Jesus and the adulteress

Share

In the name of Allāh,

the Beneficent, the Merciful.

Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.

DEDICATED TO

Allāh–the Glorious and the High,

Lord of the worlds

AND TO

Mohammad–who brought the world

to our feet and eternity to our arms.

*

JESUS & THE ADULTERESS

In the Gospel of John, Jews brought a woman who they said had committed adultery which, according to the Mosaic Law, carried the punishment of stoning to death. They asked Jesus for his view in the matter. Jesus replied: “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” After no one had cast a stone at the woman, Jesus said to the woman that as none of the Jews had condemn her, “Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more”–(John 8:1-11).

   Christian’s claim that Jesus forgave the adulteress is baseless. Strangely, there is no mention of the man with whom the woman is said to have committed adultery. Neither did the woman confess to nor deny the charge, nor was she asked if the charge against her was true. (Some justice!)

   Jesus not only says that he came to fulfill the law,1 he explicitly instructed his followers to “observe and do” whatever the “scribes and Pharisees” bid hem to do, because they sit in Moses’ seat;2 and two of the Mosaic teachings are to take an eye for an eye, and to stone the adulterer/adulteress.

   Jesus could not be said to have abrogated these Mosaic laws and yet tell his followers to observe them. It would be a contradiction.

Jesus’ turn the other cheek3 and that the one who is without sin to cast a stone at the adulteress do not abrogate the Mosaic teachings of an eye for an eye4 and to stone those guilty of adultery5 To give the “other cheek” is not applicable to infractions against cardinal laws. Jesus’ give the “other cheek” and to forgive seventy times seven were meant to reform his people into being more tolerant of one another (and his mission was ONLY FOR JEWS).

However, if any aggrieved Jew would have demanded “an eye” in turn from his transgressor Jesus would have had no choice but to apply the law which he came to, and vowed to, uphold.  

   If the woman was guilty and Christ did not stone her then Christ had simply failed to enforce the law of God.

   Jesus telling the scribes and Pharisees, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” does not mean Jesus forgave her or that this statement abrogated the law of stoning.

To say that the law of stoning was abrogated because no man is without sin and therefore no one would be able to “cast a stone,” it would have been pointless for God to have given such a law that man could not have carried out.

   Further, there was no case to begin with; the woman’s accusers had all left without “condemning” her. Jesus, rightly, as he had no evidence in the matter, could notcondemn her either; he telling the woman to “go, and sin no more,” is not a reflection that a sin (adultery) was committed. While this may be the best advice that Jesus could have given, it certainly wasn’t “forgiveness.”

   Aside from that, not only did the Jews not accept Jesus, Jesus was in no official capacity to execute judgment in the matter, and, therefore the case should have been decided by the very scribes and Pharisees that brought the woman to Jesus. Jesus must have known that they were “tempting him that they might have to accuse him,” as John 8:6 says, and was only being clever with them in saying “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

   It would have been interesting to note Jesus’ response if the scribes and Pharisees had said to him that, since he, Jesus, was without sin, for him to first cast a stone at her.

   Paramountly, as noted, Jesus came to uphold the Mosaic law. He declared in clear unambiguous words in Matthew 5:17-19: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy BUT TO FULFILL. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or title SHALL IN NO WISE PASS from the law, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED. Whosoever therefore SHALL BREAK ONE OF THESE LEAST COMMANDMENTS, and shall teach men so, he shall be called THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.”

   Thus if Jesus abrogated stoning to death then by his own words Jesus is THE LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.”

(See also ANSWERING ISLAM CRITIC-& MOHAMMAD).

*

Another observation. Jesus conversing with the Samaritan woman is not a sign of liberation of women. God decreed that woman be dominated by her husband; and this is what Paul taught.

All Jesus wanted from the woman was a drink of water: “There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water (from Jacob’s well): Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink;” but she gave Jesus an argument as to why a Jew was seeking drink from a Samaritan seeing that “Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans”–(John 4:5-28).

   As prophet of God, Jesus could not turn anyone away; but he could avoid them, and which he did, as is evident from his admonition to his disciples to not preach to non-Jews (and even Samaritans who also were Jews) whom he regarded as “dogs” and “swine” and from his preaching in parables so they would not understand and be saved.

Obviously, Jesus had no intention of indulging in argument with the Samaritan woman. But the woman was sharp. And Jesus was cornered into it. This is no liberation. Jesus was on self-defense).

*

NOTES

1. Matt. 5:17-18

2. Matt. 23:2-3

3. Luke 6:29.

4. Exodus 21:24.

5. Lev. 20:10/John 8:5.

Share