This Sermon was preached from John 7:53-8:11
Many probably noticed that I skipped this passage this morning. This is because this section of Scripture requires some special attention with a longer than usual preface. Therefore, I thought it would be best to reserve this discussion for the evening service.
John 7:53-8:11 is not part of the original text. John the apostle did not write this little narrative. In order to explain this, I have to introduce you to what is known as textual criticism. Textual criticism is not looking at the Bible to decide if we like it or not but it is a science that examines handwritten copies of the Bible to determine the words the author originally wrote. Remember, the original words that were written were inspired (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). No where in Scripture does it say that God re-inspires the copies nor does He move the scribes. He providentially preserves His Word (Ps. 12:6-7). We do this because we do not have the original manuscript, or autograph, that the author wrote. We do not have the original letter that was sent to the Philippians and was penned by Paul. We instead have copies of that letter. Textual criticism finds the original words by comparing and contrasting copies of manuscripts. Some manuscripts carry more weight than others because they are thought to be closer to the original. Some factors that would allow a manuscript to be more authoritative would be percentage of agreement with other manuscripts, the date it was written, the location from which it came, the extent of text, and the weight of authority of the manuscript that it was copied from. I say all of this to help you understand why I say that the story of the woman caught in adultery is not a part of the Bible. This narrative is not found in the oldest and most trusted manuscripts. The text in most manuscripts jumps from 7:52 to 8:12. Hart explains the textual evidence as follows.
The external manuscript evidence is strongly in favor of the omission of the episode. Virtually all Alexandrian manuscripts, considered by the majority of scholars to be the oldest and least corrupt manuscripts, omit it, and virtually all Byzantine manuscripts, viewed by the majority of scholars as much later and generally more corrupt, include it. But even when they include it, the episode “floats around” in various locations in the various manuscripts. This indicates great doubt about its inclusion even among the manuscripts that include it. 1
D. A. Carson and Moo give more details.
These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek minuscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representing great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian, and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church fathers omit this narrative; in commenting on John they pass from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli (†), indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. Although most of the manuscripts that include the story place it at 7:53-8:11, some place it instead after Luke 21:38, and others variously after John 7:44, or 7:36, or 21:25. The diversity of placement confirms (though it cannot establish) the inauthenticity of the verses. Finally, even if someone should decide that the substance of the narrative is authentic––a position plausible enough––it would be very difficult to justify the view that the material is authentically Johannine: it includes numerous expressions and constructions that are found nowhere in John but are characteristic of the Synoptic Gospels, Luke in particular. 2
All of the commentaries that I own in print are in agreement with the quotations above. Two of the commentaries even move the exposition to an appendix. A good Bible will have notations about this discussion in the margin.
Another evidence that confirms that the narrative was not part of the original include the immediate context. The Gospel of John flows very smoothly in continuing the thought of the author if the reader were to skip these verses. Some may object by saying that Jesus casting no stone was a way of leading into the discussion about how Jesus did not come to judge (John 8:15) and that verse 7:53 indicates that the feast was over because they left their makeshift homes. It was tradition during the feast to dwell in booths. The continuing theme in this section of John has been Jesus defending His identity as the Son of God and Messiah. This episode is similar to the test scenes found in the Synoptic Gospels (cf. Mat. 19:3).
Unfortunately there is no definite answer for how these verses made it into the Bible. “Throughout the history of the church it has been held that, whoever wrote it, this little story it authentic.” 3 Perhaps the story was kept alive due to oral tradition and was inserted into the Bible at its present location because it was a good fit. There is nothing conclusive on the matter.
Commentary
Although the story is most likely not original to the text, there is something that can be learned. Hence, it is worthwhile to examine the story.
7:53. As mentioned previously, it was tradition to stay in booths for the weak of the Feast of Tabernacles, hence the reason for the name. This was to help Israel remember the 40 years Israel spent in the wilderness. The indication from the verse would be that they left the booths and went home.
8:1-2. It was customary for Jesus to spend the night outside the city. Luke 21:37 talks about Him going the mount of the Olives to stay the night. Also as was His custom, He returns to the temple to teach.
3-5. The Pharisees brought a woman and set her before a crowd. The reason for doing this was because the woman was an adulterous. However, she was not being accused of being an adulterous, but she was caught in the very act of adultery. Something should set off warning bells though. It takes two to tango and there is only a woman being charged with adultery. Where is the man? Like the Pharisees said, according to the Old Testament Law, an adulteress is supposed to be sentenced to death. But it is supposed to be both the male and the female that are supposed to be sentenced to death (Lev. 20:10). Also, if the Pharisees caught the woman in the act of adultery, there would be no need to bring the woman before Jesus. They would already have sufficient evidence to pronounce judgement upon the man and the woman. The implications of the scenario is that the woman is most definitely guilty of adultery.
It is also unusual that the Pharisees are even bothering with such a transgression. Adultery was common enough that carrying out the death penalty for each case would have been difficult. It was more of a common practice for the husband to divorce the erring wife. 4
6. Now their intentions are made clear. They did these in order to trap Jesus. The Pharisees presented a question to Jesus where there was supposed to be no right answer. He could not say no, or set her free, because the Old Testament Law was very clear on the matter. Yet if Jesus were to say that the woman should be stoned then He would have circumvented the authority of the Roman government. Only the Roman government was allowed to pass the death penalty for crime but events of stoning were something out the Roman government’s control; they were seen as riots.
No one knows what it was that Jesus wrote in the dirt. There are many theories. “Some suggested that He wrote the sins of the accusers. Others propose that He wrote the words of Exodus 23:1, ‘Do not be a false witness.’” 5 Another theory is that Jesus first wrote down what He was going to say. This was customary of a Roman judge. He would write down the sentence first and read aloud the official record. 6
7. The Pharisees pressed the issue further. They were sure that they had Jesus in a no-win situation. Jesus’ answer is very direct as well. The answer given so to avoid the wrong answer. He decided to instead address the fact that none of these men were without sin. Of course, though, this places Jesus as the only person qualified to cast a stone upon this woman.
Something that seems strange to me is that if the Pharisees were witnesses of the woman committing adultery, then they would have been the first ones to cast a stone (Deut. 17:6-7). Perhaps this is because the punishment for adultery is death but Leviticus 20:10 does not make clear the method. The whole point though is to try to get Jesus to say the wrong answer.
8. Jesus then after giving His answer continues to write something in the dirt.
9-10. The men left while Jesus was writing on the ground. The men realized that this situation was not going to work out well for anyone. Even if Jesus did say that she should be stoned, the men would have to put an end to a woman’s life. The men started to be convicted about starting the whole scene. The eldest men probably left first because they were the wisest and realized how grotesque the scene really was. Soon all the men left and only Jesus and the woman was left. Them being left alone carried the connotation of them being abandoned. The men realized it was better to abandon the case.
Perhaps the woman’s answer to Jesus’ question confirms that the whole scene was a set up. No one really condemned her.
11. Jesus does not condone her sin by that He does not condemn her. This is cleared up by the fact that Jesus tells her to go and sin no more. One would certainly hope that this woman would understand the amount of grace that she just received if truly was caught as an adulteress.
Endnotes
1. John F. Hart, “John,” in The Moody Bible Commentary: A One-Volume Commentary on the Whole Bible by the Faculty of Moody Bible Institute, ed. Michael Rydelnik and Michael Vanlaningham (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2014), 1630.
2. D. A. Carson and Douglas J. Moo, eds., An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 273-4.
3. Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1971), 883.
4. Ibid, 887n19.
5. Edwin A. Blum, “John,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, vol. 2, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Colorado Springs, CO: David C Cook, 1983), 347.
6. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 888n22.
