# Would Moses have stoned the woman caught in adultery?



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2013/08/03/would-moses-have-stoned-the-woman-caught-in-adultery/



> If Moses was in the crowd in John 8v1-11, when the Pharisees brought the woman caught in adultery to Jesus, would he have stoned the woman? The law saying that a woman caught in adultery should be stoned to death, came through Moses.



How would you answer, or which of the provided answers most closely squares with your own thoughts?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 4, 2016)

No, as there were not "two or three witnesses" so the law could not of been applied. (Which is part of the whole meaning of "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.")


----------



## rickclayfan (May 4, 2016)

That law (and the whole law for that case) is instituted by God; Christ is God. Moses was merely an intermediary. If God willed to demonstrate mercy through the satisfaction of justice in the salvific work of Christ why should Moses' response be of any concern?


----------



## Peairtach (May 4, 2016)

No. The whole thing was an irregular attempt to "trap" Christ. 

E.g. the aduteress was there, but where was the adulterer?


----------



## Ed Walsh (May 4, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Jesus, would he have stoned the woman?



No! I have always thought that this "law" would have made stoning the woman "illegal."

Hosea 4:14 (ASV)
I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go apart with harlots, and they sacrifice with the prostitutes; and the people that doth not understand shall be overthrown.


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (May 4, 2016)

So do you think Jesus would have upheld the law and help punish her if she was rightly and legally guilty with many witnesses and the male at her side? I'm interested to learn about how this would apply to us and our following of Christ. Do we as the church offer love, forgiveness, and mercy, and simply allow the government to punish sin? How would Jesus act if He were part of a jury in a case of adultery if there was a democracy in ancient times? Would He say we are all with sin therefore no sin can be punished or would He say that sin must be punished in the legal sense?

I know all of you are really smart on here so I'm interested to see how you approach this.


----------



## Pergamum (May 4, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So do you think Jesus would have upheld the law and help punish her if she was rightly and legally guilty with many witnesses and the male at her side? I'm interested to learn about how this would apply to us and our following of Christ. Do we as the church offer love, forgiveness, and mercy, and simply allow the government to punish sin? How would Jesus act if He were part of a jury in a case of adultery if there was a democracy in ancient times? Would He say we are all with sin therefore no sin can be punished or would He say that sin must be punished in the legal sense?
> 
> I know all of you are really smart on here so I'm interested to see how you approach this.



Yes, the explanation of many seem to have Jesus merely objecting to the procedural irregularities of the case.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 4, 2016)

God is just ergo His law is just. 

If adultery was a capital crime, at the testimony of two or three witnesses, and guilt was judged, how could Christ object to His law being adjudicated lawfully and justly by the civil authorities?


----------



## timfost (May 4, 2016)

You could also ask if Moses would have stoned David for murder and adultery. There were plenty witnesses.



> For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” (Rom. 9:15)


----------



## Peairtach (May 5, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So do you think Jesus would have upheld the law and help punish her if she was rightly and legally guilty with many witnesses and the male at her side? I'm interested to learn about how this would apply to us and our following of Christ. Do we as the church offer love, forgiveness, and mercy, and simply allow the government to punish sin? How would Jesus act if He were part of a jury in a case of adultery if there was a democracy in ancient times? Would He say we are all with sin therefore no sin can be punished or would He say that sin must be punished in the legal sense?
> 
> I know all of you are really smart on here so I'm interested to see how you approach this.


The Church offers love, forgiveness and mercy. but since adultery under the OT could be punishable by excommunication by death, In my humble opinion this indicates that it is one of these presumptuous breaches of the Ten Commandments where the session should withdraw Church privileges until the person(s) show signs of repentance.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 5, 2016)

The Church and the State have different roles and responsibilities. 

To say the State has not right or duty to punish law breakers is anarchy, which is also part of the reason why Jesus acted in the way that He did. He had no authority to render judgment, as He was not a Judge. See also Luke 12 and the inheritance.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 5, 2016)

Jesus wasn't "a" judge, but he was Messiah, therefore King and supreme Judge.

He said, "If anyone hears my words and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for *I did not come to judge* the world but to save the world," Jn.12:47.

He is not subject to his law, when his own word is law. There is no law above him, only the Father's will in which he is in perfect alignment.

Yes, Jesus fulfilled the Mosaic law; he obeyed it's moral precepts; he respected its authorities as far as they could be respected, even when as persons they were degenerate.

Mt.17:24-27 When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma tax went up to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the tax?" He said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do kings of the earth take toll or tax? From their sons or from others?" And when he said, "From others," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are free. However, not to give offense to them, go to the sea and cast a hook and take the first fish that comes up, and when you open its mouth you will find a shekel. Take that and give it to them for me and for yourself."​
Jesus had pardoning authority. There were manifest irregularities about the scene, in particular the missing adulterer. But the bottom line is this: the King may pardon. Jesus does not "conform," but all conform to him.

Moses? He had his own role and circumstances. What might he have done? What should he have done? Heb.10:28, "Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses." That's the letter of the law. Was Israel strictly judged in the wilderness, or leniently? How about the merits of this one case, or is justice simply a machine?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (May 5, 2016)

I think the incident in John 8 may also relate to Jesus' teaching on divorce and the common practice of divorce in first century Judaism.

Matthew 5:31-32 "Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

Matthew 19:3-9 " The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

Is it possible that Jesus pardoned the woman because her accusers had no grounds by which to judge her because they were in many ways just as much of an adulterer as she was? Just a thought.


----------



## johnny (May 5, 2016)

Just meditating on this, please tell me if I'm wrong, but considering that adultery is to look on a woman with lust in your heart, who among us could even now pick up those stones.


----------



## Peairtach (May 5, 2016)

johnny said:


> Just meditating on this, please tell me if I'm wrong, but considering that adultery is to look on a woman with lust in your heart, who among us could even now pick up those stones.


 
On that basis there could be no human justice at all, as judge, jury, executioner and gaoler are all sinners.


----------



## johnny (May 5, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> johnny said:
> 
> 
> > Just meditating on this, please tell me if I'm wrong, but considering that adultery is to look on a woman with lust in your heart, who among us could even now pick up those stones.
> ...



Exactly, 

I was warned of the dangers of meditation.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 6, 2016)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So do you think Jesus would have upheld the law and help punish her if she was rightly and legally guilty with many witnesses and the male at her side? I'm interested to learn about how this would apply to us and our following of Christ.



Jesus was not a magistrate. If He picked up a stone to stone the women, acting as a judge, He would have disobeyed the Law. Moses was a magistrate and acted as such (for example Ex. 32 and the Golden Calf). The issue is a categorical error. We should note that God has created the magistrate to uphold His justice (Rom. 13) and the church to proclaim salvation. Does the church talk about justice and cry out for justice? Absolutely. Do they implement policies for justice? No. The Westminster Standards makes a distinction between the kingdom of grace and kingdom of power. 



> Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdom come,) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrates; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever: and that he would be pleased so *to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world*, as may best conduce to these ends.
> 
> Matt. 6:10; Eph. 2:2-3; Ps. 68:1, 18; Rev. 12:10-11; 2 Thess. 3:1; Rom. 10:1; John 17:9, 20; Rom. 11:25-26; Ps. 67:1-7; Matt. 9:38; 2 Thess. 3:1; Mal. 1:11; Zeph. 3:9; 1 Tim. 2:1-2; Acts 4:29-30; Eph. 3:14-20; Rev. 22:20; Isa. 64:1-2; Rev. 4:8-11; Eph. 6:18-20; Rom. 15:29-30, 32; 2 Thess. 1:11; 2 Thess. 2:16-17.
> ...



To say that Christ had all the right and authority to stone her misunderstands the point. God has ordained the magistrate to carry out His justice, not the Church. Christ was not a magistrate during His earthly ministry. So, what is the duty of the magistrate?



> (WCF Ch. 23)III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:a yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed.b For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God.c
> 
> a. 2 Chr 2:8 • b. Isa 49:23 • c. 2 Chr 19:8


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 6, 2016)

I think this has been said but let me clearly state it.

The law to stone offenders of certain practices is not a recipe for lynch mob justice.

There were judges appointed to hear cases.

In other words, the Law does not prescribe a scenario where a few people walking by witness adultery and then find a crowd to carry out immediate justice for the witnessed crime.

There were judges. I'll say that again.

So, to the OP, would Moses engage in some sort of "Mob justice"? No.

There are other things going on in terms of Christ's ministry to save and not condemn that are part of that episode but I do want to make sure we don't look at the OT Law and miss some importatn underlying concepts. There is a reason why Moses appointed judges. People didn't just go around meting out punishment for the Law.

There were judges (Did I mention that?).


----------



## zsmcd (May 6, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think this has been said but let me clearly state it.
> 
> The law to stone offenders of certain practices is not a recipe for lynch mob justice.
> 
> ...



Weren't there judges?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 6, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I think this has been said but let me clearly state it.
> ...



Where? In the account? That's not how the story proceeds. Part of the underlying issue is that the Jews were under Roman occupation. They had no authority to implement the death penalty.

Incidentally, you can see the fact that the Jews understood the nature of a trial for the death penalty because the Sanhedrin sought witnesses in the trial of Jesus. There were certainly incidents where people were ready to stone Jesus but the "mob reactation" is never something that is commended in Scripture.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 6, 2016)

Yes Rich.

Thanks for saying that.

Jesus work as Redeemer and Pardoner of sin is not in competition against His work as Lawgiver and interest in seeing that Law, especially in this incident, be carried out Lawfully. 

Moses Law was Christ's Law and is not unjust and is not immoral even though it grates against modern sensibilities about punishing adultery.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 6, 2016)

Adultery is treason to one's spouse and family. Just like high treason against the state, by the law of nature it deserves the punishment of death.


----------



## Jake (May 6, 2016)

Just curious, does anyone know if any commentators hold to internal evidence to say the Pericope Adulterae is not canonical, or is that based entirely on external evidence? (What I'm thinking is those who would interpret the passage to not consent with all other parts of Scripture).


----------



## Peairtach (May 6, 2016)

Was it Bahnsen that said that anyone convicted in law of a particular sin could not take part on the prosecution of someone charged with the same sin? Did he get this from Scripture or from extra-biblical sources?

PB's own, Timmotompussycat, had something about this in his book-length critique of theonomy. 

Was Christ indicating that all these men had committed the very act of adultery and were unsuitable witnesses, which was demonstrated by their subsequent internal conviction and slinking-off?

Anyone properly convicted of adultery of the requisite presumptuousness (Numbers 15:30-31), if the judicial law was operative, would have been executed or would have to pay a ransom for his life (Numbers 35:30-34; Proverbs 6:30-35).


----------



## Pergamum (May 6, 2016)

Note: I am assuming this Scripture on the woman caught in adultery is canonical. The earliest church even from the 300s-400s seemed to quote it and treat it as Scripture.

Question: What is the proof that those who brought the woman to be tried for adultery were all guilty themselves of adultery, thus making their accusations invalid? This doesn't appear demanded by the text.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 6, 2016)

I don't believe that's a GNC from the text that they were all adulterers. I really think it's speculative to really get in the minds of the mob or Jesus at that point. If it was an unlawful stoning (which I think it is) then Christ's words have the effect of defusing the situation.

I think that we some times go to the Scriptures and ask the wrong questions about what the purpose of the Text is. We get hung up on details (Why, if it's not the season for figs is Christ looking for figs?!). I really don't think the point of this Scripture is to give us some sort of didactic application of Christ overturning theMosaic Law.

I think the primary point of the episode is Christ's compassion to the sinner. Might she have been convicted of adultery and stoned if brought before a court? That's not the question the text is asking us to consider.

Should Matthew have been compelled by a court to pay back 4x what he owed when he embezzled as a Tax Collector? That's not the question the text is asking us.

Jesus came into the world not to condemn precisely because the world was already condemned. The woman, if guilty, was condemned already. 

Christ came to save.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 7, 2016)

Pergamum said:


> Question: What is the proof that those who brought the woman to be tried for adultery were all guilty themselves of adultery, thus making their accusations invalid? This doesn't appear demanded by the text.



This might be beneficial. Here is Matthew Henry:



> At last he put them all to shame and silence with one word: He lifted up himself, awaking as one out of sleep (Ps. lxxviii. 65), and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
> 
> First, Here Christ avoided the snare which they had laid for him, and effectually saved his own reputation. He neither reflected upon the law nor excused the prisoner's guilt, nor did he on the other hand encourage the prosecution or countenance their heat; see the good effect of consideration. When we cannot make our point by steering a direct course, it is good to fetch a compass.
> 
> ...


----------



## Pergamum (May 7, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Question: What is the proof that those who brought the woman to be tried for adultery were all guilty themselves of adultery, thus making their accusations invalid? This doesn't appear demanded by the text.
> ...



Thanks. He seems to hit upon all points in this concise explanation. Note to self: read through Matthew Henry again in its entirety.


----------



## zsmcd (May 9, 2016)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Question: What is the proof that those who brought the woman to be tried for adultery were all guilty themselves of adultery, thus making their accusations invalid? This doesn't appear demanded by the text.
> ...



That is some outstanding commentary. I think it is also helpful to notice Christ's emphasis on "he who is without sin" in regards to HIS _sinlessness_. The only perfect, holy, and blameless one who had any right to judge this woman was Christ and yet he shows her mercy and calls her to repentance.


----------

