A Tour Through John, Lesson 17

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.This a well-known passage, even though it is not in the original manuscripts of John's gospel.This pericope is not written in the style of John, nor is it original to John.It is missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts of John. Of course this was the original language of the gospel, and evidence here should be weighed most heavily.It is missing also from the oldest Syriac manuscripts.The passage is found in the following manuscripts, though often with an asterisk or obelisk, indicating doubt as to its authenticity:The later Koine Greek manuscripts.The Latin Vulgate (c.400 AD) and some Old Latin manuscripts.The Ethiopic version.The writings of Augustine and Ambrose (c.400 AD).Codex D.It often does not appear at its present position. Other locations include:Following Luke 21:38.After John 7:36.After John 7:44.After 21:25.No eastern commentator mentions the passage before the 10th century, and no Greek commentator mentions the passage before the 12th century.Still, it rings true, is of early origin, and is therefore is found in most Bibles. Few scholars believe the account to misrepresent Jesus, even if it was not originally in its present location in John.[53 Then each of them went home, 8:1 while 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 began to teach them.As was Jesus' custom during the feasts, he taught in the day and stayed evenings somewhere on the Mount of Olives (v.1). He probably enjoyed the hospitality of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha. (Search your concordance under Bethany.)The venue for his teaching was the temple complex. (And by forgiving the adulteress, he was challenging, "usurping," the authority of the priests.)The time was early morning, before the heat of the day.He taught in the seated position (v.2), which was the normal posture of a rabbi with his disciples.3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him.Then comes the shocking interruption (v.3).The question, and the arrest of the woman, seem staged.Since adultery takes place in secret, it is likely that the accusers had been waiting (and hoping) for the transgression to take place. Their posturing, like the adultery itself, was premeditated.Only the woman has been brought in, despite the implicit charge that the man had been present (v.4).The accusers have little concern for her.Their aim is only to trap Jesus.Would Jesus then contradict himself, or the Mosaic law?Here is the trap (vv.5-6).Jesus advocated compassion. He forbade us even to hate our enemies. He had intimated that the new covenant was in the process of being inaugurated -- that the old law might not apply anymore.And yet the Torah required the death penalty for both parties (Leviticus 20:10).Would contradict the Torah, or his own teaching?Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, sir.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."]Masterfully, Jesus extricates both himself and the woman from the dilemma.His reply is perfectly suited to the occasion. Jesus was always an excellent thinker on his feet.About Jesus' writing in the dirt:Many have speculated what word(s) -- if any -- he wrote.He seems to be deflecting the attention from the woman and her accusers -- perhaps regaining control of the situation.Acknowledging the demand of the law for adulterers ("Let anyone without sin cast the first stone...") while confronting all present with their own sin (and potential hypocrisy in judging her) (v.7ff).Everyone in the group is challenged!The older in the crowd, realizing that Jesus occupies the moral high ground and will not be trapped, walk away.The younger in the crowd, less savvy and more moralistic, linger longer, but they too in the end leave the scene.The accusers apparently depart as well.In the end, only two persons remain.While offering her divine forgiveness, Jesus hardly condones her immorality. "Sin no more" (v.11).The heart-warming vignette demonstrates the church's attitude towards erring members.Sin will not be taken lightly, yet...... forgiveness is always available -- if there is repentance.ConclusionAlthough most NT scholars reject the story as original in the fourth gospel, they are also of one mind in accepting its veracity.It is perfectly in character with what we know of Jesus and his attitude towards sin/sinners.It is unlikely to be an invention of the later church, since in the second century sin was dealt with much more harshly than it is in this passage.Some early Christian preserved the story, and some early copyist of John placed it between chapters 7 and 8, probably because it seemed a good fit (verses about judgment, tensions between Jesus and the Pharisees).This passage is one of several understood by early Christians to forbid capital punishment.For example, consider the words of Lactantius (c.290-300 AD): When God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but he also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Thus it is not lawful for a just man to engage in warfare, since his warfare is injustice itself. Nor is it [lawful] to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature.For more on this, see my article on The Death Penalty, or the various lessons on crime and punishment. Had I been present, which of the characters in this story would I have been: an older person, a younger person, the woman, or the accusers?