You Were There (05/13/09-05/15/09)
There are many things about this scene that beg to be explored in the first person, were it possible. I wonder, for example, what those accusers experienced that they would all just walk out and leave their justice undone. I wonder, too, at what this woman was going through as she stood exposed to one and all. And of course, there’s the crowds, always the crowds. What did they make of this exchange? So, I suppose I shall consider them in order.
The scribes and Pharisees, then: these men had chutzpah, that much is certain. They are proud ones, confident not only in their own superiority, but also in their ability to get the crowds on their side. Oh, they know well enough how mixed that crowd’s reactions are when it comes to this Jesus. He’s not the only one that’s been asking after what they’re saying. But, hey! We’re the experts, right? When we’ve shown them just how poorly informed this great teacher of theirs is, they’ll forget about him in a flash. Besides, with this case we’re setting before him, he’ll either lose the crowd’s respect on his own, or lose his liberties to the Romans. It’s a win-win situation for us!
So, sure, we had no qualms whatsoever about pushing through the crowds to reach him. We were confident as we laid our case before him. Here was the culprit, and here were the lawyers to make plain what our law required as punishment for her crimes. Of course, our Roman overlords would not accept the idea of us implementing any sort of death penalty. Oh, they’d let us impose lesser penalties on religious infractions, but they reserved the right of final judgment to themselves. Whose law would this great teacher of theirs lift higher, then? He would have to choose one or the other, or be shown a coward, and even that would be to our purpose.
Confronted with our question, it seemed at first that he would take the coward’s way. He had been seated to teach when we came, and he hadn’t stood up on our account. But, now, he seemed to be hoping we’d get bored and go away. He just bent over, and started scribbling in the dirt with his finger.
Well! We weren’t going to be put off that easily! We kept after him, badgering him with the same question until finally, he stood up and faced us. This was it! We listened intently so that we might immediately pounce on his answer, whichever way he turned. He looked us in the face. I have to confess, he didn’t seem particularly nonplused by our challenge, no hint of concern at all. He simply laid out the qualifications for us to choose the first participant in the stoning. And with that, he sat back down, as if dismissing us out of hand, and resumed his doodling in the dust.
We were surprised, I admit. Indeed, his response had a certain cleverness to it. He had not expressly required that we stone the woman, so we could not really make a charge against him before the Romans based on his answer. Neither had he yielded the issue to Roman jurisprudence. Nicely played. We looked at him with a grudging respect. It was then that we recognized that he hadn’t been doodling aimlessly, but writing quite purposefully there in the dust of the ground. And, as it became clear just what he’d been writing, our interest in pursuing the case receded rather precipitously. No, better to leave the scene quietly and pray that the jostling of the crowds would erase his writings if he did not do so himself. Good thing most of that crowd was illiterate!
From the woman’s perspective, I think this whole thing looked much different. We could look at her situation as one might expect a psychoanalyst to do. We could explore her motivations as if this were a melodrama being played out before us. There might even be some small value in doing so, but we have very few facts upon which to base such explorations.
What leads a woman to pursue a man not her own? Was she married to another, or unmarried? Was she the instigator of this liaison, or had the man been pursuing her? The standard screenplay for our times would suggest that the whole thing began with a degree of innocence. One or both had been locked in an unhappy marriage. The spouse was abusive, perhaps, or simply didn’t understand them and their needs. It was a cold relationship. Whatever joy there had been in the beginning had long since faded away. And now, for whatever reason, these two had found themselves in each other’s proximity. They had found in each other a certain interest that their own spouses had long since ceased to show. The natural desire to be loved could not help but seek to expand on this. May as well ask a thirsty man to resist drinking the cold glass of water set before him after his days lost in the desert. Isn’t going to happen!
Maybe that’s how it had begun, maybe it isn’t. Whatever the case, things had progressed, and they’d found a quiet place, a place where they weren’t going to be noticed or recognized, and they’d gone there to explore their mutual attraction more fully. But, what was this? They’d been found out! It seemed they were no sooner in each other’s arms then there was a bursting in of the door, and these same men who were now dragging her into the middle of the crowds had come screaming about the bed on which they lay. Well, at least they’d allowed her to put some clothes on before they hauled her off, and haul her off they did, leaving her erstwhile lover behind, still shaking with the shock. Well, it was a man’s world, wasn’t it?
Oh, how ashamed of herself she was as they hauled her before this teacher. She had no will to struggle, no interest in arguing with them. She had done wrong and she knew it. She had been caught, and there was nothing for it. She would doubtless die now and maybe it was better that way, after all. Life hadn’t been all that much fun anyway. Still, it was embarrassing as one could possibly imagine to be forced to stand here in the middle of this huge crowd, and listen to her great mistake being recited for all to hear. Caught in the act! How much worse could it be? Even if they let her live, her reputation was in ruins. What future would there be for her, now? She would know only those who despised her for leading some poor man into sin, and those who were rather hoping she’d do the same for them. She could only stand there, wishing that she might die on the spot, dreading how this teacher might determine her case.
Sure, the Romans had outlawed the stonings. But that had never really stopped the practice, had it? Everybody knew that we still stoned the blasphemer and the great sinners, and it was always a mob scene when it happened. That way, nobody was to blame. Nobody had commanded the stoning, nudge, nudge. The crowds had just taken it upon themselves to avenge this great offense against God. As long as it was done quickly, before the soldiers could intervene, the legality of the matter in the eyes of Rome hardly mattered, did it? So, yes, she was not only ashamed, but trembling with dread anticipation as to the answer this teacher would give in her case. It seemed so obvious to her that he would call for a stoning. He was clearly a devout Jew. What other answer could they be expecting from him?
At first, when she heard his reply, she about fainted. Oh God. Here it comes. Any moment now, they’ll be coming for me, dragging me quickly to some forgotten corner of the city. I’ve seen it too many times, the victims not even able to keep their feet under them as they are dragged down the streets, the anger and blood lust in the faces of the mobs that surged down the street with the victims in their midst. And how could she even face the idea of those stones flying at her, striking her, over and over and over until death came. Yes, and she knew full well that even her death wouldn’t stop the stones. They’d keep coming long after her life had fled from her, not that she’d care any more at that point. Figh! She could hardly think God was going to hear her desperation now. She was caught in her sins and she knew it. There could only be resignation to her fate now, only the grim hope that her body would give up its life quickly.
It took her awhile, then, to realize that nobody was moving to enact the sentence. The one they’d come to seek wisdom from had simply sat back down, his part in the proceedings apparently over with. The ones who had brought her here? As she began to come back to her senses, she noticed that they were leaving. They were leaving one by one, and rather meekly; no longer the bold and angry men who had pushed their way into the center of the crowd. Now it was all, ‘excuse me, pardon me, I’m needed elsewhere’. Yet, she could work up no sense of resentment, no vindictive catcalls at their backs; only a sense of wonder that she was still standing here, still alive and unscathed in body. Oh, the crowds still stood about, but they seemed rather confused by the whole affair. She supposed they were waiting to see how their teacher was going to deal with her, now.
And he spoke to her. He spoke to her respectfully, not as if addressing some downtown whore, but with the honorable form of, ‘my lady’. Then, he asked her where these supposed witnesses had gotten off to. Of course, she had no way of knowing. The question rather confused her. But, he clarified his meaning soon enough. Indeed, this second question was said a bit louder, to make sure the crowds got his meaning, as well, she supposed. “Did any one of them condemn you before they left?” Oh! It was true! No evidence had been given, no witness heard. Why, everybody knew that a sentencing required the testimony of two or three, and here there were none left to speak against her! “No, Lord, no one has done so.” Her voice carried mixed tones of surprised confusion and dawning hope. Maybe life wasn’t over, but how had this come about? Then, that hope was made certain. “Neither do I. You are free to go.”
Oh! She was almost to weak to avail herself of that freedom, so greatly had she been shocked by all that had happened. So, she was still frozen in place as he said, “Go on, but sin no more.” Yes! Yes, she had learned her lesson. That’s for sure! Having made such narrow escape from this one great mistake, she wasn’t going to chance it with any sort of repeat performance. He could count on that much from her!
At the same time, if she thought she’d found acceptance in the arms of that man who had been left back at the scene, here was acceptance on a whole new level. Who was this man? There was no sense that he was looking for anything from her, only this gift of life restored. She would be back. But, for right now, that freedom he had given her was calling. Another time, when these events had been forgotten: then she could come and learn more from this Teacher, but not now.
Then, there’s the crowd. They are the extras in this scene, as they usually are, but their presence is important. They had come to Him. Take note of that. Jesus had come to the temple early in the morning – very early, by some accounts, arriving with the sun as it were. But the crowds came looking for Him, and He obliged them by teaching. In this simple statement, we can reasonably suppose that they were already inclined towards Jesus. If the crowds of the previous day had been of mixed opinion in regard to Him, those here this morning were not. They had come to hear this one who seemed so likely to be the Messiah.
At the same time, their respect for the Pharisees and their way of life had not diminished. When those men came forcing their way through the crowd, it had not been all that difficult. The crowds knew the Pharisees, and would respectfully make way for them as best they could. Of course, the natural curiosity of their nature would have them closing in behind so soon as the Pharisees had passed by with this woman in tow. Most of them were already thinking about why they had brought her, and there was only one reason they could come up with. Some were doubtless already looking for a good rock. But first, the drama must play out. First the accusations must be made and the sentence declared.
Those close enough to hear clearly must surely have sensed the thinly veiled antagonism in the Pharisees who had come to put this legal riddle to Jesus. Maybe some of them even sensed the nature of the trap being laid. At first, they would hear an upholding of the Mosaic Law in what Jesus answered. Of course, being at least a little in awe of the Pharisees, they don’t see the Solomonic wisdom of His answer. These were, after all, the experts on righteousness. They ought to be going for the stones any moment, and then the crowds could follow after. But, as those Pharisees departed, a dawning understanding amongst these observers: The righteousness they observed in the Pharisees was not the whole picture.
Face it: they knew less about the lives of most of these Pharisees than they did about their neighbors. So! Apparently, these guys weren’t quite so superior as they seemed. Putting on airs, were they? But, still, there was that nagging question: they’d hidden their sins so well that nobody knew, so why admit to them in even so tacit a way now? Had any one of them taken up a rock and begun the proceedings, there wasn’t anybody in this crowd who was likely to gainsay their right to do so. After all, everybody thought of them as righteous.
Sinless? Well, I suppose deep down, we all knew the improbability of that. Yet, we still tended to think of them as such. The scribes, too. I mean, they knew the law inside and out. Surely that must increase their ability to abide by its rules, wouldn’t you think? But, no. Come to think of it, the common experience of man is that knowing better is no real preventative. We all had done things we knew better than to do, and as I thought this, I began to realize the bigger picture, the lesson Jesus had just taught us: The same could be said of this woman they had brought before us. Her sin might have been of a different sort than my own, but the back story was not so different. She knew better. Her partner, whoever he was, knew better. C’mon! Everybody knew that adultery was wrong, and everybody knew the price to be paid by those who were caught. It’s just nobody ever thinks they’ll get caught. Everybody’s convinced they have their sins hidden away. They didn’t sin in ignorance. She didn’t. I didn’t. The Pharisees and scribes certainly didn’t. We all knew better, yet we did it anyway. Well, what was it we’d heard Jesus taught? Something about doing for others what you’d hope they would do for you? Yeah. “Neither do I condemn you.”
You know, had I said those words, or anybody else around me, I would have had to add the realization that I did not condemn her because to do so I would have to condemn myself as well. Wasn’t that the thought that had caused the Pharisees to leave? Somehow, Jesus had made it sufficiently clear to them that they could not expose the full truth of this woman’s sins without exposing the full truth of their own. And, isn’t that the reality of every man before God? We cannot play the accuser without knowing ourselves accused. Yet, coming from Jesus, I found no reason to add that clause. Something about Him; I mean, you never heard anybody coming with any sort of real accusations against Him. They might fear He was misleading folks, but never any proof. Yet, the proof for the good things He did, and the proof of the wisdom and power in His teaching was plentiful. When people said it was impossible that He should do and say as He does except God be with Him, it rang with truth. If anybody was in position to accuse without fearing reprisal, it was Him. If anybody could make the demand that she go and sin no more without blushing to consider his own condition, it was Him.
New Thoughts (05/17/09-05/25/09)
Before I begin addressing the content of this passage, it seems to me that I must first settle in my own mind the question of its legitimacy. It is at the very least curious that, while the great majority of translations make particular note of the questionable evidence for its authenticity, not one of them opts to exclude it. Considering the number of other debated passages that have been moved to the margins and footnotes, why not this portion? Is it only that it is too large for such treatment? Consider, for instance, the warning signs that the NET places around the perimeter of this story. “The earliest and best manuscripts do not contain” these verses. It is “almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John.”
As evidence for this inauthicity, we are given a list of those manuscripts that do not contain it, as well as a notice that where it is contained it is (a) often demarked as questionable already, (b) varied as to its position within the Gospel (even to the point of appearing in Luke in some cases). In spite of this, the note is fair-minded enough to note that contextually, the passage is a reasonable fit, at least in its usual location, here at the opening of John 8. However, it is also noted that removing the passage completely would not really disrupt the flow of John’s narrative, either. The conclusion this particular translation comes to is that the text is almost assuredly not original to either John’s Gospel or Luke’s. At best, it is viewed as “an unusual instance where [an authentic tradition about Jesus] survived outside the bounds of the canonical literature.” But, even that is considered a rather risky assessment. So, why is it included, if they don’t believe it is properly Scripture? Because, “In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text.”
I’m sorry, but if the Bible is deemed a holy text, transmitted through the instrument of faithful men according to the dictates of a holy God, then, the text itself is hardly the proper place for historical documentation of the process. We have histories, commentaries, encyclopedias; any number of more appropriate locations for such an exploration of the process of Scripture’s creation and preservation through the ages. But, the primary purpose of the text is hardly that of presenting the case for its own authenticity. Perhaps, were there texts of similar antiquity with a similar quantity of textual evidence and an equivalent accruing of variations brought in during the course of manuscript preparations, it would be treated by the historians in similar fashion. But, that treatment, at the end of the day, remains the treatment of a historian, not that of a theologian.
I do not, in saying this, intend to denigrate either branch of knowledge as inherently of less value. I simply make the point that the methods of one branch may not apply perfectly to the demesnes of another. We do not, generally, expect the theologian to be a marked expert on matters of science or medicine. He may have valuable insight. Indeed, I would argue that he does have valuable insight. Yet, I would not seek out a theologian to design the braking system on my car, nor would I be looking for his hand to guide the knife were I in need of surgery. By the same token, I am not inclined to seek out an engineer or a doctor when I am in pursuit of things of a spiritual nature. Yes, as was the case in the reverse situation, so it is here. These secular professionals may well have information that will be of use in addressing my spiritual concerns, but they are ancillary inputs on this matter, not primary.
The historian can shed light on the textual evidence, yes; just, as the archeologist can unearth physical evidence for the veracity of what the text relays. It may very well be, then, that the historical evidence really does suggest that this passage is not original. I could even accept that. However: By that point in time when canon was being settled, as concerns the New Testament text, it seems that the determination lay in favor of inclusion. Do we suppose that those who settled the matter had less access to these manuscripts than do we? I should think not! Alexandria, if I am not mistaken, was still a going concern during this period, that being where we find most of our evidence for exclusion of the text.
Consider for a moment the large body of material that was rejected outright, so far as acceptance into canon was concerned. Some of these texts were deemed useful, but not bearing the authenticity of apostolic authorship. That was a prime consideration: was this from the pen of an apostle, or near enough to still deem it as being from an apostolic source? Even this was insufficient, though, to assure inclusion. Where is the Gospel of Thomas, if this was the only criteria? My point is simply this: This was a point when the veracity of every text was being weighed. It was clearly far nearer in time to the period in which the manuscripts we have today were copied. As such, they were surely at least as aware of the debatable and wandering nature of this particular passage. Yet, they did not find this cause to eliminate the passage, did they? Had they so determined, would they not have simply approved the Alexandrian form of John’s Gospel and moved on?
As to the reason for the continuing presence of this passage in every translation, in spite of nearly every translation thinking it ought not to be there: forgive me if I find a more cynical grounds for their decision. I simply ask myself what would become of that first translation which decided to go with its convictions and eliminate the passage entire? Considering the uproar that even minor adjustments to the text on similar basis have caused, I would predict that such a translation would find its sales severely truncated as soon as the absence of John 8:1-11 was noted. For better or for worse, the text is so much a part of the Church at this point, that most believers would look no further into the matter, but would simply reject such a translation as an offense against God out of hand. Frankly, I’m not so sure they would be wrong in doing so.
You see, as this is God’s Book, I have to look at things with more than simply the tools of the historian. I have to bear in mind Who has maintained the existence of this book. I have to consider why it is that we have so much greater a body of textual evidence for the Bible than for any other text of antiquity. I have to recall just how marvelously amazing it is that the text has been preserved through all the turmoil and war that composes the history of those lands into which the Bible has gone. Look: we have had periods, even in the earliest years of Christian development, where the text was banned, subject to destruction upon its being discovered. Shoot, we have that in some places today. We had Rome doing everything it could to utterly destroy this new religion and all that it stood for, and yet, the religion continued, and the manuscripts that would become the foundation for the Bible remained.
When one region was so embroiled in darkness and destruction that the text was at risk of being lost, we suddenly find it being carefully preserved elsewhere. Rome is caving in under the onslaught of the barbarians? Well, suddenly the Celts have discovered a deep reverence for God and for Scripture, and are working carefully to preserve and even beautify the text of His Word. The governance of continental Europe has all but squashed the search for faith or knowledge? Yes, but the monks have tucked away the material to restore that knowledge when the darkness lifts, and those faithful Celts have developed an urge to bring the light of God back onto the continent.
In other words, the technical tools of the historian are insufficient to the task. The simple review of physical evidence is insufficient to the task. If I hold, as I do, that God is the author of Scripture, and the guardian of His Church, then He is present in the process of developing the canon of Scripture just as fully as He has been involved in its authoring and its preservation. It is, in the end, His story, and He is absolutely able to maintain its accuracy and authenticity against all odds.
So, yes, I believe there is sufficient reason for accepting that, whether or not we take the material as being John’s writing or not, it is rightfully included and rightfully included at the point we find it has settled. It is reasonable to accept it as ‘an authentic tradition’ and to recognize that tradition as fitting into the narrative as we find it.
As to the other question I had regarding the provenance of this material, the question becomes moot with a more careful reading of the text. I had wondered where John learned of the outcome of this encounter if, as it says, “He was left alone, and the woman.” What fades from the reading is the closing, “in the midst.” The structure of that verse leads our mind (or mine, at least) to focus on the ‘alone’ to the point that mention that the two were still in the midst of something fails to register. But, the implication is clearly that the crowd who had come to hear Jesus had not dispersed along with the Pharisees. In other words, these two – Jesus and the woman – were the only two remaining of those who had been involved in the confrontation, but those who were bystanders were still standing by. The upshot of this is that there were sufficient witnesses to the event to make it known more widely. This would be a contributing factor in terms of validating the canonicity of the text.
On a more speculative line, I cannot believe this woman would experience such a near encounter with death and remain unchanged. To stand that close to a certain end and then experience a reprieve at the hand of one man: that’s going to be carried in memory for some time. Indeed, that’s going to raise one’s awareness of the man, particularly a Man such as this. It’s not as though she would hear no more about this Jesus. He was the talk of the town. I find it much harder to suppose that she simply walked away and forgot about Him than that she became attached to His ministry as soon as sufficient time had passed for these events to be less vividly recalled by those crowds who had seen the situation.
That being the case, if I ask again how John might have come by the record of this (and if I assume that he was not there personally, which is a weak assumption under the circumstances) then I find it reasonable to suppose that this woman herself was the source. You know, we sort of act as though the Gospels were written with a desire for deepest secrecy; making certain nobody knew what was being written until the text was ready for the press. But, that’s nonsense! That’s our modern capitalistic sensibility coloring the scene. It’s false color. The authors of the Gospels were out to make Christ known. What they wrote was nothing more than what they preached, what they taught, what the talked about.
So we have John, an old man faithfully serving the Church Christ built right to the very end. He is getting on in years. He has read the Gospels that preceded his own, and they have stirred memories. As he reads what the others have written, he is remembering things that happened in and around those events that have not been written, and he realizes that he alone is left to fill in the blanks before those parts of the story are gone. He also realizes he is getting on in years. He would not be inclined to lock himself away, writing furiously in hopes of beating the deadline of life expectancy. If he has any concern at all about the end of his days, he’s going to be talking to folks about the things he’s writing as well. He would be doing so for two purposes: first, talking about the memories helps sharpen them in the mind, contributing to the clarity of what he will be writing. Second, talking is faster. He can relate the events he will be recording in the old oral tradition, and he can do it often enough to ensure that his hearers, should the need arise, can finish the writing he has begun.
Now, let me really stretch out here and suppose that this woman has indeed come to the Church. She has no particular desire to be recalled as that one who almost got stoned. She is not keen to be known for her past. She’s a new creation. Yet, as John relates the other events of this trip to Jerusalem, the message Jesus delivered that last day of the Feast, about being the Water, and the message that followed the next day, identifying Himself as the Light; well, how could she not be reminded of that scene that had happened in between. You know, it probably wasn’t that significant to John: just one more event amongst the many that had swirled around Jesus. But, to her, it was significant above all other things in her life! So, if I allow this, is it not possible that this woman, now nearly as old as John, maybe even a tad older, had sought him out and spoken of her own recollection? Isn’t it possible that an older, wiser John, upon being reminded of that scene, would recognize the magnificent display of the Gospel message in what had happened? Maybe, recognizing the power of it, he all but transcribed the woman’s words to make certain he did not once again forget the scene. This would provide a reasonable, if highly speculative, explanation for the stylistic differences that bother the more scientifically minded critics of the material.
As I said, this can only be construed as extremely speculative. But that does not make it incorrect. What it does do in some fashion is contribute cause to not reject the material out of hand. It puts the matter back in the hands of faith. It keeps the perspective focused back on the fact that this is God’s text, both in its writing and in its later ‘sanitizing’ if you will, He has been in control. He Who has in all ways acted to preserve this testimony to Himself did not do so in order to preserve a false witness, but that which is True. It is all the more striking, in light of that recognition, to see, as I noted before, that however much the experts may cast doubt on the passage, still it remains, and it remains to universal acclaim within the family of faith.
Another question which might come to mind when reading this passage is just how this question was supposed to be a trap for Jesus. In verse 6, we are told that the Pharisees were putting this case to Him in order to test Him. They were not testing Him as to His qualifications to teach on matters of the Law, the were specifically seeking ‘grounds for accusing Him’. In other words, it was a test designed to be failed. Their whole point in the testing was to present a question to which there was no practicable answer. Yet, on the face of the matter, the answer seems clear enough and benign enough. The Law demands stoning, then off you go! Get after it. So, what was the trick?
I have surmised elsewhere that the goal was to catch Jesus between Jewish Law and Roman law. God’s Law requires the stoning. Rome has reserved the power of death to its own officials. This is exactly why the Pharisees would wind up bringing Jesus before the Roman authorities: because they had been stripped of the power of death. They could impose their sanctions for religious issues. They could put a man under the ban, for instance. But, to sentence to stoning? Not allowed. So, if Jesus supported their point and said this woman must be stoned, they could accuse Him before the Roman authorities for instigating the crowds to murder. Indeed, the excitement of the crowd going off to the stoning might be enough to be deemed an issue by the Roman peace enforcers. Yet, if He yielded to Rome’s rules and thereby laid aside God’s, well! What sort of man of God would that make Him out to be? Indeed, it would most assuredly remove the ground from which He spoke out so vehemently against the false righteousness of the Pharisees! But, somehow I doubt they were thinking along that line. They were no longer interested in winning the debate. They were interested in destroying the competition.
It is entirely possible that this is exactly the trap that was envisioned. However, another, perhaps less intentional trap lies in the presentation of the case. These experts in the Law might be expected to know this, and perhaps they did. On the other hand, we have already seen hints of the superficial nature of that expertise. Yet, the Law’s coverage of adultery is pretty plain, and one should think they might have done a quick consult on the applicable texts before coming out to this challenge. That Law says that both man and woman are to be stoned. Where is the man? If they were caught in the act, as these men have said, then surely both man and woman were found. So, where is he? By all means, let us impose the sentence, but first, we must have the evidence, yes? She was playing the adulteress alone, then? Or is her accomplice perhaps one of your own number, hmm? Surely, if you knew where to find this couple, you know as well who she was coupling with. Go find him, and then we can get underway.
The point is this: the secondary test is between enforcing the Law with justice and allowing the sin to go unpunished. I should note, though, that these men did not come saying that they had personally caught the woman, only that she had been caught. So, where are the witnesses? On the testimony of two or three witnesses the case shall be established. Nothing was ever said about simply accepting the hearsay of two or three Pharisees as proof. This, however, proves more of a trap for the Pharisees than for Jesus. Rather ironic, that. In seeking to trap Jesus they have so snared themselves as to reveal their true nature to this crowd of witnesses that watched the events unfold.
Yet, Jesus neither falls into the political versus theological trap that they seem to have in mind, nor does He even bother to make the case against their own presentation of the question. He does not bother to say a word about their failure to produce either evidence or accomplice. He simply sits there, writing something in the dirt. And, when pressed by their persistent demands for an answer, looks at them and indicates that the one among them who can claim a sinless state should begin the proceedings. Get to it, you righteous one! Pick up that stone and let’s cleanse this sin from our midst!
One wonders what sort of expression was on Jesus’ face as He said this. Was there the thundering brow of an anger barely contained? Perhaps the wry amusement of knowing how this would play out? Did His eyes gesture in such a way as to draw their attention to what exactly He had been writing? Maybe no more than a scornfully stern expression, or perhaps a great and consuming sorrow for their lost condition. It’s impossible to say, for we are left with no hint. What becomes clear, though, is that whatever the nature of their trap, He has succeeded in neutralizing it.
Turning to the means by which He has done so, I have to wonder why it worked? If the whole of His response were contained in the words He spoke to the Pharisees I see know reason for the reaction that is recorded here. It is the nature of man, especially of man who knows himself imperfect, to hide the imperfections away. This is surely the case for the Pharisee, being so intent on maintaining a reputation for righteousness. The ostentatious display that went into their public appearance: the loud and public prayers, the religious ‘jewelry’ with which they bedecked themselves, the careful (and carefully pointed out) observance of all those little rules of life that showed just how pure they were. It was all about looking good. So why would they admit to their true condition now? Why would they give up after just this simple requirement Jesus had set forth? I mean, these lawyers should know that there was no real support for such a requirement in the Law. They could have simply pointed out that His answer had no basis in the Law of Israel. But, then, He would no doubt have pointed out that neither did their case. OK, so that’s out.
Still, easy enough to bluff it out, right? Any one of them could have just reached down, grabbed a rock, and started the event. The rest would have his back, surely? Oh, wait. There’s that pesky issue of Roman enforcement. There’s those guards who were forever watching over the courtyards of the temple from their fortress next door. They would see, and they would be swift in coming to intervene. Oh, they might not be fast enough to save the woman’s life, but they’d likely be in time to collar those who had begun the work. In their heated determination to get Jesus, would this cross their minds? Maybe. Maybe not. Passions have a way of clouding one’s judgment. Isn’t that how this woman had wound up where she was? Different passions, to be sure, but just as dangerous to reasonable behavior.
The clue we are given to explain what happens lies in the repeated notice that Jesus was writing on the ground. It is an interesting word that appears in the text to describe this writing. It is not simply the graphe of writing, nor is it some indication of aimless doodling, as if He were simply bored and waiting for these clowns to get out of His face. It’s katagraphe. Interestingly, Strong’s doesn’t even bother to provide us with a separate definition for this. Yet, in this passage we have a number of words which share that kata prefix. The grounds for accusation which the Pharisees seek: That ‘accusing’ translates roughly as ‘speaking against’. When Jesus asks if any has condemned the woman: That ‘condemned’ translates as ‘judged against’. In both cases, it is the kata prefix which provides the ‘against’. So, when we come to katagraphe, it seems as though we ought to expect that same sense of writing (graphe) against (kata).
That’s perhaps a bit too literal for us to handle. What would it mean to write against? Well, if to speak against is to accuse, and to judge against is to condemn, it doesn’t seem to far fetched to suppose that to write against is to record the evidence.
So much speculation swirls around just what it was Jesus was writing there. That it had significance seems evident in the fact that the Pharisees departed, and departed rather more sheepishly than they had arrived. All bluster as they made their way loudly before the Teacher, their departure is so introspective, one by one as the implications of something became clear to them. What? Was it simply the power of Jesus’ words forcing them to confront their true nature? I think not. If that had been the case, the more likely reaction would have been a mass conversion in their number. But these were of Pharaoh’s caste, not of the elect. As such, something more must have been happening to cause them to leave, and I think we can safely suppose it was in what lay written on the ground before Jesus’ feet.
It cannot be stated as a doctrinal certainty but only as a logical probability that what was written there included names and it included things those named would prefer it not to be known they had done. It’s of a piece with the revelation of scandals that come up from time to time in the circles of government. These things have been hidden away, often at great cost. But, somebody’s decided there’s greater gain for them in revealing the truth. Maybe it’s conscience. Maybe it’s greed. Maybe it’s vengeance for some affront. Whatever the case, the personal embarrassment that may come to the one who reveals the story is outweighed by what they think to gain and so the truth comes out. One senses that something along these lines is happening here.
Now, thus far, there is no evidence. There is only that very transient writing on the ground. Of course, if they make a move to erase it, then the very fact that they are making a scene will both draw the crowd’s attention to what they hope has gone unnoticed thus far and serve as at least a hint of evidence that what is written is true. Oh dear! You know, that sort of reaction would also explain the gradual, almost hesitant response we see in these men. The older and more worldly wise amongst them are first to recognize just how trapped they are. Their only real hope is to take the sting of having to make even so tacit an admission of sin as to walk away. Any other move on their part is just going to make the sin more apparent. If they just walk away, they can always brush it off later, saying that it would be sinful to present oneself as being that sinless. It’s the only slender hope they have of avoiding scandal, and nothing is more politically dangerous than scandal, particularly to a religious politico.
Well, now! Had they come to see whose law this teacher would lift higher? If so, it seems they have their answer. He will not elevate Rome’s law above God’s Law. Neither will He elevate Pharisaic law above God’s Law. Again, I must suppose that there was more to this scene than the words that were heard. There was that something more which caused the Pharisees to recognize a threat to their own prestige. That being the case, it strikes me that what Jesus is practicing here is very much what He has preached elsewhere. Go back to the Sermon on the Mount and you shall hear Him saying, “Judge not lest you be judged after the same fashion. You shall be measured by that same standard you have used to measure others” (Mt 7:1-2). These men have come to pass judgment, however much their judgment may lack in justice. What did they see there in the dirt? Was it not the measure of their own righteousness ‘measured by that same standard’ they had just used? Oh dear! Nobody’s going to enjoy that, are they?
Indeed, these proud men had come to test God. I don’t suppose they were consciously viewing the event in that light, but that was the reality of the situation. They had come to test God and had instead found themselves tested by God. They had made it their rule to measure others by strict and unyielding standards, and now, facing this One they refused to recognize, they find themselves measured with an equally unyielding justice. As they have found in themselves no mercy to temper their judgments, so they find that God can be equally merciless in applying His justice to them. What He would not ever do is pervert His justice to satisfy His desired ends. It could never be so, for His ends are Just, Righteous and True. These are things that can never be achieved by means other than themselves.
One cannot achieve Justice by unjust practices. Even when a technically correct verdict is arrived at by such means, it remains Unjustice. One cannot arrive at Righteousness by sinning incessantly. One cannot lie his way into the Truth. A lie might incorporate threads of Truth into its weavings, but it remains a lie, a twisting of the Truth into patterns it will not ever support. One cannot be God by pursuing ungodly ways. God is God. He cannot be otherwise. Indeed, the very statement ‘God is not God’ would be a logical impossibility, wouldn’t it?
So, Jesus, God Incarnate, has refused to corrupt the practice of God’s Justice by any rule of man, whether man of Rome or man of Jerusalem, whether civil servant or temple official; none should outrank God, and none could. The Law of God, the True Law of God, will bow to no other rule. It supersedes every other as God’s ultimate Authority supersedes every other. Of course Jesus will lift His rule higher! As such, seeing the travesty of justice presented by these men, He refuses to play by their corrupt rules.
He sees that they come to test and trap, and in so doing they come to test and trap God. He knows that such testing of God – especially a test such as this one, designed to prove God ungodly – is but the outworking of preexisting unbelief. These so-called holy men, these so-called servants of God, they had ceased to believe in the God Who IS. Their faith, such as it was, lay in their own capabilities, prestige and power. God, they did not find it in themselves to trust.
My! The echoes of this in our own day! Our currency reads, “In God we trust,” but the reality for most is far different, or has been until recently. For most, the reality was, “In coin we trust,” or, “in wealth we trust.” And hasn’t God shown the foolishness of that? Oh, we still have a contingent of, “in party we trust,” and, “in power we trust,” but this, too, is destined to be proven a false trust, a hopeless hope. If these things stand, they stand because God upholds them and only for that cause. If these things fall, it is because God has determined that the day of their fall is upon them. If these things do not serve to His glory in their continuance then His glory shall be discerned in their wreckage. He will be Supreme, and He will not tolerate the idols men erect in His place.
In this scene playing out in the courtyards of the temple, the so-called men of God have been perverting His just rule so severely that they bring upon themselves the full weight of the Law they abuse. By rights, they should be dealt with in the same fashion as they would deal with this woman. If one looks back to the outcome for those who practiced a twisted religion in Israel in times past, one cannot but see that God is at least as anxious to purge their evil from the midst of His people as He is to purge those who would lead His people into sexual sins. Actually, the underlying reason is much the same. They have distorted His image and tarnished His rightful glory by their actions. They behave in a way that slanders His good name, and this cannot be allowed to stand!
Those pagans outside the family might continue in such practices, and in so doing they would only magnify His own goodness and purity by their contrast. No, their guilt is no less for all that, but the impact upon His glory is a different impact. When those of His own family, those who speak of their love for Him and devotion to His ways are the ones practicing these things, though! How is that to be tolerated? How can such things help but to detract from His glory in the sight of those who witness such weakness in His children? Honestly! We have all known those in the unbelieving community whose outward actions and apparent motivations are more in keeping with God’s character than those of our fellow believers. In our more honest moments, we know they far outshine our own, and we are deeply ashamed of that reality.
If it shames us, how do you suppose God feels about it? Don’t you think that there must surely come an end to His tolerance of such a miserably false witness to His character? Don’t you think that there will come that time when He refuses to allow such false claims of faith to remain unchallenged? I tell you, if you look at the record He has left of Himself you cannot doubt that the time will come when such as insist on acting ungodly yet all the while call themselves His own will be outed. The falsity of their claim to the mantle of Christian will be made manifestly evident that the pure and holy God of all Creation shall be seen to remain just that: Pure and Holy.
These Pharisees, then, have absolutely misapplied the Law they purport to uphold in this instance. There is the obvious and glaring failure to bring before the bench this woman’s alleged partner in crime. The Law of Moses says both should be stoned. Well, they are certainly willing to apply this to the woman, whatever Rome may have to say on the matter. But, where is the man? Justice half applied is no justice. Obedience up to a point is no obedience. Remember the teaching! The son who said he would but didn’t? Nope. He wasn’t the one to please his father. Better the one who said he wouldn’t, but did after all. Better to start out wrong and repent, then to start out right and apostatize.
Now, were I to take Jesus’ words at face value, they would likewise be a deviation from the Law. He has called upon the righteous one, the sinless one, to have the honor of first stone. But, the Law clearly states that the witnesses to the crime are to have that place (Deut 17:7). Standing on the sinless state of Jesus, I must therefore reach the conclusion that He knew conclusively that not one person in that whole crowd would willingly lay claim to the honor He was holding out. Either there was an exercise of heavenly power in a most coercive fashion (which is all but unthinkable), or there was more than His words to carry things to His determined outcome. One thing we can be certain He was certain of: God’s will will be done!
There is more, though, that we should recognize in the allegations that have been laid out before Him. The woman is accused of adultery. Now, it may not seem right to our ears, but it is interesting to note that the Law deals with adultery consistently in terms of violating another man’s wife. It is never in terms of violating another wife’s husband. A sociologist would doubtless look at this as simply the outworking of a patriarchal societal structure. Had Israel been a matriarchal culture, things would have been stated in the obverse, and it would be the woman’s mate that was sacrosanct.
Another might look at this and see simply the unfairness of it all. Why, throughout that Old Testament, we keep seeing men, particularly men of power, availing themselves of multiple wives, and nobody seems to take offense. Yet, find one example of a daughter of Israel wed to multiple men, and this demarked as anything other than harlotry! It will not be found. How unjust is that? How can God be called Just and He allows such behaviors to go unchecked amongst His people?
Well, first off, we must recognize that God has never blessed that arrangement. He may be accused of tolerating it, but no more. And, really, before we go complaining of God’s tolerance of this particular sin in the case of others, we might first want to consider His tolerance of our own particular sins. Rather than take offense at His so-called injustice, we might better fall on our knees in wonder-soaked thankfulness for His mercy. We, who in reality can barely comprehend real justice are hardly in position to call God on His application of Justice in its purest form.
So, then, adultery is defined as a violation of the man’s wife. So be it. Well, then, one thing we must recognize in that is that this woman is apparently some man’s wife, at least if the accusations are true. She may be no more than pledged to a man at this stage, for the Law clearly treats what we would consider engagement as equal to the consummated marriage. But, one way or another, the implication is that she is rightfully joined to another.
As I finished writing yesterday, two thoughts remained in mind regarding this issue of adultery. The first returns to the matter of how God chose to define the act of adultery. Again I note that the idea that the Law goes on at length about the violation of a man’s bride, but says nothing about violating a bride’s man seems so chauvinistic to our cultured ear. But, rather than take offense at this, we are better served to consider both how that Law was to be understood, and why it is presented as it is.
To the first point, I would suggest that the Law’s coverage of adultery ought to be understood in the same fashion as Jesus taught us to understand the fundamentals of the Decalogue. In other words, the Law is not written to pinpoint the one specific point at which things have gone too far. In general, those ‘thou shalt not’ clauses are indicating the worst form of the crime under consideration, and it is to be understood that all those lesser forms that are along similar lines are to be treated in like fashion. Applied to this passage, we might take that to (a) include all womankind in the sweep of the law’s coverage, for even a woman not yet betrothed may hope to be so one day. It may also be viewed as (b) including all men. For, once the umbrella of Law is expanded to cover all women, then there remains no partner for the man who would violate his own marriage ‘legally’. In other words, the Law is equal in its application regardless of the presentation. It was presented to a patriarchal society, and thus framed for their perspective. It was not, however, bounded by their perspective.
As to why God would present it thus, I have already provided a naturalistic reason to do so. The society that first received the Law would naturally think in terms of this sort, so the Law is phrased for their understanding. From a higher, spiritual perspective, though, there is a far more important reason for such a presentation, and that is that the model given in that Law is so wholly representative of the Church and her Christ. With the knowledge revealed in the New Testament’s writings, we are given a clear vision of Jesus the Christ, as the groom to the Church’s bride. It is the very stuff of our expectations! We await our groom’s return, that He might take us home to His Father to celebrate the wedding feast. We look at His parting promise, that He has gone to prepare a place, and we are swept with the love of the betrothed for her beloved. He is making ready for our wedding! Oh, these images are uncomfortable for the men of the church, to be sure. I’m a man, not a bride! No. In heaven, there is no male or female. Thus we were informed. In heaven, we are all the bride.
Notice this: One groom, myriad brides. No, Jesus is not setting up some heavenly harem for himself. He is taking upon Himself the traditional role of the husband. Let us put aside the images that modern day media feed us as to the nature of this male, this husband. Let us be put more in mind of the more traditional view of the man of the house. He is charged with providing for all who dwell under his roof. He is charged with protecting all who dwell under his roof. He is charged with informing, educating all who dwell under his roof. His love is to be large, and it is to be backed with power and authority. That’s the role God sets for men, which is why we see so much of popular culture seeking to attack that role, to model its opposite.
But, God set that role. God set that role into the very fiber of mankind so that as we went about our own lives, we would have before us a model of His own familial relationship with His creation. We would have in our own homes a model by which to understand the depth and the length and the width of Jesus’ love for His church, His bride. Our love may struggle to fit the demands of such family as we have on earth, but His is infinite as He is infinite. His love is sufficient to be a good and proper husband to each individual bride in His Church. His strength is infinite. His strength, then, is sufficient to guard each of these brides He so cherishes.
Now, consider this: It is impossible by definition that one could violate this Groom. He will not be caught at dalliance with one to whom He is not betrothed. Why, the Father watches over that! None comes to Him except the Father calls them. Daddy God watches over the Son to ensure that no temptation comes upon Him that He is unable to resist (as if any temptation could bring the Son to fall!) The Groom is certain in Himself. He shall remain True to His bride, His brides. However long this betrothal period, He can wait. He can prepare the place. He can even now be diligent and be vigilant to see that no man violate His beloved.
The bride, though; she is another story. Apart from His careful guardianship in this period of betrothal, the evidence of history shows just how easily, even willingly, she can be led astray. Her prince is slow in coming to her side, but lo! Here is a man wholly desirable and pleasing to the eye. What the prince doesn’t know won’t hurt him. We are so gladly led on by our emotions that we blind ourselves to the obvious problems with what we are led into. How can we think He won’t know? We neglect first and foremost that our Groom, our Husband, is God Himself, Who knows everything at every moment, Who sees, no matter how we seek to hide ourselves from Him. We neglect second that what we contemplate will leave irreversible evidence. That purity, once violated, will forever bear the mark of its violation.
By rights, our Groom can (and really ought to ) have us put to death, and with us, the ones who led us on so. By rights – and this is at least half of the whole point of the Gospel – we are every one of us walking under the penalty of death. By rights, the testimony is laid out against us, and the due penalty of the Law, were the sentence read out, would indicate that we all ought to be taken outside the gates and stoned, that we are all a component of the evil that ought to be removed from the land.
But, our Groom is not only full witness to our betrayals of His trust. He is also sufficiently powerful to overwhelm our betrayals. What could not possibly be undone in the natural, He is able to undo in the spiritual. Our sins have left a mark we could never erase, but He can! That’s the other, glorious, half of the Gospel message. We were hopelessly marked as dead men walking, but Jesus removed the mark, paid the penalty that awaited us with such certainty, and thereby purchased our legal bill of health! We were in a debtor’s prison for a debt we had no hope of paying. We would be stuck in this cell of sin until life finally ebbed away. But, our Groom, rather than put us away Himself, instead took it upon Himself to provide for our debt, that we might be free to come to Him; and that we might come to Him with no shame coloring our cheeks, only the joy of restoration!
You see, the Gospel, the Good News, cannot be fully appreciated, fully apprehended, until we have understood the Bad News. Until we have had our noses rubbed in the unimaginable cost of our erroneous ways, how can we have a proper sense of what He has done? Until we are fully aware of our own pending death sentence, the death of Jesus is just a death. He is no hero to us. If anything, He is a fool who threw His life away in pursuit of His grand delusion. He is about as heroic a figure as Don Quixote, torturing Himself to death in pursuit of nothing more than His own imagined goals. But, this is not the case!
It is we who have been dwelling in delusion, not He. We were going through our lives as if there could be no consequence for our actions. It’s hardly surprising that we would do so, when so much of what we are taught is designed to convince us of that very thing. Oh, I’m not suggesting that parents make it a point to bring up their children with no sense of authority and rules. No parent would do so, because to do so would be to condemn themselves to endless years of frustration. But, the practical lessons, the unintentional lessons that we feed our children, right along with the media and those other institutions we like to blame, are that rules apply to everybody else, and the mature man or woman will seek to get away with whatever he or she can. Every example we are fed, by unbelievers, by fellow believers, by ourselves, convinces us the more that it’s not about what you do, it’s about knowing how to do it without being caught.
We are so good at this, folks, that we don’t even notice we are doing it half the time. Certainly, before Jesus busted through our illusions, we were quite convinced that we were good people. I mean, we’d never been convicted of any crimes. Sure, we may have nicked a few things from the office now and again. Sure, we all of us speed when driving unless the truly miraculous happens, and we find a cruiser nearby actually traveling at the speed limit. But, c’mon! This is Massachusetts we’re talking about! You could cause an accident doing the speed limit ‘round here, and any cop who saw you would doubtless assume you were drunk. You’ve got to break the law to avoid the law in these parts. This is what we’ve convinced ourselves of!
I remember in my younger years being taught by my cousin that it was a law in this state that if two cars ahead of you ran a stop sign, it was legal for you to do so. Now, he may have been joking in saying so, but this is absolutely reflective of the mindset we live in. The laws are not laws. They are merely guidelines. Speed limits are a great suggestion for what we should do in truly inclement weather. You know, maybe if the roads are unplowed or a little icy, that speed makes sense. But, on dry pavement? Not a chance! Speed limits are for suckers and grandmas.
Now, that’s a pretty minor issue as most of us would measure things. The problem is that this very same attitude and perspective permeates our thinking. It is so natural to us that we frankly don’t even think about it. We just do what we please. If somebody asks us about the rules that would apply to this circumstance or that, we can probably recite them quite well, and even deliver them in such a way as to convince others that this is what we would do in that circumstance. But, the truth is, were the circumstance to come up, and were we convinced that we could ‘get away with it’, we’d throw the rules out and go for it.
Don’t you see, this is at the root of that whole adultery issue anyway! No man just goes off after another guy’s wife if he thinks that guy might find out. He’s certainly not going to do so if he is convinced his own wife might find out. He will do so when he’s convinced himself that the two of them are so smart, so careful, that nobody’s ever going to know. And, they always look so ashamed when they’re found out.
This leads me to the power of the scene we are witnessing here. It’s a scene we see played out over and over again, but without Jesus. Think of the number of cases we’ve watched crop up just in the last few years. Politicians, somehow convinced that their office alone will protect them, are tempted into violating their most personal vows, and we rightly look upon this as reason for them to be ousted. If we can’t trust the man to be true to his own wife, how can we trust him with anything? I’m certainly not going to place my own interests under his care! That’s nuts! We are told over and over again, by those with a vested interest in sweeping these things under the rug, that it’s just a matter of sex. It’s meaningless. What he does in private doesn’t have any bearing on what he does for the public. But, that’s stuff and nonsense, and we know it! What he does ‘for the public’ is exactly as trustworthy as the persona he put on ‘for the public’ before the truth came out.
The man wasn’t doing this with a policy of openness and honesty. He didn’t come home from his dalliances and immediately tell his wife where he’d been. He prevaricated. He put forth noble images for her consumption, and she was pleased to consume them. Nobody wants to believe such things about their closest companion. If, then, he has shown himself willing and able to deceive one with whom he shares the intimacy of marriage: If that close relationship was insufficient to check his impulses for sin and betrayal: what possible reason do we have for supposing he will act in trustworthy fashion as regards those he represents? We have no reason to trust! None whatsoever!
On the other hand, I suspect we see a bit of ourselves in these fallen politicians. In some cases, even as we vent our scorn and maybe our pity for them, we’re just a little bit envious. You know, we might think to ourselves, if I was just a bit more bold, I could’ve done what he did. I could probably have even gotten away with it. Indeed, it’s almost an affront to my manhood that I’ve never had the chance to face that temptation. Boy, what I wouldn’t do… And, so we fall.
But, Jesus picks us up. Jesus is sufficiently powerful in Himself to not only pay our legal penalties, He is able to remove all trace of the evidence upon which we were convicted. If we have played fast and loose with our spiritual virginity and found ourselves unable to hide the final proof of that willing violation, yet He is able. He is able to restore that purity we threw away! That’s an amazing thing. He doesn’t do this so that we can have the thrill of losing it again. He doesn’t forgive sins so that we can feel free to go off and do it again. He purifies us so that He can legitimately claim His bride in spite of her past mistakes, and He can do so in such a fashion that His own perfect Purity and Righteousness remains unstained.
The other thought that has been on my mind is the way Jesus’ own birth and childhood resonate in His handling of this situation. The Gospels never seem to come right out and take note of the public perception of Mary and that pregnancy. There’s no need to, because we know what life is like in a small town. We know how the grave vine operates. So, we know that the whole town of Nazareth was talking about Joseph and his wayward wife so long as they weren’t within earshot. We can easily guess that as Jesus became more known to the world, and particularly after He had offended the hometown with His message in the synagogue, these same folks would be willing and eager to tell the story of His birth to any outsider who cared to listen. If there was one thing that was common knowledge about this Jesus, then, it was the illegitimate nature of His birth.
Don’t you see? This is a large part of why they had such difficulty accepting that He could be the Messiah. The talk about proper birthplace and so on provided a more polite cause to reject Him, but it was that business about His birth that really lay at the bottom of it all. You can sense the public awareness of His story in the nature of the attacks the Pharisees tend to bring against Him. Indeed, I think you can sense it in this one particularly. Why adultery? Why the adulteress but not the adulterer? Admittedly, there could be any number of reasons, but it seems like this case would resonate with those who figured His illegitimate birth proved the illegitimacy of His claim.
This offers another possibility as to why the viewed their question as a clever trap. Perhaps they felt certain that the son of just such an adulterous union could not bring himself to pass judgment against an adulteress. It would be like condemning His own mother to the gallows! Then, they could charge Him with breaking from Mosaic Law. And, if He did pass judgment, they could make a public point of His own lineage, and demand that He condemn His mother as well. After all, in His very being, He was the proof, was He not?
Of course, like those who bandied about the supposed fact that He wasn’t born in Bethlehem as Messiah must be, their proof was incomplete. They knew not because they questioned not. They accepted rumor as fact, and they presented these false facts as evidence. In doing so, they directly contravene the very Law they speak of upholding. Thou shalt not bear false witness, and in this we well know that rumor and gossip are covered. Yet, this is exactly what they would do in the case of Jesus. It is exactly what they have done in their own minds, born the false stories about Him as true witness, and they have already made their judgment based on these lies.
But, Jesus has successfully navigated that trap as well as all the others contained in their challenge. In the aftermath, with His foes departed in disarray, I see His childhood come shining through in His dealings with this woman. He knows, after all, that had His own mother been dealt with in such summary a fashion as they sought to deal with this woman, He would not be here. His being here was, as I said, proof enough to most folks that there had been some sort of dalliance on Mary’s part that was fully deserving of just such a death sentence as this woman was about to experience. Indeed, if that supposition were a certifiable fact, her continued existence in Israel would be a stain upon the townspeople. But, in spite of their pettiness, and their tendency toward rumor-mongering, they remained within the bounds of Law in this much: They had no witness to the event, and therefore, no fit hand to take up the first stone according to the Law.
Let me quickly state, though, that the sensitivity that we can attribute to Jesus due to the circumstances of His youth were not such as would subvert His Justice. He would not simply let every adulteress off the hook because His mother had been labeled such, though wrongfully so. What those circumstances established in His character (as if it needed establishing in the Godhead!) was a respect for knowing the full story. He knew, you see, that had the people of Nazareth, in their zeal to uphold Mosaic Law, stoned His mother for her alleged sins, justice would not have been served. It would have been a miscarriage of justice.
This woman before Him: as much as the Pharisees (now departed) have railed against her, He does not have any certifiable evidence against her. As He points out Himself, there’s nobody there to raise accusation against her now, none to present evidence. There are no witnesses, therefore, there can be no sentencing.
Let’s be clear about one thing, though. Jesus does not doubt the truth of the accusations the Pharisees laid out. He is not accusing them of lying in bringing this woman here. Arguably, Son of God that He is, He is absolutely certain that their claims are true. Thus, we find His parting words to this woman are, “I won’t bring charges either. You are free to go. But!” There’s just one thing, ma’am: Don’t do it again. Avail yourself of the narrow escape you have just had. Recognize how near you were to death, and take it to heart. Your heart has not been hardened by life thus far. Care for it now while you can. Don’t let it come to this again. Next time, things might not turn out the same.
This is our story, every one of us! This is our situation. That’s why this passage, as much as the experts may question its veracity, is so impossible to excise from the record. This is a parable played out on the stage of life! This is the story of every sinner who has ever found himself in the presence of the Redeemer, Jesus, the Christ of God. This is the whole point behind, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. We have all made that same, narrow – impossibly narrow – escape from certain and irrevocable death. We have all stood where this woman stands, exposed in our sins and accused before the very throne of God for all to see. We have all felt the devastating shame of standing so, however shameless we were before. And, we have all heard the intervention of our Advocate. We have all marveled at that moment of relief. What!? After all those ringing accusations, suddenly, the room is emptied of witnesses, and the Judge has declared not a mistrial, but a judgment of innocence! Amazing!
Of course, we are given to understand that this judgment is not a denying of our past sins. Our innocence is declared on perfectly just grounds: Our debt to His court has been paid. Time served, as it were. To make certain we understand that He is not conniving at our sins, we, too, are left with that parting admonition: “Go, and from now on sin no more.”
This living parable is also a message to the Church, and to the individual Christians who compose the Church. It’s one more piece of what Jesus models for us in matters of discipline. Here’s how you go about it, folks. No, He’s not advocating the public humiliation. That was not His doing, nor is it His model. The point is that sin is confronted, but condemnation is something reserved to the Judge. Just as God has declared, “vengeance is Mine” (Dt 32:35), so the penalty phase of the trial. If vengeance is His, surely it is absolutely His when avenging violation of His own Law. Indeed, it is for this, and this alone, that He wields vengeance.
We are not to wink and connive at the sins of a brother any more than we see Jesus do so. Scripture leaves us no room to think that this is what Christianity means: never having to make good on our past sins. I’ve known those who thought that this new life business meant that they had no responsibility for what they had done before that moment of rebirth. That, however, is more likely to be proof that there has been no rebirth. The child of God will not allow the sins of his past to fester so. He understands that forgiveness is not saying, “It’s OK.” Forgiveness is not saying we can go and pretend like it never happened. Forgiveness is not an absolute elimination of consequences.
Where possible, as we experience that narrow escape from the wrath of God’s judgment, we should surely be seeking ways to make things as right as we can with our fellow man. If my past sins have harmed another, and I have the opportunity to redress those harms, it is my Christian duty, the demand of my conscience, to do so. If, before my God got hold of me, I was a thief, then His redeeming of my life from the pit is not a permit to hold onto my ill-gotten gains. If adultery, I certainly am not being given license to go back for more. Neither am I being given license to just walk away as though it never happened. That would be a hard one, wouldn’t it? No. Honestly, I think the demand on the reborn would be to make open confession to the one I had wronged; not the one with whom I had taken such liberties, but the spouse whose right and trust was violated by my doing so. To that spouse I would owe a debt. To my own spouse I would owe a debt. At bare minimum, that debt would need to be paid out in honesty. To my own spouse, so long as she is willing, it would need to be paid out in a determined devotion to cherish her as she deserves from that day forth. To the other? At bare minimum, a determination to uphold his or her honor. Is there a child born as the result of this? Then let the redeemed sinner take up his part in the cost of raising that child. If necessary and legally viable, let him give legitimacy to the child of his sins.
In short: in so much as it lies in your power to do so, make repayment for the damages. You cannot make the past change. You cannot undo your sin. You can, however, take responsibility for what you have done. Having faced the court and discovered yourself set at liberty when you know full well you didn’t deserve it, let your gratitude show. Let your gratitude show not only to the Judge Who has done this for you, but let it show in your determination to change, and to mark the beginning of that change by doing all in your power to set to right the wrongs of your past.
Here, Jesus has also demonstrated the lifestyle He taught way back in the Sermon on the Mount: “Judge not lest you be judged after the same fashion. As you measure, so you shall be measured” (Mt 7:1-2). Notice, now, that this is not a possible outcome He spoke of. It’s a certainty. You will be subjected to your own standards. The mercy you have shown to others will be shown to you. They mercy you have withheld from others will be withheld from you. Now do you begin to see how deadly a critical spirit is?
And, isn’t that human nature! What we are quick to point out in others is nearly always the very same problem we refuse to deal with in ourselves. We hide it as best we can. We put every effort into controlling it when we’re around those who would care if they found out. But, Oh! Let one of them slip up, and we’ll pounce on it like a cat on a mouse. Nothing diverts the finger of accusation better than leveling the accusation first. It’s one of our primary defenses of sin, isn’t it? Look what they just did! Phew! Sure gets their eyes off of you, doesn’t it? Yes, but not God’s eyes. He sees. He knows. You know He knows. You keep playing at pretending He doesn’t. You keep acting as if He didn’t, and you even convince yourself that what you’ve been doing has been so well hidden away that even He didn’t see it. But, you know He did, and that guilt you carry makes you even quicker to point His attention to your neighbor. See! They did it! Deal with them! And God shakes His head and repeats that in our every judgment, we make the case against ourselves, who do the very same things.
This is exactly why His constraints on those who are charged with enforcing His Law are so stringent. This is exactly why the punishment and vengeance are reserved to His say. We are faulty judges at best. We are partial judges however hard we may try not to be. We don’t have it in us to be impartial. Our own sinfulness makes it difficult for us to be fair and merciful in our handling of justice. We’re busy trying to throw the hounds off our own trail, and the guilty around us seem just the ticket. But, Jesus reminds us that our judgments shall measure our own sentence. So, those words, “Let the sinless one be first to impose the penalty of the Law,” leave us no room to pick up even the smallest of stones. There is none sinless, no not one. To so much as reach for a rock after those words would be blasphemy, wouldn’t it? For, it would be to accuse God of lying in His assessment of man. In truth, only one man in all that courtyard had the right to take up a stone with those instructions stated; only one Man in all the history of man. And so it shall remain so long as this world remains: One Judge and One Judge only who is fit to deliver such punishments as Justice may demand.
Turn your attention back to the woman and her case. But, in doing so, see even more clearly that she stands there as a representative of our own condition. Indeed, I could go so far as to say we should hope that she is representative of our own condition. See, she is no hardened sinner. She is not yet committed to pursuing her lusts come hell or high water. She is a sinner. She has fallen short. She has made an error in her judgment, and found herself unable to correct her course. You can say she has been unwilling to do so, and you could well be right. But, at root, the issue is that she is unable. She is us. She is the pre-redemption believer. Maybe she’s even the post-redemption believer. She is not determined to continue down this path she’s been caught upon, but perhaps she feels powerless to choose another.
More importantly, she didn’t sin in ignorance. Neither did her partner, whoever he may have been. It may be a favored defense of ours to plead ignorance, or to claim to have been fooled into doing as we did. But, the truth is, we do not sin in ignorance any more than she did. When and if somebody is loving enough to confront us on the matter, we are not confused by them. We know we are in the wrong. Oh, we may get defensive about it, but we know. Otherwise, we’d feel no need to be defensive. We know better, and yet we do it. We are not of hardened heart, that we should do these things. Honestly, it’s more that we are of dulled mind.
How can I say this with certainty? Well, I notice that this woman does not put on a show of her resentment. She doesn’t become vindictive under these circumstances, spitting out accusations against her accusers. She knows they are right. The only thing she does not understand about her situation is how it can be that she is still standing, untouched and alive, at the end of it all. There is the wonder of suddenly realizing that He’s right! They’ve all gone without another word. Why? Because they, like her, like us, knew well enough that their own sins were sinful. Faced with the accusations Jesus was writing in the dirt, there, they had to face their own truth, and suddenly, they weren’t feeling quite so judgmental.
Do unto others as you would have them do for you. Isn’t that the horizontal axis of God’s Rule for man? “Neither do I condemn you.” Coming from Jesus, that is a powerful, redeeming declaration, and one we have all heard. Coming from us, it could only be said with the implied continuation of, “for to do so, I would have to condemn myself.” That’s the whole thrust of the thing. Jesus demonstrates it here, as He taught it previously. Paul adds his weight to the same thing as he lays the Gospel case before the Romans. You who judge, do you not do the same?
Jesus, though, does speak those words, and He speaks them with no need to add the disclaimer. Rather, He adds the admonition we also are alike in hearing: “Go your way, but sin no more.” Recognize how near you were to an eternal hell. Realize how narrow your escape has been. Understand that you are indeed a sinner and God is indeed angry about your sins. Realize that He’s not kidding about when He says He will not tolerate sin in His presence. Realize, as well, that He is merciful. He is not taken by a blind and unreasoning rage as He considers your case. He understands the frailness of the flesh, and has made provision. It is that Provision which speaks to you now, saying, “Go, but sin no more.” You’ve been given a chance. Make the most of it! And, I feel certain that this woman was concurring with His admonition as she left. Yes! I will certainly never again fall into that trap! Thank You, Sir. Thank You!
Isn’t that the feeling each one of us has had at some point? Haven’t we all had occasion to look back on our lives and recognize how near we were to damnation? I’m not talking about near-death escapes per se. I’m not necessarily even thinking of those points where something kept us from the full damage our choices really should have inflicted. But, these are part of it. No. It’s far more to do with the understanding that came later, when God finally got through to us that no, we really weren’t good people. No, we really weren’t doing OK. We were dead men who hadn’t caught on yet, and unless He did something about it, thus we would remain. That He was making the offer, when once we realized the nature of the offer, couldn’t help but leave us with that same wonder and relief that this woman is experiencing. You mean, Sir, that I am free to go? But, how can that be? The evidence is clear, and I know my own guilt. I know, as well, that You know my guilt. And yet, You say I can go? You say my record has been cleared? Well, bless You sir! Thank You! Yes! I shall surely go, then, and do my best to make sure I never have to stand in this place of judgment again!
But, somehow, through the course of the years, it seems our passion for purity wears thin. Under the constant bombardment of the senses, our walls have become weak, pitted: crumbling ruins in some cases. What are we to do? We have lost our first love! The only remedy we are given to seek is that given to Ephesus. “Remember where it is you fell from, and repent. Repent so as to do as you did at first” (Rev 2:5). Now, notice what these first things are not. The present deeds of the Ephesians are their toil and perseverance. Their current status is that they do not endure evil men, nor do they accept every claimant to the title of apostle without confirming the message against the Word. They have not grown weary (Rev 2:2-3). And yet, they have lost their first love.
Do you see? They do all the right things still. It is not their deeds that have changed, but their motivations. They are no longer in love with Christ. They are just trying to keep themselves holy. They are no longer pursuing their husband, they are fleeing their judge. I confess, this is not the message I was thinking to find when the thought of first love came to mind. But, it is the message I see in those verses. If we think that somehow our loss of first love has to do with not laboring as hard as we used to in the vineyard, then we have returned to a false view of our Lord and of the salvation He has wrought.
If we hear Him saying to us, “Go, but from now on, knock it off with the sin,” and treat these words as if He has given us only a parole, a very conditional reprieve which could be revoked at any moment, then we have missed Him. If we treat these words as a season pass to the sin center, we have also missed it. It is neither the one nor the other. His pardon for this woman was not hinged on anything about her case. She was not innocent in the matter, nor pretending to be. Notice how John presents the story: They came with a woman caught in the act. Not allegedly a practitioner of, not reported to be. Just caught. Indicative mood. Stated as fact, not as a proposition about which there might be some doubt. Neither is her behavior that of one accused in innocence. She has been caught dead to rights and she knows it. She was witness to the witnesses and knows exactly what accusations they can bring against her. But, this Jesus has given her release from the bonds of approaching death. “I do not condemn you.” And trust me, He is more wholly a witness to what you have done than any of those who brought you! “You may go. Case closed, court adjourned. Just this one thing, miss – advice from a merciful judge: Don’t do it again.”
Do you see? She is not let off the hook in such a fashion as to think maybe she pulled it off after all. She is left with no delusion that her Judge was unaware of the truth of the case. No, no. You did it. You know that. I know that. You are quite deserving of that sentence the Pharisees proposed. You know that. I know that. But, I am Judge, and I declare the demands of Justice satisfied. You are free. We do not learn the price of that declaration until later, of course, but the benefits that accrue to us from that declaration are clear here and now.
Again, measure the parting admonition to this woman with the passage from Revelation. Go, and sin no more, and those Ephesians were doing all in their power to do just that. Yet, they had lost their first love. Now, it should be clear that in counseling them to return to that first love, Jesus is not counseling them to set aside the things He had just listed in their favor. To love Him cannot be to ignore the pursuit of the holiness which is His. His bride can hardly cease from her efforts to make herself lovely in His sight. But, she must also remain in love. She dare not make those efforts the efforts of fear. She must not fall into the falsity of thinking those efforts are the only thing that will rescue her in the end. She must not listen to the whispered lies of an enemy who seeks to convince her that if she does not do it all just right, her fiancée will serve her with divorce papers before ever the wedding date has come.
Don’t lose your first love, bride of Christ! Neither take the love of your Bridegroom for granted. By all means, being no foolish young virgin, make yourself ready for that day for which He is making all ready. But, your Bridegroom is no monster that you should fear him. Certainly, His wrath can be fierce, but His wrath is for those who are against Him, not for those He has cherished and will ever cherish. He would no sooner turn His wrath upon you than your own parents. Indeed, far more likely that they might do so, and even so, He never will. His love stands for an eternity. You know this, and yet you may have forgotten it. To forget the sure foundation of His love must surely hurt Him than any failure of your weak flesh. He has walked in our ways, don’t forget. He has made Himself intimately familiar with the battles of this life, and knows that however willing the spirit of a man, yet the flesh remains weak. He has faced every temptation that we must face, for the precise purpose of fitting Himself more fully as our Advocate and Helper, that His pleadings on our behalf, He being our One True High Priest, would be the more effective. His love for you has never waned, nor ever will. His love for you combines the pure love of the Perfect Father, with the purest, cherishing passion of the awaiting Husband. How, then, can you heed the lies of His enemies that tell you that His love is conditioned upon your works? How can you think such a love would leave you stranded at the altar? It is impossible!
Let those works continue, by all means, dear Bride, but let them be as they ought: the reflection of your Groom’s perfection. Do not labor as slaves. Do not act as an orphan scorned by all. You are no lost child; nor are you in danger of finding yourself a spinster alone. Your Groom has gone to prepare the place for your eternal happiness, and He has promised His return. You should know that having become betrothed to this One, the wedding is already made certain. His love for you has been proclaimed and sealed, and nothing, NOTHING will cause Him to suffer a change of heart.
And, if ever, there were cause for an outburst of Doxology, it is in that perfect truth. God be praised, indeed!
Jesus, my Husband, my Groom: Have I not felt that ebbing of love, myself? Have I not found myself more and more just going through the motions, trying to do right, but as much for fear as for love? Oh, my Dear Lord, forgive me! Yes, the state of things within me gives me pause. I hear the anger upon my lips so often, and I know it is not pleasing to You. I sense the battles raging in my mind, and I know that there ought be no fight. The right way is clear, and yet it seems so pleasant to pursue the wrong. It is enough to cause doubts to arise. Am I really Yours? Have You truly called me Your own? Yet, I know the answer. I know Your love is true. I know, even as You have reaffirmed with this morning’s study, that You have not changed in Your love for me. So, my King, let my desire for You be fanned to full flame! Let the embers be blown back into life. And, as I await that fire of passion, I shall rejoice to know that indeed, Your love, O Lord, is good and faithful. Indeed, it is so, that no one who’s trust is in You has ever been put to shame. No! Nor ever shall be! Blessed are You above all, for You are above all! Thank You, Holy Lord Jesus, and come soon. Your bride awaits!
