The adulterous woman

How did Jesus save her ?

 

John 8 :

1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him;

and He sat down and taught them.

3 Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?”

6 This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

7 So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”

8 And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

9 Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her,

“Woman, where are those accusers of yours?

Has no one condemned you?”

11 She said: “No one, Lord“.

And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you ; Go and sin no more“.

————————

This text, which the apostle John reports, is a rare gem. I am tuly happy to be able to develop it, because it is always a great joy to be able to evoke the wonders of Jesus.

I well know that this text has been so and so preached, that if I listened to this reason alone I would certainly not put my fingers on the keyboard today. But on the contrary, something inside me informs me that not everything has been said on this subject, and that perhaps the most important remain to be said.

 

This biblical text is of such beauty, that even the unconverted world comes to applaud a certain particular passage, and has even ended up making a theme out of it, (to cast or not to cast the stone). A theme that everyone can relate to their own ideas and personal convictions.

In any case, even when misused most of the time, this passage is generally perceived as a “beautiful moral lesson“.

This is what surprises me by the way, because in principle the world goes against the word of God. Yet generally people easily accept this word of Jesus, and even attribute it to themselves…

How strange this all is !?

—

If I refer to “Christianity“, and even to the so-called “evangelical” Christianity, in general their preachers particularly emphasise “what strikes the eye“.

For example, they emphasise what is –written-, namely that she is an adulteress woman and therefore a notorious sinner.

From there, their preaching naturally goes to the heavy past of the people as well as their sins, “but that in the end, the good Jesus still forgives sins, if however people repent”…

Obviously, when you hear this kind of preaching, people’s tears are never far away, given the heavy past of many, if not all.

Who, indeed, is not a sinner, a sinner who has sins upon him ?

So, when we hear that the good Jesus prevented the stone from being thrown at the poor sinner that was this adulterous woman, we find that very beautiful, very noble, and above all very protective. And in a way it’s not wrong.

So, after having listened to this kind of very oriented preaching -but unfortunately false in its deeper meaning-, and when one goes towards a more thorough research of the text, it is then surprising to consider the completely different attitude of Jesus towards this woman, an attitude that runs counter to the teaching of these so-called “evangelical” preachers.

I want to say this now so that everything may be clear afterwards, because when Jesus spoke to the woman, He did not ask her if someone had already thrown a stone at her. He asked that to others. And when He spoke to the woman it was to ask her if she still felt “condemned“…

Yes, it is good to make the difference right away between what is generally said and what Jesus said, because in these moments of “very sentimental preaching” everyone feels within themselves that they could have been there too, in the place of this woman.

And this is true to some extent; but between the general feeling that comes out of this “very sentimental generalist preaching“, and what the Scriptures truly say, there is a whole world in between !

Yes, a whole world ; a world in which and through which only those who have decided to leave the easy path of preaching “done as if on automatic through what is apparent“, will be able to taste its refinement. And my dearest wish is that this number will increase considerably day by day.

Indeed, for my part, I find it degrading, -to say the least-, to draw only what is apparent when it comes to the acts of Jesus the Son of God!

Or, in other words : “Can the deeds and Words of Jesus be reduced to things in relation to what is apparent” ?

For me, I find that this text can only be tasted in a more advanced order of value, provided that all the elements that compose it are highlighted, rather than just a part. Like, for example, what “Christianity and its doctors” know how to do so well, because it is their specialty.

Indeed, from a whole important biblical passage, they only draw from it two or three words, then they preach on it for half an hour, saying, -if anyone reproaches them for it-, that “even two or three words are the Word of God because they are part of the text“.

Well, well..

It is perhaps, partly, because of this way of acting that many believers have become accustomed to hearing only small parts of texts, but with the “bible open“, of course, especially on a platform.

The result ? They never see the whole picture, “except those who are the most determined to know the truth,” whereas the true beauty of what the Spirit would like to reveal to us can only reach us if all the elements of each situation are shown to us, spiritually.

—

However, with regard to this very truly inspired text, among the most courageous preachers there are still some who have dared to go a little further. They indeed denounced the total injustice of the religious Jews who brought this adulterous woman, forgetting at the same time to bring the man as well, since for an adultery, in principle, two people are needed.

Yes some… But however, even if these some point out this peculiarity, they still do not know, or do not say, “who exactly should be denounced in this case“. They do not show who exactly is responsible, and therefore, from the outset, the subject is distorted.

Yes, everything is wrong from that point on.

In this case it is not worthwhile to look for an ounce of truth in these preachings; these preachings that do not show “where exactly the fault lies”…

For us, we will try to act differently, and the rest of this document will serve that purpose, I hope.

You may not understand everything on first reading, and perhaps even on second, but little by little the sky will clear to let the sun shine through, and for the one who will agree to go into the subject, it will be good and pleasant to be under its “rays“.

—

In any case, it is good and useful to denounce all kinds of injustices that happened during this episode, because it will have the effect of bringing out the opposite :

A Person : Jesus

Indeed, the opposite of injustice will show who was ultimately the only righteous One in this case :

A Person : Jesus.

——

So in this text of John 8, we find ourselves in a high point of Jesus’ life ; a time when He was constantly preaching and teaching, evoking at the same time, through the teaching of his doctrine, what was the kingdom of God and its famous “justice“.

By the way, it was because of what Jesus kept teaching that people came to want to lay hands on him.

Yes, this Jesus was really disturbing ; He was essentially disturbing for the religious leaders, because of this kind of very specific teaching he was giving, but, in addition to this teaching, the many miracles that were happening everywhere, and which in a way attested that this Jesus was approved by God in everything he was teaching.

Anyway, this had become the general admitted thinking, to the point that a doctor of the law, Nicodemus, himself declared this to Jesus :

Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him. (John 3 ; 2)

Here it is, for the general feeling that existed then. There was some truth and some falsehood in this statement, since miracles have never engendered faith, it is obvious. No, it was a kind of general feeling that Nicodemus was declaring there, to Jesus; and in that he spoke in a true way.

Indeed, I find that Nicodemus made this connection in the right way, that is, in relation to his degree of understanding, and probably also to the degree of understanding of many others, since he said “we know”… So they were several people to think the same thing ; to have the same conclusion.

—

In sum, Jesus was in full activity ; a very intense activity.

The people listened, as if amazed by what they heard and saw, for such a thing had never been seen or heard in Israel, not even in the time of the prophets, at least not to this extent.

Some were convinced, although troubled by the fact that “it went against the established customs and the general teaching of the Torah that was being taught“. Others were frankly hostile to it, even going so far as to calculate traps to bring down this Jesus, who at the same time far surpassed them by his justice, and especially by “the wisdom of his justice“, so irresistible in itself.

Among those people hostile to Jesus were those who brought this woman, caught in the act of adultery. Indeed, it was necessary to silence this Jesus at all costs, because he was “breaking the general admitted teaching“. So, since he could not be countered because of his immense wisdom, they tried to silence him by setting a trap for him.

—

If we look carefully at the context of this case, we see that it is written, in verse 2, that Jesus came again into the temple early in the morning, after having spent the night unto the Mount of Olives. Now the people who had followed him until there came to him, (that is, to Jesus), in the temple.

8 ; 1 : But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; (So the people came into the temple, since Jesus was in the temple).

Through this text we see that it is “those who had followed Jesus until there” who also came to the temple, the next day, where Jesus was already since the morning.

This little remark already contains in itself something we don’t necessarily fully appreciate. Indeed, let’s read what preceded this well-known case of the “adulteress” :

John 7 :

37 On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried out, saying, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.

38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

—

40 Therefore many from the crowd, when they heard this saying, said, “Truly this is the Prophet.”

41 Others said, “This is the Christ.”

But some said, “Will the Christ come out of Galilee ? 42 Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the seed of David and from the town of Bethlehem, where David was?”

43 So there was, because of him, so because of Jesus who presented himself as a gift from God to thirsty people, a « division » among the people.

If I say thirsty, it is because Jesus was making a real call to those who were thirsty; thirsty for something that was certainly not water!!!

Indeed, when one is thirsty, one does not come to a “person” to drink, -unless that person has a bottle or some container of water available. No, we go to a river, or a well, or even better to a water source, if we find one.

Now it is precisely as such that our Lord presented himself : As a source…of living water !

Yes, because Jesus did not say, “Come to the container I carry“. But rather come to… Me !“

But what was the context in which Jesus said these things ?

This one :

38 He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”

39 But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those believing in Him “would receive”; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Almost nothing…

—

Therefore, by speaking in this way and offering himself to all those who were thirsty, Jesus was giving them a kind of “school lesson“; a very special lesson whose purpose was to transpose something that was written “in a human way, made to be read by all“, into something “according to the Spirit“.

He was giving them a certain message that said :

“You know, that smitten Rock that gave water to quench the thirst of all the people in their journey to the land of the promise, when they lacked water, therefore strength to walk ? Well, know that this Rock was me“…

“Understand and see that what happened in that time, which really happened, was in fact only an image of what would happen later, that is, today. That is why I am presenting myself to you today as such, that is, as the reality of the image.

And just as I quenched their thirst back then, I can and will do it again with you today, if however you come to me, who am today the same source, but who comes from Heaven.

In sum, Jesus was giving them a wonderful lesson, live, in transposing old things into new things, according to the Spirit.

A little more of this teaching and the time of the Spirit would have come before Its time, brothers and sisters !

However, this was not possible, because in order for this water from Heaven to flow, the Rock that would give it had to be smitten first ; therefore the cross of Jesus Christ, his death, his resurrection and his glorification in Heaven.

—

Regarding the meaning of this Scripture, let’s still consider this :

When the Lord wrote the ten words with His finger, He wrote them in legible letters, human letters, and the whole on tables of stone which He detached from a rock…

But when the Spirit engraves in us these same things, with what Scripture does He write them? And on what ?

Why then did God write in one way at one time, and in another way at another time ?

And is this time a temporal time, or is it “our time“, that is, when we are ready ?

And what was there between that time and the time of this afternoon ?

Just years ?

Is it not rather the faith that comes upon the One who is now glorified after having passed through where He had to pass, which is this time ?

I leave you to ponder this question… For this is what is written concerning “those who should receive the Spirit, and more specifically the Spirit of Christ ! »

—

And what do you think happened to Paul while he was still Saul? What had he not seen in the Scriptures ?

The Son !

He had not seen the SON !

Now, in this notion of the Son as understanding, it no longer included only the Saviour or the Christ, but indeed the Son. Yes, a Son who is Saviour and Christ !

In truth, only a divine Son could be up to our need, and be at the same time Savior and Christ.

—

Yes, Paul had seen many “images” of this Son in the Scriptures, since he had declared that he had the perfect manner of the “law of the fathers“, (for him, this was the essential thing at that time). But Saul did not yet have within himself the translator of these “images”.

These images were blurred, incomprehensible, because they were untranslatable.

Acts 22 :

3 … ; I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the « law of the fathers », and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

4 And I persecuted this (new) way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women.

Then later :

Galatians 3 :

13-14 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

15-16 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace,
16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood,…etc. 

This is what happened to Saul of Tarsus, who was very zealous but blind, even though he could see…

What was he lacking ?

In fact, he lacked a revelation of the Spirit and by the Spirit, of the things concerning the Son of God, meaning that before, not having this view of things, he had only the “law of the fathers” as support for his life.

The result was that he began to persecute those who were yet born again, born of the Spirit…

We can see in this way what reading Scripture without the Spirit can provoke, and what it can produce WITH ! One only need to follow Paul’s journey to be convinced of this.

—

I hope that we now have a more accurate view and context of the time and those very special moments in John 8...

Consider that Jesus was not far from being delivered and dying on a cross, and that He proposed, to whoever would listen, to come to Him if they were thirsty, and that, by believing in Him, they would receive in return the Spirit who was to come after His death, resurrection and glorification ; which would make him or her who would receive this Spirit, become himself rivers of living water for others, just as Jesus Himself, who had previously proposed Himself by these words :

If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink.

Now, it is about this -precisely-, that there was a division.

Division, yes, but it turned out that some, after a night spent, came back to Jesus to listen to him -again.

Yes, the division had indeed taken place within themselves, and after it, a stance was taken.

Between the two, a “night” had passed, making that those who passed by Jesus’ side naturally returned to Him in the morning…

“The morning”…

Yes, brothers and sisters, there is often a kind of “night” within ourselves before we really get interested in Jesus and come to follow him for good. Yes, that we come to listen to “His” teachings; only His teachings and nothing else…

This is – briefly said – the context in which the adulterous woman case took place. It is no mean feat, and it may perhaps help us to better grasp the reasons for this very important affair. Something that can only be perceived later… Little by little.

Or in other words : “What was really at stake in this adulterous woman case“?

I repeat : Look at the context in which all this happened.

—

I pick up where we left off :

Normally the religious leaders of the temple should have been delighted to see so many people in the temple; but unfortunately, there was a problem: “It was not the religious leaders that these people came to listen to, but Jesus, with his very special way of teaching a new doctrine : the one that came from the Father.

Yes, because, in top of that, this Jesus was now proposing to those who were “thirsty” to come to Him to drink…

Of course, Jesus was not talking about water here, like water coming from a “well“, but about Water coming from a Person, and all of this towards someone who is perishing in the middle of a “desert“.

There, it was no longer acceptable ! As long as all this was happening outside the temple, it was fine; but that these things were now moving into the temple, the “holy temple“, there, it was no longer possible ; something had to be done, and very quickly !

Why do I speak of the temple in this way ? Simply because the true temple was the temple that was Jesus, and that in this temple that was his body, it happened that little by little, inside this stone temple, members of the “body of Christ” entered, even if they were only budding members at that time.

Yes, indeed, a division had been made within them, making that they did not look so much at the place where they were, but on the contrary, led them to come and listen to the One who spoke to them spiritually when He taught them…

Yes, I am indeed talking about the One who filled the temple, not only as a person, but also as a spiritual teaching; I am talking about that famous temple in which there was previously only the law; a temple into which one enters with a heart as hard as a stone, but from which, because of the presence of Jesus, one comes out with a heart of flesh after Jesus has filled that place with his teaching.

In fact, we can read it here :

John 2 :

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.
(Here we clearly see that Jesus does not attest to the destruction of the first temple, as if he wanted to destroy it definitively, but rather to raise it up. He raises it up by himself, without the help of anyone else; for what is old can in no way help the reconstruction of a new temple, which is spiritual and not physical.

20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?”

21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body. 22 Therefore, when He had risen from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this to them; and they believed the Scripture and the word which Jesus had said.

(Or if you prefer, they believed in the existing relationship between what Scripture said and what Jesus said. And this happened when the resurrection of Jesus was attested.

This is here the first action of the life of the Spirit when someone is still under the law, (since the Spirit was poured out after the resurrection of Jesus) : He sees and believes the Scripture that announced these things, because now he understands them differently.

The Scriptures being spiritual, he understands the words of Jesus spiritually, whereas before he understood them according to the letter).

It is therefore in this spiritual context that it is written that the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman taken in adultery…

Yes, all this happened the day after Jesus presented himself, -finally-, as a “source” to those who were thirsty, and not as a well.

He presented himself as the ultimate alternative to thirst; the one that comes from walking in a desert,

– Desert where all the “visible wells” are all dry, one after the other…

– Or wells where there is water, but which is “bitter”…

– Or that there is indeed water in the well, it’s true, but where you get so tired to draw this famous water, that it’s never ending : “I have to drink the water that I just drew from the well to compensate for my hard work”…

Yes, because the well is deep, as the Samaritan woman will say.

But in this case, let’s understand that there is not much water left for the house; house from which we precisely came to bring back some, this very water!

So you have to start again, trying to drink less so you can bring some home…

It is hard, don’t you think ? It is exhausting and discouraging; and in the end we perish in this desert of searching for water, by not having seen, by the Spirit, the permanent Source that was there, but not visible : Jesus !

—

I pick up our little meditation where we left off :

I personally think they were very lucky, these religious people, to find this woman “taken in adultery” at the right time. They would have searched and searched again to find this kind of woman and situation, that they would not have done better.

An ill-intentioned soul would even wonder if sometimes they had not foreseen all this in advance by searching at all costs for an adulterous woman and finding her at the right moment.

But there, obviously, it is undoubtedly an ill-intentioned soul which would have such a thought…

On the other hand, one has the right to wonder why they brought this adulteress before Jesus, since they knew, -normally-, what to “do” in such a case…

Yes, why after all ? A matter like that should have been settled among the people, and not brought up in the middle of a Jesus’ teaching.

In sum, what was this story doing there ?

—

And thus, in a “certain teaching of Jesus“, a subject of condemnation was as if intertwined…

So…

So what ?

Well, it turned out that “the Word” of Jesus was stopped… Stopped for a moment.

Yes indeed, the source of living water that was this Word, immediately stopped flowing after this intervention concerning “what the law says about stoning”…

—

Let’s take a short break :

Tell me : Have you ever heard a servant of God preach the Kingdom of God and His righteousness ? Or in other words, “the doctrine of Christ“, His very own doctrine ?

What happens in this case ? Well, there is a speaker who quickly changes the subject of God’s justice, saying for example “everything you need to do to be a good Christian“…

Usually, that’s what happens, the subject must change quickly!!!

—

How was it presented to you when you had to “convert” ?

Has it changed since then ?

Brothers and sisters, do you believe that things have changed that much since the time of Jesus when he was in his humanity ?

En sommes-nous sûrs ?

Are we sure of it ?

Let’s not forget that in this case, it was in a very sudden way that a subject of condemnation was introduced, while Jesus was making in a free way a spiritual proposal to the people…

So brothers and sisters, don’t you find that the context of this time resembles (too) often our religious generation ?

—

So I continue to say that Jesus was there, sitting in the middle of the temple, and he was teaching; he was teaching, for sure, a doctrine that went far beyond the preaching that we are used to hear.

 

If God permits, we will one day see what belongs to “preaching” according to the Scripture, and what does not.

 

 

To teach as Jesus did is to make known the doctrine of the kingdom of God. It is “building something in the hearts” if you will.

Then, when, fortunately, the teaching of the “Word” goes hand in hand with a preaching, which is rather a way of speaking with force and conviction, then, yes, it is the construction of a spiritual house that can finally begin!

I mean that not every worker is necessarily a preacher, and likewise, not every worker is necessarily a teacher. No, they are normally meant to work together.

—

 

So Jesus was there and he taught; and it happened that, while respecting the integrity of the law of Moses, thanks to his very particular teaching, he brought out a new facet of it through a “different” sense of the Scriptures.

 

Indeed, each time Jesus spoke about the law, it is clear that he did not draw the same conclusions as those who also spoke about it, for they spoke about it only according to the written letter they had received from Moses.

 

Jesus also used this scripture, but with “that little something” that ultimately made everything you were supposed to get out of it change.

 

He would even go so far as to say, “You have heard that it was said…but I say to you…“

 

Without wanting to remove the law, He said, for example, that the law “implied this and that” (You have heard…), and that He, speaking directly, that is, spiritually, said “something completely different“.

 

In short, when Jesus spoke of the law, he was in fact speaking of the true interpretation of the law, made by Him, the Son of God.

 

Almost nothing…

 

We ourselves, when we read in a “different” way, that is, by the Spirit and according to the Spirit, (since one cannot read by the Spirit if it is not “according to the Spirit”), we then see what we had not seen before, because this Spirit shows us the thing in a “different” way, that is, in a way that is in perfect harmony with the only and true gospel, namely the gospel of God (Mark 1; 14 and Romans 1; 1).

 

So, what we can say today is that there are indeed the Scriptures, it is true; but also and above all there is “the Word“, the one that is within the Scriptures.

 

And it is this One, the Word, that must be extracted from the Scriptures, for the Word is Christ himself ! And all this can only be done by the Spirit of God, we must admit. Reason has no part in these things, as we shall see later.

 

Although it was entirely filed with truth, this “new sense” undermined what the scribes and Pharisees had said about it up to that point, or what they had concluded from it. (“So the sooner we silence this Jesus, the better…

Never mind the truth that He teaches, this Jesus, as long as we can keep our teaching jobs”…

In fact, it was necessary to interrupt Jesus urgently, especially in the stone temple where he was teaching, because it was becoming dangerous for them.

And they succeeded, indeed, in interrupting Jesus, at least for a time…

 

But, brothers and sisters, is it not the same kind of “impediment” that still remains today ?

Indeed, while Jesus was teaching about the things concerning the kingdom of God, He was suddenly interrupted by the arrival of religious Jews and a woman, caught in the act of adultery, who asked Jesus to answer a question concerning the law of Moses :

“Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act…

Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.

But what do You say ?”

Wasn’t this, here, a clever ploy to silence Jesus and prevent Him from teaching anymore ? And above all, to prevent Him from ever again presenting Himself as a “source of living water” ?

And when nowadays, we preach things that are of the order of condemnation, or make someone feel accused “so that they may repent” as they say, is this not here a subtle way of silencing the spiritual word of Jesus from being heard ?

How can we hear, let alone understand, the spiritual Word of Jesus, when we are subtly placed under a yoke of law and condemnation, since the two go together ?

But perhaps we could read the text below that you probably know well, to go with today’s topic.

2 Corinthians 3 :

3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink, but by the Spirit of the living God; not on tablets of stone, (the tables of the law), but on tablets of flesh, that is of the…..heart.

(The Corinthians had indeed become a letter; an epistle of Christ. Why? Because they had received the true gospel which is “by the Spirit“ and “according to the Spirit“).

4 And we have such trust (that you are truly a letter that Christ sends to the world) through Christ toward God.

(That is, a confidence given by the glorified Christ “alongside God”).

Therefore, there is here a total approval of the fruit of the ministry of the Spirit, put into action by the apostle Paul!

5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think anything as being from ourselves ; (i.e., according to our own concepts, even the most religious and sincere). but our sufficiency is from God ;

– Almost nothing !

– Where is the man here ?

6 Who also “made us sufficient” as “ministers of the new covenant” ; that is, not of the letter, (… a covenant that would be made by means of a written law, therefore without the Spirit), but of the Spirit : (therefore a covenant by the Spirit and according to the Spirit); for indeed the letter kills, (i.e. the written law) but the Spirit gives life.

And what does the Spirit gives life to ?

He gives life, He gives life back, not only to the letter itself, but to those who were previously under the regime of the written letter, that is, the one that orders and obliges, but which does not have within itself the spiritual meaning of what it puts forward.

It only has “order” and “condemnation” as its fruit, if they are not practiced completely.

Therefore the new covenant is not what we think it is. It is generally said that now it is by grace, whereas before it was by law -and this is not wrong; but let us not forget that in order to spread this message of new covenant by grace and by means of faith, we need a spiritual word that goes in this direction!!!

Consider then the damage that could be caused by a message of grace given with fleshy words; or a message that should be given free of charge, but which, passing through ill-intentioned hands, becomes something we need to pay for.

7 But if the ministry of death, (Yes, death indeed has a ministry, brothers and sisters; a ministry given to this law, by means of ministries/men), written and engraved (therefore human) on physical stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance ; which glory was passing away, 8 how wil the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious ! (As a fruit by reason of its permanence, and many other things).

(Yes, the Spirit also has his ministry and His ministries/men, brothers and sisters in Christ, but not for the same use; and above all, not for the same result).

9 For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness (that is, the one by the Spirit and by faith) exceeds much more in glory !

10 For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, (yes) because of the new glory that excels.

(How?

The answer is below).

11 For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.

(We must be careful here : Paul is not talking here about a “good law of Moses” which would have been glorious even if temporary, but about the Glory of God -his presence in this place on Moses’ alone alone-.

Let’s pay close attention to the words and topics of the text.

The presence of the Spirit was indeed there, but the decrees that came out of it were given by angels, so no faith possible within them, because angels do not have faith, unless the reader reads these things by the Spirit.

Moreover, in this disposition, the presence of God was like a consuming fire.

Let us therefore be careful about any search for the so-called presence of God that would be “under the law”, for in that case we would be entitled to a consuming God, instead of a God of grace.

So beware of mixtures and also of the flesh, which delivers a word “according to the letter”, instead of the Spirit).

—

After these somewhat “detailed” points, which take up a lot of space, I return to the subject of the adulterous woman, and especially to the subject of “repentance”, which is often included to explain how and why Jesus saved the adulterous woman :

Repentance, brothers and sisters, is it not rather related to the revealed goodness of God ?

Let’s read it :

Romans 2 ; 3

And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God ?

4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance and longsuffering ; not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance ?

In relation to what does the apostle Paul establish the foundation of true repentance here ? By the countless number of our sins that weigh upon us and threaten us, or by the view we have of God’s goodness in the face of our sins, for which He has not punished us at all ?

You know, the burden driven by sin is not necessarily faith, let alone repentance. No, it’s often the bite of our conscience that hurts us.

Many people in life are uncomfortable with their consciences, but yet they do not want of God and even raise their fist against Him.

True repentance is therefore an act of the Spirit, for it is through the Spirit that we can finally see the goodness of God.

So, when it comes to repentance according to the Spirit, it is once again a gift from Above !

—

I would now like to return to our main topic. But before continuing, I would like to clarify what exactly the law said in the book of Leviticus chapter 20 :

10 ‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death.

11 The man who lies with his father’s wife has uncovered his father’s nakedness; both of them shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

12 If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death. They have committed perversion. Their blood shall be upon them.

13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

14 If a man marries a woman and her mother, it is wickedness. They shall be burned with fire, both he and they, that there may be no wickedness among you.

15 If a man mates with an animal, he shall surely be put to death, and you shall kill the animal.

16 If a woman approaches any animal and mates with it, you shall kill the woman and the animal. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood is upon them.

17 ‘If a man takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, and sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a wicked thing. And they shall be cut off in the sight of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness. He shall bear his guilt.

18 If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has exposed her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from their people.

19 ‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister nor of your father’s sister, for that would uncover his near of kin. They shall bear their guilt. So this is addressed to the man, the act of uncovering the nakedness.

20 If a man lies with his uncle’s wife, he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness. They shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.

21 If a man takes his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.

So that’s what the text says about this subject.

But let’s also see how it was supposed to happen :

Deuteronomy 17 ; 6 : Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

7 The « hands of the witnesses » shall be « the first » against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.

So you shall put away the evil from among you.

Yes, in this case, removing the evil was done by the death of the “bearer of evil”… We will see this in detail much further on, or another time. But I believe that you have already understood what or who it is about.

—

I note here that every time -except once- which evokes a woman who would go to a beast, it is written: “If a man, if a man, if a man”…

On the other hand, in Exodus 20, and more particularly in verse 17 which I insert below, the emphasis is placed on the fact that the law which Moses pronounced was addressed more particularly to men :

17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house ;

you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife,

nor his male servant,

nor his female servant,

nor his ox,

nor his donkey,

nor anything that is “your neighbor’s”. etc.

—

So we do not see here any orders given to women.

The “You shall not covet” was therefore addressed to the man, and not to the woman.

Moreover, it was a matter of “not coveting“, not looking. That a man looks at a woman or vice versa, is it not a fact of nature? It was coveting the good of the other that was bad and forbidden, because the woman is the help of the man.

In sum, in a general way, it is clear that the law of Moses provided for the responsibility of the man, and not of the woman. And concerning the punishment, written in the book of Leviticus, the woman was “as if incorporated” in it.

Yes, it was: “If a man, if a man, if a man“.

We never see written : “If a woman”…

And if this is written once, it is because in this case there was no man, but only a beast ; therefore an impossibility to put the responsibility on a man, since it was about a beast in this case.

This is the only case where it is written : If a woman.

You see, it’s very precise.

There is indeed the case, detailed at length, in Numbers 5:11, of a man who has doubts about his wife and asks that she be tested. But this passage is not related at all to what we are meditating on today, since there is no man here who complains or has doubts about his wife, but rather religious Jews who took a woman “caught in adultery” out of a house.

However, I would like to add that the law clearly states that adultery is when it involves a married woman :

“The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife / married woman“… That is what the Scripture says. (Lev. 20; 10 a)

—

However, in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 17, there is also a passage that evokes another form of adultery that concerns both the man and the woman, and I would like to talk about it because it is very important :

2-3 “If there is found among you, within any of your gates which the Lord your God gives you, a man or a woman who has been wicked in the sight of the Lord your God, in transgressing His covenant, who has gone and served other gods and worshiped them, either the sun or moon or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded,

4-5 and it is told you, and you hear of it, then you shall inquire diligently.

it is indeed true ?

And certain ?

Has such an abomination been committed in Israel ?

If so, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman who has committed that wicked thing, and shall stone to death that man or woman with stones.

6 Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses (and not “was caught“; a very vague term); he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people.

So you shall put away the evil from among you. (No grace…)

In this passage, the parallel is drawn with a man or woman who would go to false gods, which is considered here as adultery (see that the punishment for these acts is the same as for the one who have committed “physical” adultery).

Indeed, the one who commits this crime is like someone who would break the pure bond that exists between him and God, that is, transgress his covenant, the first one. This offense is therefore considered as an “adultery“.

However, in the case we are meditating on today, I do not see that the woman in question was a married woman. In any case, nothing says so. But anyway, we must believe that these religious people knew what they were saying; I am talking here about the people who came to to accuse Jesus.

Yes, it is necessary to see that in this case, we do not see any man as husband of the woman, nor a man who would have committed adultery with her.

So there was no man ; and for the woman, we don’t know if she was married or not.

This is the context of this time. And fortunately we have the Word of Jesus who said to this woman: “go and sin no more“. But even then, we don’t know what sin it is about here in the words that Jesus pronounced.

So it is difficult, in this situation, to take the Scriptures as support if all the elements are not presented. This is what I meant when I mentioned the difference between “preaching” and teaching what is written.

—

In this text, these religious Jews only wanted to look at “what Moses would have commanded in the law“, but without taking the trouble to go and consult the Scriptures, in order to know what they exactly say on this precise subject. Because, literally, there was a life at stake, isn’t it ?

If we want to draw a parallel, this is unfortunately what is happening today for those who are in “assemblies“: Few people take the trouble to open their bible; and even when they do, their reading is distorted by a form of translation habit that has been inserted into them without their knowledge, over time.

Then the adversary, taking advantage of this form of doctrinal weakness, introduces into them a false teaching.

On the other hand, it must be said that there are no, or very few, teachings or teachers in these assemblies. There is almost only preaching. Thing that we will perhaps see another time in order to know what is planned to be preached.

We are, in our time, in exactly the same position as it was then. A false teaching is delivered, if only because it is not spiritual, or so slightly, and whose only purpose is usually to accuse the believer, yet he does not even have the presence of mind to go and look at the Scriptures to see if what has been preached to him is true or false, since he has not been accustomed to this and that, moreover, he is in the position of being constantly accused. Or worse : He reads them according to the letter, that is, as he has always heard it.

We well know that Jesus loves sinners in particular, and that He did not come for those who are well, but for those who are sick, but however, I am a witness that in the church/building where I was, there is indeed the “dock” (=the place in a criminal law court where the accused person sits or stands during the trial).

Yes, I was there when they brought up on the platform a woman who had the misfortune to have a child without being married.

On the surface, it was so that she could ask the congregation for forgiveness; but speaking with her a long time later, she confided to me that she felt heavy-hearted about what she had been asked to do in order to continue taking the famous “holy communion“…

One day I will verify if the law punishes a similar case of a woman who had a child without being married… Of course I am not in favour of this thing, because for me it is a kind of anomaly; but going as far as employing such methods, there I do not feel able to. My conscience does not allow me to do so.

Morevoer, if this woman had been “in Christ“, I very much doubt that she would have done this.

—

I come back to the subject to say that we must, by necessity, accept the cruel fact that, in such a case, as I said it before, our free will is under the control of a false law that is nevertheless claimed to be “of God“.

—

So it is surprising that the religious Jews could bring to Jesus a woman “caught in adultery“, in the early-morning, with only these words : “Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned.“…

And nobody flinched ! Not a single remark was made about it. I am referring to the absence of the man, who was -him-, the responsible, according to the Scripture. (We will see this in detail later).

So we must admit that the people present had come to believe, more in the religious leaders than in the Scriptures, since they did not even flinch!!!

But after all, isn’t that what still happens today ? Don’t we believe more in the “man who preaches” than in the content of the book that contains what the preacher is supposed to preach or even teach ?

Indeed, I personally find that these words : “in the law”… were very vague in the mouth of those who brought this woman before Jesus. Just like today by the way! The things announced are often very vague.

Talking like this, knowing that it is about stoning a person, it is a bit light, don’t you think ? Knowing that, in addition, the law stated that “everything should be done on the testimony of two or three witnesses“, while in this case they just said this : “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.

was caught… When ? Where ? By whom ?

Mystery…

—

Let’s now see how things were supposed to happen, according to the Scriptures :

Deuteronomy 17 ; 6  :

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness.

7 The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

Who surprised this woman? Them ? Just one ? Several ? Who exactly ?… Where were the two or three witnesses required by the law ?

Nothing is said. Everything is vague, just like the interpretation of the law that they had made of it : Very vague.

 

You know, when we’re in the vague about the interpretation of the Scriptures, we can do this kind of thing without even realising what we’re saying or doing. I say this because, after all, those religious Jews did indeed say “in the law“… but nothing more, nothing further.

 

When they said “in the law“…, they were showing this way what they understood of the law, in a general way, and therefore the way they interpreted it, this law, that is very vaguely, not to say falsely. Indeed when one is vague, the error is never far away.

—

But what surprises me most in this case is not the enormous error of these religious. No, but the reaction of Jesus “in front of all these facts“.

Yes, it is He, Jesus, who amazes me, because although He could have severely rebuked these people on all these points, and this with great detail, these people who, moreover, brought to Him on a plate this case of adultery among the people, I do not see Jesus using this matter as a “matter of defense” though ; I am talking about, of course, the defense He could have used by means of the law.

Indeed, in the world, any lawyer, even a very young lawyer, would have immediately used the glaring flaw, as was largely the case here, to defeat the accusation and win the case.

– But no, I don’t see Jesus using these “elements of the law that have been flouted” to counter these religious Jews.

I don’t see him using them as “guilty men” either to defend a woman accused by this same law, while someone other than Him could have told them “that they were completely at fault, that they were going against their law, the one they were putting forward though“, etc.

So why didn’t Jesus make use of the law, -law that these men of this same law were flouting, to give them some trouble and thus protect the woman?

But, brothers and sisters, let’s see that if Jesus had used the law to defend the woman, then he would have implicitly admitted the validity of “this law” towards men; I am referring to a law made for men to put it totally into practice.

Do you realise what would have happened if Jesus had implicitly sided with the law by using it to deliver the woman from this condemnation ?

It is true that it is written that “the law is for those who are under the law”… Yes, but as a lesson to be given to anyone who would like to live by it.

And that’s pretty much what happened in this case.

On the other hand, could Jesus have used the law to save the woman from a flouted law ordinance, but accusing though, while Jesus Himself said of this law: “It is also written in your law” (John 8:17).

But no, surprisingly, Jesus did not use this possible weapon, which was yet very easy to handle.

No, He did something else : “He wrote on the gound“…

Ce point est mystérieux, et je comprends que beaucoup ont cherché et cherchent encore à savoir ce que pouvait bien écrire Jésus sur la terre.

Je vous en proposerai donc ma version, ne l’imposant à personne mais laissant à chacun le soin de vérifier si elle correspond bien à la situation du moment, et surtout à toute cette affaire en général.

Tout d’abord, gardons bien à l’esprit que Jésus est un Dieu de grâce. Et secondement qu’il est précisé le mot terre à deux reprises, à deux moments rapprochés l’un de l’autre, ces deux moments étant séparés par le verset 7.

Je dis cela car il aurait été bien plus logique d’écrire que Jésus écrivait sur le sol. Mais non, l’Ecriture inspirée dit bien que Jésus écrivait sur la «terre».

Donc quand les juifs religieux dirent vaguement que «Moïse, dans la loi, nous a ordonné de lapider de telles femmes», Jésus se mit alors à écrire –sur la terre-, -et non du ciel-, ce que disaient ces juifs, mais qui n’était pas inscrit dans la loi par rapport à son sens spirituel.

En somme Jésus écrivit sur la terre ce qui était faux dans les propos de ces hommes quand ils évoquaient la loi de Moïse, mais pas avec son sens spirituel ! Ils n’en avaient pas la traduction.

En somme, c’était seulement par rapport à «l’interprétation qu’ils en faisaient et qu’ils déclarèrent à Jésus», que Celui-ci écrivit sur la terre, ce qu’Il entendit d’eux.

—

Il y avait donc ici un avertissement induit de la part de Jésus !

Par exemple :

Quelqu’un vous écoute attentivement, puis consigne par écrit ce qu’il en a retenu… Cela sert d’avertisseur en général, n’est-ce pas ? En tout cas on devient prudent dans un tel cas.

En somme, Jésus écrivit sur la terre ce que les juifs religieux avaient interprété de la loi de Moïse concernant le fait de l’adultère, mais «sous la loi» ; interprétation qui les amenèrent à mettre au milieu de la place publique cette femme, en vue de la lapider.

En effet, on ne peut pas tuer une personne sans être sûr de l’interprétation de la loi qui permet cette chose-là : et même qui ordonne la chose !

A ce sujet, vous rendez-vous compte de ce qui serait arrivé si Jésus avait donné quelque consentement à cette question si vicieusement posée ?

—

Mais je reviens sur le sujet :

Puis quand Jésus déclare : «Que celui de vous qui est sans péché jette le premier la pierre contre elle», on le voit de nouveau écrire sur la terre.

Et Il écrit quoi ?

Il écrit «ce que -Lui- interprète de la Loi, bien que n’étant pas non plus écrit dans les «tables de la loi» ; les tables de pierre.

Jésus a écrit sur la terre deux interprétations de la loi qui n’étaient pas écrites, ni l’une ni l’autre, dans cette même loi écrite.

En somme, il écrivit sur la terre ce qui n’était pas censé être écrit dans le livre de la loi.

Par exemple quand Jésus dit ceci plus tard : «Que celui qui est sans péché»… Est-ce que cela était écrit dans la loi ?

Non bien sûr ! C’est pourquoi il écrivit aussi cela sur la terre.

—

Jésus parla-t-il en faux quand il posa cette question : «Que celui d’entre vous»… ?

Impossible, car Il est la Vérité !

 

Pourtant Jésus se servit d’une Parole «hors-loi», bien qu’inscrite dans la loi, mais de manière indirecte et écrite de son doigt sur la terre, -comme du temps de loi où ce fut le «doigt de Dieu» qui fut à l’œuvre, afin de répondre à cette question vicieuse de juifs religieux.

Et c’est ce qui les bloqua ; en tout cas en grande partie.

Oui le doigt de Dieu était encore à l’œuvre, mais en grâce à travers le Sauveur nommé Jésus…

—

En somme, Jésus leur disait ceci de manière indirecte :

«Vous me proposez une interprétation toute personnelle de l’Ecriture ? J’inscris donc cette chose sur la terre.

Puis je vous réponds aussi de la même manière : Je vous réponds par une interprétation toute personnelle de la loi, chose que j’écris aussi sur la terre.

Les deux choses que j’ai écrites sur la terre sont du même ordre : Il s’agit de l’interprétation que quelqu’un se fait d’un ensemble de textes écrits dans la loi.

Vous avez une interprétation de la loi, et moi j’en ai une autre… Je l’écris donc sur la terre, parce que ça ne peut en aucune manière être écrit dans la Torah.

C’est hors de la Torah ce que j’écris… parce que c’est écrit dans un «autre livre», c’est-à-dire un livre spirituel…. Un livre qui ne s’achète pas ni ne se prête.

 

Puisque vous avez dit que «dans la loi, Moïse vous a ordonné de lapider de telle femme», c’est donc seulement l’interprétation que vous en avez, n’est-ce pas, puisqu’elle ne cadre pas avec l’Ecrit.

 

C’est donc votre seule interprétation que vous me donnez-là ?

Vous m’avez présenté un cas ; et pour le justifier vous m’avez présenté une interprétation personnelle de votre loi par rapport à ce qui est «réellement écrit». Par conséquent je vous réponds moi aussi en vous donnant ma propre interprétation de la même loi. Et j’écris le tout sur la terre».

En effet, la traduction que faisait Jésus du : Que celui d’entre vous qui est sans péché, était une traduction spirituelle, selon l’Esprit. Par conséquent elle ne pouvait pas entrer dans une écriture sous la loi, c’est-à-dire dans une écriture où tout est renfermé sous le péché !

Non il s’agissait d’une loi orale, spirituelle, celle qui n’est pas écrite sur des tables de pierre, mais sur les cœurs, par l’Esprit.

 

Frères et sœurs, c’est cette seule interprétation de la loi qui sauva la femme de la lapidation.

—

Qu’est-ce qu’engendrait cette loi par rapport à la femme ?

La mort !

Voilà ce que produit la loi lorsqu’on ne marche que par elle, et surtout quand elle est mal comprise : La mort !

 

Il s’agit alors du «ministère de condamnation et de mort».

(2 Cor 3 ; 7)

 

Et que produisit l’interprétation de la loi par l’Esprit de Jésus en direction de la femme ?

La grâce, le sauvetage !

Voyons que Jésus ne s’est pas servi de la loi de Moïse pour sauver la femme de la mort, mais de Son interprétation de cette même loi. Je veux dire qu’il ne s’est pas servi des Ecritures hors de leur sens spirituel.

 

C’est elle, cette interprétation si spirituelle, qui sauva la femme de la lapidation !

 

Or il se trouve qu’outre le fait que c’était une parole spirituelle, elle était en même temps une parole prophétique.

 

En fait, tout cela ne peut se comprendre que si on voit les choses en termes «d’unité». Mais on dépasserait largement le sujet si on voulait seulement s’en approcher, ne serait-ce qu’un peu. Alors continuons si vous voulez.

—

 

Retenons bien, frères et sœurs, que dans la loi il n’était pas écrit : Si quelqu’un de vous est sans péché.

Non ça n’existe pas ; et d’ailleurs l’apôtre Jean, dans sa première épitre atteste cette chose :

1 ; 8 Si nous disons que nous n’avons pas de péché, nous nous séduisons nous-mêmes, et la vérité n’est point en nous.

9 Si nous confessons nos péchés, il est fidèle et juste pour nous les pardonner, et pour nous purifier de toute iniquité.

Il était donc impossible que quelqu’un réponde à appel que Jésus lançait ceci à la volée : «Que celui de vous qui est sans péché jette le premier la pierre contre elle».

Quelqu’un qui, par exemple, put dire ceci : «Moi je suis sans péché ; moi je peux lapider la femme».

Jésus se servit donc d’une sorte de «vide juridique dans la loi» pour poser cette fameuse question ; question qui fut d’ailleurs salutaire à la femme.

—

Mais pensez-vous que ce soit uniquement à cette femme que cette action de Jésus fut salutaire ?

Certes pas ! Elle fut salutaire à beaucoup !

Qu’est-ce que je veux dire ?

Je veux dire que la loi disait que dans une affaire d’adultère deux ou trois témoins devaient faire une déposition… et qu’il s’ensuivrait une mort par lapidation.

Imaginez-vous donc le cas d’un des témoins qui aurait été censé témoigner de la chose, mais qui aurait été lui-même un adultère consommé, vu qu’il n’existe pas un seul homme qui ne soit un pécheur… Imaginez-vous dans ce cas la gravité de son problème ? -De son problème de conscience ?

Déposer contre l’autre alors que je fais exactement la même chose, et le tout dans l’obligation de le faire puisque la loi m’y oblige…

Mais dans quel piège suis-je tombé ! Et en plus je n’ai pas de moyen d’en sortir, car je suis «sous le régime de cette loi» !!!

Jésus savait bien tout cela, et en posant cette question de savoir si quelqu’un était sans péché pour faire cette chose, savoir qu’il «devait témoigner», Il éloignait ainsi, pour un temps, ce grave cas de conscience qui aurait pu amener au suicide quiconque aurait amené à la mort celui qui aurait été son semblable, savoir un pécheur, un adultère comme lui.

Pour cela, lisons ceci dans Romains 2 ; 1 :

Ô homme, qui que tu sois, toi qui juges, tu es donc inexcusable ; car en jugeant les autres tu te condamnes toi-même, puisque -toi qui juges-, tu fais les mêmes choses.

Le principe que Paul évoque ici, c’est que quiconque juge d’une chose sur l’autre, est forcément, de près ou de loin «partie prenante», sans quoi il ne serait pas capable d’en juger.

—

Donc, frères et sœurs, croyez-vous qu’avec cette question si précise, Jésus aurait uniquement sauvé la femme ?

N’est-ce pas aussi ses accusateurs qu’Il sauvait ? Sauvés de leur mauvaise conscience qui les aurait ruinés intérieurement, et peut-être extérieurement finalement ?

N’est-ce pas le remords qui poussa Judas à aller se pendre ?

Et nous aujourd’hui qui lisons ces choses, ne sommes-nous pas aussi préservés de ce piège, grâce à cette action de Jésus ?

—

Mais, puisque nous en sommes arrivés à ce point, je profite de cette occasion pour faire une petite distinction :

Bien que le monde ait favorablement accepté tout ce passage de la femme adultère dans son «principe général», voyons quand même qu’il l’interprète à sa façon. Et comme il est évident que la chrétienté s’est imprégnée de l’esprit de ce monde, -à vous d’en juger-, il en ressort forcément les mêmes erreurs.

De quoi s’agit-il ?

De ceci :

«Que celui de vous qui est sans péché, jette le premier la pierre contre elle».

Le monde, ainsi que sa «chrétienté», traduit alors cette phrase ainsi : «Ne lui jetez pas la première pierre».

C’est bien ce qu’on entend n’est-ce pas ?

Ou dit plus simplement, «ce qui est retenu dans le monde et sa chrétienté, c’est l’idée de «jeter ou de ne pas jeter la première pierre»…

Mais ce n’est pas du tout ce qui est écrit dans le texte ! Ce n’est pas du tout ce qu’en a dit Jésus !

Ce qui est écrit, c’est qu’il faut que ce soit un homme, qui, –le premier-, doit lancer la pierre. Et dans le cas que nous méditons aujourd’hui, le sujet est bien de lancer, -le premier-, la pierre tueuse contre cette femme.

C’est «celui de vous» dont il est question ici, et pas de la première pierre.

– «Que celui de vous

– qui est sans péché,

– jette, –le premier-,

– la pierre contre elle».

Et ceci est tout-à-fait en accord avec l’Ecriture qui dit ceci en Dt.17 :

7 La main des témoins se lèvera, la première sur lui» pour le faire mourir, et la main de tout le peuple, ensuite.

Oh je sais, quelqu’un dira qu’il n’y a pas une grande différence entre les deux façons de dire la chose. Et d’ailleurs on me l’a déjà dit. On m’a dit que de toutes façons, que ce soit le premier ou la première pierre, la femme serait morte lapidée.

Ben voyons…

Mais moi j’en trouve une, de différence, et plutôt une énorme : C’est que l’accent est généralement mis sur le mal que l’on voudrait jeter sur l’autre, et pas le mal dans l’homme ; c’est-à-dire le mal qui est en celui qui le pousse à jeter la fameuse pierre, surtout quand l’accusation est fausse et que lui-même pratique les mêmes choses !

En somme Jésus dit ceci : «Jettes-toi, -toi en premier dans l’action-, si toutefois tu en as le courage».

– Prends tes responsabilités.

– Ensuite, prends dans ta main une pierre, afin que celle-ci soit comme «la prolongation extérieure de ton intention responsable, qui elle doit être intérieure».

Et en cela, oui, Jésus voulait protéger les «quiconque» auraient l’audace de tuer, alors qu’ils seraient eux-mêmes des tueurs, car chacun en a les gênes. Il suffit que l’occasion se présente.

 

Note :