Let he who is without sin...

[Willum]

Christians are fond of the tales where Jesus (Joshua) abrogates the Judaic punishment for adultery with the wisdom... “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.�

Now adultery was one of the Commandments, and like the others, violation of it demanded death, according to God.

But some guy named Josh abrogated it with a bit of Hellenic wisdom.
Odd, to say the least.

Judaic law said the adulterer should be stoned, if I were Judaic, I wouldn’t see the problem.

But let’s expand the reasoning, shall we?
Say someone worships another god?
Should they be killed? Or should only those without sin kill them?
How about bearing false witness?
Should their sin be abrogated by “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone�?

How about murder?
Or is adultery the only Commandment that can be ignored in this way?

How does this all work out?
How does one address the hypocracy?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist]

Also, the question of knowing or not knowing who was sinless may not be relevant to his breaking the law, but it's directly relevant to the claim of his divinity (John 2:25).

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist]

My apologies if I went a little off-topic there; I got a bit worked up and will try to stay more focused.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 122 by Athetotheist]

It is quite all right:
People who can not read a few paragraphs, establish themselves as poor witnesses and believers for a book with 800,000 words.

They find themselves, as it were.

[marco]

" unquestionably "

Well since I am questioning, your adverb is used more in hope than in apt application.

In suggesting that the first stone-thrower should be sinless, he was unquestionably violating the law's command that nothing be added to it (Deuteronomy 4:2), because the adultery command (Deuteronomy 22:22) did not require that ANY stone-thrower be sinless. And it was Jesus himself harping on the niceties of the law when he declared that anyone violating one jot or tittle of them would be called least in the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 5:19).

The text to which you refer orders the person to be stoned. Jesus complied. I know that you think he complied by trickery but that is beside the point. In the letter of the law Jesus said "Go ahead and stone. " Sufficient. The thoughts in the heads of the potential executioners are not considerations about Christ's advice.

Disobedience of the law would be: "None shall stone her." He did not say this. As his defence counsel I submit the Galilean is innocent. You may wish to sentence him anyway for some peripheral infringement, but on the main point of his not complying with the atrocious command in Deuteronomy, he did well to say : "Go ahead, sinless first." Had his mum been present then perhaps she would have thrown the first stone, if indeed Deuteronomy allowed ladies to cast stones.


When his good deed on the Sabbath was questioned Jesus managed, in a similar way, to get round a law without incurring a penalty for breaking it though I think his defence here was more an appeal to common sense than a justification according to the law. And I don't think common sense stands up too well in biblical disputes.

[marco]

[Replying to Athetotheist]

Also, the question of knowing or not knowing who was sinless may not be relevant to his breaking the law, but it's directly relevant to the claim of his divinity (John 2:25).

I think if we move discussion to Christ's divinity we have many more areas to look at without judging him on some nuance of speech. His advice, in my view, is a clever way of eating one's cake and preserving it at the same time. He would have made a fine lawyer had he steered clear of fisherfolk.

[brunumb]

I read "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" as a suggestion rather than as an injunction.

[marco]

I read "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" as a suggestion rather than as an injunction.

It's called a jussive subjunctive: Let him who is sinless cast the first stone. It is a polite form of command, and invites rather than orders. "Have a little chat among yourselves and let the guy who is sinless throw first." Jesus smiled, and winked.

If only he had smiled more!

[Tcg]

Jesus smiled, and winked.

Well, somebody smiled, and winked. Or rather, someone had Jesus smile, and wink.

This passage doesn't show up until 370 years or so after the time Jesus reportedly died. It is such a well loved, or hated, passage that this fact gets ignored.

What we should really ask is not what Jesus intended to teach, but what those who invented this story of Jesus intended. Was it to create a kinder more gentle god than his dad, or an attempt to paint him as one who disobeyed the law?

Perhaps is was a practical joke intentionally written to confuse. If so, the joker should take great pride in their creation. It has caused centuries worth of confusion. There's no sign of this thread resolving that confusion.


Tcg

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to marco]

Prosecution contends that you're trying to get the defendent off on a technicality.

I'm not saying that he complied by trickery; I'm pointing out that he didn't comply at all. The law didn't say that any of them had to be sinless to carry it out, so it certainly didn't say that a sinless one had to be first. He *pretends* to tell them to comply with the law while deliberately imposing a condition which would make it impossible for them to do so. It's like he was saying, "Okay, go ahead and stone her......IF you can fly to the moon, gather a bunch of moon rocks, bring them back and stone her with those." So his intent is clear: to *teach* them, with his example, to deviate from what the law commands----which is itself a deviation from what he himself says in Matthew 5:19 about how the law is to be observed.

I agree with you that the law's command was atrocious, but it was the law's command and Jesus did endorse it in its entirety in Matthew. Here in John he's backpedaling to try to get out of a sticky implication of that endorsement.

[marco]

Prosecution contends that you're trying to get the defendent off on a technicality.

Then Prosecution should know that people DO get off on technicalities, especially when we are arguing technicalities .

I'm not saying that he complied by trickery; I'm pointing out that he didn't comply at all. The law didn't say that any of them had to be sinless to carry it out, so it certainly didn't say that a sinless one had to be first.

You are arguing from what the law did NOT specify. Presumably children and perhaps women would be disqualified as executioners and maybe insane people or those with injuries. Jesus is NOT disqualifying anyone from stoning; he is suggesting that the first stone thrower should preferably be sinless. He does not disqualify the rest in the event of there being no sinless first throwers. Therefore he is not in the least disobeying the law. As Prosecutor you are maintaining Jesus forbade people to stone. This is not so. That the result was that people walked away, is neither here nor there. They had a choice. Jesus incidentally did NOT say: only those without sin should stone the woman. That is often the misinterpretation but I'm sure, Mr. Prosecutor, that you did not make this mistake.

He *pretends* to tell them to comply with the law while deliberately imposing a condition which would make it impossible for them to do so.

Impossible only if they misunderstood him. He did NOT say that only sinless should stone. Wording, in matters of law, Mr. Prosecutor, is all important.

It's like he was saying, "Okay, go ahead and stone her......IF you can fly to the moon, gather a bunch of moon rocks, bring them back and stone her with those."

It is nothing like saying this. It is possible that someone might consider himself sinless and throw the first stone. It is a matter of personal assessment. Flying to the moon, in your supposed parallel, is not possible whatever the thrower might wish. The phraseology: Let the first sinner be someone who... is not a command but an invitation, a suggestion that would not apply to the group. If we want to get dramatic a scenario would be first man steps up, feels unworthy, drops his stone and walks away. In law this was him casting the first stone: it is not for the others to judge the man's worthiness - they simply step forward and bombard the girl with stones.

So his intent is clear

You will know that his "intent" is not on trial. He is judged by his words.

Here in John he's backpedaling to try to get out of a sticky implication of that endorsement.

He did get out of a sticky situation. He invited people to stone and suggested (let him) who might qualify to go first. The rest is assumption on your part, based on ignoring "first" and the fact that Jesus invited people to stone her.


Jesus walks free. Hallelujah!