is not to condemn but to save, not to take life, but to give it.