PDA

View Full Version : Jesus the Sinner?



Andromeda12
Jun 18th 2008, 09:54 AM
In the Gospel of John, there is a woman brought before Jesus 'caught in the very act of committing adultery'. The punishment for this by law was stoning.

Jesus said "Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone."
As someone who had never committed sin, should not have Jesus have been the first to throw a stone?
Or was Jesus a fallible mortal like us who sinned on a regular basis?

ShirleyFord
Jun 18th 2008, 10:28 AM
2 Cor 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Even though Jesus was mortal in that He took on flesh and blood, He was not born a sinner. He was God before He was conceived in the womb of the virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost. And didn't cease to be God.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


So why didn't Jesus stone the woman taken in adultry if He had no sin?

He was speaking to the men who brought the woman to Him. Let's look at the Scripture:

John 8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


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


Shirley

Studyin'2Show
Jun 18th 2008, 11:00 AM
Actually, according to the Law of Moses, the FIRST thrower would had to have been one of the witnesses to the incident (who had no part in it - no sin). Understanding the entire context of the account gives you much more clarity. ;) So, no, Yeshua should NOT have thrown a stone (lawfully) because he was not one of those that caught her in the very act, though He was completely free of sin. :D

God Bless!

Mark F
Jun 18th 2008, 11:35 AM
Ever notice that those who "caught and brought" the woman did not bring the man?

crawfish
Jun 18th 2008, 01:42 PM
The story is probably a bit deeper than that.

How do you suppose that the woman was caught in the first place? It was at a time when they conveniently knew where Jesus was. Law required that they catch the woman in the act before they stoned her - could it have been a setup? Could the man she was sleeping with have been in on it, or at least coerced into it? Could they have known exactly when and where the adultery was about to take place, and lay in wait for it to reach a critical moment before grabbing her?

If that is the case, then every single man who dragged that woman in front of Jesus was guilty of breaking multiple laws. Jesus knew that. His question wasn't just "those of you without sin", but "those of you who didn't sin in bringing her in front of me"!

The law did not require sinlessness of one who cast stones; it was an act of justice. The scribes and Pharisees could not, however, justify throwing the stones because they had been sinful in the act themselves; just as in modern courts, evidence gained through improper means might be thrown out.

theleast
Jun 18th 2008, 01:46 PM
The story is probably a bit deeper than that.

How do you suppose that the woman was caught in the first place? It was at a time when they conveniently knew where Jesus was. Law required that they catch the woman in the act before they stoned her - could it have been a setup? Could the man she was sleeping with have been in on it, or at least coerced into it? Could they have known exactly when and where the adultery was about to take place, and lay in wait for it to reach a critical moment before grabbing her?

If that is the case, then every single man who dragged that woman in front of Jesus was guilty of breaking multiple laws. Jesus knew that. His question wasn't just "those of you without sin", but "those of you who didn't sin in bringing her in front of me"!

The law did not require sinlessness of one who cast stones; it was an act of justice. The scribes and Pharisees could not, however, justify throwing the stones because they had been sinful in the act themselves; just as in modern courts, evidence gained through improper means might be thrown out.

Kinda adding onto the word a bit I'd say. They didn't need a huge setup, Christ went to exactly where he needed to be. So it doesn't matter whether they did or didn't set it up for the lesson to remain. Christ was completely free of sin and one of his lessons to us is to judge not lest we be judged by the judgement with which WE judge.

Christ did not sin, I don't see anywhere in the OT law where it states a passerby must join in on any mob that is gathered for the purpose of a stoning.

9Marksfan
Jun 18th 2008, 01:51 PM
The problem remains - she was still guilty, yet Jesus did not condemn her. Why? Was he ignoring God's law? No - the sin required punishment - and the woman deserved to be punished. But Jesus (as God) was the ONLY Being in the universe who could deal with her sin IN ANOTHER WAY. He was shortly to be punished for her sin on the cross, dying in her place - it's on THAT basis that he is able to pronounce her free from condemnation and forgive her - notice, however, that he commands her to SIN NO MORE........

crawfish
Jun 18th 2008, 01:55 PM
Kinda adding onto the word a bit I'd say. They didn't need a huge setup, Christ went to exactly where he needed to be. So it doesn't matter whether they did or didn't set it up for the lesson to remain. Christ was completely free of sin and one of his lessons to us is to judge not lest we be judged by the judgement with which WE judge.

Christ did not sin, I don't see anywhere in the OT law where it states a passerby must join in on any mob that is gathered for the purpose of a stoning.

I'll have to look up the OT law being referenced here...but it did make more sense in that context. Admittedly, the first part is speculation based on what Jesus' words could have meant; but it does seem likely, since the first man COULD have thrown the first stone had he caught her honestly.

Now that I've re-read the thread, I see that Studyin'ToShow posted essentially the same thing. Sorry for not reading the entire thread first. :)

longtooth
Jun 18th 2008, 02:55 PM
No where did the law preclude grace. That was always an option.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 18th 2008, 07:56 PM
Here's the scripture that describes who is to initiate a stoning.

Deuteronomy 17:6-7
6 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. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

It's pretty specific that it MUST be more than just one witness and that only those witnesses can begin to throw stones. After that anyone can join in. There are actually so may levels of our Lord's character that we see here. As has been said, it clearly shows His mercy and grace, yet it also shows that He was indeed lawful in ALL His ways (NO SIN!)

crawfish
Jun 18th 2008, 09:05 PM
Here's the scripture that describes who is to initiate a stoning.

Deuteronomy 17:6-7
6 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. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

It's pretty specific that it MUST be more than just one witness and that only those witnesses can begin to throw stones. After that anyone can join in. There are actually so may levels of our Lord's character that we see here. As has been said, it clearly shows His mercy and grace, yet it also shows that He was indeed lawful in ALL His ways (NO SIN!)

Thanks! I was going to look that up when I got home (and after VBS)...really. :D

9Marksfan
Jun 18th 2008, 09:22 PM
No where did the law preclude grace. That was always an option.

But breaking the law ALWAYS required punishment or atonement - agreed?

Zack702
Jun 18th 2008, 10:15 PM
Understand people that in the days of Moses hardly anyone knew how to read or write. Understand that they were rude and barbaric and the only way to show them how to be civil was by fear (fear of being stoned to death).

And the times of fear are a preparation for the times of love.

If I say to you that you are to stone a sinner so I can prove your heart.
And you straight away stone that one to death without remorse.
I'd say the greed in your heart has won over the love.

This I gather was the problem that the people were stoning for greed and there was no love found in them but much greed.

Because if they had love in there heart that love would not allow them to cast a stone unless they are the avenger of death (who's love of the lost drives them).

davidandme
Jun 18th 2008, 10:57 PM
Great question! No, Jesus never sinned. He was just making a point. Besides, Jesus did not want to stone the woman. They did.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 19th 2008, 12:12 AM
But breaking the law ALWAYS required punishment or atonement - agreed?It still does, wouldn't you agree? All sin has a price and it is death. Thankfully, for all those who accept Yeshua, that price has already been paid. :pp However, something many don't recognize is that though mercy was not mandated in the OT, it still was acceptable. I believe God expected His people to do like Moses did and to stand in the gap to show mercy, even when that meant they were putting there own necks on the line. Look at this passage.

Exodus 32:30-32
30 Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” 31 Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, “Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! 32 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.”

How awesome and full of grace is that? Moses did not sin at all in this yet he was willing to be blotted out of God's book so that mercy would be shown to the people. That could not have been some easy thing to say. I believe it shows that God has always desired mercy. Mankind must know that there is indeed a steep price to pay for sin but we should all be willing to stand in the gap for our neighbor. That is the heart of God now isn't it? ;)

God Bless!

9Marksfan
Jun 19th 2008, 08:53 AM
It still does, wouldn't you agree? All sin has a price and it is death. Thankfully, for all those who accept Yeshua, that price has already been paid. :pp However, something many don't recognize is that though mercy was not mandated in the OT, it still was acceptable. I believe God expected His people to do like Moses did and to stand in the gap to show mercy, even when that meant they were putting there own necks on the line. Look at this passage.

Exodus 32:30-32
30 Now it came to pass on the next day that Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. So now I will go up to the LORD; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” 31 Then Moses returned to the LORD and said, “Oh, these people have committed a great sin, and have made for themselves a god of gold! 32 Yet now, if You will forgive their sin—but if not, I pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written.”

How awesome and full of grace is that? Moses did not sin at all in this yet he was willing to be blotted out of God's book so that mercy would be shown to the people. That could not have been some easy thing to say. I believe it shows that God has always desired mercy. Mankind must know that there is indeed a steep price to pay for sin but we should all be willing to stand in the gap for our neighbor. That is the heart of God now isn't it? ;)

God Bless!

Great post - and I agree wholeheartedly. I think one of the reasons God did not comply with Moses' request was because he was sinful and could therefore not be a perfect substitute - only Christ could fulfil that role and he was made a curse for us - made sin for us - awesome........

Friend of I AM
Jun 19th 2008, 08:47 PM
In the Gospel of John, there is a woman brought before Jesus 'caught in the very act of committing adultery'. The punishment for this by law was stoning.

Jesus said "Whichever one of you has committed no sin may throw the first stone."
As someone who had never committed sin, should not have Jesus have been the first to throw a stone?
Or was Jesus a fallible mortal like us who sinned on a regular basis?

Jesus was not acting as her accuser in this scenario, which is why he did not lift up any stones to throw at her. Remember he stated to her "Woman where are your accusers?"

He also stated "God doesn't condemn you, and neither do I" after her accussers left, thus signifying that He was/is indeed God, and that in the end he is truly the only one who has the right to accuse/condemn.

But being that Jesus did not come to condemn, he once again demonstrated God's mercy on the woman, as well as those who were accusing her.

matthew94
Jun 19th 2008, 09:00 PM
I think the idea that Jesus was not a witness and, therefore, could not cast the first stone, while technically accurate, misses the point of the passage. Would any of us actually imagine that, if Jesus HAD been a witness, that He WOULD HAVE initiated the stoning? The point of the passage is that the law was not meant to turn people into judges. God is the judge.

crawfish
Jun 19th 2008, 09:23 PM
I think the idea that Jesus was not a witness and, therefore, could not cast the first stone, while technically accurate, misses the point of the passage. Would any of us actually imagine that, if Jesus HAD been a witness, that He WOULD HAVE initiated the stoning? The point of the passage is that the law was not meant to turn people into judges. God is the judge.

As usual, Jesus used this opportunity to transcend the law; what the Pharisees and scribes saw as a black-and-white matter, Jesus saw as a matter of grace. They saw a woman who deserved to be stoned; Jesus saw a crowd of people that were as guilty of breaking the law as the woman they brought before him, and a woman worthy of saving.

No question he wouldn't have initiated the stoning no matter what. Knowing the law helps us understand just how much Jesus understood the law; far more than those against him.

Studyin'2Show
Jun 19th 2008, 10:26 PM
I think the idea that Jesus was not a witness and, therefore, could not cast the first stone, while technically accurate, misses the point of the passage. Would any of us actually imagine that, if Jesus HAD been a witness, that He WOULD HAVE initiated the stoning? The point of the passage is that the law was not meant to turn people into judges. God is the judge.I don't believe it's about missing the point, but rather seeing the whole picture and not focusing on only one facet. Unfortunately, many people read this passage without understanding the complete context and think that it means they can keep sinning without consequence and I think you'd agree that is not the point either. It's amazing how many remember the passage when attempting to justify their own sin but not that He tells the woman to go and sin no more.

God Bless!

Oma
Jun 20th 2008, 02:43 AM
I also see here a setup by the Pharisees to see if they could get the Lord Jesus into trouble in order to get rid of Him. If He said,"yes, she is guilty and deserves to die", He would be setting Himself up as judge and His enemies would gleefully have gone to report Him to the Romans. On the other hand, if He said she was not guilty the Pharisees would have accused him of disregarding the Law. The Lord answered in such a wise way as only He could and confounded His enemies once again.

crawfish
Jun 20th 2008, 02:51 AM
I don't believe it's about missing the point, but rather seeing the whole picture and not focusing on only one facet. Unfortunately, many people read this passage without understanding the complete context and think that it means they can keep sinning without consequence and I think you'd agree that is not the point either. It's amazing how many remember the passage when attempting to justify their own sin but not that He tells the woman to go and sin no more.

God Bless!

You said it...the "cast the first stone" passage, along with the "judge not" passage, are the most well-known scriptures; but 90% of the people that quote them have no idea what context in which they were delivered. Nor do they seem to care when you tell them. :)