Exodus 31:18 Daniel 5:1-6, 24-28 John 7:53-8:12
The Light and the Law
In 1984 an American woman by the name of Karla Faye Tucker was convicted of murdering two people in Texas with a three-foot pickaxe and was sentenced to death by lethal injection. However, while in prison awaiting trial Tucker had apparently become a believer in Jesus in October 1983. While all subsequent appeals and requests for retrial were denied, on June 22, 1992, after 14 years on death row, Tucker made a plea for clemency on the basis that she had been high on drugs at the time of the murder and that she was now a rehabilitated person. Her plea became a heavily debated point of contention, especially in the Church. Many appealed to the State of Texas on her behalf, from Pope John Paul II to televangelist Pat Robertson and even the brother of the female murder victim. But the board rejected the appeal on January 28, 1998, and at the 11th hour, Texas Governor George W Bush refused to block her execution. On February 3, 1998, the lethal injection was administered while Tucker sang praises to Jesus.
Capital punishment is a divisive and much-debated subject in both Church and State. Some believers in Jesus think that the Old Testament law regarding the death sentence for certain offences has been abrogated in the New Testament and often they cite John 8 in defence of their position. They claim that Jesus’ act of mercy and forgiveness in this passage sets a precedent and a pattern for us to follow. But is that what this passage is about?
Now, before we go any further, you will probably have noticed that in your particular version of the Bible, this passage is either written in italics or it is placed in brackets or in the footnotes. That is because it is not found in any of the earliest Greek manuscripts. That’s right. Not one…nor is it mentioned by any of the Early Church Fathers, East or West. Stylistically the text is more like Luke than John and, in fact, in some manuscripts it is inserted after Luke 21:38.
Having said that, the general consensus among conservative scholars is that it is an independent account of a real historical event in the life of Jesus that was later added to the Gospel of John as it actually does develop and advance the narrative regarding the ever-deepening divide between Jesus and the leaders.
Also, nothing in the story contradicts Scripture and, indeed, it can be favourably compared to other events and teachings of Jesus. So, even though the story probably was not written by the Apostle John, conservative textual critics believe it is more than likely a true story.
Now that we have that out of the way, let’s look at the passage itself. It is helpful to remember at this point that this incident happened in the Temple the day after the final day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The huge candelabras used during the festival would still have been present in the Court of the Women and it is possible that Jesus used them as a visual aid for his statement, “I AM the Light of the World”.
The story begins with Jesus being interrupted while he was teaching in the Temple. A group of scribes and Pharisees brought in a woman apparently caught in the ‘very act’ of adultery. Now there are a number of problems with what they were doing here.
Firstly, this so-called trial was designed to publicly humiliate the accused. Trials such as these were usually not conducted in the open. This amounts to what someone once described as “a soul striptease” where the sinner is indicted “by the faithful in an atmosphere of righteous indignation”. (Central and Eastern European Bible Commentary, Langham Publishing, 2022, 1191) Unfortunately, the practice of “shaming” is not uncommon in the Church…
Secondly, the incident was staged as a trap. The Romans forbade the Jews to put anyone to death, so if Jesus advocated stoning her, he would have placed himself in opposition to the Roman authorities. However, if Jesus advocated clemency, he would have been accused of not upholding the Jewish Law.
Thirdly…and you have no doubt wondered about this yourself…where was the man? You can’t commit adultery on your own, can you? And yet they say she was caught ‘in the very act’. At the very least, they would have seen some part of her male counterpart if they caught them “in the very act”. Being caught “in the very act” places both parties in a rather compromising position with no room for escape. And yet…where was he?
The law clearly stated that there had to be at least two eyewitnesses to the crime (hence their claim that she had been caught “in the very act”), but it also taught that the death penalty applied to both parties, not just one. Catching her in a compromising circumstance on her own was not sufficient evidence for the death penalty…the physical act had to have been witnessed. (See Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22, 23, 24. Another interesting piece of information here is that as they advocated stoning and not strangling, according to the law this woman must have been a betrothed virgin.
Maybe someone was not happy about his favourite nephew marrying a woman from a less than favourable family. Or if they had, in fact, caught them “in the very act” maybe the man was a very important or very wealthy person…maybe even a very generous benefactor. Who knows. But the bottom line is there was ample reason for dismissing the trial right there and then.
But, instead of saying something, Jesus bent down and started to write on the floor with his finger. You have no idea how much has been written about this one verse. Why did he do this? What was he writing? Was he trying to buy some time…trying to formulate a reply? Was this perhaps the First Century equivalent of doodling? Of course, whatever we say in reply to these questions can never be anything more than speculation…so allow me to tell you what I think is going on here. I checked it in the Greek here and in the Hebrew in Exodus and Daniel…my kind of fact-checker…so I think my guess is as good as any other.
The operative word for me is the word “finger”. Jesus wrote on the floor with his finger. So, I asked myself…where else did God write on something specifically with his “finger”? No door prize here I’m afraid, as we have already read from the two passages. Yes, in Exodus God was said to have written the Ten Words (the Decalogue or the Ten Commandments) on the stone tablets with his finger…and the sixth commandment says? That’s right: You shall not commit adultery.
But what does the ninth commandment say? Any guesses? You shall not bear false witness, yes.
But what does that mean? The commandment is expounded and explained in Exodus 23:1-3. “You shall not spread a false report. You shall not join hands with a wicked man to be a malicious witness. You shall not fall in with the many to do evil, nor shall you bear witness in a lawsuit, siding with the many, so as to pervert justice, nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his lawsuit.”
Interesting, no? Remember that these were the same men who had no problem hiring false witnesses in the later trial of Jesus.
And then there’s the hand that wrote on the wall in Daniel. Remember what the message was? “God has numbered the days of your reign and brought it to an end. You have been weighed on the scales and found wanting. Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians.” Throughout the Gospels, Jesus often said similar things to the apostate leaders of Israel.
What these so-called teachers of the law and the Pharisees were trying to do was to use the Law to break the Law…to use the Law as a pretext for prejudice. They thought they had him in a corner with this unreasonable challenge. But in an acted parable, Jesus turned the tables on them, exposed their evil intentions, and pronounced a verdict on them. They had been weighed in the balance of the Law itself and they had been found wanting. Trying to uphold one law by breaking another was hypocritical and damnable, especially when the goal was to trap your opponent!
This is exactly what Jesus meant when he said, “If anyone of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Now, it is important to remember that the law stated that the first to cast a stone had to be an eyewitness (Deuteronomy 17:7). The fact that no one cast the first stone may suggest that there were no actual eyewitnesses.
Or perhaps the sin Jesus was referring to here, which was definitely present in the hearts of all his accusers, was the sin of false witness with the intent to falsely accuse, convict, and murder Jesus. The Law stated clearly that “If a malicious witness (remember the text says that they were maliciously trying to trap Jesus) takes the stand to accuse someone of a crime…the judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness proves to be a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” (Deuteronomy 19:16–19)
But I think it might be helpful if we could connect what the Law demanded with what Jesus said because, I am sure you will all agree, no one, other than Jesus himself, can be without sin. As John said in his first letter, chapter 1 verse 8, “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.”
If what Jesus said here applies to all cases across the board, well then no one would be able to judge anything. No criminals could be brought to justice if the judges had to be sinless.
So, what did Jesus mean? Well, he either meant that they were all guilty of the sin of adultery, which I don’t think was the case, or he meant that they were guilty of bearing false witness, which is what I do think was the case.
You need to realise that there were actually two people on trial here…the woman and Jesus. While the absence of the man suggests that either she was not caught “in the very act” or that her accusers were totally misapplying the law (killing the woman while letting the man go free), the story seems to indicate that the woman was simply a pawn in their hands…she was nothing more than a tool being used to achieve their evil and murderous goal.
Shamefaced, with their tails between their legs, these law-breaking teachers of the law slunk away to crawl back into their holes one by one, starting with the eldest. That is what creatures of the dark do when confronted with the light.
Jesus is the light that both exposes the misinterpretation and misapplication and misuse of the Law, as well as the light that discloses the true meaning and intent of the Law. As he reminded the leaders, God desires mercy and not religious rituals. (Matthew 9:13; 12:2).
The Law of God was designed, not as a weapon to attack and annihilate, but rather as a beacon to attract sinners to a just and good God and as a guide to lead them on their journey to wholeness. In Deuteronomy 4:6, Moses told the Israelites that everyone that hears about these laws will say, “That great nation certainly is wise!” And as Paul reminds us in Romans 7:12, “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good”.
But even a good law can be abused when used by the wrong person for the wrong reasons. Like the Cambridge student who entered the classroom on exam day and asked the proctor to bring him cakes and ale. When the proctor refused, expressing astonishment at the young student’s audacity, the student read from the 400-year-old Laws of Cambridge, which were still nominally in effect. The passage read by the student said, “Gentlemen sitting for examinations may request and require cakes and ale.” The proctor was obliged to comply, supplying the student with Pepsi and hamburgers as a modern equivalent. The law of the University was clearly on his side.
However, three weeks later the same student was summoned to the Office of Academic Affairs to face disciplinary action and was assessed a fine of five pounds. Of course, the student protested saying that he was within his rights to ask for cakes and ale. But he was told that he was not being fined for demanding cakes and ale, but for blatantly disregarding another Cambridge law: he had failed to wear a sword to the examination. Trying to manipulate the law for our own selfish purposes can be very tricky.
But we now come to the most important part of this story. Jesus’ own judgment. That the woman was guilty of sin seems clear in his statement, “Go and sin no more.” So, if she was guilty and if, as we believe is true, Jesus was without sin, why did he not cast the first stone? One may argue that as he was not an eyewitness, he was not permitted by law to cast the first stone. But, while this would be biblically correct, I think it misses the point of the story. This is God’s grace on display for all to see. Jesus did not dismiss her sin…he rightly judged her actions as sinful. She was guilty. But he did not condemn her.
The purpose of God’s law is to expose sin and to lead us to repentance. That’s what Paul argues in Romans 7. Like Jesus, the law is like a light that penetrates the darkness in every one of us and reveals our need for forgiveness and cleansing. That’s what John said in his first letter. “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins AND purify us from all unrighteousness.” What happened to this woman in the First Century as she stood exposed before the Judge of all, happens to everyone who comes to him. I desire mercy, Jesus said, not sacrifice. This is grace…
But the question we need to ask ourselves today is: How do we use God’s Law? Do we use it to condemn others? Do we point out the splinter in their eyes while neglecting the beam in ours? Do we use the law as a weapon? Do we perhaps focus on one sin to the exclusion of others? While both Jesus and Paul’s lists of sins include sexual sin, both heterosexual as well as homosexual, they also include rage and jealousy and arrogance and envy and greed and slander and gossip. Of course, sin must be exposed, otherwise, how can we ever be healed and restored and forgiven? But it is how we expose the sin that makes the difference.
Are we self-righteous or are we humble and merciful and ever mindful of the fact that but for the grace of God, there go I? On which side do we stand in this story?
Karla Faye Tucker was guilty. The woman caught in adultery was guilty. You are guilty. I am guilty. Whatever our position on Capital Punishment may be, whether for or against, we need to be careful that by demanding our pound of flesh, we are not ourselves weighed on the scales and found wanting.
Shall we pray?
© Johannes W H van der Bijl 2023
No comments:
Post a Comment