Someone attempted to bring Christ into a judgment to act as judge, but it really wasn't a court situation. It was a politically motivated public relations stunt. The Scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in the very act of adultery and tested Him seeking to get something against him. By the way, if they caught her in the "very act" of adultery, then we have to ask, "Where was the man?" The "trial" was already clearly biassed against the woman. Also, we don't even know how long it had been since she was caught. It could have been a long period of time, and her crime came to the notice of the authorities after gossip circulated. The authorities may have even known about her for a period of time and done nothing, bringing her to Jesus for the sole purpose of obtaining "dirt" on Jesus.
They demanded he answer a question: "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." John 8:5-6a. If he opposed Moses, then they could accuse Him of just that. If he said, "Stone her," then he'd be subject to scrutiny by the Roman authorities and appear like someone who had not brought good news. If nothing else, the leaders could perhaps divide the masses that seemed to be so favorable toward Him. This is because the Roman Empire had reserved the sentence of capital punishment for itself. When the leaders of the Sanhedrin brought Jesus to be tried by Pilate, he told them to try Him themselves, but they wanted the death penalty, so they took Him to Pilate. "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: . . . ." John 18:31.
In answer, "But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not." John 8:6b. He ignored them. This was the appropriate response because He was not a judge. No one had elected or appointed him to the position, there had been no trial with evidence and witnesses, and He understood just what they were up to.
Jesus said to them: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7b. He understood the position of the accusers pursuant to biblical law. For capital offenses, "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. In other words, if you're going to take responsibility to report a crime that leads to the death penalty, then you must take part in the execution. But what are the qualifications of the witnesses? Are they honest? There are examples of people framing someone for a capital offense. See the framing of Naboth by King Ahab's wife in I Kings 21. The law of Moses even explicitly addressed the crime of framing another person. See Deuteronomy 19:15-21. Christ did not critique the law of Moses, He criticized those attempting to misuse it.
Instead of condemning the accused whom the Pharisees and Scribes brought to Him for judgment, Christ ended up condemning the accusers. He condemned them for being hypocrites. They themselves were as guilty as the woman, yet they set out to accuse her without coming under judgment themselves. He critiqued the men who were making the accusation and acting as prosecutors. They were responsible as witnesses for whatever punishment they sought to impose on the adulterous woman. While their testimony as to the woman's guilt may have not been false, their self-appointed position as witnesses seeking "justice" was false. Christ exposed the falsity in their judgment, showing again how Christ's sophisticated judgment could expose whatever lie was hidden by the appearance of matters.
The only other instance where Christ had direct contact with a civil or judicial action was His own trial, wherein He was defendant. He did have something to say to Pilate about being a judge and ruler. See Post "Jesus' Not So Subtle But Gentle Rebuke of Pilate." My conclusion from that exchange is that if a man does not know the truth, that is, God's word as to right and wrong, he is not fit to be a ruler or a judge. Pilate's action also condemns those who advocate for a democratic determination of right and wrong. The crowd can be fickle about that, and innocent men can perish as a result.
Remember that in the Luke 12 passage (See post "Who Made You a Judge?") where a man wanted Him to perform the function of a judge, He told the man to examine himself as to his covetous heart. In both examples, Christ's concern went beyond the surface and dealt with the character of the people seeking to obtain judgment. This perspective fits with Christ's mission of New Creation. Christ wants new men, not new systems.
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation." II Corinthians 5:17-19.
The revolutionary ignores the man and seeks new systems. Christ did not come to abolish the law of God as found in the the Mosaic Code. He wanted it applied honestly and equitably. Christ was not a revolutionary; He was a transformer, an example, and the Creator of the New Man. If Christ considered the principles undergirding the Mosaic system of justice to be adequate (and what could be more adequate than equal treatment before the law for all people?), and if His main concern was with New Men, then there should be no change in the judicial system established through Moses. Why would there be any need for change, seeing that Christ gave Moses those principles?
Therefore, how does Christ change the judiciary?
No comments:
Post a Comment