This has always bugged the hell out of me. How in God’s green grasses did this woman commit adultery all by herself? Why was the guy not brought before Jesus? Was he just allowed to skip la-de-da back to his three wives and twenty-nine children?
It boggles my mind. Give me the Straight Dope, plesae.
In a patriarchal society, it sucks to be a chick.
Perhaps there is something to be seen in the 10 Cs, which are specifically written from a male perspective: Though shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. Now, why do men need to be told this but not women? Maybe because it’s so universally understood that woman must remain faithful, that there is no need even to codify it into law.
Still, while it was no sin for a man to cheat on his own wife, it was a sin for him to lie down with another man’s wife.
[QUOTE=Proverbs 6]
23 For the commandment is a lamp, and the law is light; and reproofs of instruction are the way of life
24 to keep thee from the evil woman, from the flattery of the tongue of a strange woman.
25 Lust not after her beauty in thine heart, neither let her take thee with her eyelids.
26 For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought down to a piece of bread, and the adulteress will hunt for the precious life.
27 Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?
28 Can one go upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned?
29 So he that goeth in to his neighbor’s wife; whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent.
[/QUOTE]
Obviously, she couldn’t.
The gospel writer did not see fit to tell us.
Your guess is as good as any.
People have posited various scenarios and rationales for everyone’s behavior but at the end of the day, we just don’t know why the man wasn’t caught as well. Maybe he was the first guy to try hiding under the bed.
Come to think of it, where was the woman’s husband?
More precisely, a wife was part of a man’s property and not vice-versa. Consider that the actual commandment is “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” The wife is listed right there along with the rest of his property.
But, why not?
Good point.
He must not have considered the presence of the guy to have been noteworthy or relevant to why he’s relating this tale to us. As John Mace says, perhaps he simply never thought about the fact that an adulterous woman necessarily implies an adulterous male*. Perhaps the male was not Jewish and therefore not subject to mosaic law. Perhaps the male had managed to run off and was on the lam. Perhaps the whole story is invented and the writer never bothered to invent the man.
*For the moment, we may as well assume heteronormativity.
She was getting clingy, he was leading the crowd. That’s how they knew.
Well, obviously, he rolled off her, out through the window, and was off up the street and lost in the crowd before she had time to say “This isn’t what it looks like”.
Or they were both spotted, both ran for it, but she couldn’t run as fast as he could - another biological inequality for you.
Or Jesus looked at them, asked himself the same question you did, and said to himself “Right, you hypocrites, much as I hate adultery you’re not having your fun today”. Pick one.
Or in the closet:D
As well as the assumption that men are more likely to have a wandering eye, as well (in a patriarchal society) the freedom of movement allowing them to adulterize.
But Annie Xmas is quite correct - the woman could not have committed adultery alone, and yet her partner is nowhere to be seen. That may even be part of the hypocrisy Jesus is pointing out.
"Okay, you want to punish women who have committed adultery. Why aren’t you so eager to punish men who do the same? "
The non-Scriptural suggestion I have heard is that when Jesus was writing in the dust, He was writing the names of those in the crowd who had also committed adultery.
Regards,
Shodan
AFAIK, the Bible nowhere acknowledges that girl-girl is a thing that ever happens.
The Old Testament doesn’t, but Romans 1:26 mentions lesbianism (Paul is against it).
Regards,
Shodan
One other question: were the Pharisees and elders REALLY planning to stone the woman? Or were they just using her to put Jesus on the spot?
That is, it’s possible the woman was just a pawn, one the crowd was willing to use as a pawn in a game of “Stump the Prophet.”
I’m not so sure about lesbianism being specifically mentioned in that verse. Among all these versions of the Bible I think it is only mentioned once. The rest of the translations just mention “unnatural relations”.
:shrugs:
No one can force you to understand if you don’t want to.
Regards,
Shodan
And no one can force you to step up to the plate when the facts get in your way, Oh Great Guru.
However, the 10th commandment also says, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s ass.” So it balances out.