One of the most interesting stories in the Bible is found in John 7:53-8:11, “The Woman Caught in the Act of Adultery.” [1] The story is filled with simplicity, yet profoundness and mystery. It is a story that is a contrast between the harshness of hypocrisy of the enemies of Christ and the overflowing grace of our Lord. The story vividly pictures for us the heart of Jesus, and reveals to us the marvelous truth that there are no rocks in the Jesus’ hands. That is Good News to all who recognize their sin and seek forgiveness.

As the story dramatically unfolds, one day Jesus was teaching when the Pharisees suddenly interrupted Him and brought before Him a woman they had caught in the very act of adultery (John 8:3-4). The hypocritical Pharisees were not interested in the woman, but their intent was to trap Jesus. They demanded, “Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned, but what sayest thou?” (John 8:5). It appeared that Jesus was trapped by His enemies. If Jesus said, “Stone her,” He would be going against His own teaching of mercy, grace and love and helping those broken by sin. As well, if Jesus sought to carry out the sentence of stoning, He would be usurping the Roman’s authority which alone had the right to carry out capital punishment. If Jesus said, “I extend grace and mercy to her,” He would be going against the law of Moses which prescribed stoning for such an offense. It seemed how ever Jesus answered, it was going to be the wrong answer. What will the Master Teacher do?

Before Jesus spoke, He “stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground as though he heard them not” (John 8:6). This the eternal Word did twice. What did Jesus write? There has been no shortage of suggestions as to what He wrote; however, there is one this writer believes is  the most plausible explanation. The Pharisees came to Jesus to act as a judge and pronounce what was to be done with such a sinful woman. What Jesus possibly wrote can be explained by the practice in Roman criminal law. [2] The presiding judge would first write down the sentence, read it aloud, and then publish it for all to see. Following this explanation, Jesus, as the presiding judge and following Roman law, wrote down for all to see the prescribed punishment for adultery under the Mosaic Law, but upon “lifting up Himself, said unto them, “He that is without sin among you. Let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). As the punishment was written down, on the ground in this case, for all to read, as Roman law prescribed, Jesus as Judge said, “The one who is without sin can cast the first stone and carry out the punishment.” The response of Jesus to the accusers was one of divine genius, for the Savior upheld the Mosaic Law in regard to punishment for the adulteress, but at the same time His answer to the accusers rendered impossible carrying out of the sentence.

The actions and words of Jesus penetrated the hearts of the Pharisees, and recognizing their own sin, John writes, “And being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last” (John 8:9). There could be heard…thud…thud…thud as one after another dropped their rock, and with heads held down, walked away. As the crowd dispersed, Jesus was left alone with her (John 8:9). Interestingly, the only One who was qualified to hold a rock in His hand, had none. Instead, found in His hands was grace, love, forgiveness, and mercy.

The woman, no doubt filled with shame and trembling in fear at what had transpired, was left in the presence of holy-love. Left in the presence of the One who was without sin and could carry out the sentence, He forgave her and extended to her grace in exchange for her sin. Asking the woman where her accusers were and who it was that now condemned her, “She said, No man, Lord” (John 8:11). Jesus sent her away forgiven and with a promise and a command, “Neither do I condemn thee; go and sin no more” (John 8:11).

Many truths flow from this dramatic story, but two stand out: (1) There are no Rocks in Jesus’ Hands and (2) There is Redemption in Jesus’ Words.

First, there are no rocks in Jesus’ hands. Jesus was without sin. He was the only one entitled to have a rock in His hand and cast it, but instead found in Hands was grace, mercy and forgiveness. We all deserve rocks of judgment hurled at us for our sin, but Jesus took those “rocks” for us. Found in those holy hands are nail prints, which should have been ours. The judgment we deserve, He on the cross took our judgment that we might  know His amazing forgiveness and grace. Let us be thankful there are no rocks in Jesus’ hands, but only grace.

Second, there is redemption in Jesus’ words. In verses ten and eleven Jesus says, “Woman, where are those thine accusers?… Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more.” Jesus didn’t just not stone her, He redeemed and restored her. Jesus addressed this fallen and broken creature as, “Woman” (v. 10). The Greek word translated “woman” (gune) was used in classical Greek literature to address queens and women of distinction. Queen Cleopatra was so addressed by Caesar Augustus. Think of it, Jesus was addressing this fallen woman as Caesar Augustus addressed Queen Cleopatra!! Wow! Jesus saw this woman not for what she was but for what she could be. You see, when Jesus extends grace to us, He redeems us, He restores us and sends us forth changed individuals. He says, “I don’t condemn thee, go and sin no more. You are no longer what you used to be, but you are a new creation in Christ.” What liberating words!!

Encountering One who extends such love, grace, mercy, and forgiveness, who looks beyond our faults and sees our need, who sees us not for what we are, but for what we can be…. how can one not but serve such an amazing Savior!!! If you know not Christ, bring your sin unto to Him today. You will find there are no rocks in Jesus’ hands, but words of redemption and restoration.

O, what a Savior!

Dr. Dan


[1] There are some scholars who contend that John 7:53-8:11 (called the Pericope de Adultera), while an authentic incident in the life of Christ, was not originally part of John’s Gospel, but was a later scribal insertion. It is not this writer’s intention to address the issue here, but will simply remark that after over forty years of studying reasons given for the exclusion of this passage from John, contend that the story is not only a genuine story out of the life of Jesus but belongs in John’s Gospel right where it is. This writer arrived at this position as result of examining: (1) Early Church Fathers,(2) Early Manuscripts, (3) Early Versions, (4) Early Church Councils, (5) Style and Theology, (6) Test of Canonicity, (7) Intrinsic Power, and (8) Providential Preservation.

[2] Joachim Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, (New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1963), 228.


In the Parable of The Pharisee and The Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14), Jesus teaches us some valuable lessons regarding our attitude towards our own sins and the grace and mercy of God. We see a huge contrast between the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It is a contrast that serves as a distinguishing difference between those who seek salvation by their own works and those who rest in the grace and mercy of the Lord. You are either arrogantly trusting in your own good works and your own perceived goodness to save you, or you are trusting in the Lord’s mercy and grace to save you. Before delving into the text, Luke 18:9-14 reads:

9 And he [Jesus] spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Let us examine in this passage six contrasts that are most evident.

First, we see a contrast in their Position in Society. The Pharisee was considered to be religious, well-to-do, loyal to Jewish heritage, steeped in knowledge of the Torah, and held a place in society few would ever reach. The publican or tax collector was considered a traitor as he was employed by the Roman Empire to collect taxes, he was considered to be dishonest as he overcharged what the taxes actually were and kept the rest for himself, he was considered to be unreligious as most tax collectors lived without restraint. They were polar opposites in the eyes of society.

Second, we see a contrast in their Posture in Prayer. Both entered the Temple to pray. The Pharisee proudly stands (v. 11). The word translated “stand” could be rendered “posing himself” for everyone to see. Standing with arms outstretched with palms turned upwards was the ordinary Jewish Pharisaical posture in prayer. His arms were stretched toward heaven with palms turned upward, as he proudly felt he deserved to receive something from God. He, as well, prayed by himself to avoid being “contaminated” by coming in contact with lesser people than himself. The posture of the Pharisee was one of idolatrous pride.

The tax collector, in contrast, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast (v 13). His posture was one of humility. He stood afar off, not because he was fearful he would be contaminated by others, but because he felt unworthy. He was not praying to be seen of others, but to “do business” with God. He didn’t feel worthy to lift his eyes toward heaven, his posture being that of a mourner grieving. His eyes were turned downward and he smote his breast. The posture he took was the custom of one expressing grief.

Third, we see a contrast in the Person to whom they Prayed. The Pharisee “prayed thus with himself” (v. 11). He prayed, so to speak, to himself. It was only a façade that he was praying to God, he was the object of his on idolatrous prayer. His prayer went no higher than the ceiling in the Temple.

By contrast the tax collector prayed to God. The Greek word for God is theos (θεός). He prayed not just to any god, but to the God who became a Man and came to earth as a Babe. We find in Matthew 1:23, “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and give birth to a Son, and they shall name him Emmanuel, which translated means “God (theos θεός) with us.” The Person to whom the tax collector prayed was the One who in Christ became “God (theos) with us.” The Pharisee’s prayer was a humanistic prayer to himself, but the prayer of the tax collector was Christocentric, it focused on One outside himself.

Fourth, we see a contrast in their Pleas. The Pharisee’s “prayer” contained no plea, but was a reciting of all his good works, “I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess” (v. 11-12). The Pharisee bragged on his empty ceremonialism.

The plea of the tax collector was simple and to the point, “God be merciful to me a sinner.” He did not appeal to the Lord on the bases of his good works, but he appealed to the Lord on the bases of His mercy (v. 13). He didn’t approach the Living Word with a proud heart like the Pharisee. He was sorrowful for his sin, and saw no good within himself. He had nothing of which to boast; therefore, he pleads for mercy. The Greek word for mercy is hilaskomai (“be propitious to” or “merciful”), and was a word used to refer to atoning blood sprinkled on the mercy-seat in the Old Testament on the Day of Atonement which mercifully appeased or satisfied the holiness of God. The same word (hilaskomai) is used in Hebrews 2:17 where the inspired writer says Jesus came to make atonement (hilaskomai) for our sins. The tax collector cried out, “Lord be propitious/merciful toward me through sacrifice, let an atonement be made for me. I am a sinner and cannot be saved in any other way than by a satisfactory sacrifice offered in my place.” Of course, that satisfactory sacrifice was Christ.

Fifth, we see a contrast in their Plight. The Pharisee didn’t see his plight, that he was a sinner. He was blinded by his pride, arrogance, haughtiness, egotism, conceit, spirit of superiority, and self-righteousness. He saw no need for forgiveness, no need for mercy, and thought he was worthy to come into the presence of God by his own good works and self-righteousness.

The tax collector recognized his plight, he saw and sensed he was a sinner. The Pharisee thought of others as sinners. The publican thought of himself alone as a sinner. The Greek word “sinner” means to miss the mark, and the tax collector knew he had missed the mark and that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and none were righteous, no not one(Romans 3: 10, 23). He recognized he had failed to comply with God’s holy law, and was unworthy to ever save himself or come into God’s holy presence by his own good works. Like the tax collector, only those who rely upon the substitutionary grace and mercy of God as found in Jesus Christ can find forgiveness. One who doesn’t recognize their plight can never receive or experience Christ’s atoning mercy and grace.

Sixth, we see a contrast in the Pronouncement by Jesus. The Master made a distinction between the two men, “I tell you, this man [the tax collector] went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (v. 14). We see clearly the reason why the Lord said that the tax collector went down to his house justified (forgiven) rather than the Pharisee – he sought for mercy through an atonement for sin, which was the only way in which God had from the foundation of the world purposed to save sinners (Rev. 13:8).

As the Pharisee depended on his good works and observing the ordinances of religion for his acceptance with God, his inability to comply with the holy and perfect demands of God and his blindness to his own sinfulness, he found himself rejected. Scriptures declare, “All have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). The Bible is clear, no man can make an atonement for his own sins, we must take refuge in Him who God’s mercy has provided in Jesus Christ. One who trusts their own good works will find themselves excluded from the kingdom of heaven.

The tax collector knew his need for a substitutionary sacrifice was no new doctrine, it was the doctrine publicly and solemnly preached by every sacrifice offered under the Jewish law. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness, was the loud and constant cry of the whole Mosaic sacrificial system. From this we may see what it is to have a righteousness superior to that of the scribes and Pharisees. To be saved, to have our sins forgiven, to find acceptance in the presence of the holy-love of God, one must humble themselves before the God who has provided atonement in Christ. Christ invites those who, like the tax collector, recognize they are sinners and come before Him with a meek and humble heart, there finding eternal refuge in the perfect provision of the cross.

O, what a Savior!

Dr. Dan


Each day the path of our life crosses the paths of others. Sometimes it is a planned “crossing,” while sometimes it is an unexpected one. There are times such “crossings” leave us scratching our heads asking ourselves if we handled the situation correctly or wisely. I had such an encounter this week where I sought to minister grace as well speak firm, compassionate words of counsel.

Early in the week I received a phone call from a gentleman who poured out a story that as I intently listened, found my eyes welling up with tears. He detailed misfortune that had visited his life, resulting in him living in a motel with his wife and young child and had no money and was about to be kicked out of the motel. I concluded this man was either telling me the truth or he was a good con-artist. I agreed to meet with him and upon doing so it seemed the truth lay somewhere between my two assumptions. Upon inquiring, I was given several reasons/excuses why neither the man nor the woman, though they both appeared capable of doing so, worked or why either have worked in well over a year.

You ask, “How do they survive each day?”

They survive by going from church to church, individual to individual seeking the kind-heartedness of others for money in order to survive…and it seemed their sources of finding people to help them had dried up. Upon agreeing to help the man by paying for a night’s stay, he informed me he had made arrangements for the rest of the week. I encouraged him to find a church home, turn his life over to the Lord and had prayer with him.

Not to my surprise, the next day he called me back with the same story and that he had run out of places that would help him. Being a soft touch, I agreed to pay for him one more night. I then proceeded to speak with compassionate firmness words of counsel that it was time for he and his wife to get a job and quit expecting handouts from others. I asked him if he wanted to live the rest of his life dependent on the hopeful generosity of others, if not… seek a job. I pointed out that next door to the motel was a fast food place with a “help wanted” sign in the window. He didn’t take too kindly to my advice and became agitated at my words. After my firm counsel, I figured I would not hear from him again….and I have not.

Even though it appears this man has grown accustomed to living off the generosity of others, my heart still feels compassion for him and my heart hurts for him. My heart hurts that he is caught-up in a cycle that has become dependent on the generosity of others. My heart hurts that he has embraced a mindset that it is easier to rely on others than it is to work. My heart hurts that he nor his wife have not the motivation to seek honest employment to support their family. My heart hurts that he has not that inner self-esteem that sees himself living in more than a motel room. My heart hurts that he has not the inward tenacity that causes him to fight to overcome misfortune that he may have encountered in life and rise above his current situation. My heart hurts that the image of God in which he was created has been severely tarnished and has lost its luster. My heart hurts that he seems satisfied to keep living like he is.

My earnest prayers go out to this man and his family…and my heart weeps and prays for others like him….for if not for the grace of God there go I.

Dr. Dan