29 April 2024
This is the Woman Caught in Adultery, though you may see the fancy Latin term Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11). It is hotly debated whether it belongs in the Bible, because it's pretty clear it doesn't belong to John. Still, the lesson should be obvious either way: Jesus calls into question the standing the Jewish leadership had to execute divine justice. What does Bailey do with it?
He starts with a statement that the love of Christ means nothing unless we can link His death on the Cross with our sin. With all the parallels between the deaths of Jesus and His cousin John the Baptist, the clear difference is that Jesus rose again. The early disciples were convinced that this justified the claim that Jesus died for our sins. On what grounds?
1. In Romans 3:26 we have the Judge step up to pay the penalty for the guilty, after sentencing him -- just and justifier.
2. 1 Corinthians 5:7 gives us the image of the sacrificial altar, the unblemished Passover Lamb.
3. In the same letter (15:57), Paul later presents Christ as the victor over sin and death.
4. Paul also talks about a prisoner exchange (redemption) in Ephesian 1:7.
5. The image of slave manumission appears again in 1 Corinthians (6:19-20).
6. Yet again in the same letter (1:17-2:2) Paul refers to how the Cross manifests the wisdom and power of God.
7. Paul writes in Colossian 2:14 about cancelation of a bond.
8. In the next verse (2:15) Paul refers to the triumphal procession.
Jesus explains what His suffering accomplishes in our focal passage. Bailey notes this passage isn't John's writing, but that church scholars included it, convinced it reflects the way Jesus taught. Bailey chases a couple of rabbits to explain why he believes it's genuine gospel narrative, if not John's work.
Just previous to this passage in its current location, Jesus raises the issue of living water, just as He did with the Samaritan woman. This was on the last day of Succoth (Booths). His claim caused a stir. The crowd was confused and divided, but the officials resolved to arrest Him. The arresting officers couldn't do it; Jesus was too popular with the crowds. The Sanhedrin acidly asserted that the crowds were accursed and didn't know the Covenant law. Nicodemas was unable to sway the others with a half-hearted defense.
That round was over. So the officials cooked up a trap for round two. They wanted to drive a wedge between Jesus and the crowds whose density served to protect Him. Taking into custody a woman "caught in the act", they proposed a test. This was the day after the feast ended, and a high Sabbath. Though He knew the Temple Guards might seize Him before He could get into the open courts again, Jesus went back to the same scene. The officials had already tried several times to discredit Him in public; they would surely try again.
Jesus persisted, as signified by sitting like any good rabbi teaching in public. Sure enough, the officials returned with the bait in tow. The absence of the other party in adultery indicated this was not an honest test. Any uproar would bring the Roman troops, across the plaza and along the walkway atop the colonnades, right over Jesus' head.
They asked their question about the woman. At least some in the crowd caught their breath, recognizing the game. Bailey adds a little more drama that I believe misses the point. How do we define "justice"?
For Jesus to write in the dust was a provocative act. Talmudic restrictions prevented rabbis writing on the Sabbath, but only if it's permanent. Writing in the dust is just short of that. It was a subtle warning to the officials that Jesus knew Moses and the Talmud at least as well as they did. Perhaps He wrote the woman's sentence of stoning.
But to the officials He announced that they could proceed with the stoning once they found among their number someone who was without sin. Bailey points out a tactical advantage here that most people miss. When a mob stones a victim, nobody knows who started it. But here, the action cannot begin until someone steps forward so that everyone can witness. That would be the person who went to jail with Jesus if the stoning happened.
In their honor/shame culture, not a single one of these people would have felt guilt internally the way westerners would assume. Instead, they would have turned to the eldest present to decide what was just for everyone. None of the officials were willing to go to jail with Jesus. It was the elders who fled first. Again, not in shame; they fled from liability.
For Jesus to continue writing in the dust is a very obvious avoidance of making eye contact with anyone. No humiliation. They can do what they think is wisest, and He will wait. According to Bailey, the woman now realizes that this rabbi, who may be the Messiah, cares about her. But we have no way of knowing whether she is aware of how much this will cost Jesus later. Still, He remains poised on the razor's edge of truth by condemning the sin, but not the sinner.
I still say that this story's main purpose is to portray how the Covenant of Moses has been vacated by the nation's leadership. Jesus portrayed how things would be in the New Covenant. Sin is still sin, but the old ritual execution was no longer appropriate without a valid government and a national identity already in the trash. That was the point Jesus was making.
This document is public domain; spread the message.