John 7:53-8:11
Intro
It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.
The textual evidence makes it impossible to hold that this section is an authentic part of the Gospel. It is not attested in the oldest manuscripts, and when it does make its appearance it is sometimes found in other positions, either after verse 36, or after verse 44, or at the end of this Gospel, or after Luke 31:38. It seems clear enough that those scribes who felt it too important to be lost were not at all sure where to attach it. And if they could not agree on the right place for it, they could not agree on the true text for it either. The manuscripts that have it do not agree closely. The very large number of variants indicates that the textual history of this pericope is different from that of the fourth Gospel. In addition to the textual difficulty many find stylistic criteria against the story.3 While the spirit of the narrative is in accordance with that of this Gospel the language is not Johannine. The passage is too short for this argument to be completely decisive, but for what it is worth it does tell against Johannine authorship. There is also the fact that the passage does not fit well into the context, whereas 8:12 follows naturally after 7:52.
But if we cannot feel that this is part of John’s Gospel, we can feel that the story is true to the character of Jesus. Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story is authentic. It rings true. It speaks to our condition. And it can scarcely have been composed in the early church with its sternness about sexual sin. It is thus worth our while to study it, though not as an authentic part of John’s writing. The story is undoubtedly very ancient. Many authorities agree that it is referred to by Papias.5 It is mentioned also in the Apostolic Constitutions (2.24). But it is not mentioned very often in early days. The reason probably is that in a day when the punishment for sexual sin was very severe among the Christians this story was thought to be too easily misinterpreted as countenancing unchastity. When ecclesiastical discipline was somewhat relaxed the story was circulated more widely and with a greater measure of official sanction.
It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage.
I consider this text to be divinely inspired and fully authoritative for life
Prayer
Message
The story raises a number of issues and as a result has led to a considerable amount of discussion by scholars. Among the questions raised one wonders what happened to the man in the story. Why was he not brought before Jesus? Did he escape? Was he merely a plant by a vengeful husband? or by a group seeking to condemn Jesus? Also, Was the husband among the accusers? What was the nature of the woman’s matrimonial state? Was she married or merely engaged? What law is being cited and what was the state of the law in Jesus’ day? Whose responsibility was it to execute punishment? These questions provide part of the framework for the scholarly discussions.
It is perhaps worth noticing that they slightly manipulate the text of the law. They say “such” are to be stoned, where their word is feminine, “such women,” whereas both relevant passages (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) say that the man as well as the woman is to be put to death. The accusers are also a little more specific than the Old Testament, for they speak definitely of stoning, whereas the passages cited do not indicate the manner of execution.
Instead of falling into the trap of answering them, Jesus stooped down and used his finger to write or draw (katagraphein at 8:6a and graphein at 8:8) on the ground (ge). What did he write or draw? There have certainly been many theories. Was he merely doodling? Or, as has often been suggested, was he listing the erring ways of the accusers?14 Was he copying the pattern of the Roman justices in writing the sentence and then orally stating the same, as T. W. Manson suggested? Was he acting out the implications of Jer 17:13 concerning writing in the dust “those who turn away” from the Lord? Or did Jesus write Exod 23:1, 7 concerning joining in evil witnessing and avoiding false charges, as Derrett has proposed? Unfortunately we cannot know for certain.
Instead of falling into the trap of answering them, Jesus stooped down and used his finger to write or draw (katagraphein at 8:6a and graphein at 8:8) on the ground (ge). What did he write or draw? There have certainly been many theories. Was he merely doodling? Or, as has often been suggested, was he listing the erring ways of the accusers?14 Was he copying the pattern of the Roman justices in writing the sentence and then orally stating the same, as T. W. Manson suggested? Was he acting out the implications of Jer 17:13 concerning writing in the dust “those who turn away” from the Lord? Or did Jesus write Exod 23:1, 7 concerning joining in evil witnessing and avoiding false charges, as Derrett has proposed? Unfortunately we cannot know for certain.
According to the Torah (Deut 17:7), the actual witnesses were responsible for casting the first stones. But Jesus went beyond the usual interpretation of that prescription and demanded of the accusing witnesses that they themselves not be in breach of God-given precepts, namely, that they be without sin. The standard Jesus demanded was that authentic accusers themselves not be subject to accusation.
In this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. According to Jewish law, in any case of capital punishment the witnesses must begin the stoning. Whether Jesus by his statement implied that they were guilty of condoning or of committing adultery with this woman, or whether he was speaking about past personal guilt is uncertain. In either case, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death.
According to the Torah (Deut 17:7), the actual witnesses were responsible for casting the first stones. But Jesus went beyond the usual interpretation of that prescription and demanded of the accusing witnesses that they themselves not be in breach of God-given precepts, namely, that they be without sin. The standard Jesus demanded was that authentic accusers themselves not be subject to accusation.
In this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. According to Jewish law, in any case of capital punishment the witnesses must begin the stoning. Whether Jesus by his statement implied that they were guilty of condoning or of committing adultery with this woman, or whether he was speaking about past personal guilt is uncertain. In either case, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death.
Derrett is of the opinion that he will have written some words from the law (thus showing on what he would rely if he were to give a decision), and that he will have used unpointed Hebrew. This would haven enabled him to suggest all the meanings associated with the various possible pointings.
It could not possibly be construed as a rejection of the law; Jesus specifically enjoined that a stone be thrown. But his limitation on who might throw it effectively prevented any harm coming to the guilty woman. The saying “does not deny that she may be stoned, but insists upon the innocency and therefore the competence of whoever stands forth against her as accuser and witness.” If, for example, the witnesses were guilty of not giving a warning (as the facts of the case make almost certain), then the woman could not be convicted on their evidence. For anyone to take part in a stoning on the basis of such evidence would be to incur the guilt of “joining with the wicked.” The words of Jesus are both an appeal to conscience and a warning to the hearers that their own lives might very well be at stake. If they stoned the woman, they must be very sure of the witnesses.
In reflecting on this declaration of Jesus, it is imperative to remember two matters. First, one must not overgeneralize and argue that Jesus was ruling out a critical evaluation of sin (8:11; cf. 5:14; 8:21, 24; 9:41; 15:22; 16:8–9). Second, one must remember that the context here involved self-righteous men who were full of judgment and ready to destroy a woman for their own evil ends. Jesus saw through their pseudorighteousness and judged it for what it was. Religious people are thus here fully forewarned of the temptation to self-righteous judgment of others. The point is that Jesus can accuse accusers.
The continuous tense in this last verb gives the thought of something like a procession. They kept on going out. The exodus began with the elders, who would naturally be expected to give a lead and whose greater experience would enable them to grasp more quickly the implications of Jesus’ words. They, moreover, would have a certain responsibility to see that justice was done. If the witness was false, or not legally valid, and the woman was killed, the oldest men present would have a major share of the responsibility.
The older ones either had more sins for which they were answerable or else had more sense than to make an impossible profession of righteousness.
The text also specifically adds that the departure began with the eldest or the most senior (presbyteros, 8:9). In a society where age and seniority are revered for status, the departure of the most revered first quickly depleted the authority of the accusing group. The junior members were not going to be left out on a limb.
The woman was left alone. “Left” is a strong word, and might be translated “abandoned.” When the force of Jesus’ words struck home they were no longer interested in her sin, but in their own. They made no attempt to interfere with her, for she was left “still standing there.”
Jesus’ verdict, “neither do I condemn,” however, was not rendered as a simple acquittal or a noncondemnation. The verdict was in fact a strict charge for her to live from this point on (apo tou nun) very differently—to sin no more (mēketi hamartane). The liberating work of Jesus did not mean the excusing of sin. Encountering Jesus always has demanded the transformation of life, the turning away from sin.
He, too, will not condemn her. But that does not mean that he condones her sin; he tells her to sin no more. The form of the command implies a ceasing to continue an action already started: “Stop your sinful habit.” And “no more” (NIV paraphrases with “leave your life of sin”) points to the thought of no return. She is to make a clean break with sin.
His words are perfectly general. He is calling the woman to amendment of life, the whole of life. It should not be overlooked that he says nothing about forgiveness. The guilty woman had as yet given no sign of repentance or of faith. What Jesus does is to show mercy and to call her to righteousness.
Meeting a man who was interested in saving rather than exploiting and in forgiving rather than condemning must have been a new experience for her. Jesus’ attitude provided both the motivation and the assurance she needed. Forgiveness demands a clean break with sin. That Jesus refrained from condemning her was a guarantee that he would support her.