Heard this last week by a pastor of our faith. He said that only the husband of an adulterous woman could bring charges against her. The woman caught in adultery taken before Jesus was not married and it was heads of the church and her uncle that dragged her to Jesus. Were they the out of line to do this according to mosaic law?
The pastor didnt quote scripture or SOP. He just said it.
Heard this last week by a pastor of our faith. He said that only the husband of an adulterous woman could bring charges against her. The woman caught in adultery taken before Jesus was not married and it was heads of the church and her uncle that dragged her to Jesus. Were they the out of line to do this according to mosaic law?
The pastor didnt quote scripture or SOP. He just said it.
Leviticus 20:10 says that both adulterous parties were to be equally punished, but it doesn't say who did the referring to the authorities.
Matthew 1:19, 5:32, and 19:8-9 talk more generally about husbands putting away their wives. This appears to be in part a reference to divorce in general, and in part to putting away wives for adultery.
The SOP quote below says specifically that it was a husband's duty to take action, and not other people, especially the gross hypocrites who were promoting this case.
There is also the spiritual analogy, where Christ is the husband of the church, and puts away His wife under certain circumstances (Jeremiah 3:14, Ephesians 5:23, Matthew 23:38, Mark 15:38).
---
With all their professions of reverence for the law, these rabbis, in bringing the charge against the woman, were disregarding its provisions. It was the husband's duty to take action against her, and the guilty parties were to be punished equally. The action of the accusers was wholly unauthorized. Jesus, however, met them on their own ground. The law specified that in punishment by stoning, the witnesses in the case should be the first to cast a stone. Now rising, and fixing His eyes upon the plotting elders, Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." And stooping down, He continued writing on the ground. {DA 461.3}
Sounds like the pastor was making up a story as he went along, NB. "Uncle"???
Deut 22:22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
Lev 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Lev 21:9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire.
Prov 6:32 But whoso committeth adultery with a woman lacketh understanding: he that doeth it destroyeth his own soul.
I don't see anywhere it states WHO is to bring forth the charges. It looks to me, that as long as there were 2 witnesses, the trial could go forward. To say the husband had to do it is strange, as the husband may be away on a long journey, and not come back for years.
Notice in the example of the woman caught in adultery in John 8, that the witnesses were to be brought forward and cross-examined. Jesus was, in effect, telling them to bring forth these witnesses. Of course they knew that if anything they said disagreed, they would immediately be given the death sentence, per the Law of Moses (God's law). The fact the man involved got away scot-free has been explained well over the years, but the fact about the witnesses I had not heard until researching for an answer to you.
Of course the husband/wife should be the one to bring forth charges, but there could be extenuating circumstances - like maybe the wife had escaped to a city of refuge for killing someone, so the husband committed adultery in her absence. Even without the spouse's presence/approval, the sentence could be meted out, as far as I can determine.
The law on adultery does not apply to polygamy, which is interesting....
The law on what to do if the husband suspected his wife of adultery is even more interesting....
Thinking about this last night, I realized that in other sexual perversion cases such as bestiality or fornication before marriage, it was never the "husband" that instigated charges.
To me, this is just more proof that if there were two witnesses, it didn't matter what their relation to the individual involved was in order to bring charges.
Interesting I believe that what was mentioned was about a particular case but didnt encompass all possibilities. what these men did wrong was that they were as guilty or more guilty than her. How dare they accuse her when they are guilty too. How did they trap her? Me thinks it was one of those men. And one of her accusers may have been the very man that introduced her to this slavery.
I believe that what was mentioned was about a particular case but didnt encompass all possibilities. 
