The Pharisees were attempting to discredit Jesus before the commoners by presenting him the prostitute. Were Jesus to advocate stoning her, He risked losing favour with the people. Had He defended the woman, He would have been forced to contradict Moses. Jesus did neither. He instead used Pharisaic tactics against the Pharisees to reveal their hypocrisy.
The Pharisees, you see, were relying upon a remarkably strict and improper application of the Law in this situation (they should have also brought before Jesus the guilty man). The Law requires that two or more accusers step forth to press "charges" against the accused (Deut. 19:15-20). Clearly the Pharisees had not pious motives for their attempts (they likely even lay in wait just to trap that woman, since catching someone in adultery was quite difficult), so Jesus began bearing down upon them. They were to stand before God and the priests and judges to be evaluated.
By His own authority He left the circumstances up to the Pharisees, turning the tables on them, asking them to cast the first stone if any one of them is without sin (that there is only One capable of really casting such a stone was likely His point). When the Pharisees realised what was at stake, their being clearly revealed as hypocrites, they stepped away. The woman looked to find no one accusing her. Since the law requires two blameless witnesses to make the legal case, the woman was not accused, and the Law remained intact. The episode was one strict application of the Law to another, this, to bear down upon the hearts of those who needed it most. Jesus obviously knew the woman had sinned (and He probably knew her to be repentant), but since she had no accusers, He released her as described by the Law, telling her not to sin again. ('Has no one condemned you? THEN I do not condemn you. Go and sin no more.')
To suggest that He overlooked prostitution as sin is quite ridiculous. |
