Witnesses

 https://x.com/rabbriansamuel/status/2021272893133385807?s=51&t=cLq01Oy84YkmYPZ-URIMYw

 

 "When Yeshua said, "He who is without sin cast the first stone", He wasn't saying, "Hey, you all are sinners too, so don't judge." He was using Torah to set the adulteress free. "Casting the first stone" is Torah-based. According to Torah, adultery is punishable by death. But who is the one who executes that punishment? Not the police, not the court, not the mob. It is the witness to the crime that casts the first stone. "The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death…" (Deuteronomy 17:6–7) Why does Torah state that the witnesses cast the first stone? Because if the witnesses must initiate the execution, a false witness is not merely lying, he is shedding innocent blood and becomes guilty of death himself. So when Yeshua said, "He who is without sin, cast the first stone", He was effectively saying, "Where are the witnesses to her crime? If you are a witness, go ahead and stone her! But remember, if you are lying, you are next!" When the crowd walked away, it wasn’t because they suddenly recognized their own sinfulness. They walked away because they did not witness her crime, so they could not cast the first stone according to the Law. As well, the Law prescribes that there cannot only be one witness. There must be two or more witnesses. "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Deuteronomy 19:15) Yeshua asked her, "Where are your accusers?" and she said that there are none. Without witnesses, according to Law, Yeshua could not pronounce her guilty. Therefore, He said what is prescribed under the Law: "Neither do I condemn you." He then used the opportunity to set her free. "Go and sin no more.""

 

 We don't often hear a genuinely new take on scriptural interpretation (maybe this isn't new and I'd missed it) , and I'd like to dig a little more into this before I run with it, but on first read it certainly makes sense. Perhaps Jesus was writing the relevant sections of The Law in the dirt. It's been established elsewhere that part of the problem with this testing of Jesus was the fact that the man wasn't brought before Him as well as The Law doesn't give the guy a pass on adultery. However, this notion that there were not the required two (or more) witnesses makes a lot of sense. At this point, take this with a grain of salt, but it does seem like something worthy of further study, especially as it relates to Jesus relationship with The Law.