Fifth Sunday of Lent (C)

Readings:

1. Isaiah 43.16-21
   Psalm 126.1-2, 2-3, 4-5, 6  Response:  “The Lord has done great things for us; we are filled with joy.”
2. Philippians 3.8-14
3. John 8.1-11

[Note:  Many parishes use the readings from Cycle A during Lent.  In that case, the gospel would be John 11.1-45, the story of the raising of Lazarus.]

Reflections on the Gospel Reading

Background

The story of the woman accused of adultery has many similarities with last Sunday’s parable of the prodigal son.

One could argue that in the culture of Jesus’ time the worst male sin was to squander one’s inheritance, thus removing property from the control of his family or clan.  In that same culture, arguably, the worst female sin was adultery.  Marriage united two families through a woman.  Adultery ignited a feud.  The woman’s husband was honor bound to divorce his wife, thus offending her father and brothers.  Her husband was also honor bound to kill the man who shamed him by having relations with his wife, thus provoking the adulterer’s family to revenge.  The community process of judgment by the testimony of witnesses and punishment by death of both parties was a way of resolving the issue, restoring honor, and avoiding a feud.

In both parables the sinner is not the main character.  Last Sunday the emphasis was on the loving father, and today the emphasis is on Jesus as the wise judge.  Last Sunday’s gospel reading challenged our worshipping community to become a welcoming and inclusive group.   This Sunday’s gospel challenges us to examine our own consciences when we condemn other people.

In its first century context the story of the woman accused of adultery presents Jesus as a prophet who embodies the ideals of the Jewish scriptures.  In many ways, Jesus is portrayed as a wisdom figure similar to Daniel in the popular story of Susanna and the wicked old judges.  (Before going on, be sure to read the story.  In Protestant Bibles it usually stands alone as an appendix. For example, see NRSV, p. 1548.)¹

First Interpretation

As in other stories and parables, the key to understanding this gospel passage is to recognize the nature of the trap Jesus’ enemies were trying to set.  Jesus was widely recognized as a prophet.  His enemies thought they had a way either to undermine his authority in the eyes of the people or to have him arrested and executed.  If he decides for the woman and releases her or passes a sentence less than death, he would be going against an explicit injunction of the Law of Moses.  (Leviticus 20.10)  On the other hand, if he presumed to impose the death sentence on the woman, he would surely get in trouble with either the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities, whichever had the power to impose capital punishment at that time.

Jesus was not taken in by this ruse.  There was something strange about the whole affair.  To begin with, why did they address him as “teacher?”  In the various gospel accounts this form of address is more of a challenge to Jesus’ honor than a sign of respect.  In Luke’s Gospel, for example, Pharisees, Sadducees, and Lawyers who are either arguing against Jesus or trying to trap him begin by calling him “teacher.”  (Luke 7.40, 11.45, 20.21, 28)

Further, why were they bringing this case to Jesus?  Absent a true prophet who could pronounce God’s judgment, the civil and religious authorities, such as the Sanhedrin, should resolve this sort of thing.  Was it a backhanded compliment, a nod to his recognition as a prophet by the common people?  Or was it a set-up, an attempt to lure Jesus into acting like a prophet to his own detriment?  Probably a little of both.

Also, if the woman had been caught in “the very act of committing adultery,” where was the man?  The Mosaic Law said:  “both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death.”  (Leviticus 20.10)  Why were they so insistent on stoning just the woman?

Finally, why did they appeal to only part of the scriptures?  Why did they ignore the many passages from the prophets that used adultery as a symbol for Israel’s worship of false gods and emphasized God’s willingness to forgive?  For the prophets a husband who received his adulterous wife back was held forth as an image of God’s own redemptive love.  (See, for example, Joel 2.14-20.)

All this would lead Jesus to question the motives of the woman’s accusers.  John J. Pilch thinks that the wronged husband might have “cynically prearranged to have his wife caught instead of trying to win her back with love . . .” (1997, 63) In any event, Jesus didn’t have to be clairvoyant to realize that they were trying to use the unfortunate woman’s predicament to discredit him.

In response “Jesus bent down [from where he was seated] and began to write on the ground with his finger.”  Commentators, ancient and modern, have come up with many explanations for this curious gesture. Some think he wrote a passage from scripture such as Jeremiah 17.13, “Those who turn away from you shall be written on the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters.”  Others think that he wrote out the sins of the woman’s accusers.  More than likely, it was a gesture of studied indifference or the author’s literary device to place Jesus in a position from which he could straighten up to make his two pronouncements.  In any event, the focus of the story is on the two wisdom sayings of Jesus.

The first saying is, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”  Jesus is not articulating a moral principle that in order to criticize someone else, one must be sinless.  Rather he is challenging the ill will of these particular accusers by meeting their challenge with one of his own.  As it turns out, none of them dared to risk having their own sins exposed to the public.  This Jesus just might be a prophet who could read minds.  When the eldest isn’t willing to face off against Jesus, the rest topple like dominoes, and they all leave.

The Mosaic Law required the testimony of two witnesses for a conviction, and now there were none to be found.  This resulted in Jesus’ second wisdom saying, part legal and part moral:  “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”  The woman was acquitted on technical grounds.  There were no witnesses to her crime.  However, Jesus does not condone her part in the sin and urges her to reform her life.

We are not told how she responded, just as last Sunday we were not told how the older brother responded to his father’s admonition to forgive.  That is because the story is really directed at us and challenges us in the circumstances of our own lives.  In the context of Lent it is another admonition to us to turn away from sin and toward God while there is still time.

There are times when we have to speak out against the sins of others, but we need to do so with a keen awareness that our own failings might well have contributed to their fault.  A man might rightly condemn his wife’s adultery and at the same time see it as a wake-up call to examine his contribution to the deterioration of their relationship.  We rightly condemn suicide bombings, but how often do we reflect on our role in the economic and military violence that create a breeding ground for terrorism?

The message, then, seems to be:  After our encounter with the living Word of God in the gospel message, when we condemn the sins of other people, it should be the occasion for our own conversion.  We need to examine our own lives to see whether our lies and lust and greed have pushed others into the very sins we condemn.

Second Interpretation

What happens if we apply this insight to this Sunday’s Gospel? Does this become an occasion for us to reflect on our own sin?  Is it possible that labeling this reading “the woman caught in adultery” reveals a patriarchal, anti-woman bias?  Has our sexism warped our interpretation of the text?

If the story in the Greek Bible about Daniel, Susanna, and the wicked old judges is really a template for the gospel account we have just read, why don’t we see Jesus as a wisdom figure like Daniel and the unnamed woman as innocent like Susanna?  There are many indications in the text that would support such a reading.

For example, the text of Daniel 13 (originally written in Greek) calls the wicked judges “elders” or “old men” at least twelve times.  In the gospel story, the woman’s accusers leave, “beginning with the elders.”  According to Leviticus 24.1-16 and Deuteronomy 13.10, 17.2-7, the eyewitnesses should be the first to cast a stone and then the rest of the people. (Moloney 1998, 264)  The implication is that the elders claimed to be eyewitnesses, and like the elders in the story of Susanna, they had been lying about catching the woman in the act of adultery.

Note the posture and motion of the characters in the story.  Jesus is seated throughout in the position of a teacher.  Twice he bends over to write on the ground and straightens up to speak.  The accusers present their charges against the woman and then leave the scene.  The woman stands in the middle throughout as the center of attention.  Contrast this to the depiction of this scene in the movie “The Passion of the Christ” where the woman, identified with Mary Magdalene, grovels at the feet of a standing Jesus.

Note also the similarities between the woman in her trial and Jesus in his trials.  Jesus is tried before elders and is silent before false accusations.  All three Synoptic Gospels mention the presence of elders.  (Matthew 26.57; Mark 14.53, 15.1; Luke 22.52, 66)  Matthew and Mark mention Jesus’ silence before his false accusers; (Matthew 26.63; Mark 14.61) Luke mentions Jesus’ silence before Herod; (Luke 23.9) and John mentions his silence before Pilate. (John 19.9)  Nowhere in this Sunday’s Gospel does the woman admit to sin or ask for forgiveness.

If this interpretation is correct, Jesus’ words to the accusers take on a different meaning.  When he says, “Let the one among you who is without sin be first to throw a stone at her.” he is referring to the matter at hand.  In effect, he is saying: “Let the one who is not lying about the woman be the first to stone her.”  The healing word of Jesus not only vindicates the woman but also saves the accusers from violating the commandments that forbid false witness and murder.  Contrast this with the story of Daniel and Susanna where the wicked old judges are executed for their crime.  Jesus is merciful to sinners, but, in this case, it is not the woman but the accusers who are the recipients of his forgiving love.

A Difficulty

All of this would make sense if the passage had ended with the words:  “Neither do I condemn you.”   However, how can one maintain this interpretation in the face of Jesus’ final saying:  “Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”?  (Literally:  “Go, from the now not-again sin.”)

At the very least, it is a strange saying, even grammatically.  The final editor of this ancient passage might have added a floating saying of Jesus to the completed narrative.  The same words “Do not sin any more.” are found in John 5.14 where they also seem out of place.  Jesus speaks them to the man who had been waiting 38 years for a cure beside the pool of Beth-zatha (Bethesda, Bethsaida).  There is no previous mention of the man’s sin.  In fact, in John 9.1-3 Jesus explicitly states that the condition of the man born blind from birth was not the result of sin.

One can only observe that the final words attributed to Jesus run counter to the whole drift of the narrative up to that point.  Authors like Jane Schaberg and Barbara E. Reid have argued persuasively that there are other instances of gospel writers or editors downplaying the roles and actions of women in the Gospels.  This might well be another instance.

Conclusion

Perhaps this Sunday’s Gospel, like The French Lieutenant’s Woman, had two endings – one in which the nameless woman was guilty of adultery and another in which she was innocent of the false accusation.  If so, each of the endings in its own way challenges us to conversion.

---

In preparing these reflections, in addition to the biblical texts, I consulted the following works:

Brown 1966 – Raymond E. Brown, S.S., The Gospel according to John (i-xii) , Volume 29 of the Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY:  Doubleday & Company,  Inc., 1966), pp. 332-338.

Johnson 1991 – Luke Timothy Johnson, The Gospel of Luke , Sacra Pagina Series Volume 3, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1991), p. 127.

Malina & Rohrbaugh 1998 – Bruce J. Malina and Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Gospel of John  (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1998), pp. 291-293.

Metzger 1994 – Bruce M. Metzger, A textual Commentary on the Greek New Testiment, Second Edition (Stuttgart:  German Bible Society, 1994), pp. 187-190.

Moloney 1998 – Francis J. Moloney, S.D.B.. The Gospel of John.  Sacra Pagina Series Volume 4, A Michael Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press1998), pp. 258-265.

NRSV = NRSV 1994 – New Revised Standard Version – Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, Editors, The New Oxford Annotated Bible [with the Apocrypha] containing the Old and New Testaments. New Revised Standard Version. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994)

Pilch 1997 – John J. Pilch, The Cultural World of Jesus, Sunday by Sunday,  Cycle  C .  A Liturgical Press Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1997), pp. 61-63.

Reid 1996 – Barbara E. Reid, Choosing the Better Part?  Women in the Gospel of Luke.  A Micahel Glazier Book (Collegeville [MN]:  Liturgical Press, 1996), passim.  See, for example, chapter 18:  “Conclusions: New Meaning from Ancient Texts,” pp. 205-208.

Schaberg 2002 – Jane Schaberg, The Resurrection of Mary Magdalene:  Legends, Apocrypha, and the Christian Testament (New York:  Continuum, 2002) See especially Chapter Five:  “The Christian Testament’ Mary Magdalene; Scholarly Versions, Explorations, Erasures,” pp. 204-253.

---