A Believer's Commentary on John 8:1-11

[Nazaroo]

For those reading this thread for the first time, I have put a copy of the initial commentary online here;

I have put this thread into a single printable html file (browser friendly), and also printed some booklets for bible study.

Download the file here:

http://cadesign.webworkercanada.com/MSS/TIA2.html

Contact me by email if you want printed hardcopies!

NEW! Table of Contents for This Thread:

Page 1: messages 1-10

Was the Woman Guilty?.........................#2-3
What the Law requires............................#4-5
The Law traps the Pharisees..................#6
What Jesus wrote 2nd time....................#7
The Woman as Israel.............................#8
Women in John's Gospel......................#9
O.T. Quotation Structure of John..........#10​

​

​

​

Page 2: messages 11-20

Comment on previous night .................#11-12
Misleading Bible footnotes...................#13-15
Adultery in Jewish Legal tradition.........#17
Links to Revelation................................#18-19
Regarding authenticity...........................#20
​

Page 3: messages 21-30

Internal evidence examined..................#21-22
Rearrangements of John......................#23
Connection to John ch.6.......................#24-25
Jesus fulfills prophecy..........................#26
Surprise Nazaroo Poster.......................#27
Harmony with Johannine themes.........#28-29
​

Page 4: messages 31-40

Exchange the day before...........................#31
Link to article on interpretation...................#32
How perception affects interpretation.......#36
Who was the Woman?...............................#37
More on Women in John............................#38-40
​

Page 5: messages 41-50

Link to printable commentary....................................#41​

Crimes of Passion: Adultery and Homosexuality......#42
Judean context and form of 8:1-11...........................#43
Authenticity..................................................................#44
Doctrine of Sin...........................................................#45
Conditions of Forgiveness.........................................#46
Writing in Sand (cont.)................................................#47
Adultery and Islam....................................................#48-50
​

Page 6: messages 51-60

Modern Social Issues................................................#51
Prophetic meaning of "DAWN".................................#52
Jesus and the Law........................................................#54
Jesus, Judaea and Israel....................#55
Law Enforcement Limited...................#56
Link to New Website.................#57
Law, Earthly Power & Church..............#58
Link to Human Rights abuse in Mecca.....#59
​

Page 7: Msgs 61-70​

Tertullian as Witness for 8:1-11......#65
Lightfoot (1675) on Jn 8:1-11..............#66
More on Tertullian.........................#67-70
​

Page 8: Msgs #71-80​

Tertullian abandons Paul........#71
Islamic Law = 100 lashes/stoning.....#72
The Innocent One...............................#73
Parallel in Matthew................#74
​

LINKS TO OTHER THREADS IN CHRISTIAN FORUMS

Believer's Commentary on John 8:1-11
Textual Evidence for John 8:1-11
Previously Unconsidered Evidence for John 8:1-11
Reconstructing the Text of John 8:1-11
Why Wasn't the Adultress Stoned?

Related threads:
Asterisks and Obelisks: Critical marks in Ancient Manuscripts
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Sinaiticus
The Last 12 Verses of Mark

 

[Nazaroo]

'And at Dawn Jesus came again into the temple,
and all the people were coming to Him;
and having sat down, He was teaching them.
And the scribes and Pharisees
Bring to Him a woman having been taken
In an adultery;
And having set her in the midst,
They say to Him,
"Teacher! This woman was taken in the very act,
-committing adultery; and in the Law
Moses commanded us that such
Be stoned to death;
You therefore, what do you say?"
And this they said testing Him,
That they might have something to accuse
Him of.' (John 8:2-6)

"A number of sexual crimes carried the death penalty under the Mosaic Law and were extremely serious. For my own part, the adulterous woman has my sympathy and I feel happy about the outcome, that she was forgiven and let off. But the Law of Moses was not an option. The Jews were under obligation to obey it.

If the account is authentic why was the Law of Moses not upheld and the wrongdoer put to death? "

This is perhaps the most interesting and important point.
To this I can point out two critically important facts:

(1) The woman was not guilty of adultery. Most people don't have access to the Greek original text, and even then, they don't read it carefully:

John in the narrative, says: "taken in an adultery"
(en moiceia kateilhmmenhn)

But the Pharisees say "committing adultery!"
(ep autofwrw moiceuomenhn)

Both agree that an adultery (among other crimes) has taken place; but John, guided by the Holy Spirit, condemns no one (Matt.7:1).
The Pharisees, on the other hand, condemn the woman (only!) (Acts 10:28)

We should note that many translations fail to bring out this distinction in the original Greek. The reason is, most are rather free paraphrases which very often leave out such nuances. One would have to hunt for a translation so slavishly literal as to catch something like this. Young's Literal translation is one which does, and there are others.

To those who think the nuance is unimportant, I should point out that the Apostle Paul bases an entire argument on a single letter of the Hebrew alphabet. (Gal 3:15-18) In the Word of the Lord, every nuance is of great value for learning and correction (2nd Tim 3:16)

But onward: What a contrast between John's humble yet powerful understatement, and the Pharisees' rude and arrogant interruption! (1 Cor. 13:1)

They have abused their holy office as priests; they have failed to honour the Lord as the author of the Law; and they have blasphemed God by saying that His law demanded something which it never did! For these words alone, the Pharisees are eligible for the DEATH PENALTY three times over (Lev.20:10, Exod 21:16, Deut. 17:8-12)

What irony and foolishness for them to insist upon a judgement for the woman. But for them to seek the verdict of Jesus OVER the laws of Moses would suggest to the crowd that they also knew that Jesus had more authority than Moses! Observe the crowds' earlier comments:

"He speaks boldly, and they say nothing to Him!
Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ?" (Jn 7:26)


(and irony by the way is one of John's stylistic trademarks...)


This is not to deny the woman was probably guilty of some wrongdoing or indescretion, which explains how she came into the hands of the Pharisees in the first place. They may have picked her up soliciting, or she may have simply had a 'reputation' due to some past incident (as most people do...).
Jesus Himself doesn't suggest she is an 'innocent' girl, but nonetheless, the actions of the Pharisees clearly indicate that relatively speaking, her sins were minor compared to theirs.


(2) The woman is often 'let go' under Mosaic Law, if it can be reasonably shown that she screamed for help or was unable to do so. (i.e., she was raped, forced, or otherwise coerced, as is probably the case here). (Deut.22:26,27, Lev 20:4,5 Deut. 17:7)

I will go into the Law of Moses in more detail later, but the gist of it is, that the woman is given the benefit of the doubt, (as it should be), unless eyewitness evidence of her complicity and compliance can be presented. It is only the man who is always put to death, and where is he, if they truly caught her in the act?

Also, once authorized by the Pharisees and scribes to act as judge (as in this case here), Jesus was obligated to make a full inquiry, and punish false witnesses with the punishment they intended for their victim.

There is no doubt that this rape and attempted murder by the Pharisees along with the attempt to frame Jesus was one of the final straws that led our Lord to pronounce the woes against Jerusalem.

"They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah! (Judges 19:25-30)
The Lord will not let them get away with their evil!
He will punish their sins!" (Hosea 9:9)

The rulers of Jerusalem were slaughtered, and Jerusalem was burnt to the ground in 70 A.D. History has never spoken more eloquently regarding a verdict.

So in answer to the question, the Law of Moses WAS upheld. We have no reason to think otherwise, in the light of God's providence.

 

[Nazaroo]

EDITED:

We noted the unique history of the word 'dawn' (orthrou), which pointed like a lighthouse to the Greek book of Jeremiah, wherein are recorded the bulk of the prophecies and warnings to the Southern Kingdom of Judea just before its fall, a national tragedy resulting in the Babylonian Exile.

(The preceding note here refers to a section that has been moved to page 6 of this thread.)



After that, in discussing the question of Mosaic Law, we noted that John in the narrative doesn't say in fact that this woman is guilty of the exact crime of which she is accused by the Pharisees...

-----------------------------------------------------
Now, in verse 8:6, we are confronted simultaneously with two points:

(1) John clearly imputes the dirty motive of entrapment to the Pharisees. They are not at all concerned with the woman, who is just a foil, a pawn to be used, perhaps murdered, in the process of ensnaring the Messiah.

(2) The whole world stops dead, while Jesus bends down and with the finger writes upon the ground.

------------------------------------------------------

Commentators have always raised the question of what Jesus may have written or drawn on the ground here. One favourite allegorical interpretation, since Jesus actually writes TWICE, is the idea that this represents the Old and New Testaments, two dispensations of God's Word, written by the finger of God (who can miss this hint), through Jesus (the Door). While this is a beautiful and edifying interpretation, we actually find this solution too easy to make: And it has an important flaw, if we were to let it stand as the only or complete explanation, for it completely detaches two of the most important actions of the story from the rest, and leaves Jesus floating in an esoterical myst!

In that case there is the temptation to suggest these are later 'scribal glosses' that crept into the text. But this quickly becomes ridiculous. If we appeal to 'scribal gloss' everytime we are confronted with something we don't understand in John, we end up like Bultmann, snipping the gospel up like swiss cheese, and rearranging the puzzle in such an arbitrary manner that no one is convinced we have discovered anything. Not even ourselves. No. The right course is to try to find another simpler solution first.

Interestingly, Colin Kruse (Tyndale NT Commentaries: John, 2003 pg 200) has noted the following:

Quote:

"others have suggested that it was a prophetic action modelled after Jeremiah 17:13:

'Oh Lord, the hope of Israel,
all who forsake you will be put to shame;
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust!
because they have forsaken the Lord, the Spring of Living Water!'

...but the connection between Jesus' action and the text is slight...



We can only add that Kruse failed to note the incredible connection between the previous use of 'Dawn' and Jeremiah examined in our first posts, and also some more connections to follow shortly...
Now I'm going to make a small suggestion of my own, based upon John's (and the author of this pericope's) use of the LXX, as to what Jesus wrote in the sand. This passage is just famous enough, handy enough, and Jesus-like enough, that we can hardly avoid at least trying it out here. Keep in mind that this woman is almost certainly an Israelite (and hence a typology for fallen Israel) for two good reasons:

(1) Whenever a foreigner is involved in a New Testament incident, not only is it carefully noted by the narrator, but the Evangelists glory in it, and make as much of it as they can. Here there is not a peep.

(2) The Pharisees would normally have no interest at all in the behaviour of foreigners (such as the Roman occupying forces) or authority to just arrest them. Also, this person has been dragged into the temple (granted not the Holy of Holies, but a non-Israelite?).


Quote:

The first time Jesus writes in the sand:

"Shall anyone treat our sister as a common harlot?" (Genesis 34:31)


This is the Ending note for an infamous story: Here, a local Edomite ruler takes (and fornicates with) Jacob's daughter while she is visiting the village. The brothers (fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel) slay every male in the city. Even Jacob is taken aback by the force with which his sons avenge their sister, and is afraid that the whole land may rise up against them. But the brothers are firm in their judgment and the value they place upon their sister. This short pithy saying is easily written in big letters in the dust of the temple floor, and would have electrified and made the hair stand on end of every Israelite who could plainly read it.

Nor is this connection inappropriate: the parallel is striking. The text seems to indicate that this was NOT a violent rape, but rather unbridled teenage lust/love, at least on the Edomite's son's part. It seems they perceived no real wrong, but assumed a kind of 'you like, you buy' philosophy.

But the strong reaction of the brothers indicates things were amiss in some significant sense: Perhaps Dinah was under-age (even by Israelite standards - men were 14 & up). Perhaps the issue wasn't age at all, but simply the very likely fact that Dinah was wholly inexperienced, naive, and grossly taken advantage of. Perhaps it was also that she was under the authority of her father and the men, and any such 'desires' or 'contracts' had to be ratified by family in any case. Likely there was some of all of this behind the anger of the men of Israel. Even Jacob waited till he had assembled all his sons to tell them. They all agreed she had been 'shamed'.

This is just the sort of jab that would stop the men of Israel in Jesus' time dead in their tracks holding their breath, and which would leave the Pharisees on their own with zero crowd support. We often wonder why someone in that crowd didn't just grab a stone and start throwing. It seems almost implausible that some less perceptive or unspiritual or even bloodthirsty brutes wouldn't have stepped up to the plate and taken up stones. This scripture is just the kind of thing that could explain the paralysis of the crowd here.

Note that this still was not enough to deflect the Pharisees however, who persisted after the first writing.
But this only scratches the surface. The most imporant thing about this passage actually concerns prophetic fulfillment, not law per se. And this is something easily missed by the modern reader.

So in the next few posts, we will look more closely at both the Law and the passage, to expose profound facts not normally noted in a standard commentary or analysis.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Enforcement of God's Law

The right to punish or forgive was originally God's alone. When the Lord set up the nation Israel, He gave Moses' government the honour and priviledge of helping to enforce God's Law. the purpose of this was so that the people of Israel would learn more about God and His ways. (Gal. 3:24)

But men were given a limited authority only, limited by the Law itself:

A Law Enforcement Officer had to fulfill three conditions:

(1) The man must be a believer (an upright member of the congregation of Israel). Only by faithfulness can a person be worthy to judge others. (Gen 15:6)

(2) He must know and keep the Law himself, not only the letter, but the Spirit of the Law (2nd Cor 3:6)

(3) He must be part of the appointed government: No man is allowed under Mosaic Law to take it into his own hands, nor rebel against the decisions of the courts of Israel. (Exod 23:1,2 Deut 17:11,12)


When all these conditions are met, there are still important rules that the court itself must obey: The authority given to the courts of Israel is very limited.

A Court of Law must itself fulfill two more conditions:

(1) No court has authority to change God's Law, subtract from it or add to it: only the Lord can. (Deut. 12:32)

(2) No court had authority to accuse or condemn anyone for any crime unless there were at least two innocent eye-witnesses available to the crime itself. (Deut. 19:15)


Crimes without witnesses were completely out of the jurisdiction of the courts. In the case of no witnesses, men have no authority: but the Lord reserved the right to judge these cases for Himself alone.

"Those outside, God judges." (1st Cor 5:13, Gal 6:7, Heb 10:31)

Do criminals who commit crimes in secret escape judgement? Not at all. Rather, outside the courtroom is the Lord's domain, and its the Lord's perogative to dispense justice and mercy.

"To Me belongs vengeance and punishment:
Their foot shall slip in due time!" Says the Lord. (Deut 32:35)



The Law Concerning Adultery


Adultery was punishable by the death penalty, provided there are two innocent eye-witnesses.

The woman, however, is given the benefit of the doubt, even if she is caught in the act. It must be proved that the woman was not tricked or forced (ie. raped, coerced, or taken advantage of), and this requires two eye-witnesses as to how the act began and proceeded. If there are no such eye-witnesses for these important details, the woman must be released:

"But you shall do nothing to the young woman;..."
the benefit of the doubt is given to the woman,
"that there is in her no sin worthy of death,..."
and it is taken for granted that,
"the betrothed young woman screamed,
and there was no one to save her." (Deut. 22:26,27)

Simply catching a woman in the act is NOT ENOUGH to have her put to death.

Finally,

(3) "the hands of the eye-witnesses shall be the FIRST to put the person to death." (Deut. 17:7)

The Exception to the Rule:

A Special Law Concerning Adultery (Num. 5:11-31)

Alleged marital unfaithfulness is the only crime where God's Law allows an exception to the Rule of Two Witnesses.

Where the authority of the courts ended, the authority of the Priesthood began:

If a husband suspected his wife of unfaithfulness, but there were NO witnesses:

1) The husband could bring his wife before the High Priest in the temple.

2)The High Priest would then present her before the LORD in the temple.

After the ceremony was fulfilled, the Lord Himself would show by a sign whether the woman is to be considered guilty or innocent of the accusation. If the woman is to be considered guilty, she becomes ill, and suffers public shame (there is still no death penalty, since there are no eye-witnesses.) But if the woman is innocent of the accusation, she conceives and brings forth a child!

Now this is the very opposite of how the secular world thinks, and how unbelievers would interpret such a sign. A modern husband for instance might consider a child 'proof ' of adultery.

In a world that refuses to acknowledge the necessity of God's power and participation in the act of procreation, we can understand the 'logic'. (The natural man cannot understand spiritual truths.)

The world thinks it can make children by the mere act of sex alone, but believers know that only God can create a child. Sex does not create a child; It takes something more, the hand of the Lord. Many couples who have dearly wished for children will confirm this.

Not even Satan himself can forge such evidence in a trial of adultery under God's Rule. Although there are many absurd movies today about 'children of satan', this is one power that Satan does NOT have. The only 'sons of satan' around are sons of men who have fallen prey to their own fallen nature, and have corrupted themselves away from the innocence of their youth. In order for Satan to create a child, especially in this case, he would have to have the power to break the scripture which says:

"If the woman is innocent, she shall conceive and bring forth a child." (Numbers 5:11-31, KJV)

But because the "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), Satan can only cast doubt upon it, and perpetuate myth and superstition among those who reject the word of the LORD. A man can be possessed by demons, but not created by Satan. For we know that rather,

"through Jesus Christ all things were created." (John 1:3 etc)

It is a simple fact that a woman cannot become pregnant through her own adultery. Regardless of what a jealous or unbelieving husband may think, the teaching of the LORD God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth, and all that is in them, is plain.

Believers knew this simple fact throughout history. Even Judah, the father of the tribe by that name, acknowledged the fact when confronted with the evidence; an 'adultery' had been committed, between him and his daughter-in-law, by her trickery. But it was necessitated by his own refusal to carry out God's Law in the first place! Although he himself was guilty, he admitted that,

"She has been more righteous than I have!" (Gen 38:26)

and,

"there is no sin worthy of death in her." (Deut. 22:26)

Another great example of an adultery in which the woman was innocent, but the man was notoriously guilty, is the infamous case of David and Bathsheba. I will leave it to the reader to explore, since it is not relevant here, except that God later took the child, since it is not possible for the royal line of the Messiah to continue through an act of adultery and murder. Nor could Jesus be an heir to the same throne through an act of adultery.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Law of Pregnancy and Mary (Num. 5:11-31 continued)


This law also proves that Mary the mother of Jesus could not have been guilty of adultery, in spite of later libels by Jewish opponents. Joseph knew the child was not his, and was minded to divorce Mary privately, not wanting to make her a public example. He also had at first looked upon her pregnancy as possible 'proof' of adultery, and an indication that his future marriage was now excluded. Although he was a kind and fair-minded man, he was ignorant of God's Law, at that time, "not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God!" (Matt.22:29) For if he had been more knowledgeable, he would have recognized the meaning of her pregnancy as proof of her own innocence.

God's Law excludes the the possibility of Mary being guilty of adultery, which only leaves either rape, or a virgin birth. God's revelation excludes rape, and confirms virgin birth.

We have now spent a bit of time on this Law (Num. 5:11-31), and here is the reason: the real purpose of the Law is to reveal Jesus the Christ the true Messiah, the Holy One of Israel. Of BOTH the Law and the Prophets, Jesus said,

"These (plural) are they which testify of Me." (John 5:39)

And we are about to find out exactly what that means.

Of the Law especially,

"The Law is our teacher, to bring us to Christ." (Gal 3:24)

And this is what we will show here; for it is impossible for the Law of God to testify to the wrong Messiah. And if therefore the Law of God testifies that Jesus is the Christ, then obviously it is so.
The Law of Jealousy (Numbers 5:11-31 continued)


We will make one more historical note here, on the topic of jealousy, for it concerns the history of this Law. A much younger David, living in the hills with his gang, and protecting Israelites from criminal raids, came to Nabal asking for food and provisions. The selfish and comfortably wealthy Nabal, who had in fact prospered from David's protection, responded,

"Who is David?" (1 Sam 25:10)

(A question that appears again in the New Testament in various forms!)

So David decided to slaughter Nabal and all his man-servants. But Abigail, Nabal's loyal wife risks her life and intercedes for Nabal and all the men, by prostrating herself at David's feet, and giving him the required provisions.

Instead of being grateful to God for having provided such a loyal and brave companion, Nabal descends into a riveting mood of rage and jealousy, and drinks himself to death. Such is the insanity of jealousy. But what Nabal had worst feared, assumed and accused his wife of, the text makes clear never happened.

However, David did later take her as a wife after Nabal's death, having recognized a good thing when he saw it. Irony and justice.

I bring this up to illustrate the problem of jealousy, and God's solution. Of course one could not just set up an appointment with the High Priest at the temple. His duties precluded such access, and it might take months to get a case heard under such frivolous and weak conditions. Meantime a man would have plenty of time to relent of accusations, and a woman who might indeed be pregnant could appear quite so.

In fact, this law appears never to have been called upon or used by anyone in the entire history of the kingdom of Israel of the 1st Temple period. One can imagine why. What man would suffer the shame of such a childish and unsubstantiated charge, risking all and utterly rejecting his wife, perhaps only to be humiliated by the Lord Himself before all of Israel?

This law then, sat on the shelf unused and virtually forgotten for a thousand or more years before that day at the Festival of Lights when Jesus strode into the Temple at Dawn to teach.

 

[Nazaroo]

'And having set her in the midst, they say to him,
"Teacher (Rabbi); this woman was taken in the very act -
committing adultery; and in the Law Moses commanded us
that such be stoned to death;
You therefore, what do you say?"
And this they said testing Him,
in order to have something to accuse him of.' (John 8:3-6a)

Following the Law to its Logical Conclusion:

Now the Law is not ambiguous by any means. A due process and a series of steps are required, of which some awareness at least by the Pharisees and their audience was required and can be assumed. This was of course maintained by practice and tradition.

Lynching of any kind is expressly forbidden (Exod. 23:1,2). The Pharisees protected themselves from this charge by publicly acknowledging Jesus as a Teacher of the Law, calling him 'Didaskaleh' (Rabbi) (Isa 29:13), and appealing for a Special Judgement under Deuteronomy 17:8-13.

This meant that they had to abide by Jesus' decision under penalty of death:and this was also in itself an admission that they lacked the necessary witnesses for a straightforward trial: For otherwise they could not stray to the right or left of the Law (Num. 20:17, 22:26, Deut.2:27, 5:32, 17:11-20, 28:14).

This move by the Pharisees brought everyone present under Deuteronomy 19:18-19,which commanded Jesus as Judge to make a full inquiry and punish false witnesses with the sentence intended for their victim, in this case the death penalty.

This concession was necessary for the Pharisees' plan, and yet it was the very move which locked together a series of steps in the justice system of the Mosaic Law, which in the end would accomplish not their plan, but the Lord's plan.



The Pharisees, by appealing to Jesus, admitted that they lacked the necessary witnesses as to how the act began, and that the case was too difficult for them to judge.

But without two witnesses, the woman's case must pass out of the jurisdiction of the courts, and now comes under the authority of the priesthood. This means that the woman can only be judged under Numbers 5:11-31!

This Law says the woman must be presented by the High Priest before the LORD God of Israel in the temple. But the priests have presented the woman before Jesus the Christ in the temple! The Pharisees have inadvertantly testified that Jesus is the Lord God of Israel publicly, before the entire crowd.

The only other way of interpreting the Pharisees' actions was to assume that they were acting on behalf of the woman's husband, who was to first present the woman before the High Priest in the temple. In which case they had inadvertantly testified that Jesus was the High Priest in front of the crowd.

Because the Pharisees were acting out the role of 'husband', they were also unwittingly testifying to their own adultery. But for the Pharisees to show no sign, because of their temporary blindness, cast Jesus in the role of High Priest and Lord God simultaneously.

This Law also states that the woman's innocence or guilt is to be revealed by a sign from the Lord. Thus by invoking Numbers 5:11-31, the Pharisees fulfill a NT prophecy concerning them:

"An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign!" (Matt. 12:39, 16:4, Luke 11:29, Mark 8:38, Numbers 5:28)

Quote:

The entire Mosaic Law has been set up a thousand years previously in such a way that Jesus is honoured as Lord God of Israel, and High Priest by His enemies without Him speaking a word, or lifting a finger!


Thus not only do the prophecies testify of Jesus Christ, but also the Law itself testifies, fulfilling Paul's words,

"The Law is our teacher, to bring us to Jesus the Messiah." (Gal 3:24)

 

[Nazaroo]

'And when they continued pressing HIm,
having bent back, He said to them,
"The innocent one among you -
Let him first cast a stone upon her!" (John 8:7)

The Pharisees still haven't taken the hint, but continue pressing Jesus for a Judgement. Jesus then takes His stand and does not stray to the right or left of the Holy Law of the Lord:

"The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon the offender,
to put the offender to death." (Deut 17:7)

The real authority of the Lord Jesus is now becoming clear: Jesus Himself, knowing all things (John 16:30), IS one righteous witness: But to fulfill His own Law He requires one more innocent witness. The requirements under O.T. dispensation are not impossible to fulfill:

"Abraham trusted in God,
and it was accounted to him as righteousness."(Gen 15:6)

Not a single man comes forward from the party of the Pharisees, proving another prophecy has come to pass:

"They are all gone astray,
they have altogether become filthy:
There is none righteous, no, not one!" (Psalm 14:3)

The fact that all the people had gone astray meant that if Jesus truly was a prophet come from God, He must release the woman according to the scripture in Hosea:

"I will NOT punish your wives when they commit adultery!
For the people themselves have gone aside with harlots!"
(Hosea 4:14 KJV correct rendering of emphatic negative)

'And again having leaned down,
He was writing in the earth:
and they, having understood,
being convicted by conscience,
went forth one by one,
beginning from the elders, even to the last.' (John 8:8-9)

We have passed through the first prophetic climax, and the first legal climax. Now we have reached perhaps the first intellectual climax and puzzle: What did Jesus write in the sand the second time?

This time when Jesus wrote in the sand, the Pharisees rather quickly got up, dropped the case against the woman, and left! What Jesus wrote couldn't have been a direct accusation, because it took a moment for the Pharisees to grasp it. It made them realise that Jesus knew all about the incident and what they had done.

They must have done something, or else the accusation would have had no effect on their conscience. Jesus had shown that He knew their involvement, and if they wished, He could expose them. They had not expected this, and could not defend themselves once accused. It was all they could do now, to leave quietly, dropping the charges. What did Jesus write?

On many occasions they had failed to trap Jesus, but were not convicted by conscience then! The answer lies in their own confession: they had already stated that they had caught the woman in the act, but now none of them could come forward alone, being free of the crime. The longer they hesitated, the more obvious their guilt.

Slowly the true horror of the crime dawns upon us: Not just one man, but a gang of men raping and abusing one woman, then casting her off to die; betraying her at the last to be stoned to death, leaving no witnesses to their crime: Each man providing an alibi for the others. And to whom could she turn? Who would believe her word against the united testimony of the religious leaders of Israel?

Only her Lord Jesus, who knows all things, and searches all hearts.

So then what scripture did Jesus write in the sand, in which the Pharisees recognized their own crime?

Quote:

'And the High Priest of Levi said,
"Behold, here is my daughter,a maiden:
Do with her what seems good to you."
But the men would not listen to him,
and they raped her, and abused her all through the night.
And when dawn (orthrou) came they let her go,
and she fell down at the door of the house where her Lord was,
dead."
(Judges 19:24-47 LXX)



This crime was the worst in all Israel since they came out of Egypt. (Jud.19:30) As a result of it, one whole tribe of Israel was nearly wiped off the face of the earth. The men of Gibeah of the Southern tribe of Benjamin were responsible. Hosea prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem because of this happening over again (Hosea 9:9)

There is no doubt that this rape and attempted murder by the Pharisees along with the attempt to frame Jesus was one of the final straws which led our Lord to pronounce the woes against Jerusalem (Luke 21:6)

'And Jesus was left alone,
and the woman standing in the midst of the crowd. (John 8:9 cf.Matt 26:13!)

The Pharisees had left, convicted and defeated: the woman - one more lost sheep returning to the fold. (Matt 18:10-14)

But the trial was not over yet: there must have been a pause, as the crowd of the people of Israel looked to Jesus. The religious leaders, who were supposed to make intercession to God for the sins of the people had left, convicted of sin themselves, and not worthy to make offerings even on their own behalf. They had just handed the High Priesthood and judgement over to Jesus while attempting to do the opposite.

We can suppose that everyone looked in fear and awe at Him; and in the judgement of this woman each one saw himself. If Jesus now condemned the woman, where stood every member of that crowd? Indeed the fate of Israel hung in the balance. Here was the Messiah, Lord of Israel in the flesh; the tension must have been desperate for some:

'And Jesus, having bent Himself back, and seeing no one but the woman, said to her,
Woman, where are those - your accusers?
Did no one pass sentence upon you?"
And she said,
"No one, Lord."
And Jesus said to her,
"Neither to I pass sentence upon you:
Go, and sin no more." (John 8:10,11)

Notice that Jesus in His infinite wisdom does not grant immediate forgiveness, nor request a publicly humiliating repentance: He knows the anguish in her heart at the injustice of the Pharisees, first abusing her, betraying her, attempting to destroy her, and finally abandoning her to a mob.

Instead, acting as Judge, and in view of the circumstances, Jesus grants an indefinite postponement of the entire trial, releasing the woman on her honour. For if the woman did not first understand who Jesus was, what meaning would His forgiveness hold for her? Later, we can assume that the time Jesus grants the woman is just right:

'And she stood at His feet weeping, and began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and she kissed His feet, and washed them with perfume,...

And Jesus said,
"Her sins, which are many, are forgiven;
for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven,
the same loves little." And He said to her,
"Your sins are indeed forgiven." (Luke 7:36-50*)

*This incident should not be confused with a similar one in Matt.26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, & John 12:1-8. It is this other happening that Mary sister of Lazarus was involved in. That is why some people have mistakenly assumed that the woman taken in adultery was Mary.

 

[Nazaroo]

Quote:

"His left hand is under my head, and His right hand embraces me;
My Beloved spoke, and said to me,
"Rise up, My love, My fair one, and come away;
For see, the winter is past; and the rain is over and gone."
I sleep but my heart wakes; It is the voice of my Beloved that knocks:
"Open to Me, My sister, My love, My undefiled!" (Song of Songs 2:6, 10,11, 5:2) (cf. Rev. 3:20, Mark 3:35, 7:14-23)


See how the fate of the woman taken in adultery fulfills the prophecy and promise of the Lord Jesus the Messiah in Luke:

"They shall lay their hands upon you, and persecute you,
delivering you up to the assemblies, and into prisons,
being brought before kings and rulers for My Name's sake.
And it shall turn to you for a testimony!
Therefore settle it in your hearts not to worry about it beforehand,
what you will answer.
For I will give you a mouth and wisdom which all your adversaries
shall not be able to contradict, nor resist. (Luke 21:12-14, Isa 54:4-17)

The Woman as a Typology of Israel

We have noted the almost unavoidable connection of the Israelite woman taken in adultery to the whole nation, in the drama and immediacy of the crisis, and the incredible circumstances and how they played out. Certainly for the people present, this identification would be blatant and strong.

Israel is repeatedly portrayed as an adulteress, a harlot, a disloyal and unfaithful bride. Yet while warnings are given, and punishment is regretablly anounced, death is NOT the final verdict: there is always hope held out, a remnant are found worthy, the root can be replanted.

This is another reason why the incident needed to unfold as it did. The people were divided, yet Jesus held back judgement, to maximize the opportunities and the number of people to be saved. As Jesus Himself had expounded, "He who is forgiven much, loves much." and true loyalty, devotion and love is won this way.

Now we naturally turn to the prophecies concerning Israel herself, and find there the most incredible parallels we could hope for:

For the wounds of the daugher of my people I am hurt;
I am bruised; astonishment has taken hold of Me.
Is not the curing medicine in Galilee? And is not the Healer present?
Why then isn't the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears,
that I might weep day and night for the stain of the daughter of my people;

Oh if only I had a distant lodge in the wilderness,
that I might leave my people and depart from them;
For they are all adulterers! A cabal of evil men!
A conspiracy is found among the men of Judah, even among the dwellers of Jerusalem!

"I have seen your adulteries and your whoredoms! Woe unto thee Jerusalem!
Will you not be made clean? When will it even once be so?"

(Jeremiah 8:21-9:3, 13:27 LXX )

Our Lord Jesus was grieved in His Spirit at the atrocities of the Pharisees;
As in the ancient days, it would eventually mean the near destruction of yet another whole tribe of Israel, this time the tribe of Judah, and Jerusalem itself.

 

[Nazaroo]

The Function of "Woman" in John's Gospel

As with almost all elements in John, 'woman' is not what it seems on the surface. The incidents recorded are not 'random' events or accidental encounters, but rather deeply significant happenings which are strongly connected to O.T. prophecy and typology.

As it happens, a 'woman' is involved in a story or incident at least four times prominently in John:

(1) The First 'Sign' in Cana (Jesus' mother)

(2) The Meeting of the Samaritan Woman

(3) The Woman taken in Adultery

(4) The Annointing of Jesus (Mary, sister of Martha & Lazarus)

Each of these incidents is pregnant with deep theological and evangelical meanings, and each represents not only an individual woman, but also a WHOLE COMMUNITY and typifies, or prophecies its relation to Jesus and the Gospel.

(1) The 1st Woman (Jesus' "mother") is of course not an ordinary woman or 'normal' case. She by having a 'relation' to Jesus represents the Old Testament 'womb' or matrix out of which the Messiah is born, and is in effect a conduit or 'channel' of the Holy Spirit resulting in the Light of Christ. In essence Jesus' mother represents Ancient Israel and the Holy religious community from which the Messiah is to come.

(2) The Samaritan Woman again, is not simply an individual. She represents the entire community of Samaria, formerly and partly representing a remnant of the Ten Lost Tribes of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, but by now heavily admixtured with people of surrounding nations.

But most importantly, in the deliberate context of an ancient Old Testament 'Marriage Ritual' (the meeting of the potential bride at the well), The Samaritan Woman represents the Nation of Samaria at the time of Christ, unable to rejoin Israel and rejected for 'impurity', but still clinging to a fragment of 'belief', a mere crumb of hope in the Coming Messiah:

The Samaritan Woman's 'FIVE HUSBANDS' represent the 'many Gods' she has fornicated with, from the Golden Calf to Molech and Baalzebul, and the 'one you are now with' is a significant warning and reminder of their lost status and need to 'come out' and recognize and receive the Messiah when He comes, and worship in Spirit and Truth.

(3) Similarly, the Woman Taken in Adultery is of course Israel (specifically the Southern House of Judah) as described in Hosea as an adulteress and a harlot, who followed in her elder sister's (Northern Israel/Samaria) footsteps. She is not the loyal honourable bride she appears to be, and is in fact living a lie.

It is doubly significant in this presentation by John that this woman is NOT forgiven, but rather put on probation. And that probation is the standard Biblical allottment: 40 years. During this time, the Jews of Jerusalem have to be confronted with the Truth of the Messiah and make their individual decisions. The people are divided, and the Coming of the Messiah shall be "for the rising and falling of many in Israel", after which time The Temple and Jerusalem is burned to the ground, and the 'vineyard' given to others.

(4) Mary the Girl who Annoints Jesus' Feet and prepares Him for His passion role, is of course a member of the small believing community, of sisters and brothers who recite the key doctrines given to them by Jesus, i.e., the Ressurrection of the Dead, the Passion of the Messiah etc. and who honour Jesus as the One Sent and the focus of the Divine Gift of membership in the Living Vine, the 'True Israel' in whom there is no guile.

 

[Nazaroo]

I am providing an updated version of my O.T. Quotation Chart, showing the position of John 8:1-11

 

[TrevorL]

Howdy Nazaroo,

Greetings. I got a bit lost with your analysis of John 7:39-8:1, but the occasion is significant.
John 7:2 (KJV): "Now the Jews’ feast of tabernacles was at hand."

...And every man went to his own house,
but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives." (Jn 7:53-8:1)

The contrast between the people, especially the council, and Jesus is that Jesus continued to keep the spiritual lesson behind of the feast of Tabenacles, of resting in God. On the other hand these Jews hardly even kept the externals of the feast of Tabernacles and spent the duration of the feast plotting how to entrap Jesus.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Nazaroo]

Awesome point Trevor.
My commentary was deficient in this area. I will include your observation in the future in discussing this passage. I had not particularly focussed on the scribes and Pharisees, and your point stands on its own for the events leading up to and including John 7:53.

Peace in Christ from Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

The Final Place we are brought to after John 8:1-11 is this:

Jesus has indeed fulfilled His role as the Bearer of Mercy and Truth. (John 1:17)

Now all things have been fulfilled, and He is rightfully and legitimately able to turn to the crowd again, and boldly claim,

"I am the Light of the World." (John 8:12)

 

[mark kennedy]

I did what I could to comprehend the elaborate posts in the previous page. I don't know how much I actually learned from it but it does seem well researched. I especially like the idea that Jesus was writing passages from the Law. I still get the impression from trusted sources that it was a late addition to the Gospel of John. I have this in my John McArthur Study Bible in the study notes. I thought I would post them and see what kind of a response I get.

"7:53-8:11 This section dealing with the adultress most likely was not a part of teh original contents of John. It has been incorporated into manuscripts at different plases in teh gospel (e.g. after vv. 36,44,52), while one manuscript places it after Luke 21:38. External manuscript evidence representing a great variety of textual traditions is decidedly against its inclusion, for the earliest and best manuscripts exclude it. Many manuscripts mark the passage to indicate doubt as to its inclusion. Significant early versions exclude it. No Gr. chruch father comments on the passage until the twelfth century. The vocabulary and style of the section also are different from the rest of the gospel, and the section inerrupts the sequence of v. 52 with 8:12ff. Many, however, do think that it has all the earmarks of historical veracity, perhaps being a piece of oral tradition that circulated in parts of the western church, so that a few comments are in order. In spite of all the considerations of the likely unreliablity of this section, it is possible to be wrong on the issue, and thus it is good to cosider the meaning of the passage and leave it in the test with Mark 16:9-21"​

I have absolutly no real particulars on the reliablity of this text or real evidence to challenge it. The extent of my knowledge is an interview I heard on NPR (not an unbiased source) and that footnote from John McAurthur. I don't know if I'm into an elaborate study of the bibliographical evidence for the text but to be honest I never liked the passage. I thought it portrayed him as some kind of a mystic, that does not make it an addition, but it seems odd with a verbal jousting match going on he starts writing in the dirt.

It also seems odd that the narrative starts with Jesus in the Temple on the last day of the feast. Then after a huge confrontation he walks up to the Mount of Olives which ends with everyone going home. Later he returns to the Temple and rejoins the dispute pretty much where he left off. The thing is that the feast would have been over by that time and I'm starting to wonder about this passage.

I haven't studied this very much but I'm starting to wonder if there isn't a genuine problem with the passage.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Nazaroo]

I have this in my John McArthur Study Bible in the study notes. ...

Your question regarding the Textual Evidence for John 8:1-11 is important, and deserves an answer.

The other thread dealt almost exclusively with INTERNAL evidence and arguments regarding the authenticity of the passage.

Nonetheless this thread is a BELIEVER's Commentary on the actual scriptural content of the passage, and should not be bogged down or sidetracked by these issues.

So I will start a new thread dealing with the TEXTUAL EVIDENCE, and address your question directly there.

Peace, Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

If people like this commentary, I will take on another 12 verses of John. Don't hesitate to compliment or criticise so I have an idea of what people think of this style of commentary!

 

[Nazaroo]

In fact, this law appears never to have been called upon or used by anyone in the entire history of the kingdom of Israel of the 1st Temple period. One can imagine why. What man would suffer the shame of such a childish and unsubstantiated charge, risking all and utterly rejecting his wife, perhaps only to be humiliated by the Lord Himself before all of Israel?

Just a footnote on this: I found someone had checked this fact on TC-list:

From: "sarban" <sarban@...>
Date: Sun Dec 12, 2004 9:26 am
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera


----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Marlowe" To: <textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] pericope de adultera
>> I certainly wouldn't impugn the veracity of the passion narrativesregarding
> the release of Barabbas.
>> But I doubt very much that in the first century adulteresses were stonedto
> death by Jewish communities, as implied in the pericope adulterae,
> regardless of what the rabbinic halakah may have been. Do we have any
> evidence that this was actually done?
>> Michael

>
The only directly relevant evidence of actual Jewish practice AFAIK is a rabbinic tradition about Eleazar b Sadoq

In Mishnah Sanhedrin 7:2 we have
Said Eleazar b Sadoq "There is a precedent, The daughter of a
priest committed adultery and they put bundles of twigs aroundher and burned her
"They said to him " It was because the court of that time was notexpert"

In the later Tosefta Sanhedrin 9:11 we have
Said Eleazar b Sadoq "I was a child and was riding on my father's
shoulders and I saw the daughter of a priest who had committed
adultery and they put bundles of twigs around her and burned
her"They said to him "you were a child and a child has no evidence"

IF we regard the Tosefta form of the tradition as having some
historical validity it would be a eyewitness account of an execution
for adultery in NT times (Eleazar died in the early 2nd century CE)
However, IMHO this sort of material is almost worthless for
actual historical practice.

Andrew Criddle

 

[Nazaroo]

Here is a link to an amazing discussion of the close connection between the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation:

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=245742

http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=246038

And here is a great sample of a scholarly parallel connection between the Pericope de Adultera and Revelation:

http://www.knoxseminary.org/Prospective/Faculty/FacultyForum/JohnRevelationProject/Part4.html


The significance of these findings for a confirmation of the Woman taken in Adultery as a typology of Israel should be obvious.

Peace,

Nazaroo

 

[Nazaroo]

Lets have a look at some of the parallelism these people have found which indicates an awareness and higher (other-worldly) purpose for the Pericope:


Prelude to Pericope de Adultera (John)
The Beast's earthly kingdom (Rev)


John 6:19 "when they had rowed about twenty-five or thirty furlongs, they saw Jesus walking on the sea"
Rev. 14:20; 15:2 "one thousand six hundred furlongs&#8230;I saw&#8230;the ones who overcame the beast standing on the sea"

John: 7:12, 47 Some complain concerning Jesus: "He deceives the multitude." The Pharisees challenge the officers: "Are you deceived also?"
Rev: 13:14 The beast "deceives those who dwell on the earth" 20

The Accusers Cast Out of the Earthly Temple (John)
The Accuser Cast Out of the Heavenly Temple (Rev)

John 8:3 "And the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery, and stood her in the midst&#8230;and said to Him, 'Moses commanded us to stone such women&#8230;'" 21
Rev. 12:4 "And the dragon stood before the woman&#8230;so that he might devour&#8230;" 22

John 8:6-7, 10 "This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him&#8230;Jesus said "Let him be the first to cast a stone who is sinless'&#8230;And hearing this, they began to go out&#8230;Jesus said to her, 'Woman, where are your accusers?'"
Rev. 12:4, 8,10 "so that he (the dragon) might devour her Child&#8230;and no place was found for them any longer&#8230;and the great dragon &#8230;was cast down&#8230;the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God night and day, has been cast down" 23

Jonn 11:48 "if all men believe in Him&#8230;they will take away our (the religious leaders of the temple) place"
Rev. 12:8 "and no place was found for them (those who follow the Dragon) in heaven" 24

The War of Light and Darkness on Earth (John)
The War of Light and Darkness in Heaven (Rev)

John 8:32, 34-36 "the truth will set you free&#8230;whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever&#8230;if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed."
Rev. 13:16 "He (the beast) causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their forehead"

John 8:41 "And they (the religious leaders of the temple) said to Him, 'We were not born of fornication'"
Rev. 14:8 "she (the harlot of Babylon) has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication" 25

John 8:44 "the devil&#8230;speaks a lie&#8230;for he is a liar"
Rev. 12:9 "the devil&#8230;deceives the whole world." 26



So what we see is that Revelation has used the Gospel of John as a kind of hidden parallel blueprint for his exposition, or Grand Opus of prophecy.

 

[mark kennedy]

I can't get a handle on what you are saying, I don't think this passage was a part of the original text. I don't know what to make of it otherwise and I am honestly asking what you think. I really liked what you had to say about Jesus looking back at the crowd and saying with authority, 'I am the light of the world'. That has real merit, but it concerns me that he leaves on the last day of the feast, has this encounter with the woman caught in adultry and then takes the conversation up where he left off.

The text itself is what I want to look at, whatever thoughts you would like to express are welcome.

Grace and peace,
Mark