looking for some clarification

[ashleysdad]

I have a question regarding what seems like a discrepancy in the Gospel of John. In John chapter 8:1-12 we have the story of the woman taken in adultery being brought to Jesus in an attempt by the pharisees to discredit Him. They were ready to stone the woman as being guilty of adultery in accordance with Mosaic law, had Jesus not intervened there is little doubt that they would have stoned her to death. So far so good, I have read this story a million times and preached on it often. Here is the question. In John 18:31 when Jesus was brought before Pilate for trial he told the Jewish leaders to judge Him by their own laws. They responded that they did not have the right to execute anyone. So why the difference? Were they simply trying to get some one else to do their dirty work or would they have been in violation of Roman law by stoning the woman taken in adultery? Just to clarify, while I know that there are some who contend that John 8:1-12 is a late addition to the Gospel and this story was not originally in it. I am not sold on that position, also, to me this question does not represent a trial of faith but is merely an interesting question that I thought I would get some outside opinion on.

 

[Scarlett O.]

AD,

I don't see a discrepancy. Here's what I do see.

The law stated that a man caught in adultery must be executed and the married woman, too. They only brought the woman to Jesus. These men didn’t give a hoot about the law. They only wanted trap Jesus to accuse Him, the Bible says so.

Here’s where you’ve got think about it. What WAS the trap?

They wanted Jesus to tell them one of two things: [1] “Yeah, go ahead, ya’ll can stone her”. If Jesus had said THAT, He would have been in gross violation of the law. First, the adulterous man was not included AND secondly, the law also states that for someone to be executed, first two or three witnesses have to tell their stories and bring evidence before an execution could take place.

What was the second part of the trap?

You mentioned the angry mob bringing Jesus to Pilate. And Pilate said, “Aw, you guys go on home and execute him yourselves!” They said, “You know we can’t do that – we are not allowed (under Roman rule) to execute our own criminals.” From what I understand, it was against the Roman law for Jews to stone people for crimes against the Mosaic Law. Only the Romans could execute people. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Do you see the trap, now? They didn’t care if Jesus said [1] “Go ahead and stone her” or [2] “No, you can’t stone her.” Either way He would be breaking the Mosaic Law (in their minds only - not in actuality) or the Roman law. And they could have went running like the wind to either the chief priests or to Herod or Pilate or some other Roman official. Either way, religious authorities or political authorities would do away with Him. They really didn't care which one.

Also think why Jesus said, “If YOU want to stone her, the first one to do the stoning has to be a sinless man.”?

Remember that law about witnesses presenting evidence before an execution? The second part of that law said that the first persons to do the stoning of the criminal was to be the witness[es] who provided the evidence.

That subtle reminder of the actual law either means [1] there were no actual witnesses to begin with or [2] it reminded of that they were breaking the law in not bringing the man and in not providing evidence. It drew attention to their own law violation. Maybe by putting the stoning in the hands of the real or false witnesses scared THEM. They didn’t want to be caught in their own trap and they walked away from the oldest to the youngest.

I've always been taught that they walked away convicted of their sin - but I think they walked away not wanting to get into trouble themselves.

 

[Yeshua1]

AD,

I don't see a discrepancy. Here's what I do see.

The law stated that a man caught in adultery must be executed and the married woman, too. They only brought the woman to Jesus. These men didn’t give a hoot about the law. They only wanted trap Jesus to accuse Him, the Bible says so.

Here’s where you’ve got think about it. What WAS the trap?

They wanted Jesus to tell them one of two things: [1] “Yeah, go ahead, ya’ll can stone her”. If Jesus had said THAT, He would have been in gross violation of the law. First, the adulterous man was not included AND secondly, the law also states that for someone to be executed, first two or three witnesses have to tell their stories and bring evidence before an execution could take place.

What was the second part of the trap?

You mentioned the angry mob bringing Jesus to Pilate. And Pilate said, “Aw, you guys go on home and execute him yourselves!” They said, “You know we can’t do that – we are not allowed (under Roman rule) to execute our own criminals.” From what I understand, it was against the Roman law for Jews to stone people for crimes against the Mosaic Law. Only the Romans could execute people. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

Do you see the trap, now? They didn’t care if Jesus said [1] “Go ahead and stone her” or [2] “No, you can’t stone her.” Either way He would be breaking the Mosaic Law (in their minds only - not in actuality) or the Roman law. And they could have went running like the wind to either the chief priests or to Herod or Pilate or some other Roman official. Either way, religious authorities or political authorities would do away with Him. They really didn't care which one.

Also think why Jesus said, “If YOU want to stone her, the first one to do the stoning has to be a sinless man.”?

Remember that law about witnesses presenting evidence before an execution? The second part of that law said that the first persons to do the stoning of the criminal was to be the witness[es] who provided the evidence.

That subtle reminder of the actual law either means [1] there were no actual witnesses to begin with or [2] it reminded of that they were breaking the law in not bringing the man and in not providing evidence. It drew attention to their own law violation. Maybe by putting the stoning in the hands of the real or false witnesses scared THEM. They didn’t want to be caught in their own trap and they walked away from the oldest to the youngest.

I've always been taught that they walked away convicted of their sin - but I think they walked away not wanting to get into trouble themselves.

what is unteresting in that was Jesus in a real way announced to him that he was God, as he stated that while the Law rightly said that she should die for her sins, just as God allowed David to live by his Grace, he was announcing Gods grace towards her!

When jesus stated that, and also "you have heard Moses said, but I say", they would know that he was claiming authority beyond Moses, that of God Himself!

 

[Judith]

The story has been totally confused. First off we know she was brought to trap the Lord not because the Pharisees were so righteous. In the end the Lord trapped them. The woman did not receive mercy from the Lord. READ THE TEXT! He told them to stone her! That was the law and that is all He could do. He says in another passage that He did not come to do away with the law so He had to tell them to obey the law and stone her. Yes he added to their own guilt by saying the one wihtout sin cast the first stone, but under the law there was no command to be without sin to carry out the punishment. They should have obeyed the law as given, but their guilty hearts condemned them. By not obeying the law they condemned themselves.
Next we see Jesus asking her were are your accusers? I am always amazed when I hear someone say that Jesus shows her mercy here. NOT SO! Jesus was under the law and the law required two witness' to condemn her and no one was left and so Jesus could not condemn her under the law without two witness and that is what He is saying. Neither do I condemn you go and sin no more. He could not condemn her without the witness and He could not say let her go when the witness were there.

 

[quantumfaith]

The story has been totally confused. First off we know she was brought to trap the Lord not because the Pharisees were so righteous. In the end the Lord trapped them. The woman did not receive mercy from the Lord. READ THE TEXT! He told them to stone her! That was the law and that is all He could do. He says in another passage that He did not come to do away with the law so He had to tell them to obey the law and stone her. Yes he added to their own guilt by saying the one wihtout sin cast the first stone, but under the law there was no command to be without sin to carry out the punishment. They should have obeyed the law as given, but their guilty hearts condemned them. By not obeying the law they condemned themselves.
Next we see Jesus asking her were are your accusers? I am always amazed when I hear someone say that Jesus shows her mercy here. NOT SO! Jesus was under the law and the law required two witness' to condemn her and no one was left and so Jesus could not condemn her under the law without two witness and that is what He is saying. Neither do I condemn you go and sin no more. He could not condemn her without the witness and He could not say let her go when the witness were there.

Complete Hoohey. His words" Neither do I condemn you. (And he was omnisicient, was he not?)

 

[Judith]

Complete Hoohey. His words" Neither do I condemn you. (And he was omnisicient, was he not?)

Yes those are His words but He could not condmn her as the law required witness's He was not a witness. And No He was not omnisicient. (Mark 13:32) He forfieted that when He took on flesh.

 

[quantumfaith]

http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/commentaries/IVP-NT/John/Jesus-Forgives-Woman-Taken

 

[Scarlett O.]

Yes those are His words but He could not condmn her as the law required witness's He was not a witness. And No He was not omnisicient. (Mark 13:32) He forfieted that when He took on flesh.

John 2:23-25

23 Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Festival, many people saw the signs he was performing and believed in his name.[d] 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all people. 25 He did not need any testimony about mankind, for he knew what was in each person.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The story has been totally confused.

Yes ... by you. Read Quantum's response. Double it. That's mine.

... No He was not omnisicient. (Mark 13:32) He forfieted that when He took on flesh.

Great googly-moogly! Where did you get that theology??

Return it for a refund before it eats away your brain.

God bless.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Yes those are His words but He could not condmn her as the law required witness's He was not a witness. And No He was not omnisicient. (Mark 13:32) He forfieted that when He took on flesh.

Also, Judith - not to be argumentative - but if Jesus retained his omnipotence while on earth as a man (healing, raising from the dead)....

....Why wouldn't he have retained his omniscience?

Colossians 2:9 says that in Jesus dwelt the fullness of God in bodily form.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes those are His words but He could not condmn her as the law required witness's He was not a witness. And No He was not omnisicient. (Mark 13:32) He forfieted that when He took on flesh.

jesus was/is God and man, so while omn earth in His human flesh body, he limited Himself, as he chose to not know all things, that he velied his deity, yet always remained God!

Are you saying that Jesus was not God while on earth?
Not God right now?

 

[Judith]

Also, Judith - not to be argumentative - but if Jesus retained his omnipotence while on earth as a man (healing, raising from the dead)....

....Why wouldn't he have retained his omniscience?

Colossians 2:9 says that in Jesus dwelt the fullness of God in bodily form.

Because scripture says He did not know everything.
Mark 13:32 If that was the only thing He did not know He could not be omniscient as omniscience requires knowing everything.

 

[Judith]

jesus was/is God and man, so while omn earth in His human flesh body, he limited Himself, as he chose to not know all things, that he velied his deity, yet always remained God!

Are you saying that Jesus was not God while on earth?
Not God right now?

Are you saying that Jesus was wrong about Mark 13:32

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Because scripture says He did not know everything.
Mark 13:32 If that was the only thing He did not know He could not be omniscient as omniscience requires knowing everything.

Foolishness. The Greek word is huios and is restricted in usage regarding Jesus to identifying His human side, and has no reference whatsoever to Him as God. He was both fully God, and fully man, and at times spoke from only one of those perspectives, and did so from both perspectives. He never gave up anything of His deity, but as stated by Paul ...

Philippians 2, NASB
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.​

The word "grasped" is the Greek harpagmos and literally means to "seize, as in robbery." He did not rob God of His Deity, as He was Deity with the Father. "Emptied" is used very specifically here, the Greek kenoo carrying the meaning "to make to no effect." That doesn't mean He did not have the knowledge, He simply did not avail Himself of the knowledge. This is a well-known false doctrine you are speaking of here, that Jesus "lost" His omniscience. It is at best marlarky, and at worst heresy.

 

[Judith]

Foolishness. The Greek word is huios and is restricted in usage regarding Jesus to identifying His human side, and has no reference whatsoever to Him as God. He was both fully God, and fully man, and at times spoke from only one of those perspectives, and did so from both perspectives. He never gave up anything of His deity, but as stated by Paul ...

Philippians 2, NASB
5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.​

The word "grasped" is the Greek harpagmos and literally means to "seize, as in robbery." He did not rob God of His Deity, as He was Deity with the Father. "Emptied" is used very specifically here, the Greek kenoo carrying the meaning "to make to no effect." That doesn't mean He did not have the knowledge, He simply did not avail Himself of the knowledge. This is a well-known false doctrine you are speaking of here, that Jesus "lost" His omniscience. It is at best marlarky, and at worst heresy.

God is omnipresent. Was Jesus Omnipresent while in the flesh?

 

[Yeshua1]

God is omnipresent. Was Jesus Omnipresent while in the flesh?

that was due to Him accepting the limitations of becoming a Human man, as he had his kenosis time while here on Earth, remember that Jesus in Gospel of John prayed to the father to have His glory reassume once he accomplished His mission on earth and went back to the father?

the Transfiguration shows us how he really is, as he veiled his deity to come as a Human and walk among us!

Do you think Jesus was God while on earth, and right now in heaven?

 

[Judith]

Edited double post

 

[Judith]

that was due to Him accepting the limitations of becoming a Human man, as he had his kenosis time while here on Earth, remember that Jesus in Gospel of John prayed to the father to have His glory reassume once he accomplished His mission on earth and went back to the father?

the Transfiguration shows us how he really is, as he veiled his deity to come as a Human and walk among us!

Do you think Jesus was God while on earth, and right now in heaven?

You make my point. He was not omnipresent nor was He omniscient. He was limited because of taking on flesh. Jesus was and is OT Jehovah, but had limitations while in the flesh. So the suggestion about the woman taken in adultery is false. He was obeying the law not acting on omniscience.
So as I said Jesus told the to stone her just like scripture says and He was not showing her mercy. He was obeying the law and under the law He could not condemn her as He did not personally catch her in the sin and her accusers had all left.
To condemn her it took at least two witness'. The Lord was simply obeying the law.

 

[Yeshua1]

You make my point. He was not omnipresent nor was He omniscient. He was limited because of taking on flesh. Jesus was and is OT Jehovah, but had limitations while in the flesh. So the suggestion about the woman taken in adultery is false. He was obeying the law not acting on omniscience.
So as I said Jesus told the to stone her just like scripture says and He was not showing her mercy. He was obeying the law and under the law He could not condemn her as He did not personally catch her in the sin and her accusers had all left.
To condemn her it took at least two witness'. The Lord was simply obeying the law.

actually, Jesus was showing them that as God, he could get to the Spirit of the law, while they were stuck in the letter of it!

just as the law demanded death of King david, but God in Grace saved and spared his life, jesus spared the woman caught in adultery...

just as He told them" you have heard Moses say to you, but I say to you"...

While under the adminisration of the Law in Isreal, those sins demanded death, but now under the Covenant of grace thru Yeshua, we were tobe under the Spirit of that Law!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

God is omnipresent. Was Jesus Omnipresent while in the flesh?

Yes. No doubt about it. Any quotation from Him you may try to cite as seeming to negate His omniscience is made only from His human perspective and not from His deity.