Skip to main content

Go And Sin No More (John 8:1-11)

 If you're paying attention, you notice that the transition from 7:53 to 8:1 is in the middle of a sentence. In fact, many scholars doubt that St. John wrote this at all. It is not in the oldest manuscripts--handwritten copies--of the New Testament that we have. In some other copies, it appears in other Gospels. Even so, the Church has received this, and considers it part of St. John's Gospel.

As I recall, anyone and everyone who was caught in adultery was supposed to be stoned, according to the law. So right away, we notice that these leaders are going to give the man a break, and pin it all on the woman. So Jesus was going to ignore this farce for as long as he could. St. John also tells us that they asked him the question in order to trap him, but that obviously isn't going to work.

The way that Jesus answers is deeper than it first appears. This is not just a sentimental story about Jesus giving a break to a woman caught in adultery. Every Israelite knew as each new year came around that the community would commemorate the Day of Atonement, when the high priest would enter the holy place of the temple and make a sacrifice once a year for the sins of everyone in Israel. But maybe even they knew that the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin. After all, if the blood of bulls and goats could take away sin, why would they have to repeat it? So when Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her," he is pointing out that even on the most solemn day of the whole year, everyone is still guilty. Jesus never says that what she did is acceptable, but he puts it in perspective. We can judge conduct, and we can judge ourselves, but we should be very careful about making a final judgment about anyone else. That's what it means when St. John is using the word "condemn" here: we know that someone who is condemned is going to die. They are a murderer; that is what they are. A lot of people don't have time for nuance and explanations when it comes to people who have done bad things. Jesus is saying that God always has time to see us for more than what we have done, especially when we have done the wrong things. He tells her not to sin again, and she goes on her way. This is the definition of mercy, because she didn't deserve it. True mercy acknowledges wrongdoing, and offers relief from some of the consequences. May we be people of truth, and abundant mercy, because we know that God has been merciful to us.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Post a Comment
Read more
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...
17 comments
Read more

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...
Post a Comment
Read more