Jesus and the Ten Commandments

[Willum]

So team, I think we all agree that the Ten Commandment are God's most cardinal unbreakable laws.

As God's son and a piece of him - whatever anyone may say, violating those commandments should be impossible - if he were real, I am sure we all agree.

So, let's see how many of them Jesus advocates breaking?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

and what it means.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by marco]

Well, so I am going to have to go with Jesus overturning at least one adultery. Without several examples, we have to assume that he would stop all punishments for adultery... him advocating not stoning her, against the commandment... It seems you argument is a house (God) divided against himself. The father says commandment, Jesus says its OK to break it...
That's one commandment down...

Though I admit I am still confused by your argument, so - I may be missing something. You lost me at Shakespeare.

bluethread - Your argument seems to completely contradict itself. Yes Jesus did something that was touchy-feely, but bon mots against God's commandments won't get you through the Pearly Gates, I don't think...

[marco]

[quote="Willum"

Well, so I am going to have to go with Jesus overturning at least one adultery. Without several examples, we have to assume that he would stop all punishments for adultery... [/quote]

Once again I say he did not say they should not stone; he did not say only the sinless should stone her; he acted in compliance with the commandment, and merely suggested the order in which they do the gruesome task. For some amazing reason this prevented the lady being killed. I'm sure that trick wouldn't work in Iran today.
Extrapolation is invalid, since it is a singular example, more a parable on the favourite topic of being nice to the neighbour.

For all we know he possibly spectated, impotently, on unrecorded stonings.

[quote="Willum"
That's one commandment down... [/quote]

Nope - the penalty for adultery remained intact. He carefully avoided rescinding the commandment.

Having said all this I think the message of Christ contrasts starkly with the thunder of the OT. It is hard to believe Yahweh loved anyone but himself, and had as little concern for a sparrow as he had for Isaac or Lot's wife. Christ's communistic message is politics of a new order: love thy neighbour and God will love you. One must suppose Jesus had another God in mind or spoke out of filial loyalty.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 12 by marco]

Was she punished for committing adultery, or not?
The answer is no.
Is there anyone who would have been punished under those same circumstances? No.
In what other scenario who someone have been punished?

That is one Commandment violated, with no reason to discontinue.

Mercy, though wonderful and good, and making Jesus into some kind of hero, flies in the face of the commandment.

The Devil might do something "clever," so that people broke God's law... and Jesus seemed to give people carte blanche for adultery.

Under what conditions would it not be OK?
Under what conditions would it not be OK in Jesus eyes?

[marco]

Was she punished for committing adultery, or not?
The answer is no. [ /quote]

Were the people who brought her entitled to kill her? Should she have been brought to Jesus? Had she been brought to the right authorities she presumably would have been killed. The anecdote we are examining involves Jesus being asked what to do, given the law. They knew the correct procedure. Jesus had no authority to revoke the law; he was not the judicial instrument, just a spectator whose opinion was solicited so that he could be seen to be in denial. Had it come to trying Jesus, he would have escaped punishment because he did NOT say she should not be killed. Nor did he say, as is often believed, that only the guiltless should throw stones at her: the man without sin should cast the first stone was what he suggested.

Despite our disagreement here, Willum, I remain on the Lord's side in this. He did nothing to overturn the law but it is clear from his standpoint that he felt the law was overly harsh. That is another matter.

... and Jesus seemed to give people carte blanche for adultery.

The point is he wasn't acting as an official judge. Had he arrogated himself to that station his execution might have come sooner. He wisely refrained from condemnation by suggesting the woman should be stoned first by the sinless and then presumably in a line down to the devil. He wasn't always as nice as this, so I wouldn't condemn him when he's being good - and careful.

But I think we'll agree to differ on this one, my friend.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Ahh! I understand - no, no, no, we are just talking past each other.

I don't disagree that Jesus didn't do a right thing.
Murder for adultery is wrong, from my biased Western Point of View.

However, I am not talking about what is right or wrong, I am speaking about whether or not he endorsed breaking a commandment.

Not only, in hindsight, did he endorse breaking a commandment, but he encouraged observers of the act, to believe there would be no punishment for it in the future (- really I am thinking this guy is more like Satan, at least from a certain point of view.)

So, Yes, it was a good thing he done, but he still failed to support God's top ten.

What would a Jewish person of the 1st century think? and not a gentile of the 1st century believe?

[marco]

I don't disagree that Jesus didn't do a right thing.
Murder for adultery is wrong, from my biased Western Point of View.

But I am not arguing along those lines. In Western eyes Jesus, in NOT condemning stoning as a barbarous act, would be wrong. If he truly had superhuman powers at his disposal, he could there and then have corrected a wrong, namely that stoning naughty girls is wicked. For whatever reason, he played on Yahweh's side, endorsing stoning as fair enough while inviting the first thrower to step forward.

The result - on which you are judging him - is neither here nor there. We are examining what Christ advised, and he did not advise breaking the commandment. Jews observing this would conclude that there was nobody about willing to throw the first stone, though the door was open. Christ did nothing to break their law. As I said, it was not up to Jesus or random people to be stoning the woman; it should have been referred to the authorities. Christ was a spectator.

I wonder what the discussion here would be had he said: "I know that Yahweh ordered the killing of adulteresses but I tell you this is wrong." I think he thought this and I wonder why the words never came to his lips.


Interesting discussion.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 13 by Willum]

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?�

It might be useful to look at what the Law actually says.

‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Doesn't anyone wonder how they could catch a woman in the act and not the man. [/quote]

[benchwarmer]

Doesn't anyone wonder how they could catch a woman in the act and not the man

An excellent point. Dollars to donuts the man was in the crowd of people ready to stone the woman. After all, the the man was not caught, so wouldn't he be the only one that would have witnessed the crime and reported it?

Or shall we chalk this up to yet another case of 'blame the woman and punish her'. This reminds of another law that requires the removal of a woman's hand for daring to protect her man from an attacker.

It continues to amaze me that any woman, after reading the entire Bible, would want to follow this nonsense.

At least this Jesus character (or the authors of these later tales) attempted to inject some sanity into the whole mess.

[Willum]

Subtracting bluethread, I think the we posters on this OP have each separately arrived at individual different paths to conclude this story of the adulterous woman is a parable, or otherwise made-up:
1. They caught the woman in the act, but not the man.
2. An apologist release of "Blame the woman and punish her."
3. They asked Jesus, why would they ask him? It's poor plot device based on the specious assumption anyone would care about his opinion.
4. God would see the adultery, and see that the punishment had NOT been carried out - therefore the law-abiding Jewish in the crowd would not accept the story...
5. Why was she not brought before the proper authorities, instead of this fiasco...

For these reasons, probably more we shouldn't ascribe any reality to the story. Interesting revelation...
Back to topic.

[Replying to post 14 by marco]

Were the people who brought her entitled to kill her? Should she have been brought to Jesus? Had she been brought to the right authorities she presumably would have been killed.

So, presumably she WAS brought to the right authorities,sometime after the story. Then she was stoned to death.
So what impact is the story and Jesus role?
None. Another reason to suspect the story.

But were they entitled to kill her? I think so, there is no passage in the Bible I am aware of that controls who deals God's justice.

So this leaves us with Jesus' actual message, was it one of disregarding the commandment? We are left there - did the crowd have the right to kill the woman? I don't know, but it seems to me, if no one was going to punish them, then certainly they were empowered. Perhaps they lawfully needed benediction from their Sadducee or Pharisee masters, I don't know -perhaps they were only jumping the gun.

Anyone?

[marco]

[Replying to post 19 by Willum]

The problem we have is this. The God of the OT is terrifying and can punish folk for the slightest infringement. In a play he would be regarded as the arch villain. To call him merciful is to use cruel sarcasm.

Jesus, on the other hand, is a nice guy. His stories tell people to be kind and he is generally very kind. Placing him in the story of the woman taken in adultery gives the writers the chance to show how nice he is.


So Jesus has the impossible task of acting nice yet defending Yahweh. This requires a miracle bigger than his resurrection. As we learn in West Side Story:
"Goodness gracious that's why he's a mess!"