Holy Hormones Bible Study: Teaching — If your book is’t a buzz, it’s not the Bible.
THE DRAMA OF THE WOMAN CAUGHT IN ADULTERY — EDITOR’S CUT
Have we missed the obvious?
Preamble: You may have already read most of this. It was published on December 23, 2022, as YOU THINK JESUS WENT SOFT ON ADULTERY?
An inspiration popped into my mind (during an argument) that sheds a brighter light on what was going on that day.
The extra information begins below at the heading, BUT THE PLOT IS MORE DIABOLICAL THAN THAT!
What if the witnesses had stayed?
Spoiler: The adulterous woman is a supporting actor — important but not the star. The real action is happening between Messiah and Satan.
The episode of the woman caught in adultery, John 8:1–11, is well known but it is highly recommended that you read it carefully — every word without injecting your opinions into it — before proceeding. You may have not paid it such devoted attention before.
There is a famous painting by Nicolas Poussin hanging in the Louvre in Paris. It certainly tells a story to those having some training in art: -
• Bad men want to trap Jesus by presenting a woman who, by the Law of Moses, must be stoned to death.
• He outwits them, and they all leave the scene.
• He then lets her off.
But is it the correct story?
The common knowledge in the Land of the NT Saints is that the God Who never Changes . . . has changed and gone soft on adultery. After all, Jesus is the God of Love, the end of the Law. We don’t have to worry about things like that. There are only two commandments for an NT Saint.
1. Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength.
2. Love your neighbour as yourself.
What is the definition of your definition?
How do you love God as prescribed? Commandments 1–4.
How do you love your neighbour as prescribed? Commandments 5–10.
WHO FORGOT TO REMOVE ADULTERY?!!
When dealing with the L-A-W do not flirt with L-O-R-E.
Common sense means nothing to the Judge. What is written?
The aforementioned opinion is so ingrained in the church, it seems prudent to adopt a follow-the-bouncing-ball approach to lead the Brethren through the shock. If at the end, you disagree, I’m sure you’ll let me know. (Using evidence, of course.)
Verse by verse
- Exodus 20:14
You shall not commit adultery.
Seems straightforward.
- Leviticus 20:10
The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.
She was caught in the act. Jesus didn’t dispute the claim. It takes two to Tango, so the other participant is discussed below. (I’m afraid to assign a sex in fear that the story will go off the rails.)
- Deuteronomy 17:6–7
Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hands of all the people. So, you shall put away the evil from among you.
Now it gets legal. The elegance of God’s thinking sends shivers down my spine. There are robust safeguards built into a few words.
One witness is not enough: a false, personal, vendetta can’t pass muster. But the hands of all the people meant that the punishment was applied corporately and no single person had to carry the emotional load. (It is reported that a similar practice is applied to a firing-squad. Some of the weapons are loaded with blanks.)
The witnesses of the act must cast the first stone: (I often name-drop a Shaliach, a heavyweight Rabbi, who gives me advice.) The idea of the witness(es) casting the first stone is to prevent false accusations. If it is later found that the accusation is false, the witness(es) are guilty of murder so share the same fate.
- Galatians 4:4
But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law…
Jesus had to comply with the Law of Moses to be sinless. It was the Jews who brought up the Law of Moses. This, then, is the prevailing Authority.
- 2 Corinthians 5:21
For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
He was sinless, not merely blameless (that is, confessed His sin and paid the penalty prescribed in Leviticus.) You say he forgave other people their sins. True but, unless I’m mistaken, this was the only instance that He was confronted with a specific sin. A comparison to the Samaritan Woman at the well shows He did not condemn her for her marital status. He just informed her.
The location of the episode.
This interlude disrupts the flow of the story but is necessary. We’ll be back …. promise.
This Figure shows a layout of Herod’s Temple. I take the accuracy at face value.
It is written in John 8:2 that Jesus came to/into the Temple. The Greek preposition could be either of these. Examining the Figure above shows that there were places in the Temple that were restricted to certain classes of people. There are different opinions concerning the entry of Gentiles but, at that time, Jesus’s Message was for the Jews. (Check it out. Don’t believe me.) It seems that He was the main Attraction in town and pulled a mixed-sex crowd so would need room. The inside of the soreg fence (shaded area) seems a racing certainty (that is, probably will win but could fall over at the finishing line). Because of the amount of traffic around the Temple, another racing certainty is that the area would be paved. When it is reported that Jesus wrote on/in the Greek could mean either, as mentioned above. Many versions translate it as, on the ground. (That’s OK for paving or natural surface.) Some translate as, in the dust. (That’s also OK for paving or natural surface.) But if He wrote with His Finger, IN the ground, it would have been an attention-grabber for me if the area was paved! Shades of the Tablets of Stone that they would all know about? I’m a bit of a mystic. Cut me some slack.
What was He writing?
Everyone seems to know about something that is not mentioned. But there are some clues. They may not lead to the correct conclusion but this one is as plausible as any others I’ve heard. Decide for yourself.
NOTE: This next section is an addendum made necessary by additional information provided by James M. Dakis of Living Faith. It may not mesh in perfectly but you, no doubt, are clever enough to pick up the thread.
It is written in John 8:2 that it was early in the morning.
It is also written in Leviticus 15:16–18 || ‘If any man has an emission of semen, then he shall wash all his body in water, and be unclean until evening. And any garment and any leather on which there is semen, it shall be washed with water, and be unclean until evening. Also, when a woman lies with a man, and there is an emission of semen, they shall bathe in water, and be unclean until evening.’
• Nothing ceremonially unclean was to enter the Temple.
• She had been caught in the act. (Don’t get side-tracked by the man issue — that’s addressed elsewhere.)
• By Torah, she was Levitically Unclean until the appearance of the North Star (Polaris) at about 6:00 pm that night — by Gentile reckoning.
• The Pharisees knew Torah so, by bringing her into the Temple, they were guilty of iniquity. It is interesting that the etymology of that English word shows it to have a flavour of a “crooked judge.” That is, someone who knows the Law but ignores it. That lifts it from their misdemeanor penalty bracket to the felony.
• The sentence structure of John 8:9 implies that only the ACCUSERS left. There was still a crowd there because the woman was standing in the midst.
There is an old Hebrew proverb, “Wisdom comes suddenly.” The Religious Glitterati found themselves in an “Ooops!” moment.
The Pharisees found themselves out of their class.
(Addendum now finished.)
The Challenge He cast.
He put them off balance by taking them further than they expected. Their trap stopped at adultery. However, He upped the ante beyond this charge — he didn’t even mention adultery. Anyone who now threw a stone in the full knowledge that they were not without sin would be guilty. Like at the Sermon on the Mount, He raised the bar and exposed the chink in their self-righteous armour. Several times He had challenged His antagonists to give evidence of His sin — they could not. They were not in the same position.
I’ve been told that the “oldest leaving first” was elementary, but no one has been able to expand on that. If you know, let me know.
What about the other participant in the dirty deed?
We are told nothing.
Like knowing about what was written on the ground another speculation goes along the lines, “However, I’m pretty sure that in order to catch a woman IN THE VERY ACT, one of those presenting the case had to have been the other in the pair up.”
Knowledge of Torah is very important here.
We can go, nudge, nudge, wink, wink and seem in-the-know but how does anyone know he is not already dead? It is not crisp, no matter how you torture words and grammar.
We can let our imaginations take us where they will but the only thing, we know about the man is that it is safe to assume there was one. After that, Jesus went back to the woman’s sin. He let no one off the hook. How subtle is the Lord?!
I can’t understand why everyone seems so Torah-fied. Being a legalist has its advantages.
But now everyone is gone.
Back to the legality of her specific sin: -
When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.”
By the Law of Moses there had to be two witnesses, and they had to throw the first stone. Harping back to the other participant being one of the accusers, he would have been shitting bricks (Australian technical term) for the rest of his life in case the word got out.
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
Of course, He knew she was guilty — she didn’t deny it — but, by the Law of Moses, He couldn’t condemn her because He wasn’t a witness, and there were no others. [The Legalists forced Him to be the Judge then offered no evidence. He had to act according to the Law.] If He had violated the Law of Moses, He would not have been sinless — and would have been useless to us.
She knew she had been saved by the skin of her teeth.
BUT THE PLOT IS MORE DIABOLICAL THAN THAT!
What if the witnesses had stayed?
As mentioned already, in Leviticus 20:10, both adulterers were to be put to death under the Law of Moses. But it is also written John 18:29–31 || Pilate then went out to them and said, “What accusation do you bring against this Man?” They answered and said to him, “If He were not an evildoer, we would not have delivered Him up to you.” Then Pilate said to them, “You take Him and judge Him according to your law.”
Therefore the Jews said to him, “It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.”
And it is obvious to anyone who has read the Gospel accounts, as well as the Acts, that Rome was not that interested in Jewish Law.
Jesus was born under Torah. He would die under Torah. If he did not obey Torah, faultlessly, He would not be sinless. He would not be an acceptable Offering to the Father. He would be useless to us.
Satan thought he had Messiah between a rock and a hard place. It seemed to be Sophie’s Choice. Either the Law of Moses or the Law of Rome would have to prevail. If Jesus said stone her, it would cause open rebellion against Rome — with the inevitable carnage.
However, the Torah prevailed without the potential bloodbath.
Jesus knew Law and was too nimble.
So Whose Sin was the focus in this caper?
Jesus.
As it is written in Psalm 40:7 || Then I said, “Behold, I come; In the scroll of the book it is written of me.” (+Hebrews 10:7)
There is too much navel gazing practiced in the Church. There is a hero but it’s neither you nor me.
Conclusion
Sorry, no cop out available here. Adultery is not taken lightly by God. It is mentioned 14 times in 11 verses in the TR Greek texts, and 15 times in 12 verses in the MGNT Greek, NT as a No! No!
A penalty must be paid and we all must accept in our heart that it was not us (choose your own sin) who took the heat. There is no such thing as Cheap Grace.
FORGIVENESS COSTS.
Even though His wording showed He knew she was guilty, He could show Grace without violating the Law of Moses, and so remain an acceptable offering to the Father.
How elegant is the thinking of God!
By accepting the Blood of Jesus we are no longer Habitual Sinners. We are Saints who sometimes sin.
This is a demonstration that a plausible story need not be the truth of the matter.
The forgoing evidence has not been presented to convince any reader but to allow a personal decision to be made. There is much more to know about this subject. Perhaps you’ll pay another visit, sometime.
All Glory to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
(We all have a plank in our eye. It’s bigger than we think.)
