Jesus and the Prostitute: idealism vs. "Realpolitik".

The Gospel of John 8:1-11 describes the encounter between Jesus and the prostitute - who is about to be stoned to death.
Particularly verse 7: "he who is without sin cast the first stone", is often taken as an illustration that Christians may not "judge" others.
However, I was told by some Christians that this is not true, and the judgement against the "adultress" stands firm.
Now I'm really confused.
And what was Jesus writing in the sand?
In "realpolitik" Jesus should have provided her with a job and alternative to prostitution. She probably "sinned" again without alternatives in a patriarchal society, so in effect he post-poned, rather than altered her sentence.
Any other readings of this text, or explanations?

Originally posted by halfoldman
The Gospel of John 8:1-11 describes the encounter between Jesus and the prostitute - who is about to be stoned to death.
Particularly verse 7: "he who is without sin cast the first stone", is often taken as an illustration that Christians may not "judge" others.
However, I was told by some Christians that this is not true, and the judgement against the "adultress" stands firm.
Now I'm really confused.
And what was Jesus writing in the sand?
In "realpolitik" Jesus should have provided her with a job and alternative to prostitution. She probably "sinned" again without alternatives in a patriarchal society, so in effect he post-poned, rather than altered her sentence.
Any other readings of this text, or explanations?

Who is without sin casteth.....

means dont be a bloody hypocrit seen as half of galilee were doing business with mary magdalene.

What was he writing in the sand? his phone number probably

No murder is sin in any form state or otherwise

reply to post by carslake

His phone-number?
Thanks, I wouldn't like to be that cynical, I keep on thinking there is some meaning here that is esoteric, or that I've missed?

It reminds me a bit of "The Life of Brian" satirical film, where the beggar says: "Alms for an ex-leper, alms for an ex-leper". The point was that Jesus had healed this life-long "leper" without providing him with a job, and so the leper had fallen from a recognized beggar into destitution (starvation). Perhaps this is why only one of several "cured' lepers returned to thank Jesus.
In light of economic realities, they had little reason to be grateful.

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


It means just as it says, you can cast the stone if you have no sin. In other words, don't judge others; you're a sinner just like the other person.

Its a contradiction though if Mary was a prostitute and she commited adultary what were her clients doing then, so she led them into sin, however if they didnt want her services she would not have been a prostitute. It takes two to tango.
And like octotom states everyones a sinner unless their perfect, highly unlikely.

So..... He who is without sin casteth the first stone.

Absolutely uncivilised and unjust.

The writing in the sand is the writing on the wall, the establishment of the scene and the act that was to be carried out or perhaps he was just leaning on his hand and passing the time of day when they dragged Mary past him.

Even today the Jewish religion is biased against women, Jewish men can divorce Jewish women and thats accepted, however until the husband releases his ex-wife from the vow she can't remarry while he can. I think this is right although I stand to be corrected. And please I'm not criticising Jewish people here just stating facts as I know them.

Also I read that Jewish people cant forgive its upto God to forgive, it leads to conflict because Christians have the right in religion to forgive where Jews dont.

[edit on 24/1/10 by carslake]

reply to post by octotom

Well, here in Africa we had the President's Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (PEPFAR) under George W. Bush. While generous in many respects, it will not support any organization that aims to de-criminilize prostitution (apart from that it lead HIV/Aids prevention from public health to moralistic messages and organizations).
However, the proof is that treating and educating prostitutes will decrease HIV-infection, and yet they remain judicial rather than practical links in the HIV-chain.
Like Jesus, the moralists tell people to stop sinning, but they find them no alternative.
Is that wisdom?

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by halfoldman

 

It means just as it says, you can cast the stone if you have no sin. In other words, don't judge others; you're a sinner just like the other person.

The following Christians seem to have a differnt take on things:

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

"This is another counterfeiting of the Scriptures many have tried to use to shame us for what we do in his name. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is not speaking to judging. Let me explain.

Using the KJV this time, in John 8:1 - 11 scribes and Pharisees had caught a woman in the act of adultery (the woman commonly referred to as the prostitute) and told Jesus who was teaching in the temple that the Mosaic Law required she be stoned to death. Trying to make an opportunity of this to trick Jesus that they might accuse Him, they, with stones in hand, asked Jesus what He says about the Law. After Jesus tried to ignore their repeated questioning, He told them "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." One by one each man dropped his stone and walked away.

Jesus was not arguing with the judgment. Nor was Jesus arguing the law nor the woman's guilt. Jesus was arguing with our right to execute the woman. Once all the men had dropped their stones Jesus confronted the woman and asked her if any of the men were still there to condemn her. When she answered "No man, Lord", Jesus told her that neither did He - He forgave her of her sin. He did not excuse the sin of adultery/prostitution, he forgave her of it. All behavior and thought that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after forgiveness. Not only was Jesus not afraid to call a sin a sin, He was not afraid to call a sinner a sinner. He even reminded her of the sin of adultery/prostitution by telling her "Go and sin no more."

The point of this as applicable to this article? Jesus did not argue the act of judging the chosen behavior of the adulteress/prostitute.

Some have told us we should be more tolerant. "Tolerance" has become quite probably the most abused and misused word in the English language. We will not situationally redefine or conditionally apply His Word to suit political correctness, cultural tolerances, modern ethics and false religions or even to avoid invading the comfort zone of Christians. Jesus spent three days in Hell so you and I would not have to spend one moment there! For too long, well-meaning clergy have pabulum fed the people with watered down Scriptures to avoid invading the comfort zone. We will not do that. We love you too much to feed you lies or less-than-truths. It is people who do who pull people away from the CHRIST of Christianity. Practicing the Christian faith and what is expected of it is being very intolerant ... of sin ... even our own by His Word, not yours or mine, by embracing the sinner but not embracing the sin; by helping the sinner, even ourselves, out of bondage to the sin by loving him/her enough to tell the Truth. On Judgment Day, Jesus will send the unforgiven sinner into the fiery pits of Hell in a heartbeat. Now that is intolerance. Of sin. And Righteously so. He further will not excuse any single sin. In the example of the adulteress/prostitute, Jesus forgave her sin but did not excuse it. Worth repeating, Jesus did not argue the judgment, the act of judging nor did He argue the law. He argued our right to execute the woman. Adultery/prostitution is just as sinful now, after Jesus forgave the woman of it, as it was before He forgave her. He will forgive us all our sins -- past, present, future -- if we are humble enough to ask believing. But He will not excuse any sin. All behavior that is sinful before forgiveness is still sinful after. More intolerance. And righteously so."
(www.capalert.com...)

[edit on 24-1-2010 by halfoldman]

reply to post by halfoldman


An important part that was left out is what Jesus says to her last.

John 8:9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

The last important thing he told her to do is leave her life of sin. If she doesn't that's her problem. We all have choices to make.

But obviously the story shows Jesus wasn't worried about punishing her. He was more worried about her going on to live a better sinless life.

Now did she fall back into her sinful ways? I don't know, but Jesus told her not to. That's all he could really do about the situation.

What was he drawing in the sand? Don't know. It doesn't say.


[edit on 24-1-2010 by tinfoilman]

reply to post by halfoldman


Perhaps Jesus was writing in the sand merely to distract the onlookers, so the woman could run away safely.

He wasn't silly, that Jesus guy. As he proved with the loaves and fishes luncheon.

reply to post by carslake

Who knows, perhaps He wrote the name of the man she "sinned" with, who was probably leading the mob?