Turn the other cheek.
Is (((misused))) to the detriment of White Christians.
Turn the other cheek.
Is (((misused))) to the detriment of White Christians.
Agreed. It is not about pacifism.
I’m intrigued by the idea, but I want to hear your reasoning.
His purpose wasn't specifically to show mercy. It was to use her to illustrate we've all sinned and judgment and punishment should reflect this fact. It's to show everyone should be judged accordingly rather than black and white, pretending there are two groups: sinners and innocence. There is only one group, sinners.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Judge not least ye be judged, contrary to popular myth, doesn't mean don't judge. It means judge accordingly as you would wish to be judged else you may be hoisted by your own petard.
If you're mindlessly killing all sinners, it means you too qualify for death. As such, mercy, law, and reason is called for, for there to be justice. Mob violence isn't necessarily justice. It wasn't specifically for mercy for her. It was mercy for all of us.
To add to this, "Go and sin no more" is only merciful compared to death if someone's willing to pick up that metaphorical cross, bear it, and change their ways.
It's not some megachurch "All is forgiven, keep on sinning" pablum. It's akin to telling a morbidly obese person "Go and hamplanet no more". It requires them permanently and drastically change their diet. They'll have to give up most of their friends who encouraged horking down cheesecake. They'll have to lay down dramatic boundaries with their family who raised them to live such a destructive lifestyle. They'll have to abandon their couch potato hobbies and adopt new ones which are literally and figuratively painful. If they join a volleyball club they'll be picked last and feel the shame of being a hindrance to their fellows.
Telling a ho "go and sin no more" is just as much of an ask in exchange for forgiveness.
Nicely put.
Excellent points.
I’m intrigued by the idea, but I want to hear your reasoning.
Well, where was the man she was committing adultery with? Any judgement rendered would have been unjust, so he got the accusers to abandon their charges. Case closed.
Some commentators have suggested a few things about this exchange:
The “adultery” was possibly a setup for the woman, arranged by her husband who wanted to end the marriage. This was an alleged practice that easily fits the pattern of jew trickery.
The “adultery” could have merely been the act of talking one-on-one to a man who was not her husband or relative. Pharisaical traditions had long-replaced the written law of Moses at this point in Israel’s heretical existence. This may answer your question about “the man” in the scenario. However, to speak on the matter directly, were the man with whom she committed adultery culpable, just because he wasn’t mentioned in the passage doesn’t mean he didn’t also face judgment.
The setup was against Jesus, himself, as the Romans had prohibited the jews from committing executions as part of stripping away their National sovereignty. This meant that there was no obvious “correct” answer. By ordering the execution, he would defy Roman law. By ordering her released, he would defy Levitical Law. A catch-22.
The response, itself, once again shows the brilliance and omniscience of Jesus, responding with neither of the anticipated answers, but instead presenting a whole third track, putting the onus on them to cast the stones, rather than Himself as the one ordering or evacuating the sentence.
Additionally, the term αναμάρτητος has a legal weight to it, a violation of the law. He who can execute her without violating the law, go for it. Which law? Roman law or Levitical law?
Additionally, the term αναμάρτητος has a legal weight to it, a violation of the law. He who can execute her without violating the law, go for it. Which law? Roman law or Levitical law?
I would contend it is referring to Gods law.
You do present some interesting points, but we only have what is there, and to me the absence of the man seems significant.
Number 3 seems most likely, but what's stopping elements from 1 and 2 playing some part AS the set-up against Jesus?...if you get what I mean.
In what way?
He didn't bash her head in with a rock.?
He didn't bash her head in with a rock.?
True. Would that have been lawful according to the bible considering the information given? Not dealing out an unlawful punishment is not mercy. It is law abiding.
I think he did show some compassion. He could have called for the man to be brought and had them both stoned. Instead he used tact to get the accusers to drop their charges. Gods law always allows for grace, compassion, and even mercy.
Why are you so worried about what some guy did 2000 years ago? Focus on what’s going on today.
Why are you so worried about what some guy did 2000 years ago? Focus on what’s going on today.
Do I seem worried? Thanks for participating in the conversation though! For real. \o
No problem. o/
(post is archived)