Christ & the Woman Caught in Adultery: A Jewish Perspective Part 2

Now I'll freely admit the idea that Christ wrote the laws that had been broken along with the accusers' names to show that it was them who were breaking the law is virtually unimpeachable. And if that was as far as this theory went, it would indeed be on solid scriptural ground. As we'll see, however, this is a great example of what happens when commentators, theologians, and Bible teachers go beyond what's written and take unwarranted liberties with the text. Welcome to Call to Glory, the cutting edge weekly podcast dedicated to helping you know Christ, the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings. If this is your first time tuning in, please be sure to like, share, comment, and subscribe. In this episode, we're going to pick up where we left off on our study of John's well-known account of Christ and a woman caught in adultery. In doing so, we'll begin looking at some of the popular interpretations of this passage that have permeated Christian teaching and tradition for centuries. Among these we'll examine what theologians, commentators, and Bible teachers such as Augustine, Jerome, Calvin, and John Wesley have said about what Christ wrote on the ground, why he did so, why he wrote with his finger, why he stooped down to write on the ground, why he acted as though he didn't hear what her accusers were saying, whether he actually saved this woman from being stoned, whether he actually forgave her, what he meant when he said, He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone, and why her accusers all turned and left when he said this. With that in mind, let's turn back to John's account, starting in verse two. Now early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery, and when they had set her in the midst, they said to him, Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us that such should be stoned, but what do you say? This they said, testing him, that they might have something of which to accuse him. I'd now like to point out a couple of important details that are often missed or overlooked by theologians, commentators, and Bible teachers. First, some have questioned whether this woman was in fact guilty of adultery. Well, there's really no need to speculate, as John's account is crystal clear. It's right there in verse 3. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to him a woman caught in adultery. Another popular misconception is that Christ saved this woman from being stoned by what's often characterized as a frenzied vigilante mom. As we'll see, that's actually the Christian equivalent of an urban myth. It's just not true. And truth be told, it's not the only one, not by a long shot. So let's compare this with what the Bible actually says. First, this woman was not in any imminent danger of being stoned. I don't know when or how it actually started, but I can say that virtually every film version I've ever seen of this story depicts a frenzied mob of men with stones in their hands, expectantly waiting for Jesus to condemn her. When this doesn't happen as they expected, we then see them one by one dejectedly throwing the stones to the ground or just letting them fall from their hands as they leave. One notable example of this is the classic film Jesus of Nazareth. Another is the otherwise superb Gospel of John. Now I'll be the first to admit this does make for great filmmaking. I mean, it's got everything. Drama, danger, courage, suspense, deliverance, protagonist, antagonists, redemption, a hero, and of course, a happy ending, and the added element of imminent mortal danger most certainly adds extra emotional power to the mix. There is, however, one small problem. You won't find this anywhere in John's account. It's not there. Moreover, it cannot honestly be read into his account, so how in the world did this embellishment get added to John's gospel? I can't really say for sure, however, as best as I can tell, Luke's account of the frenzied mob that stoned Stephen in Acts seven has somehow been superimposed and read into John's account. Between the lines, if you will. Whatever their motives or intentions, irresponsible theologians, filmmakers, and Bible teachers have added it to what God has said, and in doing so, they've effectively altered the Word of God. Small detail? Perhaps or perhaps not. I for one will go on the record to say it is neither a small nor inconsequential detail. Either way, it is a very slippery slope. Judge for yourself whether it's ever right in God's eyes to add to or take away from his word. The theological term for this is isegesis, as opposed to exegesis, which is the academic discipline of drawing the meaning out of a text based upon its original context, co-text, and language. Isegesis means to read or impose one's own interpretations, ideas, or biases into the text, otherwise stated. Exegesis seeks to understand what the author actually intended to say, whereas isegesis brings the reader's own ideas, biases, and preconceptions into the text to support his or her own personal, doctrinal, or theological viewpoint. Big difference. A little addition here, a tiny omission there, a little more emphasis on this, a bit less on that, a slight nuance here, another one there. Little by little, the truth becomes blurred and obscured by this theological sleight of hand, the spiritual equivalent of death by a thousand cuts. The fact of the matter is, taking liberties with God's word, even supposedly small details like this, never lead you toward the truth, but rather toward a counterfeit false light, which is, in fact, darkness. As the apostle Paul warned, a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. We would also do well to remember Christ's warning. The lamp of the body is the eye. Therefore, when your eye is good, your whole body also is full of light. But when your eye is bad, your body also is full of darkness. Therefore, take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness. So whether you call it artistic license, prophetic inspiration, creative freedom, or whatever, the fact is leaders and teachers who add to or take away from the scriptures like this will be without excuse before God. Same for those who perpetuate or endorse such things. For that matter, you and I will also be without excuse if we're deceived or led astray as a result of uncritically accepting or embracing them. You see, in God's eyes, this is a very serious matter with eternal consequences. He has emphatically warned us against adding to or taking away from His Word. He has not only given us the scriptures as a safeguard, but is also commanded, not asked or suggested, but commanded us to test these things, as well as the spirits behind them, to see whether they are or are not from God. Again, judge for yourself. Another point to keep in mind is what we see in John's account was not an actual trial or formal legal proceeding. No one present had any authority under the law to condemn this woman. That rested solely with the Sanhedrin. In an actual trial, an accusing or prosecuting witness stated the offense in the presence of the accused, after which the accused could call witnesses on his or her own behalf. The court would then question the accused, the accusers, and other witnesses before rendering a judgment. So even if Christ had then and there condemned this woman, that would have had no official bearing or weight on whether or not she would have been stoned. And as John's account makes perfectly clear, her accusers were not interested in justice. They simply wanted to publicly trap him into breaking either Jewish or Roman law. That's just one of many erroneous assumptions and interpretations that have somehow managed to become part of the story. Let's look at a few more. Since the three judicial courts of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem were located on the temple grounds, other commentators have suggested that this was planned or staged to happen before bringing her before the Sanhedrin for trial. There is, however, one major problem with this view. Where was the man? And why wasn't he also being accused? Remember, in cases of adultery, Leviticus twenty ten required both the man and the woman to be put to death. While her accusers claimed that she had been caught in the very act, we're not given any other details. We're not told how they knew about the affair, whether they personally knew either the man or the woman, whether the man was actually there, or why he had not been brought and accused together with this woman. We also don't know if the woman was single or married. However, since her accusers claimed that she had been caught in the very act, they certainly must have also seen the man. Well we can't say for sure, it's highly likely they even knew him. I mean, a little sanctified common sense goes a long way here, so the question then becomes why didn't they bring him to? Even if he was, let's say, a really fast runner or was somehow able to lew them, that in no way excused these men from bringing and accusing only her. Everything about this was wrong, and it would have been clear to everyone present, most especially Christ, that there was much more to the story that met the eye. All the more so since to accuse only the woman before the Sanhedrin would have exposed these men as false or malicious witnesses, and as we saw in our last episode, in that case, the very thing they sought to have done to her would have instead fallen on them. Remember, these were scribes and Pharisees, men who knew the law of Moses inside and out. So let's get real. Under these circumstances, there was just no way they were going to take this matter before the Sanhedrin. On the contrary, John specifically said they did this in order to test Jesus. The most likely scenario is this woman was simply being used as a pawn in an attempt to publicly trap him into having to choose between the law of Moses or Roman law, and this was nothing new, as the gospel accounts record numerous other attempts by the Jewish religious leaders to trap him. One example being when the chief priests and scribes sent spies to ask him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. You see, if they could get him to speak against the law of Moses, he could be charged before the Sanhedrin with blasphemy. Moreover, if it could be shown that he spoke and taught contrary to the law, it would discredit his claim to be the promised Messiah. On the other hand, if he said the woman should be stoned, they could accuse him of both breaking the law of Moses and possibly even sedition before the Roman authorities. Either way, it's reasonably certain their goal was to eliminate the threat he posed to their position and authority. Let's continue with John's account. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with his finger, as though he did not hear. Now this is truly majestic. Do you see how Christ masterfully rose above and took control of the scene playing out before him? It was a powerful and unmistakable statement that he would in no way be a party to evil. As powerful as that is, however, the real majesty here is how Christ perfectly fulfilled his Father's commandment in Exodus twenty three two, thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil. And mind you, this wasn't the Jewish law. It was and still is the eternal law of God, the same law of which Christ said, Do not think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill. And here, just as he did throughout his entire life in ministry, Christ perfectly fulfilled both the law and the prophets. This is the true Jesus of Nazareth, the prophet greater than Moses, who came not to destroy, but to fulfill the law and the prophets. Looking at everything he said and did with this perspective, not just in this account, but throughout the entire New Testament, will help keep us correctly oriented. John Calvin expressed a similar thought when he wrote that Christ ignored them because they were unworthy of being heard. Well, I'm not at all a fan of Calvin or his theology. He actually said this quite well, at least on a purely moral level. However, he then turned right around and said what Christ wrote on the ground is for that very reason unimportant. Well, he couldn't have been more wrong. Think about it. It is utterly inconceivable that anyone who truly knows and loves Christ would dismiss anything he said or did as unimportant. If you truly understand that Christ is the Logos or Word of God made flesh, you will realize that every single word he spoke and every single thing he did came directly from God Almighty. You'll appreciate and treasure every word spoken by him as infinitely precious and full of eternal life. And similarly, you'll appreciate and treasure everything he did as the perfect expression of the invisible God of Israel. Our attitude should be the same as Peter's when Christ asked if they wanted to leave with the other disciples who were offended and what he had said. In Peter's words, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. Also we have come to believe and know that you are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And as Moses told the people of Israel and affirmed by Christ himself, man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God. Of course, many commentators have also long speculated as to what Christ wrote, why he wrote with his finger, and why he stooped down to write on the ground. A comprehensive survey of these theories is well beyond the scope of this podcast. Some are indeed well reasoned and quite plausible, while others rival the Jewish stages in their use of allegory and fanciful interpretations, and still others are unbelievably sophomoric and shallow, like the ridiculous idea that Christ was merely writing on the ground to buy time while he gathered his thoughts. Judge for yourself. On the other hand, some commentators and teachers have confidently asserted that they do in fact know what he was writing on the ground. Well that's quite a remarkable claim. The simple fact, however, is no one knows for sure what he wrote because the scripture just doesn't say. Now many of these theories do in fact have a degree of truth and insight, some remarkably so. For all the insight and truth these varied views convey, however, the correct interpretation and understanding of this passage must not only be true to the context, but must also not violate any fundamental aspects of the scripture, and ultimately it must point us to the true Jesus of Nazareth as the logos or word of God. So with that in mind, let's look at a few. One fairly common theory is that Christ was writing with his finger just as God had done at Mount Sinai. It's hard to argue with that. The symbolism and imagery are not only genuinely inspired but utterly true to the testimony of Scripture. A related view is that by writing on the ground with his finger, Christ was claiming that he was the actual writer of the law. This finds further support in the fact that he wrote a second time, which unmistakably hearkened back to God's writing the second set of tablets after Moses had broken the first. This again is genuinely inspired and true to the testimony of Scripture. That theory later developed into the idea that Christ did this to show that he had the authority to issue two new commandments. Now there certainly is an element of truth in this, but we should proceed with great caution. The scriptural injunction not to go beyond what is written most certainly applies here, but one thing is or should be clear. Any new commandments that are claimed to have been given by Christ, or for that matter, by the apostles, must be true to the law of God and to the testimony of Scripture. So looking through the New Testament, we see that Christ did in fact give a new commandment in John 13, 34. Not only that, in the Sermon on the Mount, he greatly expanded the law from its written form back to its original scope and intent. This is one major aspect of what Christ meant when he said that he came to fulfill the law and the prophets. In the same way, the apostles and New Testament writers fulfilled and restored the law to its original scope and intent. Now notice I did not say they abolished it or claimed it had been done away with. Far from it. The book of Acts, the Epistles, and Revelation are in fact full of commandments. There are in fact at least twice as many commandments in the New Testament as there are in the law of Moses, and they are infinitely more searching and demanding than anything we see in the law of Moses. And mind you, these are not suggestions or recommendations. They are commandments of God given under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and by the authority they received from Christ Himself. This is what the New Testament calls the law of Christ. It is the new covenant in the blood of Jesus, God's law written on our minds and in our hearts. Make no mistake. It is these commandments to which Christ referred when he said, If you love me, keep my commandments. He who has my commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves me, and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him. If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me. Speaking of the law, Augustine further opined that since the law had been written on stone for the Israelites' hard hearts, Christ wrote on the ground because God was looking for fruit. Somewhat fanciful, but not bad. Either way, I have to ask, where exactly do you go with that? I mean, it sounds good until you start looking for the actual substance and realize there just isn't any. Now another early church father, Jerome, like many others after him, said it was to fulfill the prophecy of Jeremiah seventeen, thirteen. Now this merits a closer look, so please turn with me to Jeremiah chapter seventeen. Lord, you are the hope of Israel. All who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring, the living water. This is one of the most common theories. Hand in hand with this is the idea that Christ knew the names of the woman's accusers and was writing them on the ground. Now this too is certainly plausible, as the symbolism and imagery again fit. Some commentators, however, have stretched this into fanciful interpretations with no reasonable connection to either Jeremiah's prophecy or the law of Moses, and again, the scriptural commandment not to go beyond what is written most certainly applies. Now one example of these theological gymnastics goes as follows Since Jeremiah 17, 13 is a prophecy of what the Messiah will do to the wicked when he comes, some commentators have speculated that Christ incorporated the Levitical procedure for investigating suspected adultery to fulfill that prophecy right then and there. According to this theory, whenever someone was caught in adultery, both the man and the woman will be brought to the Nakanorgate at the temple and accused. If witnesses could be gathered to confirm that adultery had indeed been committed, then there was a certain ceremony involving bitter waters that would be done in order to bring judgment upon the woman. As the story goes, Christ followed the priest's example by stooping down to write the law that had been broken, along with the names of the woman's accusers in the dust of the floor of the temple. And in doing so, he showed them that it was they who were breaking the law. And as the story goes, rather than repent of their sin, these men rejected Christ and in turn had their names written in the dust. Sounds plausible, doesn't it? Especially coming from a seminary trained pastor, theologian, or some respected Bible teacher. What do you think? Now I'll freely admit the idea that Christ wrote the laws that had been broken along with the accusers' names to show that it was them who were breaking the law is virtually unimpeachable. And if that was as far as this theory went, it would indeed be on solid scriptural ground. As we'll see, however, this is a great example of what happens when commentators, theologians, and Bible teachers go beyond what's written and take unwarranted liberties with the text. And it's also an excellent example of how God's people can be led astray by trusted pastors and leaders if They do not have the scriptural knowledge, spiritual maturity, courage, and integrity to rigorously test their teaching and doctrine. So let's examine this very carefully, and as always, let God be true and every man a liar. First and foremost, this procedure known as the Soto ritual or law of jealousy, only applied when a man suspected his wife of adultery, but there were no eyewitnesses to the actual act. Let's take a look at Numbers chapter five. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, Speak to the people of Israel, if any man's wife goes astray and breaks faith with him, if a man lies with her sexually, and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband, and she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not taken in the act. Notice what it says in verse thirteen. And she is undetected though she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her since she was not taken in the act. This is the exact opposite scenario from John's account. Remember, the woman's accusers clearly stated that she had been caught in the very act of adultery. That one little detail alone changes everything. Not only that, we don't even know if she was married, and even if she was, there's no mention of her husband anywhere in John's account. Moreover, there's no clear evidence that her accusers rejected Christ, much less that any of them actually had their names written in the dust. On the contrary, John's account clearly states that they all turned and left because their consciences were convicted by what Christ said, and truth be told, that's actually more than we can say for many professing believers. And so once again we see examples of teachers and commentators reading things into the biblical text that were never there. Do you see how easy it is to be deceived, not only by wolves and shepherds' clothing, but even by well meaning but poorly trained preachers and Bible teachers? Especially when the lie or error is packaged with a lot of truth? Remember, it only takes one drop of arsenic in a glass of water to kill you, and as the apostle Paul warned, not once but twice, a little leaven leavens the whole lump. Do you also see how careful you and I have to be in order to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and others from being led astray by false teachers, prophets, apostles, and spirits? As it is written, my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Now after the Reformation, theologians continue to apply not only about what Christ wrote on the ground, but why. John Wesley, for example, said that Christ's silent action was done to awaken their consciences and show that he did not come to condemn, but to save the world. Well, that is, of course, true, but only partly so. Others say he wrote the names of her accusers, and they were so amazed that they dropped the charges against her and left under great conviction. Theoretically, I suppose that is possible. Somewhat fanciful, but again, the admonition not to go beyond what's written still applies. And speaking of going beyond what's written, yet another common theory is that as lawgiver and the one who would receive the penalty of her sins, Christ had every right to extend grace and mercy. Well that is, of course, true, at least in principle, but never in violation of his father's law. Perhaps we should reevaluate these ideas in light of the New Testament warning that anyone who has rejected Moses' law dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. That, my friends, is not the Old Testament, it's the New Testament, it's the Word of God, and it cannot be broken. It's also been said that Christ wrote in the dust because it's not permanent and could be rubbed out because that's what he did on the cross. Well, I suppose there's some truth somewhere in that. However, it's really more air than substance. I mean, what exactly does that mean? And where do you go with it? Yet another commentator said that Christ knelt down because he wanted to support the woman in her distress. Well that's a really touching picture, isn't it? Only problem is the scripture does not say or even suggest anything of the sort. All it says is that he knelt down and wrote on the ground as if he did not hear her accusers. That's it. Anything more is pure speculation. Others teach that he was showing the grace of God to women in a patriarchal society by treating them with dignity. Again, that's a beautiful picture, and I certainly wouldn't take issue with it, at least in principle. It's certainly consistent with Christ's heart and character. Be that as it may, however, we again have to resist the temptation to read our own ideas into this, as there is nothing of the sort in John's account. There is, however, a much simpler, straightforward and common sense explanation as to why he knelt down, and it's right there in the text. No theological gymnastics required. Specifically the simple fact that he had to kneel or stoop down in order to write on the ground. Judge for yourself. And then someone else has suggested that Christ wants us to bring him our shame so that he can forgive us, while yet others have opined that Christ simply wrote forgiven. Let the prophets judge, or better yet, you judge. And it goes on and on and on. My reason for pointing these things out isn't to start an academic debate or dazzle you with theological and historical trivia, not at all. My intent rather is to show how easy it is to be deceived by smooth talking religious leaders if we aren't solidly grounded not only in the scriptures, but in Christ Himself, all the more so if there's anything in our heart that would lead us to view Christ through the lens of our own cultural sensibilities and personal biases rather than what the Word of God actually says. That is our only true safeguard against deception and error. It's the only way you or I will be able to understand the holiness, power, and majesty of what Christ did in this remarkable passage, and it is the only way we will be able to see and know him as he truly is. In our next episode, we'll pick up where we left off in John's account and conclude this series with a deep dive into why Christ said, He who was without sin, let him cast the first stone. Why the woman's accusers all left when he said this, whether he really meant it as an absolute prohibition against judging another's conduct, words, deeds, or character, and whether, as so many Christian theologians, commentators, and Bible teachers so confidently affirm he forgave this woman because we're no longer under law, but under grace. And as we'll see, the true biblical understanding and interpretation of this most misunderstood passage is far more glorious, majestic, and powerful than any of the cheap counterfeits that have permeated Christian teaching, culture, and ministry for centuries. As it is written, what shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not. How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we were buried with him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Likewise you also reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. If this is your first time tuning in, please be sure to like, share, comment, subscribe, and ring the bell so you can be notified whenever we post new episodes. If you like what you've heard today, please also leave a review wherever you're listening to this podcast. Tell us what you loved about this episode, how it may have helped or encouraged you, or you can simply leave a comment about any other topics you'd love to hear us cover in the future. Finally, remember to always keep your lamps trimmed, lit, and full of oil. Shalom and see you next time.