John 8:3-5 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 is one of my favorite stories in the New Testament. At this point in time, while the law of Moses hasn't changed, the Romans had pronounced laws prohibiting the Jews from imposing capital punishment for spiritual crimes. i.e. if an individual had committed a crime under Roman law, they should be tried in Roman courts, but if they did something that the Romans thought was just fine, e.g. adultery, the Jews were not allowed to impose a capital punishment for that.
So, when the scribes and pharisees show up with this woman, they're not actually looking to stone her. They're looking to tell the Romans that Christ advocates murder or to tell the Jews that Christ hates the Mosaic Law. Lose, lose for him. So what does he say? He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. He says, I support unbiased judgement, which none of you are.
But here's the thing that earns this story a spot on this forum: He is unbiased judgement. He gave the law to Moses. It's not Moses's law, it's Jehovah's law, and Christ clearly tells the Jews that he is Jehovah. He, personally said, "stone adulteresses." Then, here, with this group, he says, I support unbiased judgement, which none of you are. He didn't tell them at this point in time, he was that unbiased judge, but we, luckily, know that. So why didn't he then pick up a stone and righteously impose the consequences of the law on her?
Was it, perhaps, an insight into the importance of obeying the law of the land? He supported obedience to legal systems, with his, Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's commentary on taxation. If that was part of his intent, it should give us guidance on how we should treat those who do things we consider to be morally wrong that are not prohibited by the law. It clearly does not justify the unethical/immoral action, but it may indicate that we should support the legal system under which we live.
The most interesting thing to me is that the situation (broken law, accusation, imposition of penalty) did not end here. The consequence for adultery was imposed, the penalty paid. Christ paid it. On the cross, and in the garden. It is his right, as the willing surrogate for her punishment to decide whether she needs to also suffer. And of course he tells her to stop. I think this is a pretty important lesson: Christ does believe in consequences. He does support the law, but he has the right to decide when the full consequences of a broken law need to fall on his back alone, and when, through lack of contrition, those penalties need to be paid twice, once by him and once by the transgressor. It really is such a sad waste when we force Christ to allow us to suffer for our own sins when he has already done so for us.
