This weekend Pope Francis is scheduled to give his first Angelus address, a kind of address that popes give every Sunday.
He's very likely to comment on the Gospel reading of the day, which is the famous, beautiful, and dramatic story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8).
We don't know what Pope Francis will say about the passage, but previous popes have commented on it.
Here are 9 things they wanted you to know.
1. What happens in this account?
Pope Benedict said:
The Gospel passage recounts the episode of the adulterous woman in two vivid scenes:
In the first, we witness a dispute between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees concerning a woman caught in flagrant adultery who, in accordance with the prescriptions of the Book of Leviticus (cf. 20: 10), was condemned to stoning.
In the second scene, a brief but moving dialogue develops between Jesus and the sinner-woman.
2. Why is this story so dramatic?
Pope Benedict said:
Those men ask Jesus to judge the sinful woman in order "to test him" and impel him to take a false step.
The scene is full with drama: the life of that person and also his own life depend on Jesus.
Indeed, the hypocritical accusers pretend to entrust the judgement to him whereas it is actually he himself whom they wish to accuse and judge.
3. How was this supposed to "test" Jesus?
Pope Benedict said:
The pitiless accusers of the woman, citing the law of Moses, provoke Jesus - they call him "Teacher" (Didáskale) -, asking him whether it would be right to stone her.
They were aware of his mercy and his love for sinners and were curious to see how he would manage in such a case which, according to Mosaic law, was crystal clear.
John Paul II said:
They intend to show that his teaching on God’s merciful love contradicts the Law, which punished the sin of adultery with stoning.
John Paul II also said:
If he absolves the woman caught in flagrant adultery, it will be said that he has transgressed the precepts of Moses; if he condemns her, it will be said that he is inconsistent with his message of mercy towards sinners.
4. Jesus does not initially respond to their question but remains silent. Why?
John Paul II said:
By his silence he invites everyone to self-reflection.
On the one hand, he invites the woman to acknowledge the wrong committed; on the other, he invites her accusers not to shrink from an examination of conscience: "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her" (Jn 8: 7).
5. While he is silent, Jesus also writes on the ground. What can we learn from this?
Pope Benedict said:
While his accusers are insistently interrogating him, Jesus bends down and starts writing with his finger on the ground.
St Augustine notes that this gesture portrays Christ as the divine legislator: In fact, God wrote the law with his finger on tablets of stone (cf. Commentary on John's Gospel,33,5).
Thus Jesus is the Legislator, he is Justice in person.
6. Eventually, Jesus says, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What does this reveal?
John Paul II said:
While this authoritative reply reminds us that it is only the Lord who can judge, it reveals the true meaning of divine mercy, which leaves open the possibility for repentance and emphasizes the great respect for the dignity of the person, which not even sin can take away.
“Go, and do not sin again” (Jn 8:11). The last words of this episode show that God does not want the sinner to die, but to repent of the evil he has committed and live.
7. Legal disputes about what the Law of Moses technically required were common in Jesus' day. What does his attitude show us?
Pope Benedict said:
Jesus does not enter into a theoretical discussion with his interlocutors on this section of Mosaic Law.
He is not concerned with winning an academic dispute about an interpretation of Mosaic Law, but his goal is to save a soul and reveal that salvation is only found in God's love.
This is why he came down to the earth, this is why he was to die on the Cross and why the Father was to raise him on the third day. . . .
St Augustine noted, commenting on John's Gospel, that: "The Lord, in his response, neither failed to respect the law nor departed from his meekness".
8. What does this passage show us about Jesus' attitude toward sin--and to sinners?
John Paul II said:
This Gospel passage clearly teaches that Christian forgiveness is not synonymous with mere tolerance, but implies something more demanding.
It does not mean overlooking evil, or even worse, denying it.
God does not forgive evil but the individual, and he teaches us to distinguish the evil act, which as such must be condemned, from the person who has committed it, to whom he offers the possibility of changing.
While man tends to identify the sinner with his sin, closing every escape, the heavenly Father instead has sent his Son into the world to offer everyone a way to salvation.
9. How can we apply this passage to our own situations?
John Paul II said:
The woman's situation is certainly serious. But the message flows precisely from this situation:
In whatever condition we find ourselves, we can always open ourselves to conversion and receive forgiveness for our sins. "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again" (Jn 8: 11).
On Calvary, by the supreme sacrifice of his life, the Messiah will seal for every man and woman the infinite gift of God's pardon and mercy.
John Paul II also said:
How could we see ourselves in this Gospel without feeling a surge of confidence?
How could we not recognize it as “good news” for the men and women of our day, who long to rediscover the true sense of mercy and pardon?
There is a need for Christian forgiveness, which instills hope and trust without weakening the struggle against evil.
What Now?
If you like the information I've presented here, you should join my Secret Information Club.
If you're not familiar with it, the Secret Information Club is a free service that I operate by email.
I send out information on a variety of fascinating topics connected with the Catholic faith.
In fact, the very first thing you’ll get if you sign up is information about what Pope Benedict said about the book of Revelation.
He has a lot of interesting things to say!
If you’d like to find out what they are, just sign up at www.SecretInfoClub.com or use this handy sign-up form:
Just email me at jimmy@secretinfoclub.com if you have any difficulty.
In the meantime, what do you think?
Comments
Post a Comment
Beautiful reflection, Jimmy.
Okay, this is what gets me about this particular gospel.
A woman was caught in adultery. Adultery typically takes two. That means that there would have been a man caught as well. So? What happened to him?
It begs the question. Should people be punished for their wrongdoing? She broke the law, should she get away scott free? Was God too harsh in his original punishment for the crime? If he was too harsh, was he too harsh to stone children that talked back, women not virgins, gays, or people working on Sundays? How can a perfect god make a mistake and how can Jesus arbitrarily rule a law invalid and still keep the law intact?
Justice is more just when it can be subtle and nuanced.
@Melissa, I’ve wondered the same thing whenever I heard this Gospel!
Someone once opined, and NOWHERE is this written; but would have been something - Jesus was writing on the ground, names from the stoning crowd, and next to each one, one of their sins. This to prove that he can read the hearts of men; and to let them know that they were far from prefect too. Elisa, Melissa - perhaps He was writing the name of the “other half”?
i think am part of the crowd may God forgive me
@Melissa,
Maybe they had already stoned him, or more likely, they realized that bringing the woman to Jesus rather than the man would likely evoke a greater visceral response from Jesus as a man, whose natural desire is to protect a woman more so than a man. To bring the woman would work more toward the end they were trying to accomplish, that of putting Jesus into an impossible situation.
Something that I often hear in answer to your question, but which also doesn’t make sense to me, is that the Pharisees were simply being misogynists. If the Pharisees thought it would greater serve their purpose of knocking Jesus down, I’m pretty sure they would have had no qualms about bring the man instead of the woman. One thing you can be sure of is that they cared not a whit more for the soul of the man caught in adultery than the soul of the woman. Their only purpose was to trap Jesus
I get confused because she did not ask for forgiveness. Jesus just forgave her. When we enter the confessional, we must ask for forgiveness. She did not.
JMJ I know there is a logical answer but I am at a loss. When we confess our Mortal Sins in the Sacrament of Confession, most of the time we are absolved. God forgives and remembers them no more. So why doesn’t His Church do the same? When our Mortal sins become public, we are cast out of the Parish, Religious Order, Priesthood, etc. How many souls have we known in our lives that have been removed-disappeared because of a Mortal Sin, usually of the flesh?
Also can someone explain what one means (usually from an Acts Retreat) when one says that “God loves me just the way I am”?
Does all the Grace that comes from God go through Mary? Yes or No.
St Augustine noted, commenting on John’s Gospel, that: “The Lord, in his response, neither failed to respect the law nor departed from his meekness”.
I love this quote you mentioned, thank you. This reminds me of our new pope.
Sadly, stoning is still used as a form of execution in some Muslim-majority countries like Iran. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/content.asp?CategoryID=12139 (Warning: contains unpleasant details).
Today, Women and the poor are disproportionately stoned - no doubt this has always been the same.
In Iran, who casts the first stone, depends on:
- if the accused confesses, the judge casts the first stone.
- if the accused does not confess, and is found guilty, then one of the witnesses casts the first stone.
If similar rules applied at the time of Jesus, then the lynch mob have tried to trap Jesus by appointing Him as the judge in this open-and-shut-case. Will He deny the Law? cast the first stone himself? or order someone else to?
If so, His invitation “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” also has a special judicial meaning.
This pronouncement of the Lord, along with his “Render unto Caesar, render unto God…” retort are more awesome proofs for me personally that the historical Jesus did in fact exist in human space and time. These quotations of Christ’s wisdom blow away the theories of these modern scholars and Biblical revisionists who surmise the Gospel writers gathered imagined and fanciful exchanges to compile a fictional person. How can any human mind think of such inspiring and thought-provoking arguments unless there is a Divine component? And with how much compassion & love in His deliberation, as compared to King Solomon’s “split the baby” decision!
From somewhere or other I have the notion that the Romans then occupying Palestine forbade the Jews from applying the death penalty: the Roman overlords reserved that to themselves. Therefore, had Jesus answered, “Stone her”, the Scribes and Pharisees could have gone and tattled on Jesus to the Roman aithorities that he was publicly advocating breaking the Roman law.
In one of the older movies, I think “King of Kings”- they used to show it on Easter, he was writing down the Pharisees sins. I like this idea. Maybe even one of the mes was the adulterer, but in Mosaic law at that time, don’t believe the man was punished.
On Moses’s law about people stoning an adulteress, let’s recall what Jimmy Akin wrote last year in a post of his (dated Sept. 12, in the Register): “[God in the earlier period of the Old Testament] was willing to tolerate some of the things they were determined to do, though the hardness of their hearts, and over the course of time educate them to a higher level of understanding and acceptance of his will. At first, he was trying to simply limit the damage done by some of their practices.”
Melissa and Elisa: Good question. The lack of the male offender is just one reason why many scholars say the account is a later addition- non-canonical.
The Law, under which Jesus and his auditors operated, mandate punishment for both parties. By Jesus’ day the Jewish leaders had already begun substituted ‘mens traditions for the word of God’, as we learn from many authentic accounts of his ministry.
Another indication: the ‘writing on the ground’ bit seems too much like a later addition by someone who didn’t know Jesus. In other accounts we see him paying careful attention to the speakers before replying to the matter.
It’s certainly warm and fuzzy for Jesus to forgive the woman on his own, but he was under Jehovah’s law- like other Jewish men of the day- and there was a requirement for repentance before forgiveness. Again, we see this in his work in authentically-reported occurrences. Also in Acts 2:38.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.