Nazaroo
New member
ALREADY ANSWERED, in Post #1:
The Rape Law (Deut. 22:26,27) In point of fact, the Pharisees had it wrong. Catching a woman in the act is not enough to put a woman to death: its only enough to put the man to death. Even under O.T. Law (Torah), the establishment of the woman's guilt must take into account the possibility of rape: "But you shall do nothing to the young woman;..." Jesus had every right to demand a lot more than just their word that they 'caught her in the act'. What was needed under the Law was clear evidence of her willing compliance in the act of fornication. the benefit of the doubt is given to her, "that there is in her no sin worthy of death,..." and it is taken for granted that, "the betrothed young woman screamed, and there was no one to save her." (Deut. 22:26,27) The so-called 'Rape-Law' is worded in such a way as to make this plain. The concern of the Law is the woman's willing complicity, and if there is no eye-witnesses or convincing circumstances that prove she willingly conspired with the man, she must be released, even though the man is put to death in any case. The "country/city" clause in the Law has the obvious purpose of establishing common-sense conditions that protect a woman from both rape and the double-jeopardy of false accusations after the fact: "If the young virgin was betrothed, Even though 'technically' they might claim this woman was "in the city", such a literal interpretation of the Law would be a monstrous breach of its intent. Obviously it could not apply fairly to a mute woman or someone who was gagged, threatened with a knife, or even blackmailed, to name just a few examples. and a man...lays with her in the city, ...you shall stone them both to death... but if in the countryside the man forces her, then the man only shall die... for she [obviously] cried out, and there was no one to save her." (Deut. 22:23-25) The blind letter of the law can obviously kill. Above all, God always insists that judges exercise righteous judgement, and uphold the intent of the law, not look for loopholes. Even putting all questions of compassion, mercy, and grace through repentance aside, Jesus would certainly demand that they "Judge not by mere appearance, but judge righteous (true) judgment." (Jn 7:24). Plainly, the woman could not be put to death without a thorough inquiry. There could be no 'off the cuff' ruling possible in these circumstances, in spite of the claims or wishes of the Pharisees and scribes. And without further evidence, the Law required the woman's release, guilty or not. Due Process Unfortunately, the Law did require a thorough inquiry. Due process is required, of which it can be assumed the scribes and Pharisees were perfectly aware. This was of course maintained by practice and tradition. Lynching of any kind is expressly forbidden (Exod. 23:1,2). The Pharisees had protected themselves from this charge by publicly acknowledging Jesus as a Teacher of the Law, calling him 'Didaskaleh' (Rabbi) (Isa 29:13), and appealing for a Special Judgement under Deuteronomy 17:8-13. This meant that they had to abide by Jesus' decision under penalty of death: and this was also in itself an admission that they lacked the necessary witnesses for a straightforward trial: For otherwise they could not stray to the right or left of the Law (Num. 20:17, 22:26, Deut.2:27, 5:32, 17:11-20, 28:14). This brought everyone present under Deuteronomy 19:18-19, which commanded Jesus as Judge to make a full inquiry and punish false witnesses with the sentence intended for their victim, in this case the death penalty. Jesus certainly had the sympathy and control of a large part of the crowd, and the situation was not without danger for the scribes and Pharisees also. - Nazaroo "I believe it would be generally accepted that the episode has never been adequately explained. Why was the woman brought by the Pharisees and scribes to Jesus? We are told that it was "to try him" or "to tempt him". What can this mean? What Was the Real Trap? The usual explanation is that this is connected with the Sanhedrin’s loss of power to inflict the death penalty. I am not convinced that the Romans had taken from the Sanhedrin the power to impose the penalty of death, but let us take the worst case scenario for me and assume they had. The argument is, I suppose, that if Jesus said the woman should be stoned, then he would offend the Romans, and be in danger. This approach to the issue I find unconvincing. Why on earth would the Romans be angered if Jesus, a private individual, claimed that an adulteress should be stoned? He would not even be insisting that a verdict of the Sanhedrin should be enforced. There had been none. Even more to the point, on this approach the Pharisees are putting themselves, not Jesus, at risk with the Romans. It is they who claim that the law of Moses that they follow imposes the penalty of death by stoning. They even said "Moses commanded us (ημιν) to stone such women". The supposed scenario and its explanation are entirely implausible." - Alan Watson The Other Adulterer: Where is He? Another important question is often raised by commentators, namely, Where is the man? It obviously takes two to commit adultery (or at least fornication: see Matt. 5:27-28!). The question is good, but how it is handled usually isn't: It is used as 'evidence' that the scribes and Pharisees are either guilty of hypocrisy or some more heineous crime, like entrapment or that they are guilty of adultery themselves. To make such an accusation on such flimsy evidence however, is exactly what we are NOT supposed to do, according to the Lord (John 7:24 for instance!), nor would it be admissable in a courtroom. Nor should the absence of the man be grounds for doubt regarding the historical accuracy of the passage. There can be many good explanations for his absence. Derrett has made an elaborate case supporting the idea that the trial was already finished, and the Pharisees were on their way from there to the stoning. Other possibilities should be considered. They may have already stoned the man or killed him in the process of 'arrest' (...especially if the husband had caught them, this would be a common enough circumstance!). His guilt was certain if caught in the act. Only the woman need be brought before Jesus for an opinion. This Bird has Flown... The most obvious possibility of all, is that the man fled, escaping his discoverer. He need not be stronger, only faster, and it is far easier for a suspect to flee a scene than for an opponent to secure him. The adulterer would have the advantage and be on the lookout for discovery. An unsuspecting husband would have no such warning. The woman, with fewer options and resources, would be far easier to catch. Again, if they had taken the case to the Romans, they may have taken the prisoner themselves for whipping or prison, but declined to process the woman, turning her back to them for punishment. The Romans had no death penalty for adultery, and might have simply commanded that she be flogged by the Jews. Once free of the watchful Roman eye, they would proceed their own way. In the end, the absence of the man is a significant fact that would require an explanation, and also further inquiry before sentencing the girl. But its not one that necessarily incriminates the Pharisees and scribes. Commentators frequently push this too far. - Nazaroo |
