Why Did Paul Withstand Peter in Galatians 2?

Galatians 2 gives us a rare glimpse into the first century leadership of our faith, and in it we see that Peter and Paul had a disagreement, which culminated in Paul opposing Peter to his face. Understanding what was happening that lead to Paul confronting Peter will give us insight into a major issue of the day, and help us to better understand not just Galatians but the whole of the New Testament.

Peter and Paul are probably the two most respected gospel teachers of all time. Peter was one of the original twelve disciples and spent much time with the Messiah, even joining him to briefly walk on water! Paul had a vision of Jesus confronting his actions and explaining that he was the Messiah, he traveled extensively sharing the good news. They both authored books of the New Testament. They served the same God and mission to share his message...so what was the problem?

We are hearing the story from Paul's perspective and he doesn't shy back from telling us what happened, plainly stating, "I withstood Peter to his face, because he was in the wrong," (Galatians 2:11). If we didn't know Paul and Peter it would be easy to chalk this up as Paul insulting or disregarding Peter, but I don't think that's the case here. Scripture would not be filled with needless put-downs or complaints. Rather, this is calling our attention to the importance of the issue at hand. 

Paul goes on to explain that up until certain men arrived, Peter had been perfectly fine eating meals with Gentile believers (Galatians 2:12). But since Peter feared these men who belonged to the circumcision sect, he withdrew and made it a point to separate himself from the Gentiles. Paul considered this to be a very hypocritical thing to do.

Quick side note: in this case it's important to note that phrases like, "those of the circumcision," aren't referring to men who have been circumcised, but rather to the sect or movement that believed that circumcision was a prerequisite for salvation and being part of God's people.

What is the big deal here? Shouldn't Peter be allowed to eat with whoever he wants? We need a little background here: in Judaism at the time (and still in some sects today), eating with non-Jews was strictly forbidden. It was not done ever. And we must know that this is not a rule that God gave to his people! There is nothing in Scripture that says people from different ethnicities or religious backgrounds can't eat together. And there is certainly nothing in the Bible that says that YHWH's people must be separated according to their backgrounds or where they are from. The prohibition that Peter started following was a manmade law in Judaism. A rule designed to keep those with the 'wrong' background out of the faith or deemed they be treated as second-class citizens. This is not in line with what the Bible says.

Traditions aren't always bad, but in this case the Bible says that this "was not in line with the gospel." This why Peter's action was a big deal, because he was putting a manmade law above God's instructions, one that perpetuated ideas that were against the truth of Scripture. Peter's sudden refusal to eat with gentiles was promoting ideas and actions that weren't consistent with the good news of the Messiah, such as treating non-Jews like secondary citizens. His action said, "You can believe in Jesus, but you'll never be as good as us."

Paul could see that this went against what the Bible said, which was why he confronted Peter about it. Paul goes on to ask a simple question, which is often misconstrued to mean that all the Biblical commandments are done away with. "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile, and not like a Jew. Why would you then compel a Gentile to live as a Jew?" (Galatians 2:14)

Now it is important to realize that Scripture does not equate 'Jew' with Israelite or God's people, so being described as a Jew doesn't just mean that your ancestors were Israelites. Like "the circumcision" the word Jew describes a specific religious sect, one that Paul told us in Galatians 1:13 was his former way of life. 

Since the word Jew was brought up in a context of commandments not found in the Bible, we see that Paul is addressing the requirement of following the rules of a manmade religion, and not just the Bible's instructions. When he says Peter was living as a gentile, he means that Peter wasn't keeping the manmade traditions. So when Paul asks, "Why pressure gentiles to live as Jews?" he means, why should we teach new believers laws and rituals that aren't found in the Bible?

The context of this alongside his rebuke of Peter keeping Jewish law tells us that Paul does not think believers need to follow Jewish law, but he's not saying that all believers shouldn't keep YHWH's commandments that are found in the Bible. The point Paul is making is to never sacrifice Biblical truths in order to stick with manmade customs. He wanted all believers to know that their human bloodline was utterly irrelevant next to the blood of the Messiah. He goes on to explain:

"In the Messiah, you are all children of God through faith, as you have been united with Jesus through baptism and have put on the Messiah like new clothes. There is neither Jew nor gentile, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in the Messiah. If you belong to the Messiah, then you are Abraham's seed and his heirs according to the promise." -Galatians 3:26-29

This issue is a cornerstone one in the New Testament. For the disciples, it was a breaking away from the elaborate traditions and rituals of their fathers that excluded the masses. This meant embracing the simplicity of the Bible. While the religious leaders of the day taught that non-Jews were 'common' or otherwise unsuitable for relationship with God, Paul knew that was not the case. Paul withstood Peter for perpetuating this lie by honoring the traditions of men above the commandments of God.

Related posts:
The Three Types of Laws in Scripture
What You Need to Know When You Read Galatians
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament

What Does 'No Greater Burdens' in Acts 15 Mean?

What is Acts 15 about and what does it mean?

A lot of people will tell you that Acts 15:19-20 gives the requirements that gentiles should abide by. But as we've discussed before, this handful of instructions was given as a starting point for new believers to keep the commandments. The disciples issuing these directions were not saying that those things were all that was expected of believers, but were trying to give reasonable guidelines for the many people who had no understanding of Scripture's instructions who were entering the faith. The disciples knew that believers would learn more as they attended Sabbath service each week and expected them to gradually implement changes in their lives as they learned more details of how Scripture says they should live.

One common reason that people disagree with this understanding of the passage comes from this verse:

"It seemed good to us and the Holy Spirit to place no greater burdens on you than these necessary things..." -Acts 15:28

It's easy to read this verse and see it as 'proof' that all that is expected of believers is to not eat meat that was sacrificed to an idol, not to eat blood, not to eat anything that was strangled to death, and to abstain from sexual immorality...because it says right here that anything beyond that would be a burden, right? There's more to it than that. (As a side note, since these four things are expected of believers, we should probably hear that from pulpits and Bible studies once in a while!)

What does Acts 15:28 mean?

First of all, do we really expect that this is all that is required of believers? Is it fine to murder or steal or practice necromancy because those things are not enumerated here? This passage doesn't even tell us not to practice idolatry! I think most everyone reading this would say that believers are called to higher standards of living and conduct than just sticking to the four things bulletined in this passage of Acts.

And secondly, the Bible tells us that YHWH's instructions are not a burden for us! We read this in Deuteronomy 30:11 in the Old Testament, and the Messiah himself echoes this in Matthew 11:30 when he said that his burden was light. He wasn't saying to set down Biblical law because it was a burden...he was saying it wasn't a burden at all. If we believe these Scriptures that the commandments are not a burden to us, then we know that this verse cannot be talking about Biblical law.

So if Acts 15:28 is not talking about further commandments from Biblical law to be followed, what is it talking about? The answer is that the disciples were saying that they did not expect believers to follow the customs of Judaism, or the oral law. Please note that this means rules and rituals that were created by men, and not the instructions given by YHWH that are enumerated in Scripture. 

One of the major themes of Acts is the acceptance of people who were not from Judah and who did not look or act Jewish. This is not to say that Jews weren't/aren't also welcome into the faith, but that following Jewish customs that aren't found in the Bible is not expected of believers. One of the significant things happening at this time in history was the shift from complicated manmade rituals back to the simplicity of what the Bible teaches, and this is what the leaders of the faith were saying. It seemed good to them and the Holy Spirit to not require that new believers become Jewish or partake in manmade customs in order to enter the faith. Of course, the Bible is not picking on just Judaism here. The same would apply to other religious belief systems. You also don't have to do Catholic rituals or be baptized into a certain denomination. It addresses Judaism, because that was being practiced at the time.

The Messiah had previously called attention to this issue when he said to religious leaders, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandments of God in order to establish your own tradition." (Mark 7:9) We also know that the Messiah considered manmade religious rituals to be burdens. When a religious leader was surprised that Yahusha didn't participate in a handwashing ritual (something not directed in the Bible), in Luke 11:46, the Messiah responded, "You load people down with heavy burdens, and don't lift a finger to help them." 

Are God's commandments a burden? Not according to the Messiah and the New Testament.

1 John 5:3 also tells us that YHWH's commands are not burdensome! The Messiah and the disciples never call the Bible's commandments too hard or difficult, but they did consider manmade rituals and traditions to be a burden, so that's what they aren't placing on believers in Acts 15:28. Why make it more difficult for people to accept the Gospel? Why tell people that walking in God's ways is harder than it really is? You do not have to adopt any customs that aren't commanded in Scripture in order to be accepted by YHWH. That's the message and meaning of Acts 15.

Related posts:
Understanding Acts 15:19-20
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament
The Three Types of Laws in Scripture

Did the Messiah Fulfill the Law? Understanding Matthew 5:17

Did the Messiah fulfill the law? That's a phrase most of us have heard dozens of times...and with good reason. The Bible says the Messiah came to fulfill the law; this was said by Jesus himself in Matthew 5:17. But it's important to get the implications of that statement correct.

What does the Messiah fulfilled the law mean?

Contrary to popular belief, fulfilling the law doesn't mean getting rid of the law or "doing away with" Biblical law. Many Christians throw the statement, "The Messiah fulfilled the law," at nearly any suggestion of keeping Biblical commandments to mean that since the Messiah did this, we don't need to worry about it anymore. This is usually said to explain why many believers choose to disregard or not honor certain instructions from Scripture. Christianity teaches that the Messiah 'fulfilled' the law by keeping it perfectly, thereby setting us 'free' from some (albeit not all, in Christian thinking) of the commandments. The foundation for this argument is flawed, as much Christian doctrine teaches that the Messiah actually violated the law. This is, of course, not true! You can see posts like this one for more information on that but the takeaway is that Yahusha never broke any of the commandments. If he had, he would have been a sinner (Scripture defines sinning as breaking Biblical commandments), and he would have been disqualified from being our Savior.

But if you look up the word fulfill in any dictionary you will find a different definition than getting rid of something. The first definition is usually given as something like, "to bring into actuality," or "to bring into effect," or "to do something." To me that sounds like the opposite of doing away with something! 

Look at the Messiah's words when we understand this word properly:

"Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to bring them into effect." -Matthew 5:17

or

"I did not come to abolish the law but to do it."

What law did the Messiah fulfill?

It's important to know exactly which law the Messiah was bringing into effect. A lot of people will tell you the Messiah actually taught some sort of New Testament law or His own version of Biblical law, but the context of the law and the Prophets doesn't support this idea. Plus at the time of this statement there was no New Testament. Since He only did what He saw His Father doing, and given the context of the law and the Prophets, the Messiah was referencing the commandments given in the Old Testament.

There are three types of laws in the Bible. Biblical, Levitical, and Jewish.

He's not bringing into effect Jewish laws that are manmade. He spent much of His ministry confronting religious leaders about upholding their own traditions and teachings in place of what Scripture says, so it would make no sense that He would be bringing those into effect.

That leaves us with Biblical law and Levitical law. Since Psalm 110 tells us the Messiah's priesthood is of Melchizedek, and we know that He cannot function as a Levitical priest since He is of the tribe of Judah, it wouldn't make any sense to say that His focus was on Levitical law and cracking down on the standards for animal sacrifice, etc.

That leaves us with Biblical law. These are the laws found in the Old Testament (mostly in Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - also known as the Torah), that give us clear instructions for our behavior. Most of Biblical law relates to how we worship YHWH, how we treat others, regulations for loans and business conduct, instructions for sexual conduct, animals we are not to eat, and instructions for Biblical holidays, including the Sabbath.

Learn more about Biblical law here.

But didn't the Messiah keep the law perfectly so we don't have to anymore?

The Messiah did keep the law perfectly. But the Bible never says that because He did, we don't have to.

Depending on where you live in the world you are subject to specific laws. These encompass everything from driving rules to tax law to workplace regulations to laws against theft. As a citizen, or even a passing visitor, you are expected to keep all of them. Let's say that my dad has flawlessly kept the laws of our state and country for his entire life...having never evaded his taxes, committed a crime, ran a stop sign, etc. Does that mean that because he has perfectly kept these laws, then I don't have to? Of course not! It would be completely absurd for me to commit a crime and tell the police officer, "It's okay for me to do this because my dad has never broken the law."

And what would the police officer think if I used that as an argument? Something like, "If your dad set such a great example, why aren't you more like him? Why aren't you following the same rules?"

Now if I were to get in legal trouble, my dad would be gracious enough to help. If I was given a speeding ticket, he would pay it for me if I couldn't. But just because someone has taken care of my debt doesn't mean it would be wise for me to go out and break traffic laws - why put myself and others at risk from reckless choices? But his actions don't mean the law does not apply to me. Since we all have a spiritual debt we cannot pay, the Messiah lovingly and graciously covered that debt for us with his own life. 

Yes, the Messiah kept the law perfectly. He didn't break even the least significant instruction of Scripture. But that doesn't make it okay for us to disregard how He lived. And 1 John 2:6 tells us that if we claim to know Him, we need to walk as He did.

What does Matthew 5:17 mean then?

This passage of Scripture does say that the Messiah came to fulfill the law, but we can see that fulfill doesn't mean "do away with," but rather "to do" or to "bring into effect"! If the meaning of the word fulfill isn't convincing enough, we should also note in this same verse Yahusha says without ambiguity, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them." The Messiah literally said that He did not come to do away with the the commandments! 

This understanding of Matthew 5 fits with the rest of the Messiah's life and the Gospels. We consistently see Him keeping the commandments and defending Biblical law to the religious leaders who were more concerned with their own traditions. He came to show us the way to live, and said He wasn't abolishing Biblical law.

The Messiah fulfilled the law by keeping it, and by keeping it He set the example for how we are to live.

Related posts:
Did the Messiah Break the Law?
Basics of Biblical Law
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament

Who the Dragon Waged War Against in Revelation 12:17

Who is the evil dragon waging war against in the book of Revelation?

This post will explain the attributes of who the dragon raged against, and help us understand the identity of this woman.

"And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, those who keep the commandments and have the testimony of Yahusha." -Revelation 12:17

This people group is defined in two ways:
-as having the testimony of the Messiah
-as keeping the commandments

Why is this significant? Because here is another New Testament passage where followers of the Messiah are keeping Biblical law...and the forces of evil hate this! It's not the kingdom of Heaven waging war against this group; it's the Dragon, the most blatantly evil being in Scripture. This leader of darkness does not like when believers in the Messiah also keep the commandments. This should draw our attention that something very powerful happens when we put the word of God into practice!

The testimony of Messiah is the most important thing in this world. I am not discounting his life or sacrifice, but we need to see that the Dragon is not waging war against all the people who know the Messiah or that identify as saved or Christian or Bible believing, etc. Believing in the Messiah is a wonderful starting point, but the Dragon won't be waging war against you unless you start keeping the commandments of Scripture as well.

On the surface, this can seem like an easy way to avoid persecution. Just don't keep the commandments and all will be good, right? But in Matthew 5:12 we are told to rejoice when we are persecuted! Not because it is pleasant, but because it is better to be persecuted for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven than it is to be honored and praised for works of darkness. For those that the book of Revelation speaks of, this persecution is the surest sign that they are on the right track.

Keep in mind that in addition to foretelling the last battle of good versus evil at the end of days, Revelation was the last book of the Bible to be written. When John had these visions, it was decades after the Messiah had ascended into Heaven. Most, or possibly all, of the original Disciples were dead, and the writings of Paul were completed. And angels were speaking to John that YHWH's people would be keeping his commands! This wasn't talking about before the Messiah's day when it was a given that Biblical law would be followed. Many pastors would tell you that Biblical law was done away with when the Messiah ascended, but here, decades later, John didn't believe that to be the case.

The Dragon hates when those who follow the Messiah also keep the commandments, and the Dragon hates what YHWH loves. Keeping Biblical law is so important to the Creator that the forces of evil actively work to stop it. If believers today don't keep the commands, are they aligning with the Dragon's side or the King's?

Note: This is not to say that those who don't keep the commandments and have the testimony of the Messiah will have it easy. If you are in a war zone, things are going to be hard. In wartime, even collaborators suffer. But it's very different to be a bystander to war than having war waged on you. 

More posts to understand Scripture:
What You Need to Know When You Read Galatians
Did the Messiah Break Biblical Law?
The Two Houses: Israel and Judah in Scripture

What You Need to Know When You Read Galatians

Galatians is a popular book in the New Testament that everyone seems to have a different take on. Traditional Christianity uses verses from Galatians as justification for setting aside Biblical commandments. Messianic believers might tell you that it's just talking about oral or Jewish law. Others read through it and think it contradicts itself repeatedly, or just feel confused. What is Galatians about?

How can we make sense of this important part of Scripture? This post will tell you how to read and study Galatians, so that you can understand how it is relevant today!

-Galatians is not meant to be read on its own. I grew up thinking that Galatians was some sort of trump card, and even if the Bible said the opposite thing somewhere else it didn't matter because somehow Galatians was more relevant or important than the rest of Scripture. But it's not legitimate to use one Bible verse to write off other parts of God's word. The way we translate and teach Galatians needs to fit with the rest of Scripture, because the Living God did not create his word to be contradictory. All of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is cohesive. It fits together and all of the passages make sense with all of the other passages. If there is something in the Bible that seems to be contrary to other verses, that should call our attention to examine that topic more thoroughly. If something in Scripture is confusing, that's because I don't understand it well enough - not because it really is confusing.

-Different types of law are talked about in Galatians. Did you know that most Bible translations just use the word "law" for different types of law? That's about as clear as walking into a bridal dress shop and saying that you like the white dress! Specifications matter, and in this case Galatians talks about both Biblical law, and Levitical law. We need to rightly discern which type of law it talks about when. Otherwise this book will seem like it's contradicting itself and other parts of the Bible.

-The Bible says that Paul's writings are hard to understand. Peter wrote that in 2 Peter 3:16 and warned that Paul's writings often end up distorted or twisted. Here is a warning from the Bible that we need to slow down and study this book. It's unrealistic to think that a quick, cursory reading of an English translation will lead us to to proper meaning of Galatians when Scripture warns us that it is difficult to understand. That doesn't mean we can't understand it, but this indicates that the true meaning of Galatians might be different than what we've been taught!

Related posts: 
A Hebraic Perspective on Galatians
The Three Types of Laws in Scripture
Comparing the Melchizedek and Levitical Priesthoods

Key Differences Between the Melchizedek and Levitical Priesthoods

Seeing that the Bible talks about two separate priesthoods was eye-opening for me. There are many differences between the Levitical priesthood, which was instituted after the sin of the golden calf, and the Melchizedek priestly order of the Messiah. Seeing these as two distinct entities will help you to better understand Scripture!

Scripture considers Melchizedek greater than Levi. (Hebrews 7:7)

The Melchizedek priesthood needs only the blood of the Messiah, and does not require animal sacrifice. (Hebrews 10:11-12)

The Messiah did not sin, and therefore did not need to atone for himself, whereas priests of Levi would first have to sacrifice sin offerings for themselves, before they could do so for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 7:27)

The Melchizedek priesthood is forever, but the Levitical priesthood was only for a time. (Hebrews 9:10)

The Levitical priesthood system is a copy and shadow of the heavenly Melchizedek priesthood. (Hebrews 8:5)

It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats (the operation of the Levitical priesthood) to take away sin, but the Messiah saves completely through his priesthood. (Hebrews 10:4, 7:25)

Levitical sacrifices had to be offered up day by day, but the Messiah's offering of his blood under the Melchizedek priesthood was once and for all.

Related posts:
A Hebraic Perspective on Hebrews
Comparing the Melchizedek and Levitical Priesthoods
Why We Don't Sacrifice Animals

Did the Messiah Break the Law?

To cut to the chase: no. The Messiah never once broke Biblical law. But he was often accused of breaking the law.

I used to read my Bible and think that when the Pharisees accused the Messiah of breaking Biblical law, they were correct. I figured that as the son of God, the Messiah had license to take some liberties. Just like the son or daughter of a business owner can, typically, get away with more slacking off than the average employee. And if keeping the law wasn't important to the Messiah, why on earth should it be to me?

One of the major themes of the New Testament that gets overlooked is the Messiah's harsh rebukes for manmade traditions. Many of us have made the assumption that the laws Yahusha stands against are from the Bible, buried deep somewhere in the Old Testament. But this is not the case. The laws he stood against were manmade, Jewish laws. It's important to know that Judaism has literally added thousands upon thousands of rules to their religious system that aren't found in Scripture. We see the Messiah's contempt for this in Mark 7:8, "You lay aside the commandments of YHWH, and instead hold to the traditions of men."

The Messiah frequently upset religious leaders. As did his followers. They frequently set aside manmade tradition or Jewish laws that weren't found in the Bible. But they didn't break the commandments of Scripture!

Some examples...

-Messiah accused of breaking the Sabbath day by healing someone. -Matthew 12:10
In Matthew 12:12 Yahusha responds to his accusers. He says, "It is lawful to do good on the Sabbath." That was not a new idea. He's not bending the rules or saying that it is lawful just because he says so. He is correcting his accusers. He's saying the Bible teaches this is lawful. He was not re-writing the Torah or making an "anything goes" loophole policy. He is explaining to them what the Bible says. While the Pharisees might say it is against their own laws to heal on the Sabbath, the Bible does not say this. Of course this means the Messiah did not break the law with his Sabbath healings.

-Followers eating grain on the Sabbath. -Luke 6:1-5
I think the Messiah almost brags a little here.... It's the Sabbath and some of his disciples are hungry, so they picked some kernels of wheat in a nearby field and threshed them in their hands to take off the hard chaff. While the Bible says we aren't to work on the Sabbath it does not say that you can't peel an orange to eat (which would be somewhat similar to what the disciples were doing). Yahusha told the accusers he was the Master of the Sabbath, as in I'm the best at this and I know what's permissible or not. No one knows more about what's lawful on the Sabbath than I do.

-Accusation of eating with unwashed hands. -Mark 7
Scripture tells us that there are certain animals we are not to eat, and that we are not to eat blood, and that's about it. So, yes, there are dietary laws but the Bible doesn't say that we need to do a ritual hand washing before we eat, otherwise that food magically becomes unclean or defiling. The "tradition of the elders of ritual hand washing" is not a commandment of YHWH, it's a tradition of men, and the Messiah did not stand for it. See more about that in this post.

-Peter's vision of going to the Gentiles. -Acts 10
Throughout Scripture non native born Israelites have been welcomed into the family of YHWH...the Israelites left Egypt with a "mixed multitude" of Egyptians who wanted to serve YHWH after seeing his mighty acts. Women like Rahab and Ruth were not born Israelites but are celebrated in the Messiah's lineage. Caleb was not a native born, and the prophet Obadiah is believed to be from Edom. Not allowing people like this into the faith is unbiblical. This practice was prevalent in the early church, which is why YHWH gave Peter a vision and said, "What I call clean, you do not call unclean." After this the Gospel was preached to the Gentiles.

-Paul confronting Peter about not eating with Gentiles when Jews were present. -Galatians 2:11-15
Paul tells Peter here that he shouldn't be following rules that aren't from the Bible. When he says, "You have discarded the Jewish laws, why are you trying to make these Gentiles follow Jewish tradition?" he means exactly that...Jewish tradition, not Scriptural commandments. He is in no way permitting or encouraging new believers to not follow the Biblical commandments.

"They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." -Matthew 15:9
The Messiah's statement here should be a stern warning to us not to place any human ideas or manmade traditions higher than what Scripture actually says! This goes for family traditions, Jewish law, and common Christian beliefs. None of these things should be treated as doctrines and they should never be deferred to over the commandments of the Bible.

Throughout the New Testament we see the Messiah and the apostles correcting these manmade laws. If we are going to correctly understand Scripture it is absolutely essential to realize the differences between the manmade traditions of Jewish law, and the commandments of YHWH. When the Messiah and his followers clashed with leaders of the Jewish faith, it was never because they weren't keeping a Biblical commandment. Religious leaders were upset because the Messiah was against their laws.

The Messiah always upheld and kept YHWH's instructions in the Torah. When he was accused of violating Biblical commandments, his accusers were in the wrong having applied their own traditions and customs to how the Bible is understood. Let us be careful today to not do the same thing!

More on the law:
Traditions or Commandments - Understanding the New Testament
The Faith of the Bible
The Three Types of Law in Scripture

Biblical Law and the Woman Caught in Adultery

Many of us have been told that when the Messiah let the woman who was caught in adultery go free, instead of being stoned to death, he changed Biblical law. Is that what happened?

This story comes to us from John 8. You're probably familiar with it. Jewish leaders brought a woman who had been caught in adultery before the Messiah. They said that in the Torah, Moses commanded that adulterers be stoned. What did Yahusha say about this?

They were looking for a way to trap him theologically. They wanted him to disagree with Moses. Keep in mind that they were not coming to him for advice or because it was required of them. They were experts in Biblical law and they had the authority to carry it out. This was either a trap or a test. He could have dazzled them with his wisdom, as he had before. But what did he do? He stooped down, and used his finger to write in the dirt like he didn't hear them. (John 8:6)

The Bible doesn't say exactly how long the Messiah wrote in the dirt, or what words he put down. Did he write out the passage they were referring to? Did he reference another part of Scripture? Did he write their names or sins? Did he write Psalms of repentance or about the hope of forgiveness through him? Did he write the truth about this situation?

They kept questioning him, and eventually he stood up and said one of his more famous phrases. "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7)

He stooped back down and went back to his writing. One by one the accusers and crowd went away, from oldest to youngest. After that he spoke to the accused woman. She told him that no one had condemned her. "Neither do I," he said to her. "Go and sin no more." (John 8:11)

Does this prove that the Messiah is altering Biblical law?

Deuteronomy 22:22 does say that adultery is a sin punishable by death:

"When a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman. Thus you shall purge the evil from Israel."

Biblical law says she deserves death. But not so fast. It also says here that both the man and the woman involved are to be put to death. Where is the man? If the religious leaders were so concerned with rightly dealing with sin, why didn't they bring him to the Messiah? There is no way for the woman to be "caught in" adultery, but not the man. It's not like they didn't know who he was. This seems to imply that something fishy is going on...did they lure her into a trap? Did someone come to them and accuse her falsely? Had she committed adultery with one of the accusing religious leaders and now they were hoping to do away with her while avoiding their own punishment?

Biblical law also says that someone can't be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. It would require two or three. While this passage of Scripture makes it sound like a fairly sizable group was present (she was brought by both scribes and Pharisees, both plural), it would seem extremely suspicious if everyone in this group was a firsthand witness to this sin. This indicates that many people present were accusing her on hearsay alone, which would be wrong and unfair. Since Scripture doesn't tell us that she was caught by at least two or three witnesses, we can't be 100% sure that there were enough witnesses to justify stoning. That means we can't be certain that the Bible truly calls for her to be stoned here.

Deuteronomy 17:7 says that the witnesses who caught her would be required to throw the first stones at her. I believe this was intentional by YHWH to prevent deaths unfairly...if you were going to accuse someone of a weighty sin, then you had to be ready to have their blood on your hands. This means it would be a sin to throw the first stones at someone caught in adultery, if you were not one of at least two witnesses to this sin. Scripture does not definitively say that the witnesses were present in John 8. If they weren't, it would have been wrong to stone her.

The man was not present, and it's not clear if there were first-hand witnesses present. This would make it against Biblical law to stone her, even if she truly had been caught in adultery. Would it be just to put someone to death on hearsay when the other alleged perpetrator of the crime is not even charged? It would not be, according to the laws given in the Torah.

Yahusha followed Biblical law by not stoning her. As a result it was a beautiful foreshadow of his taking the punishment that we all deserve for our sins. His death doesn't mean that adultery or breaking other Biblical commandments is now okay, but it means that forgiveness and redemption are possible when we repent of our mistakes.

"Go and sin no more," doesn't mean what she did was permissible. The Messiah calling it sin tells us it was definitely sin. By telling her not to sin, he was telling her not to break Biblical law. Even as this woman receives mercy and redemption, the Savior calls her to uphold the commandments of Scripture.

Related posts:
Commandments or Traditions - Understanding the New Testament
Stoning in the Bible
How the Bible Defines Sin