John 8:1-11 and the Death Penalty

[Corey Powell]

Assuming that it is in fact inspired Scripture...

Today TE Matthew Everhart posted a video defending the death penalty via John Frame.
One person is commenting "John 8:1-11" on most of the comments agreeing with Frame, and told me also that it is incompatible with love (liberal logic to start).

How do we think of this passage, Jesus telling the pharisees they can't throw stones because they have sin? and that he doesn't condemn her (forgiving sins=escaping natural consequences?)? I've heard it said that it was because they did not also bring the man. But in the bigger picture how can we explain that this is not saying mercy always triumphs over justice in civil law?

One thought I had is that this could be a picture of Jesus showing the abrogation on the civil mosaic law, as the Noahic law did not require death for adultery but specifically for murder. Was the Levitical law then just a higher standard of capital punishment that was added to Israel and then done away with at the coming of Christ, reflected now in church excommunication? Or is this a misapplication of this passage? It seems to me (as a general equity Presbyterian, not theonomist) that this would indicate that CP is to be carried out only by the State (Rom 13:4) and not now by public stoning or religious rulers.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

When Jesus says, "Let him without sin cast the first stone", I am of the opinion that he's saying "Let him without sin (in this matter that you're bringing before me) cast the first stone".

In other words, Jesus knew that the fix was in with these guys bringing the woman to him, they were conniving and conspiring to try to trip him up.

They weren't interested in justice, they were interested in trapping Jesus. Therefore, in the case of the woman, the "accusers" were very much in sin. He totally sidestepped the entire question as to whether the Woman was guilty or not, or whether she was to be executed or not.

All this to say, John 8:1-11 (if indeed it is inspired scripture, and I have my doubts) has no bearing on whether the death penalty is in force or abrogated, for either adultery or anything else.

 

[MW]

I cannot just presume this is part of Scripture because a person's stance on this is likely affecting their interpretation of it. There are some who think it belongs "somewhere," and do not see this passage in context. But if it is viewed as part of a broader unit it will demonstrate that it should not be used as a proof-text for removing the death penalty.

The controversy in John 8:1-11 is not an isolated event. It is part of a major theme of the Gospel that begins in chap. 7. Notice in particular the charge made against the rulers in v. 19: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?" This is the very point at issue in the stoning of the woman taken in adultery. Previously He had challenged their judgment: they judged by appearances, not righteous judgment, v. 24. When the Pharisees heard these discussions they were alarmed and sent officers to arrest Christ. The officers return to the Pharisees without arresting Him because "never man spake as this man." This infuriates them and they ask if the authorities have believed in Him. Nicodemus objects in v. 51, "Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" This is a crucial prelude to the case in chap. 8.

So what is happening in chap. 8? The religious leaders are humiliated. Their attempt to arrest Jesus has failed because their own officers were overcome by Him. Their unity is breaking up. They are desperate to discredit Jesus and reassert their authority. The stage is set for a public ambush. The woman taken in adultery is a perfect opportunity to set a trap and incriminate this up-start Rabbi. So they bring her to Christ.

Vv. 3-6: "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him."

Their trap is designed to present two impossible choices. If He says, "Stone her," He contradicts His own message of mercy, loses popularity, and potentially violates Roman law. If He says, "Let her go" He publicly nullifies the Law of Moses, giving them grounds to accuse Him of heresy.

The response is Masterful. He is not quick to give His judgment. As a just Judge He reiterates what the Law says, but writes it with His own Finger on the ground. This action evokes Exod. 31:18, where the tablets of the law were "written with the finger of God." As if to say, You have heard that it was said by them of old time, but I say unto you... Here is the Divine Lawgiver.

Then comes the verdict. "He that is without sin..." This does not nullify the Law. Instead, it affirms the Law as a perfect standard according to a broad interpretation of it. The Divine Lawgiver exposes the sinfulness of the accusers. The law required witnesses to be the first to cast stones. The challenge of the Lawgiver demonstrates that they are unfit to be its executors. They had not acted as true witnesses with a hatred of the action they were condemning. Their desire was not administer justice to show the abhorrence of the crime and to warn others from committing the same thing. They wanted to shed blood. They were convicted by their own conscience. The Searcher of hearts had exposed their hypocrisy. The law, which they weaponised against the Lord, now judged them, and so they departed in shame.

The legal case collapsed. There were no witnesses left to fulfil the Law's requirement, which made execution impossible. Christ reaffirms Himself as the just Judge: "Neither do I condemn thee." He can say this because He is without sin -- the only one with the right to cast a stone. And as the ultimate Judge He exercised His divine authority to forgive sins. Then He said, "Go, and sin no more." This command confirms that His grace is not a dismissal of the Law's standard. He upholds the moral law and calls her to a life of repentance. Mercy is granted for the purpose of transformation.

When seen in context this passage says nothing about the civil punishment of death, which is clearly established elsewhere in Scripture, Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:4. Instead, it reveals the failure of self-righteous religion to uphold justice and preserve a place for mercy. In contrast we are brought to see the Supreme Authority and grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. The narrative speaks about personal salvation and forgiveness, not public civil justice.

 

[DrJack]

Outstanding post, Rev Winzer! I have always asked how there was "a woman caught in adultery", as opposed to " a man & a woman caught in adultery.". Reliable witnesses? So where is the man?!

As to the death penalty: when I moved to AL in 1999, I was working within the prison system. The average time on death row prior to execution was something like 17 YEARS! That is absurd, if there is so little confidence in the system (and I confess to having very little confidence in our "justice" system) that it takes so many years to carry out full adjudication, something is fundamentally wrong.

 

[MW]

As to the death penalty: when I moved to AL in 1999, I was working within the prison system. The average time on death row prior to execution was something like 17 YEARS! That is absurd, if there is so little confidence in the system (and I confess to having very little confidence in our "justice" system) that it takes so many years to carry out full adjudication, something is fundamentally wrong.

Definitely absurd; but better than Australia. We don't even have it.