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.
