The story of the adulteress in John 8 is often referenced as an objection to capital punishment. It is argued that because Jesus condemns the pharisees for seeking to stone the woman, all instances of stoning and even other forms of capital punishment are wrong. It’s clear that stoning itself is not inherently sinful; God himself ordained stoning for a fairly large set of crimes. To understand the pericope adulterae as a condemnation of capital punishment is to miss the point of the passage entirely.

Many do not consider the pericope to be inspired. That is certainly a possibility given that it cannot be found in the earliest manuscripts. It’s likely that it is rather an interpolation. However, let us concede its inerrancy for the sake of this discussion, as it conveys an important idea nonetheless.

The condemnation of stoning in a specific instance cannot be taken to be a condemnation of stoning altogether. Now, if this were demonstrated to be a lawful instance of stoning condemned by Christ, that would be different. The pharisees were testing Christ. They say: “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women” (v. 5). It is true that adulterers are said to merit the death penalty. However, God has ordained not only the punishment, but the means by which people are to be judged, found guilty, and then punished. Are the pharisees really fulfilling the Law in this instance? Let’s take a look at some of the facts surrounding the case.

First, there are no witnesses mentioned. Some could assume that the pharisees are the witnesses, but there is no textual basis for this assumption. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that these issues are to be decided on the basis of at least two witnesses. This is reinforced in the New Testament repeatedly.

“On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but he shall not be executed on the testimony of a lone witness.” (Deuteronomy 17:6)

“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.” (Deuteronomy 19:15)

“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death at the evidence of witnesses, but no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.” (Numbers 35:30)

“Do not entertain an accusation against an elder, except on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” (1 Timothy 5:19)

If one is to assume that the pharisees are the witnesses (which they do not state), then one is led to wonder where the man is. Simply put, it’s impossible for a woman to commit adultery alone. If the woman was caught committing adultery, and they say she was indeed caught in the very act, where was her partner in this crime? The Law states that both are to be put to death.

“If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10)

“If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.” (Deuteronomy 22:22)

Additionally, when these punishments were to be carried out, the criminals were always judged by a type of civil magistrate. There are various examples of this:

“Then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.” (Deuteronomy 22:15)

“his father and mother are to lay hold of him and bring him to the elders of his city, to the gate of his hometown,” (Deuteronomy 21)

God has given us this institution to help with judgments. These judges guide our administration of God’s Law, they are to work out these situations. They are told: “Consider what you are doing, for you do not judge for man but for the LORD who is with you when you render judgment” (2 Chronicles 19:6).

Clearly this instance is not one of obedience to God’s Law. It has been violated, even ignored more than once. This was not an example of justice according to God’s own standards. So Christ’s response is very important. When He says “he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her,” He is referencing another clear aspect of the Law. The witnesses were the first to throw stones. At times they were joined or assisted in this by “officials,” but they always inaugurated the punishment. The witnesses were following God’s Law by accusing the criminal and having the matter decided by God’s ordained judicial system. These pharisees were not.

The pharisees were taking justice into their own hands. The moment they acted apart from God’s Law, which they did multiple times, they began to enforce their own Laws, their own ideas of justice. They had put themselves in the place of God, who is the only perfect, sinless judge. The pharisees were not sinless. Not like God. Thus, they were in no position to administer judgment of themselves. God was not with them in rendering judgment; they were not judging for God, but for man. Only one who is sinless and perfect can ever derive justice from Himself. No man, pharisee or not, can ever define justice. God tells us what is just.

If we are to understand this passage as a condemnation of any punishment being administered on the grounds that us humans are not sinless, then we must abolish all penal sanctions whatsoever. Murderers must be let loose, rape ignored, and adultery all but endorsed. That isn’t Christ’s point. Man doesn’t have a position to decide what is just. Only God does. This is why it is made so clear in the Law that the blood of the criminal is on his own head, not that of the witness/administrator of justice.

“If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death; he has cursed his father or his mother, his blood is upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)

“If there is a man who lies with his father’s wife, he has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death, their blood is upon them.” (Leviticus 20:11)

Justice is to be done regardless of the sinlessness of those who administer it, as justice properly applied is justice according to God’s Law. When man supposes himself the arbiter of justice, he better be sinless, or he is in no position to judge any other man. We are to judge from the righteousness of God, not from our own righteousness, because we have no righteousness of our own. This was the fundamental problem of the pharisees. Yes, Jesus condemned them for judging the woman. Yes, they were hypocrites. Yes, they were self-righteous. No, they were not administering God’s justice, they were taking a part of God’s Law which suited them and ignoring the rest of it. They were bastardizing His Law, attempting to act on the grounds of their own righteousness.

It’s apparent that Christ wasn’t condemning the proper, righteous usage of God’s Law. He wasn’t saying God’s ideas of justice shouldn’t be applied. It would be rather strange for Him to do so, given He gave us a normative statement of continuity with regard to the Law in Matthew 5. He didn’t come to abolish the Law. He didn’t come to overturn the death penalty.

Those who would object to theonomy or simply capital punishment on the grounds of John 8 are correct in their condemnation of self-righteous judgment. However, theonomists are not the ones attempting to derive justice from themselves. We are looking to administer justice according to God’s Word, because we know we are incapable of being perfectly just. It is rather those objecting to theonomy who are ironically the ones looking to establish their own ideas of justice. When you reject God’s Law in favor of “natural law” or “natural ethics,” you have nobody else to appeal to. You can only make your own assertions about justice, and typically they are actually contrary to God’s Law. John 8 does not condemn those applying God’s Law rightfully and studiously. It is rather a condemnation of all who seek to replace it with a humanistic, self-righteous justice.

Grace and Peace