A double whammy was cleverly set up by the duplicitous enemies of Jesus who in a bid to draw blood, wanted to hoist it on Jesus. Their purpose: blackmail Him into passing a death sentence on a woman caught in adultery and show Himself as a hypocrite who could not sustain His message of mercy; or should He choose the flip side of the whammy and let her off, be ready to face the damning effect of being dangerously at odds with the law. They must have thought that there was no escape from the bait they’ve carefully laid. For the Pharisees, Jesus’ downfall at this trap was certain; He cannot win, regardless what He says. How well did David prophesy against them in this only line in scripture where God is said to laugh: “The kings of the earth rise up; princes plotting against the Lord and his Christ… the One whose throne is in heaven sits laughing, the Lord laughs them to scorn” (Psalm 2:2,4). The story would turn into a “Parable of the Stone not Thrown.”
Before examining the import of this plot, it would be proper to note that the Gospel reading of this 5th Sunday of Lent in the year of Luke (C) does not come from Luke, rather John. Why is it so? The answer is that the story carries the same structure and tone as a Lucan narrative. It has been suggested that this story was quite an independent floating story in the early manuscripts, which does not fit the Gospel of John but agrees more with Lucan narratives that stress the theme of welcome for the outcast, the oppressed, and repentant sinner, as seen in last Sunday’s Parable of the Prodigal Son (D.H. Wansbrough).
What is Jesus’ response to the trap set for Him? His all-knowing instincts moves Him to first reject the dilemma. To use a contemporary idiom, He ducks the challenge, cuts out of the scene and redirects the challenge on the accusers. Secondly, knowing that the charade was orchestrated, not out of any sense of justice, rather to embarrass both Him and the woman, He does not waste time inquiring about the accomplice in the crime—the man with whom she committed adultery. In the Hebrew worldview, as was and still is the worldview of some societies, the woman is the weaker sex and will always deserve punishment, while the man goes free. Jesus knows that the target of the Pharisees was Himself, with the adulterous woman as a bait on their fishing rod. The line they drew had Jesus encircled with the woman. Unbeknownst to them, this is the purpose for which He came—to be one with sinful humanity and to be drawn into the same circle as sinners, so that He might pull them out of that circle of doom. The only thing the Pharisees didn’t realize is that they too belonged in that circle. But He is about to teach them that. We fail, too, to realize that we belong to the same pit in which we cast others when, in self-righteousness, we throw our accusatory stones of character assassination. Placed in the divine light, we cannot escape the punishment we prescribe for others.
Many exegetes have tried to interpret the meaning of Jesus writing in the sand—the only time He is said to write anything. The agreement of the majority of scholars is that the all-knowing God was writing in the sand the names of each of the dubious Pharisees and enumerating their incalculable sins? Whatever it is that He wrote, the response was palpable, with the words: “Let whoever is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). None of them was innocent; none of us is innocent, either.
The final episode has only two left: the “bound” sinner and the only Righteous One who alone can “loose” the sinner’s bond. He would later give this same power to His apostles. The others left with their sins intact. Jesus response, “Nor do I condemn you,” and His admonition, “Do not sin anymore,” shows that He would fail neither in merciful solidarity with the sinner nor in fidelity to the law. With St. Paul in the second reading will concede that we do not possess any justice of our own; our justice has its origin in God (Phil 3:9).
Fr. Chukwudi Jo Okonkwo