"1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”"
John 8:1-11
Now we consider Jesus' attitude. We are told that He stooped down (6). Some interpret this as His refusal to 'stand' in judgment on her. This may well be. Others think that He stooped to hide the burning confusion of His face and relieved His agitation by tracing patterns in the dust. It is unlikely however that Jesus would have been embarrassed; but it is likely that this attitude represents a turning away in protest, in protest - not from the woman in her sin but from the public exposure of it that these men had made in the streets of Jerusalem. There are some things better not even mentioned (Ephesians 5:12). Jesus' attitude was not embarrassment; He was not at a loss for an answer. He just would rather not have answered at all such an improper question. But the Pharisees misunderstood his silence, and thought they had Him cornered. And therefore sought to press home their (supposed) advantage. Then came the flashing word in 7. There are several things to be said here. For one thing, there is no warrant in Jesus' words for abrogating the law, nor do they give support for the abolition of capital punishment, by adopting the attitude that only one free from sin could rightly condemn another. This is not the point. It is that Jesus was not an administrator of the law but a moral and spiritual teacher. And he refused to be a judge and a lawgiver over the woman. We need to distinguish things that are different here. These men had no right to condemn the woman. The place for condemnation was the Jewish Council, the properly constituted place of law. Probably they were already on the way to the Council with the woman, and stopped when they saw Jesus, and tried to put Him on the spot. But Jesus was not having any - this is the point that is being made.