GospelJN 8:1-11
But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area,
and all the people started coming to him,
and he sat down and taught them.
Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman
who had been caught in adultery
and made her stand in the middle.
They said to him,
“Teacher, this woman was caught
in the very act of committing adultery.
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.
Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.
But when they continued asking him,
he straightened up and said to them,
“Let the one among you who is without sin
be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
And in response, they went away one by one,
beginning with the elders.
So he was left alone with the woman before him.
Then Jesus straightened up and said to her,
“Woman, where are they?
Has no one condemned you?”
She replied, “No one, sir.”
Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you.
Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”
Imagine trying to add something to so many penetrating reflections! Thanks, Sandra, for setting the pace, and to all those who have worked on the issue.
There is another way of thinking about doodling in the sand:
First, I would think it was a strategy to buy time, to make everyone pause (and if it was customary among those people, so much the better). The priority for Jesus had to be to calm the fiery zeal of the lynch mob, to slow things down. Commonly we are scared of 'summary justice'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summary_justice
and rightly so, even today.
Then his challenge: 'Let the one without sin throw the first stone.' We mostly think of this as a moral challenge to those men to look into their consciences and see whether they had the right to judge this woman.
It seems to me it was more likely a cunning strategy to save the woman from lynching. If we may presume that these men knew one another, then individually they found themselves caught in a bind. Supposing, for example, big Ruben over to the left raises his arm to throw. Then he realises his mate beside might laugh out loud, or his vowed enemy on the other side of the crowd might call out: Not you, Ruben! Not after what you did last year...
Evidently it didn't get to this point because the older ones saw the problem (with their age had come awareness of their tally of sins), and left. As each one left the problem became more acute for the remainder. The only thing to do was drop your stone and slink away.
*****
Mostly we see Jesus showing mercy to this woman. But prior to that, I think we should recognise that he rejected an obsolete and unjust 'law'. There is no suggestion that this situation represents more than that. One cannot argue from this that summary mercy should be granted to offenders. If anything, the way Jesus managed the situation favours due process, and insofar as that was not available on the day (I think we can presume this to be the case) he allowed the woman to go free with a firm admonition to change her ways.
Due process is an integral part of society's working for justice. Our court systems are famous for taking a long time to resolve anything. This may be not the defect we mostly think it is, but an important part of the process of healing.
When wrong has been done, the fabric of society has been damaged. Healing is necessary - or breakdown will eventually happen in a revolution provoked by people who have lost patience.
But healing takes time, and it involves not only the application of just judgement and appropriate punishment: it requires also the application of mercy, and eventually the granting of forgiveness by the victim, and the humble acceptance of that forgiveness by the offender, as Sandra points out in her opening reflection.
*****
It struck me earlier that this gospel scene involves a clash between justice and mercy, and I wondered whether this is a current issue in modern times. So I googled: justice and mercy. Try it!
The first article was an address by Anne Robinson for the opening of the Law Year, given in St David's Cathedral, Hobart, in 2008. I found it a very fruitful read, but I cannot copy directly any quotes. If you have the time, go to the section on p. 7 under the sub-head: Do justice and love mercy.
http://www.supremecourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/95597/Tasmanian_Opening_...
The second article in the google list is athttp://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_mercyjustice.htm
It opens with:
True virtues are not supposed to clash - at least that is the ideal. Our personal interests or baser instincts may at times conflict with the virtues we are trying to cultivate, but higher virtues themselves are always supposed to be in harmony with one another. How, then, do we explain the apparent conflict between the virtues of mercy and justice?
And coming to its conclusion we read:
Justice is required because a good and functioning society requires the presence of justice - as long as people trust that justice will be done, they will better be able to trust one another. Mercy, however, is also required because as A. C. Grayling has written, "we all need mercy ourselves." The remission of moral debts may embolden sin, but it may also embolden virtue by giving people a second chance.
Tony Lawless