Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.
So what do you say?”
They said this to test him,
so that they could have some charge to bring against him.
If Jesus answered them by saying that she should be stoned according to the law he would be speaking against the Romans, since only they had the authority to put someone to death. But if he answered that she should be spared he would be speaking against the law that commanded stoning. He would either have to be zealous for the law and therefore guilty in the eyes of the Romans or else it would seem that his apparent zeal for the things of God only went as far as what he could get away with in the current political milieu. In one case he would be at risk of legal reprisal. In the other he would lose face before his followers. Or so the Pharisees believed.
“Let the one among you who is without sin
be the first to throw a stone at her.”
The Pharisees believed themselves to be without sin, to be practicing the law flawlessly, meeting all of its requirements. But now the tables were turned. If they stoned the woman they would be the ones who brought down Roman wrath upon themselves. If they said to let her go they would not only appear soft but they would be conceding to the fact that they were sinners after all.
The way Jesus so expertly reversed the trap that was set for him may make us miss his main concern in the matter. He himself was truly sinless, he was the only one who could choose to throw a stone. But he preferred to have mercy. His lack of sin did not result in being aloof and lacking compassion. He was indeed able to sympathize with our weakness (see Hebrews 4:15). Was Jesus ultimately lax in regard to law? Or was it rather than he was the only one whose gaze was sufficiently unclouded by sin so as to see what the law intended?
First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye (see Matthew 7:5).
Jesus delights to have mercy on sinners. But those who insist on condemnation close themselves to that mercy. Those who are so focused on accusations about others forget their own need for mercy. It can become so pronounced that they no longer really care if the one the accuse is truly guilty as long as it can become a cover for their own sins.
They suppressed their consciences;
they would not allow their eyes to look to heaven,
and did not keep in mind just judgments.
For our part, we are called to realize that we too stand in mercy. If Jesus was writing a list of sins of the accusers on the ground ours could be written there as well. This should make us slow to cast judgment on others and quick to turn to God for mercy. We are called to have hearts for justice, hearts that will protect those accused, if they are innocent as was Susanna. But even if they are guilty, as was the woman caught in adultery, we must have hearts that do not rush to condemnation. We must ensure our hearts do not seek after something more and worse than condemnation based on justice, as was the case with the Pharisees, whose apparent justice was something that would close the door to mercy. Against this too we must fight.
God stirred up the holy spirit of a young boy named Daniel,
and he cried aloud:
“I will have no part in the death of this woman.”
May God stir up our spirits as well, directing us not to a justice whose goal is finally mercy, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (see Romans 3:23).
No comments:
Post a Comment