Thanks for your input...I would like to share some thought I have in a paper
on PA but I really need to get my hands on it...
I agree that the man was also guilty according to law since the couple was
"actually caught in the act" as scripture supports. Derrett wrote an
excellent book about NT Law (will get you the exact title). From my
recollection, Derrett thought that the woman could have been possibly setup
because it was difficult to prove adultery..had to have at least 2 witnesses
and witnesses had to see couple in coitus (not just in a compromising
position)..also that husband could not be one of the witnesses. Derrett
suspects that husband of adulteress could have "set her up" because of some
of the legal aspects of the case (this is where I need to reference my
paper...Derrett makes some very interesting points) and the fact that it was
unlikely that 2-3 witnesses would have seen the couple in the progress...
Derrett also questions if husband was suspicous then why not subject wife to
bitter ordeals ref. in Numbers.
It's also interesting some of the commentary we have from church fathers and
faith community regarding this very topic (need to refer to my paper).
My focus was on the theme of judgment and I linked it to the mission of
Jesus in John 3:16-17 - Jesus came not to condemn the world...but whosoever
believes in him would receive life everlasting.
I believe that Jesus' response did not per se reinterpret the law. Jesus
never said that the woman should not be stoned...on the contrary he said (as
you stated) he that is without sin..cast the first stone). Now that raises
the issue from a LEGAL to a MORAL state. Instead of answering the question
directly Jesus writes on the ground (much interesting speculation on this
one also) and makes his final statement to the religious leaders now to
decide for themselves if they are "qualified" to execute judgment. The
question becomes, "Who is righteous enough to execute judgment of the
This reminds me of Matt. 7:1-5 "Judge not, that ye be not judged..for with
what judgement ye judge, ye shall be judged..
Also, Jesus told the woman "Neither do I condemn you...Go and sin no more.."
Jesus does not condone the sin...some of the early church fathers was
afraid that PA might be interpreted as an "easy forgivness" passage.
Billy, I really need to get my hands on my exegesis paper so I can do
justice to your question/comments. Right now I'm relying on my
memory...Will get back to you soon...sorry for delayed response....
Much success with your dissertation!
>"Billy Evans" wrote:
>Lorna and Group:
>I pause before submitting my idea to such a learned group, but...In the
>case of the AP, where is the man? It's been my theory that Jesus sensed
>something rotten when the woman was brought to "trial" but the amn was not.
>After all, the OT commands that BOTH the man and woman be killed for such a
>crime. Jesus "changed' the law because the people were involved in a
>coverup. Jesus might have been thinking, "if you expect me to punish this
>woman to the fullest extent of the law when you are as guilty as sin for
>covering for one of your buddies, I'll tell you what I will do....'whoever
>has no sin (they were all guilty at that time with the coverup and at least
>one male was guilty of adultry) let HIM cast the first stone' what do you
>Billy Evans HUC grad and dissertation sstudent at U of So Africa
>10251 Pendery Drive
>Cincinnati, OH 45242
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at