Casting Stones

[Mike 1967]

I continually see people use this Biblical discourse out of context. And in many cases it is so called Christians who are miss-applying it.

I have quite often seen people use this Bible verse to admonish someone for making a judgment call on an action of another person. EXAMPLE: John tells Mary that she should not cheat on her husband. Mary tells John that “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. In this example, Mary is using a popular Bible verse to support the idea that, unless you are perfect…you have no right to judge her actions.

The problem is that Mary has completely twisted the context of the verse that she is using. It is apparent that Mary has not taken the time to read the verse for herself.

Let’s look at the verse that is in question (John Chapter 8 verses 3 to 11)

Joh 8:3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst
Joh 8:4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery.
Joh 8:5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?"
Joh 8:6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.
Joh 8:7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
Joh 8:8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.
Joh 8:9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.
Joh 8:10 Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
Joh 8:11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."]]


It is clear from the verses above that the Scribes and Pharisees were looking to execute this woman for the sin that she committed. Stoning was the common form of execution by the Jews during this time in history.

Jesus is clearly stating above that “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”. Now what does Jesus mean by “throw a stone” ? Is he talking about the judgment that these people made on her original sin, or is he talking about the physical act of execution by stoning that they were looking to carry out. I think that the context is very clear … anyone who reads this should be able to answer the question for himself or herself.

But, even if you cannot answer it for yourself, Jesus answers it for you in the last 2 verses.

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you” ?

What does Jesus mean by condemn? Does he mean to judge, or to execute to death, or both?

“Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more”

Here is your answer in clear language. In the same sentence Jesus is saying that he is not condemning her, but he is also telling her not to sin any more. So, it is clear that by condemn Jesus means to execute to death. Jesus does not mean to judge….because he just judged the sin by telling her to sin no more. In other words, in this same sentence Jesus tells the woman that he does not condemn her, but that she should sin no more. So if the judgment of the sin were condemnation, then Jesus could not have said that he was not condemning her.

So the admonishment by Jesus to the Pharisees and Scribes was not…”don’t judge the actions”, but rather “who are you to stone this woman to death for those actions”.

So, back to our example of John and Mary:

If John told Mary that he was going to put her to death for cheating on her husband, then Mary would be correct in using these Bible verses to support her claim that John (if he were a Christian) did not have proper grounds to execute her for her actions.

But as it stands, Mary is simply another example of someone who has not taken the time to research the very thing that she is attempting to use to support her argument. If she had, then she would have seen that she had actually just supported John’s original argument.

 

[Hoov]

well yes, that sort of thing goes on all the time but thats just the way people are. you cant police the world, people say all kinds of crazy things just to justify their actions.

Me, i would just tell John to mind his own business.

 

[Mike 1967]

well yes, that sort of thing goes on all the time but thats just the way people are. you cant police the world, people say all kinds of crazy things just to justify their actions.

Me, i would just tell John to mind his own business.

I can understand a self described non-Christian who tells John to mind his own business.

What I cannot understand is a self described Christian who uses this verse to tell John not to judge.

I also cannot understand a self described non-Christian who would use this Bible vers to tell John not to judge.

As such, you were not part of the target audience on this particular point/post. But I appreciate your taking the time to read my discourse

 

[WV Cowboy]

What I cannot understand is a self described Christian who uses this verse to tell John not to judge.

I also cannot understand a self described non-Christian who would use this Bible vers to tell John not to judge.

Very nice post above Mike.

The reason why that is hard to understand, from what I have found, is that many who claim to be a Christian, many who sit in church each week, many who serve on committees at church, simply do not read their Bibles.

They do not nuture their personal relationship with Jesus Christ through spending time in scriptures and prayer.

Just my take.

 

[Mike 1967]

Very nice post above Mike.

The reason why that is hard to understand, from what I have found, is that many who claim to be a Christian, many who sit in church each week, many who serve on committees at church, simply do not read their Bibles.

They do not nuture their personal relationship with Jesus Christ through spending time in scriptures and prayer.

Just my take.

 

[Hoov]

I can understand a self described non-Christian who tells John to mind his own business.

What I cannot understand is a self described Christian who uses this verse to tell John not to judge.

I also cannot understand a self described non-Christian who would use this Bible vers to tell John not to judge.

As such, you were not part of the target audience on this particular point/post. But I appreciate your taking the time to read my discourse

thats fair. But since i have a backround and history with the church, i will offer something that i didnt really understand when i was involved in church.

why is john so worried about what mary is doing. if mary is a regular in church than im sure the information needed is presented to her over time in many different ways from different pastors and readings, etc.

so either she is going to get it or she isnt. I mean, why doesnt john give the spirit a a chance to convict her, or else just let her reap the fruits of her harvest. if she is having an affair than likely over time she is going to bring all kinds of havoc into her life, and she will have to lie in the bed that she made after all. so why does john worry so much about mary and her behaving the way she should, shouldnt john leave that up to God and focus on what john needs to be doing to be the kind of person he should be ?

Its just something that i never really understood. And on top of that experience shows that the john's will rarely, if ever get through to the mary's anyway. It is better for John to let God get through to mary, and i think God would do it in a more subtle, but more effective manner than having another church member state the obvious to mary. I mean, its not like mary hasnt already thought about what john is saying, its not like she doesnt know what the bible says about adultery. so john stating something so obvious will only evoke some type of rediculous response, or else mary will just so "oh, yes, i know" but keep on doing it anyway.

 

[Mike 1967]

thats fair. But since i have a backround and history with the church, i will offer something that i didnt really understand when i was involved in church.

why is john so worried about what mary is doing. if mary is a regular in church than im sure the information needed is presented to her over time in many different ways from different pastors and readings, etc.

so either she is going to get it or she isnt. I mean, why doesnt john give the spirit a a chance to convict her, or else just let her reap the fruits of her harvest. if she is having an affair than likely over time she is going to bring all kinds of havoc into her life, and she will have to lie in the bed that she made after all. so why does john worry so much about mary and her behaving the way she should, shouldnt john leave that up to God and focus on what john needs to be doing to be the kind of person he should be ?

Its just something that i never really understood. And on top of that experience shows that the john's will rarely, if ever get through to the mary's anyway. It is better for John to let God get through to mary, and i think God would do it in a more subtle, but more effective manner than having another church member state the obvious to mary. I mean, its not like mary hasnt already thought about what john is saying, its not like she doesnt know what the bible says about adultery. so john stating something so obvious will only evoke some type of rediculous response, or else mary will just so "oh, yes, i know" but keep on doing it anyway.

Mary is Johns mother

 

[Hoov]

Mary is Johns mother

LOL, whoa, thats a sticky situation. well that explains why mary gave john the kind of comment she did, and why john is upset with mary. thats a bad spot for john to be in, honestly i dont know what i would do if i were john.

 

[blindzebra]

Sounds like Jesus is against capital punishment.

Seems he is breaking away from the rules from the Old Testament.

Doesn't he know that it's God's inherent word?

 

[Mike 1967]

thats fair. But since i have a backround and history with the church, i will offer something that i didnt really understand when i was involved in church.

why is john so worried about what mary is doing. if mary is a regular in church than im sure the information needed is presented to her over time in many different ways from different pastors and readings, etc.

so either she is going to get it or she isnt. I mean, why doesnt john give the spirit a a chance to convict her, or else just let her reap the fruits of her harvest. if she is having an affair than likely over time she is going to bring all kinds of havoc into her life, and she will have to lie in the bed that she made after all. so why does john worry so much about mary and her behaving the way she should, shouldnt john leave that up to God and focus on what john needs to be doing to be the kind of person he should be ?

Its just something that i never really understood. And on top of that experience shows that the john's will rarely, if ever get through to the mary's anyway. It is better for John to let God get through to mary, and i think God would do it in a more subtle, but more effective manner than having another church member state the obvious to mary. I mean, its not like mary hasnt already thought about what john is saying, its not like she doesnt know what the bible says about adultery. so john stating something so obvious will only evoke some type of rediculous response, or else mary will just so "oh, yes, i know" but keep on doing it anyway.

Seriously though...the basis of admonshment is scripture. And scripture should always be the basis if you are talking about someone who calls themselves a "Christian".

Glatations 6 states:

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

And Jesus states in Mathew:

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

But the Galations verse is the better fit in this instance because Mary did not sin against John.

If John were her husband, then both vs. would apply

 

[Mike 1967]

Sounds like Jesus is against capital punishment.

Seems he is breaking away from the rules from the Old Testament.

Doesn't he know that it's God's inherent word?

Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15). One witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy 17:6). The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act” (vs. 4), but nothing is mentioned about the identity of the witness or witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.

Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man? The accusing mob completely side-stepped this critical feature of God’s Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go!

 

[Hoov]

Seriously though...the basis of admonshment is scripture. And scripture should always be the basis if you are talking about someone who calls themselves a "Christian".

Glatations 6 states:

Gal 6:1 Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.

And Jesus states in Mathew:

Mat 18:15 "If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
Mat 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

But the Galations verse is the better fit in this instance because Mary did not sin against John.

If John were her husband, then both vs. would apply

But really, how effective is that. you know that one church member admonishing another rarely results in life changes. people dont make changes until life forces them to or until they decide they want something more or better out of life. Better to lead by example, dont you think.

 

[Mike 1967]

Sounds like Jesus is against capital punishment.

Seems he is breaking away from the rules from the Old Testament.

Doesn't he know that it's God's inherent word?

Also....

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the man with whom the woman had committed adultery with was in league with the accusing crowd ?

If he was, then Jesus was able to prick them with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they, too, were guilty. The old law made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or unqualified.

So Jesus was striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were ineligible to fulfill this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus deserved to be brought up on similar charges. Thus, they were intimidated into silence by their realization that Jesus was privy to their own sexual indiscretions.

We observe that, after the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical legal question to the woman:

“Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (vs. 10, KJV).

The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and sentence passed.

The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord” (vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you….” The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action.

The usual interpretation of “neither do I condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous! The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities. But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it! You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”

 

[Mike 1967]

But really, how effective is that. you know that one church member admonishing another rarely results in life changes. people dont make changes until life forces them to or until they decide they want something more or better out of life. Better to lead by example, dont you think.

I beg to differ completely.

But...it is not the admonishing that brings about any change....it is the standard of God.

I would propose that you have it backwards.

The Law is not in place so that you will be changed by following it.

The Law is in place to humble you and lead you to repentence. Because at the end of the day you cannot meet the requirements of the Law...and neither can I.

This is exactly why I should approach in a spirit of "humbleness".

John is not admonishing Mary. The Law of God is.

 

[Mike 1967]

But really, how effective is that. you know that one church member admonishing another rarely results in life changes. people dont make changes until life forces them to or until they decide they want something more or better out of life. Better to lead by example, dont you think.

And yes...I believe that it is much better to lead by example.

 

[blindzebra]

Also....

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that the man with whom the woman had committed adultery with was in league with the accusing crowd ?

If he was, then Jesus was able to prick them with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they, too, were guilty. The old law made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or unqualified.

So Jesus was striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were ineligible to fulfill this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus deserved to be brought up on similar charges. Thus, they were intimidated into silence by their realization that Jesus was privy to their own sexual indiscretions.

We observe that, after the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical legal question to the woman:

“Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (vs. 10, KJV).

The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be established and sentence passed.

The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord” (vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you….” The meaning of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as an eyewitness to her action.

The usual interpretation of “neither do I condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous! The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities. But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it! You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”

So it is conveniently vague, so that we can what if, and assume, and inject what we want it to mean to fit our objective.

The original texts to the Bible of today has been translated and edited and re-translated and re-edited countless times, and each time those "interpreting" what is written get to inject the needs and feelings of their time into that translation.

Words are changed, passages are lost, meaning is altered and the Bible gets further and further away from the original texts.

Just recently they discovered that a translation was mistaken and Jesus walked BY the water and not ON the water. That's a pretty big difference.

 

[WoodysGirl]

You know what guys. I hate to constantly be the bad guy. or gal in this case. But why is it so hard to understand that RELIGIOUS discussions aren't allowed on THIS board. Whatever your personal views about religion, they don't belong on this forum per the rules.

 

[blindzebra]

You know what guys. I hate to constantly be the bad guy. or gal in this case. But why is it so hard to understand that RELIGIOUS discussions aren't allowed on THIS board. Whatever your personal views about religion, they don't belong on this forum per the rules.

That was my reply I was typing when you closed the other one.

I just couldn't help myself.

 

[Mike 1967]

So it is conveniently vague, so that we can what if, and assume, and inject what we want it to mean to fit our objective.

The original texts to the Bible of today has been translated and edited and re-translated and re-edited countless times, and each time those "interpreting" what is written get to inject the needs and feelings of their time into that translation.

Words are changed, passages are lost, meaning is altered and the Bible gets further and further away from the original texts.

Just recently they discovered that a translation was mistaken and Jesus walked BY the water and not ON the water. That's a pretty big difference.

I would not call it conveniently vague. I would call it pretty specific. What we have here is a simple matter of someone trying to inject something that was not intended by the original text.

If I were to take any writing, on any subject, and try to inject something that was not there...then you could say that the writing was "conveniently vague" in respect to subject that I was trying to inject.

But it is interesting to note that this very passage was not in the original texts. It was added later.

Your take on the translation of the Bible is interesting. I have also looked into this...and came away amazed at the consistency between the oldest and latest texts. I walk away seeing further proof of a higher power at work

But..if you have an issue with the interpretations...then I recommend that you learn Greek and simply use the oldest documents as your standard. These have been proven to be written within 1 or 2 generations of the authors themselves. Specifically, they were either written from the pen of the author themselve or they were written by those who had been alive at the time that the authors were alive.

More time would be required to inject the type of "altered meaning" that you are attempting to propose.

 

[Mike 1967]

You know what guys. I hate to constantly be the bad guy. or gal in this case. But why is it so hard to understand that RELIGIOUS discussions aren't allowed on THIS board. Whatever your personal views about religion, they don't belong on this forum per the rules.

The Bible is a book.

Why is this not considered a Literary Thread ?