THE CONDEMNED WOMAN
John 8:2-11
Readers of the King James Version, commonly called the Authorized, will see nothing unusual in the arrangement of the text in the Gospel according to John at this point of his account. Those reading from the Revised Version will observe that the paragraph, John 7:53, to John 8:11, is printed within brackets. That applies both to the English and American Revisions. Moreover, if the reader is using the Greek New Testament, Westcott and Hort's text, he will find the paragraph is omitted, but is put in at the end of the Gospel. If on the other hand, Nestle's text is used, the paragraph is in the place where it is found in the translations, but in brackets. I pause to refer to these facts because naturally young people reading will ask the meaning of them. That may immediately be stated by saying that the weight of external and internal evidence is considered by the most competent and devout scholars to be in favor of the view that this account did not form part of the Gospel as John wrote it, that it is an interpolation added, probably at a later time.
The questions may further be asked as to when and why it was inserted. The probability is that we have here an extra illustration in the life of Jesus from the pen of Papias. Of Papias, Eusebius says that he was a bishop in the first half of the second century, and that he collected traditions illustrative of "The Oracles of the Law." His intention was to throw further light upon the history contained in the Gospel narrative. It is therefore, more than probable that Papias committed to writing this account of oral tradition, and intended it to be an illustration of the statement found in John 8:15, in its spiritual values. What was a marginal reading, so far as Papias was concerned, was at some period embodied in the letter of the text. In that sense it is looked upon as an interpolation.
Nothing can be dogmatically asserted concerning it. If, however, this suggestion is correct, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the account, for doubtless many true accounts were not committed to writing, but transmitted orally; and the work of Papias was valuable in retaining them. In our consideration we shall proceed upon the assumption of its accuracy, and in doing that I feel that its authenticity is stamped upon its character, for there is no more beautiful account in the record of John than this.
Our first business, then, is to see the woman as she is presented to us here, and in this case, as constantly in such cases in the New Testament, her name is not given. Neither is the city to which she belonged named. It is evident that this took place in Jerusalem, and there she had been found guilty of sin, and had been arrested. Necessarily there is one thing to be said concerning her, which sounds almost ordinary, but which nevertheless must be remembered in considering this account, and all such stories. She was some mother's child.
As we look at her as she is presented here, we first of all find ourselves in revolt against the men who brought her, and the methods of their speech. In passing I may say their successors are not all extinct. They represent a class and an attitude whose only effect could be that of hardening sinners in their evil courses. On the other hand, as we read the account we are thankful that they are clearly seen, for they help us in what they said, to see the woman, and their action helps us to see our Lord as He dealt with her.
Now we realize first of all that the whole truth at the moment concerning the woman can be told by declaring that she was criminal, she was caught, and she was condemned. There is no question whatever about her criminality. The very offensive and almost indecent way in which these men told the account reveals that fact. Their account of the matter was not challenged. There was no question as to her crime. Then she had been caught, and at that time as now, in the eyes of men that is the utmost sin. We have no further details than this statement that she had been taken in the very act of sin. Consequently by the law of God as it had been enunciated to the people through Moses, she was condemned. So much the literal account reveals.
Then we come to the place where, with all these things in mind, if the imagination be quick, and the heart illuminated, we can see things that are not stated. It was early in the morning when they brought her into the Temple. Jesus had resumed there after retirement in the Mount of Olives through the night. There is sadness in the statement with which chapter seven ends and chapter eight beings: "They went every man unto his own house; but Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives."
From that place where He had spent the night, He came back to the Temple, and the people thronged round Him, and He taught them. It was then, while He was thus occupied, that these men brought this woman to Him. John is careful to tell us she was placed in the midst, that is, in the midst of the crowd. This would constitute a disturbance. While the people were listening to Jesus, something happened which broke in upon the crowd, and upon the teaching. A company of men, with a woman, disturbed the occasion, and found their way to the very midst of the crowd, and into the presence of Jesus. Necessarily there would be cessation in His teaching, while the people who had been attentive, became interested in what was happening.
Now with that quick imagination, to which I have referred, look at the woman as she comes in. Do not forget that she had been caught in the act of sin. There was no escape from the fact of her guilt, and these moral rulers have arrested her, and for purposes of their own, have brought her into the presence of Jesus. It is impossible to look at her without seeing that in the hands of those men, and under those conditions, her attitude was that of a woman hostile and defiant. The men in whose charge she was could do nothing to help moral dereliction. The finer possibilities of her womanhood were submerged under the influence of their hard, cold legalism. She was caught! Very well, then, let them do what they like. Under the circumstances she was callused. The question which arose at the time undoubtedly in the mind of the watchers, and which recurs as inevitably to us is, as to what Jesus will do or say under these circumstances. The woman before Him is criminal, caught, condemned, and for the moment callused.
As thus we wait and watch and wonder, we see the Lord doing an apparently strange thing. Without uttering any word, He stooped and bending over, He wrote with His finger upon the ground.
These men had brought this woman to Jesus, and had asked from Him what He had to say in view of Jewish law. According to that, her condemnation was that she should be stoned. Their question was concerned with His opinion on that matter. They were really attempting to place Him on the horns of a dilemma. The law according to Moses had definitely said that a woman guilty in that way was to be stoned to death. The Roman power had taken away from the Jewish people the right to inflict the death penalty. In passing we remind ourselves that that was why at last they went to Pilate concerning Jesus. When later on, in madness, they took Stephen and put him to death, they were breaking the Roman law. In view of all this it will be seen that if Jesus said that this woman must suffer the penalty Moses had commanded, they could charge Him with running counter to Roman law. If on the other hand, He said that such penalty was not to be executed, they might charge Him with lowering the standards of morality.
It was under these conditions that He first of all maintained a silence, and bending over, wrote with His finger on the ground. As once more imagination helps one, the woman can be seen watching this procedure, and in all probability there was some change coming over the look of callous defiance which had been there when they brought her.
These men, however, were determined to have an answer. They kept on asking the same question. Then He rose, and spoke to them. In doing so He compelled them to the more important matter of their act of bringing this woman; and its possible issue according to Mosaic Law. Standing between competing laws, the Roman and the Jewish, He referred neither to the one nor the other, but in the presence of them He enunciated an eternal principle. He did not contradict the Law of Moses. He did not suggest that tenderness of heart might be a reason for abrogating its requirements. He uttered this statement: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."
Now it is of vital importance that here we pause in order that we may accurately apprehend the thing that our Lord had done. The woman was before Him, standing, watching, and almost surely wondering. He did not discuss the Roman Law. He did not discuss the Mosaic Law. But He declared that there was only one condition upon which any should have the right to ultimate judgment and the infliction of punishment; and that condition was that of sinlessness. We need to remember that the word our Lord employed here was one which we translate by two. Our translation reads "He that is without sin." That phrase, "without sin" is one word in the Greek, and it is the only place in the New Testament where it occurs. It suggests far more than freedom from committing sin. It means freedom from sin in nature as well as in experience. These men who had brought this woman to Jesus were far more interested in trapping Him in some way than they were in catching her. To them then He said in effect, in answer to their question; If according to Moses this woman should die by stoning, then let the sinless among you first cast a stone. Thus, though He did not discuss the law, either the Mosaic or the Roman, He declared an eternal principle namely that sinlessness is the condition of exacting a penalty.
There was forever something in the very presence of Jesus, and in the way in which He spoke that brought men face to face with reality. By His enunciating of this principle these men were impaled.
We turn to look at the woman, and find her still there waiting, and almost surely wondering. If when He spoke of being sinless His application was intended only in the particular moral realm involved in the sin of the woman, then these men were called upon to face their own history and experience. In His enunciation of His own ethic He had said: "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery; but I say unto you, that everyone that looketh with desire hath committed adultery."
One can imagine the effect produced upon these men by such a judgment. Then at the risk perhaps of criticism I cannot help saying the fun began. If objection be taken to the statement, then it seems to me that those objecting, lack all humor. Personally I cannot follow this account without being filled with happiness. Suddenly I see a procession of men passing out of the Temple in single file. The account declares that they: "Went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last."
That may mean that they were still standing upon the dignity of precedence, granted to age. Personally I am inclined to think that the eldest went first because he had most sense. As they went, the Lord is seen once more bending over, and writing on the ground. There is an old legend that He wrote the name of some town, or some woman, and that these men seeing it, were brought face to face with His full and intimate knowledge, and therefore they hurried forth. Necessarily there is no proof of this, but it is at least a suggestive account. The one definite fact is that their exit was their own confession of unfitness to carry out the sentence upon this woman.
At this point the account definitely says: "And Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was in the midst."
This is a revealing way of saying that the crowd was still there, but that for all vital purposes, Jesus and this woman were alone. As we look at them we are conscious of an almost appalling contrast. He, absolute and incarnate Purity. She, confessed, incarnate impurity. He was the only One Who, according to His own principle, had the right to cast the first stone at her. These arresting men dared not do it. They had gone. He was sinless. We wait almost breathlessly for what will happen next.
He asked her two questions, I think in quick succession, for they are in their entirety, one. He said: "Woman, where are they? Did no man condemn thee?"
As we listen, the first word arrests us, "Woman." We find other occasions on record when our Lord used that word, but always in the accents of respect and tenderness. He used it to His Mother in Cana! He used it in addressing the woman of Samaria. He used it again to His Mother on the Cross. He used it to Mary on the resurrection morning. He used it now. By all the laws and opinions of men she had forfeited the right to that very name. We can think of all sorts of objectionable epithets that might have been applied to her. He used the word that invested her with beauty and dignity, in spite of the fact that He knew exactly her condition.
There was surely a touch of playful irony in His first question, "Woman, where are they?" He was drawing attention to the fact that she was alone with Him. He had excluded her accusers. Then in that loneliness He referred to these men who had gone, when He said, "Did no man condemn thee?"
Then there fell from the lips of the woman the only words she is recorded to have uttered. They had brought her in sullen silence. All these things had happened, and now in answer to His second question, she said, "No man, Lord." It is perfectly true that the word "Lord" might oftentimes be accurately rendered Sir. Here, I think, however, it may be taken with its fuller value. She realized at any rate that she was standing in the presence of One infinitely superior. It was then that He uttered His final words: "Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way; from hence-forth sin no more."
Two things were involved in these words of Jesus, and the second follows the first.
The first was, "Neither do I condemn thee." The word here rendered "condemn" is a very strong one not often found in the New Testament. Indeed, its only places in the Gospel narratives are when our Lord used it concerning the generation, when placing it in contrast with Nineveh, and the Queen of Sheba; when He was anticipating His own death, and when the sentence actually passed upon Him, was referred to. It is further used by New Testament writers to describe the penalty of unbelief in Him. The idea of the word includes the finding of a verdict, and the passing of a sentence.
The one absolutely certain thing is that in uttering this word, our Lord was not lowering the standard of moral requirement, or in any sense condoning sin. As an aside I am ever inclined, when I read this sentence, to put an emphasis upon the word "thee," "neither do I condemn thee." They had brought this woman to Jesus, and declared that she had been caught in the very act of sin. If this were true, then another was involved. Where was he? They had no right to bring her alone into the presence of Christ. I do not desire to over-emphasize that application, for it certainly is not a final one. Nevertheless it is a question that may very pertinently be asked today, when over and over again, the woman is condemned, and the man is dined.
But what He said meant infinitely more than that. It was the refusal of the sinless One to condemn the sinful one, and that can best be explained by quotation from the pen of an inspired apostle. In the letter to the Romans, Paul wrote: "There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 8:1)
If perhaps it should be objected that when our Lord spoke, the sacrificial work of the Cross was not accomplished, that view should be corrected by a recognition of the fact that in the mystery of the Godhead and its redeeming activity, the "Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world." I have not come, said Jesus, upon another occasion, to condemn the world, but that the world may live through Me. In that moment our Lord put Himself between that woman and her sin on the basis of that eternal fact: "No condemnation, Oh my soul, Tis God Who speaks the word."
But God never speaks that word idly. Behind the action of God and the speech of Jesus is all the mystery of His mission as finally manifested in His Cross.
Then followed the second word: "Go thy way; from henceforth sin no more."
He was indicating the fact that a new pathway was open before her, and again if we turn to the letter to the Romans we find the secret revealed. Not only was it true that there was no condemnation, it was equally true that there was a new empowerment, a new life, which was that of ability to overcome sin. We do not know anything about what subsequently happened to her on any documentary evidence. We cannot tell where she went when she left those Temple courts. This we do know that wherever she went, she went out a new woman, the resentment gone, and the defiance at an end; she passed forth to the future pardoned, cleansed, forgiven, empowered for the coming days.
The account is full of perpetual value. If some shall read it knowing themselves to be criminal, caught, and condemned, let them remember that they can be alone with Christ. He excludes all others from any right of interference. Such souls may receive His word of forgiveness, and receive His power for life.
Perhaps someone reads the account who is not caught, not condemned by the laws of man, who yet is criminal. Let such an one also stand in the presence of Christ, and facing the truth concerning his or her condition, yield to Him as Savior and Lord, and receive from Him the word of freedom and the word of power.
No comments:
Post a Comment