Everything New Under The Sun Thanks to:
briangreen.org
justin.cerastes.org
pilgrimsprogress.net
chizadek.wordpress.com
About this Entry
Posted by: Elnwood

Visit Elnwood's Xanga Site

Original: 6/10/2006 9:29 AM
Comments: 3
eProps: 4

Read Comments
Post a Comment
Back to Your Xanga Site


Who gave the eProps?
2 eProps!2 eProps! 2 eProps from:
BalerSapper
FromFLWithLove

Saturday, June 10, 2006
 

Capital Punishment, pt. 4: Woman Caught in Adultery

They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

This story is one of the most well-known stories of the New Testament.  It is found in most bibles from John 7:53 to John 8:11.  Many have used this to show that Christ is against, or eliminating, capital punishment.  Others, on the other hand, have argued that since the Jews had no authority to exercise capital punishment under Roman law, and that the charges were a sham, that Jesus was mitigating the punishment because it was illegitimate.

Some things to note: I said "most bibles" have it located in John.  While in modern translations it is always located in the same place for consistency, in the early manuscripts it appears in different locations in John, if at all, and sometimes the story appears in Luke.  While most agree it is early and probably authentic, the question of canonicity is difficult, and we should be careful not to draw too much new doctrine from just this passage.  Indeed, it may even be more prudent not to address this at all when developing a biblical and systematic theology of capital punishment, but since it is often cited, I would be remiss to ignore it.

We should note what is not important in this passage.  In particular, if Jesus doesn't address the issue, it's probably not relevent to the discussion.

For example, it doesn't really matter that only the adulteress, and not the adulterer, was brought before Jesus.  Some have written that this shows that since only a woman was brought, the charges were contrived, and there was no adultery at all, and that the woman was being framed.  In similar lines of reason, others have thought that adultery did occur, but that the adulterer was safely hidden away, and that to punish the adulteress without the adulterer would be a grave injustice.

Neither of these was the reason that Jesus mitigates the punishment because Jesus never questions the actually charges.  In fact, Jesus acts in a way consistent with assuming guilt in this matter.  Otherwise, the "He who is without sin" and "Go and sin no more" verses have no relevance in the immediate context (although they obviously have broader implications as well).

Also, it is pretty useless to speculate on what Jesus was writing.  No, what we should focus on is what Jesus actually says, and then see how it applies to capital punishment, if at all.

It is true that the Jewish authorities did not have the authority to put the adulteress to death.  They would have to appeal to the Roman authority to execute her, as they did in Jesus' trial.  So the question they are putting to Jesus is whether the Jews have authority to apply Mosaic law when their rulers, the Romans, prohibit them.  So the question is: who's authority ultimately wins out?

Now, lets look at what Jesus says.  First, he says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."  Now, does this mean that only sinless people are allowed to punish people?  If so, no punishment would be able to be carried out at all!  But this goes against what it clearly taught in Romans 13, so I don't think this is what Jesus is saying.

I think Jesus is affirming his own authority to punish.  The statement "He who is without sin" is a reference to himself in contrast to the rest of humanity, and so only Jesus is in a position to decide whether someone gets punished or goes free.  Indeed, the crowd, anxious to stone the woman, leaves when Jesus permits only the sinless could do this.  The only person left is Jesus, the sinless messiah.  When he asks, "Has no one condemned you?" and states, "Neither do I," he is showing the contrast between the sinful, who cannot condemn the adulteress, and himself, who can.

Secondarily, as we saw in Romans 13, God gives authority to civil governments to exercise punishment.  This authority is delegated to them by God, which is how the government can punish without being sinless.  (The Pharisees clearly don't have that civil authority, but that's not really important, because the fact remains that Jesus does have the authority.)

At the end of the story, Jesus tells the woman, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."  Jesus is not saying that he does not condemn the woman hecause she is not guilty, because if that were the case, "sin no more" would not make any sense.  So we must conclude that the adulteress is guilty, and Jesus is mitigating that punishment, rather than bringing an innocent woman to justice.

So we see that Jesus has the authority to exercise capital punishment on the woman caught in adultery, but he does not.  So what does this mean as far as capital punishment?  He is not saying authorities need to be sinless to execute punishment, for the civil authorities under the Mosaic law had this power, and Romans 13 seems to support that the civil government will continue to have this power.  Jesus also doesn't seem to be saying anything particular to capital punishment, as if capital punishment should be overthrown but other forms of restraining evil are legitimate, because the "He who is without sin" argument can apply to punishment in general as well.

Ultimately, I think Jesus forgives the woman and mitigates her punishment to demonstrate his authority to forgive sins and remove judgment.  This ultimately points to his atoning work on the cross, in which he takes on capital punishment on behalf of his people.

Currently Listening
Slanted & Enchanted: Luxe & Reduxe
By Pavement
see related
 Posted 6/10/2006 9:29 AM - 3 comments

Give eProps or Post a Comment

3 Comments

Visit BalerSapper's Xanga Site!
Much appreciated. E, your thoughts on this passage are illuminating. I wholeheartedly agree that it's an abuse of the text to draw large lessons about the ability of governments to administer punishment from the passage.

I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the argument that Jesus is noting and correcting a sexist injustice. Levitical law pretty clearly calls for both parties in adultery to suffer the same punishment. I don't think it's out of line to note that Middle Eastern culture then, as now and as many other cultures through history (including our own at times and in places,) only pretended to frown on promiscuity in both genders. Most cultures permit more actual sexual licence for males than for females, going so far as to blame women for male promiscuity. Consider Genesis 38, and the story of Tamar and Judah, in which Judah, a filthy whoremonger himself, has the temerity to sentence his daughter-in-law to death for prostitution.

Jesus's stunning answer seems to me pitched to point out and disrupt the hypocrisy of the males in the crowd, many of whom were no doubt guilty of sexual sin. Am I reading in to the text? Maybe a little. I'm basing my estimates of the lynch mob's morality on my own experience with people, and men in particular, and I don't imagine someone with different experiences would be inclined to agree.

But while Jesus's word choice points me toward male hypocrisy, I think there's another lesson to be learned from backstory here. The passage says the crowd hustled the woman toward Jesus in order to test him. I strongly suspect that whatever Levitical law proposed, the townspeople were not at all in the habit of stoning women for adultery. Abusing, sure, but probably not killing. My guess is based, again, on my observations of other cultures, which tend to be reluctant to adopt the extremity of capital punishment even if it is prescribed (though in Jesus's time, as in others, there were hordes of discontented men, disproportionately young, eager to prove themselves by engaging in savagery under the cloak of loyalty to their faith. Lynchings and public executions--the difference being the countenance of written law, I suppose--tend to be carried out in spates, by inflamed publics which see the underpinnings of their identity as under threat.)

I am, of course, engaging in what could be called speculation, but I think I've got good grounds. Levitical law was stern and impossible to fulfill. We see passages permitting parents to direct the stoning of incorrigible children, for example, and we wonder how often such a law was invoked. We see a great disconnect between the law that absolutely prohibits idolatry, on the pain of death, and the reality of ancient Israel, where even the "good" kings winked at idol worship. And we see a huge disconnect between Old Testament Judaism, with its emphasis on sacrifice, temple worship, and sovereignty, and the reality of Roman-occupied Judea. Here the Pharisees and Sadducees struggled to bridge the gap between the absolute demands of religion and the unbending dictates of a new world order.

The relative ease, too, with which the crowd is dispersed suggests to me not that the crowd really wanted to stone the woman. Stoning is a participatory execution abhorrent to most folks at a gut level. I think they wanted to put Jesus's back against the wall: if he'd followed the letter of the law, he could have been accused of cruelty, and if he'd commanded unqualified mercy, he could have been accused of ignoring the letter of the law.

The real genius of Jesus's statement is that it functions both as a witty verbal trick and as a profound clue to the nature of God's mercy. When Jesus says "Let he who is without sin..." he pushes the stink of their own sin in front of the people. Mercy rejoices against the law. The contrast between God's mercy and the demands of law is sharp: Jesus doesn't stoop to explain the contrast, just implying in a short breath that the people had never been held to accounting for their own sins. The mercy Jesus shows the adulteress is, while gracious and loving, imperious and unexplained. "Neither do I condemn you," he says, "Go, and sin no more." Mercy is God's prerogative and is outside the explanations and reasoning of the legal eagle's mind.

With apologies to my lawyer friends....
Posted 6/10/2006 4:38 PM by BalerSapper - reply

Visit Elnwood's Xanga Site!

Good points, BalerSapper. In retrospect, I overstated that the crowd was anxious to stone the woman. This brings up an interesting aspect to the story. It's easy for a mob to stone someone if someone else has already thrown the first stone, because that person will probably take the rap for it.

In the next post, I'm going to partially address the "harshness" of the Levitical law. Briefly, it's meant to be harsh to show how bad sin is, but at the same time, it barely skims the surface of the judgment that the least of our sins observe. I'm not sure that I agree that the Levitical penalties were impossible to carry out, because that was the law that God laid out, but I will say that I'm glad that they aren't binding today (w/ no apologies to theonomists).

Posted 6/10/2006 6:51 PM by Elnwood - reply

Visit FromFLWithLove's Xanga Site!
Interesting posts, and I certainly enjoyed BalerSapper's response.  I think that you both had very good points.
Posted 6/13/2006 10:22 AM by FromFLWithLove - reply


Choose Identity
(?)
 
Give eProps (?)
Post a Comment
Add Link | Preview HTML comment help 
  • Say it with Minis! (?)

Profile Pic:
Default  |  Choose »  (?)



Back to Elnwood's Xanga Site!
Note: your comment will appear in Elnwood's local time zone:
GMT -08:00 (Pacific Standard - US, Canada)
Notable Posts: