Jesus violated the law!

[Roymond]

We read the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery and rejoice in His judgment:  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", and finally "Neither do I condemn you".  But there's a little detail in that story that doesn't get mentioned, one that points to why the Romans hated and feared and persecuted the early Christians:  when Jesus told her to go, He broke two laws -- the law of the land of Israel, which said adultery was a crime, and the law of Rome, which said the same.

Picture it in modern terms replacing adultery with something today's law penalizes, like arson or car theft:  the guilty criminal is brought to Jesus, He says let whoever is without sin prosecute the criminal, and everyone melts away -- and Jesus tells the criminal, "I don't condemn you, either -- go, and don't go back to your crime."

Early Christians took that seriously, as we see when Paul admonishes the Corinthians for taking each other to court, reminding them that they should judge between each other, not take matters to the authorities.  By following Jesus' example and Paul's admonition, Christians were seen by the Romans as trying to replace Roman law with their own, which made the assertion that "Jesus is Lord!" instead of "Caesar is lord" sound treasonous.  Indeed it didn't just sound treasonous, it looked that way, too, as more and more people turned to the Gospel and joined this "kingdom" growing in the midst of the Romans' empire.

Not that the Romans particularly cared what some itinerant preacher did -- but they began to care a lot when that preacher's followers claimed that he was "Lord" and ignored the Roman courts by solving such issues among themselves instead of going to the authorities.

So we as Christians dare to be so radical today as Jesus and those early believers were?  to refuse to take legal matters to the authorities and resolve them among ourselves?  That certainly seems to be what Jesus' example points us to; do we have the courage to actually follow Him?

[ladypeartree]

Just come and sit in on most of our courts these days and see just how many get told to go away and dont do " it " again even when they have a record of  "it " as long as your arm 

Are you also saying ( rather like a lot of muslim courts ) that it is right to punish and even put to death a woman caught in disobedience to mans laws but a MALE who does the same thing is not guilty as he was obviously tempted by the woman   NO where does it say the man involved in this so called crime was even tried let alone punished  

[OneLight]

There is more going on than what you posted.  Let's look ...

4 hours ago, Roymond said:

We read the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery and rejoice in His judgment:  "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone", and finally "Neither do I condemn you".  But there's a little detail in that story that doesn't get mentioned, one that points to why the Romans hated and feared and persecuted the early Christians:  when Jesus told her to go, He broke two laws -- the law of the land of Israel, which said adultery was a crime, and the law of Rome, which said the same.

The penalty for adultery is death, much greater than just a simple sin.  The law they were referring to says "The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death."  Where is the man in this accusation?  Why is it just the woman they bring before Jesus?  The scribes and Pharisees are being their typical hypocritical self, so Jesus was dealing with much more than a one sided adultery charge.

4 hours ago, Roymond said:

Picture it in modern terms replacing adultery with something today's law penalizes, like arson or car theft:  the guilty criminal is brought to Jesus, He says let whoever is without sin prosecute the criminal, and everyone melts away -- and Jesus tells the criminal, "I don't condemn you, either -- go, and don't go back to your crime."

What laws have a penalty of certain death in today's court?  Rarely does anyone receive the death penalty, so it is hard to find an equivalent in charges.  Our court is far more lenient today then any were 2000 years ago.  If you look at courts today, they do let people go with just a slap on the wrist in comparison.  In fact, lawbreakers are often just allowed to break the laws.  The example being set is not a good one as it encourages others to do the same.  There are little consequences for simple crimes today, like stealing.  If you were caught stealing 2000 years ago, you had to repay many times over what you stole, and if it was outside of biblical areas, you would even loose your hand.

4 hours ago, Roymond said:

Early Christians took that seriously, as we see when Paul admonishes the Corinthians for taking each other to court, reminding them that they should judge between each other, not take matters to the authorities.  By following Jesus' example and Paul's admonition, Christians were seen by the Romans as trying to replace Roman law with their own, which made the assertion that "Jesus is Lord!" instead of "Caesar is lord" sound treasonous.  Indeed it didn't just sound treasonous, it looked that way, too, as more and more people turned to the Gospel and joined this "kingdom" growing in the midst of the Romans' empire.

Not that the Romans particularly cared what some itinerant preacher did -- but they began to care a lot when that preacher's followers claimed that he was "Lord" and ignored the Roman courts by solving such issues among themselves instead of going to the authorities.

Who is Paul addressing, the saved or unsaved?  We read in scripture that we are not to judge the lost, for God will be their judge, but the saved we shall judge, if we are to judge at all.  Because Jesus and Paul spoke against judging other, I do not see where the Romans would take offense to this anywhere.  I would assume that they would be rather pleased if they could settle things by themselves as that would bring in more peace.  Their concern was to rule in peace, not in turmoil.  Their concern was to govern over the lands they conquered so to bring in taxes to Rome.

4 hours ago, Roymond said:

So we as Christians dare to be so radical today as Jesus and those early believers were?  to refuse to take legal matters to the authorities and resolve them among ourselves?  That certainly seems to be what Jesus' example points us to; do we have the courage to actually follow Him?

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.  IF we followed the second greatest commandment, we would be doing no wrong to anyone as we don't want anyone wronging us.  This is the key to His statement about judging.  If we followed this commandment, there would be no reason to take anyone to court, let alone being taken to court ourselves for any offense.  The problem has always been the fact that some will completely refuse to follow God and will sin against another, be it stealing, adultery, lying, etc.  Still then, we are encouraged to settle this before taking legal steps to recover damages.

[Mr. M]

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

But there's a little detail in that story that doesn't get mentioned,

This is actually a fulfillment of the prophet Hosea's words against the men of Israel.

Hosea 4:I will not punish your daughters when they play the prostitute,
Or your brides when they commit adultery,
Because the men themselves slip away with the prostitutes
And offer sacrifices with temple prostitutes;
So the people without understanding are ruined.

The little detail is this:

9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with

the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 

There were no longer any witnesses testifying, there was no longer a trial, case dismissed.

Hebrews 10:28 Anyone who has rejected Moses’ law dies without mercy

on the testimony of two or three witnesses. 

Behold, the power of the Spirit to convict the conscience of man.!
 

[Mr. M]

5 hours ago, Roymond said:

So we as Christians dare to be so radical today as Jesus and those early believers were?  to refuse to take legal matters to the authorities and resolve them among ourselves?  That certainly seems to be what Jesus' example points us to; do we have the courage to actually follow Him?

Paul taught that if there is  matter between members of the fellowship, they should be able to resolve the dispute

without going before the civilian courts. There is nothing to suggest that this caused any alarm among authorities.

1 Corinthians 6:

Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints?

2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye

unworthy to judge the smallest matters?

3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?

4 If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge

who are least esteemed in the church. (**modern translations change this??)

5 I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? no,

not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?

**4 If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint

those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?

[coheir]

4 hours ago, ladypeartree said:

Just come and sit in on most of our courts these days and see just how many get told to go away and dont do " it " again even when they have a record of  "it " as long as your arm 

Are you also saying ( rather like a lot of muslim courts ) that it is right to punish and even put to death a woman caught in disobedience to mans laws but a MALE who does the same thing is not guilty as he was obviously tempted by the woman   NO where does it say the man involved in this so called crime was even tried let alone punished  

When I first start Medicare I did not use advantage plan. Medicare sent a summation every 3 months of what they paid for. I was looking over my past 3 month summation and found the Doc charged for eight shots that he had not given me. I called the Medicare Fraud line and they tol me they contact him and if he paid it back he would face no charges. even though the fraud had already been committed.

[The_Patriot21]

He actually broke no laws...He just chose not to enforce them, as was not His place at the time. He was not a judge, or in any place of Human authority, and it was not His purpose here on earth to do so.

To do so, would have put Him in a place of authority, which was counter to His true purpose here on earth.

Hence the trap the pharisees we're trying to set for Jesus, they were hoping He would stone her, so they could claim He was either just like them, or trying to start a insurrection.

He also did not prohibit those in authority from enforcing the law. The religious leaders there at the time, had the authority to enforce it. Jesus never once said leave her be, don't enforce the law.

So he neither tried to unlawfully enforce the law, nor did he stand in the way of it being enforced.

Instead he saw through them and started writing in the sand. What He wrote? Who knows. Something convicting I'm sure. Perhaps the names of all their mistresses.

 

[Roymond]

On 1/14/2023 at 2:09 AM, Slibhin said:

Are you promoting anarchy and vigilantism?

I'm promoting taking the Kingdom seriously.

[Roymond]

On 1/14/2023 at 2:41 AM, ladypeartree said:

Just come and sit in on most of our courts these days and see just how many get told to go away and dont do " it " again even when they have a record of  "it " as long as your arm 

I'm not talking about "our courts" because we have none -- there are the secular courts, but no Christian ones.

On 1/14/2023 at 2:41 AM, ladypeartree said:

Are you also saying ( rather like a lot of muslim courts ) that it is right to punish and even put to death a woman caught in disobedience to mans laws but a MALE who does the same thing is not guilty as he was obviously tempted by the woman   NO where does it say the man involved in this so called crime was even tried let alone punished  

Um, what?  Do you even know the story????

How does "Neither do I condemn you" turn into "put to death a woman caught in disobedience" in your mind?

[Roymond]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:19 AM, OneLight said:

There is more going on than what you posted.  Let's look ...

The penalty for adultery is death, much greater than just a simple sin.  The law they were referring to says "The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death."  Where is the man in this accusation?  Why is it just the woman they bring before Jesus?  The scribes and Pharisees are being their typical hypocritical self, so Jesus was dealing with much more than a one sided adultery charge.

Jesus didn't mention the man.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:19 AM, OneLight said:

What laws have a penalty of certain death in today's court?  Rarely does anyone receive the death penalty, so it is hard to find an equivalent in charges.  Our court is far more lenient today then any were 2000 years ago.  If you look at courts today, they do let people go with just a slap on the wrist in comparison.  In fact, lawbreakers are often just allowed to break the laws.  The example being set is not a good one as it encourages others to do the same.  There are little consequences for simple crimes today, like stealing.  If you were caught stealing 2000 years ago, you had to repay many times over what you stole, and if it was outside of biblical areas, you would even loose your hand.

If Jesus can ignore the law for a death penalty, then all other laws are covered as well:  the greater example covers all the lesser.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:19 AM, OneLight said:

Who is Paul addressing, the saved or unsaved?  We read in scripture that we are not to judge the lost, for God will be their judge, but the saved we shall judge, if we are to judge at all.  Because Jesus and Paul spoke against judging other, I do not see where the Romans would take offense to this anywhere.  I would assume that they would be rather pleased if they could settle things by themselves as that would bring in more peace.  Their concern was to rule in peace, not in turmoil.  Their concern was to govern over the lands they conquered so to bring in taxes to Rome.

Paul was addressing saints. 

I see the point about the Romans being fine with it since they didn't have to do anything.  On the other side of that, though, is that the Romans could be quite prickly about their laws.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:19 AM, OneLight said:

Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself.  IF we followed the second greatest commandment, we would be doing no wrong to anyone as we don't want anyone wronging us.  This is the key to His statement about judging.  If we followed this commandment, there would be no reason to take anyone to court, let alone being taken to court ourselves for any offense.  The problem has always been the fact that some will completely refuse to follow God and will sin against another, be it stealing, adultery, lying, etc.  Still then, we are encouraged to settle this before taking legal steps to recover damages.

Paul's point is that we should not ever "take legal steps to recover damages" against other Christians, because Christians should always settle things among themselves.