The Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7.53 - 8.11).

This passage is in fact omitted by almost all the most ancient manuscripts (it is only in D), and by the oldest versions (Syriac, Coptic and some of the old latin), and is not mentioned by the earliest fathers, with the exception of Papias (early 2nd century) who is said to have commented on it. In this regard it is connected with the Gospel according to the Hebrews. Many later manuscripts mark it in such a way as to show that there was doubt about its position. Of the manuscripts that do contain it some place it here in John’s Gospel, others after Luke 21.38, one places it after John 7.36, and another after John 21.24. It was well known among the early fathers in the 4th century AD.

It would seem probable therefore that it was not part of John’s original Gospel, although some have argued that it was deliberately taken out of the original Gospel in days when asceticism was seen as important because of its content. By its very nature such an argument cannot be disproved, although there are aspects in the account itself which militate against Johannine authorship. That being said its very content, and the constancy with which it was later accepted, suggest that it is a piece of authentic tradition, which was finally considered to be worthy of a place in Scripture, although its text has not been preserved with quite such purity as the remainder of John’s Gospel. We intend therefore to treat it on its own as a piece of separate tradition.

7.53 - 8.1 ‘And they went every man to his own house but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives’.

This proposed closure of the previous section clearly reflects the contrast between the One who goes aside to pray and those have no such intent, those who live in accordance with the world. It is being made clear that He is determined to keep in close touch with His Father, while they follow the ideas of the world. He is thus being seen as the spiritual One. Perhaps because of this, humanly speaking, He is able to do what He does.

In context those who go to their own houses are the Pharisees. They possess their own houses, and live in the world, and do not live lives of prayer (which is not to say that they do not pray). Jesus on the other hand possesses nothing and has nowhere to lay His head, and yet He is seen to have riches divine of which they know nothing.

8.2 ‘And early in the morning he came again into the Temple, and all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.’

Thus it is that early in morning He is again in the Temple ready to teach the people. So in spite of the constant danger of arrest, next morning He is seen as having gone to the Temple where He ‘sits down’ to teach the people who have gathered to Him. There are many who are still concerned to hear Him and He will not leave them as sheep without a shepherd. Sitting to teach in the Temple was commonplace for Rabbis, and their disciples would gather round to listen to their words, which were also open to any in the crowds who were interested. Anyone could ask questions (compare Luke 2.46).

In view of the previous chapter and the following reference to the light of the world (verse 12) it may be that ‘early in the morning’ here is to be seen as significant. As a Galilean He has come to bring men from darkness into day in accordance with the words of Isaiah in Isaiah 9.1-2, where ‘Galilee of the nations’ is made glorious in the fact that ‘the people that walked in darkness have seen a great light’. Thus it may be being suggested that the early light was not for those who were of the Judean religious establishment, but were for the poor and the meek and the spiritual.

It is interesting to note that this passage in Isaiah does not appear to have occurred to any of the Pharisees in their religious deliberations. They were simply not interested in any promises connected with Galilee.

8.3 ‘And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery, and having set her in the midst they say to him, “Teacher, this woman has been take in adultery in the very act”.’

‘The scribes and Pharisees’ (significantly not a usual Johannine phrase. It is more Lucan) bring to Him a woman who has been caught in adultery, and deliberately stand her in the middle of the crowd in order to draw attention to her. It is being made quite clear that they wanted to trap Jesus and to make sure that the crowd were aware of His failure.

We must certainly immediately ask ourselves, where is the man, for he deserves similar punishment? It may, of course, be that he managed to escape from their clutches when they caught the pair, but it is certainly equally possible that they were not really interested in the man, and that he may even have been one of themselves. But to them he was irrelevant for he would not serve their purpose, which was not to promote righteousness but to show up Jesus.

8.3b-6a “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the very act of adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone women like this, but what do you say about her?” And this they said, testing him, that they might have something to accuse him of.’

The purpose in their question was not to learn. All really knew what the correct answer was. The purpose was to test Him so that they could accuse Him. If He agreed that she should be stoned as the Law required then He could be accused before the Romans of encouraging disobedience to the Roman law which did not allow the Jews to inflict the death penalty in such a case. If He said otherwise they could accuse Him of disregarding the law of Moses, which would denigrate Him as a prophet in the eyes of the fiercely patriotic people.

Eye witnesses were in fact necessary before bringing a charge of adultery so it was important that she was ‘caught in the act’. The fact that the woman was seen as worthy of stoning may suggest that she was betrothed. If she had been married she would have been due to be strangled (per the Mishnah - the oral Jewish law which was in existence by at least 2nd century AD, and forms part of the Talmud). The ‘adultery’ would not be with her betrothed, for sexual intercourse was permitted between betrothed persons.

‘To stone women like this’, literally ‘to stone such’ (feminine pronoun). We notice again the exclusion of the man’s guilt for both were liable to the same penalty (Leviticus 20.10; Deuteronomy 22.22). It was human prejudice at work, not divine law.

8.6b. ‘But Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground.’

Jesus’ immediate response was to stoops down and writes with His finger on the ground. There is little point in surmising what He wrote as we have no idea, and those who preserved the story did not think it important enough to tell us. But His action was clearly intended to calm things down and to take all eyes off the unfortunate woman. (‘as though He heard them not’ has little support in early manuscripts). The Jewish leaders probably thought that He did it because He was trapped and was playing for time.

However, it may be intended to have had a further significance. In the Old Testament the Covenant itself was written ‘with the finger of God’ (Exodus 31.18), a fact well known to all. It may be then that Jesus was intending to imply that in Him One was here Who could, if He chose, rewrite the Law. Was He by this indicating that He Himself had written the Law in the first place? Let them recognise with whom they were dealing.

8.7 ‘But 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”.’

His next action is specific and underlines the words that He speaks. ‘He lifted Himself up’. He straightens up and looks round on them. We can almost see the sad yet compassionate, look in His eye as He passes His verdict, so unexpected to those who are seeking to trap Him and are awaiting their moment of triumph. He agrees that the one among them who has never broken the Law shall be permitted to carry out the sentence. If they are without sin as He is, then they have a right to do as they suggest.

To their credit Pharisees did acknowledge that they had failed to keep God’s Law. They even believed that the sinfulness of Israel and their own sinfulness was why Israel was suffering and they believed, and taught, that if only the Law could be kept fully God would bless Israel. Thus they had to be wary. To pick up a stone would have been to deny their own teaching. They were caught in their own trap.

Furthermore there may be in Jesus’ reply the suggestion, which He expected them to be aware of, that He was aware that some of the Pharisees themselves had dubious reputations. This may help to explain why the eldest left first. If there were one or two in that situation the remainder could hardly claim innocence as a group. They were condemned by the company they were keeping.

Had the questioners been sincere and genuine in their question, they would have received a different response, but Jesus was well aware that it was not their sense of purity but their hatred of Himself that motivated their action. He thus turns the tables on them by His reply, for none of them would dare to suggest to the crowds, or to each other, that they were without sin.

8.8 ‘And again he stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground.’

The dual mention must be seen as significant. The writer clearly sees it as important, and so therefore must we. Those with an eye to see would remember ‘the finger of God’ writing the covenant. Was He thereby saying, ‘remember all the commandments that God has given you?’

8.9 ‘And when they heard it they went away one by one, beginning with the eldest, even to the last, and Jesus was left alone, and the woman where she was, in the midst.’

The original narrator had noted that the eldest was the first to leave. They above all were aware that they dare not claim to be without sin, and perhaps they were a little ashamed and even the more aware of their own guilt. The younger hotheads took a little longer, but in the end they too realised that they had no choice. They accepted the verdict of their elders and also left, leaving the woman ‘alone’ without any accusers.

8.10 ‘And Jesus lifted himself up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Does no man condemn you?”

Jesus then ‘lifts Himself up’ again. It is the same verb but with what a different meaning. This time it is not a solemn act of forcefully facing up to angry, yet hypocritical men, but an act of graciousness towards a woman in need. And yet it is also stern.

There is no appeal to the crowd. None is needed. His quiet words to the woman are quite sufficient. The great Law interpreters have been there, and no one has condemned her. They have recognised that they stand with her as Law breakers, and even possibly some of them as men with a dubious reputation. So unless all are to be condemned to death she too can go free, but only after a stern warning.

We must note here that once the witnesses had withdrawn their testimony the case was legally closed. It was the witnesses who had to cast the first stones. If there were no eyewitnesses there could be no stoning.

8.11 ‘And she said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on sin no more”.’

She replies, ‘no man, Lord’. Here her ‘Lord’ means a respectful and grateful ‘Sir’. But it is probable that the writer intends us to see in Him the Lord of glory.

Now that the Law interpreters have passed their verdict the case is closed. The crowds can only be content that He shows mercy. ‘Neither do I condemn you.’ He alone has the right to condemn her, but He is ready to forgive. His mercy, however, is tinged with a warning, ‘go your way, and from now on sin no more.’ His forgiveness is not to be seen as a licence to sin, or as an amelioration of her crime, it is rather an offer of a new beginning to a repentant woman. None in the crowd can doubt that He has not condoned the sin.

The story has an ageless beauty. Jesus did not step back one iota from the standards of purity set by His Father, yet at the same time He has turned the tables on those who are bristling at the sins of others but ignoring their own sins. Nor does He excuse the woman, even though He has shown remarkable concern for her position. On the other hand He also recognises that she shares the weaknesses of mankind. One mistake can be forgiven. It will be a different matter if she makes a practise of it.

Jesus alone could have carried this situation off in this way, for He was without sin. That is why He can speak to the woman as He does. Not for one moment does He wish to convey the idea that her sin is unimportant, nor is He saying that as we all sin we can be lax with each other and not be too concerned about sin. Rather He is stressing that we are all guilty. ‘Do not sin again’ would apply equally to the Pharisees, and to us. And while the account also tells us that forgiveness for sin is available, it is important to notice that it is not for habitual sin.

The account was probably placed here because it was seen as an example of the light being in the world and shining before and on men. Those who refused to receive the light walked away back into their darkness. But others like the woman were responsive to that light and received it. It also illustrates what Jesus means when He says later, in 8.15, ‘you judge after the flesh. I judge no man’. For in this incident the judgment of the Pharisees has been shown to be lacking, while, without appearing to judge, His judgment is shown to have been true and recognised by all. He does not need to judge, the light of His life and teaching does the judging for Him. But He will certainly judge in the last day.

Note: When reading this account we have to look at the circumstances and at the motives, and of course Who was there. We must not just treat it as case where a genuine question is asked about a genuine difficulty. It is the very opposite. It was in a charged atmosphere. The Pharisees were concerned only to destroy Jesus. They did not really care what happened to the woman.

There were many known adulteresses around. Why did they pick on her? Probably because it happened at the ‘right’ time and fitted in with their plans. The woman was simply a useful tool. Indeed it is probable that some of the accusers were themselves adulterers. None bay so loudly as those who are covering up for their own failure. Perhaps therefore that lay behind Jesus’ comment about those without sin. Possibly such a fact was well known as applying, especially amongst the eldest.

But the truth is that His enemies were simply trying to take advantage of strong feelings of patriotism and the hatred of the people to their own subjection to the Romans, in order to destroy Jesus. So we are not to see this as a genuine appeal for a decision on a legal matter, nor the reply as the last word on such a matter. When it came to the death penalty, except for in cases of blasphemy, justice was in the hands of the Romans. Today we do not suffer too many pangs of conscience at the fact that local adulterers are not stoned to death. Nor do we campaign for the death sentence on them. For we accept the fact that we live in a country where there are different laws and we have to live by them. So was it then. (If you lived in an extreme Muslim country it would be very different).

Jesus recognised the principle laid down by Paul that God set our rulers over us and we are in general to submit to their laws. And indeed the Pharisees knew that. What the Pharisees were asking was only on a matter of theoretical principle, for none of them intended to stone the woman whatever Jesus said. Had they intended it they should have done it already. But they would not so risk the wrath of the Romans.

So this was not a genuine appeal for a legal decision. In fact they knew quite well what the correct answer would have been. They really did not have to ask Jesus. And Jesus knew it. And everyone around knew it. Nor was anyone in a mood to appreciate (or indeed had any desire to appreciate) arguments about the finer points of the Law. Jesus could have commenced a detailed argument about the validity of human law, about which principle was more important than the other, and so on. But no one who was there wanted that kind of an answer because they were not interested in principles. It was not a serious legal forum. It was all a set up.

Thus He wanted to face the Pharisees up with their own hypocrisy. That was why He spoke as He did. You will notice that the Pharisees did not continue arguing. They went away, eldest first, because He had faced them up with their own guilt.

Notice that He had basically agreed the position. He did not deny the Law of God. And they were free to carry out the sentence it required if they willed. But only if they themselves were blameless. Thus they were instead made to face up to their own sinfulness. Jesus did not say that men could not carry out the death penalty. He did not forbid it to the Pharisees. He did not even lay down a principle that no man could carry out a sentence unless they were totally free from sin. He in fact made no positive declaration except to say that they could carry out God's Law.

But what He rather did was face them up to themselves. He turned the tables on them. He ‘showed them up’ in front of the people for what they really were. He drew attention to their own hypocritical lives. He basically said, ‘in wrath remember mercy’. For even those Pharisees who had not themselves committed adultery were consorting with those who had. They had no intention of carrying out the penalty right from the beginning. That was not really the question. The question was whether they could disgrace Him in front of the people, or even better have the Romans deal with Him. And they finished up themselves disgraced.

It should be noted that once the accusers had gone the case was decided. The witnesses were the ones who had to cast the first stones. Once the witnesses withdrew their testimony there was no case to answer.

It was not the woman and her sin that was on trial at all here. Had the question been genuine, and had it been asked when the Jews were an independent nation living under the genuine basis of Pentateuchal Law, and had the questioners really been concerned about morality, His answer may well have been very different.

What principles then can in fact be drawn from this incident?

1) Firstly that no man is worthy individually to make such a decision about another human being. It must be a joint decision and left to a court of law to decide and arrange for the carrying out of the penalty on the basis of law. It was not to be decided on the basis of a lynch mob.

2). Secondly that God's Law stands firm as a final standard, but that there is also a duty to recognise the principles of law in the society in which we live, and to abide by them.

But finally there is another principle. That the Judge of all the world was there and could determine the sentence as He would given, in the light of all the circumstances. Note that He forgives the woman. He in no way releases her from her sinfulness as though it did not matter. But He delays her judgment until the Last Day in order to give her time to repent. Then she will be judged by whether she took advantage of His forgiveness or not.