Must one be pro-all life in order to be consistently pro-life? It is seen as an inconsistency by some that pro-life advocates are only concerned with fetuses and not with those facing the death penalty. But is this a true inconsistency?
Briefly, I understand the pro-life position to be this:
- It is morally wrong to intentionally take the life of a human being without proper justification.
- Elective abortion intentionally takes the life of a human being without proper justification.
- Therefore, abortion is morally wrong.
Obviously, there are pro-life and pro-abortion advocates who are opposed to capital punishment. The focus is on whether the anti-abortion position can be neutral to, or supportive of capital punishment without being inconsistent.
So, is the anti-abortion position inconsistent with being pro-capital punishment? In the case of both abortion and capital punishment a human life is actively taken in a premeditated fashion. With capital punishment, the life is taken as a penalty for an intentional crime and only after due process. A trial is held, evidence is considered, and a judgement is made. The life is taken as a direct consequence of the convict’s intentional premeditated actions and is an act of justice. Capital punishment is a justifiable taking of life.
However the child who is aborted has committed no crime. She is in her natural environment, maturing as nature dictates. It is only at the desire and convenience of the mother that the life of the child is taken. And herein is the essential difference.
Sometimes this complaint of inconsistency comes from Real Pro-Life Christians© about other Christians who seem to be only pro-life when it comes to abortion. Life is life, right? All life is worth protecting, they say. The second greatest commandment is to love your neighbor, and carrying out the death penalty isn’t loving, right? Jesus would not be OK with the the death penalty, right? Not so fast.
Let’s look at what the Bible has to say about this issue.
Genesis 9:6 — Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man. The rationale here given in the very first ordained use of capital punishment is that because man is made in God’s image, it is just to take the life of a murderer. It is because man has inherent value bearing God’s image and is thus not tied to any particular order of law, this act of justice does not abdicate with the institution of the New Covenant.
One fallacy in which many RPLCs get tangled is believing the “red letters” of the Bible carry more weight that any others. This implies that the rest of the Bible was not God breathed and thus doesn’t carry the same authority of God. However the entire Bible is inspired of God and it all carries authority. If this is true, and it is, then the letters of Paul are as authoritative as Jesus’ own words.
In Romans 13:1-5, Paul writes:
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.
Not only would this be the perfect place to denounce the institution of capital punishment, Paul actually endorses the government’s authority to put it to use. This isn’t our only example either. Consider Paul before Festus as recorded in Acts 25:6-11. Here Paul has every reason in the world to invoke a moral or spiritual objection to capital punishment and again he does not. Paul actually agrees that if he were guilty of a crime the death penalty would be appropriate and he would willingly submit his life:
After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, while Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” But Festus,wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?” But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.”
For some people, they really need the red letters to tell them how to think about an issue. This doesn’t fare any better for the RPLC. In a bit of preemptive action, I will anticipate the story of the woman caught in adultery found in John 8:1-11 as an argument against the death penalty.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them,“He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court. Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.”
Here one might be inclined to believe Jesus pulled an end-around the death penalty, but not so. He was actually in full compliance of the Mosaic Law concerning capital punishment as it pertains to adultery. The Law required two or more witnesses for such a punishment. Once everyone withdrew from Jesus, there was no longer anyone left to serve as witnesses to her crime. Jesus couldn’t rightfully demand or even administer death because the requirements of the Law were not fulfilled. As with Paul’s perfect opportunity to condemn the use of the death penalty, Jesus did not either. He had no qualms with proclaiming that things ought to be different on other issues. This would be the ideal time to say something like, “You have heard it said that one caught in the act of adultery is to be put to death, but I say to you, forgive and love…”
Many Christians and skeptics alike would like to elevate the Love of God to the exclusion of His Justice and Holiness. It’s as though if God were Love then He can’t be Just and Holy (well, not if it involves punishment). “But God would forgive” is too inclusive. It can be applied to any crime and any punishment it seems. It precludes us from punishing anyone in any fashion for any reason… because God would forgive.
In the end of it all, nothing in the Bible actually condemns the implementation of capital punishment as a morally acceptable form of justice. In fact in every place it’s addressed, it is supported for just reasons. One must look to passages which are void of content relating to this issue in particular in an effort to apply it where it’s not intended. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that one must support the death penalty if you are a Christian. On the contrary, I can sympathize with the moral stand on this issue. However, it is not inconsistent with the Bible to support capital punishment as a means of justice given the Holy Writ’s full and consistent endorsement.
Sifting Reality 
Well said. If people have good reasons to believe that capital punishment is being done in an unfair, un-biblical manner, then I believe in their freedom of conscience to oppose it. But they need to have facts to support that. They can be against it in practice if their reasons are sound but under no circumstance should they oppose it in principle. After all, it was God’s idea, and we shouldn’t sit in judgment of him and his word.
I also like to point out that there are over 20,000 abortions for every capital punishment.
Good article. I think your last Bible commentary was a bit of a stretch. The fact Jesus saved her from being stoned says more about God’s love and forgiveness than capital punishment. Had there been a hundred witnesses testifying against her, He still would have saved her.
T
Jesus was still bound by the OT law. She was caught in adultery, a capital offense. He was bound by the law to affirm her execution. He utilized a loophole by not having witnesses to condemn her.
The fact that he utilized the loophole and asked the questions he did in order to get to the loophole shows his love and compassion.
Excellent article, John.
Some thoughts
1. The woman caught in adultery was supposedly caught in the very act. This means there was a man guilty also, and yet there was no man being stoned, which demonstrates at least rank hypocrisy. Perhaps she was not really guilty?
2. There is nothing wrong with showing mercy and not imposing the death penalty; after all, King David was guilty of both murder and adultery and yet God in His mercy did not have him killed. So for us humans, we may find extenuating circumstances for mercy.
3. I would much prefer the term “pro-life” be tossed out to eliminate such nonsense. Let’s call a spade a spade and say we are anti-abortion! And just to give it real strength, let’s even say we are anti-murder, or anti-infanticide.
John,
Jesus certainly wasn’t bound by their (Jews) interpretation of Old Testament law, otherwise He wouldn’t have healed on the Sabbath.
The way Jesus worded His “defense,” if you will, gives a clear indication that He would have saved her life regardless. “Let he who is WITHOUT SIN cast the first stone,” He said. Jesus didn’t say, “Let he who doesn’t have enough witnesses to testify against him cast the first stone.”
Either way, capital punishment is not unbiblical.
The fact Jesus Himself broke a commandment (picking grain and healing on the Sabbath) shows us something, I think: It’s not just about following rules, but also about love, compassion, and forgiveness. And THAT is the reason, I believe, He saved the adulterer’s life.
Jesus was bound by the law as an obedient Jew.
It’s silly to fight over who’s “really” pro-life. Pro-lifers (on abortion) and “real” pro-lifers have common ground and important work to do. Let’s work together where we can.
John,
He broke a commandment Himself by healing and picking grain on the Sabbath. At the very least, He wasn’t bound by their interpretation of Old Testament law.
Regardless, posts like this shouldn’t have to be written. I agree with Conservatve2Cents. Whatever one’s feeling on capital punishment, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion.
My own opinion on capital punishment varies. My knee-jerk reaction at times is to say something like, “Those [expletive] need to be shot.” But that’s an emotional response to something dreadful I read in the paper. It’s certainly what I would want if someone ever harmed a member of my family. But is it something society should be involved with?
I don’t know. For the most serious offenders – like that scum who shot the baby in the head a few days ago – I’d rather remove all the perks of prison and stick them in a tiny little cell with absolutely nothing to do. No books, televisions, games, writing material, or outside recreation. Nothing but the cool and quiet meaninglessness of concrete and steel.
To me, that’s a far more miserable punishment than a quick & painless execution.
Terrance,
Jesus did NOT break any commandments or else the BIble would be lying when it says He kept them perfectly.
What he broke was the Pharisee’s interpretation of the commandments – the “traditions of man” which they added which were legalistic burdens.
As for the putting a guy in a cell for the rest of his life, I don’t want to spend my tax dollars keeping scum alive. That is one heck of a lot of money to keep someone incarcerated – more than most people earn in year working!
Glenn,
He broke the law according to THEIR (Jews) interpretation. Precisely what I argued above.
Currently, it costs more money to execute someone. In order to reduce the cost, you’d have to limit their ability to appeal, or else speed the courts up. But overall, including court costs, it costs more to execute.
But Jesus broke NO commandments, and THAT is the point.
The problem with the system is that it allows for endless appeals with no foundation. But I’d rather pay for appeals and excute the guy because that is the only real justice. Unless, of course, throughout their incarceration we can torture them
Terrance
Reference Mark 7:9-13
Glenn,
I didn’t say He actually broke a commandment; I said He broke a commandment according to their interpretation of Old Testament Law. Clearly, their interpretation was wrong.
I think locking them in a cell with absolutely nothing is a form of torture. And by nothing, I mean NOTHING. No books, televisions, writing material, no yard time, no chessboards, checkerboards, no decks of cards, no nothing . Nothing but toilet. I wouldn’t even give them a bed.
This punishment would be reserved for the worst of the worst, like that guy who shot the baby in the head the other day.
“He broke the law according to THEIR (Jews) interpretation. ”
Wasn’t that according to the Pharisees’ interpretation, which other Jews followed, because the Pharisees had so much authority over them?
The death penalty argument is another one of those thrown out that *really* has me wondering about the intellect of those who use it to defend their position. Can they really not tell the difference between abortion and the death penalty? Death penalties are not given out willy nilly (yet even then, mistakes are made, which is my one argument against it). Sometimes, protecting life requires removing that which threatens it. There is also the issue of justice and prevention. Death penalty crimes have a complex process behind them to ensure the guilt of the criminal and the level of threat they are to society that can take years before the penalty is actually given. Abortion? Any woman can walk into an abortion clinic and, for any reason or no reason at all, kill her baby. How does that compare in any way?
Like I told John, robbery, drug use, car theft, home invasion, et cetera… are all wrong. But that’s one thing. Those crimes are wrong, but they aren’t self-evidently evil.
Those crimes are NOT on par with shooting an innocent baby. The baby could not testify against the guy nor stop him from robbing his mother. The baby could do nothing, so for that punk, that scum, to shoot that baby is an act of pure evil. It is not on par with simple robbery, drug use, et cetera…It’s an act of pure evil and should be treated as such.
Unfortunately, however, because the offender is black, he probably won’t get the death penalty. He’ll be given life in prison and enjoy all the perks all other offenders enjoy. He’ll have a television, books, recreation time, schooling, wood-shop, et cetera…The prison life in store for him is a far better fate than the ghetto filth he was going to end up in, and that is not justice.
Yes, it was the Pharisees. I misspoke, but you get my point.
John,
To say that Jesus forgave the adulterer because there weren’t enough witnesses is silly. Jesus forgave her because that’s what His message was. He told the woman, “I do not condemn you either. Go and sin no more.”
You seem to be suggesting that had there been no loophole, Jesus would have stoned her Himself, or allowed her to be stoned. You’re guessing so as to support your own argument, but that guess isn’t even an educated one. That’s simply not a reasonable conclusion based on the scripture. Jesus flatly said, “Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone,” thereby shaming the accusers. He didn’t find a loophole; He created it with His statement. I think you’re ignoring the message Jesus was sending.
Why then would he ask where the accusers are? What point does that make from a man who doesn’t waste words or speak with frivolity? Then he says because they are not present to condemn her, neither does he.
Who shamed them into fleeing, John? You’re talking about a loophole that Jesus Himself created. Why did He create that loophole? That’s the point you’re missing.
Terrance,
There is nothing in the story to suggest that it was just Jesus’ mercy which let her off. Jesus is God. God said the penalty for the nation of Israel for adultery was death and Jesus did not abrogate that law anywhere in the N.T.
The issue was strictly judicial. By the Law there had to be witnesses. And the claim of being caught in the act meant that the man would have to be there also to be stoned. The hypocrisy was evident since only the woman was being punished. So, either they were violating their own law – the Law of God – by singling out the woman, or else she was being falsely accused. We have no idea what Jesus wrote in the dirt, but I’ve always thought it may have been something about the missing man which made them all realize it was wrong.
So she MAY have been guilty and she may have had a trumped-up charge. Since there was no lawful action taking place, even by God’s own rules Jesus would have to release her.
Jesus made no loophole; he only complied with the Law.
“Yes, it was the Pharisees. I misspoke, but you get my point.”
Yes, but my point was that the Pharisees took an extreme interpretation of the law, then taught that extreme interpretation. To give an example I’ve heard used to illustrate: if a farmer had a cow that got stuck in the mud and would die if it didn’t get out, the farmer would save the animal’s life – but if it was the Sabbath, saving the animal’s life counted as “work,” and was therefore a sin, so he should leave the animal to die. Because they interpreted this action as “work”, it was technically the letter of the law, but it did not match the spirit of the law, since saving a life could hardly be considered “work.” Jesus healed people on the Sabbath. They viewed that as doing “work” on the Sabbath, and therefore unacceptable. That was part of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees that Jesus derided.
Glenn,
Jesus absolutely created the loophole by shaming the accusers into leaving. Why would he do that? You say because no man was present. Well, the fact no man was present is neither here nor there. The man could have escaped. You don’t know and I don’t know because the Gospel doesn’t tell us. So you’re basically using gaps in the Gospel account to support your own conclusion.
Lastly, Jewish civil law was no longer valid because Rome controlled Israel. Rome did not put people to death for adultery, and there is no evidence that it was common place among the Jews at that time.
Kunoichi,
Yes, I agree. I said above that Jesus was, at the very least, not bound to THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law. By their interpretation, wild or otherwise, Jesus was not an obedient Jew. That was my point to John.
“By their interpretation, wild or otherwise, Jesus was not an obedient Jew.”
Agreed, but the point remains that, because it was based on their extreme interpretation, they would have been wrong. Jesus *was* an obedient Jew, as the laws were intended. He was, in fact, more obedient then they were.
Terrance,
The point I was making was that there was no loophole created. Whether or not Jewish Law was in legal effect is irrelevant, since they were operating under that Law while trying to stone her!
Jesus remained fully within that Law without any loopholes. No man being punished demonstrates hypocrisy. No witnesses left demonstrates no case.
NO LOOPHOLE!
Glenn,
Even John Barron said there was a loophole. He said, The fact that he utilized the loophole and asked the questions he did in order to get to the loophole shows his love and compassion.
Clearly, I’m not the only one who recognizes the loophole. In fact, I didn’t even mention the word loophole until John did.
No man being punished demonstrates….We don’t know. If the man escaped, the man escaped. The fact the woman couldn’t run fast enough – if that is indeed what happened, but it’s merely a guess because we don’t and can’t know – doesn’t mean she’s entitled to a free pass. She got a free pass, I suggest, because Jesus showed love, compassion, and understanding. He also taught us a message about hypocrisy.
Just because John also claimed there was a loophole, that doesn’t mean there was one. Everything in the text demonstrates the full use of the Law. No loopholes.
Let me just be clear what I mean when I say Jesus used a loophole. Being God, Jesus knew the woman’s guilt. I don’t doubt she was guilty because the text says she was caught in the act, not that it was merely claimed. Anyway, the law required 2 or more witnesses. Because the witnesses all left, there was ko way to put her to death without breaking the law in that respect. Therefore because there were no witnesses to testify against her, Jesus did jot condemn her (different from forgiving her).
That’s what I mean, though he knew of her guilt, he did not condemn condemn her because of a lack of testators.
Kunoichi,
I don’t dispute that. We are in agreement.
Regarding this “loophole”, I would like to say that Jesus created nothing but shame in the hearts of those hoping for a stoning. Indeed, He encouraged the one without sin to cast the first stone. As there was no such man, each felt shame at their own sinfulness and departed. That was their choice, though Jesus certainly must have known the result of His challenge. Otherwise, He was caught in their trap. I believe His first order of business was to thwart the intentions of those who sought to trap Him, and His challenge to them put the ball back in their court, where they were unable to return volley. Jesus did not have to risk by either speaking against the charge against the woman and the rightful sentence, nor did He have to risk allowing her death. Their inability to react to His challenge due to their shame freed both Jesus and, since He was not a witness to her adultery, the woman. Had any of the men had the stones besides what they were going to throw, Jesus would have been forced to either allow the woman’s execution or risk defending her and be in conflict with the law.
I also believe the Romans allowed the Jews to handle most of their internal issues according to their own laws as long as they weren’t disruptive to the general order of things or were acting in conflict with Roman law. Not willing to wager on the point, but I think that’s how it worked. Thus, they likely could have executed the woman.
Marshall,
I think you’re right that it was more of a test than anything. There is no evidence at all that putting people to death for adultery was common place at the time, which was my point, so I think it probably was a test. Either way, we can all agree that Jesus handled it exactly the way you would expect Jesus to handle it: with love, compassion, and according to 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
“Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.
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.
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 17:5-7
Jesus and the Pharisees knew the Law well.
The Pharisees said:
“Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women”
and surely they were right: the woman commited adultery and there were at least two witnesses. Otherwise, Jesus could have complained about the lack of witnesses and telling them that it wasn’t true and he could resort to Deuteronomy 17:6. He didn’t because he knew they would respond something like: “There are the witnesses required” and the woman would have been rightfully and lawfully stoned according to the Law.
If Jesus wanted the Law to be carried out he would say something like: “Then, catch the man and stone to death both of them”, instead he tried to save the woman. There is no record of what he wrote, but the man absence knowing their reluctancy to kill him is a good hypothesis and a good loophole to save the woman by avoiding witnesses testimony.
Jesus said “He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” when the Law clearly states the witnesses are the first ones (Deuteronomy 17:7). I think Jesus was referring to “So thou shalt put the evil away from among you” and their hypocrisy in not putting away their own evil.
Isu,
There is no evidence in the text that there are two witnesses. All it says is that the Pharisees told him she was caught in the act.
If they wanted to really fulfill the Law, then they would also have the man there, which they didn’t. Nor do the Pharisees running the show point to any witnesses. While we don’t know what Jesus wrote on the ground, it was surely significant for them to react the way they did.
The point, Isu, is that Jesus did not preach against the punishment for the crime of adultery. This story can then not be used to argue against capital punishment.
For the woman caught in adultery, Jesus was not saying (as, unfortunately, the Bible series on the History Channel has him saying) that “He who has NEVER sinned cast the first stone.” The problem was this woman was guilty of adultery, but the men only brought her to Jesus. The law required both man and woman to be brought before the court and both, on the testimony of two witnesses, were to be executed.
Where was the man caught in adultery? He probably had a stone in his hand. The sin that Jesus was accusing the men of was in not following the law by executing this woman and not the man, without a trial, without due process.
marshalart
“The point, Isu, is that Jesus did not preach against the punishment for the crime of adultery.”
Nor he did preach in favour of.
The point is that Jesus saved a woman that according to the Law should have been put to death.
“This story can then not be used to argue against capital punishment.”
My reason against capital punishment is that innocent people can be mischieved as guilty and therefore put to death.
Jesus himself was found guilty of blasphemy and put to death by Jewish authority.
Glenn,
“There is no evidence in the text that there are two witnesses. All it says is that the Pharisees told him she was caught in the act.”
False. It is also said “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women”.
And by who was she caught? By one or by more witnesses?
If it was the case of one witness, Jesus could have easily pointed out Deuteronomy 17-6 and “game over” for the Pharisees.
“If they wanted to really fulfill the Law, then they would also have the man there, which they didn’t.”
They didn’t and Jesus played on that. In the same way, if Jesus wanted to fullfil the Law, he would have requested the man to be also stoned, but he didn’t.
“Nor do the Pharisees running the show point to any witnesses.”
Nor Jesus didn’t request them, surely because he knew they had them.
“While we don’t know what Jesus wrote on the ground, it was surely significant for them to react the way they did.”
Surely.
And it is significant that Jesus saved the woman instead of requesting also the man.
Actually Isu, Jesus does say something in favor of it in Mark 7:9-13. He chastises the Pharisees for not following the Law requiring death for those dishonoring their father and mother.
John,
No, he didn’t complaint about not giving death penalty, but about not helping the parents and the Pharisees making their own tradition to avoid it.
ummm… seriously? he complained that they didnt follow the law, which was execution for disobedience, and instead did their own thing.
John,
The Law mentions cursing not disobedience.
“The point is that Jesus saved a woman that according to the Law should have been put to death.”
Not at all, Isu. The point was that Jesus was again tested by the Pharisees and He again foiled their attempts to befuddle them. They were using the woman in a most heinous manner to entrap Jesus. He encouraged the proper punishment, but asked for the one without sin to cast the first stone. No one would claim the title. THEY decided against the punishment. Plus, the fact that there is no mention of the woman from that point on, we can’t know if she was executed according to the law at all. Thus, we can presume those who brought her before Christ didn’t care in the least that she may have committed adultery. For all we know, one of those who brought her was the dude with whom she slept.
No, marshalart, I’m right.
The Law is clear:
“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
She should have been put to death along with the man according to the Law.
Jesus could have foiled their test asking for the man and two witnesses, making them be slain following the Law. He did not.
Isu,
Pay attention. They asked Him, “Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?” He encouraged the execution to proceed, but challenged the crowd to begin with the one who had not sinned casting the first stone. He did NOT question the legitimacy of the law in any way. As I said, they could have proceeded regardless of whether or not any of the accusers were perfect and without sin. The point of the story had far less to do with the righteousness of capital punishment than it did their attempts to exploit the situation to Jesus’ detriment and His lesson about each of us pointing to the sins of others as if we were perfect.
marshalart
“He encouraged the execution to proceed, but challenged the crowd to begin with the one who had not sinned casting the first stone.”
According to the Law, the first ones must be the witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:7) so his request wasn’t lawful.
“He did NOT question the legitimacy of the law in any way.”
Of course, he didn’t do it openly. Otherwise, he would have fall into their trap.
“As I said, they could have proceeded regardless of whether or not any of the accusers were perfect and without sin.”
According to that, Jesus request would have been void.
“The point of the story had far less to do with the righteousness of capital punishment than it did their attempts to exploit the situation to Jesus’ detriment and His lesson about each of us pointing to the sins of others as if we were perfect”
The point we are discussing is whether Jesus used a loophole in the Law or not to save the woman.
According to the Law (Leviticus 20:10), I have no doubt.