http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=1277
The Adulterous Woman
One of the most misused, mishandled, and misapplied passages in the
Bible is the narrative of the woman caught in adultery, recorded in John
8:1-11. [For a discussion of the technical aspects of this passage as a
textual variant, see Woods, 1989, p. 162; McGarvey, 1974, p. 16;
Metzger, 1971, pp. 219-222; Metzger, 1968, pp. 223-224]. This passage
has been used by situation ethicists (e.g., Fletcher, 1967, pp. 83,133),
libertines, and liberals to insist that God is not “technical” when it
comes to requiring close adherence to His laws. The bulk of Christendom
has abetted this notion by decontextualizing and applying
indiscriminately the remark of Jesus: “He who is without sin among you,
let him throw a stone at her first” (vs. 7). The average individual,
therefore, has come to think that Jesus was tolerant and forgiving to
the extent that He released the woman from the strict restrictions of
Bible law that called for her execution. They believe that Jesus simply
waved aside her sin, and granted her unconditional freedom and
forgiveness—though the Law called for her death (Leviticus 20:10). After
all, isn’t it true that Jesus places people “in the grip of grace”
(Lucado, 1996)?
Those who challenge these conclusions are derided as “traditionalists”
who lack “compassion,” and who are just like the “legalistic” scribes
and Pharisees who cruelly accused the woman and wanted her handled in
strict accordance with Mosaic Law. Did Jesus set aside the clear
requirements of Mosaic legislation in order to demonstrate mercy, grace,
and forgiveness? A careful study of John 8:1-11 yields at least three
insights that clarify the confusion and misconception inherent in the
popular imagination.
First, Mosaic regulations stated that a person could be executed only
if there were two or more witnesses to the crime (Deuteronomy 19:15).
One witness was insufficient to invoke the death penalty (Deuteronomy
17:6). The woman in question was reportedly caught in the “very act”
(vs. 4), but nothing is mentioned about the identity of the witness or
witnesses. There may have been only one, thereby making execution illegal.
Second, even if there were two or more witnesses present to verify the
woman’s sin, the Old Testament was equally explicit concerning the fact
that both the woman and the man were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:22). Where was the man?
The accusing mob completely side-stepped this critical feature of God’s
Law, demonstrating that this trumped-up situation obviously did not fit
the Mosaic preconditions for invoking capital punishment. Obedience to the Law of Moses in this instance actually meant letting the woman go!
A third consideration that libertines overlook concerning this passage
is the precise meaning of the phrase “He who is without sin among you….”
If this statement is taken as a blanket prohibition against accusing,
disciplining, or punishing the erring, impenitent Christian, then this
passage flatly contradicts a host of other passages (e.g., Romans 16:17;
1 Corinthians 5; Galatians 6:1; 2 Thessalonians 3:6,14; Titus 3:10; 2
John 9-11). Jesus not only frequently passed judgment on a
variety of individuals during His life on Earth (e.g., Matthew 15:14;
23; John 8:44,55; 9:41; et al.), but also enjoined upon His followers
the necessity of doing the same thing (e.g., John 7:24). Peter could be
very direct in assessing people’s spiritual status (e.g., Acts 8:23).
Paul rebuked the Corinthians’ inaction concerning their fornicating
brother: “Do you not judge those who are inside?… Therefore put away from yourselves that wicked person” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13, emp. added). Obviously, Paul demanded that Christians must judge
(i.e., make an accurate assessment regarding) a fellow Christian’s
moral condition. Even the familiar proof text so often marshaled to
promote laxity (i.e., “Judge not, that you be not judged”—Matthew 7:1)
records Jesus admonishing disciples: “…then you will see clearly to
remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (vs. 5). The current
culture-wide celebration of being nonjudgmental (“I’m OK, you’re OK”) is clearly out of harmony with Bible teaching.
So Jesus could not have been offering a blanket prohibition
against taking appropriate action with regard to the sins of our
fellows. Then what did His words mean? What else could possibly be going
on in this setting so as to completely deflate, undermine, and
terminate the boisterous determination of the woman’s accusers to attack
Him, by using the woman as a pretext? What was it in Jesus’ words that
had such power to stop them in their tracks—so much so that their clamor
faded to silence and they departed “one by one, beginning with the
oldest” (vs. 9)?
Most commentators suggest that He shamed them by getting them to
realize that “nobody is perfect and we all sin.” But this motley
crew—with their notorious and repeatedly documented
hard-heartedness—would not have been deterred if Jesus simply had
conveyed the idea that, “Hey, give the poor woman a break, none of us is
perfect, and we’ve all done things we're not proud of.” These heartless
scribes and Pharisees had the audacity to divert her case from the
proper judicial proceedings and to humiliate her by forcibly hauling her
into the presence of Jesus, thereby making her a public spectacle.
Apparently accompanied by a group of complicit supporters, they cruelly
subjected her to the wider audience of “all the people” (vs. 2) who had
come to hear Jesus’ teaching. They hardly would have been discouraged
from their objective by such a simple utterance from Jesus that
“nobody’s perfect.”
So what is the answer to this puzzling circumstance? Jesus was striking
at precisely the same point that Paul drove home to hard-hearted,
hypocritical Jews in Rome: “Therefore you are inexcusable, O man,
whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn
yourself; for you who judge practice the same things” (Romans 2:1).
Paul was especially specific on the very point with which Jesus dealt:
“You who say, ‘Do not commit adultery,’ do you commit adultery?” (vs.
22). In other words, no person is qualified to call attention to
another’s sin when that individual is in the ongoing practice of
the same sin. Again, as Jesus previously declared, “Hypocrite! First
remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5). After all, it
is the “spiritual” brother or sister who is in the proper position to restore the wayward (Galatians 6:1).
Consequently, in the context under consideration, Jesus knew that the woman’s accusers were guilty of the very thing
for which they were willing to condemn her. (It is not beyond the realm
of possibility that the man with whom the woman had committed adultery
was in league with the accusing crowd.) Jesus was able to prick them
with their guilt by causing them to realize that He knew that they, too, were guilty. The old law made clear that the witnesses to the crime were to cast the first
stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). The death penalty could not be invoked
legally if the eyewitnesses were unavailable or unqualified. Jesus was
striking directly at the fact that these witnesses were ineligible to
fulfill this role since they were guilty of the same sin, and thus
deserved to be brought up on similar charges. They were intimidated into
silence by their realization that Jesus was privy to their own sexual
indiscretions.
Observe carefully that with the withdrawal of the accusers, Jesus put forth a technical legal question: “Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?” (ASV), or “Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?” (vs. 10, KJV).
The reason for Jesus to verify the absence of the accusers who had
brought the charges against the woman was that the Law of Moses mandated
the presence of eyewitnesses to the crime before guilt could be
established and sentence passed. The woman confirmed, “No man, Lord”
(vs. 11). Jesus then affirmed: “Neither do I condemn you….” The meaning
of this pronouncement was that if two or more witnesses to her sin were
not able or willing to document the crime, then she could not be held
legally liable, since neither was Jesus, Himself, qualified to serve as
an eyewitness to her action. The usual interpretation of “neither do I
condemn you” is that Jesus was flexible, tolerant, and unwilling to be
judgmental toward others or to condemn their sinful actions. Ridiculous!
The Bible repudiates such thinking on nearly every page. Jesus was
declaring the fact that the woman managed to slip out from under
judicial condemnation on the basis of one or more legal technicalities.
But, He said (to use modern-day vernacular), “You had better stop it!
You were fortunate this time, but you must cease your sinful behavior!”
Jesus did not condemn the woman legally--He had no grounds to do so. But He most certainly condemned her morally and spiritually!
Incredible! The scribes and Pharisees were trying to catch Jesus in a
trap. Yet Jesus, as was so often the case (e.g., Matthew 21:23-27),
“turned the tables” on His accusers and caught them in a trap
instead! At the same time, He demonstrated a deep and abiding respect
for the governing beauty and power of law—the law that He and His Father
had authored. Jesus was the only person Who ever complied with Mosaic
legislation perfectly. He never sought to excuse human violation of law,
nor to minimize the binding and authoritative application of law to
people. Any interpretation of any passage that depicts Jesus as violating
God’s law in order to forgive or accommodate man is a false
interpretation, as is any interpretation that relegates law to a status
of secondary importance (cf. Deuteronomy 6:24; 10:13; Psalms 19:7-11;
Romans 7:12). Any interpretation of any passage that contradicts the
teaching of other clear passages also is false. Jesus was not in
sympathy with the permissive mindset of today’s doctrinally lax thinkers
who soften doctrine and the binding nature of law in the name of
“grace,” “freedom,” or “compassion.”
REFERENCES
Fletcher, Joseph (1967), Moral Responsibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster).
Lucado, Max (1996), In the Grip of Grace (Dallas: Word).
McGarvey, J.W. (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
Metzger, Bruce (1971), A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (New York: United Bible Society).
Metzger, Bruce M. (1968), The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press), second edition.
Woods, Guy N. (1989), A Commentary on the Gospel According to John (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate).
