The woman received mercy.
John 8:11
Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.”
Yes, but the whole context was not a personal mercy:
9 At this,
those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left,
with the woman still standing there.
10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they?
Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
His non-condemation is not personal, but contingent on the Pharisees.
She does not even condemn herself again, but remains in the sin. Jesus can’t condemn her on the law of Moses, which would be a death trap for himself:
Look at the Mosaic law:
Deuteronomy 17:6
On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.
In some sense all received mercy since Jesus indicated that He did not come to condemn but to save all people.
However, the main point is to see in all three cases how the disposition of others was not in favor of the mercy or kindness that was given.
I think there is a common message that we are to seek the good for those whose actions we may even be unhappy about. Jesus teaches this message other times also.
Coder, I most certainly agree with your outlook. Jesus did not come to Judge the world, but only to gather evidence for the final condemnation of the Devil. There are more than one witness involved here after Jesus’ death and resurrection.
But I see the incidences of mercy as possible warnings for what will happen when Jesus does Judge.
Here, the woman, by not leaving – forces Jesus to finish the case because he has already answered the question the Pharisees and Scribes put to him – she forces Jesus to defend his position. (She could have snuck out while he continued to look away) I think Jesus would have preferred to ignore the case althogether as is proved by his initial silence to the Pharisees and Scribes as he taunted them visually by acting like a scribe writing on something.
But elsewhere in scripture when presented with a case to Judge – Jesus refuses to be a judge at all. “Who made me your judge?”
So, the final response of Jesus is his vindication – at the expense of condemning the woman verbally, although not with stones:
Go, (and) from now on do not sin any more.
She receives the sentence permitted by the Law of Moses in her case, Jesus receives vindication – everyone else receives humiliation. Again, the woman could have been legally remarried under the Law of Moses on a technicality – or more likely since she doesn’t leave while he continues to look away, but faces him – she may not have been repentant and thought she was justified by the Law.
Neither result can be proven from the incident in scripture as recorded.
Coder, to be clear – I heartily agree with the resultant idea you have come up with, and I think it is true even in spite of the twisted depth of this adulturous woman. In both the other parables, the ideas you express are explicitly addressed – in this last one, I don’t see anyone receiving more than they would legally.
Jesus follows the law to the letter.
He brings us to understand that we have no right, legally, to condemn her either – even though by her own admission she is guilty. For there is only one witnessing. That isn’t the same as mercy, for in this case it is justice.
I recall what Jesus said to pilate regarding the imposition of Roman Law – “You would have no power over me unless it were granted to you from above.”
And I would note that Roman law applied in the passage with the Adulturous woman – so although the appearance of mercy exists, the woman goes away with no guarantee of mercy at all.
Notice, Jesus does not allow her to do as she pleases, but tells her to go away.
“go” – as in get out of my sight, and don’t solicit prostitution here.
I caution against using the adulterous woman as supporting proof, because on careful reflection people normally do not cosider self defence a mercy.
Although one can argue that it is merciful that everyone live rather than everone die – including Jesus himself.
But then, it isn’t really talking about a mercy specific to an incident – but rather the conditions witten into the law of Adam and Eve which does not promise instant death, but death will surely come in the day one eats of the forbidden fruit.
Adam and Eve were given cloths when they left paradise – but Jesus gives the woman nothing, nor commands anyone else to do so, she leaves naked as prescribed for the prostitute.
Although the adulturous woman passage is traditionally associated with mercy, I think the subtlety of the passage too deep.
Mercy shines forth in the earlier two parables where Jesus shows the justice of a merciful action which did not have to be done in the way it was done, they were free to choose to inflict punishment or at least rejection – but did not do so.
Here in this last passage, it looks as if Jesus were forced to Judge – his opponents did Get him into at least a compromised position.
What then, is “sin no more” a spark of hope that her sin will be forgiven – or is it a warning that more sin will inflict yet worse punishment?
How does the mercy message get untangled from the justice issues in such a difficult passage of scripture – the brightest of the Jewish bright failed to correctly analyze it.
