Penalties

[Mark]

How do Messianic believers deal with the requirement of punishment and penalties given in : stonings, burnings and restitution?

[Chizuk Emunah]

I would say that the penalties can only be imposed when living in a Theocracy in HaEretz.

[inthewind]

Q. Why did Yeshua not apply the required penalty, as in the adultress.

If the penalty for sin has been paid, is it no longer an issue. That of course does not make sense, or there would be no punishment for any societal crimes?

[Mark]

"Due Process" is as much a requirement of as is the exactment of penalties. Dueteronomy 17:6 tells us that one person's word is not enough to convict a person of a crime exacting death. You must have at least two witnesses.

We really don't know what Yeshua wrote in the sand in John 8:3-7. We know that whatever He did write effectively disqualified the witnesses. My personal thought is that He referenced Leviticus 18. The Hillelic interpretation of this passage defines "brother" as any fellow Hebrew. This would imply that the witnesses who went in to find this woman in the act of adultery were sinning by purposefully going in to see the nakedness of their "brother's" wife. The witnesses could not bare testimony without exposing themselves.

In Deuteronomy 21 and 22, we see the role of the elders (rulers or patriarchs) of the city in all cases of judgment. The end of (the goal) is love out of a pure heart- sometimes this requires a hard moral position; but never vigilantyism. Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 tells us that when Israel falls under judgment, she will be placed under the rulership of her enemies. In Jeremiah 17:4 she is commanded to submit to the rulership of her enemies as result of that curse. This same condition was recognized by the leadership of Israel in John 18:31. They were allowed to practice their faith up to a point; but only within the limitations afforded to them by Rome. Based upon the above passages mentioned, this position was legitimized as still being obedient.

Establishing a "beit din" or a house of judgment has been the subject of much debate among the Messianic community. It is not at all unlike the establishment of a Sanhedrin within modern Israel. Sure, it can be done; but its only relevence exists within the minds of those who hold it relevent. The fractured nature of the community, the failure of every governing or managing entity to extend credibility to it disqualifies its validity. Therefore, we can have no exactment of punishment for crimes against because we have no relevant leadership structure to fill the necessary positions to exact that punishment.

[Golfnerd]

inthewind said:

Q. Why did Yeshua not apply the required penalty, as in the adultress.

If the penalty for sin has been paid, is it no longer an issue. That of course does not make sense, or there would be no punishment for any societal crimes?

Yeshua did not accuse the adultress because the accusation wasn't done properly according to - BOTH parties are to be brought forth - not just her. Secondly, after His statement to the accusers, there were NO witnesses left, therefore truth can't be established. Thirdly, since she was caught in the act, how many of them watched for a bit before they dragged her out? Fourthly, what was Yeshua writing in the sand?

What say you?

[inthewind]

What say you?

I think these are all good answers and would nulify the satements that the has been done away with.

Shabbat Shalom

[Elizabeth]

Could Yeshua have condemned her as He is G-d and sinless? Maybe the number of witnesses would be a problem technically and in the eyes of the people. However, He goes on to tell her to sin no more after saying He doesn't condemn her so it leads me to wonder the same thing there as well. I don't know what was going on with the writing in the sand, maybe a from dust to dust truth referenced and contrasted with the creative and redemptive power of Yeshua's hand? I don't know, but I think His pardoning of her reaches further than the limitations of the witnesses. What are other people's thoughts and perspectives on this passage and its application for us? There is a lot more going on here than I have the knowledge to understand, but ultimately, G-d chooses to pardon and forgive. That's something I know. How is that reflected in the penalties found in instructions? I understand the need to protect and preserve people from the contamination of sin, but as a human being, I also understand the need for mercy and second chances. I have a hard time with this topic.

[alon]

This is a passage many people have problems with; and as usual it can be traced to our Christian upbringing and their lack of understanding.

First off, this was not a proper court, as the Sanhedrin was not seated. This was some of the leaders trying to involve Yeshua in a kangaroo court and trick Him into sinning. If He condemned her, He was committing a crime, instigating what would have amounted to murder. If He let her go free, He would have been accused of condoning her unfaithfulness.

As someone else said, her husband (the aggrieved party) was not present. It was he who would have been required to "cast the first stone." And since he was not even there to condemn her, this in itself was questionable.

As to what was written in the sand, it is not recorded. However my guess would be He wrote the names of the men who had brought her to Him. This was the man who out of all the proclaimed messiah's was the most likely to BE the Messiah! He claimed to be God Himself! And as he writes, they recalled the scripture:

Jeremiah 17:13 (ESV) O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to ; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.

Then He says in effect "You just sinned. Go ahead and throw your rock; I'm watching ..."

As to His forgiving the woman, she was not convicted of any crime, so temporally there was nothing to forgive. But as HaMoshiach, He knew first off if she was guilty, and secondly whether she was truly repentant. Had she been guilty and thinking of getting back to her lover, my guess is He'd have written her name as well and sent her on her way with a heavy heart, knowing she'd stand before Him again in judgment.

Dan C

[alon]

An interesting side note to this passage is it is what is referred to as an "orphaned text." It is not in the book of John in the earliest manuscripts. In some manuscripts it appears in other gospels and in Acts. And in fact, the earliest known reference to it by a "church father" was by none other than Didymus the Blind (@313- 398 CE). Now there's a recommendation for its being there!  He states (paraphrased- I couldn't find the direct quote) 'We find in certain gospels an episode in which a woman was accused of a sin, and was about to be stoned, but Jesus intervened and said to those who were about to cast stones, ‘He who has not sinned, let him take a stone and throw it. If anyone is conscious in himself not to have sinned, let him take a stone and smite her.’ And no one dared.'

Look up "Didiscala Apostolorum" and you can find several histories of this text- some of them may even agree!

Dan C

edit: I've talked about this with Christian pastors. Most know of it, or have at least heard of it. None really understand it. They all wonder how I know it ... I just tell them "I am Messianic- we know everything!"  This is another fun fact they do not want their congregations to know, as it could bring the legitimacy of their Bibles into question. We however don't just question and leave it at that; we seek to understand! Our faith as Meshiachim can withstand the questions arising from the many anomalies in the "Greek New Testament." Because we understand, we believe. Some scholars have argued to have this passage removed. I'm not a scholar, so I am not inclined to remove anything from my Bible. This passage, when properly understood, does not violate anything in scripture, and in fact does teach some interesting lessons. So I say leave it in, but understand as much as we can about it.

[garrett]

Feb 6, 2016 3:47:37 GMT -8 alon said:

This is a passage many people have problems with; and as usual it can be traced to our Christian upbringing and their lack of understanding.

First off, this was not a proper court, as the Sanhedrin was not seated. This was some of the leaders trying to involve Yeshua in a kangaroo court and trick Him into sinning. If He condemned her, He was committing a crime, instigating what would have amounted to murder. If He let her go free, He would have been accused of condoning her unfaithfulness.

As someone else said, her husband (the aggrieved party) was not present. It was he who would have been required to "cast the first stone." And since he was not even there to condemn her, this in itself was questionable.

As to what was written in the sand, it is not recorded. However my guess would be He wrote the names of the men who had brought her to Him. This was the man who out of all the proclaimed messiah's was the most likely to BE the Messiah! He claimed to be God Himself! And as he writes, they recalled the scripture:

Jeremiah 17:13 (ESV) O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to ; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.

Then He says in effect "You just sinned. Go ahead and throw your rock; I'm watching ..."

As to His forgiving the woman, she was not convicted of any crime, so temporally there was nothing to forgive. But as HaMoshiach, He knew first off if she was guilty, and secondly whether she was truly repentant. Had she been guilty and thinking of getting back to her lover, my guess is He'd have written her name as well and sent her on her way with a heavy heart, knowing she'd stand before Him again in judgment.

Dan C

I think that a combination of what we think about this holds some truth inside of it. You're right - this was indeed a last minute kangaroo court/gotcha/catch-22 situation that a group of fools were trying to pull off. The accusers didn't even respect the Sanhedrin themselves. Incredible. That alone says a lot about the weak case for the "prosecuting attorney." Second, the man involved in the adultery was apparently not present. That says even more.

The woman accused of adultery, be she an adulterer or not, is a sinner already. Supposedly she was caught in something...but I often suspect that things weren't as they seem. I may be going out on a limb but what were her circumstances? Was she being extorted, blackmailed, covering something up by giving herself over? Or perhaps, she was just plainly sinning.

Either way, ALL present were sinners, those with the stones and the woman. After dealing with her accusers he told her to go and sin no more. I've noticed that Yeshua said this to a lot of people. He would heal a person and then instruct the individual to quit sinning. He dealt the same with her.

It looks to me like he neutralized the situation by dealing with an entire group of guilty parties by presenting them with truth, backed by the Law, which then results in guilt and for those who transgress the Law. So everyone departed.

garrett