“They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?’ This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 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.’ And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 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. 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.’”

If you were to take a poll of the most well-known passages from the Bible, I would expect this one to be among them. It’s beloved in the church as a familiar story, and beautiful example of Christ’s compassion. It’s known and referenced in popular culture, with the statement from Jesus, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” sometimes twisted to make it seem as though sin cannot be judged, as sin. But before we dive into any of that, I’d like to address the elephant in the room – the brackets that this section likely starts with in your Bible. If you’re reading in the King James, or New King James Version, there should be no notation or mark for this section. However if you’re reading almost any other prominent, trustworthy translation, you’ll see the section in brackets, along with a footnote stating something to the effect of, “Other mss omit bracketed text,” or “Later mss add the story of the adulterous woman, numbering it as John 7:53-8:11.” The ESV in particular is a bit more direct, with a note before the start of the section, brackets around the text and this in the footnote, “Some manuscripts do not include 7:53–8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text.” Finally, the NIV is probably the most transparent about the qualifiers of this section, with the entire thing printed in italics, and this message printed before the start of 7:53, “The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.” So, what’s going on with John 7:53-8:11? What’s up with all the disclaimers, and brackets, and footnotes?

First, understand how we got the Bible that we have today. The original copies of any of the gospels aren’t around anymore (or if they are, we don’t seem to have them on hand), as in the actual writing of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. What we do have, are copies – a lot of copies. A lot of really old copies. So what good is that? Well, when we have a hundred or a thousand copies of a text that stretch back through centuries, that are consistently the same, that all say and teach the same thing, it provides credibility and consistency to the text. And to put into perspective just how far back some of this information goes, the oldest known manuscript is a little scrap of papyrus known as P52, or St. John’s fragment. It’s a small piece from a papyrus codex, roughly 3.5 by 2.5 inches, and it just has John 18:31-33 on one side, and John 18:37-38 on the other. However despite its size and content, P52 is such a big deal, because the verses on it match later copies, and it’s estimated to have been written between 100-150 AD, or on more recently proposed dating, between 125-175 AD. That means that by the most generous estimations, this could have been written during John’s lifetime, and even by the most reserved ones, it was written barely more than a century after the ascension of Jesus, and it matches the later copies. This is also part of what makes it so easy to identify heretical, gnostic works, and false gospels – they’re not in line with the overwhelmingly recorded information.

So, when John 7:53-8:11 is marked that the earliest or “most ancient” manuscripts don’t include it, how old are we talking? I’ve read claims that it can be found in recordings as early as the 400’s citing the Greek and Latin “Codex Bezae,” while other claims say that it wasn’t widespread or accepted until the tenth or eleventh century. In short, it’s old, but the evidence suggests that it’s not original to John’s gospel. Aside from the dating, some of the wording doesn’t quite match with the rest of John. Specifically the reference to “the scribes and Pharisees” in verse 3. John refers to these religious rulers throughout his gospel, simply as “the Jews,” where the synoptic gospels use the term “scribes and Pharisees” regularly. The most commonly held belief now is that this is a true historical account that was “looking for a home.” This is why some manuscripts find it tucked at the end of John or Luke, which reads a little awkwardly, or placed at the ending of Luke 21, where admittedly, it does fit. But even this belief should be treated with caution, because the final answer to the question of whether or not this passage is original to John’s gospel is that we do not know. Evidence supports that it wasn’t part of the original, but there are theories that it was removed by early church fathers because there was concern it may encourage adultery – this isn’t widely accepted, but the theory persists. It also bears remembrance that even if it wasn’t original to John’s gospel, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. John closes his account in 21:25 by saying,

“Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

The general scholarly consensus, that the event took place, but that it was a later addition to John’s gospel, is the most widely accepted theory for a reason. But all this brings us to the question, what do we do with John 7:53-8:11? There are some pastors who won’t preach on it, and some believers who skip over it in their Bible studies, while there are others who cherish the passage and refuse to believe that it’s not part of the original text. It seems the most reasonable thing to do is to dive into the text, see what it truly says, and make our decision off of what the account has to say.

Uphold the Law, or Oppose It

“They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.”

                When we last left things, the Feast of Booths was drawing to a close, Jesus had stood among the congregation on the final day, and declared in John 7:37-38,

“… If anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.’”

The response to this was extremely mixed, with some declaring Him the Prophet, others the Christ, while still others argued that He could not be the Christ, showing their ignorance of both Messianic prophecy, and Jesus’s origins. Possibly the most troubling of the responses are those of the religious rulers. They mock the temple officers, who seem to find validity in Jesus’s teachings, call the crowd accursed for not knowing the Law (the Law that is their responsibility to teach), and go so far as to insult Nicodemus when he advises them to simply adhere to the justice system outlined in the Law. It is these same ruling Jews that we see as things pick up in chapter eight. We initially see Jesus go to the Mount of Olives, which is shown to be an area He frequents in the gospels. Bethany, which is in the region of the Mount of Olives, is the location where He raises Lazarus from the dead, and where Mary (Lazarus’ sister) anoints Him with oil. The Garden of Gethsemane is also located on the Mount of Olives, where Jesus spends the night in prayer before He is arrested and crucified. It makes sense, concerning His movements recorded in all four gospels, that when everyone goes to their homes, Jesus goes here. The next day Jesus returns to the temple, the people flock to Him, and seated as is customary for a Rabbi, He begins to teach them. All of this fits with behavior and practices shown by Jesus throughout all four gospel accounts.

1. The Pharisees Twist the Law.

“The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?’ This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.”

                As I read my Bible, and especially as I dive deeper and write these outlines, I’m repeatedly stunned by just how terrible the religious rulers were. I know it shouldn’t be so shocking, as these are the men that plot to have Jesus killed from early on in His ministry. But something about repeatedly seeing the ways they sought to manipulate the very Law they were responsible for teaching, really coming to terms with the depth of their hypocrisy, and the truth of Jesus’s words in Matthew 23 when he calls them “whitewashed tombs,” it all never fails to astound me. What they attempt to do in todays passage is the same thing they try to do throughout the gospels. They challenge Jesus in a public setting, thinking they have him backed into a corner. This happens when they ask Him about divorce, about paying taxes to Caesar, about marriage in the resurrection, and about which commandment is the greatest. Each question was loaded, and in asking Jesus, they didn’t care about the truth, but sought to make Him pick one cultural camp over another, defy Jewish Law, or Roman law, or else stumble in some way. Of course, none of this worked. Jesus is the fulfillment of the Law, He understands it and it’s nature more intimately than any ordinary man could, and certainly more than the schemers and manipulators who seek to use it against Him. So in today’s passage we see another test. A woman has been caught in adultery, the Law, they claim, says that she is to be stoned, but how does Jesus weigh in? We see here as in the other cases that they’re not pursuing the truth, or justice, but are laying a trap, seeking to use the case against Jesus. If Jesus openly disagrees with them, and says that the woman is not to be stoned, then they can claim that He’s in violation of the Law and use this to turn the crowd against Him. If Jesus supports stoning her, then He’s going against Roman law, as the Jews don’t have the authority to execute people (this is a key element of why the chief priests appeal to Pilate when they seek to have Jesus crucified, as they didn’t have the authority to do it themselves). The problem with all of this is that the Law doesn’t support what they’re doing. The Law concerning adultery is recorded first in Leviticus 20:10,

“If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.”

And a second time in Deuteronomy 22:22,

“If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

Here’s the first problem with their case. The Law requires that both the man and the woman, both adulterous parties are to be executed. Jesus says in Matthew 19:6,

“So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

There is no partiality to either gender in this case, and if anything, the wording supports a greater emphasis on the acts of the man. If the marriage covenant, the joining established by God has been broken, the guilty parties are both liable and are to be executed. But when the scribes and Pharisees arrive to confront Jesus with this matter, despite the woman being “caught in the act” there is no man alongside her as accused. The second problem comes from Numbers 35:30,

“If anyone kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the evidence of witnesses. But no person shall be put to death on the testimony of one witness.”

Now the woman is not being charged with murder, but she is accused of an offense that has a punishment of death. By the ruling of the Law, there are to be witnesses, but we’re not given any. The scribes and Pharisees accuse her, but we don’t see her husband, and we don’t see the man that she allegedly committed adultery with. If we read the text at face value, it doesn’t seem that there are any witnesses. The religious rulers are tasked with the weighty responsibility of teaching God’s Law, of seeking the truth and justice of the Lord in all things. But what they’ve done is twist, distort, and cherry pick from what is holy, taking the parts they can manipulate to prop up their power, and pushing those to the exclusion of all else. They’ve done it before, they’ll do it again, and Jesus never stumbles.

2. Jesus Defends the Law

“Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 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.’ And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 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.”

                In response to their claims, Jesus initially offers them silence, simply bending to write on the ground with His finger. As they continue to press Him, He gives them what is now a heavily quoted (and often misquoted) Bible verse, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” But what was Jesus writing, what were all the implications of His statement, and why was the response for the scribes and Pharisees to simply leave, noted as beginning with the older ones? There is a lot of speculation around this, and certainly a lot of significance that can be drawn from the passage, but we’re not told explicitly. The most popular interpretations I’ve read, and what I’ve heard preached on in the past, is that Jesus was writing the sins of the accusers in the dirt. As they read their own transgressions written out and are told by Jesus, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” they could not press the case, and departed in shame. This seems to fit, that Jesus could silently draw attention to their hypocrisy in a way that isn’t known to the entire crowd, and deliver justice. Other commentaries draw a correlation to Jeremiah 17:13, which says,

“O LORD, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.”

This theory holds that Jesus is simply writing the names of the accusers, recording those who have turned away from God, writing them on the earth, and that they would have made the connection to Jeremiah and left in shame. One commentator in particular claimed a belief that Jesus was writing out the names of all the Sanhedrin, which were recorded oldest to youngest, and that these men seeing the names, and making the connection to Jeremiah, leave ashamed. While the idea that Jesus is making a reference to Jeremiah is entirely plausible, the rest seems like a stretch to me. We know that Jesus’s grasp on the Old Testament was perfect, and that He consistently teaches and gives clarity on it. In Matthew 5:17-48, a large section of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus takes principles of the Law that have been distorted in legalism, and gives clear, spiritual instruction on them. But we also know that many of the religious teachers have a poor grasp on the Law. Both the ending of John 7 and the start of John 8 show their corruption, blindness, and poor grasp of what the truth of the Law actually is. The idea that Jesus begins writing their names, and that they make the connection to Jeremiah 17, while not impossible, seems unlikely from what they’ve shown us even within this passage. The idea that Jesus is writing out all the names of the Sanhedrin doesn’t fit as well, as that would include Nicodemus, who we just saw move tactfully in Jesus’s defense, as well as Joseph of Arimathea, who we learn toward the end of the gospels was a secret disciple of Jesus. While we don’t know exactly where each of these men were in their spiritual progression at the start of John 8, knowing where they end up, it’s a mistake to apply Jeremiah 17:13 to them. Also, while it may be true, I haven’t been able to find any support that the record of Sanhedrin members was recorded oldest to youngest. I’m not sure if this is a fact I’m just unable to find confirmation of, or if it was an assumption on the part of that commentator. Ultimately, Jesus making reference to Jeremiah makes complete sense Biblically, while the rest doesn’t quite fit. Finally, the weakest theory I’ve read is that the woman who is accused of adultery, having been “caught in the act” was naked, and that Jesus was writing in the dirt to avoid looking at her. This would mean that the scribes and Pharisees pulled a naked woman onto the temple ground to accuse her. It doesn’t account for why the men just give up their case and leave after Jesus speaks, instead of arguing or trying to push the situation forward. It also assumes that once the men leave, and Jesus rises and addresses the woman that He’s staring off into space, and tells her to go free, while still in her exposed state. None of this adds up, and it seems like reading a lot into the text that isn’t there.

An option that occurred to me while reading and praying on the section (which I haven’t found anywhere else, but I highly doubt I’m the first one to think this), is that Jesus is simply writing out the Law. The scribes and Pharisees bring the woman before Jesus, they accuse her of adultery. They’re missing the man who she’s accused of committing this act with, and while they accuse her, we don’t see witnesses. If Jesus wordlessly bends down and begins to write out the passages from Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Numbers that I cited above, the Law supports that they have no case. “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” is usually taken in a general sense, and it certainly could have been meant that way. None of the men accusing the woman was without sin, but if we look to their specific sin in this situation, it’s the twisting and manipulating of the Law – God’s Law. This may read a bit too much into things, but I think this may also account for the accusers departing starting with the oldest. The Jeremiah interpretation leaves it to the scribes and Pharisees to see what Jesus is doing and make a connection to the Old Testament. If Jesus is literally writing out the passages that support (or refute) the condemnation of this woman, then the older men, who should have been studying the Law for longer than the younger ones, could have made the connection sooner, and realized they had no case. In approaching things in this way, Jesus allows the Law to defend the Law.

The verse, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” is often misused as a defense of sin. If we call sin, sin, then we’re being judgmental and “casting stones.” True, in Matthew 7:1–2 Jesus does caution us on being judgmental, saying,

“Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you.”

This is significant, but it’s also worth remembering that just because Jesus has paid the price for our sins, doesn’t mean they weren’t judged. If there was no judgement at all, then there wouldn’t have been such a terrible price to pay. There is also a difference between passing judgement, and identifying sin as sin. Those who seek to press against being confronted with their sins will sometimes continue to quote the next part of Matthew, verses 3-4,

“Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye?”

They always seem to stop before verse 5 though,

“You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

We’re not called to be judgmental hypocrites, but we are called to submit to God, repent before Him, and then help our brothers as we can. The problem with muddying things between Matthew 6 and John 8 is that to judge your brother makes you a hypocrite, while to unlawfully stone someone makes you a murderer.

3. Jesus Upholds the Law

“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.’”

                Something I wrestled with while contemplating this passage was whether or not the woman was guilty. In verse 3, in the description of the situation, the Greek word for “caught” can have physical and non-physical uses. I can literally mean to seize or take possession of, but it can also mean to be seized or taken possession of, as by something wicked, destructive or demonic, meaning in a sense that she could have been caught in the spirit of adultery. However when the accusers say that she was “caught in the act” this means exactly what we would take it as. The Greek uses the example of theft, literally being caught while stealing something. Bearing these things in mind, it seems as though she is absolutely guilty of adultery. But as we’ve gone over previously, there are some things that don’t add up in what they accuse her of. If she was “caught in the act,” then where is the man who carries the charge just as much as she does? While the scribes and Pharisees are certainly her accusers, they wouldn’t be witnesses (unless they’re going around kicking down doors, looking for people doing things they shouldn’t be). So who are the witnesses to her crime, as required to convict her under the Law, and condemned her to death? We can take our answer from what Jesus says to her after the scribes and Pharisees have departed. We may not know the specifics, but there were clearly holes in her accusations. With no one left to accuse her, she stands before the only one with the authority to judge her. But the Law was not a tool to be used to persecute, but was there to set apart, purify, and direct toward God. In this, despite how the Old Testament reads at times, there is mercy in the Law. What Jesus says to the woman doesn’t necessarily tell us that she was blameless, or that the accusations against her were entirely false. What Jesus affirms is that under the Law, there is no case against her, and that He Himself does not condemn her. Similar to what He tells the crippled man He healed in John 5:14,

“… See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.”

Jesus telling her to go free, but to “sin no more” points to there being some legitimacy behind the accusation leveled against her. In the perfect path that He takes, Jesus prevents the Law from being manipulated, upholds the Spirit of the Law, and shows mercy, calling the woman to a future where she is to drawn away from sin and therein closer to God.

In taking all of this into consideration, where does it land us on how to treat this section of the Bible? Despite what the majority of scholars hold to be true, if you believe that the passage is actually original to John, it casts no shadow on the rest of the book. While we have some word uses and phrasing differences that match up better with the synoptic gospels than with John’s, this story’s spirit and overall aim are still in line with everything else we’ve seen from his gospel. If you follow where the evidence leads and hold that the account is not original to John, it’s still relevant because it’s spirit and aim are still in line the rest of John’s, and for that matter, all the other gospel accounts. There is no heresy, nothing counter Biblical, but only support for what we see throughout scripture. So what do we do with it? Well, we don’t just skip it, because like we’ve seen, it attests to the same truth that’s professed in the rest of the gospels. If we blow it off, or discount it as irrelevant, then we run the risk of treating what we know to be true cannon this way, and the truth of Christ should never be discounted, regardless of its source. Conversely, we also shouldn’t base the entirety of our faith off of this one passage. Not being able to confirm that it’s original, this passage shouldn’t be the cornerstone, or bedrock of our belief. But then, if John 7:53-8:11 is everything that your faith stands on, you’re not reading the rest of your Bible. There’s a reason that the oldest manuscripts lacked this section, and yet Christianity didn’t look any different. If you omit it, we’ve lost nothing. If you add it, we have another beautiful account of God’s love, mercy, and pursuit of true and honorable justice. While this section may or may not be textually authentic to John’s gospel, we can say with certainty that it is spiritually authentic to the Bible – it is in no way contrary to the scriptures, or heretical, but supports their message. While it likely shouldn’t be the first passage we go to in shoring up our faith, or sharing the message of the gospel, what it tells us, coupled with the fact that it even might be original, means it is worth our time and consideration. We don’t just bypass or disregard it, we give it the same consideration we would any written truth about Jesus, our Risen Savior.

Pastor Jake’s sermon: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4IJpxvNezo