Jesus' sparing the adulteress

I've considered this event. It seems the accusers were obeying the Mosaic Law when bringing the woman to justice. Why did Jesus not fulfil this commandment? Was it because His presence on Earth was issuing in a new legal era?
Or something else?

Jesus taught the Hypocrites that if a law doe snot contain mercy it may not be applied.

There is a requirement for witnesses to formally attest to what they saw. Jesus wrote something in the sand that spooked the accusers enough that they left and therefore implicitly withdrew their testimonies.

Without the required witnesses for her adultery, Jesus was not in a legal position to sentence the woman.

The speculation is that Jesus wrote the unrealized crimes of the accusers in the sand to demonstrate that He was in a position to sentence them if He would so choose.

It fits in with the theme of "do unto others" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "everyone (save one) is a sinner"

I don't understand. As I understand it, the Law taught that if a woman were caught in adultery by 2 or more witnesses, she was to be put to death. I don't see how "mercy" played a part in this.

Jesus would have broken Roman law as well.

The woman was caught in flagrante, that is in the act by several people, who brought her to Jesus to have Him pronounce whether or not she should be stoned to death according to the law.
A law dictating a death sentence can by no means be considered as containing mercy.
The men did not leave because of anytiing J Jesus Yeshua drew in the dust but because all had sinned.

You are here to discuss what eh Bible says, so you should already know this.

If there was a need to formally attest to what they saw, why didn't they get that opportunity?
Do you think Jesus didn't believe them?
As for Jesus' suggestion that "the one who has not sinned" cast the first stone - Jesus was of course not expecting to find such a person, as his stance on this is clear.
So why was this woman set free? Was it to show an NT change to a softening of dealing with sin?

I've wondered that particular point. To what extent was the Mosaic Law restricted by secular law? I've wondered that in the case of homosexual acts. In Romans, Paul describes these as being worthy of death, but doesn't seem to specify whether the death penalty were to be carried out in the Roman occupation or secular society generally.

I'm not so sure that those who bought here were the ones who caught her.

They state that she was caught in adultery.

The Greek used for caught is the aorist indicatve tense of the word catch.
Therefore it would seem that they are only relating the fact that she had been caught in adultery.

So you agree mercy is not involved in stoning someone to death! That seems self-explanatory.
I don't see how one can know (because it isn't stated) what Jesus wrote in the sand, or if it was intelligible. If, as I've heard before, He was expressing previous conduct by the accusers, I can see this may have pricked their consciences and caused then to leave.
I'm not aware that the account specifically stated why the accusers left, but I think there is an implication of guilt.
So I don't "know" why they left and it seems no-one else does either - they can only speculate.
It seems, according to Mosaic Law, if guilty, she should have been stoned - unless there were "extraordinary" circumstances, as has been speculated here.

Yes only Rome could give the punishment of death.

Paul mentioned a lot more than homosexual acts.

Romans 1:26-32
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.
27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Although I'm don't think homosexuality was a crime in Rome.

I think the death here is the what will happen to those who practice such things when judged by God.

Something that just occurred to me about this passage in John:

I've often read and heard that one of the reasons that Jesus called the woman's accusers out for hypocrisy is because they didn't bring the man who was involved with her.

But what if one of the accusers ACTUALLY WAS the man that the woman had an adulterous relationship with? I don't want to read more into the text than what it says (eisegesis), but it is an interesting perspective.

If that is the case, then Jesus not only allowed the woman to live, but He allowed the man to live as well.

Also, it is quite possible that the things Jesus wrote in the ground were the unconfessed sins of the accusers. If that is true, then Jesus didn't just SAY they could stone the woman if they were without sin, He SHOWED them their sins.

Fair point

I've heard this idea that Jesus wrote the accusers' sins in the sand.
I'm skeptical, as, if that were true, why would it not have been stated. That would have demonstrated their mindset and emphasised Jesus' oft stated insight into fallen mankind.

I dont think their purpose was to have adultresss found guilty.
They cared nothing for justice and this is obvious, given the fact they only bought the woman. Where was the male?

They wanted to trap and discredit Jesus.

Could it not be the man was simply more agile or elusive than the woman?

If that were the case (which think it's not) then why did they bring the woman only?

It takes two to tango.

She was no longer under the law because Jesus saved her! 😁

What makes you think that?