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?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 9 by bluethread]

Well if you are defining a document by the topic, consider it dismissed, with extreme chuckling.

[Justin108]

So you interpret "he without sin" as "he who witnessed the adultery". Care to explain why you interpret it this way?

No, I am saying that the phrase, "in regard to these proceedings" is implied.

I see no such implication

It is a sin for anyone but the witnesses to caste the first stone.

Why did Jesus not simply say "let the witness cast the first stone"?

[marco]

Why did Jesus not simply say "let the witness cast the first stone"?

Because he was an expert in agreeing while disagreeing. He escaped many tricky encounters by the subtlety of his tongue. "Let the witness cast the first stone" is a direct invitation to stoning. By inviting the sinless person to come forward FIRST and begin proceedings was, in my fallible opinion, pretty clever.

When you're close to rabid lunatics you've to be careful not to get bitten.... at least until it's your chosen time.

[Justin108]

Why did Jesus not simply say "let the witness cast the first stone"?

Because he was an expert in agreeing while disagreeing. He escaped many tricky encounters by the subtlety of his tongue. "Let the witness cast the first stone" is a direct invitation to stoning. By inviting the sinless person to come forward FIRST and begin proceedings was, in my fallible opinion, pretty clever.

This still tells us Jesus did not want the woman stoned. He did not want the Leviticus law to be followed

[Willum]

[Replying to post 13 by marco]

The thing is: Jesus was not a legal authority of any kind. That anyone asked his opinion, can only be a plot device.

Do we ask Joseph Smith or Billy Graham about matters of law?
No.

Jesus was a marginal outlaw at the time of the asking. Saying that people showed inspired wisdom in asking him, is preposterous, for the same reason when there is a criminal matter, you don't go see you pastor to have a sentence commuted.

There was nothing clever about it: No one was beholden to Jesus, certainly not an angry, noisy mob.

Were it a "real" story, the Jews may have stoned him right there, or crucified him legally, later on.
And there you are.

[marco]

This still tells us Jesus did not want the woman stoned. He did not want the Leviticus law to be followed

It tells us he had compassion for the woman. Since he did not condemn the law outright, it is hard to say what his thoughts were. Just as he was reluctant to work his first miracle he may have felt it inappropriate to make a firm declaration against the law at that point. He was equally cautious in declaring what was Caesar's and what was God's.

If there was some sort of planning in the background, he would have acted in strict accordance with that plan, be it human or divine. To me, it looks as if he had human collaborators, not divine assistance.

[bluethread]

No, I am saying that the phrase, "in regard to these proceedings" is implied.

I see no such implication

The implication is the context. Implications are never stated, otherwise they would not be implications.

It is a sin for anyone but the witnesses to caste the first stone.

Why did Jesus not simply say "let the witness cast the first stone"?

You mean why didn't He say "let the witness, who is subject to stoning, if he or she is found guilty of perjury, in a subsequent trial."? Apart from the fact that these were teachers of the law and fully aware of these implications, and you might then question the statement because it would be overly cumbersome, challenging the listener to recognized things themselves is much more effective in reinforcing the point to the listener.

Justin108 wrote:


This still tells us Jesus did not want the woman stoned. He did not want the Leviticus law to be followed

On the contrary, the presumption of innocence is in HaTorah. Are you familiar with the commandment or is it necessary for me to spell it out in a cumbersome fashion, as you appear to require Yeshua to have done in every encounter?

[tigger2]

I find it strange that such long discussions concerning non-scriptural passages continue.

As JW pointed out in post #2 above, John 7:52-8:11 is of doubtful authenticity! That is, nearly all of the most important and earliest manuscripts do not include this passage. That is why it is left out in some Bibles, and some NT texts such as the UBS text and the Westcott and Hort text enclose it with double brackets.

As the footnote in the NAB for this passage says: "The story of the adulteress is missing from the best early Greek MSS [manuscripts]."

And the NIV Study Bible note says: "[John] 7:53—8:11 This story probably did not belong originally to the Gospel of John. It is absent from almost all the early manuscripts,"

The NASB note: "John 7:53 Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53-8:11."

"John 7.53-8.11 Pericope of the Adulteress

"The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. .... [Long list of the earliest MSS, oldest translations, etc. which do not have it.] No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

"When one adds to this impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the Fourth Gospel (see any critical commentary), and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12ff., the case against its being of Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive." - pp. 219, 220, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Metzger, United Bible Societies, 1971. Bolding added by me.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 18 by tigger2]

Sorry Tigger2 but your charge is that non-Christians should judge which of the Bible to accept, or not.
They all provide such good fodder, that I like to hunt each one down, tear its wings off and dispel it from existence.

[Justin108]

No, I am saying that the phrase, "in regard to these proceedings" is implied.

I see no such implication

The implication is the context. Implications are never stated, otherwise they would not be implications.

I know what an implication is... I still see no such implication.

Why did Jesus not simply say "let the witness cast the first stone"?

You mean why didn't He say "let the witness, who is subject to stoning, if he or she is found guilty of perjury, in a subsequent trial."? Apart from the fact that these were teachers of the law and fully aware of these implications, and you might then question the statement because it would be overly cumbersome, challenging the listener to recognized things themselves is much more effective in reinforcing the point to the listener.

Frankly, I see nothing but selective interpretation on your part.