Priestly apologetics in a sermon this a.m.

[FebruaryOfReason]

While I would never condone stoning anyone for adultery, isn't there a bit of a flaw in Jesus' argument here?

Isn't he effectively saying that - because we've all done something wrong at some stage in our lives - nobody is in a position to punish anyone for anything?
How would that work in practice?

"Sorry your Honour, but as you broke the speed limit driving to court, you can't sit in judgement on this child-murderer."

"Yes, your honour, it was me wot done the post-office job with Fingers Maginty, but you've been shagging an exotic dancer behind your wife's back, so you can't send me to prison."

WTF???

The story ties into the stories about not judging other people because if you do then the standard that you used to judge them will be applied to you.  Matthew 7:1-5.

If he was trying to get people to judge others to the same standard as they judge themselves, then IMHO what Jesus should have said was:

"He who has never committed adultery or done something similarly bad, let him cast the first stone"


Or maybe

"He who has never committed adultery or has done so and would be prepared to be stoned to death for it, let him cast the first stone"?


But I think what he should have said was:

"Stoning someone for adultery is many times worse than adultery itself. Get a sense of proportion you vindictive bastards."


I concede this would probably not have had the same salutary effect. But it would have made a better legal precedent.