I’m intrigued by the idea, but I want to hear your reasoning.
Well, where was the man she was committing adultery with? Any judgement rendered would have been unjust, so he got the accusers to abandon their charges. Case closed.
Some commentators have suggested a few things about this exchange:
The “adultery” was possibly a setup for the woman, arranged by her husband who wanted to end the marriage. This was an alleged practice that easily fits the pattern of jew trickery.
The “adultery” could have merely been the act of talking one-on-one to a man who was not her husband or relative. Pharisaical traditions had long-replaced the written law of Moses at this point in Israel’s heretical existence. This may answer your question about “the man” in the scenario. However, to speak on the matter directly, were the man with whom she committed adultery culpable, just because he wasn’t mentioned in the passage doesn’t mean he didn’t also face judgment.
The setup was against Jesus, himself, as the Romans had prohibited the jews from committing executions as part of stripping away their National sovereignty. This meant that there was no obvious “correct” answer. By ordering the execution, he would defy Roman law. By ordering her released, he would defy Levitical Law. A catch-22.
The response, itself, once again shows the brilliance and omniscience of Jesus, responding with neither of the anticipated answers, but instead presenting a whole third track, putting the onus on them to cast the stones, rather than Himself as the one ordering or evacuating the sentence.
Additionally, the term αναμάρτητος has a legal weight to it, a violation of the law. He who can execute her without violating the law, go for it. Which law? Roman law or Levitical law?
Additionally, the term αναμάρτητος has a legal weight to it, a violation of the law. He who can execute her without violating the law, go for it. Which law? Roman law or Levitical law?
I would contend it is referring to Gods law.
You do present some interesting points, but we only have what is there, and to me the absence of the man seems significant.
I believe the word choice in the Greek makes it clear he was intentionally throwing their own conundrum back at them.
As for the man, he wasn’t key to this event. Interestingly, the adulterous woman was given basically the same expectation as her accusers - “Go and sin no more.”
That said, in the end, a violation of either law would be a violation of God’s law. If they defied Levitical Law (the law given to Moses by God), they directly disobeyed God, as they were expected to follow. If they defied Roman Law, they thwarted the judgment and punishment of the Roman occupation God set upon them for their national apostasy.
Yet another example of how the original Greek language has layers the English can’t even begin to reach.
Number 3 seems most likely, but what's stopping elements from 1 and 2 playing some part AS the set-up against Jesus?...if you get what I mean.
It could easily be all three.
(post is archived)