Qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. (He who accuses another of improper conduct ought to look to himself.) --Plautus (Roman playwright, ca. 200 BC)
"Houston, we have a problem." These words attributed to the Apollo 13 mission are part of our national consciousness. They symbolize unexpected challenges and human resilience in the face of crisis and adversity. This phrase, at least as we know it, was never actually spoken by any of the crew of that ill-fated mission. It is a mis-quote, a mash-up of what was actually said by Jack Swigert and John Lovell in April, 1970. Swigert actually said, "Okay, Houston, we've had a problem here," followed by Lovell confirming the issue with, "Ah, Houston, we've had a problem."
I bring this up because many who read our passage today, found in John 8:1-11, have a serious problem with it. There is manuscript evidence that John did not include it in his Gospel. Although it may have been an anecdote that the disciples all shared, a memory of Jesus that they all cherished, it was not part of the original Greek manuscripts in any of the four Gospels. It appears to have been added later, and when they did add in this account, there was some confusion as to where to put it. Bible commentator David Guzik says that one group of manuscripts inserts this passage after Luke 21:38. Other manuscripts have it after John 21:24. “All this evidence suggests that scribes were often ignorant of its exact position, though anxious to retain it as part of the four Gospels.” (Tasker) They knew it belonged, but they didn’t exactly know where.
Some ancient Christians (such as Augustine and Ambrose) omitted this story, not so much because of the textual evidence but because they thought it made Jesus appear to approve of sexual immorality, or at least not regard it as serious. At the same time, the character of the story makes it seem obvious that it is genuine, and many scholars note that it is historical and factual. Early Christian writers mention this account as soon as the early second century (A.D. 100). We have good reason to believe that this actually happened, and that John really wrote this. There is some debate as to where it belongs in the Gospel accounts, but there is good reason to believe it belongs. “If not John’s it was a very early interpolation: it may possibly have had the sanction of Simeon or Jude (early 2nd century), the second and third bishops of Jerusalem, ‘brethren’ of our Lord, the last survivors of the Apostolic age. These two seem to have been connected with the editing of this gospel, for they are probably the ‘we’ of John 21:24 and the two unnamed disciples of John 21:2.” (Trench) “If we cannot feel that this is part of John’s Gospel we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus.” (Morris) --David Guzik, Study Guide For John 8
I love this passage. I'm sure many of you do as well. That's why many are disappointed in some modern translations, like the NIV, that place this passage in the footnotes. It makes sense to separate it somehow from the main text, since John's narrative flows so much better if you go from the end of chapter 7 to verse 12 of chapter 8. It has caused some fundamentalist Christians to become adamant KJV-only readers. They think that the editors of the more modern translations "left out" passages like this (it also happens at the end of Mark) for nefarious reasons. Their reasoning is that the KJV is the older English version, therefore it should be afforded more respect.
The flaw in this reasoning is that the New Testament was not originally written in English. In 1611, when the KJV was published, the oldest Greek manuscripts available were from around the year 1200 AD. Today, over 400 years later, we have discovered manuscripts from the second century AD, over 1000 years earlier. There is no conspiracy by modern editors to leave out portions of Scripture.
So let's get to the Scripture.
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?" This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more." --John 8:1-11
Most of the time when this passage is preached, the emphasis is on the forgiveness of Jesus. We like the message of no condemnation, no matter our past. We appreciate Jesus's ability to "stick up for the oppressed" and "stick it to" those in authority. I've even heard it preached that when Jesus stooped down to draw in the dust on the ground that He listed the names of the Pharisees and their specific sins. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this assumption scripturally. No one knows what marks He made on the ground--whether it was pictures or doodles, shapes or letters, we just don't know.
What we do know is that by stooping down to the accused woman's level, he diffused a volatile situation. By ignoring their shouts of accusation and calls for "justice" according to the law of Moses, Jesus forced them to step back, and take a moment to think about what they were demanding. It also made them consider the conspiracy it took to arrest the poor woman in the act and own up to their part in it. Let me explain what I mean here.
Yes, the Mosaic law did condemn adultery, and there were severe consequences associated with it. The consequence of this particular sin was death, since the Old Testament law was set up so that the people of Israel would be "set apart", distinctly different than the other nations around them. In actuality, however, this law was very seldom enforced. Because adultery is such a personal act, hidden from public view, there were very few instances where anyone would be caught in the act. Nor would they normally be subject to a public trial.
So then, to what lengths did these men go in order to present this case to Jesus, and thereby trap Him in His words?
- They had to agree together that one of them would either seduce a young woman to lie with him, or else to take her by force.
- The one among them who was appointed would have to find such a woman and initiate sex with her.
- At least two of them would have had to observe them in the act. Morris points out that legally speaking, the standard of evidence was very high for this crime. There had to be two witnesses, and they had to agree perfectly. They had to see the sexual act take place; it wasn’t enough to see the pair leaving the same room together or even lying on the same bed together. “The actual physical movements of the couple must have been capable of no other explanation…. conditions were so stringent that they could have been met only on rare occasions.” (Morris)
- In the end, only the woman should be charged. The man who was also caught in the act would not be accused and set before a judge, thereby saving his own reputation.
Matthew Henry's commentary says this:
The crime for which the prisoner stands indicted is no less than adultery, which even in the patriarchal age, before the law of Moses, was looked upon as an iniquity to be punished by the judges, (Job 31:9-11; Gen. 28:34). The Pharisees, by their vigorous prosecution of this offender, seemed to have a great zeal against the sin, when it appeared afterwards that they themselves were not free from it; nay, they were within full of all uncleanness, (Mt. 23:27-28). Note, it is common for those that are indulgent to their own sin to be severe against the sins of others.
Let's look now at the reaction of Jesus to this situation. Before Him were a group of men, shouting accusations and demanding a verdict, along with one lone woman, probably half-dressed, dragged from her bed, guilty of the charge yet helpless to do anything but lie prostrate at Jesus's feet. The men had brought her as a test, a Hobson's Choice for Jesus, who would be indicted by whichever way He decided. Matthew Henry described the conundrum facing Jesus in this way:
[1.] If he should confirm the sentence of the law, and let it take its course, they would censure him as inconsistent with himself (he having received publicans and harlots) and with the character of the Messiah, who should be meek, and have salvation, and proclaim a year of release; and perhaps they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for countenancing the Jews in the exercise of a judicial power. But,
[2.] If he should acquit her, and give his opinion that the sentence should not be executed (as they expected he would), they would represent him,
First, As an enemy to the law of Moses, and as one that usurped an authority to correct and control it, and would confirm that prejudice against him which his enemies were so industrious to propagate, that he came to destroy the law and the prophets.Secondly, As a friend to sinners, and, consequently, a favourer of sin; if he should seem to connive at such wickedness, and let it go unpunished, they would represent him as countenancing it, and being a patron of offences, if he was a protector of offenders, than which no reflection could be more invidious upon one that professed the strictness, purity, and business of a prophet.
Jesus responded with silence. His silence was at first seen as though He were not listening, or even that He might be stumped, unable to appropriately decide the matter before Him. When they pressed Him for an answer, He responded with infinite wisdom. "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone."
His response did not exonerate the woman. She was indeed guilty as charged and could have been subject to severe punishment. Indeed, her reputation was forever tarnished, as she was an adulterer. This may have resulted in her losing her husband (if she was married) or forever losing any hope of marrying (if she was single). It may have cost her standing in her own family, as her parents may have rightly disowned her for bringing shame upon the family.
However, she realized that Jesus had shown her grace. Her response was to call Him Lord. I believe this was the moment she was saved from her sin. Psalm 32:1-2 says, "Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no deceit." David, you will remember, wrote this psalm after his own sexual sin had been found out. Yet he repented, and called out to the Lord his God. In the same way, the woman did not deny her sin, she did not make excuses, she did not point to others as worse sinners. She confessed in her heart and called Him Lord.
What about the men's response? David Guzik writes, "Instead of passing a sentence upon the woman, Jesus passed a sentence upon His accusers. He didn’t say, 'Don’t execute her.' He simply demanded that justice be fairly and righteously applied." Verse 9 says they were convicted by their own consciences. One by one, from the oldest and most mature, to the youngest and most impetuous, they dropped the stones they were about to throw and silently left. The woman they accused was still guilty, but that didn't matter so much to them anymore. While they were not quite ready to follow Jesus as Lord, at least they weren't caught up in a riot or a mob rule situation. Each of them was convicted of his own sin, as well as of their collective sinning.
The conspiracy to trap Jesus by His own words did not work out for them. They had no more use for the woman, so they turned their backs on her, and on Jesus. Jesus then addressed the woman.
"Woman," He said, "where are your accusers? Is there no one left to condemn you?"
"No one, Lord," she replied.
"Then I won't condemn you, either. Now go home, and don't get caught up in any more sinful situations."
The woman was not perfect; she would commit more sins. She was, however, forgiven. We also, who are called by God according to His purpose, are encouraged to avoid sinful situations and conduct. John 2:1 says, "My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous."
My wife showed me a meme this week that popped up in her Facebook feed. It said, "If you believe in Jesus but do not obey His words, you are doing just what Satan does." In this passage, the men were no different than Satan, the accuser. They called Him "teacher" but would not follow His teaching; they asked Him to judge others but would not accept His judgment on themselves.
Let's all be more like the repentant woman who acknowledged Jesus as Lord, and less like the "righteous" men who followed the letter of the law but rejected Jesus as Lord.
No comments:
Post a Comment