This week’s GraceTalk featured the following question…
In discussing the fact that we are all sinners and need to repent, I have run into the following argument that I get stumped trying to answer.
In John 8:1-11, Jesus is confronted with a clear situation of sin in relation to a woman “caught in adultery” yet Christ refused to condemn her actions as wrong. Jesus seems to actually excuse her by simply telling her that she is not “condemned” and she can go without any type of judgment. I was under the understanding that she and the man should have been put to death (according to Lev. 20:10). I have had people tell me that this is the way we should deal with people living in sin – don’t condemn just express love like Jesus does in this passage. Can you help me get a handle on this seeming contradiction? Thanks.
The Dilemma
The scribes and Pharisees had Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. If Jesus were to say that they should stone the woman, he stood to lose his reputation for compassion. He also stood to run into trouble with the Roman authorities, who didn’t take too kindly to locals administering executions outside of the Roman legal system. On the other hand, if Jesus were to let the woman off, he would appear to not be upholding the Law, which is God’s holy Word.
The Background
First, we need to keep in mind that the law was not the sort of thing that is applied willy-nilly. Jesus was being asked to apply the Law, and the Law has very specific stipulations. Let’s take a look at those….
Leviticus 20:10 says “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”
This is the point of the Law that the scribes and Pharisees are charging the woman with. They seem to have that nailed down, as they caught her in the “very act.” However, notice that this verse also says that both parties to the offense are to be put to death. Our account makes no mention of a man being there. This should make us at least a little suspicious of our accusers.
Deuteronomy 19:15-19 says… 15 “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrong in connection with any offense that he has committed. Only on the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses shall a charge be established. 16 If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, 17 then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. 18 The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, 19 then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
Deuteronomy 17:6 says… “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses the one who is to die shall be put to death; a person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”
So, at least two witnesses would be required before executing any sentence. In addition, the Law accounts for determining if there is a “malicious witness.” If we think about the nature of this crime and the fact that she was caught in the act, it seems very likely that there was foul play in the fact that they happened to catch her while Jesus was teaching in the temple. It is easy to imagine that there was some sort of set up and that these leaders were not acting out of love for the people and God’s righteousness.
Deuteronomy 17:7 continues to say… “The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
Jesus was well aware of this (as the scribes and Pharisees should have been as well). We don’t know what Jesus wrote on the ground, but when Jesus says “Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” he was holding these accusers and witnesses to the standard of the Law that they themselves were calling Jesus to apply.
I don’t think Jesus means the first person who has no sin of any sort in his life should throw the first stone. I think He means that the first person who is an honest witness and not complicit in this crime should throw the first stone.
As the witnesses face their own guilt in the matter, they drop the charges and walk away. At this point, there is no legal basis for condemning the woman to death by stone. Jesus tells the woman to go and sin no more. He does not condemn her to death, but He calls her to repentance.
Conclusion
Our questioner says “…yet Christ refused to condemn her actions as wrong. Jesus seems to actually excuse her by simply telling her that she is not “condemned” and she can go without any type of judgment.”
Refusing to condemn the woman to death is not the same as excusing her actions or refusing to say that they are wrong. When Jesus tells her to sin no more, he is judging her actions to be wrong and calling her to repent.
The question continues “I have had people tell me that this the way we should deal with people living in sin – don’t condemn just express love like Jesus does in this passage.” That is exactly right. We don’t condemn people. That is not our place. We express love like Jesus does in this passage by calling sinners to repentance.
Eric, thanks for posting this. It’s great to have this writeup available to return to if the question comes up again.
I once heard a great idea about what Jesus was actually writing in the dirt. It goes well with His statement about “he without sin” casting the first stone. Interesting how everyone there to judge this woman quickly dropped their stones and left after Jesus wrote in the dirt. Maybe He was writing the names of the Scribe’s and Pharisee’s girlfriends. 😉
We all deserve to be stoned to death for our sin. Because of Jesus we are not under the law but under grace. Demonstrating that same grace through love and forgiveness instead of judgment is how we lead others to know that same grace.
But if a follower of Christ refuses to repent after the church has lovingly called them to repentance…
“Remove the evil person from among you” (1 Cor 5:13) and “Let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matt 18:17).
I was just able to listen to the Gracetalk sermon today, and I am thrilled at the apologetic response to Jesus and the woman caught in the act of adultery. It is so refreshing to be at a church that cuts to the heart of the word.
Jesus did not come to abolish the law. While it is a fair statement to say that we are under grace rather than the law, it is important to be sure that we understand what that means, because some may take it to mean that the Law is no longer relevant. We are set free from the penalty of the law because Jesus paid the price. However, the wrath of God against lawlessness has not disappeared. If we want to know how angry God is at sin, we should look to the cross. We should see the broken and bloody body of our Lord. The bible says he was marred beyond that of any man. And it is incredible that He did that for his bride, the elect. What an awesome God He is.
The explanation given at Gracetalk reveals that Jesus loves and honors the law, while still demanding that all men everywhere repent. Opening up the scripture to see it in full context in relation to the OT law snapped in my brain as an “Ah Hah!” moment.
I thank God for all of our leaders at Grace Fellowship.
Dear Jason….
You are correct in the example you listed, but in this case it is not obvious that the women repented?
Even so, “removing” that person in such a circumstance of being unrepentant should be done so in a firm but still loving way. A tough balance, but it is possible to find.
Just like this women, aren’t you thankful that Jesus didn’t condemn you when you repented to receive Him?
I meant to type……
“but in this case (IS IT NOT) obvious that the (WOMAN) repented?” and “Just like this WOMAN”….
Yes she did, and it is also obvious that I cannot type the same words that I think, and I see my errors after reading what I typed for the third time!!!! 😉
Sorry for the constant grammatical pain I inflict on everyone!
Dear CAN,
To be clear, my purpose in bringing up 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18 was not to challenge Eric’s analysis of this passage (John 8), but rather to supplement it. I think Eric did a wonderful job of discussing John 8 in relation to the GraceTalk question (BTW, thanks, Eric!). My point, however, was that sometimes “calling sinners to repentance” involves more than mere words, but also action. The church is called to remove anyone from the body who claims to be a believer and who continues living in sin after being confronted by the church on the issue through a process of church discipline. Since some people (myself not included) would view church discipline as a form of “condemnation,” I would simply want to qualify Eric’s conclusion that “We don’t condemn people. That is not our place.” I doubt that Eric meant for that comment to rule out or ignore the necessity of church discipline. But I could see how some people might take it that way. Thus my post highlighting 1 Cor 5 and Matt 18.
At any rate, looking at John 8:1-11, I do not think that it is “obvious” that the woman repented of living in sin. I would like to think that she did. But since the text neither says that she did, nor implies that she did, I have no way of knowing whether or not she repented.
But either way, the woman’s response doesn’t really affect how we should interpret the text. The way the narrative is written, the story is not intended to be a lesson in how to treat people who are living in sin. If it were, the woman would play a much larger role in the drama. Rather, the story was intended to teach that Jesus was superior to the scribes and Pharisees when it came to knowledge of and application of the Law by recounting how Jesus dealt with the scribes and Pharisees when they tried to trap Him on an issue of the Law. Jesus’ response to the woman is instructive, but was not ultimately the main point that the author of John 8:1-11, whoever it was, intended.
I hope that clarifies my previous post. I am learning that it is difficult to make short, quick posts without explaining myself!
Jason is right. I meant condemn in either of the two common ways it is understood: to sentence someone to death or to sentence someone to damnation.
Church discipline is a particular form of calling one to repentance that certain circumstances call for.
In the three dictionaries I checked, the first and most common meaning of “condemn” is something along the lines of “to strongly disapprove of,” which church discipline would indeed involve. That is why I thought clarification would be helpful… Thanks for clarifying which meanings of “condemn” you intended, Eric!
Some believe that the woman in this text was actually Mary Magdalene, so if that were true then I think we can say that YES it was very “obvious” that she repented from her life of sin to follow Jesus. 😉 It is just a theory and does not seem clear either way from my own studies.
Not sure if some of you guys are going to throw out more translations and texts but I am just trying to explain the point in simple terms while staying on topic.
“Not a lesson on how to treat people living in sin”???
The Word is a living book and we can learn many different and great things from one passage such as this. The point of this blog is just that. How do we treat people that we find in sin?
If you believe this woman was indeed Mary Magdalene then the way Jesus handled the situation led her to repentance and service to the Lord. So it IS important as an example of compassion and love in handling others in sin. If the word “Repent” had been said by Jesus before He said “go and sin no more” then I think this would have been a non issue.
I guess a question would be if to repent was implied here?
For those that refuse to repent that is another story, and is correctly handled by what has previously been written here. But even then there are two or three chances to confront that person in scripture without an instant condemnation and casting out by telling that person to “don’t let the door hit you where the Lord split you” while we look down our noses just like the Scribes and Pharisees did under the law.
C.A., are you making a distinction between what Jesus said and use of the word ‘repent?’
It seems to me that “sin no more” is about as clear a call to repentance we could see. How do you define ‘repent?’
I see where you are coming from Eric as “go and sin no more” means from that point forward.
Repentance means a “change of mind”, but many also use it loosely as in “repent of past sins”. “Confess” is a better word for how to deal with past sin IMO.
What I meant was that Jesus did not directly address the sin she was in at the moment, or what she had done previously. Instead He told her in love that nobody was condemning her and to not sin anymore “in the future”.
I guess if Jesus has said, “repent, confess, and go and sin no more”, then this would have taken care of the questioner’s concerns about this passage when you wrote…
“Our questioner says “…yet Christ refused to condemn her actions as wrong. Jesus seems to actually excuse her by simply telling her that she is not “condemned” and she can go without any type of judgment.”
But He didn’t.
That is why I said this would be a non issue if Jesus
has said something like this.
So the distinction you are drawing is that Jesus was not “condemning” her as in “to death or stoning”, but still it was clear that He told her to sin no more as an implied call to repentance. Do I have that right?
Just trying to stir the pot as there is too much agreement here. 😉
CAN,
Let me try to explain a my reasoning for saying that this text is not intended to be a lesson on how to treat people living in sin, since you questioned that claim with a triple ???. Beware that a triple ??? merits a somewhat lengthy response.
When you read a story in the Bible, you are not reading a “neutral” or scientific historical account of what happened in history, as you might read in a history textbook. Rather, you are reading eye-witness accounts of historical events which have been told from a particular perspective and for a particular purpose. In other words, when the author of a biblical story sat down to write, his goal was not to simply report history. His goal was to teach something as he told the story. He would shape the way he told his story by focusing on particular details and not others, by recording certain dialogs between characters while omitting others, and by inserting his own thoughts and comments into the storyline. He would also choose where to start the story and where to end the story. He might describe certain things in detail, but leave other things general. He would use all of these kinds of techniques to point his readers to the lesson or purpose for which he recorded the story.
The problem is that many people today have forgotten how to read stories. Many readers try to read the biblical stories as if the stories are simply scientific historical descriptions much like you would find in a textbook or a news magazine, which are written merely to inform the readers of events which have occurred. These kinds of readers of the biblical text then try to reconstruct in their mind “what really happened,” (sometimes filling in details of their own, such as speculating that the woman in the story is Mary Magdalene!). Based on this historical reconstruction in their own mind, rather than on the text itself, they then try to draw out various lessons from this historical event which they have recreated in their mind.
I would argue that our goal in reading biblical stories is to pay attention to what the author is trying to teach us by telling the story. We should observe what details he focuses on, which characters do the most talking in the story, what comments the author makes about what is going on in the story, and how the story begins and ends. By observing these kinds of things we can start to get a sense of what must be important to the lesson which the author is trying to teach.
In other words, the question we should be asking ourselves when we read biblical stories about Jesus and try to apply them to our lives is not “What would Jesus do?” nor even “What did Jesus do?” The question to ask is, “What is the biblical author telling us is the *significance* of what Jesus did?” It may be the case that the author is telling us that Jesus did a particular thing as an example to be followed. But it may not be.
As you read John 8:1-11, ask yourself these questions: 1) How does the author set up the story, and why?
2) Which characters do the majority of the talking? (These are the main characters, and what they say will be important to the main point of the story. If someone is recording a historical event with a particular purpose in mind, they don’t record the words of every single person at the event. They record only what dialog is important to their point.)
3) Which characters does the author not bother to describe in detail? Why not? The main point of the story probably does not have to do with them.
4) Does the author of the story insert any comments to help you understand what is going on? (hint: 8:6) If the author bothered to stop the story to tell you something, that comment is probably important to the main point of the story.
5) How does the author end the story, and why does he end the story there?
I think that if you work through the text with these kinds of questions in mind, you will see why I say that the author did not write this story as a lesson about how to treat people who are living in sin.
If you are still not convinced, consider this: Jesus could not have condemned the woman even if he had wanted to, since there were no witneses. The Law, which required witnesses, prevented Jesus from condemning the woman. So when Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either,” was he expressing great love and forgiveness for the woman, or was he just following the Law because there were no witnesses to the crime? [Note that “condemn” in this context means “to pass sentence on,” not “disapprove strongly of”]
I hope that discussion clarifies why I made the claim in a previous post that John 8:1-11 is not a lesson in how to treat people living in sin. None of what I have said contradicts Eric’s original discussion of this passage, which is excellent. This thread is titled “Do we just love people like Jesus did?” because of the GraceTalk question, not because of the main point of John 8:1-11. Eric’s discussion was aimed at answering the GraceTalk question specifically.
One other note… It is still not clear to me why you think that if Jesus had said “Repent, confess and go and sin no more,” that this text would be a non-issue. We still wouldn’t know what the woman’s *response* to Jesus’ admonition was.
[Disclaimer, for the record: I am aware of the textual difficulties with John 7:53-8:11, and by referring to this text as a “biblical” text I am not necessarily affirming nor denying its status as inspired Scripture. I currently put this text in the “I highly doubt it, but it could be” category.]
Thanks Jason, but you made my head hurt, as I felt like I was back in my Old Testament Survey class in college reading all that. One question mark from me from now on! 😉
I seems crystal clear to me that the GF questioner was concerned as it seemed that Jesus was letting this woman “off the hook” so to speak. (No pun intended, sorry!) This is because he told her that no one condemns her and to not sin anymore.
Do you think the questioner would have still been as “concerned” if Jesus had outright told the woman that she was in sin, needed to repent on the spot, confess her sin, and then to sin no more? That is all I am saying. Nothing more. I would never try to put words in Jesus’ mouth, or even contemplate that this is what Jesus “should have said”. He is God and I am not……
Do you not believe that God’s Word is living and breathing, and we can read a passage and be taught different things each time we read it? Of course there is a single direct meaning and intention of the particular writer as led by the Spirit. I am not talking about different interpretations, but how the Holy Spirit uses His Word to reveal Himself to us.
If that were the case we should just read it once through and then use it as a “reference book” when we have a question. Never let that be so in our lives.
So how to treat people in sin? Love God, love people, demonstrate Jesus, and hate sin.
CAN,
Sorry about the headache! I often find it difficult to be brief and clear at the same time, but I’m working on that…
Thanks for clarifying why you think that this passage would not be an issue if Jesus had done more than call the woman to repentance. My point was that since Jesus says “I do not condemn you” BEFORE he says “Go, and sin no more,” Jesus appears to be letting the woman “off the hook” regardless of whatever he may say after “I do not condemn you.”
If Jesus had called her to repentance, and if she had then repented, and THEN Jesus had said “I do not condemn you,” only then would the tension which the questioner detected in the text disappear, in my opinion. Perhaps that is what you were getting at.
I suspect that another difference between how you and I are reading the passage is as follows. I am reading Jesus’ statement “I do not condemn you” purely as a legal verdict with no soteriological implications, whereas you seem to be reading that statement as pronouncement of the woman’s salvation. This seems to be the case since you are bringing in the soteriological category of confession as a condition which would remove the apparent difficulty in the text.
I do indeed believe that God’s Word is living (Heb 4:12). I do think that we can be taught different “things” by the Spirit each time we read a passage, but only when by “things” we mean either:
1) We are taught a more correct understanding of the author’s intention(s) than we had before, or
2) We are taught another way in which the author’s intended meaning impacts or should impact our own lives.
My point is that the author’s intention in writing this passage was far afield from teaching us how to deal with people who are living in sin.
Therefore, to say that this passage teaches us how to treat people who are living in sin violates the author’s intention.
Therefore, this cannot be a lesson that the Spirit intended to teach us with this passage.
What evidence in this passage shows that the author intended to teach us how to treat people living in sin? Am I missing something?