David and Bathsheba?

[Verifyveritas76]

@Aussies Ive enjoyed the mental stretching with this one, but after reading through it, I confess that I’m unsure of what you are saying or asking. Could you please sum it up for me?

Are you saying that headship trumps all? Or that maybe adultery is a broader term than what we’ve been taught?

Thanks

 

[FollowingHim]

Good point re the temple baths @Verifyveritas76 , I hadn't considered that. But if that's where she was, this raises a wider question about David.

If she was at home, all we've got is David happening to catch a glimpse of a naked woman, possibly unintentionally, and deciding to keep watching.

If she was at the temple, David's standing on the roof intentionally looking where he knows he'll see naked women, possibly watching a lot of them (likely mostly married) and picking out Bathsheba as the most attractive. In that case it's hardly something he did only once, if that was always the view from his roof. Was this something he did regularly in the evening? And then there's the question, if David only sinned in the matter of Uriah, was it then acceptable for him to watch other men's wives naked? You can follow this rabbit-trail a long way.

You might be correct, I'm not disagreeing. I'm just pondering the wider implications of the possibility that you are correct.

 

[Cap]

If she was at the temple, David's standing on the roof intentionally looking where he knows he'll see naked women, possibly watching a lot of them (likely mostly married) and picking out Bathsheba as the most attractive. In that case it's hardly something he did only once, if that was always the view from his roof. Was this something he did regularly in the evening? And then there's the question, if David only sinned in the matter of Uriah, was it then acceptable for him to watch other men's wives naked? You can follow this rabbit-trail a long way.

So that's interesting, with

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

So it appears, that David stayed home lounging, got bored, started looking around, started lusting in is mind and then heart, and then eventually did what this verse said he would do physically.

This says a lot in regards to the idea that we create reality from our mind. But that has more to do with dead cats then rabbit trails.

But it still doesn't answer why David wasn't stoned.

Good point @FollowingHim. I'll have to think about that more.

 

[rockfox]

I have a hint of what @Aussies is trying to say, but I can't understand his line of argument. I would welcome a clearer logical breakdown of his theory.

If you are saying that God can have mercy on whomever he wants to have mercy then I am with you 100%. We sin against God and he can forgive whomever he wants at his own pleasure. That is just the way it is. This would explain both the story of David and the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery.

As some have pointed out, enforcing the law against a King is a difficult matter and brings many quandaries. Since the King is the ultimate lawgiver/judge/tyrant in the land, there is no one to judge him. That is probably why God himself confronts David via the prophet about this (and in another case prior relating to the census).

Something to keep in mind here is that equality under the law is a liberal enlightenment concept. Monarchies operated on a different concept; where the legal system applied differently to different people. So we ponder why David wasn't held to the same standard whereas for most of history people would never expect such a thing.

If you notice, God doesn't interfere with King's too often in scripture; unless it is quite serious. Most often it happens when the man king declares himself God. But there is also the cases of potential adultery with Sarah, Abraham's woman.

As judge, God does punish David, just not according to the usual way. But as the original lawgiver He has that leeway.

 

[steve]

Since the King is the ultimate lawgiver/judge/tyrant in the land, there is no one to judge him.

The Law judged him and YHWH used Samuel to inform him of the fact, but carrying out the judgement is a different matter.

YHWH could have given the Law to the Israelites and then proceeded to do all of the penalizing Himself. But instead, He chose to require man to enforce the Law on his fellow man.
Carrying out that penalty on an authority over you is anarchy.

 

[cnystrom]

I have a hint of what @AussiesSomething to keep in mind here is that equality under the law is a liberal enlightenment concept. Monarches operated on a different concept; where the legal system applied differently to different people. So we ponder why David wasn't held to the same standard whereas for most of history people would never expect such a thing.

I get that, but I think God expected it. David would not have been above the 10 commandments for example, even if there was no one to enforce it except God.

The point I was trying to make was not about what happened back then. I was trying to grok what Aussies was saying and it sounded like he was trying to establish a general moral principle that some (who are in authority) are above the law and if so, I was not buying it. In this case the liberal enlightenment concept is the correct one.

When Josiah finds the book of the law and treasures it is the Biblical ideal.

 

[WifeOfHisYouth]

And then there's the question, if David only sinned in the matter of Uriah, was it then acceptable for him to watch other men's wives naked?

Was it a sin for him to see her naked, and think she was beautiful? OR was the sin when he coveted his neighbors wife and decided in his heart that he was going to sleep with her DISPITE the fact that she was married and he knew it.

Had she been a single available woman that he saw bathing, thought she was pleasing to the eye and taken her, I don’t think we would be questioning a sin issue on him viewing her.

A woman doesn’t have to be naked for a man to think she is beautiful and want to be with her. When he learns she is not available and STILL decids to be intimate is where sin comes in, IMO. Pharaoh didn’t sin when he thought Sarah was pleasing to his eye and wanted her. God protected her and him from sinning by revealing she was unavailable.

Matthew 5:28
But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

A man can’t commit adultery with an available woman. Should he strongly desire to take that which his not his, and plan in his mind how he is going to accomplish that (ie send for her dispite knowing she was taken) he has committed adultery in his heart.

 

[steve]

A man can’t commit adultery with an available woman.

Yup
There is no commandment to not covet your neighbor’s daughter, just his wife.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Did someone point out that there is no record of there being two accusers?

 

[Nikud]

Did someone point out that there is no record of there being two accusers?

Yes sir.

 

[Aussies]

We have been away since my last post and have only just got back home. May I just say thanks for the posts and reasoning that have been listed above.

Ive enjoyed the mental stretching with this one, but after reading through it, I confess that I’m unsure of what you are saying or asking. Could you please sum it up for me?

Are you saying that headship trumps all? Or that maybe adultery is a broader term than what we’ve been taught?

In answer to your first question; No! With the exception of Christ himself, and even he is is still answerable to God (1 Cor 11:3), but where men (husbands) are concerned, we also have a head and thus any application of headship must be under the direction of our head, Christ. It should also be noted that as a husband our headship must be in harmony with every instruction given us by our head. EG; At Eph 5 21-25 the principle of headship is firmly made but a husband is also told to continue loving his wife! Thus the application of his headship is not a matter of total authority as he is still under his head, Christ. This principle would mean that a man could not treat his wife treacherously (Malachi 214) or put her in a position that would defile her or even threaten her conscience before both God and Christ. There are many standards and principles in scripture that would need to be considered for a mans headship to be placed correctly within the family unit. His headship does not trump all! But neither is it nonexistent so as to allow for a wife to call him to account for the taking of another wife, as most of Christendom teaches. That being stated, it does play a part in the moral standards for Christians. Headship is a part of morality and morality cannot be understood without a clear understanding of headship. One does not trump the other, but both together, in proper balance are the standard of God. Thus the exercise of David and Bathsheba.

In answer to your second question; Yes! both the terms, "fornication" and "adultery". I will attempt to explain myself as we go along, but think of it this way, Who was it that took oversight of the Christian Church after the death of the apostles? Was it not the universal Church of Rome? As can be seen by Constantine's input in the third century CE. Is it not true that this man only "converted" to the "Christian" faith (baptized) just before he died? (Some would claim that he converted when he saw the flaming cross, but when did Paul start to instruct the congregation, before or after his baptism?) If that is so, then when he presided over the council to form the Nicene Creed (325 CE) , he was still an adherent to the worship of the gods of Rome and the standards of Rome as he was not baptized until 337 CE. Now what was the standard of the Romans according to their gods? Did they approve of polygamy or did they reject it? Now ask, who was it that primarily has translated the scriptures since the third century? Who were the ones that had the scriptures during the dark ages? Now if those leaders of the church believed in monogamy and rejected polygamy then when they translated scripture, would it be translated in harmony with their beliefs or would it be translated to lend support for the marital unions of men such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Gideon etc? Now nearly two thousand years later our understanding of words and concepts are so entrenched that most just accept them. It is this understanding that I am challenging. But to do so means that we must firstly keep an open mind and be willing to think in harmony with the entire bible and question teachings that place the scriptures in conflict. Eg In the old testament sexual infidelity on the part of a wife met with the harshest of outcomes, but in the new testament, it is the "only" acceptable reason for divorce. Thus for a marriage to be broken, adultery (sexual infidelity) must be performed, that was not the case in the old testament. Now it is true that God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16) But understanding our imperfection, he did make allowance for it and he did not condemn couples to a life of misery by denying the ability to depart if the marriage just was not going to work. Yet again the principle of headship comes into play as it was only the husband that could divorce as he was the head of the wife and she was only free of his authority by means of either divorce or his death. But God also spoke against a man divorcing his faithful wife (Malachi 2:13-16). So once more we cannot just consider one text but rather we must understand the spirit of what is being said by considering the entire bible. Otherwise our own sense of right and wrong could over ride the standards of God, could it not?

I believe that morality is not properly understood with out a clear understanding of the principles of headship. Thus it is the combination of headship and morality that will clearly show Gods standards, but if we separate one from the other then our understanding becomes blurred and tends to lean towards our own sense of what is right and wrong (Gen 3:5) rather than the standards of God.

Lets try this in small steps

Back to David and Bathsheba, In Exodus 21: 1-6 we have the account of the master and the slave, husband and wife. If the male slave did not want to stay in slavery then he forfeited the rights of a husband towards that wife and she along with the children remained the masters. Now if the husband still loved his wife and he wanted her to remain his, but he was unwilling to continue as a slave, was the master now immoral if he took that woman as his own or even if he gave to her to yet another slave? After all the husband did not want to divorce her.
So according to the law and the principle of headship would such a master be classified, by God, as immoral?

If a wife in the old testament, had been divorced a number of times and in each instance had remarried (Deut 24:1-2), was she considered Immoral?
If on the other hand a man had not relinquished his headship over her by means of divorce, and she had relations with another man was she now moral or immoral?

What do you think?

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Ok, I think that makes it a bit clearer for me, and I tend to fall along the same lines of belief in regards to the headship of the home, and the headship of Christ. Christ does trump all, as God has granted Him all authority as a Son over his own house.

Whenever someone asks me what I think, my first response is that I think if the Pilgrims had killed a skunk instead of a turkey, we’d have a pretty stinky Thanksgiving!

I definitely agree that our current day understanding of the word adultery is grossly truncated. As best I can tell, adultery is best summed up as follows: adultery = covenant breaking. Yes, sleeping with a married woman = adultery on both parties, but that is not the sum total of adultery. Anything a man or woman does to break the terms of the contract/covenant that began their marriage is Adultery. This does not mean that a husband and wife cannot ammend or add to the contract/covenant, it simply recognizes that both parties have entered it as free agents with certain stated expectations, whether culturally or pragmatically or biblically based. Any change from the stated or (preferably) written terms that is not ratified by both parties becomes adultery/covenant breaking.

This is why I’m a big fan of the biblical example of vows. Very simple, to the point, and covering all the bases required of a steward/husband. I, husband, to take you to be my wife and covenant to provide you with physical (shelter), personal (clothing) and spiritual covering before God, and also covenant to provide you with your necessary food, and to provide marital duties that include, at minimum, cohabitation and children if God allows.

In Exodus 21: 1-6 we have the account of the master and the slave, husband and wife. If the male slave did not want to stay in slavery then he forfeited the rights of a husband towards that wife and she along with the children remained the masters. Now if the husband still loved his wife and he wanted her to remain his, but he was unwilling to continue as a slave, was the master now immoral if he took that woman as his own or even if he gave to her to yet another slave? After all the husband did not want to divorce her.
(1)So according to the law and the principle of headship would such a master be classified, by God, as immoral?

(2)If a wife in the old testament, had been divorced a number of times and in each instance had remarried (Deut 24:1-2), was she considered Immoral?
(3)If on the other hand a man had not relinquished his headship over her by means of divorce, and she had relations with another man was she now moral or immoral?

What do you think?

# 2 is somewhat easy provided the “divorce” matches our current cultures definition of divorce and includes a writing of divorcement. A writing of divorcement in the OT era = a free woman, thus she may morally be married to a number of men sequentially provided that each of them award her a writing of divorcement, or provably fail to provide shelter, food and marital duties as mentioned above in which case she is free also because of his adultery/covenant breaking.

#3 is simple also as that would be considered covenant breaking, i.e. adultery.

#1 is a little bit more complicated unless your view of the home matches the example. IF you are the master of your home because you are not a slave, then you will have problems with the example. IF on the other hand, you are a believer, you fall under the category of a slave (1 Cor 7:23) that your master has given you stewardship over one of his “daughters”. IF you decide to leave His service, He has the authority to retain both her and the children because they never belonged to you in the first place, you were just their steward, now unfaithful to your master. He also has the authority to entrust them to another steward if He so desires (see Job 31:7-12) or He may take care of them himself (Jer. 49:11).

The other side of this equation or question would be, what happens if this servant is slothful and lazy and fails to provide the basic necessities for his wife and family? What would the Master do in such a situation? I believe that 1 Tim 5:8, Jer 23:1-4, 39,40, Luke 12:42-47, as well as the parable of the talents does a pretty good job of describing how the master views a poor/unfaithful steward.

 

[Aussies]

I both like and agree with your reasoning's. It should be noted that at this time I am not attempting to align Davids actions to the Christian faith however the principle of head ship still has a place in the christian faith, all I am doing is trying to establish that headship and morality are intrinsically linked. A women is not immoral in becoming a mans wife, provided she is not under another husbands headship. If however she is under the authority of a husband, then to go to another would make her immoral. She must be released from that headship before she can move forward.
Just to try and think this thru a little further.

When we give thought to David’s first wife, Michal, when David fell out with Saul, Saul gave Michal to Paltiel as a wife (1 Samuel 25:44).

If we now consider 2 Samuel 3: 12-16 and note the comments in verse 14 “Give me my wife Michal, to whom I became engaged for 100 foreskins of the Philistines.” And verse 15 “So Ishbosheth sent to take her from her husband, Paltiel the son of Laish.”

From this account it becomes clear that David never gave up the right as husband to Michal and yet she had become another mans wife. So why wasn’t she charged with adultery? Indeed why wasn't Paltiel charged with adultery as he was clearly with another mans wife? Why weren't one or both put to death at that time?
If it the argument was made that, somehow David relinquished his rights to Michal then Deut 24:1-4 shows that the if he divorced her, then the first husband was not permitted to take back the wife that had become the wife of another man.
So in this setting who was morally sound and who was not? Clearly one wife could not be shared between two husbands.
Remember that we are only talking about the events that took place in this account and we are not attempting to apply this to the christian faith.
As it was Saul that had changed the wife from one man to the next and then when David took the throne, he brought Michal back to himself, were they all correct and within their rights in what they did or was Saul or David or Paltiel and or Michal guilty of adultery in this instance?
To my mind from checking scriptural references, the right of the King and his authority freed all those under his headship from the charge of adultery. If we just consider this from a moral perspective and if we don't consider the principle of headship, then it is a very messy circumstance and one that could easily be seen as morally questionable.

The reason I am presenting this is that the churches have established a base line set firmly with morality. This is the standard that we test situations against. Thus, as morality is the bench mark, then it is viewed by many that, due to that base line, a man taking more than one wife is immoral. However if Gods standard is based on both the principle of headship and morals combined then our base line is different and thus the outcomes alter.

Again just to think it thru, when we consider the account at John 4: 1-19 about the Samaritan woman at the well that had had five husbands but the man she was now with was not her husband. Why did she recognize Jesus as a prophet? And was she moral or immoral as the man she was now with was not her husband? Most that I have asked this of at first call her immoral as she was not married to the man she was now living with. As the base line used is just one of morality. But is that the case?
The Samaritans held to the law of Moses and as such would stone a women guilty of adultery. The fact that she had not been stoned, clearly shows that no such issue existed with her. She had previously had five husbands but to now be with another man she must have been freed from their headship by either death or divorce. However the man that she was now with was not her husband! If she was now living with a man, and was free to do so, for him to take her as a wife, all that was required was for the marriage to be consummated. Who but a prophet would know that no such event had taken place? Thus she was morally sound!
Thus our understanding of both headship and morals combined, can give a very different picture to what is seen if we only consider things from a moral perspective.

As was previously mentioned in this thread, another error of David was the census. I believe that the principle of headship again comes into play with this event. Why was God justified in putting 70,000 to death due to Davids having the census and why was David responsible?

 

[FollowingHim]

From this account it becomes clear that David never gave up the right as husband to Michal and yet she had become another mans wife. So why wasn’t she charged with adultery? Indeed why wasn't Paltiel charged with adultery as he was clearly with another mans wife? Why weren't one or both put to death at that time?

Michal appeared to genuinely love David, based on her stated feelings prior to their wedding and her actions in hiding his escape. I therefore doubt she became Paltiel's wife willingly. If unwilling, and forced, then the sin rests on Saul and Paltiel, but not on Michal. And if in doubt, there is a basic principle that when there is sex with a married woman when the woman's consent is in doubt, it is to be assumed to be rape and not willing sex (ie in the case of a woman who has sex in a rural location where nobody could have heard if she screamed or not). So if in doubt, we should assume Michal was unwilling and this is a case of repeated rape rather than willing marriage.

In this case, the wedding was invalid, Michal was still David's wife, and could return to him at any time.

Saul was at fault - but he was already dead at this point so could not be punished.

Paltiel was also at fault - but received no punishment other than losing Michal. This could simply be an act of mercy on David's part. It may also be that Paltiel was misled as to the true circumstances and was somehow less guilty than it may appear on the surface, and was treated mercifully for this reason - we have very little detail.

As it is possible to explain this case entirely without even suggesting the idea that it might have been ok because Saul had ultimate headship, this particular case offers no evidence for the idea of headship trumping marriage. The simplest explanation is generally correct, and the situation is entirely explained by very reasonably assuming unwillingness on the part of Michal, sin on the part of Saul, and Paltiel being treated with mercy.

 

[FollowingHim]

Again just to think it thru, when we consider the account at John 4: 1-19 about the Samaritan woman at the well that had had five husbands but the man she was now with was not her husband. Why did she recognize Jesus as a prophet? And was she moral or immoral as the man she was now with was not her husband? Most that I have asked this of at first call her immoral as she was not married to the man she was now living with. As the base line used is just one of morality. But is that the case?
The Samaritans held to the law of Moses and as such would stone a women guilty of adultery. The fact that she had not been stoned, clearly shows that no such issue existed with her. She had previously had five husbands but to now be with another man she must have been freed from their headship by either death or divorce. However the man that she was now with was not her husband! If she was now living with a man, and was free to do so, for him to take her as a wife, all that was required was for the marriage to be consummated. Who but a prophet would know that no such event had taken place? Thus she was morally sound!
Thus our understanding of both headship and morals combined, can give a very different picture to what is seen if we only consider things from a moral perspective.

You are making assumptions and jumping to conclusions that align with your presuppositions.

Why assume that she would be stoned if she were guilty of adultery? The Jews were forbidden by the Romans from condemning a man to death, presumably the Samaritans had the same law - that is why Jesus was taken before Pilate rather than just being killed by the Sanhedrin.

So, she would only be stoned if (1) she were found out, (2) this actually went to court, (3) there were enough witnesses, (4) they chose to testify, (5) the judges chose to administer the maximum penalty, and (6) they ignored the Roman law that did not permit the death penalty and carried it out anyway. How likely is it that all this would occur? Highly unlikely.

Even today, the vast majority of cases of sexual abuse never make it to court, and of those that do only a tiny fraction actually get prosecuted. The same would likely occur for adultery were adultery illegal. That's just the practicality.

For all these reasons, most adultresses would be alive and well.

So there is no reason to assume this woman is sinless. The simplest explanation is that she had had 5 husbands (serial divorce & remarriage), and was now with a man who was not her husband (ie she was committing adultery against her 5th husband and was living with another man). Or some other similarly messy situation.

You can't logically jump from "she hasn't been stoned" to "therefore she is not sinning" without making a whole host of assumptions, and therefore adding to scripture.

 

[Nikud]

@Aussies I am wondering are you or were you a Jehovah's witness. Or are you someone who looks to the watchtower for inspiration. This is not a judgement just my attempt to better understand where exactly your coming from. I recognize some of the watchtower teachings about headship in what your trying to convey.

As to the doctrine your espousing I can show where I realised that it has been applied in modern times.

I grew lived around Waco in the early 90s and I'm familiar with how David Koresh used the same teachings your speaking of to create an alternate state of morality that allowed him as the spiritual head being the "messiah" to justify releasing women from their husband's and taking them for himself.

There is a cult called H.O.Y. Their "Prophet" Ysrael Hawkins has used it to justify making members of his "Church" pay him for the right to marry (at first it was only for each wife beyond the first but now it's to marry at all) and for him to take away wives from men who displease him or leave the cult.

@FollowingHim keeps reading my mind and posting before I finish typing things out so I deleted what else I was going to say and leave it to the better wordsmith.

 

[Aussies]

The Jews were forbidden by the Romans from condemning a man to death, presumably the Samaritans had the same law - that is why Jesus was taken before Pilate rather than just being killed by the Sanhedrin.

It is true that they were forbidden to condemn a man a to death. So could you please explain what was happening in the account of John 8: 1-11 or how Stephen died (Acts 7: 58-60) Or what event was taking place at Acts 14:19. It is true that Roman law forbade many things, even polygamy, yet the Jewish people continued the practice well into the third century and some groups even as late as 1100 CE. Stoning may have been forbidden, but it was still practiced!!

Kevin I like your disclaimer:
"I understand that we have different beliefs. If you make a statement interpreting scripture in a way different from my understanding or an opinion based statement different from what I hold I will challenge it. It is not a personal attack but away to gain understanding. I will also argue against a statement I don't necessarily disagree with to see how you came to your conclusion. If this offends you please feel free to ignore me using the ignore button in the settings. Under People you Ignore. You won't see my post. Have a pleasant day."
I too am of the same mind!
When it comes to the thoughts that I have put forward in this thread, I was unaware that others had used a similar line of thought to manipulate those silly enough to follow them, David Koresh, Ysrael Hawkins and so on. My thoughts and expressions are not the teachings of JWs or SDAs and until I read your last post I had not even thought of some of the other groups that you mentioned.
Please be assured that I have no desire to have others follow me. The fact is I have no desire to even be seen as an "Elder" as I don't wish in any way to be responsible for the lives of others. Your comments are sobering and appreciated.
As I said in my first post in this thread, I might be completely wrong in my thinking in this matter, what do you think.
My purpose was to have others either agree or disagree, and produce other lines of reasoning's, so as to assist me to think it through. The problem would seem to be that people seem to be threatened when a thought or concept is different to what they have been raised with or even currently believe, thus it is hard for many to just examine a line of thought without overreacting.
To all who have posted on this thread, may I please say thank you for your input, but as the thought has been presented that I could be seeking something I am not, I am very reluctant to continue to post on this subject!
My intent was to simply follow the pattern of the Beroean's (Acts 17 : 10-11) and examine a teaching from a different perspective and see where it led.

 

[Nikud]

As I said in my first post in this thread, I might be completely wrong in my thinking in this matter, what do you think.
My purpose was to have others either agree or disagree, and produce other lines of reasoning's, so as to assist me to think it through. The problem would seem to be that people seem to be threatened when a thought or concept is different to what they have been raised with or even currently believe, thus it is hard for many to just examine a line of thought without overreacting.

My apprehension dosn't come from your proposing alternative ways of looking at scripture but where it has been taking to the extreme. I'm a firm beleiver in testing all spirits expecially ones you beleive to be absolutely wrong. If I didn't do that I would be here on this forum. I hope you find the answers your looking for.

 

[FollowingHim]

It is true that they were forbidden to condemn a man a to death. So could you please explain what was happening in the account of John 8: 1-11 or how Stephen died (Acts 7: 58-60) Or what event was taking place at Acts 14:19. It is true that Roman law forbade many things, even polygamy, yet the Jewish people continued the practice well into the third century and some groups even as late as 1100 CE. Stoning may have been forbidden, but it was still practiced!!

Absolutely. As I said in my own example, they had the option of ignoring Roman law and doing it anyway. To reiterate, the woman would only have been stoned if (1) she were found out, (2) this actually went to court, (3) there were enough witnesses, (4) they chose to testify, (5) the judges chose to administer the maximum penalty, and (6) they ignored the Roman law that did not permit the death penalty and carried it out anyway. There is certainly a chance that all these things would have occurred and that she would have been stoned - but there is also a even greater chance that one or more of these would have caused her not to be stoned. As I said also, in today's secular law sexual abuse is illegal, and a tiny fraction of cases do get prosecuted as a result - but most do not due to the long chain of events that have to line up in order for that to occur.

To illustrate with some numbers, let's assume there's a 50% chance they'd ignore the Roman law and stone someone, and 50% chance they'd follow the law and refrain from stoning (based on the Biblical statistics of Jesus not being stoned but Stephen getting stoned - incredibly limited data but I'll use it anyway). And just for the sake of argument, let's say there's also (1) a 50% chance of being found out, (2) a 50% chance of actually being taken to court, and so forth.

In this case, the likelihood of being stoned for adultery becomes 0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5*0.5, or 1.6%. So there'd be a 1.6% chance of being stoned, and a 98.4% chance of being still alive. Obviously those numbers are guesses, ignore the precise values and look at the general concept. The point is that even though a woman might get stoned for adultery, she's far more likely to not be stoned.

So your argument, that if she's alive she must not be committing adultery, is clearly incorrect. There is no reason to think this woman was not an adulteress.

 

[Aussies]

The simplest explanation is that she had had 5 husbands (serial divorce & remarriage), and was now with a man who was not her husband (ie she was committing adultery against her 5th husband and was living with another man).

There is no reason to think this woman was not an adulteress.

This I felt had to be commented on.

A woman can only be an adulteress if she has a husband that she is now unfaithful to! If she has no husband then she cannot be an adulteress! Or is it possible for a woman without a husband to be found guilty of adultery????

At this point I would like Christ to lay bare the facts.
John 4: 16 " Jesus said to her, "Go call your husband, and come here." The woman answered him, " I have no husband". Jesus said to her, "you are right in saying, 'I have no husband'; for you have had five husbands, and he whom you now have is not your husband; this you said truly." RV

A man can’t commit adultery with an available woman.

If the woman said that she had no husband and if Christ said she had no husband (not that she had left her husband or that she did not have a certificate of divorce, all of which would mean she did have a husband hidden somewhere) and if as wifeofhisyouth correctly pointed out "A man can’t commit adultery with an available woman." Then either the man she was now with had to be her husband or he was not her husband!
As I see it, if he took her as his own and if they then had intercourse, then as a free woman she would become his wife. But according to Christ she had no husband. Thus no marital union had been formed with the man she was now with.
So are we considering this from a scriptural perspective in relation to what forms the marital union, or are we considering it from the perspective of the laws of Rome or are we considering it from the perspective of modern day Christianity which has not accepted anything but a legally registered monogamous marriage?
Sure we could argue that now common law marriage is accepted, but try and tell that to the thousands of people that were branded as "bastards" by the churches until very recently. Due to the fact that they would not recognize the union of their parents.
Or are you saying that Christ got it wrong! Are you saying that she did indeed have a husband and thus she was indeed an adulteress, regardless of what Jesus Christ had to say!
I think you need to rethink your position on this one!
With this one, if I am wrong then please show me from this account in scripture (please cite the scriptural texts that support your assertion) rather than just the common assumptions made regarding this account.
I appreciate that you care deeply for Christ, but to be honest the line of reasoning used by you concerns me. To assert that she did have a husband and thus she was an adulteress could be seen as questioning the word of Christ, even contradicting him and that's no place for a God fearing man (as I believe you are) to stand.