Failed execution of female murderer

[shepherdsword]

I don't think Matthew 25:30 addresses the point I raised. Christ's final judgment of souls and the state's execution of criminals are not the same thing.

The woman caught in adultery wasn't state sponsored. A women taken in adultery would be taken before local elders or a Jewish court: An accusation could be brought before local judicial authorities. The Torah describes judges and elders handling legal disputes (Deuteronomy 19:15–18).or before the Jerusalem authorities in certain cases: Later Jewish legal traditions describe suspected adultery cases being referred to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The Mishnah, Sotah 1:3–4, discusses this procedure.

They would sometimes taken to the Temple in the specific ordeal described in Numbers 5:11–31: This was a distinct procedure for a husband who suspected his wife of adultery but lacked proof. It was not the standard destination for every woman caught in the act.

In this case,they had a lynch mob take her to Jesus, who was teaching in the temple and not operating in an official priestly capacity. The whole event was to snare him so he could be accused.

 

[Moonwood]

The woman caught in adultery wasn't state sponsored. A women taken in adultery would be taken before local elders or a Jewish court: An accusation could be brought before local judicial authorities. The Torah describes judges and elders handling legal disputes (Deuteronomy 19:15–18).or before the Jerusalem authorities in certain cases: Later Jewish legal traditions describe suspected adultery cases being referred to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. The Mishnah, Sotah 1:3–4, discusses this procedure.

They would sometimes taken to the Temple in the specific ordeal described in Numbers 5:11–31: This was a distinct procedure for a husband who suspected his wife of adultery but lacked proof. It was not the standard destination for every woman caught in the act.

In this case,they had a lynch mob take her to Jesus, who was teaching in the temple and not operating in an official priestly capacity. The whole event was to snare him so he could be accused.

I agree that the accusers were acting in bad faith and that the whole situation was meant to trap Jesus. But I don't see how that addresses the point I'm making. The woman was still guilty. Christ never denied that. Nor did He declare adultery acceptable or claim that the Law treated it unjustly. In fact, the issue was never whether her sin was real. It was. Yet when a guilty sinner stood before Him facing a death prescribed by the Law, Christ's first concern was not to ensure her execution but to confront the hearts of those seeking to condemn her:

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."

He exposed their hypocrisy, caused them to examine themselves, and when they left, He gave the woman an opportunity to repent:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

So whether the accusers were a mob, local authorities, or people attempting to trap Him doesn't really answer my question.

My question is about Christ's response. Why, when confronted with a genuinely guilty sinner facing death, did He choose to spare her and leave open the possibility of conversion rather than insist that her death be carried out?

I am not arguing that authority does not exist or that punishment is always illegitimate. I am asking why Christ's example of mercy toward a guilty sinner should carry less weight for Christians than appeals to the authority to punish.

If Christians are called to imitate Christ, then surely His willingness to give a sinner time for repentance and salvation is relevant to what we ought to desire even for the guilty. That's the point I'm asking you to address.

 

[Wrangler]

I don't deny that Christians have responsibilities beyond evangelism or that citizens have obligations toward maintaining civil order. What I'm questioning is the assumption that maintaining order requires supporting execution.

Because it's actually the law, it's not an assumption. It's like saying, I'm questioning the assumption that you have to believe Jesus is the Son of God to be saved.

 

[shepherdsword]

I agree that the accusers were acting in bad faith and that the whole situation was meant to trap Jesus. But I don't see how that addresses the point I'm making. The woman was still guilty. Christ never denied that. Nor did He declare adultery acceptable or claim that the Law treated it unjustly. In fact, the issue was never whether her sin was real. It was. Yet when a guilty sinner stood before Him facing a death prescribed by the Law, Christ's first concern was not to ensure her execution but to confront the hearts of those seeking to condemn her:

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."

He exposed their hypocrisy, caused them to examine themselves, and when they left, He gave the woman an opportunity to repent:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

So whether the accusers were a mob, local authorities, or people attempting to trap Him doesn't really answer my question.

My question is about Christ's response. Why, when confronted with a genuinely guilty sinner facing death, did He choose to spare her and leave open the possibility of conversion rather than insist that her death be carried out?

I am not arguing that authority does not exist or that punishment is always illegitimate. I am asking why Christ's example of mercy toward a guilty sinner should carry less weight for Christians than appeals to the authority to punish.

If Christians are called to imitate Christ, then surely His willingness to give a sinner time for repentance and salvation is relevant to what we ought to desire even for the guilty. That's the point I'm asking you to address.

No, it is not the same. Jesus wasn't presiding over a judicial court. He was addressing a lynch mob. The woman may have been guilty, but she was not officially found so. The woman who tortured and murdered her friend WAS found guilty and sentenced. The penalty is clear. While the death sentence is not something we enforce with glee. It is mandated by the word of God for those that shed blood. We pray for her soul and hope for her salvation but there is nothing we can do about the judgement she has already received. Personally, I would like to see her sentence commuted to life imprisonment, but many disagree. I can understand why.

 

[Wrangler]

No, it is not the same. Jesus wasn't presiding over a judicial court. He was addressing a lynch mob.

Excellent point! I never thought about that.

He exposed their hypocrisy, caused them to examine themselves

Not sure that event shows hypocrisy; No one has to be perfect to realize the errors of others. The take away of that event that I believe is that Christ was victorious on 2 dimensions:

1. He saw through their scheme to get the people to turn against them. The importance of this cannot be overstated. There are objects and subjects of a sentence. The adulterous was merely the object, the pretext they used to ensnare the Anointed. In that respect, it doesn’t matter what the facts of her case were; their intention was known and dealt with accordingly. The trap: say she should not be stoned and be exposed for violating the law of Moses. Say she’s to be stoned and the people may turn on him.
2. The event expanded grace. Given the facts of her case, she stood before the prophet of God guilty, deserving death. Moses, Samuel, David and Elijah were other prophets who killed. I believe we over look the peril the woman remained in after everyone left. As @shepherdsword pointed out, Jesus was dealing with a lynch mob. He could have killed her himself OR brought her to the judicial court to pronounce sentence. Instead, he released her. Amazing grace!

 

[Wrangler]

If you agree that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done, and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter, then we agree with that principle.

Agreed.

My concern is that discussions about punishment often focus exclusively on the crime while overlooking what Christ cared deeply about: repentance, restoration, and the salvation of the sinner.

We need to stay in our lane! The questions before us are: is she guilty of murder? Has the sentence been carried out? That is, has justice been done?

To talk about all this other stuff is besides the point. My 5 yo granddaughter has learned to attempt to side step justice by coming up with excuses. Just recently, her mother told her not to eat candy. 1 minute later she opened up a piece of candy. I spoke as the voice of justice in establishing the relevant facts?

1. Did you mother tell you not to eat candy?
2. Did you eat candy?

Simple. And loaded with gravitas, the weight of sin. Knowing I disregarded all her excuses, she cried under the weight of truth.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

She was given two doses of what was supposed to kill her. She's still alive and was taken to a hospital.

So keep doing it till they get it right. When one takes another life intentionally- they must forfeit their life. That law was given to Noah and never revoked!

 

[Scott Downey]

Only Jesus can judge the world righteously, men are imperfect.
But men are also to do His will, and we know what the Law of God says.
And this is in accordance with the glorious Gospel of the blessed God.

This life in the flesh is not the final life.

1 Timothy 1
8 But we know that the law is good if a man use it lawfully,

9 knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

10 for whoremongers, for those who defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjurers, and for whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine

11 according to the glorious Gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust.

 

[Jack]

So keep doing it till they get it right.

Wow! From a 'Christian'???

When one takes another life intentionally- they must forfeit their life.

But you can't prove it! So why are you wanting CORRUPT courts to MURDER!

That law was given to Noah and never revoked!

The LAW was given to Moses too. Do you execute gays, weekend workers, your family as Moses COMMANDED? Or do you just pick the parts you like?

 

[Wrangler]

But you can't prove it!

Dude! What standard of proof are you invoking, an impossible to meet one? In our society, the determination of a jury is considered proof.

So why are you wanting CORRUPT courts to MURDER!

Again, there’s a difference between killing and murder.

While I agree the courts are corrupt, one way we know she is guilty is that she admitted it. Or do you deny the accused can be a credible witness to a JURY (not courts) of her peers?

 

[Jack]

Dude! What standard of proof are you invoking, an impossible to meet one? In our society, the determination of a jury is considered proof.

Considered is not PROOF! Jurors LIE and are bribed! Threatened!!! Judges LIE! Prosecutors LIE!!! Witnesses LIE!!!

Again, there’s a difference between killing and murder.

And executing people because the CORRUPT 'legal' system says so is MURDER!

While I agree the courts are corrupt, one way we know she is guilty is that she admitted it. Or do you deny the accused can be a credible witness to a JURY (not courts) of her peers?

How do you know that she wasn't temporary insane??? You don't! You don't know what her life has been like! ONLY God knows!!! To execute her is MURDER! Put her in prison! Many have been exonerated after years in prison! Should they have been executed/MURDERED???

 

[Wrangler]

How do you know that she wasn't temporary insane???

I consider such a possibility irrelevant. Or more to the point, I consider all initiators of violence to be insane AND still responsible for their actions. In other words, guilty by reason of insanity.

 

[Jack]

I consider such a possibility irrelevant. Or more to the point, I consider all initiators of violence to be insane AND still responsible for their actions. In other words, guilty by reason of insanity.

You "consider" isn't proof to MURDER! And you don't even "consider" how CORRUPT the courts are??????????????????????? If you want to MURDER the guilty MURDER lying Judges, prosecutors and politicians! They are the MURDERERS!

 

[Wrangler]

Considered is not PROOF!

Jack, take your meds.

 

[Jack]

Jack, take your meds.

I do every day, the Bible. But I don't trust LYING judges, prosecutors and witnesses! And I don't want to be a MURDERER of innocents on Judgment Day!

James 2:13
13 He shall have judgment without mercy who has shown no mercy!

 

[amigo de christo]

I agree that the accusers were acting in bad faith and that the whole situation was meant to trap Jesus. But I don't see how that addresses the point I'm making. The woman was still guilty. Christ never denied that. Nor did He declare adultery acceptable or claim that the Law treated it unjustly. In fact, the issue was never whether her sin was real. It was. Yet when a guilty sinner stood before Him facing a death prescribed by the Law, Christ's first concern was not to ensure her execution but to confront the hearts of those seeking to condemn her:

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."

He exposed their hypocrisy, caused them to examine themselves, and when they left, He gave the woman an opportunity to repent:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

So whether the accusers were a mob, local authorities, or people attempting to trap Him doesn't really answer my question.

My question is about Christ's response. Why, when confronted with a genuinely guilty sinner facing death, did He choose to spare her and leave open the possibility of conversion rather than insist that her death be carried out?

I am not arguing that authority does not exist or that punishment is always illegitimate. I am asking why Christ's example of mercy toward a guilty sinner should carry less weight for Christians than appeals to the authority to punish.

If Christians are called to imitate Christ, then surely His willingness to give a sinner time for repentance and salvation is relevant to what we ought to desire even for the guilty. That's the point I'm asking you to address.

exactly . could anyone in here kill a guilty person .
Then lets not support execution either .
Cause what DID JESUS also tell pilate .
PILATE had said I have the power to crucify you or let you go .
And JESUS said you could have no power over me if it were not allowed .
THEREFORE the ones DELIVERING ME OVER UNTO YOU , have the GREATER SIN .
Some think just cause they aint the ones pulling the switch its okay to SUPPORT It . nope . not okay .
I would say Life in prison , NOT death . sure they need to pay for what they did .
BUT should we not all desire THEY REPENT and come to CHRIST , rather than THEIR DEATH . I would say so .

 

[amigo de christo]

So keep doing it till they get it right. When one takes another life intentionally- they must forfeit their life. That law was given to Noah and never revoked!

just dont follow noahide laws . its an invention of men . AND IT DARN Sure dont POINT TO JESUS CHRIST .
Now as far as the law . well if one does murder , SURE THEY are guilty of death .
However seeing i myself could not kill them and i dont support their death but rather hope they repent and come to Christ .
LIFE N PRISON sounds good enough a sentence for them . Not the death penality .
IF they asked any one of us to pull the switch and thus end their life . NO WAY could i do it
THUS i aint gonna play the hyrprocrite and have someone else do it f or me .
WIcked as they are , still i pray they repent and at least come to Christ and have eternal life .
Now before i get lectured that they dont deserve
Gods mercy and grace ,
WELL , NO ONE DOES . and all have been g uilty of breaking Gods laws and worthy of death .
SO may that SINK into some hearts tonight .

 

[amigo de christo]

I agree that the accusers were acting in bad faith and that the whole situation was meant to trap Jesus. But I don't see how that addresses the point I'm making. The woman was still guilty. Christ never denied that. Nor did He declare adultery acceptable or claim that the Law treated it unjustly. In fact, the issue was never whether her sin was real. It was. Yet when a guilty sinner stood before Him facing a death prescribed by the Law, Christ's first concern was not to ensure her execution but to confront the hearts of those seeking to condemn her:

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."

He exposed their hypocrisy, caused them to examine themselves, and when they left, He gave the woman an opportunity to repent:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

So whether the accusers were a mob, local authorities, or people attempting to trap Him doesn't really answer my question.

My question is about Christ's response. Why, when confronted with a genuinely guilty sinner facing death, did He choose to spare her and leave open the possibility of conversion rather than insist that her death be carried out?

I am not arguing that authority does not exist or that punishment is always illegitimate. I am asking why Christ's example of mercy toward a guilty sinner should carry less weight for Christians than appeals to the authority to punish.

If Christians are called to imitate Christ, then surely His willingness to give a sinner time for repentance and salvation is relevant to what we ought to desire even for the guilty. That's the point I'm asking you to address.

Let he or she who is WITHOUT SIN pull the lever on an execution .
GOOD LUCK finding one . THE ONLY ONE who is without sin IS GOD , IS CHRIST .
And JESUS came to save lives . NOW its true JESUS IS GONNA JUDGE and many are going to be cast
into the second death . WELL HE IS WITHOUT SIN . And HE was the ONE WHO DIED for the world
and YET they rejected HIM . Its pretty simple if you ask me .
SO if you dont mind i do want to remind this nar realm of something , as well as the catholics .
HEY kings kids , We aint got them crowns yet , so rather than walking about
like you own that crown , TRY walking LIKE JESUS DID . WHO though HE was before all that was created was
and by HIM were all things created .
DID NOT COME to be served but to minstir and to give his life for many .
AND he didnt walk around with a golden crown on his head , HE WORE a crown of thorns , for our sakes .
Time for some humble pie . IT is good if the servant be as his master . NOT T RYING to be greater than .

 

[Jack]

Many have spent years in prison and later been exonerated. All these 'Christians' wanting to MURDER them are the MURDERERS! I hope you don't burn in Hell!

 

[amigo de christo]

Because it's actually the law, it's not an assumption. It's like saying, I'm questioning the assumption that you have to believe Jesus is the Son of God to be saved.

dear dear wrangler . You brought up Having to BELIEVE JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD , THE CHRIST .
AND OH YEAH one must believe in HIM to be saved .
So again i ask you , WHY do you support that ecumeincal interfaith .
IT LIED to them false religoins . IT LIED to them all as well as to christendom .
Sold them all a false love , a false gospel , that DARN SURE DID DENY the FACT THEY MUST Beleive on JESUS .
But if you find that hard to believe , YOU GO and you examine that interreligous diaglouge on intefaith .
THEY DIDNT DO it in a corner , IT Was live before a huge auidence and even televised .
That is exactly what is in their peace plan . SO , this sheep gonna expose the entire house .