John responds to a Friend concerning implications for 21st century enforcement of law from the story of the woman caught in adultery.
Tom: Apparently there is a distinction between a sin deserving of death, and the requirement of execution in God’s eyes. Jesus did not turn her over to the State for execution, he told her to “sin no more”. She deserved death in God’s eyes, but there was a commutation of that sentence, and it was based upon “sin no more”. This is where grace resides. The sin of murder is not reversible. We cannot revoke it, we cannot turn from the act that has been committed. The sin of adultery/homosexuality can be renounced and a new life walked.
John: I am puzzled by your responses here. Have you read and studied this passage? I think there is more going on here than is commonly understood, and you would be well served to study the background, perhaps, if you are going to base so much of your philosophy of crime-definition on this passage.
Tom: We deserve death, just as the woman at the well deserved death as per OT law.
[You know this? that you and I are guilty of capital crimes as per OT Law, and that there are two or three witnesses? Because if not, are you not guilty of perjury, and liable (if that is not true) for civil execution yourself? I'm guessing what you mean here is just that we and the woman are sinners before God, and worthy of spiritual death on our own merit, barring the application of the Blood of Christ in gracious propitiation. But it seems to confuse the issue when you speak of it in this way in this context. Remember we are discussing how crimes (not sins) are defined, and who has the ethical authority to define them. I am having a hard time understanding how you answer these questions. I'm afraid it sounds a lot like the fuzzy rehash of what the Freemasons have taught the Church in America to think about natural law.]
Jesus forgave her, and did not require the punishment required by the law.
[Are you sure? I thought the text says that Jesus did give His opinion as a non-officer, that they should go ahead and stone her as God's law stated. We don't know what He wrote on the ground, and we cannot be absolutely sure what He meant by "He that is without sin among you cast the first stone." I don't think it can mean that God's law prohibited anyone from participating in stoning a capital criminal - ever (since every man is a sinner). Otherwise it would have been stupid and wicked for God to require men to stone/execute anyone anytime. Perhaps it meant "sinner" in the sense of being adulterers themselves, at one time or another, without ever turning themselves in or acknowledging that they were as worthy of death, as this woman they were accusing. We can have fun wondering if what Jesus was writing on the ground were the women's names (starting with the oldest-man-there's sex-partners) that the specific accusers had been guilty of adultery with. Or perhaps He was writing out sections of God's Law or human commentary on it, that would have been well-known to these learned men -- that trashed the legality of their attempt here to get Jesus in trouble, since He was not a recognized civil officer with recognized authority in that society (think - "Who made you a ruler and a judge over us?)
I'm also guessing, that it was obvious that these men knew of, or had possibly planned, bribed, or tricked a man into accomplishing this sexual act -- conveniently timed so as to be able to "catch" them at it -- that He may have been calling them to account for their guilt of purposefully manipulating a couple into committing this crime. It looks to me like Jesus believed them at face value, that they had caught this woman committing a capital crime, and that she should be stoned, and that there would be sufficient witnesses available to condemn her to death (although it was highly likely that those witnesses would be disqualified because of their involvement in the conspiracy to entrap). I believe He knew full well that they could not follow through righteously with the action, and that they knew full well that they would do serious violence to the Law of God if they did it -- AND -- that even if they had qualified as being "without sin" He would have known they would not be willing to "obey God" to stone her, because of what the Roman civil powers would do to them (assuming you knew that even the legitimate Jewish civil officers were restricted from executions at that time, by the Romans).
All of this says nothing about the "mandatory reporting" responsibility these accusers would have had. They must have known who the responsible man was, and would have been required to also bring him to the bar of justice, lest they have bloodguiltiness upon their own heads.
5 ‘Now if a person sins after he hears a public adjuration to testify when he is a witness, whether he has seen or otherwise known, if he does not tell it, then he will bear his guilt.
I see Jesus honoring their interpretation of God's law, honoring God's Law Himself, and especially in the fuller application of other elements that would restrict this particular group of men from testifying against this woman and physically participating in her execution. I also see Him honoring God's law in treating the situation lawfully in that, even if He had been the acknowledged, authorized-by-theRomans/Sanhedrin/popular-vote-of-the-people, He did not have the requisite qualified witnesses to follow through with the execution. Solomon would have done as much. Nevertheless, He also treated as fully serious, the assumed guilt of the woman, and that she probably did have, at least, some moral failure and compromise that would have been sufficiently criminal to warrant punishment. So He admitted not even He could righteously pursue civil action against her (neither do I officially gavel-down your civil case as proven guilty), yet calls her to repentance before God, in attitude and action, by His "Go and sin nor more".
We also might wonder, if in Hebrew or Greek, there were different words used for "sin" and "crime" in the same way I try to highlight the technical difference in English: Crime being sins men are responsible to punish in other men. I know there is no unique word for "emperor", as a king that is a higher king over other kings. The Bible just uses "king" all the time, and the context has to tell you whether the king in focus is over other kings.
All the woman said was, "no one (accuses me), Lord". So, where are our 2-3 witnesses?
Also, if we are going to use this passage to change the definition of civil punishment for adultery after Jesus was born or died (now that the Kingdom of God has come) -- that still leaves our horrible dilemma unanswered as to what execution is commuted to! Is it Life Imprisonment? Less-than-life years in Jail? Beating? A day in the Stocks? A Fine? Or is "go and sin no more" all we need to do about that particular crime? The text says nothing about whether the woman, herself, was truly repentant, or defiant, or seething mad at the treachery of the men who had contributed to her seduction or entrapment (or simply taken advantage of her comfortable crime), or whether she was struggling to keep a straight face in the knowledge that the entire thing was a fraud and sham just to embarrass Jesus (ie. maybe it was all a hoax and she was just a paid actor). I assume, whichever the situation in her thinking, her "no man, Lord" was genuine, and she returned with great respect for Jesus' exact honoring of the law of Moses, recognition of the scoundrels who had accused her, and His wisdom, and grace to her as sinner and (apparently) capital criminal.
For these reasons, it doesn't look like this passage is definitive about how we should alter our understanding of Jesus' directive:
Mt 5:17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. 18 For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. 19 Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 28:18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
But I will look forward to being corrected by better answers than I have to the questions I have posed.
Later notes: There is actually a greater context here which actually points to a much greater legal case. These Jewish leaders bringing accusations against this supposed adulterer, are actually on trial for their adultery in rejecting Jesus in favor of Rome's power they are manipulating as best they can. Look at the Trial of Jealousy in Numbers 5:11 and following. Note how the priest brings here into to the 10x20 Holy Place of the tabernacle, uses water mixed with dust from the floor to write curses on a scroll, and wash the writing off into a vessel for the woman to drink. Now look at where Jesus is when they bring the woman to Him. In the temple area -- writing related to the dust of the floor. This was a sign to the Jews that they were under the test for spiritual adultery and in danger of the cursing of the covenant if they proved unfaithful.
There are many connections with Zechariah 5, especially between the size of the scroll matching the dimensions of the floor in the Holy Place where the Trial of Jealousy would take place, the curses on the scroll, and the fact that Jesus always tried to spend the night OUTSIDE of Jerusalem. It was only on the night before His cricifiction that THEY forced Him to spend the night IN the "house" of the city, thus clinching their fate that their "house" would be consumed with its "timbers and its stones". This scroll with the curses, my also relate to the book Jesus in His Rev. 4,5 Coronation Ceremony takes a scroll from the hand of His Father, and as He opens the successive seals, curses/judgments are brought down on the city and country which officially rejected Him.
It is easy to remember: Numbers 5, Zechariah 5, Revelation 5
