John 8 commentary

JOHN 8 COMMENTARY
EDITED BY GLENN PEASE
INTRODUCTION
Some people have a hard time accepting this event as true history because of the
history of this text. Some will not preach or teach it because they feel it is not
true Scripture because it was not found in many of the most ancient Greek
manuscripts. Later manuscripts put this story in other Gospels. Some have it
after Luke 21:38, and some have it after John 21:24, and one after John 7:36.
The ancients scribes knew it was valid, but for some reason they did not know
just where it fit in. It was a part of the life of Christ accurately reported, but it
lost its place. Some ancient preachers like Augustine and Ambrose would not
preach on it because they thought it would seem to condone sexual immorality. It
was not popular to preach on adultery because the very subject seemed to
promote it rather than silence the temptation.
John the Baptist preached on the adultery of Herod and it cost him his head. So
many of the ancients stayed aways from the subject. Some modern preachers feel
the same way, and so it is a neglected text in many places. Most scholars accept it
as historically accurate, and believe that John actually wrote it, and so it is
accepted as inspired Scripture even though it has had a struggle to find its
rightful place. John Calvin expresses the opinion of the majority when he said,
"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."
There are a lot of questions that arise because of this story being in the Bible,
and some of them cannot be answered, such as what did Jesus write when he
stooped to inscribe somthing in the dust of the floor? That can never be known
for sure, but there are many interesting guesses, which may possibly be true, and
because they are possible it makes a variety of conclusions possible, as we shall
see.
Julie M. Smith wrote an article exploring three possibilities as to this woman's
guilt that stirred up a lot of response on the internet. Her theory was that there
are three possibilities: she was guilty, she was innocent, or she was raped. She
speculates that this woman could have been a victum of a conspiracy on the part
of the Pharisees to use her to trap Jesus. They may have staged a rape or a
seduction just to use her. It is possible she argues that this woman was innocent,
for they had no proof, and no one was willing to start the execution by casting
the first stone. On top of this there was no man brought with her as the law
demanded. Nobody was willing to stick their neck out that far and play along,
1

for they would be risking their life. There is much reason to doubt their
accusation against this woman. It is possible that her only sin here was in
allowing herself to be used in this way to trap an innocent man like Jesus. These
same accusers were the ones who falsely accused Jesus, put on a sham trial,
humiliated an innocent man in public, and persuaded others to sentence him to
death. If they could do this to Jesus, why was it not possible for them to be doing
the same to this woman?
1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
BARNES, "Mount of Olives - The mountain about a mile directly east of
Jerusalem. See the notes at Mat_21:1. This was the place in which he probably often
passed the night when attending the feasts at Jerusalem. The Garden of Gethsemane,
to which he was accustomed to resort Joh_18:2, was on the western side of that
mountain, and Bethany, the abode of Martha and Mary, on its east side, Joh_11:1.
GILL, "Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. Which lay eastward of
Jerusalem, about a mile from it; hither Christ went on the evening of the last day of
the feast of tabernacles; partly to decline the danger, and avoid the snares the Jews
might lay for him in the night season; having been disappointed and confounded in
the daytime; and it may be for the sake of recreation and diversion, to sup with his
dear friends Lazarus, Martha, and Mary, who lived at Bethany, not far from this
mount; and chiefly for private prayer to God, on account of himself as man, and for
his disciples, and for the spread of his Gospel, and for the enlargement of his interest;
this being his common and usual method, Luk_21:37.
HENRY,"
Though Christ was basely abused in the foregoing chapter, both by the rulers and
by the people, yet here we have him still at Jerusalem, still in the temple. How often
would he have gathered them! Observe,
I. His retirement in the evening out of the town (Joh_8:1): He went unto the
mount of olives; whether to some friend's house, or to some booth pitched there,
now at the feast of tabernacles, is not certain; whether he rested there, or, as some
think, continued all night in prayer to God, we are not told. But he went out of
Jerusalem, perhaps because he had no friend there that had either kindness or
courage enough to give him a night's lodging; while his persecutors had houses of
their own to go to (Joh_7:53), he could not so much as borrow a place to lay his head
on, but what he must go a mile or two out of town for. He retired (as some think)
because he would not expose himself to the peril of a popular tumult in the night. It
is prudent to go out of the way of danger whenever we can do it without going out of
the way of duty. In the day-time, when he had work to do in the temple, he willingly
exposed himself, and was under special protection, Isa_49:2. But in the night, when
he had not work to do, he withdrew into the country, and sheltered himself there.
JAMISON, "Joh_8:1-11. The woman taken in adultery.
Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives — This should have formed the last
2

verse of the foregoing chapter. “The return of the people to the inert quiet and
security of their dwellings (Joh_7:53), at the close of the feast, is designedly
contrasted with our Lord’s homeless way, so to speak, of spending the short night,
who is early in the morning on the scene again. One cannot well see why what is
recorded in Luk_21:37, Luk_21:38 may not even thus early have taken place; it might
have been the Lord’s ordinary custom from the beginning to leave the brilliant
misery of the city every night, that so He might compose His sorrowful and
interceding heart, and collect His energies for new labors of love; preferring for His
resting-place Bethany, and the Mount of Olives, the scene thus consecrated by many
preparatory prayers for His final humiliation and exaltation” [Stier].
1. Wikipedia gives us this information on the Mount of Olives:
"It is frequently mentioned in the New Testament (Matthew 21:1;26:30, etc.).
The road from Jerusalem to Bethany runs over the mount as it did in Biblical
times. According to the Bible, it was on this mount that Jesus stood when he wept
over Jerusalem. Jesus is said to have spent a good deal of time on the mount,
teaching and prophesying to his disciples (Matthew 24-25), including the Olivet
discourse, returning after each day to rest (Luke 21:37), and also coming there
on the night of his betrayal (Matthew 26:39).
This mount, or rather mountain range, has four summits or peaks: (1) the
"Galilee" peak, so called from a tradition that the angels stood here when they
spoke to the disciples (Acts 1:11); (2) the "Mount of Ascension," the supposed
site of that event, which was, however, somewhere probably nearer Bethany
(Luke 24:51, 52); (3) the "Prophets," from the catacombs on its side, called "the
prophets' tombs;" and (4) the "Mount of Corruption," so called because of the
"high places" erected there by Solomon for the idolatrous worship of his foreign
wives (I Kings 11:7; II Kings 23:13).
The Mount of Olives is also the site of the prophecy of Zechariah and Ezekiel's
theophany.
"Mount of the Summit") is a mountain ridge to the east of Jerusalem. It is
named from the olive trees with which its sides are clothed. At the foot of the
mountain is the Gardens of Gethsemane where Jesus stayed in Jerusalem. The
Mount of Olives is the site of many important Biblical events. Roman soldiers
from the 10th Legion camped on the Mount during the Siege of Jerusalem in the
year 70 AD, which lead to the destruction of the city. In the Book of Zechariah
the Mount of Olives is identified as the place from which God will begin to
redeem the dead at the end of days. For this reason, Jews have always sought to
be buried on the mountain, and from Biblical times to the present day the
mountain has been used as a cemetery for the Jews of Jerusalem. There are an
estimated 150,000 graves on the Mount, including those of many famous figures
such as Zechariah (who prophesied there) (though, this is most likely not the
prophet's actual tomb).
2. This mountain was just about a mile outside of Jerusalem, and Jesus spent a
good deal of time there. The home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary was nearby,
and he spent time there often. It was his place to get away and spend time in
prayer. Everyone else went home, but Jesus went to this hiding place to renew
3

and refresh his relationship with the Father. He had no home of his own, but
God was his home, and that is where he spent his time alone. The picture below
shows you that the mountain was more like what we would call a large hill.
PINK 1-11, "We begin with the customary Analysis:—
1. Jesus retires to the mount of Olives: verse 1.
2. Jesus teaching in the temple: verse 2.
3. The Pharisees confront Him with an adulterous woman: verses 3-6.
4. Christ turns the light upon them: verses 6-8.
5. The Pharisees overcome by the light: verse 9.
6. The woman left alone with Christ: verse 10.
7. The woman dismissed with a warning: verse 11.
In this series of expositions of John’s Gospel we have sedulously avoided
technical matters, preferring to confine ourselves to that which would provide
food for the soul. But in the present instance we deem it necessary to make an
exception. The passage which is to be before us has long been the subject of
controversy. Its authenticity has been questioned even by godly men. John 7:53
to 8:11 inclusive is not found in a number of the most important of the ancient
manuscripts. The R.V. places a question mark against this passage. Personally
we have not the slightest doubt but that it forms a part of the inspired Word of
God, and that for the following reasons:
First, if our passage be a spurious one then we should have to pass straight from
John 7:52 to 8:12. Let the reader try this, and note the effect; and then let him go
back to John 7:52 and read straight through to John 8:14. Which seems the more
natural and reads the more smoothly?
4

Second, if we omit the first eleven verses of John 8, and start the chapter with
verse 12, several questions will rise unavoidably and prove very difficult to
answer satisfactorily. For example: "Then spake Jesus"—when? What simple
and satisfactory answer can be found in the second part of John 7? But give
John 8:1-11 its proper place, and the answer is, Immediately after the
interruption recorded in verse 3. "Then spake Jesus again unto them" (verse
12)—unto whom? Go back to the second half of John 7 and see if it furnishes any
decisive answer. But give John 8:2 a place, and all is simple and plain. Again in
verse 13 we read, "The Pharisees therefore said unto him": this was in the
temple (verse 20). But how came the Pharisees there? John 7:45 shows them
elsewhere. But bring in John 8:1-11 and this difficulty vanishes, for John 8:2
shows that this was the day following.
In the third place, the contents of John 8:1-11 are in full accord with the evident
design of this section of the Gospel. The method followed in these chapters is
most significant. In each instance we find the Holy Spirit records some striking
incident in our Lord’s life, which serves to introduce and illustrate the teaching
which follows it. In chapter 5 Christ quickens the impotent man, and makes that
miracle the text of the sermon He preached immediately after it. In John 6 He
feeds the hungry multitude, and right after gives the two discourses concerning
Himself as the Bread of life. In John 7 Christ’s refusal to go up to the Feast
publicly and openly manifest His glory, is made the background for that
wondrous word of the future manifestation of the Holy Spirit through
believers—issuing from them as "rivers of living water." And the same principle
may be observed here in John 8. In John 8:12 Christ declares, "I am the light of
the world," and the first eleven verses supply us with a most striking illustration
and solemn demonstration of the power of that "light." Thus it may be seen that
there is an indissoluble link between the incident recorded in John 8:1-11 and
the teaching of our Lord immediately following.
Finally, as we shall examine these eleven verses and study their contents,
endeavoring to sound their marvelous depths, it will be evident, we trust, to
every spiritual intelligence, that no uninspired pen drew the picture therein
described. The internal evidence, then, and the spiritual indications
(apprehended and appreciated only by those who enter into God’s thoughts) are
far more weighty than external considerations. The one who is led and taught by
the Spirit of God need not waste valuable time examining ancient manuscripts
for the purpose of discovering whether or not this portion of the Bible is really a
part of God’s own Word.
Our passage emphasizes once more the abject condition of Israel. Again and
again does the Holy Spirit call our attention to the fearful state that Israel was in
during the days of Christ’s earthly ministry. In chapter 1 we see the ignorance of
the Jews as to the identity of the Lord’s forerunner (John 1:14), and blind to the
Divine Presence in their midst (John 1:26). In chapter 2 we have illustrated the
joyless state of the nation, and are shown their desecration of the Father’s House.
In chapter 3 we behold a member of the Sanhedrin dead in trespasses and sins,
needing to be born again (John 3:7), and the Jews quibbling with John’s
disciples about purifying (John 3:25). In chapter 4 we discover the callous
indifference of Israel toward their Gentile neighbors—"the Jews have no
dealings with the Samaritans" (John 4:9). In chapter 5 we have a portrayal of
God’s covenant people in the great multitude of impotent folk, "blind, halt and
5

withered." In chapter 6 they are represented as hungry, yet having no appetite
for the Bread of life. In chapter 7 the leaders of the nation send officers to arrest
Christ. And now in chapter 8 Israel is contemplated as Jehovah’s unfaithful
wife—"adulterous."
"Jesus went unto the mount of Olives" (John 8:1). This points a contrast from
the closing verse of the previous chapter. There we read, Every man went unto
his own house. Here we are told, "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives." We
believe that this contrast conveys a double thought, in harmony with the peculiar
character of this fourth Gospel. All through John two things concerning Christ
are made prominent: His essential glory and His voluntary humiliation. Here,
the Holy Spirit presents Him to us as the eternal Son of God, but also as the Son
come down from heaven, made flesh. Thus we are given to behold, on the one
hand, His uniqueness, His peerless excellency; and on the other, the depths of
shame into which He descended. Frequently these are placed almost side by side.
Thus in chapter 4, we read of Him, "wearied with his journey" (verse 6); and
then in the verses that follow, His Divine glories shine forth. Other examples will
recur to the reader. So here in the passage before us. "Jesus went unto the mount
of Olives" (following John 7:53) suggests the elevation of Christ. But no doubt it
also tells of the humiliation of the Savior. The foxes had holes, and the birds of
the air had nests, but the Son of man had not where to lay His head (Matthew
8:20): therefore, when "every man went unto his own house," "Jesus went unto
the mount of Olives," for He "owned" no "house" down here. He who was rich
for our sakes became poor.
"And early in the morning he came again into the temple" (John 8:2). There is
nothing superfluous in Scripture. Each one of these scenes has been drawn by
the Heavenly Artist, so we may be fully assured that every line, no matter how
small, has a meaning and value. If we keep steadily before us the subject of this
picture we shall be the better able to appreciate its varied tints. The theme of our
chapter is the outshining of the Light of life. How appropriate then is this
opening word: the early "morning" is the hour which introduces the daylight!
"And early in the morning he came again into the temple." This word also
conveys an important practical lesson for us, inasmuch as Christ here leaves an
example that we should follow His steps. In the first sermon of our Lord’s
recorded in the New Testament we find that He said, "Seek ye first the kingdom
of God, and his righteousness" (Matthew 6:33), and He ever practiced what he
preached. The lesson which our Redeemer here exemplified is, that we need to
begin the day by seeking the face and blessing of God! The Divine promise is,
"They that seek me early shall find me" (Prov. 8:17). How different would be
our lives if we really began each day with God! Thus only can we obtain that
fresh supply of grace which will give the needed strength for the duties and
conflicts of the hours that follow.
"And all the people came unto him" (John 8:2). This is another instance where
the word "all" must be understood in a modified sense. Again and again is it
used relatively rather than absolutely. For example, in John 3:26 we read of the
disciples of John coming to their master in complaint that Christ was attracting
so many to Himself: "all come to him," they said. Again, in John 6:45 the Lord
Jesus declared, "They shall be all taught of God." So here, "all the people came
unto him." These and many other passages which might be cited should prevent
us from falling into the errors of Universalism. For example, "I, if I be lifted up
6

from the earth will draw all unto me" (John 12:32), does not mean all without
exception. It is a very patent fact that everybody is not "drawn" to Christ. The
"all" in John 12:32 is all without distinction. So here "all the people came unto
him" (John 8:2) signifies all that were in the temple, that is, all kinds and
conditions of men, men of varied age and social standing, men from the different
tribes.
"And he sat down, and taught them" (John 8:2). Jesus stood; Jesus walked;
Jesus sat. Each of these expressions in John’s Gospel conveys a distinctive moral
truth. Jesus "stood" directs attention to the dignity and blessedness of His
person, and it is very solemn to note that in no single instance (where this
expression occurs) was the glory of His person recognized: cf. John 1:26; 7:37
and what follows; John 20:14, 19, 26; 21:4. Jesus "walked" refers to the public
manifestation of Himself: see our notes on John 7:1. Jesus "sat" points to His
condescending lowliness, meekness and grace: see John 4:6; 6:3; 12:15.
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery;
and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman
was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that
such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that
they might have to accuse him" (John 8:3-6). Following the miscarriage of their
plans on the previous day—through the failure of the officers to arrest Christ
(John 7:45)—the enemies of Christ hit upon a new scheme: they sought to impale
Him on the horns of a dilemma. The roar of the "lion" had failed; now we are to
behold the wiles of the "serpent."
The awful malignity of the Lord’s enemies is evident on the surface. They
brought this adulterous woman to Christ not because they were shocked at her
conduct, still less because they were grieved that God’s holy law had been
broken. Their object was to use this woman to exploit her sin and further their
own evil designs. With coldblooded indelicacy they acted, employing the guilt of
their captive to accomplish their evil intentions against Christ. Their motive
cannot be misinterpreted. They were anxious to discredit our Lord before the
people. They did not wait until they could interrogate Him in private, but,
interrupting as He was teaching the people, they rudely challenged Him to solve
what must have seemed to them an unsolvable enigma.
The problem by which they sought to defy Infinite Wisdom was this: A woman
had been taken in the act of adultery, and the law required that she should be
stoned. Of this there is no room for doubt, see Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy
22:22.[1] "What sayest thou?" they asked. An insidious question, indeed. Had
He said, "Let her go," they could then accuse Him as being an enemy against the
law of God, and His own word "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or
the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill" (Matthew verse 17) had
been falsified. But if He answered, "Stone her," they would have ridiculed the
fact that He was the "friend of publicans and sinners." No doubt they were
satisfied that they had Him completely cornered. On the one hand, if He ignored
the charge they brought against this guilty woman, they could accuse Him of
compromising with sin; on the other hand, if He passed sentence on her, what
became of His own word, "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn
the world; but that the world through him might be saved" (John 3:17)? Here,
then, was the dilemma: if Christ palliated the wickedness of this woman, where
was His respect for the holiness of God and the righteousness of His law; but if
7

He condemned her, what became of His claim that He had come here to "seek
and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)? And yet of what avail was their
satanic subtlety in the presence of God manifest in flesh!
Ere passing on it may be well to notice how this incident furnishes an illustration
of the fact that wicked men can quote the Scriptures when they imagine that it
will further their evil designs: "Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such
should be stoned." But what cared they for the law? They were seeking to turn
the point of the Spirit’s "sword" against the One they hated; soon they were to
feel its sharp edge of themselves. Let us not be deceived then and conclude that
every one who quotes Scripture to us must, necessarily, be a God-fearing man.
Those who quote the Scriptures to condemn others are frequently the guiltiest of
all. Those who are so solicitous to point to the mote in another’s eye, generally
have a beam in their own.
But there is far more here than meets the eye at first glance, or second too. The
whole incident supplies a most striking portrayal of what is developed at length
in the epistle to the Romans. It is not difficult to discern here (skulking behind
the scenes) the hideous features of the great Enemy of God and His people. The
hatred of these scribes and Pharisees was fanned by the inveterate enmity of the
Serpent against the woman’s "Seed." The subject is profoundly mysterious, but
Scripture supplies more than one plain hint that Satan is permitted to challenge
the very character of God—the book of Job, the third of Zechariah, and
Revelation 12:10 are proofs of that. No doubt one reason why the Lord God
suffers this is for the instruction of the unfallen angels—cf. Ephesians 3:10.
The problem presented to Christ by His enemies was no mere local one. So far as
human reason can perceive it was the profoundest moral problem which ever
could or can confront God Himself. That problem was how justice and mercy
could be harmonized. The law of righteousness imperatively demands the
punishment of its transgressor. To set aside that demand would be to introduce a
reign of anarchy. Moreover, God is holy as well as righteous; and holiness burns
against evil, and cannot allow that which is defiled to enter His presence. What,
then, is to become of the poor sinner? A transgressor of the law he certainly is;
and equally manifest is his moral pollution. His only hope lies in mercy; his
salvation is possible only by grace. But how can mercy be exercised when the
sword of justice bars her way? How can grace flow forth except by slighting
holiness? Ah, human wisdom could never have found an answer to such
questions. It is evident that these scribes and Pharisees thought of none. And we
are fully assured that at the beginning Satan himself could see no solution to this
mighty problem. But blessed be His name, God has "found a way" whereby His
banished ones may be restored (2 Sam. 14:13, 14). What this is we shall see
hinted at in the remainder of our passage.
Let us observe how each of the essential elements in this problem of all problems
is presented in the passage before us. We may summarize them thus: First, we
have there the person of that blessed One who had come to seek and to save that
which was lost. Second, we have a sinner, a guilty sinner, one who could by no
means clear herself. Third, the law was against her: the law she had broken, and
the declared penalty of it was death. Fourth, the guilty sinner was brought before
the Savior Himself, and was indicted by His enemies. Such, then, was the
problem now presented to Christ. Would grace stand helpless before law? If not,
wherein lay the solution? Let us attend carefully to what follows.
8

"But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground" (John 8:6).
This was the first thing that He here did. That there was a symbolical
significance to His action goes without saying, and what this is we are not left to
guess. Scripture is its own interpreter. This was not the first time that the Lord
had written "with his finger." In Exodus 31:18 we read, "And he gave unto
Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai,
two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God." When,
then, our Lord wrote on the ground (from the ground must the "tables of stone"
have been taken), it was as though He had said, You remind Me of the law! Why,
it was My finger which wrote that law! Thus did He show these Pharisees that
He had come here, not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. His writing on the
ground, then, was (symbolically) a ratification of God’s righteous law. But so
blind were His would-be accusers they discerned not the significance of His act.
"So when they continued asking him" (John 8:7). It is evident that our Lord’s
enemies mistook His silence for embarrassment. They no more grasped the force
of His action of writing on the ground, than did Belshazzar understand the
writing of that same Hand on the walls of his palace. Emboldened by His silence,
and satisfied that they had Him cornered, they continued to press their question
upon Him. O the persistency of evil-doers! How often they put to shame our lack
of perseverance and importunity.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them,
He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8:7).
This, too, has a far deeper meaning than what appears on the surface. God’s
Law was a holy and a righteous one, and here we find the Lawgiver Himself
turning its white light upon these men who really had so little respect for it.
Christ was here intimating that they, His would-be accusers, were no fit subjects
to demand the enforcement of the law’s sentence. None but a holy hand should
administer the perfect law. In principle, we may see here the great Adversary
and Accuser reprimanded. Satan may stand before the angel of the Lord to resist
"the high priest" (Zech. 3:1), but, morally, he is the last one who should insist on
the maintenance of righteousness. And how strikingly this reprimanding of the
Pharisees by Christ adumbrated what we read of in Zechariah 3:2 ("The Lord
rebuke thee, O Satan") scarcely needs to be pointed out.
"And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground" (John 8:8). Profoundly
significant was this, and unspeakably blessed. The symbolic meaning of it is
plainly hinted at in the word "again": the Lord wrote on the ground a second
time. And of what did that speak? Once more the Old Testament Scriptures
supply the answer. The first "tables of stone" were dashed to the ground by
Moses, and broken. A second set was therefore written by God. And what
became of the second "tables of stone"? They were laid up in the ark (Ex. 40:20),
and were covered by the blood-sprinkled mercy-seat! Here, then, Christ was
giving more than a hint of how He would save those who were, by the law,
condemned to death. It was not that the law would be set aside: far from it. As
His first stooping down and with His finger writing on the ground intimated, the
law would be "established." But as He stooped down and wrote the second time,
He signified that the shed blood of an innocent substitute should come between
the law and those it condemned!
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one
by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last" (John 8:9). Thus was "the
9

strong man bound" (Matthew 12:29). Christ’s enemies had thought to ensnare
Him by the law of Moses; instead, they had its searching light turned upon
themselves. Grace had not defied, but had upheld the law! One sentence from the
lips of Holiness incarnate and they were all silenced, all convicted, and all
departed. At another time, a self-righteous Pharisee might boast of his lastings,
his tithes and his prayers; but when God turns the light on a man’s heart, his
moral and spiritual depravity become apparent even to himself, and shame shuts
his lips. So it was here. Not a word had Christ uttered against the law; in nowise
had He condoned the woman’s sin. Unable to find any ground for accusation
against Him, completely baffled in their evil designs, convicted by their
consciences, they slunk away: "beginning at the eldest," because he had the most
sin to hide and the most reputation to preserve. And in the conduct of these men
we have a clear intimation of how the wicked will act in the last great Day. Now,
they may proclaim their self-righteousness, and talk about the injustice of eternal
punishment. But then, when the light of God flashes upon them, and their guilt
and ruin are fully exposed, they shall, like these Pharisees, be speechless.
"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out."
There is a solemn warning here for sinners who may be exercised in mind over
their condition. Here were men who were "convicted by their own conscience,"
yet instead of this causing them to cast themselves at the feet of Christ, it resulted
in them leaving Christ! Nothing short of the Holy Spirit’s quickening will ever
bring a soul into saving contact with the Lord Jesus.
by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and
the woman standing in the midst" (John 8:9). This is exceedingly striking. These
scribes and Pharisees had challenged Christ from the law. He met them on their
own ground, and vanquished them by the law. "When Jesus had lifted up
himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those
thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And
Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee" (John 8:10, 11). The law
required two witnesses before its sentence could be executed (Deut. 19:15), yet,
those witnesses must assist in the carrying out of the sentence (Deut. 17:7). But
here not a single witness was left to testify against this woman who had merely
been indicted. Thus the law was powerless to touch her. What, then, remained?
Why, the way was now clear for Christ to act in "grace and truth."
"Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more" (John 8:11). No doubt the
question occurs to many of our readers, Was this woman saved at the time she
left Christ? Personally, we believe that she was. We believe so because she did
not leave Christ when she had opportunity to do so; because she addressed Him
as "Lord" (contrast "Master" of the Pharisees in verse 4); and because Christ
said to her, "Neither do I condemn thee." But, as another has said, "In looking
at these incidents of Scripture, we need not ask if the objects of the grace act in
the intelligence of the story. It is enough for us that here was a sinner exposed in
the presence of Him who came to meet sin and put it away. Whoever takes the
place of this woman meets the word that clears of condemnation, just as the
publicans and sinners with whom Christ eats in Luke 15, set forth this, that if
one takes the place of the sinner and the outcast, he is at once received. So with
the lost sheep and the lost piece of silver. There is no intelligence of their
condition, yet they set forth that which, if one take, it is representative. To make
10

it clear, one might ask, ‘Are you as sinful as this woman, as badly lost as that
sheep or piece of silver?’" (Malachi Taylor)
by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and
the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw
none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers?
hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her,
Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." How striking and how blessed
is this sequel to what has been before us! When Christ wrote on the ground the
second time (not before), the "accusers" of the guilty departed! And then, after
the last accuser had disappeared, the Lord said, "Neither do I condemn thee."
How perfect the picture{ And to complete it, Christ added, "Go, and sin no
more," which is still His word to those who have been saved by grace. And the
ground, the righteous ground, on which He pronounced this verdict "Neither do
I condemn thee," was, that in a short time He was going to be "condemned" in
her stead. Finally, note the order of these two words of Christ to this woman who
owned Him as "Lord" (1 Cor. 12:3). It was not, "Go and sin no more, and I will
not condemn thee," for that would have been a death-knell rather than good
news in her ears. Instead, the Savior said, "Neither do I condemn thee." And to
every one who takes the place this woman was brought into, the word is, "There
is therefore now no condemnation" (Rom. 8:1). "And sin no more" placed her,
as we are placed, under the constraint of His love.
This incident then contains far more than that which was of local and ephemeral
significance. It, in fact, raises the basic question of, How can mercy and justice
be harmonized? How can grace flow forth except by slighting holiness? In the
scene here presented to our view we are shown, not by a closely reasoned out
statement of doctrine, but in symbolic action, that this problem is not insoluable
to Divine wisdom. Here was a concrete case of a guilty sinner leaving the
presence of Christ un-condemned. And it was neither because the law had been
slighted nor sin palliated. The requirements of the law were strictly complied
with, and her sin was openly condemned—"sin no more." Yet, she herself, was
not condemned. She was dealt with according to "grace and truth." Mercy
flowed out to her, yet not at the expense of justice. Such, in brief, is a summary,
of this marvelous narrative; a narrative which, verily, no man ever invented and
no uninspired pen ever recorded.
This blessed incident not only anticipated the epistle to the Romans, but it also
outlines, by vivid symbols, the Gospel of the grace of God. The Gospel not only
announces a Savior for sinners, but it also explains how God can save them
consistently with the requirements of His character. As Romans 1:17 tells us, in
the Gospel is "the righteousness of God revealed." And this is precisely what is
set forth here in John 8.
The entire incident is a most striking amplification and exemplification of John
1:17: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus
Christ." The grace of God never conflicts with His law, but, on the contrary,
upholds its authority, "As sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign
through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21).
But as to how grace might reign "through righteousness" was a problem which
God alone could solve, and Christ’s solution of it here marks Him as none other
than "God manifest in flesh." With what blessed propriety, then, is this incident
11

placed in the fourth Gospel, the special design of which is to display the Divine
glory of the Lord Jesus!
Perhaps a separate word needs to be said on verse 7, in connection with which
some have experienced a difficulty; and that is, Do these words of Christ
enunciate a principle which we are justified in using? If so, under what
circumstances? It is essential to bear in mind that Christ was not here speaking
as Judge, but as One in the place of the Servant. The principle involved has been
well stated thus, "We have no right to say to an official who in condemning
culprits or in prosecuting them is simply discharging a public duty, ‘See that
your own hands be clean, and your own heart pure before you condemn
another’; but we have a perfect right to silence a private individual who is
officiously and not officially exposing another’s guilt, by bidding him remember
that he has a beam in his own eye which he must first be rid of" (Dr. Dods).
The "scribes and Pharisees" who brought the guilty adulteress to Christ must be
viewed as representatives of their nation (as Nicodemus in John 3 and the
impotent man in John 5). What, then, was the spiritual condition of Israel at that
time? It was precisely that of this guilty woman: an "evil and adulterous
generation" (Matthew 12:37) Christ termed them. But they were blinded by self-
righteousness: they discerned not their awful condition, and knew not that they,
equally with the Gentiles, were under the curse that had descended upon all
from our father, Adam. Moreover; they were under a deeper guilt than the
Gentiles—they stood convicted of the additional crime of having broken their
covenant with the Lord. They were, in fact, the unfaithful, the adulterous wife of
Jehovah (see Ezekiel 16; Hosea 2, etc.). What, then, did Jehovah’s law call for in
such a case? The answer to this question is furnished in Numbers 5, which sets
forth "the law of jealousy," and describes the Divinely-ordered procedure for
establishing the guilt of an unfaithful wife.
We cannot here quote the whole of Numbers 5, but would ask the reader to turn
to and read verses 11-31 of that chapter. We quote now verses 17, 24, 27:—"And
the priest shall take holy water in an earthen vessel; and of the dust that is in the
floor of the tabernacle the priest shall take, and put it into the water... And he
shall cause the woman to drink the bitter water that causeth the curse: and the
water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter... And when
he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be
defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth
the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and
her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people!"
What light these verses cast upon our Lord’s dealings with the Pharisees
(representatives of Israel) here in John 8. "Water" is the well-known emblem of
the Word (Eph. 5:26, etc.). This water is here termed "holy." It was to be in an
earthen vessel (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7). This water was to be mixed with "the dust
which is in the floor of the tabernacle."—Thus the water becomes "bitter
water," and the woman was made to drink it. The result would be (in case she
was guilty) that her guilt would be outwardly evidenced in the swelling of her
belly (symbol of pride) and the rotting of her thigh—her strength turned to
corruption. Now put these separate items together, and is it not precisely what
we find here in John 8? The Son of God is there incarnate, "made flesh," an
"earthen vessel." The "holy water" is seen in His holy words—"He that is
without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." In stooping down and
12

writing on the floor of the temple, He mingled "the dust" with it. As He did this
it became "bitter" to the proud Pharisees. In the conviction of their consciences
we see how "bitter," and in going out, one by one, abashed, we see the withering
of their strength! And thus was the guilt of Jehovah’s unfaithful wife made fully
manifest!
BARCLAY, "WRETCHEDNESS AND PITY (John 7:53; John 8:1-11)
8:1-11 And each of them went to his own house; but Jesus went to the Mount of
Olives. Early in the morning he was again in the Temple precincts, and all the
people came to him. He sat down and went on teaching them. The scribes and
Pharisees brought a woman arrested for adultery. They set her in the midst and
said to him: "Teacher, this woman was arrested as she was committing
adultery--in the very act. In the law Moses enjoined us to stone women like this.
What do you say about her?" They were testing him when they said this, so that
they might have some ground on which to accuse him. Jesus stooped down and
wrote with his finger on the ground. When they went on asking him their
question, he straightened himself and said to them: "Let the man among you
who is without sin be the first to cast a stone at her." And again he bent down
and wrote with his finger on the ground. One by one those who had heard what
he said went out, beginning from the eldest down to the youngest. So Jesus was
left alone, and the woman was still there in the midst. Jesus straightened himself
and said to her: "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She
said: "No one, sir." Jesus said: "I am not going to pass judgment on you either.
Go, and from now on, sin no more."
[This incident is not included in all the ancient manuscripts
and appears only in a footnote in the Revised Standard
Version; see: NOTE ON THE STORY OF THE WOMAN TAKEN
IN ADULTERY]
The scribes and Pharisees were out to get some charge on which they could
discredit Jesus; and here they thought they had impaled him inescapably on the
horns of a dilemma. When a difficult legal question arose, the natural and
routine thing was to take it to a Rabbi for a decision. So the scribes and
Pharisees approached Jesus as a Rabbi with a woman taken in adultery.
In the eyes of the Jewish law adultery was a serious crime. The Rabbis said:
"Every Jew must die before he will commit idolatry, murder or adultery."
Adultery was, in fact one of the three gravest sins and it was punishable by,
death, although there were certain differences in respect of the way in which the
death penalty was to be carried out. Leviticus 20:10 lays it down: "If a man
commits adultery with the wife of his neighbour, both the adulterer and the
adulteress shall be put to death." There the method of death is not specified.
Deuteronomy 22:13-24 lays down the penalty in the case of a girl who is already
betrothed. In a case like that she and the man who seduced her are to be brought
outside the city gates, "and you shall stone them to death with stones." The
13

Mishnah, that is, the Jewish codified law, states that the penalty for adultery is
strangulation, and even the method of strangulation is laid down. "The man is to
be enclosed in dung up to his knees, and a soft towel set within a rough towel is
to be placed around his neck (in order that no mark may be made, for the
punishment is God's punishment). Then one man draws in one direction and
another in the other direction, until he be dead." The Mishnah reiterates that
death by stoning is the penalty for a girl who is betrothed and who then commits
adultery. From the purely legal point of view the scribes and Pharisees were
perfectly correct. This woman was liable to death by stoning.
The dilemma into which they sought to put Jesus was this: If he said that the
woman ought to be stoned to death, two things followed. First, he would lose the
name he had gained for love and for mercy and never again would be called the
friend of sinners. Second, he would come into collision with the Roman law, for
the Jews had no power to pass or carry out the death sentence on anyone. If he
said that the woman should be pardoned, it could immediately be said that he
was teaching men to break the law of Moses, and that he was condoning and
even encouraging people to commit adultery. That was the trap in which the
scribes and Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus. But he turned their attack in such a
way that it recoiled against themselves.
At first Jesus stooped down and wrote with his finger on the ground. Why did he
do that? There may be four possible reasons.
(i) He may quite simply have wished to gain time and not be rushed into a
decision. In that brief moment he may have been both thinking the thing out and
taking it to God.
(ii) Certain manuscripts add, "As though he did not hear them." Jesus may well
have deliberately forced the scribes and Pharisees to repeat their charges, so
that, in repeating them, they might possibly realize the sadistic cruelty which lay
behind them.
(iii) Seeley in Ecce Homo makes an interesting suggestion. "Jesus was seized with
an intolerable sense of shame. He could not meet the eye of the crowd, or of the
accusers, and perhaps at that moment least of all of the woman.... In his burning
embarrassment and confusion he stooped down so as to hide his face, and began
writing with his fingers upon the ground." It may well be that the leering, lustful
look on the faces of the scribes and Pharisees, the bleak cruelty in their eyes, the
prurient curiosity of the crowd, the shame of the woman, all combined to twist
the very heart of Jesus in agony and pity, so that he hid his eyes.
(iv) By far the most interesting suggestion emerges from certain of the later
manuscripts. The Armenian translates the passage this way: "He himself,
bowing his head, was writing with his finger on the earth to declare their sins;
and they were seeing their several sins on the stones." The suggestion is that
Jesus was writing in the dust the sins of the very men who were accusing the
woman. There may be something in that. The normal Greek word for to write is
graphein (Greek #1125); but here the word used is katagraphein, which can
14

mean to write down a record against someone. (One of the meanings of kata
(Greek #2596) is against). So in Job 13:26 Job says: "Thou writest
(katagraphein) bitter things against me." It may be that Jesus was confronting
those self-confident sadists with the record of their own sins.
However that may be, the scribes and Pharisees continued to insist on an
answer--and they got it. Jesus said in effect: "All right! Stone her! But let the
man that is without sin be the first to cast a stone." It may well be that the word
for without sin (anamartetos, Greek #361) means not only without sin, but even
without a sinful desire. Jesus was saying: "Yes, you may stone her--but only if
you never wanted to do the same thing yourselves." There was a silence--and
then slowly the accusers drifted away.
So Jesus and the woman were left alone. As Augustine put it: "There remained a
great misery (miseria) and a great pity (misericordia)." Jesus said to the woman:
"Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. Jesus said: "I am not for
the moment going to pass judgment on you either. Go, and make a new start, and
don't sin any more."
WRETCHEDNESS AND PITY (John 7:53; John 8:1-11 continued)
This passage shows us two things about the attitude of the scribes and the
Pharisees.
(i) It shows us their conception of authority. The scribes and the Pharisees were
the legal experts of the day; to them problems were taken for decision. It is clear
that to them authority was characteristically critical, censorious and
condemnatory. That authority should be based on sympathy, that its aim should
be to reclaim the criminal and the sinner, never entered their heads. They
conceived of their function as giving them the right to stand over others like grim
invigilators, to watch for every mistake and every deviation from the law, and to
descend on them with savage and unforgiving punishment; they never dreamed
that it might lay upon them the obligation to cure the wrongdoer.
There are still those who regard a position of authority as giving them the right
to condemn and the duty to punish. They think that such authority as they have
has given them the right to be moral watch-dogs trained to tear the sinner to
pieces; but all true authority is founded on sympathy. When George Whitefield
saw the criminal on the way to the gallows, he uttered the famous sentence:
"There, but for the grace of God, go I."
The first duty of authority is to try to understand the force of the temptations
which drove the sinner to sin and the seductiveness of the circumstances in which
sin became so attractive. No man can pass judgment on another unless he at least
tries to understand what the other has come through. The second duty of
authority is to seek to reclaim the wrongdoer. Any authority which is solely
concerned with punishment is wrong; any authority, which, in its exercise, drives
a wrongdoer either to despair or to resentment, is a failure. The function of
authority is not to banish the sinner from all decent society, still less to wipe him
out; it is to make him into a good man. The man set in authority must be like a
15

wise physician; his one desire must be to heal.
(ii) This incident shows vividly and cruelly the attitude of the scribes and
Pharisees to people. They were not looking on this woman as a person at all; they
were looking on her only as a thing, an instrument whereby they could formulate
a charge against Jesus. They were using her, as a man might use a tool, for their
own purposes. To them she had no name, no personality, no feelings; she was
simply a pawn in the game whereby they sought to destroy Jesus.
It is always wrong to regard people as things; it is always unchristian to regard
people as cases. It was said of Beatrice Webb, afterwards Lady Passfield, the
famous economist, that "she saw men as specimens walking." Dr. Paul Tournier
in A Doctor's Casebook talks of what he calls "the personalism of the Bible." He
points out how fond the Bible is of names. God says to Moses: "I know you by
name" (Exodus 33:17). God said to Cyrus; "It is I, the God of Israel, who call
you by your name" (Isaiah 45:3). There are whole pages of names in the Bible.
Dr. Tournier insists that this is proof that the Bible thinks of people first and
foremost, not as fractions of the mass, or abstractions, or ideas, or cases, but as
persons. "The proper name," Dr. Tournier writes, "is the symbol of the person.
If I forget my patients' names, if I say to myself, 'Ah! There's that gall-bladder
type or that consumptive that I saw the other day,' I am interesting myself more
in their gall-bladders or in their lungs than in themselves as persons." He insists
that a patient must be always a person, and never a case.
It is extremely unlikely that the scribes and the Pharisees even knew this
woman's name. To them she was nothing but a case of shameless adultery that
could now be used as an instrument to suit their purposes. The minute people
become things the spirit of Christianity is dead.
God uses his authority to love men into goodness; to God no person ever becomes
a thing. We must use such authority as we have always to understand and always
at least to try to mend the person who has made the mistake; and we will never
even begin to do that unless we remember that every man and woman is a
person, not a thing.
WRETCHEDNESS AND PITY (John 7:53; John 8:1-11 continued)
Further, this incident tells us a great deal about Jesus and his attitude to the
sinner.
(i) It was a first principle of Jesus that only the man who himself is without fault
has the right to express judgment on the fault of others. "Judge not," said Jesus,
"that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1). He said that the man who attempted to
judge his brother was like a man with a plank in his own eye trying to take a
speck of dust out of someone else's eye (Matthew 7:3-5). One of the commonest
faults in life is that so many of us demand standards from others that we never
even try to meet ourselves; and so many of us condemn faults in others which are
glaringly obvious in our own lives. The qualification for judging is not
knowledge--we all possess that; it is achievement in goodness--none of us is
perfect there. The very facts of the human situation mean that only God has the
16

right to judge, for the simple reason that no man is good enough to judge any
other.
(ii) It was also a first principle with Jesus that our first emotion towards anyone
who has made a mistake should be pity. It has been said that the duty of the
doctor is "sometimes to heal, often to afford relief and always to bring
consolation." When a person suffering from some ailment is brought to a doctor,
he does not regard him with loathing even if he is suffering from a loathsome
disease. In fact the physical revulsion which is sometimes inevitable is swallowed
up by the great desire to help and to heal. When we are confronted with someone
who has made a mistake, our first feeling ought to be, not, "I'll have nothing
more to do with someone who could act like that," but, "What can I do to help?
What can I do to undo the consequences of this mistake?" Quite simply, we must
always extend to others the same compassionate pity we would wish to be
extended to ourselves if we were involved in a like situation.
(iii) It is very important that we should understand just how Jesus did treat this
woman. It is easy to draw the wrong lesson altogether and to gain the impression
that Jesus forgave lightly and easily, as if the sin did not matter. What he said
was: "I am not going to condemn you just now; go, and sin no more." In effect
what he was doing was not to abandon judgment and say, "Don't worry; it's
quite all right." What he did was, as it were, to defer sentence. He said, "I am
not going to pass a final judgment now; go and prove that you can do better. You
have sinned; go and sin no more and I'll help you all the time. At the end of the
day we will see how you have lived." Jesus' attitude to the sinner involved a
number of things.
(a) It involved the second chance. It is as if Jesus said to the woman: "I know you
have made a mess of things; but life is not finished yet; I am giving you another
chance, the chance to redeem yourself." Someone has written the lines:
"How I wish that there was some wonderful place
Called the Land of Beginning Again,
Where all our mistakes and all out heartaches
And all our poor selfish grief
Could be dropped like a shabby old coat at the door,
And never put on again."
In Jesus there is the gospel of the second chance. He was always intensely
interested, not only in what a person had been, but also in what a person could
be. He did not say that what they had done did not matter; broken laws and
broken hearts always matter; but he was sure that every man has a future as
well as a past.
17

(b) It involved pity. The basic difference between Jesus and the scribes and
Pharisees was that they wished to condemn; he wished to forgive. If we read
between the lines of this story it is quite clear that they wished to stone this
woman to death and were going to take pleasure in doing so. They knew the
thrill of exercising the power to condemn; Jesus knew the thrill of exercising the
power to forgive. Jesus regarded the sinner with pity born of love; the scribes
and Pharisees regarded him with disgust born of self-righteousness.
(c) It involved challenge. Jesus confronted this woman with the challenge of the
sinless life. He did not say: "It's all right; don't worry; just go on as you are
doing." He said: "It's all wrong; go out and fight; change your life from top to
bottom; go, and sin no more." Here was no easy forgiveness; here was a
challenge which pointed a sinner to heights of goodness of which she had never
dreamed. Jesus confronts the bad life with the challenge of the good.
(d) It involved belief in human nature. When we come to think of it, it is a
staggering thing that Jesus should say to a woman of loose morals: "Go, and sin
no more." The amazing, heart-uplifting thing about him was his belief in men
and women. When he was confronted with someone who had gone wrong, he did
not say: "You are a wretched and a hopeless creature." He said: "Go, and sin no
more." He believed that with his help the sinner has it in him to become the
saint. His method was not to blast men with the knowledge--which they already
possessed--that they were miserable sinners, but to inspire them with the
unglimpsed discovery that they were potential saints.
(e) It involved warning, clearly unspoken but implied. Here we are face to face
with the eternal choice. Jesus confronted the woman with a choice that day--
either to go back to her old ways or to reach out to the new way with him. This
story is unfinished, for every life is unfinished until it stands before God.
[As we noted at the beginning, this story does not appear in all the ancient
manuscripts. See the Note on the Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery (John
8:2-11).]
Note On The Story Of The Woman Taken In Adultery (John 8:2-11)
To many this is one of the loveliest and the most precious stories in the gospels;
and yet it has great difficulties attaching to it.
The older the manuscripts of the New Testament are, the more valuable they are.
They were all copied by hand, and obviously the nearer they are to the original
writings the more likely they are to be correct. We call these very early
manuscripts the Uncial manuscripts, because they are written in capital letters;
and we base the text of the, New Testament on the earliest ones, which date from
the fourth to the sixth century. The fact is that of all these early manuscripts this
story occurs only in one, and that is not one of the best. Six of them omit it
completely. Two leave a blank space where it should come. It is not till we come
to the late Greek manuscripts and the medieval manuscripts that we find this
story, and even then it is often marked to show that it is doubtful.
18

Another source of our knowledge of the text of the New Testament is what are
called the versions; that is, the translations into languages other than Greek. This
story is not included in the early Syriac version, nor in the Coptic or Egyptian
version, nor in some of the early Latin versions.
Again, none of the early fathers seems to know anything about it. Certainly they
never mention it or comment on it. Origen, Chrysostom, Theodore of
Mopsuestia, Cyril of Alexandria on the Greek side do not mention it. The first
Greek commentator to remark on it is Euthymius Zigabenus whose date is A.D.
11 18, and even he says that it is not in the best manuscripts.
Where, then, did this incident come from? Jerome certainly knew it in the fourth
century, for he included it in the Vulgate. We know that Augustine and Ambrose
both knew it, for they comment on it. We know that it is in all the later
manuscripts. It is to be noted that its position varies a great deal. In some
manuscripts it is put at the end of the fourth gospel; and in some it is inserted
after Luke 21:38.
But we can trace it even further back. It is quoted in a third century book called
The Apostolic Constitutions, where it is given as a warning to bishops who are
too strict. Eusebius, the Church historian, says that Papias tells a story "of a
woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord," and Papias lived not
very long after A.D. 100.
Here, then, are the facts. This story can be traced as far back as very early in the
second century. When Jerome produced the Vulgate he, without question,
included it. The later manuscripts and the medieval manuscripts all have it. And
yet none of the great manuscripts includes it. None of the great Greek fathers of
the Church ever mentions it. But some of the great Latin fathers did know it, and
speak of it.
What is the explanation? We need not be afraid that we shall have to let this
lovely story go; for it is guarantee enough of its genuineness that we can trace it
back to almost A.D. 100. But we do need some explanation of the fact that none
of the great manuscripts includes it. Moffatt, Weymouth and Rieu print it in
brackets; and the Revised Standard Version prints it in small type at the foot of
the page.
Augustine gives us a hint. He says that this story was removed from the text of
the gospel because "some were of slight faith," and "to avoid scandal." We
cannot tell for certain, but it would seem that in the very early days the people
who edited the text of the New Testament thought that this was a dangerous
story, a justification for a light view of adultery, and therefore omitted it. After
all, the Christian Church was a little island in a sea of paganism. Its members
were so apt to relapse into a way of life where chastity was unknown; and were
for ever open to pagan infection. But as time went on the danger grew less, or
was less feared, and the story, which had always circulated by word of mouth
and which one manuscript retained, came back.
19

It is not likely that it is now in the place where it ought to be. It was probably
inserted here to illustrate Jesus' saying in John 8:15 : "I judge no man." In spite
of the doubt that the modern translations cast on it, and in spite of the fact that
the early manuscripts do not include it, we may be sure that this is a real story
about Jesus, although one so gracious that for long men were afraid to tell it.
LIGHTFOOT, "1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
[Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.] But whether to the town of Bethany, or to
some booth fixed in that mount, is uncertain. For because of the infinite
multitude that had swarmed together at those feasts, it is probable many of them
had made themselves tents about the city, that they might not be too much
straitened within the walls, though they kept within the bounds still of a sabbath
day's journey.
"'And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents,' Deuteronomy 16:7.
The first night of the feast they were bound to lodge within the city: after that it
was lawful for them to abide without the walls; but it must be within the bounds
of a sabbath day's journey. Whereas therefore it is said, 'Thou shalt go unto thy
tents'; this is the meaning of it. Thou shalt go into thy tents that are without the
walls of Jerusalem, but by no means into thine own house."
It is said, chapter 7:53, that "every man went unto his own house"; upon which
words let that be a comment that we meet with, After the daily evening sacrifice,
the fathers of the Sanhedrim went home.
The eighth day therefore being ended, the history of which we have in chapter 7,
the following night was out of the compass of the feast; so that they had done the
dancings of which we have spoken before. The evangelist, therefore, does not
without cause say that "every man went unto his own house"; for otherwise they
must have gone to those dancings, if the next day had not been the sabbath.
COFFMAN, "In this chapter, the controversy continues. There is the case of the
woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11); Jesus the Light of the world (John
8:12-20.); teaching of his heavenly origin (John 8:21-30); and the passage on the
true children of Abraham (John 8:31-59).
THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY
This paragraph (John 7:53-8:11) is omitted from later versions of the New
Testament, upon the basis of convincing arguments denying it a place in the
sacred canon. Hendriksen, after canvassing all of the scholarly findings on the
subject, concluded thus:
Though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the
Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of
finality. We believe moreover, that what is recorded here really took place and
contains nothing in conflict with the apostolic spirit.[1]
We shall study the narrative as it has come down to us.
20

ENDNOTE:
[1] William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Gospel according to John (Grand
Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), II, p. 35.
And they went every man unto his own house: but Jesus went unto the mount of
Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the
people came unto him; and he sat down and taught them. (John 7:53-8:2)
Early in the morning ... is a detail that suggests the report of an eyewitness.
And he sat down and taught them ... refers to his assumption of the formal
position of a teacher (Matthew 5:1).
And all the people ... Scholars notice what is called a change of style here and
throughout the paragraph, evidenced by the stringing together of one thought
after another by the use of "and." Also, this is the only mention of the Mount of
Olives in John. All of the facts, however, fit the situation perfectly
2At dawn he appeared again in the temple
courts, where all the people gathered around
him, and he sat down to teach them.
GILL, "And early in the morning he came again into the temple,.... Which
shows his diligence, constancy, and assiduity, in his ministerial work, as well as his
courage and intrepidity; being fearless of his enemies, though careful to give them no
advantage against him, before his time:
and all the people came unto him; which also commends the industry and
diligence of his hearers, who were forward to hear him, and were early at the temple
for that purpose, and that in great numbers:
and he sat down and taught them; he sat, as his manner was; See Gill on Mat_
5:1; and taught them as one having authority, and such doctrine, and in such a
manner, as never man did; with all plainness, boldness, and freedom.
HENRY,"II. His return in the morning to the temple, and to his work there, Joh_
8:2. Observe,
1. What a diligent preacher Christ was: Early in the morning he came again, and
taught. Though he had been teaching the day before, he taught again today. Christ
was a constant preacher, in season and out of season. Three things were taken notice
21

of here concerning Christ's preaching. (1.) The time: Early in the morning. Though
he lodged out of town, and perhaps had spent much of the night in secret prayer, yet
he came early. When a day's work is to be done for God and souls it is good to begin
betimes, and take the day before us. (2.) The place: In the temple; not so much
because it was a consecrated place (for then he would have chosen it at other times)
as because it was now a place of concourse; and he would hereby countenance
solemn assemblies for religious worship, and encourage people to come up to the
temple, for he had not yet left it desolate. (3.) His posture: He sat down, and taught,
as one having authority, and as one that intended to abide by it for some time.
2. How diligently his preaching was attended upon: All the people came unto him;
and perhaps many of them were the country-people, who were this day to return
home from the feast, and were desirous to hear one sermon more from the mouth of
Christ before they returned. They came to him, though he came early. They that seek
him early shall find him. Though the rulers were displeased at those that came to
hear him, yet they would come; and he taught them, though they were angry at him
too. Though there were few or none among them that were persons of any figure, yet
Christ bade them welcome, and taught them.
III. His dealing with those that brought to him the woman taken in adultery,
tempting him. The scribes and Pharisees would not only not hear Christ patiently
themselves, but they disturbed him when the people were attending on him. Observe
here,
BI, "And early in the morning He came again unto the Temple
The Temple
We have in our version only one word, “Temple,” with which we render both ᅶερόν
and ναός, but there is a very real distinction between the two, and one the marking of
which would often add much to the clearness and precision of the sacred narrative.
ᅿερόν (= templum) is the whole compass of the sacred enclosure, the τέµενος,
including the outer courts, the porches, porticoes, and other buildings subordinated
to the Temple itself. But ναός (= aedes), from ναίω, habito, as the proper habitation
of God (Act_7:48; Act 17:24; 1Co_6:19): the οι (Mat_12:4; cf. Exo_23:19) is the
Temple itself, that by especial right so called, being the heart and centre of the whole;
the Holy, and the Holy of Holies, called often ᅊγίασµα. (1Ma_1:37; 1Ma 3:45). This
distinction, one that existed and was acknowledged in profane Greek, and with
reference to heathen temples, quite as much as in sacred Greek, and with relation to
the Temple of the true God (see Herodotus 1.181-3; Thucydides 5.18; Act_19:24-27)
is, I believe, always assumed in all passages relating to the Temple at Jerusalem, alike
by Josephus, by Philo, by the Septuagint translators, and in the New Testament …
The distinction may be brought to bear with advantage on several passages in the
New Testament. When Zacharias entered “into the Temple of the Lord” to burn
incense, the people who waited His return, and who are described as standing
“without” (Luk_1:10) were in one sense in the Temple too—that is, in the ᅷερόν, while
he alone entered into the ναός, the “Temple” in its more limited and auguster sense.
We read continually of Christ teaching “in the Temple” (Mat_26:55; Luk_21:37;
Joh_8:21), and perhaps are at a loss to understand how this could have been so, or
how long conversations could there have been maintained, without interrupting the
service of God. But this is ever the ᅷερόν, the porches and porticoes of which were
eminently adapted to such purposes, as they were intended far them. Into the ναός
22

the Lord never entered during His earthly course: nor, indeed, being made under the
law, could He do so, that being reserved for the priests alone. It need hardly be said
that the money changers, the buyers and sellers, with the sheep and oxen, whom the
Lord drives out, He repels from the ᅷερόν, and not from the ναός. Irreverent as was
their intrusion, they yet had not dared to establish themselves in the Temple properly
so called. (Mat_21:12; Joh_2:14). On the other hand, when we read of another
Zacharias slain “between the Temple and the altar” (Mat_23:35) we have only to
remember that “Temple” is ναός here, at once to get rid of a difficulty, which may
perhaps have presented itself to many—this, namely, Was not the altar in the
Temple? How, then, could any locality be described as between these two? In the
ᅷερόν, doubtless was the brazen altar to which allusion is here made, but not in the
ναός, “in the court” of the House of the Lord (cf. Josephus, “Antiq.” 8.4, 1), where the
sacred historian (2Ch_24:21) lays the scene of this murder, but not in the House of
the Lord, or ναός, itself. Again, how vividly does it set forth to us the despair and
defiance of Judas, that he presses even into the ναός itself (Mat_27:5), into the
“adytum” which was set apart for the priests alone, and there casts down before them
the accursed price of blood. Those expositors who affirm that here ναός stands for
ᅷερόν should adduce some other passage in which the one is put for the other. (Abp.
Trench.)
And He sat down and taught
Christ as a religious Teacher
I. HE WAS DEVOUTLY STUDIOUS. It was from the solitudes of Olivet where He
had spent the previous night that He goes into the Temple. To preach the gospel
three things are essential, and these can come only by solitude.
1. Self-formed conviction of gospel truth. The gospel is the power of God unto
salvation; but how is it to be wielded—by Bible circulation, recitation of its
contents, or repeating the comments of others? All these are useful, but
conviction is indispensable. Heaven has so honoured our nature that the gospel,
to win its victories, must pass as living beliefs through the soul of the teacher. The
men who teach it without such convictions—conventional preachers—can never
enrich the world. They are echoes of old voices, mere channels through which old
dogmas flow. But he who speaks what he believes and because he believes, the
doctrine comes from him instinct and warm with life. His individuality is
impressed upon it. The world never had it in that exact form before. Now, devout
solitude is necessary to this. Alone with God you can search the gospel to its
foundation, and feel the congruity of its doctrine with your reason, its claims with
your conscience, its provisions with your wants.
2. Unconquerable love for gospel truth. There is an immense practical opposition
to it. Men’s pride, prejudice, pleasures, pursuits, and temporal interests are
against it. It follows, therefore, that those who think more of the favour of society
than of the claims of truth, will not deal with it honestly, earnestly, and therefore
successfully. The man only who loves truth more than even life, can so use it
really to benefit mankind. In devout solitude you can cultivate this invincible
attachment to truth, and you may be made to feel with Paul, “I count all things
but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ,”
23

3. A living expression of gospel truth. Our conduct must confirm and illumine the
doctrines which our lips declare. For this there must be seasons of solitude.
When Moses talked with God the skin of his face shone. But in devout seclusion
our whole nature may become luminous. John the Baptist gained invincible
energy in the wilderness; Paul prepared for apostleship in Arabia; and in
Gethsemane Jesus was prepared for His work.
II. HE WAS SUBLIMELY COURAGEOUS. On the previous day His life had been
threatened and His arrest attempted, yet with a noble daring He goes “early in the
morning” to the same scene. Distinguish this spirit from what the world calls
courage.
1. Brute courage is dead to the sacredness of life. Soldiers hold life cheaply, and
their courage is an animal and mercenary thing. But Christ deeply felt and
frequently taught the sanctity of life. He came not to destroy men’s lives, etc.
“What shall it profit, etc.”
2. Brute courage is indifferent to the grand mission of life. The man of brute
valour is not inspired with the question, What is the grand object of my life? Am I
here to work out the great designs of my Maker or to be a mere fighting machine?
On the contrary, Christ’s regard for the grand mission of His life made Him
courageous. He came to bear witness to the truth; and to fulfil this work He
willingly risked His own mortal life.
3. Brute courage is always inspired by mere animal passion. It is when the blood
is up the man is daring, the mere blood of the enraged tiger or the infuriated lion.
When the blood cools down the man’s courage, such as it is, collapses. Not so
with the valour of Christ, which was that of deep conviction of duty. “As Luther,”
Dr. D’Aubigne informs us, “drew near the door which was about to admit him
into the presence of his judges (the Diet of Worms), he met a valiant knight, the
celebrated George of Freundsberg, who, four years later, at the head of his
German lansquenets, bent the knee with his soldiers on the field of Pavia, and
then, charging to the left of the French army, drove it into the Ticino, and in a
great measure decided the captivity of the King of France. The old general, seeing
Luther pass, tapped him on the shoulder, and shaking his head, blanched in
many battles, said kindly, ‘Poor monk, poor monk! thou art now going to make a
nobler stand than I or any other captain have ever made in the bloodiest of our
battles. But if thy cause is just, and thou art sure of it, go forward in God’s name
and fear nothing. God will not forsake thee.’ A noble tribute of respect paid by the
courage of the sword to the courage of the mind.” Nothing is more necessary for a
religious teacher than courage, for his mission is to strike hard against the
prejudices, self interests, dishonesties, etc., of the masses. No man without valour
can do the work of a religious teacher. The popular preacher must more or less be
cowardly conciliatory. Dead fish swim with the stream; it requires living ones
with much inner force to cutup against the current.
III. HE WAS SUBLIMELY EARNEST. Early in the morning He did not indulge
Himself sleep—“I must work,” etc. Two things should make the preacher earnestly
diligent.
1. The transcendent importance of His mission—to enlighten and regenerate is
perishable spirits that are in a morally ruinous condition. What is involved in the
loss of one soul?
2. The brevity of life. How short the time, even in the longest-lived for this
greatest of human understandings.
IV. HE WAS BEAUTIFULLY NATURAL. “He sat down,” etc. There was nothing stiff
24

or official. All was free, fresh, and elastic as nature.
1. He was natural in attitude. Modern rhetoric has rules to guide a public speaker
as to his posture, etc. All such miserable directions are not only unlike Christ, but
degrading to the moral nature of the speaker, and detrimental to his oratorio
influence. Let a man be charged with great thoughts, and those thoughts will
throw his frame into the most beseeming attitudes.
2. He was natural in expression. He attended to no classic rule of composition;
the words and similes He employed were such as His thoughts ran into first, and
such as His hearers could well understand. To many modern preachers
composition is everything. What solemn trifling with gospel truth!
3. He was natural in tones. The tones of His voice, we may rest assured, rose and
fell according to the thoughts that occupied His soul. The voice of the modern
teacher is often hideously artificial. Just so far as a speaker goes away from his
nature, either in language, attitude, or tone, he loses self-respect, inward vigour,
and social force. (D. Thomas, D. D.)
We must do good against great opposition
That is a poor engine that can only drive water through pipes down hill. Those vast
giants of iron at the Ridgway waterworks, which supply this city day and night, easily
lifting a ton of water at every gush, so that all the many thirsty faucet mouths
throughout our streets cannot exhaust their fulness; those are the engines that I
admire. (H. W. Beecher.)
1. The time of day makes the story realistic, for it is early morning and the
woman they brought as one having been caught in adultery was found sleeping
with a man not her husband. It was not as if they were engaged in sex at the
moment, but they were sleeping together, and someone knew about it and took
the women from her bed leaving the man to go his way. It could have been a set
up and the man was used to seduce the woman to be used for this very trap set
for Jesus.
2. Apparently people went to the temple courts early and were interested in
teaching shortly after the awoke for the day. Jesus was up early and ready to
offer that teaching. He sat down to teach, and so it was not a lecture as much as
an open sharing with questions and answers as a part of it.
3. We see that Jesus was an early riser, and he was about the business of teaching
the people the truth of God's Word. He only had a public ministry of around
three years, and so he had to make every day count, and that is why he got an
early start to each day. The people were hungry for this kind of teaching, for
they were not getting it from the religious leaders of the day. Jesus knew his
Bible well, and expounded on it with insights that the people had never seen
before. Jesus was a master teacher and used stories to illustrate his message. He
was popular among the common people because of his ability to communicate
profound truth in simple ways that the people could understand.
25

3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees
brought in a woman caught in adultery. They
made her stand before the group
CLARKE, "A woman taken in adultery - Some of the popish writers say that
her name was Susanna; that she was espoused to an old decrepid man, named
Manasseh; that she died a saint in Spain, whither she had followed St. James. These
accounts the judicious Calmet properly terms fables.
It is allowed that adultery was exceedingly common at this time, so common that
they had ceased to put the law in force against it. The waters of jealousy were no
longer drunk, the culprits or those suspected of this crime, being so very numerous;
and the men who were guilty themselves dared not try their suspected wives, as it
was believed the waters would have no evil effect upon the wife, if the husband
himself had been criminal. See the whole of the process on the waters of jealousy in
the notes on Num_5:14 (note), etc.; and see at the end of chap. 18 (note).
GILL, "And the Scribes and Pharisees,.... The members of the sanhedrim, who
had been so miserably disappointed the day before, were no less diligent and
industrious in their wicked way, seeking all opportunities, and taking all advantages
against Christ; and fancying they had got something whereby to ensnare him, and
bring him into disgrace or danger, they pursue it; and
brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; who, as some conjecture, might
have been taken in it the day before, in one of their booths; being drawn into it
through intemperance and carnal mirth, which at this feast they greatly indulged
themselves in; which shows, that they were far from drawing the Holy Ghost at this
time upon them; that on the contrary, they fell into the hands, and under the power
of the unclean spirit: who this woman was, is not material to know; what is
pretended to be taken out of the annals of the Spanish Jews, is no doubt a fable; that
she was the wife of one Manasseh of Jerusalem, an old man, whose name was
Susanna (d):
and when they had set her in the midst; of the company, as the Persic version
reads, to be seen by all the people. This history of the woman taken in adultery, is
wanting in the Alexandrian copy, and in other ancient copies; nor is it in Nonnus,
Chrysostom, and Theophylact; nor in any of the editions of the Syriac version, until it
was restored by De Dieu, from a copy of Archbishop Usher's; but was in the Arabic
and Ethiopic versions, and in the Harmonies of Tatian and Ammonius; the former of
which lived about the year 160, and so within 60 years, or thereabouts, of the death
of the Evangelist John, and the other about the year 230; it was also in Stephens's
sixteen ancient Greek copies, and in all Beza's seventeen, excepting one; nor need the
authenticness of it be doubted of; Eusebius (e) says, it is in the Gospel according to
26

the Hebrews; nor should its authority be called in question.
HENRY,"III. His dealing with those that brought to him the woman taken in
adultery, tempting him. The scribes and Pharisees would not only not hear Christ
patiently themselves, but they disturbed him when the people were attending on him.
Observe here,
1. The case proposed to him by the scribes and Pharisees, who herein contrived to
pick a quarrel with him, and bring him into a snare, Joh_8:3-6.
(1.) They set the prisoner to the bar (Joh_8:3): they brought him a woman taken
in adultery, perhaps now lately taken, during the time of the feast of tabernacles,
when, it may be, their dwelling in booths, and their feasting and joy, might, by
wicked minds, which corrupt the best things, be made occasions of sin. Those that
were taken in adultery were by the Jewish law to be put to death, which the Roman
powers allowed them the execution of, and therefore she was brought before the
ecclesiastical court. Observe, She was taken in her adultery. Though adultery is a
work of darkness, which the criminals commonly take all the care they can to
conceal, yet sometimes it is strangely brought to light. Those that promise
themselves secrecy in sin deceive themselves. The scribes and Pharisees bring her to
Christ, and set her in the midst of the assembly, as if they would leave her wholly to
the judgment of Christ, he having sat down, as a judge upon the bench.
JAMISON, "scribes and Pharisees — foiled in their yesterday’s attempt, and
hoping to succeed better in this.
CALVIN, "3.And the scribes and Pharisees bring to him. 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. When the
Evangelist says that the scribes brought to him a woman, he means that it was
done by an agreement among them, in order to lay traps for Christ. He expressly
mentions the Pharisees, because they were the chief persons in the rank of
scribes In adopting this pretense for slander, they display enormous wickedness,
and even their own lips accuse them; for they do not disguise that they have a
plain commandment of the Law, and hence it follows that they act maliciously in
putting a question as if it were a doubtful matter. But their intention was, to
constrain Christ to depart from his office of preaching grace, that he might
appear to be fickle and unsteady. They expressly state that adulteresses are
condemned by Moses, (Leviticus 20:10,) that they may hold Christ bound by the
sentence already given by the Law, for it was not lawful to acquit those whom
the Law condemned; and, on the other hand, if he had consented to the Law, he
might be thought to be somewhat unlike himself.
1. This text assumes that the woman was guilty of adultery, for she was caught in
27

the act. But we do not know who caught her, and if there were any other
witnesses other than these men seeking to make Jesus look bad. It seems a little
suspecious that these men would be out snooping around to find someone
engaged in adultery. They were sneaky people, but I can't imagine them being
window peepers, or those who hide out spying on people to find them being
immoral. However they found this woman, they now put her to public shame by
making her stand before the crowd Jesus was teaching. This was, to say the least,
a rude interruption to the lesson Jesus was trying to communicate. It was a
totally unnecessary way to deal with this woman, even if she was a valid
adulteress, for Jesus was not a judge. He was doing his thing, and they had no
business bringing this woman before him and disrupting his teaching. It was
clearly another of their plots to embarrass him and make him look bad.
2. From the Sermon Notebook we get this dramatic introduction revealing what
a trauma this woman must have been going through in this setting.
"On March 22, 1824 an incident took place in Madison County, Indiana, which
came to be known as the Fall Creek Massacre. Six white men murdered nine
Seneca and Miami Indians and wounded another. Among the nine dead were
three women and four children. The six men were apprehended and tried and
some were executed. One of the men named John Bridge Jr. was sentenced to
death by hanging for his part in the massacre. He was to be executed on June 3,
1825. His father, John Bridge Sr. and another man named Andrew Sawyer, who
was John Bridge Jr.’s uncle, were also to be executed that day.
John Bridge, Jr., along with a large crowd, witness the hangings of his father
and uncle as the crowd waited expectantly for a pardon from the governor. With
no sign of a pardon, a sermon was preached as the crowd waited expectantly.
Finally, John Bridge, Jr. was lead to the gallows and the rope was lowered over
his head. But as the men waited for a signal, a cheer arose from the back of the
crowd.
A stranger rode forward and looked the condemned man in the face. "Sir, do
you know in whose presence you stand?" Bridge shook his head. "There are but
two powers known to the law that can save you from hanging by the neck until
you are dead, dead, dead; one is the great God of the Universe, the other is J.
Brown Ray, Governor of the State of Indiana; the latter stands before you…"
Handing over the written pardon, the governor announced, "you are pardoned."
In an instant, what had looked like a hopeless situation became a door of
hope. John Bridge Jr. went back home, settled down, opened a dry goods store
and died peacefully, fifty-one years later!
I told that story to ask this question: Can you imagine the fear that must have
gripped the heart of that young man as he watched his father and his uncle die,
knowing that he was next. Can you imagine the terror as he was led onto the
gallows and that noose was placed around his neck? It must have been a moment
of terror like few have ever experienced!
28

But, I know one person who had experienced that feeling. This poor sinful
woman, who’s story is related in this text, she knew that kind of fear. As she is
led trembling into the presence of Jesus, she knows in her heart that she is about
to die a horrible death by stoning. However, her path had led her into the
presence of “the great God of the universe”. And, when she met Him, everything
changed, forever!"
3. Dr. Ray Pritchard writes, "Who were these men? They are “teachers of the
law” and Pharisees. They were the religious leaders of the Jewish people. That
meant they were well educated, well known, and reputed to be men of wisdom
and high moral standards. If anyone had a question about the Law of Moses,
these were the men who had the answers. But although they were religious, they
were not godly and their intentions on this day are not good. As the story
unfolds, we discover that they are proud, self-confident, arrogant, ruthless,
cunning, clever, calculating, and thoroughly hypocritical.
How did they catch her in the “act of adultery?” Again, we can’t be sure, but
something fishy seems to have been going on. The rabbinic law was very specific
on this point. Since adultery was technically a capital offense, the law demanded
that any accusation be a literal eyewitness testimony. It would not be enough to
say, “I saw them entering the bedroom and then I saw them leave.” It must be
more detailed and precise than that. Hearsay testimony would not be accepted
for a charge like this. So how did these men “happen” to catch her “in the act?”
We don’t know."
And that leads to a crucial question. Where is the man? Adultery by definition
requires two people. It is not likely that the man somehow escaped but the
woman didn’t. Perhaps it was a set-up. Perhaps they talked the man into
seducing the woman so they could catch her in the act. By prearrangement they
then let the man go free. As the succeeding verses make clear, these men didn’t
care about the woman one way or the other. If this is a set-up, they have already
caused adultery and apparently would be willing to cause a murder as well, so
great was their hatred of Jesus."
LIGHTFOOT, "[A woman taken in adultery.] Our Saviour calls the generation
an adulterous generation, Matthew 12:39: see also James 4:4, which indeed
might be well enough understood in its literal and proper sense.
"From the time that murderers have multiplied amongst us, the beheading of the
heifer hath ceased: and since the increase of adultery, the bitter waters have been
out of use."
"Since the time that adultery so openly prevailed under the second Temple, the
Sanhedrim abrogated that way of trial by the bitter water; grounding it upon
what is written, 'I will not visit your daughters when they shall go a whoring, nor
your wives when they shall commit adultery.'"
The Gemarists say, That Rabban Jochanan Ben Zacchai was the author of this
29

counsel: he lived at this very time, and was of the Sanhedrim; perhaps present
amongst those that set this adulterous woman before Christ. For there is some
reason to suppose that the "scribes and Pharisees" here mentioned were no other
than the fathers of the Sanhedrim.
BI 3-11, "And the Scribes and the Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in
adultery
The scene and its significance
It is probable that the hilarity and abandonment of the feast, which had grown to be
a kind of vintage festival, would often degenerate into acts of licence and immorality;
and these would find more numerous opportunities in the general disturbance of
ordinary life caused by the dwelling of the whole people in their little leafy booths.
One such act had been detected during the night, and the guilty woman had been
handed over to the Scribes and Pharisees. Even had the morals of the nation at that
time been as clean as in the days when Moses ordained the fearful ordeal of the
“water of jealousy”—even had those rulers and teachers of the nation been elevated as
far above their contemporaries in the real as in the professed sanctity of their lives—
the discovery, and the threatened punishment of this miserable adulteress could
hardly have failed to move every pure mind to a compassion which would have
mingled largely with the horror which her sin inspired. They might then have
inflicted the penalty with a sternness as inflexible as that of the Pilgrim Fathers; but
the sternness of a severe and pure-hearted judge is a sternness which would not
inflict one unnecessary, pang and is wholly incompatible with a spirit of malignant
levity. But the spirit of these Scribes and Pharisees was not by any means the spirit of
a sincere and outraged purity. In the decadence of national life, in the daily
familiarity with heathen degradations, in the gradual substitution of a Levitical
scrupulosity for a heartfelt religion, the morals of the nation had grown utterly
corrupt. The ordeal of the “water of jealousy” had long been abolished, and the death
by stoning as a punishment for adultery had long been suffered to fall into desuetude.
Not even the Scribes and Pharisees, for all their external religiosity, had any genuine
horror of an impurity with which their own lives were often stained. They saw
nothing but a chance of annoying, and endangering One whom they regarded as their
deadliest enemy. It was a curious custom among the Jews to consult distinguished
Rabbis in cases of difficulty; but there was no difficulty here. It was long since the law
of death had been demanded; and even had this not been the ease the Roman law
would have interfered. On the other hand, divorce was open to the injured husband,
and the ease of this woman differed from that of no other who had similarly
transgressed. And even if they had sincerely desired the opinion of Jesus there was
not the slightest excuse for baling this woman into His presence, and thus subjecting
her to a moral torture, all the more insupportable from the close seclusion of women
in the East. And therefore to subject her to the superfluous horror of this odious
publicity—to drag her fresh from the agony of detection into the sacred precincts of
the Temple—to subject this unveiled, disheveled, terror-stricken woman to the cold
and sensual curiosity of a malignant mob, and this merely to gratify a calculating
malice—showed a brutality of heart and conscience which could not but prove
revolting to One who was infinitely tender because infinitely pure. (Archdeacon
Farrar.)
Virtue taught
This remarkable story is a signal instance of the magical passing of virtue out of the
30

John 8 commentary

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (15)

Similar to John 8 commentary

Similar to John 8 commentary (20)

More from GLENN PEASE

More from GLENN PEASE (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

John 8 commentary