Posted on 12/15/2004 2:10:48 PM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
Jesus’ attitude toward the “woman taken in adultery” (as the episode from John 8:3 KJV is commonly known) is likely the most frequently cited biblical evidence in the capital punishment debate. Perhaps the full text (8:3-11) is worth quoting.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said unto him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 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.” . . . But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus looked 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 do not sin again.”
Jesus, so the reasoning goes, here manifests his mission to save the lost, to offer God’s forgiveness rather than condemnation. His followers should use this text as a model for their own demands for the death penalty. “Be like Jesus” would be the operative rule of interpretation.
Such an approach, however attractive it may be, should take into consideration at least the following cautions and obstacles.
1. There is a question of the authorship and date of the story. “This passage is not found in any of the important early Greek textual witnesses of Eastern provenance (e.g., in neither Bodmer papyrus); nor is it found in OS [Old Syriac] or the Coptic. . . . It is only from ca. 900 that it begins to appear in the standard Greek text.” Clearly, “it was a later insertion” (Brown, p. 335). It is for this reason that some translations (e.g., the first edition of the RSV) place it as a footnote rather than as part of the text-proper. As an insertion, it may have been attracted to this particular location by verse 15, “You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.” However, a few ancient witnesses place it after 7:36 or at the end of the Gospel (as does NEB), and some of them after Luke 21:38 (perhaps because of similar entrapment stories in chapter 20). On the other hand, the story does occur in some Old Latin manuscripts, was known to Augustine, and was included in Jerome’s Vulgate. Nonetheless, “In general the style is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar” (Brown, p. 336).
2. There is a question of the authority (canonization) of the story. If indeed it is a non-Johannine addition to the text, after the canon was agreed upon, does it have the status of Scripture? However, since it was included in the fourth century Latin Vulgate, the Roman Catholic attitude has been one of acceptance. Since it later found its way into the Greek text as “received” by the Byzantine church and thence was translated by the English versions, it has found wide acceptance among protestants as well.
3. There is a question of historicity. Even if the tradition is a stray narrative from genuine Johannine circles, that within itself may signal the need for caution. John’s portrait of Jesus is much at variance with that of the other Gospels, as has been commonly observed. (For the difficulties involved, see Brown, pp. 336-37.)
4. There is a difficulty caused by the literary for of the account, narrative prose (story). What is its point? By contrast, one might note texts whose overt purpose is moral instruction. There is, for example, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7), the purpose of which is to instruct hearers and which addresses them in the second person. The question of purpose is usually more difficult with narrative accounts and the present one is a good example. Was its purpose to indicate the death penalty should be set aside as a matter of principle? Or was it to illustrate Jesus’ mission to save the lost? Or was it to demonstrate his cleverness with respect to other religious leaders? Or was it to expose the motives of the woman’s accusers? Has its purpose any relationship to a theme that seems to run from 5:1 to 10:42 (namely, controversy with opponents, whom he manages to best)?
That there are differing opinions about what this account “means” thus illustrates the value of a basic rabbinic rule for the interpretation of Scripture: One should not deduce halakah (ethical guidelines) from haggadah (scriptural narrative). Rather, ethical guidelines are to be sought in formal teachings, whose purpose is instruction in ethical behavior. One trusts in that which is clear and intentional, rather than that which is obscure and debatable.
5. There is a question of whether one ought to interpret and apply Scripture in accordance with its own intentions. (Whether one means thereby the intent of Jesus, or of the Johannine community, which might have formulated and preserved the account, or of whoever might have inserted the story precisely this location for editorial purposes, is beside the point here.) The alternative meaning, which the modern interpreter perceives and proposes: “I know this isn’t what the text means, but still, it’s an edifying point of view, in keeping with where the Holy Spirit is leading now.” My point of view is that interpreters ought to listen to the Bible’s own agenda, rather than to squeeze from it implications for their own agenda!
The thrust of the story concerns the motives from which the accusers have brought the woman to Jesus. Had it merely been obedience to the historical norms of the community, they would have proceeded with her sentence. Rather, they have used her, with the collusion of her husband, for the purpose of entrapping a religious leader, an entrapment that could have very serious consequences. It is a shameful situation, far removed from the torah’s call for justice and righteousness, as the accusers quickly realized. Many rabbis at the time, had they been present and grasped the reality of the situation, would have joined Jesus in his assessment. There is, therefore, nothing uniquely “Christian” about his response. Rather, Jesus has listened to the Bible (the “Old Testament”) with an intensity that his followers in the present would do well to begin to imitate.
It may be instructive to note, in of the overall agenda in the account, that the particular prescribed punishment is entirely beside the point. Jesus’ response would still have been instructive (nothing crucial would have changed) if the charge had been that the husband had lain with his wife during her menstrual period (regulated by Lev. 15:19-24; 20:18), for which only corporal punishment was prescribed (Mishnah Makkot, 3.1). Should one argue, in that case, that Jesus implied corporal punishment is wrong? Suppose that the crime were one for which only a fine was mandated? Should one then argue, on the basis of Jesus’ response, that compensation is un-Christian?
6. May one indulge in substitution, as far as the woman’s crime is concerned? May modern interpreters, in seeking a precedent for opposing capital punishment in the present, substitute murder (the modern issue) for adultery? Would Jesus’ response have been the same? To be precise about it, we cannot know for sure. Doubtless his observation of the accusers’ motives would have been the same, with an attendant dissatisfaction on his part. Nonetheless, not all capital offenses were regarded as equally grave. Murder is singled out as a crime for which monetary compensation was strictly forbidden (Num. 35:31), in apparent contrast to adultery (Prov. 6:32-35, where it is stated that the husband is unlikely to accept it). Insofar as the prophet Hosea’s plea may be taken to reflect personal experience (as opposed to a depiction of the relationship between God and Israel), then whether or not to put his adulterous spouse to death was his dicision to make rather than a mandatory one by society (Hos. 2:1-5; see also Num. 5:11-31 for such discretion, in contrast to Deut. 22:22). Murder is one of the few offenses concerning which Israel was enjoined, “Your eye shall not pity, but you shall purge the guilt of innocent blood from Israel” (Deut. 19:13). Whereas murder was understood to be an attack upon God (Gen. 9:5-6), adultery was initially understood only as an attack upon the husband’s property (i.e., it must always involve a married female). One may wonder, therefore, if Jesus would have said to a murderer, “I do not condemn you!” (So also Ryrie, p. 214) Thus, those who seek to use this text in the debate about execution of murderers have indulged in a bit of verbal sleight-of-hand, possibly in all innocence. (Nonetheless, during the Hadrianic persecutions of the second century C.E., the rabbis have linked adultery with incest as one of the three cardinal sins which could not be excused even to save a human life, along with murder and idolatry. (See Babylonian Talmud, Sanherdin, 74a; Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin, 21b; Sifra on Lev. 16:16. Even so, in some cases a prior warning was necessary for conviction: Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 41a.)
7. May one take Jesus’ response as a norm for all judicial behavior? What would be the consequences if, in every case, the jurors were told, “Let him [or her] who is without sin . . .”? Presumably, Paul was right when he observed that “all have sinned” (Rom. 3:23; compare 5:12). Since we do not stone criminals any more, would we then be forced to remark, “Let the person without sin send this person to prison . . . demand compensation . . . or require rehabilitation and service in the community”? The result would be that no one could condemn anyone for anything! Thus the argument, when pursued to its logical conclusion, leads to an absurdity.
In conclusion, whatever Jesus’ attitude toward capital punishment was, it cannot be detected from this passage. The oft-repeated claim that it can rests upon many questionable assumptions, one heaped upon the other: The text is a genuine report of Jesus’ attitude, ethical directives can be derived from narrative, unambiguously; either the capital directive of this story concerns the appropriateness of capital punishment, or one may ignore its point and propose one’s own; what Jesus’ attitude in case of one offense would be the same for all offenses.
Surely Brown, a foremost interpreter of John, is right when he concludes, without stating his reasoning, “One should beware of attempts to make it [v. 7] a generalized norm forbidding enactments of capital punishment” (p. 388).
(Source: Bailey, Lloyd R. Capital Punishment: What the Bible Says. Abingdon Press, 1987. pp. 68-73.)
Bump!
No one is trying to impugn the integrity. You are obviously mistaken.
1. I've not got time to read this fully....church in about an hour and a half....but I will have trouble with the penchant to excise the story of the "woman taken in adultery" from the bible. The story sounds thoroughly Jesus-like to me and the author glossed over Augustine's and Jerome's acceptance of the incident.
2. While the death penalty in the Old Testament was permitted in a number of instances, it was not absolutely required; e.g., Bathsheba was not put to death for adultery, and David was not put to death for murder. (In fact, Joseph did not condemn Mary to death, which was the law, and he was called a "just man" for that act.)
Mercy is allowed.
If Christ was against the death penalty, why didn't He stop His?
Far from “glossing over” the incident, Mr. Bailey points out the incident was known to Augustine and was included in Jerome’s Vulgate. The point was one of authorship, which also tied into authority given it appears to be a later insertion (after canonization), thus, it may not be regarded as scripture. Mercy is not allowed in the case of punishing a murderer (Deut. 19:13).
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.” . . . But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest
I was taught the proper translation was, let him who is without "this" sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her...which explains why they went away,one by one, "beginning with the eldest".
ping
Actually, it WAS required for capital sin (murder).
Vis. Gen 9:6 (if memory serves) "If a man sheds another man's blood, by MAN shall his blood be shed."
God is giving Noah's descendents the rules that they are to follow in the governing of their society. In effect, God says that if you don't have capital punishment, you don't have a valid nation.
That is an excellent approach to every single line of the bible.
It's extraordinary what one can learn when one studies the history of the bible, quite apart from the contents of the bible.
#12
True,but what did He right in the sand?
I take the case of David murdering Uriah in order to steal his wife to be cold-blooded murder. For that murder, David was NOT put to death.
Therefore, even though the letter might have prescribed it, the actual practice did not require it.
"...so that they could entrap Jesus between Mosaic Law and Roman law."
This is what I was taught. The point being that this story was included in the Scriptures not to be an example of "justice" or even "mercy." It was just another example of the lengths to which the Pharisees & Sanhedrin would go to discredit Jesus in the eyes of the Jewish people & convince the Roman government to take care of this "Jesus" problem for them. It was explained to me that the Jewish high priests were allowed by Rome to impose punishment on their own people for breaking Mosaic Law with only one exception...they could not impose the death penalty on anyone. Only the Roman government could do that. That's why they took Jesus to the Romans with demands that he be crucified, remember? So the point of this story is that the priests were attempting to trap Jesus into saying that the woman should be put to death (upholding Mosaic Law, but breaking Roman Law) or to say that she must NOT be stoned (upholding Roman Law, but breaking Mosaic Law). Either way, the Jewish high priests would have won the day. Had he said, "Stone her," they could have then turned him over to the Romans for punishment. Had he said, "Don't stone her," they could discredit him as a Mosaic lawbreaker. The real point of the story, then, was to demonstrate Jesus' power to thwart the evil machinations of the unrighteous. When Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you," can we actually prove that it was simply an act of mercy? Wasn't He really prevented from exercising judgement or mercy toward this woman under BOTH Mosaic & Roman Law? He said that He had come not to change the Law (Mosaic), but to fulfill it. In showing this woman mercy (essentially absolving her of her crime) He would be changing the Law, wouldn't He? Seems to me, Jesus was merely acknowledging that in His temporal state, he could not condemn anyone. Still, he reminds the woman that she is not above Divine judgement, because he tells her to "sin no more."
I find it to be very shallow thinking to say that Jesus did not/would not condone a death penalty. There were many crimes under Mosaic Law that called for death as punishment. If one truly believes that Jesus is divine - that He was God incarnate - then one must believe that He understood & agreed with Mosaic Law - even the penalty of death - because He, in fact, authored it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.