1126. They point out the woman’s fault when they say this woman was just now caught in adultery. They detail her fault in three ways, calculated to deflect Christ from his gentle manner. First, they mention the freshness of her fault, saying just now; for an old fault does not affect us so much, because the person might have made amends. 1126. Culpam quidem manifestant cum dicunt haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio: quam quidem culpam exaggerant ex tribus, quae Christum commovere deberent a sua mansuetudine. Et primo ex culpae novitate; unde dicunt modo: nam quando est antiqua, non tantum movet, quia forte praecessit correctio. Second, they note its certainty, saying, caught, so that she could not excuse herself. This is characteristic of women: she wipes her mouth and says: I have done no evil (Prov 30:20). Secundo ex eius evidentia; unde dicunt deprehensa est, ita quod non possit se excusare, quod est consuetudinis mulierum, secundum illud Prov. XXX, 20: tergit os suum, dicens: non sum operata malum. Third, they point out that her fault is great, in adultery, which is a serious crime and the cause of many evils. Every woman who is adulterous will sin (Sir 9), and first of all against the law of her God. Tertio ex culpae enormitate; unde dicunt in adulterio, quod est grave facinus et malorum multorum causa; Eccli. IX: omnis mulier quae adulteratur peccabit, primo quidem in lege Dei sui. 1127. They appeal to the justice contained in the law when they remark, in the law, that is, in Leviticus (Lev 20:10) and in Deuteronomy (Deut 22:21), Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. 1127. Legis iustitiam allegant cum dicunt: in lege autem, scilicet Lev. et Deut. XXII, Moyses mandavit huiusmodi lapidare. 1128. They ask Jesus for his verdict when they say, but what do you say? Their question is a trap, for they are saying in effect: if he decides that she should be let go, he will not be acting according to justice, yet he cannot condemn her because he came to seek and to save those who are lost: for God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17). Now the law could not command anything unjust. Thus, Jesus does not say, let her go, lest he seem to be acting in violation of the law. 1128. Sententiam autem exquirunt cum subdunt: tu ergo quid dicis? Calumniosa est interrogatio; quasi dicant: si eam dimitti censuerit iustitiam non tenebit. Sed, absit ut qui venerat quaerere et salvum facere quod perierat, eam condemnaret; supra III, 17: non enim misit Deus Filium suum in mundum ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum. Lex etiam quod iniustum erat iubere non poterat. Et ideo non dicit absolvatur ne contra legem facere videretur. 1129. The Evangelist reveals the malicious intention behind those who were questioning Jesus when he says, they said this tempting him, that they might accuse him. For they thought that Christ would say that she should be let go, so as not to be acting contrary to his gentle manner; and then they would accuse him of acting in violation of the law: let us not test Christ as they did (1 Cor 10:9). 1129. Et ideo consequenter subditur perversa tentantium intentio, cum dicit haec autem dicebant tentantes eum. Credebant enim, quod Christus ne mansuetudinem perderet, eam dimitti debere dicturus esset; et sic accusarent eum tamquam legis praevaricatorem. I Cor. X, 9: neque tentaveritis Christum, sicut illi tentaverunt. 1130. Then, at but Jesus, bending down, wrote with his finger on the ground, Jesus checks his enemies by his wisdom. The Pharisees were testing him on two points: his justice and his mercy. But Jesus preserved both in his answer. 1130. Consequenter cum dicit Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra, repellit adversarios sua sapientia. Nam Pharisaei de duobus eum tentabant: scilicet de iustitia et de misericordia. Et utrumque in respondendo servavit, et ideo First, the Evangelist shows how Jesus kept to what was just; and primo ostendit quomodo servavit; second, that he did not abandon mercy, at he lifted himself up and said to them. secundo quod non recessit a misericordia, ibi erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei etc. As to the first, he does two things: Circa primum duo facit. first, he mentions the sentence in accordance with justice; Primo proponit sententiam iustitiae; second the effect of this sentence, at but hearing this, they left one by one. secundo subditur effectus sententiae, ibi audientes autem haec, unus post unum exibant. About the first he does three things: Circa primum tria facit. first, we see Jesus writing his sentence; Primo describit sententiam; then pronouncing it; and secundo pronuntiat eam; third, continuing again to write it down. tertio perseverat iterum in scribendo sententiam. 1131. Jesus wrote his sentence on the earth with his finger: but Jesus, bending down, wrote with his finger on the ground. Some say that he wrote the words: O earth, earth, listen . . . write down this man as sterile (Jer 22:29). According to others, and this is the better opinion, Jesus wrote down the very words he spoke, that is, he who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. However, neither of these opinions is certain. 1131. Sententiam autem describit in terra digito; unde dicit Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum, digito scribebat in terra. Scribebat autem secundum quosdam illud quod dicitur Ier. XXII, 29: terra terra, audi . . . scribe iustum virum sterilem. Secundum alios vero, et melius, dicitur quod scripsit eadem quae protulit, scilicet: qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat. Neutrum tamen certum est. Jesus wrote on the earth for three reasons. First, according to Augustine, to show that those who were testing him would be written on the earth: O Lord, all who leave you will be written on the earth (Jer 17:13). But those who are just and the disciples who follow him are written in heaven: rejoice, because your names are written in heaven (Luke 10:20). Second, he wrote on earth to show that he would perform signs on earth, for he who writes make signs. Thus, to write on the earth is to make signs. And so he says that Jesus was bending down, by the mystery of the incarnation, by means of which he performed miracles in the flesh he had assumed. Third, he wrote on the earth because the old law was written on tablets of stone (Exod 31; 2 Cor 3), which signify its harshness: a man who violates the law of Moses dies without mercy (Heb 10:28). But the earth is soft. And so Jesus wrote on the earth to show the sweetness and the softness of the new law that he gave to us. Sed in terra quidem scribebat triplici ratione. Una quidem, secundum Augustinum, ut ostendat eos qui eum tentabant in terra describendos esse; Ier. XVII, 13: Domine, recedentes a te in terra scribuntur. Iusti autem, et discipuli qui eum sequuntur, in caelo scribuntur; Lc. X, 20: gaudete et exultate, quia nomina vestra scripta sunt in caelo. Item ut ostendat se quod signa faceret in terra: qui enim scribit, signa facit. Scribere ergo in terra, est signa facere: et ideo dicit quod inclinavit se, scilicet per incarnationis mysterium, ex quo in carne assumpta miracula fecit. Tertio, quia lex vetus in tabulis lapideis scripta erat, ut habetur Ex. XXXI, et II Cor. III. Per quod signatur eius duritia: quia irritam quis faciens legem Moysi, absque ulla miseratione occidebatur, ut dicitur Hebr. c. X, 28. Terra autem mollis est. Ut ergo signaret dulcedinem et mollitiem novae legis per eum traditae, in terra scribebat. We can see from this that there are three things to be considered in giving sentences. First, there should be kindness in lowering oneself before those to be punished; and so he says, Jesus, bending down: there is judgment without mercy to him who does not have mercy (Jas 2:13); if a man is overtaken in any fault, you who are spiritual instruct him in a spirit of mildness (Gal 6:1). Second, there should be discretion in determining the judgment and so he says that Jesus wrote with his finger, which because of its flexibility signifies discretion: the fingers of a man’s hand appeared, writing (Dan 5:5). Third, there should be certitude about the sentence given; and so he says, Jesus wrote. Ex quo tria in sententiis debemus attendere. Primo benignitatem in condescendendo puniendis: unde dicit inclinans se; Iac. II, 13: iudicium sine misericordia ei qui non fecit misericordiam; Gal. ult., 1: si praeoccupatus fuerit aliquis in aliquo delicto, vos, qui spirituales estis, huiusmodi instruite in spiritu lenitatis. Secundo discretionem in discernendo; unde dicit digito scribebat, qui propter flexibilitatem discretionem significat; Dan. c. V, 5: apparuerunt digiti quasi manus hominis scribentis contra candelabrum. Tertio certitudinem in pronuntiando: unde dicit scribebat. 1132. It was at their insistence that Jesus gave his sentence; and so the Evangelist says, when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up and said to them: he who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. The Pharisees were violators of the law; and yet they tried to accuse Christ of violating the law and were attempting to make him condemn the woman. So Christ proposes a sentence in accord with justice, saying, he who is without sin. He is saying in effect: let the sinner be punished, but not by sinners; let the law be accomplished, but not by those who break it, because when you judge another you condemn yourself (Rom 2:1). Therefore, either let this woman go, or suffer the penalty of the law with her. 1132. Sententiam autem profert ad eorum instantiam; unde dicit cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum, erexit se, et dixit eis: qui sine peccato est vestrum, primus in illam lapidem mittat. Pharisaei enim transgressores legis erant, tamen nitebantur Christum de transgressione legis accusare, et mulierem condemnare: et ideo Christus sententiam proponit iustitiae, dicens qui sine peccato est vestrum, quasi dicat: puniatur peccatrix, sed non a peccatoribus: impleatur lex, sed non a praevaricatoribus legis, quia, ut dicitur Rom. II, 1: in quo enim alium iudicas, teipsum condemnas. Aut ergo istam dimittite, aut cum illa poenam legis excipite. 1133. Here the question arises as to whether a sinful judge sins by passing sentence against another person who has committed the same sin. It is obvious that if the judge who passes sentence is a public sinner, he sins by giving scandal. Yet, this seems to be true also if his sin is hidden, for we read: when you judge another you condemn yourself (Rom 2:1). However, it is clear that no one condemns himself except by sinning. And thus it seems that he sins by judging another. 1133. Hic incidit quaestio utrum iudex in peccato existens, peccet ferendo contra alium sententiam qui in eodem peccato existit. Et licet manifestum sit, quod iudex si publice in peccato existens sententiam ferat, peccat scandalizando; nihilominus tamen hoc idem videtur, si sit in peccato occulto. Nam Rom. II, 1: in quo alium iudicas, teipsum condemnas. Constat autem, quod nullus condemnat se nisi peccando: ergo videtur quod iudicando alium peccet. My answer to this is that two distinctions have to be made. For the judge is either continuing in his determination to sin, or he has repented of his sins; and again, he is either punishing as a minister of the law or on his own initiative. Now if he has repented of his sin, he is no longer a sinner, and so he can pass sentence without sinning. But if he continues in his determination to sin, he does not sin in passing sentence if he does this as a minister of the law; although he would be sinning by doing the very things for which he deserves a similar sentence. But if he passes sentence on his own authority, then I say that he sins in justice, but from some evil root; otherwise he would first punish in himself what he notices in someone else, because a just person is the first to accuse himself (Prov 18:17). Respondeo dicendum, quod in hoc uti oportet duplici distinctione. Aut enim iudex perseverat in proposito peccandi, aut poenitet se peccasse. Item aut punit ut legis minister, aut motu proprio. Et si quidem poenitet se peccasse, iam peccatum non est in eo; et sic absque peccato sententiam posset ferre. Si autem est in proposito peccandi: aut profert sententiam ut legis minister, et sic non peccat ex hoc quod sententiam profert, quamvis peccet ex hoc quod talia facit, quibus dignus est contra se similem sententiam recipere; si autem proprio motu, dico, quod proferendo sententiam peccat, cum non moveatur ad hoc amore iustitiae, sed ex aliqua mala radice; alias primo in se puniret quod animadvertit in alio; quia hoc dicitur in Prov. c. XVIII, 17: iustus prior accusator est sui. 1134. Jesus continued to write, and again bending down, he wrote. He did this, first, to show the firmness of his sentence, God is not like a man, who may lie, or like a son of man, so that he may change (Num 23:19). 1134. Perseverant autem in scribendo, quia iterum se inclinans scribebat: primo quidem ut ostendat suae scientiae firmitatem; Num. XXIII, 19: non est Deus ut homo, ut mentiatur, et ut filius hominis, ut mutetur. Second, he did it to show that they were not worthy to look at him. Because he had disturbed them with his zeal for justice, he did not think it fit to look at them, but turned from their sight. Secundo ut ostendat eos sua visione indignos. Unde cum eos zelo iustitiae percussisset, non dignatus est eos attendere, sed avertit ab eis obtutum. Third, he did this out of consideration for their embarrassment, to give them complete freedom to leave. Tertio ut eorum verecundiae consulens, daret eis exeundi liberam facultatem. 1135. The effect of his justice is their embarrassment, but hearing this, they left one by one, both because they had been involved in more serious sins and their conscience gnawed them more: iniquity came out from the elder judges who were seen to rule the people (Dan 13:5), and because they better realized the fairness of the sentence he gave: I will go therefore to the great men and speak to them: for they have known the way of the Lord and the judgment of their God (Jer 5:5). And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst, that is, mercy and misery. Jesus alone remained because he alone was without sin; as the Psalm says: there is no one who does what is good not even one, except Christ (Ps 13:1). So perhaps this woman was afraid, and thought she would be punished by him. 1135. Effectus autem iustitiae est eorum confusio; unde dicit audientes autem haec, unus post unum exibant: tum quia gravioribus peccatis erant impliciti, et magis eos conscientia remordebat; Dan. XIII, 5: egressa est iniquitas a senioribus iudicibus, qui videbantur regere populum; tum etiam quia melius cognoscebant aequitatem prolatae sententiae; Ier. V, 5: ibo ergo ad optimates, et loquar eis: ipsi enim cognoverunt viam Domini, et iudicium Dei sui. Et remansit solus Iesus, et mulier stans, scilicet misericordia et miseria. Ideo autem solus remansit, quia ipse solus sine peccato erat. Nam, ut dicitur in Ps. XIII, 1: non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum, scilicet Christum. Et ideo forte mulier territa est, et ab illo se puniendam credebat. If only Jesus remained, why does it say that the woman was standing there in the midst? I answer that the woman was standing in the center of the disciples, and so the word alone excludes outsiders, not the disciples. Or, we could say, in the midst, that is, in doubt whether she would be forgiven or condemned. And so it is clear that our Lord’s answer preserved justice. Sed si remansit solus, quomodo dicit in medio stans? Et dicendum, quod mulier stabat in medio discipulorum, et sic ly solus excludit extraneos, non discipulos. Vel in medio, idest in dubio, utrum absolvenda esset, vel condemnanda. Sic ergo patet quod Dominus in respondendo iustitiam servavit. 1136. Then, at then Jesus lifting himself up, said to her, he shows that Jesus did not abandon mercy, but gave a merciful sentence. 1136. Consequenter cum dicit erigens autem se Iesus, dixit ei etc. ostendit quod a misericordia non recessit, dando sententiam misericordiae, et First, Jesus questions the woman; primo examinat; then forgives her; secundo absolvit; and finally, cautions her. tertio admonet; 1137. Jesus questioned her about her accusers; thus he says that Jesus, lifting himself up, that is, turning from the ground on which he was writing and looking at the woman, said to her: woman, where are they who accused you? He asks about her condemnation saying, has no man condemned you? And she answers, no one, Lord. 1137. examinat autem eam de accusatoribus; unde dicit, quod erigens se Iesus, scilicet faciem suam a terra, in qua scribebat, ad mulierem convertens, dixit ei: mulier, ubi sunt qui te accusabant? Item de condemnatione; unde quaerit nemo te condemnavit? Et illa respondit: nemo, Domine. 1138. Jesus forgives her; and so it says, then Jesus said: neither will I condemn you, I who perhaps you feared would condemn you, because you saw that I was without sin. This should not surprise us for God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him (John 3:17); I do not desire the death of the sinner (Ezek 18:23). 1138. Absolvit autem eam; unde dicit dixit ei Iesus: nec ego te condemnabo, a quo te forte damnari timuisti, quia in me peccatum non invenisti. Nec mirum, quia non misit Deus Filium suum in mundum, ut iudicet mundum, sed ut salvetur mundus per ipsum; supra III, 17; Ez. XVIII, 32: nolo mortem peccatoris. And he forgave her sin without imposing any penance on her because since he made her inwardly just by outwardly forgiving her, he was well able to change her so much within by sufficient sorrow for her sins that she would be made free from any penance. This should not be taken as a precedent for anyone to forgive another without confession and the assigning of a penance on the ground of Christ’s example, for Christ has power over the sacraments, and could confer the effect without the sacrament. No mere man can do this. Absolvit autem eam a culpa, non imponendo ei aliquam poenam: quia cum absolvendo exterius iustificaret interius, bene potuit eam adeo immutare interius per sufficientem contritionem de peccatis, ut ab omni poena immunis efficeretur. Nec tamen trahendum est in consuetudinem ut aliquis exemplo domini absque confessione et poenae inflictione quemquam absolvat; quia Christus excellentiam habuit in sacramentis, et potuit conferre effectum sine sacramento, quod nullus purus homo potest. 1139. Finally, Jesus cautions her when he says, go, and sin no more. There were two things in that woman: her nature and her sin. Our Lord could have condemned both. For example, he could have condemned her nature if he had ordered them to stone her, and he could have condemned her sin if he had not forgiven her. He was also able to absolve each. For example, if he had given her license to sin, saying: go, live as you wish, and put your hope in my freeing you. No matter how much you sin, I will free you even from Gehenna and from the tortures of hell. But our Lord does not love sin, and does not favor wrongdoing, and so he condemned her sin but not her nature, saying, go, and sin no more. We see here how kind our Lord is because of his gentleness, and how just he is because of his truth. 1139. Admonet vero eam cum dicit vade, et iam noli peccare. Duo enim erant in muliere ista: scilicet natura et culpa. Et utrumque poterat Dominus condemnare. Puta naturam, si iussisset eam lapidare; et culpam, si non absolvisset. Poterat etiam utrumque absolvere, puta si dedisset licentiam peccandi, dicens vade, vive ut vis, esto de mea liberatione secura; ego, quantumcumque peccaveris, etiam a Gehenna et ab inferni tortoribus liberabo. Sed Dominus culpam non amans, peccatis non favens, ipsam damnavit culpam, non naturam, dicens amplius noli peccare: ut sic appareat quam dulcis est Dominus per mansuetudinem, et rectus per veritatem. Lecture 2 Lectio 2