The Missed Narrative
The account of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 is frequently misinterpreted within the context of the Gospel of John. Many modern commentaries and popular study Bibles present exegesis that is not only misleading but also factually incorrect. Some scholars even argue that this story does not belong in the biblical canon. Such misinterpretations stem from an incomplete understanding of the passage’s true message. The narrative is not primarily concerned with adultery, forgiveness, or mercy; rather, it fundamentally addresses the identity of Jesus, aligning seamlessly with the overarching theme of the Gospel of John.
Four critical points about this passage will help clarify and counter the prevalent misconceptions surrounding the story of the woman caught in adultery. First, does this passage belong in the Bible? Critics who dismiss it as non-canonical often base their arguments on its absence in early Greek manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are not original copies, and all Latin manuscripts include this passage. Secondly, contrary to what is commonly believed, Jesus did not say not to stone her. Instead, he stated, “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.” Thirdly, many commentaries assert that Jesus forgave the woman, but he never explicitly demonstrated mercy or forgiveness. His command was simply, “Go and sin no more.” The departure of her accusers left her without the required witnesses for her execution. Notably, she also never requested forgiveness. Fourthly, the story’s primary purpose is to respond to the question of whether Jesus is the greater prophet. The focus is not on the woman; she serves merely as a prop. The preceding chapters (5 and 7) introduce the questions posed by the Pharisees, contextualizing this passage and affirming its place within the canon. Nicodemus raises the inquiry in 7:51, “Our Law does not judge a man unless it first hears from him and knows what he is doing, does it?” This highlights the Law’s application and the authority under which it operates. The passage illustrates that Jesus is not only a greater Prophet than Moses but also the Prophet Moses predicted, the one who authored the Law: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your countrymen; you shall listen to him” (Deuteronomy 18:15).
Faulty Premises, Interpretations, and Misconceptions
The verses from John 7:53 to 8:11, commonly referred to as the pericope de adultera, are sometimes questioned regarding their authenticity. Some scholars assert that these verses do not belong in the Bible, citing their absence in early Greek manuscripts. Pastors like John MacArthur have noted in their study Bibles that these passages were likely not part of the original text of John. Similarly, Kostenberger remarks that they will not engage with the story because it is absent from the earliest manuscripts of John’s Gospel, which raises doubts regarding its originality. D.A. Carson argues against the canonicity of this portion, stating that the various placements of the text across manuscripts confirm its inauthenticity. Moreover, even if one were to view the material as authentic, its genuine Johannine nature would be challenging to substantiate.
Modern textual criticism heavily references Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament to support claims regarding this passage. Critics have identified four third-century Greek manuscripts from the same Egyptian province, all of which do not predate 200 A.D. Importantly, all of the primary manuscripts used to contest the passage’s validity derive from the same geographic location. Zane Hodges raises reasonable doubt regarding the criticisms of the pericope de adultera. He observes that these manuscripts might originate from a single source: “It is therefore not out of the question to suggest that all four may ultimately be derived from a single parental exemplar which lies far back in the stream of transmission.”
Despite the absence of some early Greek manuscripts, as Hodges states, they should not be treated as ultimate authorities. “Greek manuscript evidence is sometimes treated as if it were truly representative of what did—or did not—exist among the non-surviving texts which have long since perished.” There is substantial evidence to suggest that this passage is, and has always been, part of the New Testament canon. Numerous Old Latin manuscripts include it, more so than those that do not, and Jerome incorporated it into the Vulgate in the fifth century. The Palestinian Syriac version from the fifth century also includes the passage, as do certain Harclean Syriac manuscripts, the Armenian and Bohairic versions, and the Ethiopic version, which some date to the fourth century.
John’s Omission Warning
A compelling argument for the intentional omission of this passage comes from the Apostle John himself in Revelation, where he warns against altering the text of “the words of the book,” warning of dire consequences for such actions: “And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:19). It is reasonable to conclude that John was aware of potential alterations to his earlier testimonies in the Gospel. Hodges notes that many scribes would leave out the passage or mark it with symbols, allowing succeeding copyists to potentially remove it. This omission might have resulted from a copyist misunderstanding the context of the passage, leading to its removal due to a perceived contradiction between Jesus’s actions and the Law of Moses. As Ambrose (ca. 397) commented, such sentiment reflected the prevailing mindset: “How indeed could Christ err? It is not right that this should come into our mind.” Yet despite the controversy surrounding it, this passage has been part of the Bible for over 1,600 years. Ultimately, as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16, the entirety of Scripture is God-breathed. Upholding the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is essential; denying it is akin to asserting that God created the universe yet lost parts of His own revelations to humanity. While textual criticism holds importance, it is not inherently faith-based.
Assuming that this passage does indeed belong, how does it integrate with the surrounding context? Charles Baylis argues that it fits perfectly, suggesting that the omission in early manuscripts resulted from a misunderstanding of the story’s implications: “Its omission from early Greek manuscripts may have been based on the impression that Christ was too lenient toward adultery.”
Jesus Granted Mercy to the Adulterer
Many modern commentaries argue that Jesus exhibited mercy towards the woman caught in adultery. For example, a Thomas Nelson published KJV Bible commentary takes this view, stating: “In mercy and love, He forgave her and told her to go, and sin no more.” Exegetically, however, mercy, love, and forgiveness are not central themes in this narrative. Baylis identifies the crux of the situation, stating, “Jesus declared the judgment ‘Stone her.’ Unfortunately for the Pharisees, He had required, as the Law demanded, that the witnesses be qualified.” When they persisted in questioning him, he replied, “Let him who is without sin among you throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7). In truth, if mercy was granted, it applied equally to both the woman and her accusers, but the assertion that Jesus showed her mercy is not supported by the narrative’s context. His query, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” was not intended to convey mercy but to fulfill the Law’s requirements. Jesus could not initiate her stoning alone; the absence of witnesses rendered that impossible, emphasizing that it was adherence to the Law, not mercy, that precluded her execution.
We Are Not to Judge Sin
Another prevalent and erroneous belief is that Jesus would never judge anyone for any reason. A popular North American study Bible published by Tyndale claims, “By saying that only a sinless person could throw the first stone, he highlighted the importance of compassion and forgiveness.” This interpretation is exegetically flawed. Jesus referenced the Mosaic Law regarding malicious witnesses: “A single witness shall not suffice against a person for any crime or for any wrongdoing” (Deuteronomy 19:15). His command, “Let him who is without sin among you throw a stone at her first” (John 8:7), pertains directly to the legal requirements in that context. Specifically, the “sin” Jesus mentioned addressed malicious witnessing. The Mosaic Law concerning adultery outlined in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 requires not just any witnesses but those who are not malicious. The Law explicitly states, “…then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death” (Deuteronomy 22:24). The intent behind the stoning was to “purge the evil from among you.” Baylis provides further clarity: “It is clear that individuals under the old covenant could have personal sin while still enacting civil justice.” The Pharisees’ inability to render judgment in this instance stemmed from their status as malicious witnesses. The sin of malicious witnessing applies to both the woman and the Pharisees attempting to trap Jesus. The narrative states, “They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground” (John 8:6). Ultimately, it was the specific sin of malicious witness that caused their consciences to compel them to withdraw their accusations.
Many have speculated about what Jesus wrote on the ground, but it is plausible that Jesus inscribed the Law regarding malicious witnesses since this aligns closely with the narrative context, marking the moment at which they began to retreat.
Background Context to John 7:53 – 8:11
Old Testament Jewish Law
The backdrop for the story of the woman caught in adultery is firmly rooted in the Jewish Mosaic Law. The developing conflict between Jesus and the Jews leading up to this account is a direct result of their misapplication of the Law.
In John 5:1-18, the Jews accused Jesus of violating the Sabbath Law by healing a man at the Pool on the Sabbath, leading them to exclaim, “It is the Sabbath, and it is not lawful for you to take up your bed” (John 5:10). This triggered a footnote where John explains their motives: “This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God” (John 5:18). The Jewish leaders believed Jesus had not only broken the Law but also considered himself equal to the Lawgiver.
Chapter 6 continues highlighting the escalating discord between Jesus and the Jews. After Jesus performed the miracle of feeding the 5,000, the crowd proclaimed, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (John 6:14). They asserted before the subsequent Bread of Life Discourse that “our fathers ate manna in the wilderness” (John 6:31). Jesus retorted, asserting that it was God, not Moses, who provided the manna: “Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven” (John 6:32). In this exchange, Jesus affirmed himself as the greater Prophet compared to Moses.
The narrative occurs during the Feast of Booths (or Tabernacles), a harvest festival celebrating God’s provision during the Israelites’ wilderness wanderings under Moses. Participants constructed booths from fruit trees, palm fronds, and leafy plants, residing in them for seven days as a reminder of their ancestors’ temporary shelters after their deliverance from Egypt: “You shall live in booths for seven days…so that your generations may know that I had the sons of Israel live in booths when I brought them out from the land of Egypt. I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42-43).
Make the Connection
There are no coincidences in Scripture; the order of events is purposeful. The miracle of feeding the 5,000 precedes the Feast of Booths, where people celebrated God’s gift of “manna from heaven” during their journey with Moses. As the festival unfolds, Jesus goes to the temple, teaching: “About the middle of the feast, Jesus went up into the temple and began teaching” (John 7:14). Tension escalates when those present ask, “How is it that this man has learning when he has never studied?” (John 7:15). Jesus responds, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me” (John 7:16). He challenges them by stating, “Has not Moses given you the law? Yet none of you keeps the law. Why do you seek to kill me?” (John 7:19). This conflict deepens, prompting the Pharisees and chief priests to command officers to arrest Jesus.
On the final day of the feast, which held special significance, Jesus proclaims, “If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink” (John 7:37). Although this phrase doesn’t directly quote the Old Testament, it alludes to the preceding context surrounding Moses, the Feast of Booths, and God’s provision during the wilderness; particularly as it recalls Moses striking the rock, leading to the outpouring of water (Numbers 20:10-13). In light of this Old Testament context, Jesus conveys that he is the true source of nourishment, differentiating himself from Moses as the divine provider. This mounting evidence cements Jesus’s role as the greater Prophet. As Jesus offers “living waters” to those quarreling around him, it parallels Israel’s past dissent against Moses, reinforcing the narrative’s thematic focus. Their arguments include whether Jesus is the Christ, whether he hails from Galilee, and remarks about his unique authority. Near the story’s climax, Nicodemus raises a penetrating question: “Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?” (John 7:51). This line distinguishes the malicious motives behind the accusations against Jesus, setting yet again the stage for the story of the adulterous woman.
Background Comparison of Jesus and Moses
The parallels between Jesus and Moses significantly inform the events leading to John 7:53. Allen Kensky identifies four noteworthy comparisons:
- In Matthew 2:13-14, Joseph takes Jesus to safety in Egypt to escape Herod, much like Moses fled to avoid Pharaoh’s death decree (Exodus 2:15).
- Herod’s massacre of infants in Bethlehem mirrors Pharaoh’s edict to drown Hebrew boys.
- In Matthew 2:19, Herod dies; likewise, in Exodus 2:23, the king of Egypt dies.
- An angel instructs Joseph to return to Israel because those who sought to kill the child are dead, paralleling God’s command to Moses in Exodus 4:19 to return to Egypt for the same reason.
- The numerous other parallels, such as the parting of the Red Sea and Jesus walking on water, emphasize Jesus as the Savior of all. Reflecting on the overall context of conflict, Kostenberger succinctly states that John perceives Jesus as the new Moses, who introduces a new covenant with his disciples in John 14.
The Finger of God Writing the Law
Despite the remarkable similarities, Jesus represents the greatest contrast to Moses. He uses the wilderness experiences of Moses to reveal himself as the anticipated Prophet. Baylis summarizes it succinctly:
“Christ had presented himself as the Prophet. He had demonstrated it by providing living bread and walking on the sea. On the Sabbath, His grace liberated a man from being crippled. The Pharisees held this was a contradiction to Moses. Christ accused them of judging by appearances and not righteously, stating that they were not of Moses, for Moses spoke of Him. He claimed to fulfill prophecy, not by providing mere water as Moses did but by bestowing the abundance of the Holy Spirit.”
By the end of the Feast of Booths, as the crowds return to their homes, Jesus retreats to the Mount of Olives (7:53-8:1). Baylis notes that “Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, the exact place where the conquering Messiah of Zechariah 14 will make His appearance known.”
At dawn, Jesus enters the temple to teach, sitting down as a rabbi (8:2) in the early morning light—a symbol John uses to represent Jesus as “the true light” (John 1:9). The scribes and Pharisees bring a woman accused of adultery to Jesus, stating, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. So what do you say?” (John 8:3-5). Their intention was to test him, hoping to find a reason to condemn him. As they continued to question him, Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground (John 8:6).
Contextually, this is significant. This is the first mention of scribes in the Gospel of John; they were the legal guardians of the Law. The woman’s guilt is without dispute, as she was caught in the act. However, this narrative positions the scribes and Pharisees against Jesus, not merely against the woman or even the Law itself.
The woman’s violation pertains to the seventh commandment: “You shall not commit adultery” (Exodus 20:13), inscribed by the very finger of God. “And he gave to Moses, when he had finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). The imagery of Jesus writing with his finger on the ground serves to underscore the story’s primary point. Baylis emphasizes, “Regardless of what Jesus wrote, John was suggesting that He was claiming to be the Writer of the Law.” When Jesus stoops to write again, it parallels God’s two occasions of inscribing the Law on stone tablets. This parallel is deliberate, intended to highlight his divine authority.
Previously, the Pharisees leveled two accusations against Jesus: he broke Sabbath Law, and he positioned himself equal to God. By writing again on the ground, Jesus subtly asserts, “How can I oppose the Law of Moses while being its author?” Speculation regarding his writing varies; however, a paramount conclusion aligns with the narrative—he was likely inscribing the Law itself, confirming his identity as the greater Prophet. Baylis rightly concludes, “The importance is in what Jesus did and what He said, not what he wrote.”
The Accusers as Witnesses to the Crime
“And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her’” (John 8:7). This directive directly corresponds to the Law: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 17:7). According to the Law, the witnesses—those bringing the accusations—must be the first to execute judgment, as no one else can condemn without witnessing the crime. Notably, the Law demands two or three witnesses to any crime, and if found to be malicious, those witnesses would face the same consequences they intended for the accused.
“If a malicious witness arises to accuse a person of wrongdoing, then both parties to the dispute shall appear before the Lord, before the priests and the judges who are in office in those days. The judges shall inquire diligently, and if the witness is a false witness and has accused his brother falsely, then you shall do to him as he had meant to do to his brother. So you shall purge the evil from your midst” (Deuteronomy 19:16-19).
In summary, the stoning of an adulterer, or any form of execution, requires witnesses who are not malicious. The absence of reliable witnesses caused the accusers to retreat, fearing the legal ramifications articulated in Deuteronomy 19: “the rest shall hear and fear.” Ultimately, the accusers left, with the text revealing, “But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him” (John 8:9).
Now alone with the woman, Jesus fulfills the legal stipulations by acknowledging that he is the only remaining witness to her crime. Due to the Mosaic Law specifying at least two or three eyewitnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6), he effectively concludes the case against her: “Jesus stood up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more’” (John 8:10-11). Importantly, Jesus did not proclaim forgiveness, nor did the woman seek it—there was no confession of sin on her part.
In essence, the scenario echoes a modern courtroom: if a prosecutor withdraws charges due to unreliable witnesses, the defendant is not considered forgiven but merely not prosecuted. When Jesus asked the woman, “Where are your accusers?” he concluded the legal proceedings against her. Baylis points out, “When Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on sin no more,’ he was affirming his dedication to even the minutest details of the Mosaic Law.”
Conclusion
In conclusion, many modern teachers often overlook the significant themes of the biblical narrative, particularly the law of the malicious witness, due to a focus on contemporary issues and secular perspectives. This omission can lead to a diminished understanding of the moral and ethical implications embedded in the scripture. The law of the malicious witness serves as a crucial reminder of the consequences of deceit and the importance of truth in community relationships. By neglecting these themes, educators risk missing the opportunity to impart foundational values that can cultivate integrity and justice in their students, ultimately hindering a deeper comprehension of the biblical text’s relevance to today’s world.
Bibliography
Baylis, Charles P. “The woman caught in adultery: a test of Jesus as the greater prophet.” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no. 582 (April 1, 1989): 171-184. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed September 17, 2014).
Bock, Darrell L. The Bible Knowledge Key Word Study, The Gospels. Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 2002.
Burge, Gary, Comfort, Philip, and Thompson, Marianne Meye. Life Application Study Bible, New Living Translation. Wheaton, IL: Tyndale Publishing, 1996.
Carson, D.A. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991.
Dobson, Edward, Feinberg, Charles, Hindson, Edward, Kroll, Woodrow, and Wilmington, Harold. King James Version Bible Commentary. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2005.
Hodges, Zane Clark. “The woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11): exposition.” Bibliotheca Sacra 137, no. 545 (January 1, 1980): 41-53. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed September 17, 2014).
Kensky, Allan. “Moses and Jesus: The Birth of the Savior.” Judaism 42, no. 1 (Winter 1993): 43, (accessed September 17, 2014), http://search.proquest.com/docview/200324998?accountid=12085.
Kostenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Phillips, Anthony. “Another look at adultery.” Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament, no. 20 (July 1, 1981): 3-25. ATLA Religion Database with ATLASerials, EBSCOhost (accessed September 17, 2014).
MacArthur, John. MacArthur Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1997.
McKeating, Henry. “Sanctions against adultery in ancient Israelite society, with some reflections on methodology in the study of Old Testament ethics.” Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament, no. 11 (March 1, 1979): 57-72. ATLASerials, Religion Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed September 17, 2014).
Walvoord, John F., and Zuck, Roy B. The Bible Knowledge Commentary. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1983.
