The story at the beginning of the eighth chapter of John is one of the best known and best loved stories about Jesus. It is also, in part, controversial: Some modern translations (and some “Bible answers” websites) tell the reader it is probably not in the original version of the Gospel because it is missing from many of the earliest Greek manuscripts. Once this statement is made then other reasons are found to reinforce this verdict. That is unfortunate…

John 8:1-11 But Jesus went to the mount of Olives. 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.

And the scribes and the Pharisees bring [to him] a woman taken in adultery, and having set her in the midst, they say to him, Teacher, this woman has been taken in the very act, committing adultery. Now in the law Moses has commanded us to stone such; thou therefore, what sayest thou? But this they said proving him, that they might have [something] to accuse him [of]. But Jesus, having stooped down, wrote with his finger on the ground.

But when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up and said to them, Let him that is without sin among you first cast the stone at her. And again stooping down he wrote on the ground. But they, having heard [that], went out one by one beginning from the elder ones until the last; and Jesus was left alone and the woman standing there.

And Jesus, lifting himself up and seeing no one but the woman, said to her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Has no one condemned thee?

And she said, No one, sir.

And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Now, the Bible answer website I have in mind, which asserts that this section was most likely not originally in John’s Gospel, says: “the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to “the scribes” anywhere in his book—except in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel…”

Now, before we readily accept this scholarly sounding objection, we should consider what would happen if we took a 225-word section at random from one of Shakespeare’s plays and compared it to the rest of that play or to other works. Do you think there is a chance that we might conclude on the same basis that that section was not written by Shakespeare.

Or, let me say it this way: Would it surprise you to know that one of those “thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel” is moicheia = adultery? I hope you reaction is, “No, duh!”

The event described in this passage is unique in many ways; therefore we would expect to find words and phrases appear here in its context that would not appear in other contexts. (For instance, the word for stooping down doesn’t appear anywhere else in John’s Gospel, nor does the word for writing (as Jesus does, on the ground).)

The website then goes on to set up a strawman argument: “Here is the theory of those who favor inclusion: John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later church leaders deemed the passage morally dangerous—since Jesus forgives the woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So, the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem “soft” on adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place.”

I call it a strawman argument because the way it is written it is meant to elicit ridicule of the opposing viewpoint by making it sound like it was based on pure speculation. Note how the website calls it a “theory” (in other words, not a fact) that blames mysterious and unidentified “church leaders” (you know: those untrustworthy authorities in charge of organized religion) for removing the passage in the first place. And then continues the subtle ridicule by assigning to those that put the passage back in, the arrogance of believing the Holy Spirit led them to reinsert the passage.

If you, the reader, have ever been engaged in the labor of research in any discipline, you would be thoroughly surprised if such an approach were a faithful description of how our New Testament translations are generated. To get a glimpse of the amount of research work that goes into creating a faithful translation of the Scriptures, I strongly recommend reading Darby’s prefaces to his translation of the New Testament.

In the REVISED PREFACE TO SECOND EDITION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT (1871), Darby comments on John 8:

“As to John viii, I do not doubt its genuineness. Augustine tells us it was left out in some untrustworthy MSS. because it was thought injurious to morality: and not only so, but in my examination of the text I found that in one of the best MSS. of the old Latin, two pages had been torn out because it was there, carrying away part of the text preceding and following.”

So here we have the witness of a researcher and scholar, who analyzed all the manuscript evidence available at that time, and he first tells us: not that Augustine – a church leader –rejected the passage for being injurious to morality, but that Augustine knew it had been left out of some untrustworthy manuscripts for that reason. Secondly, Darby tells us that he himself is an eyewitness to the fact that someone had torn out that passage from a Latin manuscript that he examined. It is a fact, not a theory.

All to tell you: Don’t believe everything you see written on a website, even when it claims to be a site that will give you trustworthy answers. We, all of us, are responsible for what we believe. And it is prudent to seek out as many possible original sources and see what they say and how they correlate with each other, and then make an informed decision.

One thing that is true is that the Word of God does not contradict itself. And on that account John 8:1-11 in no way contradicts the message of that Gospel, nor does it distort the message of Jesus as contained in the New Testament. And furthermore, contrary to the assertions of the first website, the passage fits perfectly well where we find it in John’s Gospel. Especially if you follow the chronology of Jesus’ ministry as obtained from comparing John’s Gospel with the others.

Remember, Jesus is here in the midst of what I have called His escalation. He has on purpose been “goading” the religious leaders and the populace into reacting to Him. The time for listening passively is over. From now on it is time to face the Truth… about ourselves and about what God requires.

The woman caught in adultery

The scene begins with Jesus surrounded by a large crowd (“all the people”) and He sits down to teach them. And into this scene step the Scribes and Pharisees. It is a calculated intrusion in direct response (retaliation) to Jesus’ escalation (that they might have [something] to accuse him [of]). They have much to gain:

First, they get to interrupt one of Jesus’ teaching sessions but with a “righteous” pretext. Second, they have a large crowd there: Once Jesus falls into their trap they will have no lack of witnesses whom they can conscript to swear to what Jesus said. Third: Whatever He says, they win. If He condemns the woman, His fame as a kind and gentle teacher, a “friend of sinners”, goes down the drain. The people will reject Him. But if He errs on the side of forgiveness (as they expected Him to) then He would be contradicting Moses’ direct instructions. He would be a law-breaker.

Jesus’ initial response is to ignore them. This is par for the course. People often asked Jesus questions and most of the time, instead of answering the question directly, Jesus would ask them a question; not because He did not want to answer but because He wanted the questioner to reveal his heart to himself.

Why do we need our heart revealed to ourselves? Because, as Jeremiah said long ago; we lie to ourselves all the time:

Jeremiah 17:7-8 Blessed is the man that confideth in Jehovah, and whose confidence Jehovah is. For he shall be like a tree planted by the waters, and that spreadeth out its roots by the stream, and he shall not see when heat cometh, but his leaf shall be green; and in the year of drought he shall not be careful, neither shall he cease to yield fruit.

Blessed is such a man… So, what is it that keeps us from this blessing, from trusting in the Lord for everything? The answer is:

Jeremiah 17:9-10 The heart is deceitful above all things, and incurable; who can know it? I Jehovah search the heart, I try the reins, even to give each one according to his ways, according to the fruit of his doings.

Which is why this was prophesied over Jesus at His dedication in the Temple:

Luke 2:34-35 And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother, Lo, this [child] is set for the fall and rising up of many in Israel, and for a sign spoken against; (and even a sword shall go through thine own soul;) so that [the] thoughts may be revealed from many hearts.

Jesus’ silence to their question is there to provoke further thinking on their part. Maybe some would realize the hypocrisy to which they have confessed: If the woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery, there was someone else in that room with her, equally guilty: the man. Why isn’t he here also, dragged before the witnesses to be stoned?

But when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up and said to them, Let him that is without sin among you first cast the stone at her. And again stooping down he wrote on the ground.

And there it is, the question Jesus puts to them: “Tell me: Which of you is guiltless of ever breaking the Law? Whoever you are… get the stoning started.”

You see, they claimed they had the right to judge. They claimed Moses was on their side. For Moses, in the Law, clearly prescribed a capital punishment for this sin. Ahhh! But when you invoke Moses, didn’t he also prescribe punishment for all sorts of other sins… even sins that could be kept secret, hidden, without any witnesses… except from God.

The moment I claim the Law is on my side, I automatically invoke the presence of its Author. And He knows everything. And that thought alone ought to be enough to stir up my conscience. And the question is, do I want God to judge me? Do I want to reap the penalty of that sin that so far no one has discovered (yet)?

But they, having heard [that], went out one by one beginning from the elder ones until the last…

In a sense this is the end of the first lesson in this event. The passage started with Jesus teaching the crowd. We do not know what the subject of the lesson was that that mob interrupted. But their appearance did not derail Jesus’ mission because He seamlessly transitioned to repeating a foundational truth that He had already made clear in the Sermon on the Mount. He used that ugly scene as a “teachable moment.”

Matthew 7:1-3 Judge not, that ye may not be judged; for with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you. But why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother, but observest not the beam that is in thine eye?

Have you ever wondered who Jesus is referring to, when He says: ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you? I mean, I am asking: Who is He saying will be doing the judging of me and the meting of punishment to me?

You see, I think that, many times, when we read that passage of the Sermon too quickly, and nod in agreement to it – because we know we have to – we still secretly comfort ourselves by telling ourselves that we would never do something that bad that would expose us to “judgement”. We accept the command because Jesus uttered it; but we take it as if He were telling us how to be as good as we can be by tolerating the failings of others.

We think that way because we tacitly assume that, since it was me – a human being – that was warned against judging another human being, that likewise, the one who will judge me will be another human being. And, secretly, we smile because we know we are better than those people, no one is going to catch me in any such sin!

But if we understood fully what Jesus meant, we’d understand what Paul meant when he said: Philippians 2:12 …work out your own salvation with fear and trembling…

Fear and trembling… Kierkegaard has a long section on this subject in his Works of Love. I will let him speak for himself:

God forgives you neither more nor less nor otherwise than as you forgive those who have sinned against you. It is only an illusion to imagine that one oneself has forgiveness although one is reluctant to forgive others… It is also a delusion to believe in one’s own forgiveness when one refuses to forgive, for how could a person truly believe in forgiveness if his own life is an objection against the existence of forgiveness!

…If you accuse another person before God, two actions are instituted immediately; precisely when you come and inform on the other person, God begins to think about how you are involved…

…In the Christian sense, this is the very thing that you must learn to hold fast, that God is always present; and if he is present, he is also looking at you. At a moment when you really think God is present, it surely would not occur to you to see any splinter in your brother’s eye or occur to you to apply this dreadfully rigorous criterion—you who are guilty yourself…

…In the Christian sense, to love people is to love God, and to love God is to love people—what you do unto people, you do unto God, and therefore what you do unto people, God does unto you…

…God repeats the words of grace or of judgment that you say about another; he says the same thing word for word about you; and these same words are for you grace and judgment.

I think the elders in that mob got it. And, in fear of God, they dropped the stones that were in their hands and walked away.

In the presence of the Judge

So, the mob dissipated, and with them the crowd that had come to be taught. I wonder how many of them initially sided with the mob – at least in their hearts – and were then likewise convicted by Jesus’ words. Indeed a “teaching moment”… which isn’t over.. even when there is only one pupil left:

…and Jesus was left alone and the woman standing there.

And Jesus, lifting himself up and seeing no one but the woman, said to her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Has no one condemned thee?

Again, Jesus asks a question; a question meant to reveal my heart. What would you say? I know what I would hope I could say. But I know that there is still One who can condemn me, One who has every right to condemn me because He wrote that Law, and it was against Him that I sinned!

The mob… yes I would have cringed before them, knowing they had the power to end my life. But something stronger than that fear would have filled my heart: anger, even burning hatred at their hypocrisy, at their cowardice, at the blood lust in their eyes. Maybe that fire could have given me the strength to take the beating of the stones until there was no more life.

But… that is not the Judge that stands before me. Him I cannot hate; for all He has ever done is love. And yet, I condemned myself.

What would you say?

And she said, No one, sir.

Hope spoke out.

And Jesus said to her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

~*~