Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5:19)
Even if your theology does not recognize the kingdom as yet established,1 Matthew 5:19 nonetheless demonstrates the relevancy of Yahweh’s2 Ten Commandments and their respective statutes and judgments under the New Covenant. Regardless when the kingdom commences, one is either great or least in the kingdom depending upon his response to Yahweh’s moral law here and now.
Antinomians and pronomians alike
The Greek word for law in the New Testament is nomos. Those opposed to Yahweh’s law for today are commonly identified as antinomians, as opposed to pronomians or those who teach that the law is still pertinent for these New Covenant times. Antinomians are in danger of missing out on the kingdom, not only in time and history, but also in eternity. Beware lest you be counted in their number.
But worse than those who turn “the grace of our God into licentiousness” (Jude 1:4)3 are those whose theology theoretically makes Christ a sinner and thereby eliminates Him as our Savior:
Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)
John 8 and the woman caught in adultery
Interpreting Jesus’ words or actions in a way that makes Him violate Yahweh’s law is both illogical and heretical. John 8 and its account of the woman caught in adultery is, arguably, the passage most often abused in this fashion:
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives…. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery…. 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…. 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 … 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. (John 8:1-11)
Christians are often heard claiming that Christ’s response to the adulteress is proof He changed the law under the New Covenant. The tragic irony in this is completely lost on such Christians. What the scribes and Pharisees hoped and were unable to accomplish by conspiracy and subterfuge (i.e., making a sinner of Christ), today’s antinomian Christians have theoretically achieved with their theology. If indeed Christ changed the law, He violated the law, and in violating the law, He became a sinner.
Two to tango
What many Christians claim Christ changed when He told the woman to go and sin no more is, in fact, required by the law:
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. (Leviticus 20:10)
If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. (Deuteronomy 22:22)
The Pharisees hoped to entrap Christ with these two passages. Instead, He turned the tables on them.
Don’t forget that in order to be sinless, Christ was required to keep all of the law:
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. (James 2:10)
According to the judgment provided in the previous two passages, something’s missing. Rather, someone’s missing. In John 8, the Pharisees produced the woman caught in the act of adultery. But where’s the man?
It takes two to commit adultery. If the woman was caught in the very act of adultery, then so was the man. Yet only the woman was indicted. The Pharisees are later described as withdrawing from the court proceedings because they were “convicted by their own conscience.” Could this be indicative that the male adulterer was one or more of their own number?
Without producing both the adulteress and the adulterer for adjudication, the veracity of the woman’s accusers is immediately suspect.
Two or more witnesses
Not only did the Pharisees fail to produce both adulterer and adulteress, they also failed in another requisite of the law:
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:6)
One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. (Deuteronomy 19:15)
In John 8, Christ responds to the Pharisees’ demand for stoning the woman by requiring the first stone to be cast by those without sin. This is sometimes known as the “clean-hands doctrine.” This is not a requirement for sinlessness. Otherwise, only Christ could ever testify in a court of law, and criminals would have free reign.
The point of Christ’s statement was that only those not guilty of the same crime are eligible as witnesses against another. And how did the Pharisees respond? They recused themselves as witnesses by exiting the “court room.”4
Stone her or send her on her way?
In John 8:7, Christ essentially said, “Stone her!”5 That Christ would require the death penalty for capital criminals should not surprise us. To have done otherwise would have made Him a sinner. Furthermore, he upheld capital punishment in Matthew 15:1-4, where he chides the scribes and Pharisees for not holding those who curse their parents to capital punishment, as required in Exodus 21:17.
Why then wouldn’t He do the same for anyone lawfully proven guilty of the capital crime of adultery?
Without at least two witnesses to accuse the adulteress, Christ was obligated by law to send her on her way. Anything else would have made Him a sinner and eliminated Him as our Savior.
Later in this same chapter, He alluded to this very requirement:
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. (John 8:17)
Witnesses must participate in stoning
Not only does the law require two or more witnesses, but in capital cases, it also requires the witnesses to initiate judgment:
The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 17:7)6
Witnesses must be so certain of their testimony that they will not hesitate to throw the first stones in putting the accused to death. This mandatory provision for direct participation by the witnesses assures more certain testimony.
Consequently, even had the witnesses in John 8 remained present, had they been unwilling to initiate the stoning, Christ would have still been required by law to send the accused on her way.
Christ did not change the law regarding the woman caught in adultery as so many claim He did. Instead, He honored His Father’s law by observing it perfectly. In so doing, He remained sinless and retained the right to be our propitiation.
See Part 3.
Related posts:
“Redeeming” Christ From Those Who Would Make Him a Sinner, Pt. 1
Law and Kingdom: Their Relevance Under the New Covenant
Thou shall not commit adultery
Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
- YHWH, the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, is most often pronounced Yahweh. It is the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible and was inspired to appear nearly 7,000 times in the Old Testament. Regrettably, it was deleted by the English translators. In obedience to the Third Commandment and the many Scriptures that charge us to proclaim, swear by, praise, extol, call upon, bless, glorify, and hold fast to His name, we have chosen to memorialize His name here in this document and in our lives. For a more thorough explanation concerning important reasons for using the sacred name of God, see “The Third Commandment.”
- Where the King James translated asélgeian as “lasciviousness,” the New American Standard Bible translates it as “licentiousness.” In his 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster defined “licentiousness” as “excessive indulgence of liberty; contempt of the just restraints of law….”. By their rejection of His law, antinomians turn Yahweh’s grace into licentiousness; they are humanists dressed in Christian attire. Without Yahweh’s moral compass, every man is a law unto himself.
- Do not overlook the implications of the clean-hands doctrine as it applies to jailhouse snitches who are often used in cases against other criminals. Of course, under a biblical juridical system there would be no jailhouse snitches because there would be no jails or prisons. See Prisons: Shut Them All Down!
- For biblical reasons for stoning over other forms of capital punishment, see Chapter 17 “Amendment 8: Bail, Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments” of Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.
- Along with the witnesses, the blood avenger(s), or next of kin, are also allowed to initiate judgment: “But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities [of refuge and is convicted by a biblical court of law]: Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.” (Deuteronomy 19:11-12)
Deuteronomy 19.21 an essential key element.
This is why you receive my Tithe. There’s no place in Colorado Springs even warm to this kind of teaching, even if I already knew it.
Great post!