Jesus vs. Leviticus

[Justin108]

Leviticus 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.

It's pretty clear. There's no ambiguity here. Adulterers are to be put to death.

But in John 8, when an adulteress is caught in the act, instead of sentencing her to death, Jesus says....

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

It has never been a requirement that the one to cast the stone be sinless, so why did Jesus add "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"? When did it become a requirement that only the sinless shall stone adulterers?

Now keep in mind, Leviticus 20 is the Law from God himself

Leviticus 20
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying...

Nowhere in Leviticus or anywhere in the Old Testament is there any mention of only he without sin casting stones. Jesus made that clause himself.

So who is wrong?
- Jesus for going against the Law established by God?
- God for establishing an immoral law?

[Justin108]

To show mercy (and perhaps teach it at the same time).

Why the sudden interest in mercy? Did God show mercy when he established this law in the first place? Why does this woman deserve mercy but all those stoned to death before her do not?

To save the woman's life.

A life that was in danger precisely because of the Law God put in place. So essentially, Jesus is trying to save this woman from God?

Now keep in mind, Leviticus 20 is the Law from God himself

Keep in mind that Christ is the Truth from God, Himself. Not to mention that HE is the Word of God.

Ok so Leviticus is from God... and Christ is from God... so why does Christ tell us to ignore Leviticus? Did God change his mind somewhere along the way?

Christ also said that mercy was one of the more important matters of the law (along with justice and faith).

Then why was the Law always so merciless? How can you say the Law was merciful when so many crimes resulted in death? How can you look at Leviticus 20:10 and say "the Law is merciful"?

1 - some laws were given as an allowance for the hard hearts of the people, but were not true from the beginning.

There's a difference between allowing something and commanding something. Leviticus 20:10 does not say "you may put them to death", it commands that "(they) shall surely be put to death". This is a command, not a mere allowance.

2 - the lying pen of the scribes has handled the law falsely

Are you saying Leviticus is a false doctrine and not from God?

And of course the law was only meant to be a tutor leading TO Christ; and when Christ came, one was meant to listen to Him.

So the Law tutored us to kill each other over petty crimes... only to then be told "oh don't do that anymore"? Please explain how telling us to kill adulterers were meant to "tutor" us?

Even Moses said that when the Messiah came, that the people were to listen to Him.

I'm not saying Jesus should not be listened to. I am asking why what Jesus commands is in direct opposition to what God commanded?

So in answer to your question of "who was wrong?", neither Christ nor God were wrong.

God says "kill adulterers", Jesus says "don't". Logically, one has to be wrong.

But the written law can be mishandled, misunderstood and even have allowances made in it for the hard hearts of the people.

Leviticus 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.

This seems pretty easy to understand. There is no ambiguity here. Please explain how this verse should be understood according to you?

[Justin108]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

First: Is it not interesting that in the story (positing for argument it is historical, though interposed into John) that the Pharisees, who have plenty of evidence for themselves to stone her, instead go and entrap Jesus? Clearly strict obedience to the law is not their prime motivation now, but trapping someone else.

Their motivation does not change the fact that Jesus' solution to the problem of what to do with the adulteress is to go against Leviticus 20:10. Why did Jesus do this? Why did he not simply say "do what the Law states and stone her"?

Second: Jesus was not there and therefore is no witness.

Is Jesus not omniscient? If not, could he not have prayed to God to ask him if this woman is guilty?

All he does is ask a question.

No what he does is tell them that the one without sin should cast the first stone. Why did he say this?

Thus if anyone is guilty of breaking Levitical law, it is the Pharisees.

What law did they break?

Third: When Jesus is alone with the woman, he has no legal position in the affair; he is not a witness. If, "no one is there to condemn her" well, obviously "he can't condemn her"; he has no grounds.

Legal authority or not, they asked Jesus what to do and Jesus told them to basically ignore Leviticus 20:10

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by tam]

That never happened.

Unless you have some evidence to present for it?

Of course it happened, Tam.
Jewish law required stoning for adultery.
She was seen committing adultery.

But to give you an analogy.
Instead of using Jesus, imagine they went to Billy Graham or the Pope, and asked their opinion of the crime.

Neither Jesus, the Pope nor Billy Graham are legal authorities. So maybe they are listened to to assuage a raging mob, but eventually the authorities show up, take her (and him) before the judge and they are stoned to death. After all there were plenty of witnesses, and they did violate a commandment, with a prescribed punishment.

Why on Earth would you assume otherwise?

Jesus was some guy wandering around with a small following. He had no power to judge the law. Except of course if you assume he does because of a plot device in the Bible.
And remember, to many in Jerusalem of the time, Jesus and his band were considered more of a "street gang," than a respectable group.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 11 by Justin108]

A life that was in danger precisely because of the Law God put in place. So essentially, Jesus is trying to save this woman from God?

This is a good point. The God of the OT is a brutal character - perhaps this God is the Devil, and Jesus exists to save us from him.

[Left Site]

Leviticus 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.

It's pretty clear. There's no ambiguity here. Adulterers are to be put to death.

But in John 8, when an adulteress is caught in the act, instead of sentencing her to death, Jesus says....

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

It has never been a requirement that the one to cast the stone be sinless, so why did Jesus add "he that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her"? When did it become a requirement that only the sinless shall stone adulterers?

Now keep in mind, Leviticus 20 is the Law from God himself

Leviticus 20
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying...

Nowhere in Leviticus or anywhere in the Old Testament is there any mention of only he without sin casting stones. Jesus made that clause himself.

So who is wrong?
- Jesus for going against the Law established by God?
- God for establishing an immoral law?

It is probably like opening up a quagmire with those who yet ascribe to keeping that Mosaic Law Covenant (even though they cannot possibly do it to it's full letter as the requirement was that it be kept) but,

By the time of the Messiah's arrival that Law had completed it's purpose of justifying God's viewing all people upon this earth as spiritually dead due to sin. Jesus was the only living human that God was able to view as not being spiritually dead, thus placing him in the position of the first man Adam before Adam sinned. That then allowed God to raise up repentant ones from among the spiritually dead of the world letting them share in the power of the life that was in Jesus. This is why the Congregation of God (the Church) is said to be Jesus' body.

I won't try to enter into a huge amount of detail here and now. But if you are interested in hearing more about it, you are welcome to ask me for more detail.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]


It is generally accepted that this passage is not part of the original text. It is referred to as the pericope adulterae. Some contend that it nevertheless was a historic event, others like myself believe there is no reason to believe it was. In any case it is, in my opinion, quite a leap to conclude that suggesting someone without sin "cast the first stone" should be read as a negation of the Mosaic law or an infringement on the law, since he was not saying no stones should be cast, but using hyperbole to highlight the superiority of divine judgement.

There is nothing recorded in the accepted bible canon whereby Jesus broke or contradicted any of the Mosaic laws.


JW

Hello....
1. Is the pericope adulterae included in your bible?
2. If it is included, does this mean that certain passages in the bible are not the words of God as passed down through His ordained prophets and apostles?
3. Does this mean that some parts of the bible can be overlooked or dismissed?
4. Are all the Laws of Moses (except the 96 laws about sacrifice) still current laws?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]


It is generally accepted that this passage is not part of the original text. It is referred to as the pericope adulterae. Some contend that it nevertheless was a historic event, others like myself believe there is no reason to believe it was. In any case it is, in my opinion, quite a leap to conclude that suggesting someone without sin "cast the first stone" should be read as a negation of the Mosaic law or an infringement on the law, since he was not saying no stones should be cast, but using hyperbole to highlight the superiority of divine judgement.

There is nothing recorded in the accepted bible canon whereby Jesus broke or contradicted any of the Mosaic laws.


JW

Hello....
1. Is the pericope adulterae included in your bible?
2. If it is included, does this mean that certain passages in the bible are not the words of God as passed down through His ordained prophets and apostles?
3. Does this mean that some parts of the bible can be overlooked or dismissed?
4. Are all the Laws of Moses (except the 96 laws about sacrifice) still current laws?

Hello....
1. Is the pericope adulterae included in your bible? No it isn't

2. If it is included, does this mean that certain passages in the bible are not the words of God as passed down through His ordained prophets and apostles?

N/A (see above)

3. Does this mean that some parts of the bible can be overlooked or dismissed?

No (see #1)

4. Are all the Laws of Moses (except the 96 laws about sacrifice) still current laws?


Well if by "still current" do you mean "binding on Christians" no. Jehovah's Witnesse s believe that Christians are not under the Mosaic Laws they are under (as in obliged to obey) Christian law and principle.

JW

[oldbadger]

1. Is the pericope adulterae included in your bible?[/b] No it isn't

2. If it is included, does this mean that certain passages in the bible are not the words of God as passed down through His ordained prophets and apostles?
N/A (see above)

3. Does this mean that some parts of the bible can be overlooked or dismissed?
No (see #1)


4. Are all the Laws of Moses (except the 96 laws about sacrifice) still current laws?


Well if by "still current" do you mean "binding on Christians" no. Jehovah's Witnesse s believe that Christians are not under the Mosaic Laws they are under (as in obliged to obey) Christian law and principle.

JW

I've been away, lurking around many theological, Christian and religion forums in my search for any tiniest snippets of HJ information.

This might surprise you, but your reply is the first in many weeks which has just simply, openly, honestly answered questions like the above.

But that's JWs.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 18 by oldbadger]

Thank you.

I try to be clear in my answers if I can. I did post an answer about "historical Jesus" over on the relevant thread, I'm a little confused as to what the issue on that topic.

[oldbadger]

[Replying to post 18 by oldbadger]

Thank you.

I try to be clear in my answers if I can. I did post an answer about "historical Jesus" over on the relevant thread, I'm a little confused as to what the issue on that topic.

I must sneak over and take a look at your post. I've been away for some time, but will answer if it is about one of my threads.