Philosophical Theology

To confuse absolution with civil justice is a menace to society and the church. Both must be maintained in their proper place, for the law is the backdrop for grace.* (Joshua 7:20,25; Galatians 2:1)

Antinomians and Roman Catholics can be quick to point to the woman caught in adultery (recorded for us in John 8) as “proof” that the general equity of Old Testament (OT) civil law for adultery (if not by extension the essential entailments of all OT civil laws) is no longer applicable today. In this context, my position is a modest one. If the equity of the laws’ demands have been abolished, we may not point to Jesus’ handling of the matter to prove the point. We must find abrogation elsewhere.**

Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 require that both guilty parties are to receive the same civil sanction for adultery. Although that is the requirement of the law, for some reason the mob was uninterested in following God’s prescription even on that essential point. Rather, the Jews substituted God’s law with their own standard by not bringing to Jesus the man who sinned. More than an unjust concealment of truth, John 8 explicitly states that the mob’s intention was to test Jesus in order to accuse him. Consequently, not only was the report false by the standard of the ninth commandant, it was malicious toward Jesus having not been accompanied by a sincere desire for justice. Therefore, had Jesus partaken of their misuse of the law, he would have violated God’s law:

You shall not bear a false report nor join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness, nor follow the masses in doing evil nor pervert justice.

Exodus 23:1-2

In passing we might also observe that since the woman was caught in the act, it is probable that her habits were well known, making her an easy prey for entrapment. Such would only lend credence to the malicious intent of the scheme while also implicating the mob for not being lovingly concerned with the woman’s licentious behavior until such time that it could be used for evil rather than good. Yes, just penalties are intrinsically good but the design for good is eclipsed when not carried out by lawful and lowly servants.

Submission to God’s providential infliction of unruly government:

Romans 13 teaches that we are not to take the law into our own hands but submit to God’s providentially ordained government, even when that government is pluralistic. This principle of lawful-order was to be followed during Jesus’ earthly ministry and the Jews knew it all too well: 

So Pilate said to them, ‘Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.’ The Jews said to him, ‘We are not permitted to put anyone to death’” 

John 18:31

Yet the Jews were not interested in obeying the precept of submitting to God ordained Roman rule when it did not suit them:

Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? Shall we pay or shall we not pay?’ But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, ‘Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.’ They brought one. And He said to them, ‘Whose likeness and inscription is this?’ And they said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’ And they were amazed at Him.” 

Mark 12: 15-17

With respect to John 8, it was unlawful under those particular circumstances for the law of Moses to be implemented by the Jews; yet that would not seem to be the only impetus behind Jesus’ behavior not to call for immediate justice.

Applying principles to the state of affairs:

The intention of the mob was the entrapment of Jesus and whether a life was callously taken in the process was of no consequence to these conspirators. Accordingly, had Jesus acquiesced to their plea by condemning the woman to death on their terms, he would have partaken in their scheming and wickedness according to Exodus 23:1-4. Moreover, had Jesus allowed for the penalty under Moses to be enacted in this particular case, the Savior would have implied that these men needn’t submit to Roman governance, a clear violation of the equity of God’s principle of rendering unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s (a principle that would be further codified in Romans 13).

Jesus’ predicament:

Jesus was in a predicament. Jesus would not have wanted to condone the woman’s execution given the motivation of the accusers, lest he would have been an unlawful enabler according to Exodus 23:1-4. Nor could Jesus imply that the woman did not deserve punishment for her sin as prescribed by Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22. What Jesus opposed was not his law, for how ridiculous is that?! Rather, Jesus’ issue with the Jews was their pervasive intention to supplant God’s law with their traditions:

Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, Honor your father and mother and Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.”

Matthew 15:3-4

Now did Jesus contradict himself in Matthew 15? Did Jesus seek the death penalty although not in accordance with the Roman law that was ordained into authority by divine providence?

Jesus’ question of “why” from Matthew 15 could not have implied that the Jews ought to have carried out the penalties prescribed by Moses at that time. Rather, Jesus’ question merely was intended to suss out the motivation not to desire the Law of Moses, which in the case of the Jews was their preferred traditions – hence Jesus’ rebuke that was couched in a leading question. In other words, although the law was not to be carried out at that time (lest God contradicted himself), there should have been a sincere desire for justice that was in submission to Roman law per God’s precept. Accordingly, no response would have been solicited by Jesus and no rebuke implied had the Jews desired lawful execution while simultaneously constrained by another principle of Scripture – that of obeying God ordained government. Such was not the case by a long shot, and this is the exact hardness of heart and misguided motivation we find with the mob in John 8.

The dilemma solved:

Given the circumstances of no witness-accuser who possessed a desire for righteous judgment – the only one who could have put the woman to death and satisfied the intention of the law both in letter and spirit would have been God himself. Accordingly, one without sin may have thrown the first stone!

By handling the difficult providence as he did, Jesus upheld the law pertaining to a proper accuser’s spirit, yet without compromising the law’s demand for justice. We might say that the case was thrown out of court due to other biblical principles. Notwithstanding, by couching the invitation as Jesus did, the Lord acknowledged both justice and the unworthiness of anyone within the mob that day to carry out God’s law as God required. Brilliant!

Now if anyone wants to make more of the passage by suggesting that the general equity of the civil law has been abrogated because nobody is without sin, then too much is proved and all temporal justice would be relegated to the final judgment, which is a most unworkable principle. With that, I am pleased to close with Calvin’s keen observations:

…Christ appears to take out of the world all judicial decisions, so that no man shall dare to say that he has a right to punish crimes. For shall a single judge be found, who is not conscious of having something that is wrong? Shall a single witness be produced who is not chargeable with some fault? He appears, therefore, to forbid all witnesses to give public testimony, and all judges to occupy the judgment-seat. I reply: this is not an absolute and unlimited prohibition, by which Christ forbids sinners to do their duty in correcting the sins of others; but by this word he only reproves hypocrites, who mildly flatter themselves and their vices, but are excessively severe, and even act the part of felons, in censuring others. No man, therefore, shall be prevented by his own sins from correcting the sins of others, and even from punishing them, when it may be found necessary, provided that both in himself and in others he hate what ought to be condemned; and in addition to all this, every man ought to begin by interrogating his own conscience, and by acting both as witness and judge against himself, before he come to others. In this manner shall we, without hating men, make war with sins…

Calvin, John 8:7

“Neither do I condemn thee” (Calvin’s view of the perpetual nature of the law’s general equity.):

We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He had been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Matthew10:6), and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luke12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery. Besides, the adulteress, when she bears an unlawful child, not only robs the name of the family, but violently takes away the right of inheritance from the lawful offspring, and conveys it to strangers. But what is worst of all, the wife not only dishonors the husband to whom she had been united, but prostitutes herself to shameful wickedness, and likewise violates the sacred covenant of God, without which no holiness can continue to exist in the world.

Calvin, John 8:11

*It is the moral law that condemns but with the erosion of biblically based civil laws, which is the result of moral degeneracy, the gospel becomes less relevant. After all, no law, no transgression. No transgression, no gospel. 

**This installment does not address questions pertaining to the binding validity of Old Testament civil laws or their abrogation. It only addresses the inadequacy of trying to establish abrogation on the basis of John 8.