I Judge No One
Part 4, Jesus' Verdict
Having explored episodes in the Synoptic gospels, David Lloyd Dusenbury then turns to the Gospel of John in I Judge No One: A Political Life of Jesus. Do we see evidence that John's account of Jesus' mission converges upon what we've observed in the Synoptics?
Specifically, do we see Jesus reject making political and legal judgments in the Gospel of John?
Dusenbury argues that indeed we do. His primary illustration comes from John 8, the woman caught in the act of adultery.
To be sure, there is some concern about putting too much weight upon this particular story, given how it is not found in the earliest New Testament manuscripts. Dusenbury knows this, but goes on to accept the story as reflecting very early sources and traditions. Regardless, the story is canonical. So, we'll move forward, with Dusenbury, under this assumption.
How, then, does the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery support Dusenbury's theory that Jesus rejects coercive power in establishing a political kingdom?
The question put to Jesus in John 8 is if he will enforce the Mosaic law or cancel it. Politically, it's a tricky situation. As Dusenbury observes:
[There is] a temptation for Jesus to implicate himself in the machinery of Judaean law and politics. In effect, Jesus cannot release a woman caught in the act (in flagrante delicto) without committing blasphemy, and he cannot condemn her without becoming a punisher of the body -- and a political Christ.
In short, as Dusenbury continues, and as we saw in Luke 12, Jesus "is formally requested to render a judgement."
So, what does Jesus do?
Just as in Luke 12 -- where Jesus says, "Who appointed me to be judge?" -- the story could be read as Jesus refusing to render a judgment. And we generally read the story this way, that Jesus doesn't judge the woman but extends grace.
However, Dusenbury argues for a more sweeping and provocative interpretation. Jesus, argues Dusenbury, does render a judgment in the story. This is signified by Jesus writing in the dirt. In Hebrew culture, writing with the finger was a sign of divine judgment. One recalls the story of the Daniel 5, where a divine finger wrote the judgment of Belshazzar on the wall of the palace. If we follow this lead, that Jesus was writing in the dirt to signal he was assuming the role of judge in the affair before him, what, then, was his judgment?
According to Dusenbury, Jesus' judgment concerned the judges themselves. Mosaic law could be enforced, but only by perfect judges. And since there are no perfect judges, Jesus effectively nullifies the enforcement of the Mosaic law. That was Jesus' verdict: No human judge can enforce the law.
As Dusenbury writes, "Jesus promulgates a juridical principle according to which the enforcers of divine law must be wholly innocent." And, given "that the enforcers of divine law cannot be wholly innocent," the enforcement of Mosaic law "is universally, and permanently, suspended." With a stroke, Jesus nullifies the right of any human judge to punish the body.
And yet, the story doesn't end there. Human judges are cancelled in this story. But Jesus continues to reserve the right of judgment for himself. As Jesus says to the woman, "Go, and sin no more." Following Dusenbury's argument, Jesus rejects being a political Christ. Jesus will not punish the woman's body using coercive power. But Jesus does exert his authority as a moral, eschatological judge.
Interesting, given that we seems to be created to make judgements... some are biologically built into us for safety, others serve to keep people to act according to our standards, while others seem to be there to keep people out of our circle. Judging comes so naturally to us, even as children. Jesus' judgement concerned a moral issue, not a safety one so we can see that Jesus is not putting the community in danger. For me, I love looking at judgement and asking myself to be intentional about it and careful. I don't like it when people gossip, or judgement people because of the way they look, or what they have, but I do feel entitled to judge those in society doing harm to the common good, or being violent towards others. These judgements seem to go hand in hand with my compass - morally, ethically, and politically. Seems like without judgement, there is no passion or conviction... and yet, I need to remember that we each are unique and I have not walked in their shoes. We each have divine value. The question that is always important is .... do I need to judge?
There is a difference between being judge, judgemental, & using good judgement, discernment. Discernment is the ability to hear God’s Holy Spirit’s guidance. “Go there”, “Don’t go there”, etc. We aren’t & can’t be judge of others. We can & should use good judgement. This does mean that the people on the other side of us using good judgement are in a sense being judged just not by us. “They are unsafe, you must distance yourself”, this direction must come from God not out of our fear. They only way to know if it’s from God, it seems, is to be healed of our fear so that we can hear & know the will of God when He speaks.