What do you think Yeshua's position would have been if they brought her back a few days later for the same offense?
Do you believe he would tell her the same thing again? Or do you think he would hand her over to those wanting the penalty enforced?
Christ came to highlight God's mercy, love and forgiveness. With the example of John 8 and the situation of the adulterous woman, this is seen clearly.
Others came claiming to support "Law", which Jesus in Matthew 5 already claimed that He was about/often referenced or pointed others to when questioned.
Reading John 8 is interesting when seeing how the Jewish leaders had already disregarded the Law by arresting the woman without the man being present...for the Law required that
both parties to adultery be stoned (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). The leaders were trying to use the woman was a trap so that they could trick Jesus. For if Jesus said the woman should not be stoned, they could EASILY accuse Him of violating the Torah/Mosaic Law.
However, if he urged them to execute her, they would report hm to the Romans since they did not permit Jewws to carry out their own executions (John 18:31).
Jesus was not helpless, thankfully. Anyone studying Jesus knows that he was often seen as one who was a MASTER at persuasion/avoiding traps and cornering others who tried to pin him in a debate---as seen in Matthew 22:15-22 (Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26) when he was questioned about payiong taxes or Matthew 21:23-27 (Mark 11:27-33, Luke 20:1-8) when the Pharisees tried to trap him by asking where he gained his authority to do as he did......and the same when he was questioned about healing on the Sabbath (Mark 3:1-6 (Matthew 12:9-14, Luke 6:6-11). Mark 12:28-35 (Matthew 22:23-33) also comes to mind when Christ quoted the OT to a lawyer trying to trap him, as Jesus showed that God's laws were not meant to be burdensome---and can be summed up into two simple principles: love God and love others (Deuteronomy 6:5, Leviticus 19:18).
The Pharisees, who had classified over 600 laws, often tried to distinguish the more important from the less important....but in that instance when the "expert in the law" asked Jesus to identify the most Important, Jesus showed the Lawyer that when you love God completely and care for others as you care for yourself, then you have fulfilled the intent of the Ten Commandments/Decalouge and the other OT Laws.
Later, Jesus also went further in inditing the religious leaders for not truly living out the heart of God's Law that was meant to give freedom when it came to their not loving LOVE/JUSTICE and Mercy (Matthew 23:23)--with another lawyer being put in check later when trying to go around what Jesus said about loving our neighbors by asking who ones' neighbor was....as seen in the Good Samaritan Parable (Luke 10:25-37). There were many other instances besides the ones mentioned thus far...but all of that is stated to show how Jesus truly lived out the expression we use in the hood to express tact---the phrase being "Mamma didn't raise no fool."
Jesus was truly the ultimate teacher/student of the Law.... and with those in John 8 trying to trap it, Jesus flipped it on all of them by saying, "Let he without sin cast the first stone".....for because Christ upheld the legal penalty for adultery (stoning), Jesus could not be accussed of being against the Law. And if the leaders did all things in order and for right reasons, there's no reason to think Jesus would have said stonning was not permissible. Jesus was a Jew who lived under the Law and said in Matthew 5:17-20 that he did not come to break it. However, by saying only a sinless person could throw the first stone, he highlighted the importance of compassion and forgiveness that was to always be remembered whenever administering the Law occurred.
When Jesus said only the sinless could throw the first stone, the leaders slipped quietly awat from the eldest to the youngest. Some may claim others thought, "Man, mabye the woman doesn't deserve death..I'm not perfect, after all.."---but its most probable to consider that they were walking away due to how Jesus's comment highlighted their OWN sins in the process.
The older men were more aware of their sins than the yougner...and for the sake of humour, if stonning someone without going through PROPER chain of command/process, they could ALSO be killed themselves for violating God's command......as they already were false witnesses (Exodus 23:1-3, Exodus 20:15-17 , Numbers 35:29-31, Deuteronomy 17:1-8, Deuteronomy 19:14-20, Psalm 27:11-13 , Psalm 35:11, ).
Queen Jezebel --the most WICKED woman in Scripture ( 1 Kings 16:30-32, 1 Kings 18:3-5, 1 Kings 19:1-3 , 1 Kings 21:24-26, 2 Kings 9:6-11, 2 Kings 9:30-37, Revelation 2:19-21, etc) did that, if you recall, when she sought to use the Law in gaining the vineyard of Naboth in I Kings 21. She devised a scheme that appeared legal to get the land for her husband.
Two witnesses were required to establish guilt, and the punishment for blasphemy was death by stoning (Acts 6:11, Exodus 22:28, Leviticus 24:15-16). In that instance, she was like those who twist the law and legal procedures to get what they want.....being more sophisticated in how they go about it, but still being guilty of the same sins.
Jezebel used the Law craftily to make it seems as if the man was guilty of a crime he didn't commit----and then, when the smoke cleared, she took it while maintaining the public image that her husband was innocent. That was directly in violation of what the WORD ALReady said on how to do justice and not bearing false testimony against your neighbor since it could endanger another's life( Exodus 20:15-17 , Exodus 22:28, Deuteronomy 5:19-21 , Deuteronomy 19:17-19 , Proverbs 6:18-20, Proverbs 12:17, Proverbs 14:5, Proverbs 14:25, Proverbs 19:5 , Proverbs 19:9, Proverbs 21:28, Proverbs 25:17-19 . Matthew 19:17-19 , Leviticus 24:15-16, Matthew 26:59, Acts 6:11).
The scriptures make clear that anyone bringing a false witness against another out of malicious intent and not being in line with all procedures of the Law was to be treated as they desired others to be. Something else that stands out to me is that my mom once noted something saying that for them to have caught the woman in the very ACT of adultery could easily mean that they had to actively be WATCHING the process to see what went down (voyureism, inappropriate contentagraphy in seeking to see people having sex).
They had to be looking at someone's window seeing the act of perversion---and thus, they could be said to have been perverted in that sense as well.
This becomes especially relevant when seeing how Jesus in Matthew 5:27-30 made clear that the act of Adultery was not simply in physical interaction. For adultery begins in the heart. The OT Law said it was wrong for a person to have sex with someone other than his or her spouse (Exodus 20:14, Deuteronmy 5:18) ). But Jesus said that the
desire to have sex with someone other than your spouse and lust is
MENTAL adultery...and thus, sin. Jesus emphasized that if the
act is wrong, then so is the
intention.
To be faithful to your spouse with your body but not your mind is to break the trust so vital to a strong marriage.....and thus, it could've easily been the case that the men accusing the woman caught in adultery were also guilty of ADULTERY themselves. They simply were engaging in it in differing forms..
Ultimately, as they were ready to throw stones, Jesus utilized the situation to ensure the equivalent of a "Mexican standoff"..and if unaware of what that means, it is a slang term defined as a stalemate or impasse-- a confrontation that neither side can foreseeably win. The term is most often used in lieu of 'stalemate' when the confrontational situation is exceptionally dangerous for all parties involved since in popular culture, the Mexican standoff is usually portrayed as two or more opponents with guns drawn and ready, creating a tense situation. For neither side is willing to shoot for fear of being shot in return, yet neither side wants to relinquish its weapons for fear that its opponents will shoot them.
Jesus's questions placed everyone in check since what he did was essentially say, "If you want someone to die, Fine. But be ready to go ALL THE WAY with it since EVERYONE'S ABOUT to go down hard." Jesus tested them, as they tried to do with him...and He proved he was more "Gangsta" than all of them since NO one wanted to "pull the trigger" (so to speak)/do something.
When it came to the Law, Jesus showed consistency with it. aAnd with the woman, Jesus didn't condemn the woman accussed of adultery, but neither did he ignore or condone her sin. He told her to leave her life of sin. For Jesus stands ready to forgive any sin in our life as long as we confess and repent. Something else to consider is that Jesus technically was never in the POSITION to declare her in need of dying.
With John 8:11, where he says "Neither do I accuse you", this evidently can be taken in the sense of judicial condemnation, or of passing sentence as a magistrate. For this was what they (her accusers) had set her up for her for. It was not to obtain his opinion about adultery, but to obtain the condemnation of the woman. As Jesus claimed no civil authority, he said that he did not exercise it, and should not condemn her to die.
As said best by one Commentary:
Clarke's Commentary on the Bible
Neither do I condemn thee - Bishop Pearce says: "It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them, and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees, and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin.
Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
She saith, no man, Lord,.... No man said a word to me, or lift up his hand against me, or moved a stone at me:
and Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee; Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Luke 12:13. Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved, John 3:17; nor would he pass any other sentence on this woman, than what he had done; nor would he inflict any punishment on her himself; but suitably and agreeably to his office; as a prophet, he declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her go and sin no more; lest as he said to the man he cured at Bethesda's pool, a worse thing should come unto her. Wherefore the Jew (s) has no reason to object to this conduct of Christ, as if he acted contrary to the law, in Deuteronomy 13:5. "Thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee"; and also to the sanctions of all civil laws among men, which order the removal of evil, by putting delinquents to death; and he observes, that those that believe in him, do not follow him in this, but put adulterers and adulteresses to death; and that indeed, should his example and instructions take place, all courts of judicature must cease, and order be subverted among men: but it should be observed, that our Lord manifested a regard, even to the law of Moses, when he bid this woman's accusers that were without sin, to cast the first stone at her; though as for the law in Deuteronomy 13:5, that respects a false prophet, and not an adulterer or an adulteress; nor do the civil laws of all nations require death in the case of adultery; and did they, Christ here, neither by his words nor actions, contradicts and sets aside any such laws of God or man; he left this fact to be inquired into, examined, and judged, and sentence passed by proper persons, whose business it was: as for himself, his office was not that of a civil magistrate, but of a Saviour and Redeemer; and suitably to that he acted in this case; he did not connive at the sin, he reproved for it; nor did he deny that she ought to suffer according to the law of Moses, but rather suggests she ought; but as this was not his province, he did not take upon him to pronounce any sentence of condemnation on her; but called her to repentance, and, as the merciful and compassionate Saviour, gave her reason to hope pardon and eternal life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary
8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.