Did Jesus contradict the OT when he saved the adulterous woman?

[Athlete34]

(Exodus 22:17-18) states, “You shall not let a woman who practices sorcery live. Anyone who lies with an animal shall be put to death.” However, in (John 8:7), Jesus says, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” These two bible verses seem a little contradictory. I have noticed that some Christian haters use these bible verses to attack the faith. I would like a better understanding so I can defend Christianity.

 

[Fr.Charles_Grondin]

When reading the Old Testament we have to be careful not to read it with modern presumptions, we need to read it through the lens of the ancient world.

While the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for many offenses, Talmudic requirements rendered its application extremely rare. In general Talmudic tradition required:

• 2 witnesses of the actual offense
• the perpetrator had to have been warned the action carried the death penalty
• the perpetrator had to exhibit knowledge that the act carried the death penalty
• mere confession was not enough, witnesses were needed and circumstantial evidence is not permitted for evidence

To fulfill all of those requirements is quite rare and thus rendered the death penalties application almost non-existent. In essence when the Old Testament prescribes the death penalty for an offense it was understood to show the seriousness of the offense. In fact one of the conversations in the Talmud has one Rabbi stating that: “A Sanhedrin that puts a man to death once in seven years is called a murderous one.” To which another Rabbi replies: “Or even once in 70 years.”

So while the death penalty was occasionally used, the Talmudic literature is very uncomfortable with it and even discusses banning its use. One scholar in the Talmud is quoted as saying: “If we had been in the Sanhedrin no death sentence would ever have been passed.”

So Jesus’ statement “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” would have fit in perfectly with many commentators in the Talmud. While the case of the adulterous woman with Jesus was not a case of lying (as in Daniel 13), it was case where the circumstances of the witnesses was very suspicious. After all, how did they come about to catch the woman “in the very act” of adultery. And what happened to the man who should have been brought to trial as well? Jesus saw not a love of the law, God or neighbor in their actions but a malice that cloaked itself in religiosity. Jesus rightly exposed them in a manner that upheld the tradition and spirit of the Law.