October 19, 2003. ת: APPLICABILITY OF OLD TESTAMENT LAW: The Woman Taken in Adultery.

A sermon a week or two ago made me understand this story much better, by telling me that the Pharisees hoped to put Jesus in the difficult position of either repudiating Leviticus or rebelling against Roman law. Here is the story from John 8:3-11.

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. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not]. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
The law on adultery is from Leviticus 20:10.
And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
To understand Jesus's dilemma, compare this with blasphemy, the law for which is at Leviticus 24:16.
And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, [and] all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name [of the LORD], shall be put to death.
Jesus himself was accused of blasphemy, we know from Mark 14:61b-64.
Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.
But the high priest could not put Jesus to death, because the Romans forbade non-Roman local officials from putting anyone to death, as we see from John 18:29-31.
Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man? They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee. Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:
Thus, if Jesus had said that the adulteress should be killed, he would have been guilty under Roman law; if he said she should not be killed, he was breaking with Jewish law. The high priest, of course, was in the same dilemma with Jesus, but he used his political clout to get the Romans to agree to the death penalty, and Jesus had no such clout.

We are left with the question of what, under Mosaic law, was the appropriate way to reconcile Leviticus and Roman law. I think it is the following. The judicial law is the portion of Mosaic law applicable only to the country of ancient Israel, and the moral law is the portion applicable to all countries and times. The particular penalties for blasphemy, adultery, and other crimes were part of the "judicial law", even when the acts being crimes was part of the "moral law". Thus, if the regime changed-- from an independent Israel to Roman rule-- it was okay for the penalties to change, and, indeed, Jews would have been morally guilty of rebellion and breaking the rule of law if they had continued to use the Mosaic penalties. This is the same reason why a Jew (or a Christian) in the America of 2003 would be wrong to stone a malefactor to death.

[more, permalink, http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/03.10.19a.htm ]

To return to Eric Rasmusen's weblog, click http://php.indiana.edu/~erasmuse/w/0.rasmusen.htm.