This is Part 2 of an 8-Part Series on Women (and Men) in the Bible
In John, Chapter 8 (John 8:1-11), we read about a woman who has been caught in the act of adultery; no doubt about it ... no "he said, she said" here ... she was actually caught in the act.
Jesus is teaching a crowd that had gathered at the Temple, and the teachers of religious law and the Pharisees brought the woman to Him and "put her in front of the crowd" (verse 3).
"'Teacher', they said to Jesus, 'this woman was caught in the act of adultery. The law of Moses [Old Testament Law] says to stone her. What do you say?'" (John 8:4-5)
I think it's important to have some context here in order to get a feel for the dynamic that's taking place. I can't recall ever hearing a story recorded of a man being stoned for committing adultery. Why? Because there was a huge double standard when it came to sex, marriage, divorce, adultery, and children, and it was frequently demonstrated in the interpretation and execution of the law at that time.
You see, neither women nor men were supposed to commit adultery. But, in the Old Testament, there really wasn't much reason for a man to commit adultery; if he was wealthy enough, he could just marry multiple wives or even have a concubine (in a concubine, the "wife" and her children do not have the same legal standing as the legally married wife and her children, but the couple lives together ... with all of the "perks" of a marriage - but not nearly the same legal responsibilities or obligations). And if a man couldn't afford multiple wives or concubines, he could just divorce his wife and take a new wife; in the Old Testament, a man could divorce his wife for any reason by providing a written divorce decree. So, in theory, there really wasn't any reason why a man should have felt the need to commit adultery.
A woman, on the other hand ... well, that was a whole different story. Many times, women had very little say in who they married. They were expected to be virgins until marriage. Once married, they were expected to be faithful to their husbands. I don't believe they would have been able to divorce their husband if their husband had been unfaithful to them, but, even if they could, it just wouldn't have happened, because, as I stated before, having multiple wives, or even concubines, was not considered "adultery".
(Jesus specifically addresses the disparity of the laws on adultery and divorce in Matthew 5:27-32)
We don't know the specific details surrounding this particular woman's infidelity, but according to Jewish law, both she and her partner should be stoned, so what's even more telling in this particular story is the fact that there is no mention whatsoever of the man that she was caught in adultery with! The law regarding adultery was supposed to be applied equally to both men and women, but, apparently, only one party was being held responsible for this particular transgression - the man involved seems conveniently absent from this controversy!
To be clear here, this was Jewish law, not Roman law; Israel was under Roman rule, so there were civil laws (Roman laws), as well as moral/religious laws (Jewish laws). Just as there is today, there was frequently debate or confusion as to when and/or how to apply the law (how to interpret scripture). The teachers of the religious law (rabbis) and the Pharisees (a group of rabbis known for interpreting the religious laws very strictly) frequently debated these types of issues, so how they address Jesus, as well as the last part of verse 5 is very important ("Teacher ... What do you say?").
These religious leaders are asking Jesus, who had been teaching at the Temple, to "weigh in" on the debate. How did Jesus think the law should be applied to this woman?
Just as it is today, the religious leaders and the Pharisees had a tremendous amount of influence over the people; their interpretation of the scriptures had the ability to set the tone and the cultural standards ... in today's society, it even carries enough power and weight to affect the outcome of a presidential election. It reminds me a lot of the debate over abortion; there have been people who have based their vote entirely upon how a group of religious leaders interpret scripture on one particular issue.
What I find most fascinating about this encounter with Jesus and Jesus' response to it is what happened next. Instead of answering their question directly (and publicly), Jesus bends down and writes something in the sand with His finger. A crowd had gathered, so presumably, only the religious leaders were close enough to see it. We have no idea what He wrote; it was not recorded in scripture ... it was personal; it was between the religious leaders and Jesus.
Apparently, whatever Jesus wrote, it still didn't directly answer their question as to how the scripture should apply to a woman who had violated this particular spiritual law. This was pretty typical for Jesus; He frequently taught in parables or asked people questions that would cause them to think through things themselves, as opposed to just giving a clear, "black and white" answer. However, in this instance, His failure to provide a black and white answer irritated the religious leaders; the Pharisees, in particular, were known for interpreting the scripture in a very "black and white" way. Again, it reminds me a lot of the debate over abortion; contrary to this situation of adultery (where scripture was pretty clear), there is nothing in the Bible specifically about abortion ... but most religious leaders act as if the interpretation of scripture around this issue is very "black and white".
So, in response to their frustration - and their desire for a black and white answer - Jesus stands up and says to the religious leaders:
“Anyone here who has never sinned should throw the first stone at her.” (John 8:7) *
And then He bent down again and wrote something else in the sand. Again, it was private - between the religious leaders and Jesus. Most likely, something that would draw attention to their own sins ... possibly something along the lines of "hypocrisy" (Jesus was known for publicly calling out the religious leaders for hypocrisy), or it may have had something to do with "self-righteousness". But Jesus typically had no problem calling them out publicly on those types of sins, and yet He chose to keep this private. My guess is, it was something much more personal ... but I am speculating. Whatever Jesus wrote in the sand to make them aware of their own sin was between Jesus and the religious leaders.
I think it is not at all a coincidence that Jesus didn't say "a stone"; He said "the first stone". Why is that important? Because Jesus knew and understood the power and influence of the religious leaders. He knew that all it took was one religious leader - one Pharisee - to throw the first stone, and all the other religious leaders would follow suit. And then everyone in the crowd would follow their lead and jump on the bandwagon and start throwing stones as well.
But guess what? One by one all of the religious leaders walked away from this debate and left this poor woman alone ... not a single stone thrown.
Whatever Jesus had written in the sand, it made the religious leaders humbly aware of their own sins and caused them to rethink their position on this particular issue.
I think it's interesting that scripture says the older ones left first. Why would the older ones leave first after being called out on their own sins, and why would scripture include that detail? ... It's possible it's because the longer we live and the more experiences we've had, the more likely it is that we have done something we really regret; something that, deep down, we know was wrong.
But I think it's more likely in this particular situation that it could be because the oldest ones were the ones most set in their ways ... the ones who had been applying the law most strictly and unfairly and for the longest amount of time. I'm guessing the older ones were guilty of having thrown quite a few stones during their lifetime, and perhaps Jesus had written something in the sand that drew their attention to this. Again, we can only speculate. The reason the older ones felt more convicted about their own sin was between them and Jesus.
Once the religious leaders had all left, Jesus and the woman were left standing in the middle of the crowd, and Jesus said to her (John 8:10-11):
" ... Where are your accusers? Didn't even one of them condemn you?"
"No, Lord," she said.
And Jesus said, "Neither do I. Now go and sin no more."
It was a personal moment between her and Jesus. Not private, but nevertheless, personal.
That's significant to me, because, unlike what Jesus said privately in the sand to the religious leaders, He said this to the woman in front of the crowd.
My guess is that He wanted everyone to know - publicly - that, even if she had done something wrong, He didn't condemn her - publicly or privately - and neither should they.
I don't think it's any coincidence that after this encounter with Jesus, she addresses Him as "Lord". As far as we know, she didn't even know who Jesus was prior to this encounter. But she had come face to face with the Amazing Grace of Jesus Christ ... and it had changed who He was to her.
© I Lift My Voice, 2022.
* The word "sin" tends to have a very strong and negative connotation to it, and that is not surprising based upon the definition. According to Dictionary.com, it means: " ... transgression of divine law ... a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle; any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense."
However, there are several different words in the Bible that we translate into the single word "sin" in English. In this passage, when Jesus says, "Anyone here who has never sinned ... " (or some translations read "who is without sin"), the terms "never sinned" or "without sin" have been translated into English from the single Greek word "anamartetos". According to Strong's Concordance, "anamartetos" means "without blame, faultless, unerring". Jesus is basically saying to the religious leaders, "Anyone here who is perfect should throw the first stone at her."
And when Jesus tells the woman, "Now go and sin no more.", the word "sin" has been translated into English from the Greek word "hamartane", which, according to Strong's Concordance, means " ... to miss the mark, i.e. to err, especially to sin".
Comments