Jesus and the Woman Caught in Adultery

John 8:1-11

Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again he bent down and wrote on the ground. And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him. Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

Even for many in the early Church, this was a controversial Gospel pericope, so much so that there was considerable debate on whether or not it should be included in the canonical Gospel, or struck from it. As such, it is part of what is called the New Testament deuterocanon (also called the antilegomena, or “disputed books” – those books or parts of books that were embraced by the Church as canonical, but only after some debate and controversy. Other examples include the Long Ending in the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the Letter of James, the Letter to the Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3 John, the Letter of Jude, and the Book of Revelation. Other antilegomena books include some that were eventually rejected as part of the NT canon: the Apocolypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermes, the Letter of Barnabas, and the Didache. These books were widely disseminated and greatly respected but, for a variety of reasons, the magisterium of the Church came to reject them as God’s written revelation in Christ.

What was so controversial about this pericope? The fact that Jesus’ mercy extends even to those caught in great sin. Why, then, did the magisterium of the Church declare that it was, indeed, canonical. Doubtless, at least partly, because they were certain it was historical. Also, for the same reason so many found it difficult to accept: it reveals the unfathomable mercy of God.

The woman was caught in the act of adultery. Tradition from the seventh century says that it was Mary Magdalene, but there’s scant evidence in Scripture to support this. Another tradition is that the woman was a prostitute but, again, there’s nothing in the Scripture account to support this. She was simply a woman who committed adultery, the punishment for which according to the law of Moses was death, though not necessarily by stoning, unless she was a virgin betrothed to be married (Dt 22:23-24). The point is, those who brought the woman to Jesus were correct in the prescription of death for the woman they had caught in adultery. Of course, it never entered into their minds to drag the man before Jesus, even though the law of Moses also specified death for the man (Lev 20:20; Dt 22:22). Why didn’t they bring the man before Jesus? Perhaps there were some among the crowd of men eager to stone her that had also – ahem – had enjoyed her company, and stoning her to death would have shut her up!

There has long been great speculation on what Jesus was writing in the dirt. The Scripture simply doesn’t tell us. One tradition is that He was writing down the law of Moses that declares that we should love God (Dt. 6:5) and love our neighbor (Lev 19:18). Another tradition is that Jesus was writing the names of those who had brought the woman to Him, according to Jeremiah the prophet: “Those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water” (Jer 17:13 in the RSV).

When the men accusing the woman wanted to stone her, Jesus turned their desire against them. Again, according to the law, those who had the “honor” of throwing the first stones were the witnesses to the sinful deed. Jesus, however, who is the law, changes the rules of the game. “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” The men responded to this by walking away, one by one, beginning with the elders. Why the elders? Because, being older, they certainly had more sins and, being more mature, they certainly knew they were accountable for those sins.

We have to be careful not to misinterpret Jesus’ great mercy in refusing to condemn the woman as tolerance for sin. Sin is never to be tolerated, and the woman did sin. Jesus did not tolerate her sin. He forgave her her sin by refusing to condemn her. He certainly had the authority to condemn her. Jesus is God incarnate. He chose not to condemn her for this sin – in other words, to forgive her. He certainly had grounds to forgive her. Jesus is God incarnate, so all sin is an offense against Him. Finally, Jesus tells the woman, “Go and sin no more.” Clearly, Jesus is not tolerant of sin. Rather, He recognizes the need people have for grace and mercy. He extends this mercy to all, even the most heinous of sinners.

It’s easy to see how this account of Jesus’ mercy toward the woman caught in adultery caused such controversy in the early Church. How could God’s mercy extend to one who was so blantant in her sin against the law of Moses? What about her husband, or the wife of the man with whom she committed adultery? Don’t they get a say in whether or not she should be forgiven or stoned? How easy it is for us to withhold mercy from those who have hurt us, even sinned against us. A couple of days ago, I wrote of the killing of Austin Metcalf by Karmelo Anthony, two 17-year-old track athletes for their respective schools who got into what anyone would have called a minor scuffle, yet ended in Anthony stabbing Metcalf to death. Metcalf’s father informed a media interviewer that he had forgiven Anthony because “the forgiveness is for my peace, not for his.” I don’t mean to be critical of a man going through a horror I have never experienced and hope to never experience. But forgiveness is not merely for the one who is forgiving, but for the one forgiven. Otherwise, it serves no purpose. Forgiveness is vitally linked toward salvation.

But forgiveness for salvation is also not in our hands, or not in our hands alone. It is ultimately in God’s hands. I have said many times that, if any man were my judge, I’d be damned to hell in a heartbeat. The people I have hurt, the people I’ve sinned against, may or may not have forgiven me. I hope they have. But I cannot place my hope for salvation in their having forgiven me. My hope is that Jesus is my judge and, like the woman caught in adultery, He will not condemn me.

But, as always, there is the other side of the coin. Have I forgiven those who have hurt me, who have sinned against me? It’s hard enough, frankly, to forgive those who have merely been angry at me, or misjudged me, without reaching the level of sinning against me. How am I to forgive those who have actually sinned against me, hurting me physically, emotionally, or spiritually? It’s true that forgiving them is for my peace, but it is also for them. God certainly knows when I’ve forgiven another, and I think He must count that in the other’s favor as well as in mine. I don’t know how that works. I guess it’s one fo the mysteries we’ll only come to understand in the kingdom. But forgiveness is essential for the Christian, both for the one sinned against, and the one forgiven of their sin.

I truly believe that God’s justice is mercy. It is my only hope.

Be Christ for all. Bring Christ to all. See Christ in all.