The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
Yesterday’s gospel reading is often used nowadays to argue that laws punishing adulterers are somehow unchristian. This is obviously wrong, because Christians themselves continued to punish adultery for many centuries thereafter, with no one seeing anything contrary to the faith about it until very recently. Indeed, penalties for adultery became much harsher when the Roman Empire was Christianized. Adultery is intrinsically evil, and it is a menace to the common good, so punishing it is an appropriate state act. Another unfortunate message readers sometimes take away is that wanting to see such laws enforced marks one out as self-righteous and hypocritical. When an appropriate authority enforces the law, this is certainly no mark against that magistrate’s character, but this is not the situation that confronted Jesus.
Let us ask why it says the Pharisees were trying to trick Jesus with this question. After all, they just gave him the right answer, right? If Jesus would have just agreed with them, of what could He be accused? Well, as the Pharisees later admit to Pilate, they don’t have the authority to carry out executions. (“We have no law to put any man to death.”) So we are not here dealing with a proper exercise of authority. What we are dealing with is something more like a mob. Jesus is being tested in the same way He was when asked whether it is right to pay taxes. When taking a position on how to deal with the occupation, it’s hard not to come off as either suicidal or cowardly. Christ must either defy the occupational arrangement or seem indifferent to the enforcement of the Mosaic Law.
Jesus resolves the problem by emphasizing the crowd’s lack of authority. He questions neither the Law nor the woman’s guilt. He does not even take any initiative to rescue the man caught in adultery, who is likewise liable to stoning. He only asks what right the crowd has to take upon itself the enforcement of the law. It could only be based on their supposedly greater righteousness and purity. Christ points out that if that is your claim to power, you had best take a more honest look inside yourself and realize that you are as much a sinner as anyone else. Human authority cannot base itself on the virtue of those who rule, for all are sinners. Rather, it comes from being one of God’s official ministers, of whom it is said that they do not wear the sword in vain.
The typical approach today is to argue that Christianity demands that the husband forgive an adulterous wife – or indeed, a wife who commits any other kind of sin – no matter what.
Whatever one may say about this as a matter of theory, “unconditional forgiveness” is an untenable approach in practice.
It does demand that, though. It just does not demand reconciliation, which is another beast entirely.
Yup, another of the “Top Ten Most Misunderstood (or Misapplied) Bible Passages”. The most offensively abused segment is this line:
“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
- too often used today to insinuate that anyone who has ever sinned, in any way, has no right to condemn another for anything at all, ever. In fact, note that, although this is not commonly known today (especially amongst people who want to condemn the OT as overly harsh), Jewish law required the testimony of multiple witnesses in order to make a conviction of adultery. Read in cultural context, it appears that the Pharisees in this passage were likely breaking the law themselves by accusing the woman on the basis of insufficient evidence. There is a very good case to be made that Jesus is saying, “Whichever one of you is without sin in this matter be the first to cast a stone” – which, if true, says nothing about what sorts of things we should and should not create laws about.
This is obviously wrong, because Christians themselves continued to punish adultery for many centuries thereafter, with no one seeing anything contrary to the faith about it until very recently. Indeed, penalties for adultery became much harsher when the Roman Empire was Christianized. Adultery is intrinsically evil, and it is a menace to the common good, so punishing it is an appropriate state act.
Quite, Mr. B.
I’m sympathetic to the (non-canonical) interpretation that says that Jesus was writing in the sand the Biblical passage that condemned the sin he read in the hearts of the leaders of the mob (the elders who left first). Let’s say one of the elders had lain with a man. Jesus looks right at him, writes down the appropriate reference to Leviticus, and the elder, drawn as if against his will, reads there his own deepest most shameful and (he thought) secret sin. He gasps, and shamed (and fearing exposure) staggers away. Similarly for the next leader or two: Jesus reads their darkest secret sin, writes the passage in the sand, the leader reads it, and flees. I’m sympathetic to this interpretation because an appeal to the conscience of a mob doesn’t usually work. Jesus spoke to them in precisely the language they were using to condemn the women, and they fled, not just out of shame, but fear.
Jewish law required that the witnesses throw the first stones, so Jesus is trapping them in their own trap. If they throw the stones, the Romans will put them to death. He does do something like expose sins when he tells her “Neither do I condemm you”, although he could.