Unpuzzling

Our initial interpretation of John 8:3-11 presented us with a conceptual entanglement. The three actions performed by Jesus seemed to be insufficient to get the group of accusers to relent in the demand that Jesus make a decision as to the fate of the woman caught in adultery. This should perplex us. How could God incarnate be unsuccessful on three separate occasions? Why would it be necessary for Jesus to perform three actions to disperse the group of accusers? We can dissolve the seeming incoherence of our interpretation when we see the unique character of each action and how they fit together to communicate a single truth. The first act of writing in the dust depicts sin as being the result of beings who are tossed about by natural forces or beings who are incapable of resisting the influences of all else which is merely material. But Jesus’ first action communicates much more than this, however. The fact that the accusers are mere dust or flesh themselves, communicates the idea that the accusers are just as incapable of resisting the influence of worldly conditions. They are just as susceptible of violating the moral law. What is communicated by the simple fact of Jesus documenting the sin of the accusers in the dust (or the message that the accusers themselves are just as capable of sin) is communication of the message that dust is easily manipulated, transformed into indeterminate heaps, and has no enduring singularity. Dust is in a continuous process of change or flux and is, in an ontological sense, nothing (or, more precisely, a “no-thing”). Dust seems to be the kind of thing which has already been condemned. It has no discernible being and it looks to be incapable of ever becoming anything determinate and real. Dust, in a sense, is continuously in the process of being morphed into a new indeterminate configuration. Jesus’ second action communicates the idea that it is metaphysically impossible for the ontologically indeterminate to condemn anything. We could colloquially refer to this message as the idea that the accusers were being hypocritical. But the message has a more substantial metaphysical dimension. That which is condemned to be mere material without determinate ontological status cannot possibly cause something else to be without ontological status. If Jesus’ final action involved His pushing dust around to cover the depiction of the accusers’ sin, this communicated the message that (i) only spirit (as opposed to flesh) endures or has a determinate ontological status; (ii) only God qua spirit has the ability to judge that which is a violation of the moral law; (iii) one of the functions of a spirit is to forgive wrongdoing; and (iv) mere dust cannot earn the forgiveness of a spiritual being. The separate actions of Jesus were not ineffective to persuade the accusers to relent. All of His actions fit together to convey a message which may have influenced the accusers to retract their demand for condemnation. We now have a somewhat better idea as to how Jesus’ actions may have influenced the accusers to abandon their attempt to get Jesus to enforce the law. Part of the puzzle related to this scriptural passage remains, however, even after we explain how Jesus’ actions may have worked together to influence the accusers. The message communicated in the form of the union of Jesus’ three actions doesn’t seem to be enough to get legalistic people to abandon their demand for “justice”. If such an adamant accuser were present, Jesus’ message would not have caused this adamant person to relinquish his demand for an enforcement of the law and the administration of a legally required sentence. In the presence of such an adamant accuser, communication of the message that “it is metaphysically impossible for dust to condemn dust” and “a spiritual being, as opposed to mere flesh, will forgive rather than condemn”, would not have been enough to disperse all accusers. There had to have been something else accomplished by Jesus’ message. If Jesus’ third and final action in this scriptural passage involved His spreading dust over the depiction of the accuser’s sins, then this could have been something over and above an illustration in the dust. This could have communicated to the accusers that “God so loves the world that He would do whatever is necessary to restore relationship with His beloved creation” or that “nothing can separate a person from His loving God”. A message in this form would accomplish much more than communication. A message with this specific semantic content could possibly serve as something like an “executable file” which could activate a program of sorts in something which is a flesh-like and transient being. The activation of this executable could possibly bring about the metaphysical transformation of flesh. This executable could transform a transient flesh-like being into a spiritual being. Once this radical metaphysical transformation has been completed, that which was mere flesh would be a spirit and have the capability of a spiritual being. Spiritual beings are capable of being patient, kind, and forgiving (among other things). Although Jesus’ message may not have caused an adamant accuser to relinquish his demand for justice, it may have transformed the most adamant accusers into spiritual beings who suddenly were no longer interested in “keeping a record of wrongs”. In short, perhaps it was the case that Jesus did not merely communicate something to the accusers. Perhaps His message was causally sufficient to transform them, even if only temporarily, into spiritual beings.