Christ & the Woman Caught in Adultery: A Jewish Perspective Part 3

What a master stroke. Forget all the religious and sanctimonious mush you've heard about this. It plays on our emotions and compassion, and in doing so very effectively deceives the unwary with the false image of Christ and a cheap counterfeit of the true gospel of grace. Do you see it? Christ took the very law her accusers were trying to use against him and turned the tables on them. That alone is worth the price of admission, but it gets better still. Much, much better. 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 third and final episode in our series on Christ and the woman caught in adultery, we'll pick up where we left off in John's account before concluding with a deep dive into why Christ said, He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone. Why your accusers all left when he said this, whether he really meant it as a 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. With that said, let's turn back to John's account. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. Many interpreters and Bible teachers view Christ's statement, Whoever is without sin, let him throw the first stone as meaning that because all have sinned, it is hypocritical and wrong for a Christian to judge another believer. By this reasoning, only one who is sinless has the right or authority to judge another's conduct, words, deeds, or character, especially if he or she is a Christian. The logical conclusion, of course, being that we should never presume to judge another believer, and of course, a superficial reading of this passage certainly does seem to support that conclusion. In fact, this has pretty much become gospel truth in Christian culture and ministry. How many times have you seen or heard a Christian, when confronted with some sin or questionable behavior, defiantly retort, who are you to judge me? Or the classic judge not that you not be judged. The implication, of course, being only God can judge another believer, and according to this reasoning, should anyone presume to judge our works, conduct, or character as Christians, we can defiantly point to this passage and say, Whoever is without sin, let him throw the first stone. What an effective tactic to silence and even shame anyone in the church who would dare judge us. I mean, it's right up there with touch not mine anointed. After all, isn't that exactly what Christ told the scribes and Pharisees? Wasn't he telling them that sinners have no right to judge anyone else? Isn't that the point of the whole story? And wasn't it Christ himself who also said judge not that you be not judged? Yes, he did. And didn't both Paul and James say something similar? Yes. They sure did. But did Christ really mean we shouldn't judge the conduct, character, and works of those who profess to be saved bloodbought disciples? What about those who profess to be leaders, teachers, shepherds, apostles, and prophets, or those to whom we entrust our young children at church? Does this sound right to you? Do you really think that's the result he, Paul, and James intended? Well there's actually no need to guess or speculate, as we don't have to look any further than the scriptures for the answer. You see, if the popular interpretation of Christ's statement, let him who is without sin cast the first stone is correct, i. e. that no one should judge his or her fellow believers since all have sinned, well that would mean Christ stood in opposition to the law of Moses, the very same law of which he himself said, Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish them, but to fulfill them. And as if this weren't bad enough, Christian teachers and commentators have long taught that by not condemning this clearly guilty adulteress, Christ was unilaterally overriding or invalidating the law of Moses. Again, this is the very law he said that he came to fulfill, not destroy, as if he would ever go against his father's own law. Such teachings reveal a fundamental misunderstanding not only of the law, but of Christ Himself and why he came. For centuries, this error has seduced and deceived multitudes of professing Christians into accepting, or at least tolerating, doctrines of devils in their churches, fellowships, and homes, which inevitably leads to another gospel, another spirit, another Jesus. It's precisely this kind of interpretation that has led churches and fellowships to allow hirelings, ravenous wolves, false teachers, prophets, apostles, shepherds, and brethren into the fold, all in the name of a false unity, a soulish counterfeit love, and under the mistaken idea that we should never judge the teachings, doctrine, and spirits of leaders, teachers, elders, and those claiming to be prophets and apostles. Not to mention, God forbid, another believer's actions, words, and character. And it's precisely this same doctrine of devils that has deceived churches, fellowships, seminaries, ministries, and denominations into tolerating and even embracing these enemies of Christ as true brothers and sisters in the Lord, all in direct and flagrant contradiction to the many warnings and commandments in the New Testament to test and yes, judge the deeds, character, and fruit of those who profess to be our brothers and sisters in the Lord? Where do you think that came from? Who do you think has a vested interest in seducing the people of God to let our guard down and open the gates to all manner of false teachers and doctrines? Well you can be sure it's neither the Father, Christ, nor the Holy Spirit. Again, does this sound right to you? Do you really think that's the result Christ intended? So let's re examine this passage in the light of what the scriptures, not church traditions, some commentator or Bible teacher, actually say, and remember, the correct interpretation must not set Christ over and against the very law he came to fulfill. That's the very essence of lawlessness, which Christ Himself calls wickedness or iniquity. So that said, let's now turn back to John's account. So when they continued asking him, he raised himself up and said to them, He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first. As some versions go further, for example, the New Living Translation reads as follows. They kept demanding an answer, so he stood up again and said, All right, but let the one who has never sinned throw the first stone. Sure sounds like Christ set those sinners straight, doesn't it? But where did he get that? What exactly did he mean, and by what authority was he speaking? For that matter is the New Living Translation even a correct rendering of this passage? Have you ever considered this? You see, everything, and I do mean everything, Christ said and did has its foundation in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms that he came to fulfill. Whether he was quoting from Deuteronomy when tempted by Satan, the prophet Isaiah to publicly announce his ministry, the book of Exodus to teach the full meaning and scope of adultery, or quoting Psalm 22 as he hung on the cross, the scriptures are clear Christ never spoke on his own authority. On the contrary, he only spoke what he heard from his father. The same God of the Old Testament, mind you, who requires the shedding of blood to appease his wrath and forgive sin. The same God who gave the law to Israel, the same God who commanded the Israelites to annihilate his enemies, not just men, but women, children, and animals too. The same God who struck down over fifteen thousand Israelites in one day when they rebelled against Moses and Aaron. The same God who struck down 70,000 men when David sinned by taking a census of Israel, the same God of Israel who does not change, the God who is love, and yes, the same God who so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. In Christ's own words, He who rejects me and does not receive my words has that which judges him. The word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me gave me a command, what I should say and what I should speak, and I know that his command is everlasting life. Therefore, whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak. It's no different here. So turning back to our passage, did Christ really mean, as the New Living Translation, and so many teachers and commentators would have us believe that only a person who had never sinned could judge or throw a stone at this woman? Let's see what the law says. First of all, nowhere in the law of Moses was there a requirement that judges be without sin. You won't find it. That of course would be an impossible standard for anyone to meet as all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. On the contrary, the law gave them not only the authority but the responsibility to sit in judgment over their fellow Israelites. Neither was there any requirement that witnesses in a capital case be without sin, at least in the general sense that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. On the contrary, the law not only required them to testify against the accused, but also to be the first to take part in the execution in the case of capital crimes, such as adultery. Moses, for example, wasn't sinless, yet he sat as judge over Israel's disputes, and when his father in law Jethro saw it was too much for him to handle alone, he advised him to appoint judges to help carry the burden. His counsel to Moses is one of the quintessential examples of God's standard for those who would judge his people. Let's look at Exodus chapter 18. Moreover, you shall select from all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness, and place such over them to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens, and let them judge the people at all times. Then it will be that every great matter they shall bring to you, but every small matter they themselves shall judge. So it will be easier for you, for they will bear the burden with you. If you do this thing, and God so commands you, then you will be able to endure, and all this people will also go to their place in peace. So Moses heeded the voice of his father in law and did all that he had said. And Moses chose able men out of all Israel, and made them heads over the people, rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens. So they judged the people at all times. The hard cases they brought to Moses, but they judged every small case themselves. Obviously none of these men were perfect, yet they were responsible for making civil, religious, and criminal judgments among their Jewish brethren. Moreover, God Himself later commanded the Israelites to appoint judges to preside over civil disputes and criminal cases that arose among them. Let's look again at Deuteronomy chapter sixteen. You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns that the Lord your God is giving you according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. The Hebrew scriptures are in fact full of examples of men and women who sat as judges over the people of Israel. Some were of noble character and others less so. Let's look, for example, at Deborah. Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. What about Samson? While he is perhaps most famous for his disastrous affair with Delilah, did you know he was also a judge? Even with his many character flaws, he judged Israel for twenty years, and lest anyone be tempted to dismiss these as irrelevant relics of the Old Testament, which, by the way, is a very bad idea. Let's turn to the New Testament and look at 1 Corinthians chapter 5. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people, not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral or the greedy and swindlers or idolaters. In that case, you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. Expel the wicked person from among you. Notice what Paul said. Are you not to judge those inside? It should be clear from this alone that God does expect us to judge the works, deeds, and character of those who profess to be our brothers and sisters. Now Paul, of course, wrote this as a sharp rebuke to the Corinthian Church for not only tolerating one of its members sleeping with his father's wife, but boasting about how loving, gracious, tolerant, and inclusive they were in doing so, and it applies as much to us now as it as it did then. So the idea that Christ doesn't want us judging the deeds and character of other believers is hereby exposed for the unscriptural and devilish false doctrine it is. But Paul didn't stop there. Let's continue into chapter six. Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous and taught before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? Do you see how Paul also expected there would be at least a handful of saints at Corinth who were wise and mature enough to judge disputes within the church? And how disappointed he was that there wasn't even one such person there? And moreover, what a reproach it was, and still is, upon the name of Christ, that they instead took their civil disputes to secular courts. This is really no different from what God commanded under the law of Moses, and really, why should that surprise anyone? The scriptures are clear that God does not change, and further, that Jesus Christ, who is the very image of the invisible God, is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Now someone will no doubt point to Christ's reference to the law in our own eye as an absolute prohibition against judging or criticizing another believer. The point being, once again, that we have no moral right or authority to judge or criticize another believer. I mean, didn't Christ even go so far as to call those who do so a hypocrite? Did he? Well, let's look at what he actually said. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. Two things should be immediately clear. First, we should not judge or criticize another believer if we haven't dealt with our own shortcomings. Christ clearly calls that hypocrisy. No two ways around it. However, he didn't stop there. Instead, he went on to say, Take the log out of your own eye before presuming to address the speck in your brother's eye. In other words, we should honestly and humbly deal with our own faults and shortcomings first. Then and only then will we be truly be able to help our brother and sister see their own faults or shortcomings. That's not a prohibition against judging or criticizing another believer. Not at all. On the contrary, it's clear that Christ expects us as brother and sisters to speak the truth in love to one another. Not as religious hypocrites, but as those walking in the light with humility, grace, and righteous judgment. This is exactly what Paul meant when he wrote, speaking the truth in love, that we may grow up in all things into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love. Moreover, if Christ really meant that we should not judge another believer, what are we to do with all of the other New Testament scriptures that teach otherwise? Passages such as Romans 16 17 through 18, 1 Corinthians 7 39, 2 Corinthians 11 1 through 4, Galatians 1 6 9, 2 Timothy 3 1 through 5, Titus 1 5 through 16, 2 Peter 2, verses 1 through 3, Jude 1 22 to 23, 1 John 4 verses 1 through 6, and 2 John 1 9 through 11. Remember, every one of these passages is addressed not to the world, but to the saints. They were all written by the apostles under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit and with the full authority of Christ Himself, and they all command us to judge not only the spirits, but the teaching, doctrine, character, and works of those who profess to know and love Christ, whether leaders, apostles, prophets, teachers, or the person sitting next to you and me. So let's put the false idea that it's hypocritical and wrong for a Christian to judge another believer's conduct, words, deeds, or character to rest once and for all, or that we should never confront a professing believer walking in open or even hidden sin. That is the spirit of Antichrist, and it is not what Christ meant or intended. So does this mean we're supposed to go around sticking our noses in everyone else's business? Of course not. But neither are we free to look the other way and turn a blind eye to sin and rebellion in the camp. Don't let any smoot talking preacher deceive you. God will never, ever condone lawlessness and wickedness among his people. He didn't under the law of Moses, and that has not changed under the new covenant. On the contrary, God has commanded us to not only judge but separate ourselves from those who claim to be believers, but live like devils. We are all responsible for God to help preserve the integrity and purity of his body, not only for his name's sake, but also for our own protection and well being. So then, what did Christ mean when he told the woman's accusers, He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone of her first? The answer lies on what happened next. And again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest, even to the last. We've already looked at some of the more prevalent theories as to what Christ wrote on the ground the first time. What about the second time? Again, we just don't know, and no one can say for sure. That said, the theory that he wrote the prophecy of Jeremiah seventeen thirteen along with the names of the woman's accusers is certainly plausible. The imagery is powerful, graphic, and unmistakable. As powerful as this would have been, however, there is an even more likely explanation. It's nothing mysterious, no cryptic or hidden meaning, and it most certainly does not involve Christ breaking or somehow superseding the law he came to fulfill. On the contrary, the most likely and biblically sound interpretation is that he simply wrote the exact commandments they had broken, at a minimum. That would have been the laws against perverting justice, giving false testimony, and falling the crowd to do evil. Unmistakable, straight to the point, and sharper than any two edged sword. Add to that the unmistakable imagery of writing the law on the ground with this finger. How much more powerful could this have been? The impact on their consciences would have been comparable to a fifty megaton nuclear bomb, though there's yet another possibility. In addition to writing the specific commandments they had broken, it is very likely, as many believe that Christ also wrote the prophecy of Jeremiah seventeen thirteen, maybe even their names as well. That certainly would have been a powerful and fearsome coup de gra. Again, no one can say for sure, however, there is one thing we can say with absolute certainty. Whatever it was that he wrote, there was a clear and unmistakable connection between those words, the fact he wrote them on the ground with his finger, the law of Moses, his statement, he who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone, and the fact that they were as a result so powerfully convicted by their consciences that they all turned around and left. This is the key to properly understanding this passage. Let me explain. We must not read Christ's statement, He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone in a theological vacuum. It has to be read and understood in the context of everything the scriptures say about him, not just the New Testament, the entire Bible from Genesis to Revelation. Then and only then can we see his statement for what it truly was. The living and powerful word of God, sharper than any double edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. And at that moment in time it was a powerful and unforgettable demonstration of how Christ perfectly fulfilled both the law and the prophets. How? First, it deeply and powerfully convicted the woman's accusers of their own sin, not in the general sense that all have sinned, but rather how they had each sinned against God, Christ, Israel, and the woman in this matter. Specific, clear, and articulable violations right then and there of the law of Moses. At a minimum, we're talking about perversion of justice, false testimony, and running after a crowd to do evil. And as we saw earlier, under the law, the consequence for doing this would have been the very thing they were seeking to have done to this woman, death by stoning. The result? One by one they all left until there was no one left to accuse her. With that in mind, let's look again at what happened next. And Jesus was left alone and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised himself up and saw no one but the woman, he said to her, Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you? She said, No one, Lord. Make no mistake about it, those men did not leave because Christ ipso facto changed or overruled his father's law regarding adultery, nor was it because he disqualified them as prosecuting witnesses or executioners. If that were the case, he would have been a lawbreaker, the very antithesis of who he is and why he came. Do not let any smooth talking preacher or Bible teacher deceive you. That's a doctrine of devils and must be rejected as such. No, they left for two reasons. First, because Christ convicted them in their hearts and consciences as lawbreakers worthy of death. Again, not in the general sense that all have sinned, but for the specific violations of the law of which they themselves were guilty right then and there. And second, because had they continued to pursue the matter, the punishment they were seeking to be imposed upon the woman would have instead been turned on their own heads, and you can be sure every one of them knew it. There's no mystery here. These men left to save their own skin. What a master stroke. Forget all the religious and sanctimonious mush you've heard about this. It plays on our emotions and compassion, and in doing so very effectively deceives the unwary with the false image of Christ and a cheap counterfeit of the true gospel of grace. What we're seeing here is a beautiful, true, and majestic picture of Christ as our advocate before the Father, neither a lawbreaker nor soft on sin, but just as the apostle John wrote, My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin, but if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. This is the true Jesus of Nazareth, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, the only begotten Son of God who came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. The word of God made flesh who came to do his Father's will, and to destroy the work of the devil. Not to forgive the drunk, but to make him or her sober. Not to forgive the thief, but to make him or her honest. And not to forgive the adulterer or adulteress, but to make him or her morally and sexually pure. Any other Jesus or Yeshua, if you prefer his wonderful Hebrew name, is a counterfeit and an antichrist. You see, Christ masterfully used his father's law to not only evade the trap they set for him, but also to destroy their case against this woman, all without violating one jot or tittle. How brilliant is that? Remember, the law required at least two witnesses to prove a capital crime such as adultery. Again, this wasn't a matter of actual guilt or innocence. The issue was whether there was even a case that could be brought before and decided by the Sanhedrin. No witnesses, no case, and thus no legal basis for anyone, including Christ himself, to condemn her. Do you see it? Christ took the very law her accusers were trying to use against him and turned the tables on them. That alone is worth the price of admission, but it gets better still. Much much better. We then read and Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more. Theologians and commentators have long interpreted this to mean that Christ unilaterally set the law aside and forgave this woman. And this despite the fact that there is absolutely no indication anywhere that she had repented of her adultery. Neither is there any indication that she had shown the kind of faith which resulted in Christ forgiving sin like the paralytic in Mark II. Nor is there any indication she showed any remorse or sorrow over her sinfulness, like the woman in Luke seven who washed his feet with her tears, wiped them with her hair, and anointed his feet with expensive perfume. We see none of these things anywhere in John's account, not one instance. Yet this is routinely ignored or glossed over by theologians and commentators. Neither is there any mention of the biblical requirement of genuine repentance. Above and beyond that is the simple fact that nowhere in John's account does Christ forgive her. That has been read into the text for so long and by so many people, it's now considered to be gospel truth again, despite the fact there is not one shred of evidence to support it. It's just not there. Somehow or another the fact that Christ didn't condemn this woman has been loosely interpreted to mean that he forgave her. This is not only sloppy hermeneutics, it's simply wrong. There's no two ways about it. Now let me explain. The Greek verb used in verses ten and eleven is katakrino, which means to condemn, to judge against, to pass sentence upon. This of course is fundamentally a judicial action, but let's be clear. Declining to condemn or judge someone guilty of a crime does not mean you forgive them. They're just not the same. Think about it, on a personal level, forgiveness only comes up if someone has actually offended or sinned against you. Otherwise it's not even an issue. And similarly, in a court of law, there is no need for a pardon unless the accused has actually been adjudged guilty or condemned of a crime. It's just not an issue, and so it is here. There were no accusing witnesses against the woman, as the law required. Neither was the man present as the law also required in cases of adultery. As a result, there was simply no legal basis upon which this woman could be condemned or judged guilty, case dismissed. Christ's refusal to condemn her should therefore be understood in that light. All the more so given the fact that nowhere in John's account does he actually forgive her. So instead of reading this as a story of forgiveness, which it is not, let's read it for what it truly is a beautiful, powerful, and glorious story of redemption and mercy shown to a sinner by our loving, holy, and righteous Lord and Savior. What a master stroke, what brilliance. Christ turned the tables on her accusers by using the very law they tried to use against him to not only convict them of sin, but also to find a way to show mercy to this woman without either condoning her adultery or breaking the law, as it is written. He catches the wise in their own craftiness, and the schemes of the wily are brought to a quick end. This is a true picture of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the prophet greater than Moses, the only begotten Son of God, the Word of God made flesh and our wonderful Lord and Savior, elegant in its simplicity, majestic in its power and awe inspiring in its sheer brilliance. No theological gymnastics required. This is the only interpretation that is faithful in every way to the true nature and character of Christ. You see, God is just as concerned with holiness, justice, and righteous behavior as he is with mercy, grace, and forgiveness. And that is no less true for Christ, who is the very image and visible expression of the invisible God. As it is also written, righteousness and justice are the foundation of your throne. Mercy and truth go before your face. And this is a true picture of how we are to walk in mercy, justice, and righteousness, both before him and with each other. As it is also written, Now by this we know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He who says I know him and does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. But whoever keeps his word, truly the love of God is perfected in him. By this we know that we are in him. He who says he abides in him ought himself also to walk just as he walked. 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, and the question.