Sin & Stones

Avert your eyes; it's gonna get Biblical up in here.

Awhile ago I participated in a research study, which I then blogged about. During the past week I took another survey for what I presume is the same research group. [Fair Warning: If you plan to take the same survey, and you read the rest of this post, you will be biased. Quit reading now if you plan to take a survey that includes a section called "Without Sin".]

Ironically, one of the reasoning scenarios presented in that story was the story of Jesus and the woman who committed adultry. For those of you who aren't up on your Bible stories, let me interject the relevant passage here...

"The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultry, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultry. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him." - John 8:3-9 (RSV)

The survey task was to rate the reasoning behind Jesus' statement. There were five answers, each of which contained a slightly different degree of reasoning about the wrongness of possibly punishing an innocent person and/or the idea that since all guilt can't be punished, no guilt should be punished. I wish I could access that survey again and post the answers here, but that would be unfair to the survey-makers, who are still collecting data. My point though is that each of the provided answers totally missed the point of the statement.

To be fair, this is only my interpretation of 'the point' of that statement. You are free to interpret it differently. But it shocked me that none of the provided answers even came close to the following reasoning for saying "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." Jesus called on the group to examine themselves for sin. In doing so, they all found something that they had done at some time that broke the law and/or was immoral, and therefore left without throwing a stone. In examining their own sin, they undoubtedly remembered what drove them to commit those acts - what biological or psychological urges they were unable or unwilling to control. In examining themselves, they were able to empathize with the woman they were accusing. Jesus knew that understanding why the behavior had happened was more important than punishing the behavior, and this was what he wanted to convey to the group.

According to the story, "the eldest" were the first to leave. Makes sense; they had lived the longest, been tempted the most, and had likely committed the most transgressions. It was probably easiest for them to empathize with the woman. The story continues...

"Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again." - John 8:10-11 (RSV)

The point here being, even the greatest and the leaders among us have known temptation and can therefore empathize with those who have succumb to it. The exhortation to avoid repeating the same mistake again remains, and the lesson here is not that we should tolerate actions which harm the fabric of our society. The woman was publicly shamed as she stood accused, but she was also given the chance to change the pattern of her actions. The opportunity for her to grow and change was more important than removing her as a 'threat' to society. Sadly this particular Biblical story does not tell us whether or not she did successfully change her pattern of actions. But it does suggest that Jesus believed that something was fundamentally more important than apportioning guilt and/or punishment.

The story also suggests that the motivations of the accusers were something other than punishment of a particular transgression. "This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him." Perhaps Jesus' motivation was simply to avoid harming a woman who was caught up in what was actually a personal grudge against him.

This is the problem with Biblical stories; they are open to such a wide variety of interpretations. No one can know the true motivations of anyone involved (or even if the sequence of events actually happened as described), and without understanding motivation, you only have half the story. The same actions, arising from different motivations, are treated differently all the time in our society. Therefore insisting on a particular interpretation of a particular action without a complete understanding of the situation is likely the result (at least partially) of a self-serving motivation.

Wow - I think my soapbox was momentarily converted into a pulpit. Scary.