JOHN 8 SHOWS THAT JESUS RESPECTED MALE HATE OVER FEMALE RIGHTS

In John 8, a woman caught committing adultery is brought to Jesus to see if he will endorse the penalty laid down by God which is death by stoning.  A lot of ink is used on this topic because everybody senses that Jesus was not a true believer in equality between men and women.  He had friendships with women but his friendship with patriarchy was more important to him.  So he was not a true friend.  The story would get less attention had it been a warlock or a kidnapper.

The narrative claims that Jesus was being set up.  If he spared her he was accused of breaking the law of Moses.  If he authorised her stoning he was still breaking that law for she had no trial.  And also the Romans would be charging him with murder.  All he had to do was point that out and walk away but this wildly implausible story goes on to get even sillier.  But it does show he considered himself bound to obey the Law of Moses.

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.  Why people think he did is, is a mystery.

Jesus supposedly saved her by reminding her accusers that they were no better than her. He said, "If you have no sin, anyone, then be the first to lift up a stone and throw it at her."  This shows he was trying to put a violent temptation in them - "If I am not worthy to stone her, I wish I was so I could do it."  It seems that he says that the person there who does not deserve what she deserves may lift the first stone.  If so then they could not stone her for they should look at themselves and get themselves stoned.

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.  Crafty Jesus definitely thought they would not do it anyway which is why he had no fear of saying they could go ahead if any righteous one among them cast the first stone inviting the rest to follow suit.  He saved nobody.

Interestingly, nobody said to him, "Why are you not lifting the first stone if you are supposed to be such a great law-keeper?  Don't some say you are sinless?"  If Jesus had really been claiming to be sinless or at least unusually righteous he would not have thrown down that challenge.  He definitely included himself as one of the ones not worthy to abuse her and kill her.

Also, there was the risk of them saying, "We are good men" and then reaching for the stones even if it were not so.  Jesus was being reckless with the woman's life and thus terrifying her.

The story is stupid.  There is no logic to, "It is okay for evil hypocrites to stone her as long as a good man lifts the first stone".  And how good is the good man if he gives permission to vicious hypocrites to kill?  It is even worse when you look at the context.  If stoning a person is wrong or wrong just in this instance for she had no trial then the illogic in it is doubled.  Jesus would prove his insanity if he said such a thing.  And that he was far from sinless but had a huge black hole where you would expect some moral sense.

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. 

They all went away.  Then he told the woman that he did not condemn her and to go and sin no more.  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 even if that were so it does not mean he cared about her dignity or consent.  It was irrelevant to him perhaps.  A Jesus who agreed with young immature often malnourished female children being forced into marriage as which customary then - he even banned females from divorcing - was not going to care about her consent.  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 it's 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 authorise 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.

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 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 it is 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. When you consider how not only would she be stoned, but her body thrown on a dump as a criminal you see Jesus how mean Jesus was being.

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.  Jesus must have been involved with stonings.  Things just went wrong that time.  They did not get the result they expected.

Jesus had to be careful in the Temple Courts.  Doing the wrong thing would get him arrested. So if he helped her, which he didn't, it was for himself.

To sum up, Jesus did not save her for her sake but for his own - if he saved her.  In fact it was the honesty of the accusers which saved her.  Jesus could not have seen that coming!  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.  The accusers are seen as a lynch mob which makes it worse...

This evil creature should not be hailed as the son of God.

No Copyright