The textual authenticity of this pericope is highly questionable. Most ancient Greek manuscripts dating before the sixth century do not contain it. However, over 900 ancient manuscripts do contain it including the important early so-called Western text (uncial D).292None of the church fathers or early commentators refer to it in their comments on this Gospel. Instead they pass from 7:52 right on to 8:12. Several later manuscripts identify it as special by using an asterisk or obelus at its beginning and ending.293Some old copies have it after 7:36 or 7:44 or 21:25 or Luke 21:38. Its expressions and constructions are more similar to Luke's writings than they are to John's.294
The event described here probably occurred (cf. 21:25). Perhaps it was a piece of oral tradition that later scribes inserted here to illustrate the sinfulness of the Jewish leaders (cf. 7:24; 8:15, 46). Was it inspired by the Holy Spirit? I would say yes. The test of inspiration is the judgment of the church throughout history that this is a revealed portion of Scripture that is authoritative for the whole church. This has been the judgment of most branches of the church even though the origin of this story is obscure.
"It may be accepted as historical truth; but based on the information we now have, it was probably not a part of the original text."295
How should the modern Christian use this story? Some expositors do not preach or teach the passage publicly because they think it may be uninspired. However many fine Christians disagree and accept it as equally authoritative as the rest of Scripture.296I include it when teaching or preaching through John's Gospel.
7:53 This verse suggests that the story that follows was originally the continuation of another narrative. "Everyone"apparently refers to people at a gathering in Jerusalem. This could refer to the Sanhedrin and the officers mentioned in 7:45-52. However it could also refer to other people on a different occasion.
8:1 The introductory "But"(Gr. de) is only mild and contrasts Jesus' action with that of most people in the temple courtyard. Some scholars have noted that Jesus spent His nights somewhere on the Mount of Olives during His final Passover celebration (Luke 21:37), but there is no evidence that He did so at other times.297However silence is never a strong argument. Jesus may have stayed there on His other visits to Jerusalem without the evangelists noting it.
8:2 This verse also sounds similar to the Synoptic Gospels' accounts of Jesus' activities during His final few days before His crucifixion (cf. Luke 21:37-38). Yet we know that Jesus taught in the temple courtyard at other times as well (5:19-47; 7:14-52).
8:3-4 This is the only place in John's Gospel where the writer mentioned the scribes and Pharisees together, though their association in the Synoptics is common. This is one reason many scholars doubt that John wrote this passage. Jesus' critics brought a woman whom they claimed to have caught in the act of committing adultery and placed her in the center of the group that Jesus was teaching. They addressed Him respectfully though hypocritically as "teacher."We can only speculate on what had happened to her partner in sin. Perhaps he had escaped, or perhaps the authorities had released him since their main interest seems to have been in the woman. The Mosaic Law required that both parties involved in adultery suffer stoning (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Jesus did not challenge the scribes and Pharisees' charge or try to prove it unjust.
8:5-6a Jesus' critics were correct in their interpretation of the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22-24). However the Jews of Jesus' day apparently did not enforce this law often, especially in urban areas.298The writer said the authorities wanted to trap Jesus into saying something that they could use against Him (cf. Matt. 22:15-22; Mark 12:13-17; Luke 20:20-26). They appear to have wanted Jesus' execution more than the woman's.
If Jesus advocated not executing the woman, the lawyers and Pharisees could charge Him with teaching the people to violate the law. If He recommended executing her, He would contradict His own reputation for being gracious and forgiving (cf. Luke 5:20; 7:47). Moreover He would alienate Himself from the Jews. That decision might have gotten Him in trouble with the Roman authorities too (cf. 18:31).
8:6b There have been several suggestions about what Jesus may have written in the dust, all of which are guesses. Perhaps He wrote the words of Jeremiah 17:13b: "Those who turn away on earth will be written down, because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the Lord."Perhaps He wrote Exodus 23:1b: "Do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness."299Perhaps he wrote the sins of the woman's accusers. Jesus may have written the same words that He proceeded to speak giving a visual as well as an audible decision. Incidentally this is the only record of Jesus writing that we have in the Bible.
If the account of this incident is complete, the writer must have felt that what Jesus wrote was secondary to His act of writing since he did not identify what He wrote. Perhaps Jesus was reminding the scribes and Pharisees that God had originally written the Ten Commandments with His finger (Exod. 31:18). Jesus' act reminds the reader of this and so suggests that Jesus is God. As God gave the Old Covenant by writing with His finger, so God (Jesus) was giving the New Covenant by writing with His finger. Perhaps Jesus also wrote on the ground to delay answering His critics. This would have had the double effect of heightening their anticipation of His reply and giving them time to repent. The mention of this act here anticipates His doing the same thing again later (v. 8).
8:7 When Jesus finally answered His critics, He cited passages in the Mosaic Law. Jesus lived under this Law and respected it. These verses required that in cases of stoning at least two witnesses of the sin who had not participated in it should be the first to throw the stones (Lev. 24:14; Deut. 13:9; 17:7). Jesus did not mean that the accusers needed to be sinless. The law did not require that but that they be innocent of the particular sin of the accused. Jesus meant that they needed to be free from the sin of adultery or at least free of complicity in prearranging this woman's adultery. They had asked Him to pass judgment, and now He was exercising His rightful function as the judge of humankind. Instead of passing judgment on the woman He was passing judgment on her judges.
Jesus' reply put the dilemma back on His accusers' shoulders. If they proceeded to stone the woman, they were claiming that they had not sinned. If they did not stone her, they would be admitting that they had sinned. Jesus now took the place of the woman's defense attorney as well as her judge (cf. 1 John 2:1).
8:8 This is another enigmatic reference. It had the result of freeing Jesus' critics from His convicting gaze. Perhaps the writer mentioned it to show that it was God who would produce conviction through Jesus' authoritative words rather than through His physical eye-contact (cf. Matt. 7:28-29; John 7:46). By writing on the ground again Jesus graciously gave the scribes and Pharisees another opportunity to rethink their decision and to repent.
8:9 The scribes and Pharisees' actions confessed their guilt. Evidently the older ones among them had the most tender consciences. They had plotted to kill the woman, but her crime only involved committing adultery. Adultery is no insignificant sin, but next to murder it has less severe consequences. Time and accumulated wisdom frequently increase one's sense of personal guilt unless a person hardens his or her heart completely. Probably we should understand the text as implying that all the critics departed, which would have left Jesus, the woman, and perhaps other onlookers. This left the woman and Jesus with no accusers.
The action of the woman's accusers was remarkable. Jesus' words brought deep conviction to inveterate opponents remarkably soon. Moreover they ended up making a public declaration of their own guilt and dropping their charge against the woman even though she was evidently guilty of adultery.
8:10-11 Jesus' addressed the woman respectfully (cf. 2:4; 4:21; 19:26; 20:13). He asked if no one who was condemning her remained. He did not ask her if she was guilty. Evidently she was. As the judge in her case, He showed more interest in her prosecutors than in her guilt. Without prosecutors Jesus dismissed the case. This was His prerogative as her judge. He only issued her a warning. She would have to stand before Him again in the future, but this was not the time that He wanted to pass judgment on her (cf. 3:17). He gave her mercy and time to change her ways (cf. 1:14). Thus He was not "easy on sin."The ultimate reason He could exempt her from condemnation is that He would take her condemnation on Himself and die in her place (cf. Rom. 8:1).
"Law and grace do not compete with each other; they complement each other. Nobody was ever saved by keeping the Law, but nobody was ever saved by grace who was not firstindicted by the Law. There must be conviction before there can be conversion."300
This incident is further proof that Jesus was more righteous and much wiser than the Jewish religious leaders who sought to kill Him. It is also another demonstration of His patience and grace with sinners.
"Reviewing the case, Jesus brought forth the judgment, Stone her.' Unfortunately for the Pharisees, He had required, as the Law had stated, that the witnesses be qualified.
"The Pharisees who were accusing the woman, not for the good of Israel but to trap Jesus, were struck. They knew they were malicious. Thus they had to step down or else incur the punishment required of malicious witnesses--the very stoning they desired for the accused!
"Jesus pronounced the final decree. Since He was the only witness left, and the Mosaic Law required two, she was free. But the Prophet instructed her to avoid all guilt under the Law, since Deuteronomy 18:15 said the people were to listen to the Prophet. John 7:53-8:11 shows in numerous ways that Jesus is indeed the Prophet of whom Moses wrote."301
Jesus' role as the judge of human beings is quite clear in this incident, but His role as the coming Prophet may need clarification. Moses, the prophet through whom God gave the Old Covenant, had announced that God's will for His people was that they stone adulterers and adulteresses. Jesus, the prophet through whom God gave the New Covenant, now announced a change. God's people were no longer to stone these sinners but to show them mercy and leave the judging to God.
What if Jesus' enemies had brought a murderer before Him? Would Jesus have said the same thing? I think not. God had made His will concerning the punishment of murderers clear in Genesis 9:5b-6, the Noahic Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant continued the same policy as does the New Covenant. The way God has told society to deal with adultery has changed. That is why we do not execute adulterers in the church age. But the way He has told us to deal with murderers has not changed; we are still to put them to death.
