How to cite this article: Guido Baltes, “Did Jesus Save the Life of an Adulteress?” Jerusalem Perspective (2021) [https://www.jerusalemperspective.com/22176/].
| Rather listen instead? |
| JP members can click the link below for an audio version of this essay.[*] Paid Content If you do not have a paid subscription, please consider registering as a Premium Member starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually): Register One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership  |
Paid Content
Premium Members and Friends of JP must be logged in to access this content: Login
If you do not have a paid subscription, please consider registering as a Premium Member starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually): Register
One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership
Rather than purchasing a membership subscription, you may purchase access to this single page for $1.99 USD. To purchase access we strongly encourage users to first register for a free account with JP (Register), which will make the process of accessing your purchase much simpler. Once you have registered you may login and purchase access to this page at this link:
We all know the scene well. We have seen it in all the Jesus movies. An angry mob, led by old, male Jewish religious leaders, drags along a half-naked, young woman, barely wrapped in a bedsheet, and toss her to the ground at Jesus’ feet. In their hands they hold the stones ready to hurl them at her at any moment. In their eyes we see fury and the joyful anticipation of bringing a sinner to justice with their very own hands. However, at the last moment, the woman is saved from death by the words that Jesus spoke: “Whoever among you is without sin, let him cast the first stone” (John 8:7).
But did this story, as we know it, actually happen? I doubt it. My doubts are not the usual doubts of a critical scholar, however. It is true that many biblical scholars today would deny this story ever happened, but that is because they deny the historical reliability of the Gospels as a whole. But this is not the kind of skepticism I mean.
Paid Content
Premium Members and Friends of JP must be logged in to access this content: Login
If you do not have a paid subscription, please consider registering as a Premium Member starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually): Register
One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership
Rather than purchasing a membership subscription, you may purchase access to this single page for $1.99 USD. To purchase access we strongly encourage users to first register for a free account with JP (Register), which will make the process of accessing your purchase much simpler. Once you have registered you may login and purchase access to this page at this link:
Paid Content
Premium Members and Friends of JP must be logged in to access this content: Login
If you do not have a paid subscription, please consider registering as a Premium Member starting at $10/month (paid monthly) or only $5/month (paid annually): Register
One Time Purchase Rather Than Membership
Rather than purchasing a membership subscription, you may purchase access to this single page for $1.99 USD. To purchase access we strongly encourage users to first register for a free account with JP (Register), which will make the process of accessing your purchase much simpler. Once you have registered you may login and purchase access to this page at this link:
Comments 3
This post really odd – I think you do not understand the passages that appears on the surface to be more Shammaic.
– The hasidim were sin fearers – this is is hasidic notion not a shammaic one.
– The divorce interpretation from Jesus is about Herod; it must be read in context. Jesus was lenient on divorce. Steven Notley has the seal on this one.
– Jesus came to uphold the Law, but what does that mean? It means Jesus came to uphold HIS midrahim of the Law. This becomes a much different claim with this context in mind.
Ryan,
I don’t understand why you say Jesus was lenient on divorce. Paul knew of no exceptions to Jesus’ prohibition against divorce (1 Cor. 7:10-11) and of all the Gospels, only Matthew allows an exception in the case of porneia (“sexual transgression”) (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). That doesn’t sound lenient to me. It sounds pretty strict.
Joseph’s decision to divorce Mary quietly after discovering her (supposedly) illicit pregnancy (Matt. 1:19) is a good example of the author’s contention that divorce is a more historically plausible scenario in cases of adultery than stoning. Thank you, Baltes, for this illuminating new take on a story we all thought we knew so well.