Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Did Jesus stone or enable stoning?
 

John 8 seems to have Jesus saving a woman from stoning to death for adultery.  Christians teach that God wrote the Bible by guiding human authors and when you point out the text differences they say that text differences do not effect doctrine. The adulteress text is a text difference.  If this text shows Jesus lapsed in his repeated support for the Jewish Law including its cruelty then it would amount to effecting doctrine and thus invalid.  But the story is really about Jesus using the episode to deal with the hypocrisy of her accusers and is not about saving her life.  Jesus was in the Temple Courts and had to be very careful not to preach against the Jewish Law about stoning.

 

Let us read the story.
 
The Jewish leaders brought a woman caught in the act of adultery to Jesus. Read John 8 - New International Version (NIV)

1 Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them.

 

3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group

 

4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery.

 

5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?”

 

 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.

 

7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

 

8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.

10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

11 “No one, sir,” she said.

“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

 

COMMENT:

 

Jesus gave a core teaching in the Sermon on the Mount saying let your yes be yes and your no no.  So he was committed to saying what he meant.  He said, "If you want her stoned then fine but be worthy to do so.  The implication is they could find somebody worthy to do so.  That can imply, "She is not tried for a crime and this is a lynch mob but they can get her stoned through the right channels and indeed may do that."   Instead of acting immediately he dragged it out punishing her by making her feel she was about to be killed.  He refused to just walk away for they could not stone her anyway.  They were not authorised.  He judged her as an adulteress and in those times that meant lifelong stigma that was a bigger torture than being stoned.  He said nothing about the extreme violence of stoning vulnerable women to death.  He could have said Rome's ban on killing anybody should be respected.  He said absolutely nothing which again left her in fear of being dragged before a mob again.  And what about the other women out there?

 

MAIN POINTS:

 

IT WAS A DANGEROUS TRAP -  THEY WANTED TO NAIL JESUS IF HE SAID MOSES LAW WAS WRONG

 

HE CONFIRMS IT IS RIGHT BUT GETS OUT OF THE TRAP

 

JESUS DOES NOT SAY HE FORGIVES HER.

 

HE PUNISHES HER BY MAKING HER FEEL SHE WAS ABOUT TO BE STONED.  THERE IS NO COMPASSION FOR HER TERROR.  HE DRAGS IT OUT.

HE DOES NOT SAY SHE SHOULD NOT BE STONED ON PRINCIPLE

HE SAYS SHE SHOULD BE STONED BY WORTHY PEOPLE.  HE MADE HER FEEL SHE SHOULD BE BRUTALLY SLAIN IF ANYBODY WAS HOLY ENOUGH TO HAVE THE HONOUR OF DOING IT.

 

 

 

HE SAYS THAT VIOLENT ABUSE OF AN INNOCENT VULNERABLE WOMAN - USUALLY BY MALES STONING HER - IS A DECENT DEED

HE COULD NOT SANCTION HER MURDER AS IT WAS IN THE TEMPLE AND AS SHE HAD NO TRIAL AND THUS STONING HER WAS AGAINST THE STONING REGULATIONS

THE STORY REINFORCES THE LEGITIMACY OF STONING WOMEN TO DEATH

 

HE TELLS HER SHE IS AN ADULTERESS AND A SINNER.  HE WAS MARKING HER FOR LIFE.  AND IN THOSE TIMES IT MEANT SHE WAS AT RISK OF BEING STONED LATER ON BECAUSE SHE WAS STIGMATISED.  THE IMPLICATION IS THAT IF PEOPLE CAN BE FOUND WHO ARE DECENT ENOUGH THEY MUST STONE HER SO SHE COULD STILL HAVE BEEN STONED MAYBE AS SOON AS JESUS LEFT THE TEMPLE

 

THE STORY IS NOT ABOUT POLITICAL CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - THIS IS NOT ABOUT JUSTICE AS SUCH BUT ABOUT CONTROLLING SOCIETY AND PUTTING THE CRIMINAL OFF FURTHER CRIMES.  IT IS ABOUT USING STONING TO BALANCE GOD'S JUSTICE SCALES.

 

ANYBODY GIVING WORDS OF WISDOM WILL SAY, "LET HIM WITHOUT SIN BE THE FIRST TO CAST A STONE."  THAT LINE WAS SAID IN A  CONTEXT WHERE A WOMAN WAS BRUTALISED PSYCHOLOGICALLY BY JESUS.  ANYBODY SAYING THAT NEEDS TO BE SILENCED AND REPRIMANDED.  ITS AN INSULT TO THE RELIGIOUSLY MURDERED WOMEN.  JESUS WAS SAYING ADULTERY CAN BE AN EXCUSE FOR MURDER IF YOU ARE HOLY ENOUGH.

 

JESUS GETS HIS REVENGE ON HER FOR ADULTERY

 

Jesus could have taken the woman away. Nobody could force her to stay. He didn’t. We have no idea how degraded this woman felt for Jesus made her feel she was about to be stoned by a gang. It was a public humiliation. She was terrified. Jesus got his revenge on her this way. Do not underestimate how this experience left its mark on her forever. His telling her to sin no more after that was an implied threat. There was no compassion.

 

SOME THOUGHTS
 
In John 8, a woman caught committing adultery is brought to Jesus to see if he will endorse the death penalty laid down by God which is death by stoning.

 

If the story shows Jesus let her off the hook then that was down to luck not goodness for the same gospel says the same man, in evil Old Testament style, whipped and attacked and verbally abused people in the Temple not long before.  But it is not clear he really intended to let her get away with it.

 

Jesus supposedly saved her by reminding her accusers that they were no better than her.  The accusers give no hint that they really want to stone the woman and we are told it was a test of Jesus to see what he would say.  He saved nobody.

 

Even if Jesus did save her, it would not imply opposition to the death penalty if her accusers were trying to trap him by making out he opposed the law.  If so it failed for Jesus said she should be stoned but only under the right circumstances. 

 

It is possible that when he said he does not condemn her that he means he was aware that she did not fully consent to the adultery and thus her lack of consent made her ineligible for the death penalty.  But that is refuted by how he is clear that she must be stoned but only by those who are morally good enough to do so.  They have to be worthy as if stoning were a reward.  This fits the Bible God's command that there must be no pity and its an honour to "purge the evil from your midst."

 

He would have had a problem with the accusers demanding that she be stoned when God is clear in the Bible that the entire congregation must do it - it is not a job for a mob no matter if it is a big one or not which is not clear from the story.  Worse, the temple was not the place for stoning.
 
He says that the person there who does not deserve what she deserves may lift the first stone.

 

Jesus supposedly protected her by getting the accusers not to stone her.  Jesus did not protect the woman. The protection just happened. It was pure luck that the men did not lift up stones and say they were not sinners so they were entitled to.

 

He merely makes the accusers realise that they deserve stoning as much as she does so they walk away.  The most natural idea is that the accusers were also guilty of adultery.  If so, then the story is not against stoning a woman to death but against selectively stoning people to death.  The law of Moses recognised that everybody sins.  Those men did not just commit ordinary sins and must have deserved stoning themselves and they had the honesty to walk away.  The sin Jesus refers to is definitely capital sin - sin that asks for and deserves a cruel execution.
 
He does not tell her he forgave her but that he will not stone her. He could not stone her himself anyway. Nor could he lift the first stone when the others deserved stoning as well for they would be joining in.
 
He tells her not to sin that way any more.  Jesus did not ask the woman to repent of her sin but to avoid it.  The context shows he meant she was lucky this time and would hopefully be stoned if she committed adultery again.


The story is distorted by many as a protest against the death penalty.
 
But Jesus made it clear he never disagrees with God and God laid out that penalty in his scripture that he would have went to honour in the synagogue every Saturday.

 

He told Pilate that God gave him the power to put him to death - John 19. 

 

He said that its better to drown somebody than to let them corrupt children (Matthew 18:6).

 

The criminal with Jesus on the cross agreed with his own death sentence in Luke 23:40-41 and Jesus showed his approval by giving him instant paradise.
 
Jesus is clear she should be stoned. Even if she was not stoned then, it follows that she could have been stoned later. He does not actually say the penalty is done away.

 

The Jews would have thought Jesus did not stone the woman for he was a sinner himself.  We can think that too!
 
Those closest to Jesus agreed with the death penalty such as Paul his prime apostle, Acts 25:11, "If I am a wrongdoer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of these things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them."

 

Why were the men so sure Jesus would agree with the stoning?  If he had they could send the Romans authorities to him to incarcerate him and dispatch him for murder.  That was what they wanted.  There were other ways to trap him so it was more than just a trap.  He must have clearly endorsed the laws right to stone and put it into practice.  If it is true that they were vigilantes then they risked their own lives by going to such an extreme to get Jesus to authorise murder without the say of the law.  They were certain that Jesus was pro-death penalty even for vulnerable women like the one stood before him.

 

To sum up, Jesus did not save her for her sake but for his own.  He said stoning her was a holy act.  He made it about exposing the hypocrisy of her accusers not saving her.  He never even told her he forgave her.  He made her sweat in fear as he dragged out the episode.