Controversy on Christianity Today's website

[Obsidian]

Why are you so obsessed with this stupid question. Yes, I think adulterers should be stoned.

[KingsGambit]

I'm not aware of anywhere in the Bible that lists an age, but it really seems to me like a twelve-year-old should know what marriage is.

I knew what marriage was when I was 7 years old. That doesn't mean I was old enough to get married. The human brain isn't done developing at 12, or 15. That's why we don't let kids that age make such huge decisions such as entering a sexual relationship or getting married.

[fm93]

Just a point of clarification... I meant that the PASTOR (the senior pastor) of the Church has some culpability in the conduct of his "youth pastor", as the senior pastor is responsible for all staff and leadership of the church. So, even though the senior pastor is not mentioned here, I still believe he bears some responsibility for this happening in his church.

Right. I was referring to the youth pastor. I know he technically doesn't lead the overall congregation, but youth groups are essentially a mini-church that he personally is expected to lead.

[Darth Executor]

I knew what marriage was when I was 7 years old. That doesn't mean I was old enough to get married. The human brain isn't done developing at 12, or 15.

The human brain isn't done developing at 20 either.

That's why we don't let kids that age make such huge decisions such as entering a sexual relationship or getting married.

Maybe making 15 year olds marry each other would stem the tide of adolescence into the 40s.

[robrecht]

Why are you so obsessed with this stupid question. Yes, I think adulterers should be stoned.

It's just a question; I only prodded because you seemed reluctant to answer and I think people here should be aware of this position of yours. How do you square your understanding of stoning adulterers and your own mention of John 8, where Jesus does not stone the woman caught in adultery and dissuades those who would have stoned her?

[KingsGambit]

The human brain isn't done developing at 20 either.

I wouldn't object to setting the marriage age at 21. Isn't that the justification used for setting the drinking age there (that it disrupts brain development)?

[Darth Executor]

I wouldn't object to setting the marriage age at 21. Isn't that the justification used for setting the drinking age there (that it disrupts brain development)?

I'm not sure why you think marriage disrupts brain development. Why did God have the sex drive kickstart in our teens if He doesn't want us married until our twenties?

[Darth Executor]

It's just a question; I only prodded because you seemed reluctant to answer and I think people here should be aware of this position of yours. How do you square your understanding of stoning adulterers and your own mention of John 8, where Jesus does not stone the woman caught in adultery and dissuades those who would have stoned her?

How do you know Jesus dissuaded them from stoning her because He thinks stoning adulterers is wrong? It was God who gave the commandment in the first place. Are you saying Jesus and His Father in Heaven are having a disagreement on the issue? As far as I can tell Jesus gave a non-committing response that shifted the burden of action on the mob to avoid being caught in the trap of having to breach Mosaic law or having to breach Roman law. It's a unique situation that has no bearing on what the law should be because nobody in that particular situation was a lawmaker.

[Cow Poke]

Right. I was referring to the youth pastor. I know he technically doesn't lead the overall congregation, but youth groups are essentially a mini-church that he personally is expected to lead.

[robrecht]

How do you know Jesus dissuaded them from stoning her because He thinks stoning adulterers is wrong? It was God who gave the commandment in the first place. Are you saying Jesus and His Father in Heaven are having a disagreement on the issue? As far as I can tell Jesus gave a non-committing response that shifted the burden of action on the mob to avoid being caught in the trap of having to breach Mosaic law or having to breach Roman law. It's a unique situation that has no bearing on what the law should be because nobody in that particular situation was a lawmaker.

I did not say I knew what was in Jesus' mind, or God the Father's for that matter, but I did ask Obsidian about his interpretation. So, are you saying that Jesus' motivation, at least in part, may have been to protect the mob or himself from being held accountable by the Romans for this stoning? Surely, it is also significant that Jesus says to the woman privately that he does not condemn her. And, if Jesus does not condemn her, even privately, my understanding is that neither should we condemn her, or those like her, and should not advocate for the death penalty by stoning or otherwise for adulterers.

[Darth Executor]

I did not say I knew what was in Jesus' mind, or God the Father's for that matter, but I did ask Obsidian about his interpretation. So, are you saying that Jesus' motivation, at least in part, may have been to protect the mob or himself from being held accountable by the Romans for this stoning?

He was trying to protect Himself from accusations of sedition. No stoning would have taken place either way, but if Jesus said "yeah go ahead and stone her" they could go to the Romans to tell them Jesus had tried to have a woman executed.

Surely, it is also significant that Jesus says to the woman privately that he does not condemn her. And, if Jesus does not condemn her, even privately, my understanding is that neither should we condemn her, or those like her, and should not advocate for the death penalty by stoning or otherwise for adulterers.

What exactly do you mean by "does not condemn her"? Are you saying Jesus approved, or was ambivalent with regards to her adultery? As far as I can tell Jesus not condemning her means Jesus didn't crack her skull open with rocks for the aforementioned reasons. Plus, it wasn't in private, the accusers (scribes and Pharisees) left but the people he was originally talking to were still there:

Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

I assume "them" does not refer to imaginary friends.

[robrecht]

He was trying to protect Himself from accusations of sedition. No stoning would have taken place either way, but if Jesus said "yeah go ahead and stone her" they could go to the Romans to tell them Jesus had tried to have a woman executed.

What exactly do you mean by "does not condemn her"? Are you saying Jesus approved, or was ambivalent with regards to her adultery? As far as I can tell Jesus not condemning her means Jesus didn't crack her skull open with rocks for the aforementioned reasons. Plus, it wasn't in private, the accusers (scribes and Pharisees) left but the people he was originally talking to were still there:

I assume "them" does not refer to imaginary friends.

I mean exactly what Jesus himself said, 'Neither do I condemn you.' I don't know why you would think I might be saying Jesus approved of or was ambivalent about adultery. Jesus clearly tells the woman to go and sin no more.

I think this pericope, although ancient, was added later to John's gospel, perhaps from the gospel according to the Hebrews (cf Papias & Eusebius, Eccles Hist 3,39,17). It is also found in some manuscripts of Luke's gospel.

[Zymologist]

As a pastor, he's supposed to be a spiritual leader of his church, someone who exemplifies godliness. Abusing power and committing adultery are antithetical to that. So even if the girl threw herself at him, it's still absolutely his responsibility to stay pure and NOT COMMIT A FELONY LIKE STATUTORY RAPE.

Yeah. If he's doing anything but taking complete responsibility for it, then he would not seem to be repenting of his sin.

[Zymologist]

I knew what marriage was when I was 7 years old. That doesn't mean I was old enough to get married. The human brain isn't done developing at 12, or 15. That's why we don't let kids that age make such huge decisions such as entering a sexual relationship or getting married.

When is the human brain done developing?

[Darth Executor]

I mean exactly what Jesus himself said, 'Neither do I condemn you.' Well obviously there's some confusion since I think Jesus says he's not gonna condemn her to death (since that's what the crowd wanted her condemned of). I don't know why you would think I might be saying Jesus approved of or was ambivalent about adultery. Jesus clearly tells the woman to go and sin no more.

I'm trying to make sense of what you're saying because we were discussing whether Jesus would approve of capital punishment for adultery. You're saying He wouldn't, but then bring up an attempt to goad Him into approving an illegal public lynching. The only way this is relevant is if you don't think Jesus thought there's anything wrong with adultery. An admittedly odd stance to take but the verse you brought up isn't even relevant to the original discussion so I can only do so much with it.

I think this pericope, although ancient, was added later to John's gospel, perhaps from the gospel according to the Hebrews (cf Papias & Eusebius, Eccles Hist 3,39,17). It is also found in some manuscripts of Luke's gospel.

Which one? From the start Jesus was talking to a bunch of people, then the accusers came, then the accusers left after Jesus's challenge, but there's no mention of the original crowd leaving, so even if that particular verse wasn't in the original Jesus's dismissal of the woman was a public event. Nevermind that later addition is not the same as "didn't happen".