The Narrative of the woman caught in the act of adultery (Jno. 8:1-11) is often discussed amongst ourselves. Much of the discussion appears to centre around what Jesus actually wrote on the ground, and why he appeared not to have heard the accusation. It is sometimes argued that Jesus’s response indicates that he did not support the Law of Moses with respect to the stoning of adulterers. Why did Jesus say: “Neither do I condemn thee . . . ” (Jno. 8:11)?
On bringing the woman before Jesus the scribes and the Pharisees said: “Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned” (Jno. 8:5). It is clear that the incident was structured as an attempt to trap Jesus in his words. However, we should not assume that Jesus’s response was in any way an attempt to evade the trap. Jesus never avoided ‘trick’ questions. A careful consideration of the requirement of the law on this matter will provide a complete explanation for Jesus’s words to the woman.
The scribes and Pharisees did not present the “whole counsel of God” on the matter. In fact, though they would have known the law well, they left out certain vital details when they confronted Jesus with the woman.
There are three areas of the Old Testament that we should look at to fill in the whole picture of the requirements laid down by God in the Law of Moses:
- “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Lev. 20:10). In this passage it can be seen that both parties were to be killed. In the narrative in John only one party was present. And it could not be said that the adulterer could not be found, since the adulteress was taken “in the very act” (Jno. 8:4).
- “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die. . . and ye shall stone them with stones that they die” (Deut. 22:22-24). Again the requirement that both die is specified. In addition we are told how they were to die. In this matter the scribes and Pharisees were correct in their understanding of the law.
- “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death . . . The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people” (Deut. 17:6,7).
Here we are introduced to the requirement that the charge should be brought about by at least two witnesses. This may have been the case in John 8, though one cannot be sure, for there is never any appeal to the fact that the act was known to more than one. “This woman was taken in the very act” is all they can say. No-one actually says, “I (or we) caught this woman in the very act”. However, whilst we cannot be sure as to what was behind the statement made by the scribes and Pharisees, and therefore we do not know if the law was obeyed, we do know that “the hands of the witnesses” were not “first upon (her) to put (her) to death”. Either the witnesses were not present, or they were unwilling, themselves, to implement the requirement laid down by the Law of Moses.
From the above it can be seen that there were at least two irregularities in the whole issue. First, only one party was present. Second, the witnesses did not cast the first stone. We are not therefore dealing with a situation where Jesus chose to disregard the requirements of the Law of Moses. He could not respond in any other way than the way that he did. Let us consider his response.
First, he said: “He that is without sin. . . let him first cast a stone” (Jno. 8:7). The “sin” that was to be absent, I suggest, was that of deceit. Only the witnesses could be in such a position with respect to the law in the matter, for “This they said, tempting him” (Jno. 8:6). In this we see Jesus, rather than avoiding the application of the Law of Moses, upholding its precise application. Secondly, when the accusers had left the woman alone with Jesus he could not himself cast the first stone. He was not one of the witnesses. In such a situation he was prohibited by the law from casting a stone at the woman. It is important to realise that this would be the case even if Jesus, because of his ability to see what was in the heart of man, knew that she had committed adultery. The Law of Moses did not legislate for such justice. The law always required witnesses.
As we would say today, the case was ‘not proven’. The trap had blown up in the faces of his adversaries. Such will always be the case with those who pervert the Word of God. In the circumstances Jesus’s response, “Go. . . “, was all that he could say according to the Law of Moses. However, there is another important aspect of the situation. She was standing before one who could tell all that she ever did (see Jno. 4:29). He was able to see the situation fully. He knew that she had committed adultery, and he knew also that the scribes and Pharisees had attempted to set a trap for him.
Jesus turned the situation to the advantage of the woman, if only she would respond. His judgement implied that he was aware of her sins when he said, “sin no more” (Jno. 8:11). He had not used the Law of Moses to condemn her; he could not, for the reasons outlined above. Neither did he use his own discernment—which never erred—to condemn her, even though he could have if he had wished. He showed mercy, and this she could not obtain through the Law of Moses; for He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses” (Heb. 10:28). It was Jesus, “full of grace and truth” (Jno. 1:14), who was able to lift the woman up. There was a precedent under the Law of Moses. David had committed adultery with Bathsheba. God was witness to that, and yet He forgave David because of his faith in him who was to come.
The scribes and Pharisees lacked the faith of David and thus were still under the “schoolmaster”, but because they did not listen carefully to the law it condemned them. However, Jesus, who knew the law perfectly, could uphold the law, and yet at the same time manifest the graciousness of God.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One