John 8:1

Though Christ was basely abused in the foregoing chapter, both by the rulers and by the people, yet here we have him still at Jerusalem, still in the temple. How often would he have gathered them! Observe,

I. His retirement in the evening out of the town (Joh 8:1): He went unto the mount of olives; whether to some friend's house, or to some booth pitched there, now at the feast of tabernacles, is not certain; whether he rested there, or, as some think, continued all night in prayer to God, we are not told. But he went out of Jerusalem, perhaps because he had no friend there that had either kindness or courage enough to give him a night's lodging; while his persecutors had houses of their own to go to (Joh 7:53), he could not so much as borrow a place to lay his head on, but what he must go a mile or two out of town for. He retired (as some think) because he would not expose himself to the peril of a popular tumult in the night. It is prudent to go out of the way of danger whenever we can do it without going out of the way of duty. In the day-time, when he had work to do in the temple, he willingly exposed himself, and was under special protection, Isa 49:2. But in the night, when he had not work to do, he withdrew into the country, and sheltered himself there.

II. His return in the morning to the temple, and to his work there, Joh 8:2. Observe,

1. What a diligent preacher Christ was: Early in the morning he came again, and taught. Though he had been teaching the day before, he taught again today. Christ was a constant preacher, in season and out of season. Three things were taken notice of here concerning Christ's preaching. (1.) The time: Early in the morning. Though he lodged out of town, and perhaps had spent much of the night in secret prayer, yet he came early. When a day's work is to be done for God and souls it is good to begin betimes, and take the day before us. (2.) The place: In the temple; not so much because it was a consecrated place (for then he would have chosen it at other times) as because it was now a place of concourse; and he would hereby countenance solemn assemblies for religious worship, and encourage people to come up to the temple, for he had not yet left it desolate. (3.) His posture: He sat down, and taught, as one having authority, and as one that intended to abide by it for some time.

2. How diligently his preaching was attended upon: All the people came unto him; and perhaps many of them were the country-people, who were this day to return home from the feast, and were desirous to hear one sermon more from the mouth of Christ before they returned. They came to him, though he came early. They that seek him early shall find him. Though the rulers were displeased at those that came to hear him, yet they would come; and he taught them, though they were angry at him too. Though there were few or none among them that were persons of any figure, yet Christ bade them welcome, and taught them.

III. His dealing with those that brought to him the woman taken in adultery, tempting him. The scribes and Pharisees would not only not hear Christ patiently themselves, but they disturbed him when the people were attending on him. Observe here,

1. The case proposed to him by the scribes and Pharisees, who herein contrived to pick a quarrel with him, and bring him into a snare, Joh 8:3-6.

(1.) They set the prisoner to the bar (Joh 8:3): they brought him a woman taken in adultery, perhaps now lately taken, during the time of the feast of tabernacles, when, it may be, their dwelling in booths, and their feasting and joy, might, by wicked minds, which corrupt the best things, be made occasions of sin. Those that were taken in adultery were by the Jewish law to be put to death, which the Roman powers allowed them the execution of, and therefore she was brought before the ecclesiastical court. Observe, She was taken in her adultery. Though adultery is a work of darkness, which the criminals commonly take all the care they can to conceal, yet sometimes it is strangely brought to light. Those that promise themselves secrecy in sin deceive themselves. The scribes and Pharisees bring her to Christ, and set her in the midst of the assembly, as if they would leave her wholly to the judgment of Christ, he having sat down, as a judge upon the bench.

(2.) They prefer an indictment against her: Master, this woman was taken in adultery, Joh 8:4. Here they call him Master whom but the day before they had called a deceiver, in hopes with their flatteries to have ensnared him, as those, Luk 20:20. But, though men may be imposed upon with compliments, he that searches the heart cannot.

[1.] The crime for which the prisoner stands indicted is no less than adultery, which even in the patriarchal age, before the law of Moses, was looked upon as an iniquity to be punished by the judges, Job 31:9-11; Gen 38:24. The Pharisees, by their vigorous prosecution of this offender, seemed to have a great zeal against the sin, when it appeared afterwards that they themselves were not free from it; nay, they were within full of all uncleanness, Mat 23:27, Mat 23:28. Note, It is common for those that are indulgent to their own sin to be severe against the sins of others.

[2.] The proof of the crime was from the notorious evidence of the fact, an incontestable proof; she was taken in the act, so that there was no room left to plead not guilty. Had she not been taken in this act, she might have gone on to another, till her heart had been perfectly hardened; but sometimes it proves a mercy to sinners to have their sin brought to light, that they may do no more presumptuously. Better our sin should shame us than damn us, and be set in order before us for our conviction than for our condemnation.

(3.) They produce the statute in this case made and provided, and upon which she was indicted, Joh 8:5. Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned. Moses commanded that they should be put to death (Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22), but not that they should be stoned, unless the adulteress was espoused, not married, or was a priest's daughter, Deu 22:21. Note, Adultery is an exceedingly sinful sin, for it is the rebellion of a vile lust, not only against the command, but against the covenant, of our God. It is the violation of a divine institution in innocency, by the indulgence of one of the basest lusts of man in his degeneracy.

(4.) They pray his judgment in the case: "But what sayest thou, who pretendest to be a teacher come from God to repeal old laws and enact new ones? What hast thou to say in this case?" If they had asked this question in sincerity, with a humble desire to know his mind, it had been very commendable. Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice should look up to Christ for direction; but this they said tempting him, that they might have to accuse him, Joh 8:6. [1.] If he should confirm the sentence of the law, and let it take its course, they would censure him as inconsistent with himself (he having received publicans and harlots) and with the character of the Messiah, who should be meek, and have salvation, and proclaim a year of release; and perhaps they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for countenancing the Jews in the exercise of a judicial power. But, [2.] If he should acquit her, and give his opinion that the sentence should not be executed (as they expected he would), they would represent him, First, As an enemy to the law of Moses, and as one that usurped an authority to correct and control it, and would confirm that prejudice against him which his enemies were so industrious to propagate, that he came to destroy the law and the prophets. Secondly, As a friend to sinners, and, consequently, a favourer of sin; if he should seem to connive at such wickedness, and let it go unpunished, they would represent him as countenancing it, and being a patron of offences, if he was a protector of offenders, than which no reflection could be more invidious upon one that professed the strictness, purity, and business of a prophet.

2. The method he took to resolve this case, and so to break this snare.

(1.) He seemed to slight it, and turned a deaf ear to it: He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. It is impossible to tell, and therefore needless to ask, what he wrote; but this is the only mention made in the gospels of Christ's writing. Eusebius indeed speaks of his writing to Abgarus, king of Edessa. Some think they have a liberty of conjecture as to what he wrote here. Grotius says, It was some grave weighty saying, and that it was usual for wise men, when they were very thoughtful concerning any thing, to do so. Jerome and Ambrose suppose he wrote, Let the names of these wicked men be written in the dust. Others this, The earth accuses the earth, but the judgment is mine. Christ by this teaches us to be slow to speak when difficult cases are proposed to us, not quickly to shoot our bolt; and when provocations are given us, or we are bantered, to pause and consider before we reply; think twice before we speak once: The heart of the wise studies to answer. Our translation from some Greek copies, which add, mē prospoioumenos (though most copies have it not), give this account of the reason of his writing on the ground, as though he heard them not. He did as it were look another way, to show that he was not willing to take notice of their address, saying, in effect, Who made me a judge or a divider? It is safe in many cases to be deaf to that which it is not safe to answer, Psa 38:13. Christ would not have his ministers to be entangled in secular affairs. Let them rather employ themselves in any lawful studies, and fill up their time in writing on the ground (which nobody will heed), than busy themselves in that which does not belong to them. But, when Christ seemed as though he heard them not, he made it appear that he not only heard their words, but knew their thoughts.

(2.) When they importunately, or rather impertinently, pressed him for an answer, he turned the conviction of the prisoner upon the prosecutors, Joh 8:7.

[1.] They continued asking him, and his seeming not to take notice of them made them the more vehement; for now they thought sure enough that they had run him aground, and that he could not avoid the imputation of contradicting either the law of Moses, if he should acquit the prisoner, or his own doctrine of mercy and pardon, if he should condemn her; and therefore they pushed on their appeal to him with vigour; whereas they should have construed his disregard of them as a check to their design, and an intimation to them to desist, as they tendered their own reputation.

[2.] At last he put them all to shame and silence with one word: He lifted up himself, awaking as one out of sleep (Psa 78:65), and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

First, Here Christ avoided the snare which they had laid for him, and effectually saved his own reputation. He neither reflected upon the law nor excused the prisoner's guilt, nor did he on the other hand encourage the prosecution or countenance their heat; see the good effect of consideration. When we cannot make our point by steering a direct course, it is good to fetch a compass.

Secondly, In the net which they spread is their own foot taken. They came with design to accuse him, but they were forced to accuse themselves. Christ owns it was fit the prisoner should be prosecuted, but appeals to their consciences whether they were fit to be the prosecutors.

a. He here refers to that rule which the law of Moses prescribed in the execution of criminals, that the hand of the witnesses must be first upon them (Deu 17:7), as in the stoning of Stephen, Act 7:58. The scribes and Pharisees were the witnesses against this woman. Now Christ puts it to them whether, according to their own law, they would dare to be the executioners. Durst they take away that life with their hands which they were now taking away with their tongues? would not their own consciences fly in their faces if they did?

b. He builds upon an uncontested maxim in morality, that it is very absurd for men to be zealous in punishing the offences of others, while they are every whit as guilty themselves, and they are not better than self-condemned who judge others, and yet themselves do the same thing: "If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her." Not that magistrates, who are conscious of guilt themselves, should therefore connive at others' guilt. But therefore, (a.) Whenever we find fault with others, we ought to reflect upon ourselves, and to be more severe against sin in ourselves than in others. (b.) We ought to be favourable, though not to the sins, yet to the persons, of those that offend, and to restore them with a spirit of meekness, considering ourselves and our own corrupt nature. Aut sumus, aut fuimus, vel possumus esse quod hic est - We either are, or have been, or may be, what he is. Let this restrain us from throwing stones at our brethren, and proclaiming their faults. Let him that is without sin begin such discourse as this, and then those that are truly humbled for their own sins will blush at it, and be glad to let it drop. (c.) Those that are any way obliged to animadvert upon the faults of others are concerned to look well to themselves, and keep themselves pure (Mat 7:5), Qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. The snuffers of the tabernacle were of pure gold.

c. Perhaps he refers to the trial of the suspected wife by the jealous husband with the waters of jealousy. The man was to bring her to the priest (Num 5:15), as the scribes and Pharisees brought this woman to Christ. Now it was a received opinion among the Jews, and confirmed by experience, that if the husband who brought his wife to that trial had himself been at any time guilty of adultery, Aquae non explorant ejus uxorem - The bitter water had no effect upon the wife. "Come then," saith Christ, "according to your own tradition will I judge you; if you are without sin, stand to the charge, and let the adulteress be executed; but if not, though she be guilty, while you that present her are equally so, according to your own rule she shall be free."

d. In this he attended to the great work which he came into the world about, and that was to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the prisoner to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors too, by showing them their sins. They sought to ensnare him; he sought to convince and convert them. Thus the blood-thirsty hate the upright, but the just seek his soul.

[3.] Having given them this startling word, he left them to consider of it, and again stooped down, and wrote on the ground, Joh 8:8. As when they made their address he seemed to slight their question, so now that he had given them an answer he slighted their resentment of it, not caring what they said to it; nay, they needed not to make any reply; the matter was lodged in their own breasts, let them make the best of it there. Or, he would not seem to wait for an answer, lest they should on a sudden justify themselves, and then think themselves bound in honour to persist in it; but gives them time to pause, and to commune with their own hearts. God saith, I hearkened and heard, Jer 8:6. Some Greek copies here read, He wrote on the ground, enos hekastou autōn tas hamartias - the sins of every one of them; this he could do, for he sets our iniquities before him; and this he will do, for he will set them in order before us too; he seals up our transgressions, Job 14:17. But he does not write men's sins in the sand; no, they are written as with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond (Jer 17:1), never to be forgotten till they are forgiven.

[4.] The scribes and Pharisees were so strangely thunderstruck with the words of Christ that they let fall their persecution of Christ, whom they durst no further tempt, and their prosecution of the woman, whom they durst no longer accuse (Joh 8:9): They went out one by one.

First, Perhaps his writing on the ground frightened them, as the hand-writing on the wall frightened Belshazzar. They concluded he was writing bitter things against them, writing their doom. Happy they who have no reason to be afraid of Christ's writing!

Secondly, What he said frightened them by sending them to their own consciences; he had shown them to themselves, and they were afraid if they should stay till he lifted up himself again his next word would show them to the world, and shame them before men, and therefore they thought it best to withdraw. They went out one by one, that they might go out softly, and not by a noisy flight disturb Christ; they went away by stealth, as people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle, Sa2 19:3. The order of their departure is taken notice of, beginning at the eldest, either because they were most guilty, or first aware of the danger they were in of being put to the blush; and if the eldest quit the field, and retreat ingloriously, no marvel if the younger follow them. Now see here, 1. The force of the word of Christ for the conviction of sinners: They who heard it were convicted by their own consciences. Conscience is God's deputy in the soul, and one word from him will set it on work, Heb 4:12. Those that had been old in adulteries, and long fixed in a proud opinion of themselves, were here, even the oldest of them, startled by the word of Christ; even scribes and Pharisees, who were most conceited of themselves, are by the power of Christ's word made to retire with shame. 2. The folly of sinners under these convictions, which appears in these scribes and Pharisees. (1.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to make it their principal care to avoid shame, as Judah (Gen 38:23), lest we be shamed. Our care should be more to save our souls than to save our credit. Saul evidenced his hypocrisy when he said, I have sinned, yet now honour me, I pray thee. There is no way to get the honour and comfort of penitents, but by taking the shame of penitents. (2.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to contrive how to shift off their convictions, and to get rid of them. The scribes and Pharisees had the wound opened, and now they should have been desirous to have it searched, and then it might have been healed, but this was the thing they dreaded and declined. (3.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to get away from Jesus Christ, as these here did, for he is the only one that can heal the wounds of conscience, and speak peace to us. Those that are convicted by their consciences will be condemned by their Judge, if they be not justified by their Redeemer; and will they then go from him? To whom will they go?

[5.] When the self-conceited prosecutors quitted the field, and fled for the same, the self-condemned prisoner stood her ground, with a resolution to abide by the judgment of our Lord Jesus: Jesus was left alone from the company of the scribes and Pharisees, free from their molestations, and the woman standing in the midst of the assembly that were attending on Christ's preaching, where they set her, Joh 8:3. She did not seek to make her escape, though she had opportunity for it; but her prosecutors had appealed unto Jesus, and to him she would go, on him she would wait for her doom. Note, Those whose cause is brought before our Lord Jesus will never have occasion to remove it into any other court, for he is the refuge of penitents. The law which accuses us, and calls for judgment against us, is by the gospel of Christ made to withdraw; its demands are answered, and its clamours silenced, by the blood of Jesus. Our cause is lodged in the gospel court; we are left with Jesus alone, it is with him only that we have now to deal, for to him all judgment is committed; let us therefore secure our interest in him, and we are made for ever. Let his gospel rule us, and it will infallibly save us.

[6.] Here is the conclusion of the trial, and the issue it was brought to: Jesus lifted up himself, and he saw none but the woman, Joh 8:10, Joh 8:11. Though Christ may seem to take no notice of what is said and done, but leave it to the contending sons of men to deal it out among themselves, yet, when the hour of his judgment is come, he will no longer keep silence. When David had appealed to God, he prayed, Lift up thyself, Psa 7:6, and Psa 94:2. The woman, it is likely, stood trembling at the bar, as one doubtful of the issue. Christ was without sin, and might cast the first stone; but though none more severe than he against sin, for he is infinitely just and holy, none more compassionate than he to sinners, for he is infinitely gracious and merciful, and this poor malefactor finds him so, now that she stands upon her deliverance. Here is the method of courts of judicature observed.

First, The prosecutors are called: Where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? Not but that Christ knew where they were; but he asked, that he might shame them, who declined his judgment, and encourage her who resolved to abide by it. St. Paul's challenge is like this, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? Where are those their accusers? The accuser of the brethren shall be fairly cast out, and all indictments legally and regularly quashed.

Secondly, They do not appear when the question is asked: Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. She speaks respectfully to Christ, calls him Lord, but is silent concerning her prosecutors, says nothing in answer to that question which concerned them, Where are those thine accusers? She does not triumph in their retreat nor insult over them as witnesses against themselves, not against her. If we hope to be forgiven by our Judge, we must forgive our accusers; and if their accusations, how invidious soever, were the happy occasion of awakening our consciences, we may easily forgive them this wrong. But she answered the question which concerned herself, Has no man condemned thee? True penitents find it enough to give an account of themselves to God, and will not undertake to give an account of other people.

Thirdly, The prisoner is therefore discharged: Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. Consider this,

(a.) As her discharge from the temporal punishment: "If they do not condemn thee to be stoned to death, neither do I." Not that Christ came to disarm the magistrate of his sword of justice, nor that it is his will that capital punishments should not be inflicted on malefactors; so far from this, the administration of public justice is established by the gospel, and made subservient to Christ's kingdom: By me kings reign. But Christ would not condemn this woman, (a.) Because it was none of his business; he was no judge nor divider, and therefore would not intermeddle in secular affairs. His kingdom was not of this world. Tractent fabrilia fabri - Let every one act in his own province. (b.) Because she was prosecuted by those that were more guilty than she and could not for shame insist upon their demand of justice against her. The law appointed the hands of the witnesses to be first upon the criminal, and afterwards the hands of all the people, so that if they fly off, and do not condemn her, the prosecution drops. The justice of God, in inflicting temporal judgments, sometimes takes notice of a comparative righteousness, and spares those who are otherwise obnoxious when the punishing of them would gratify those that are worse than they, Deu 32:26, Deu 32:27. But, when Christ dismissed her, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Impunity emboldens malefactors, and therefore those who are guilty, and yet have found means to escape the edge of the law, need to double their watch, lest Satan get advantage; for the fairer the escape was, the fairer the warning was to go and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal should, as Christ here, help to save the soul with this caution.

(b.) As her discharge from the eternal punishment. For Christ to say, I do not condemn thee is, in effect, to say, I do forgive thee; and the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins, and could upon good grounds give this absolution; for as he knew the hardness and impenitent hearts of the prosecutors, and therefore said that which would confound them, so he knew the tenderness and sincere repentance of the prisoner, and therefore said that which would comfort her, as he did to that woman who was a sinner, such a sinner as this, who was likewise looked upon with disdain by a Pharisee (Luk 7:48, Luk 7:50): Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace. So here, Neither do I condemn thee. Note, (a.) Those are truly happy whom Christ doth not condemn, for his discharge is a sufficient answer to all other challenges; they are all coram non judice - before an unauthorized judge. (b.) Christ will not condemn those who, though they have sinned, will go and sin no more, Psa 85:8; Isa 55:7. he will not take the advantage he has against us for our former rebellions, if we will but lay down our arms and return to our allegiance. (c.) Christ's favour to us in the remission of the sins that are past should be a prevailing argument with us to go and sin no more, Rom 6:1, Rom 6:2. Will not Christ condemn thee? Go then and sin no more.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh_8:1

Jesus went to the Mount of Olives

The habits of Jesus

At the close of the day Jesus withdrew to the Mount of Olives, and it is interesting to trace in Him once more that dislike of crowded cities, that love for the pure, sweet, fresh air, and for the quiet of the lonely hill, which we see in all parts of His career.

There was, indeed, in Him nothing of that supercilious sentimentality and morbid egotism which makes men shrink from all contact with their brother men; nor can they who would be His true servants belong to those merely fantastic philanthropists who, as Coleridge says, sigh for wretchedness, yet shun the wretched, nursing in some delicious solitude their dainty loves and slothful sympathies. On the contrary, day after day, while His daytime of work continued, we find Him sacrificing all that was dearest and most elevating to His soul, and in spite of heat and pressure and conflict and weariness, calmly pursuing His labours of love amid the madding crowds ignoble strife. But in the night time, when men cannot work, no call of duty required His presence within the walls of Jerusalem; and those who are familiar with the oppressive foulness of ancient cities can best imagine the relief His spirit must have felt when He could escape from the close streets and thronged bazaars, to cross the ravine, and climb the green slope beyond it, and be alone with His heavenly Father under the starry night. But when the day dawned His duties lay once more within the city walls, and in that part of the city where, almost alone, we hear of His presence in the courts of His Fathers house. And witch the very dawn His enemies contrived a fresh plot against Him, the circumstances of which made their malice more actually painful than it was intentionally perilous. (Archdeacon Farrar.)

Praying must alternate with preaching

Jesus went unto the Mount of Olives. His usual oratory. There He prayed by night, and then early in the morning He came unto the Temple to preach. Thus He divided His time betwixt praying and preaching. So must all that will do good of it (see 1Co_3:6). (J. Trapp.)

Preachers must pray much

Look at Baxter! he stained his study walls with praying breath, and, after he got anointed with the unction of the Holy Ghost, sent a river of living water over Kidderminster, and converted hundreds. Luther and his coadjutors were men of such mighty pleading with God, that they broke the spell of ages, and laid nations subdued at the foot of the cross. John Knox grasped in his strong arms of faith all Scotland: his prayers terrified tyrants. Whitefield, after much holy, faithful closet pleading, went to the devils fair, and took more than a thousand souls out of the paw of the lion in one day. See a praying Wesley turn more than ten thousand souls to the Lord! Look at the praying Finney, whose prayers, faith, sermons, and writings have shaken the half of America, and sent a wave through the British churches. (C. D. Foss.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 8:1-2. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives — Went to lodge there, that he might be out of the reach of his enemies, and that in retirement he might, by secret converse with his heavenly Father, be animated to all the labours and dangers before him. And early in the morning — In order that his retirement might not break in upon the opportunity of public service, which the present concourse of people at Jerusalem afforded him; he came again into the temple — With a view to teach the people, great numbers of whom coming to worship there, before they returned to their respective habitations in the country; (the feast being now ended;) came unto him — Flocked around him, to receive his instructions; and, notwithstanding the late conspiracy which had been formed against him, he sat down and taught them — As freely and as boldly as he had ever done. Such was his compassion for them, and his zeal for the glory of his heavenly Father!

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

A. CHAPTER Joh_8:1-11

[Christ And The Adulteress, And Their Accusers.]

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Discussion of the genuineness of this section.—The difficulty of handling the question of the genuineness of this section, we have already indicated in the Introduction [p. 31]; and we have there indicated also the present state of the question. Four points are to be considered: 1. The authorities. 2. The condition of the text. 3. The historical connection of the occurrence. 4. The connection of the section with what precedes and what follows.

1. “Griesbach and Schultz give a list of more than a hundred manuscripts in which the pericope appears.23 Among them are D. G. H. K. M. U.24 Jerome, in his day, asserts that the pericope appears in many Greek manuscripts,25 and some scholia appeal to ἀρχαῖα ἀντίγραφα,” etc. Lücke. On the contrary, “the majuscules B. C. L. T. do not contain the passage;26 neither do the older manuscripts of the Peshito, nor the Nestorian manuscripts; and it is certain that it was not translated into Syriac till the sixth century. Of the manuscripts of the Philoxenian version, in which it occurs, some have it only on the margin, and others have it in the text with the note that it is not everywhere found. So in most manuscripts of the Coptic version, and in the Arabic version which was based upon the Coptic, we seek it in vain. Of the manuscripts of the Armenian version, some have it not, others have it at the end of the Gospel. In the Sahidic and Gothic versions it is also wanting. Among the fathers, the Greek expositors Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Nonnus, Theophylact, entirely omit the pericope, and seem to know nothing of it. So the Catenæ, both published and unpublished. Euthymius expounds it, as a προσθήκη which is not without use.27 The current mention and use of the pericope in the Latin church begins with Ambrose and Augustine.” Ibid. “Furthermore, several manuscripts in Griesbach contain the passage, but add either the sign of rejection nor of interpolation. Others put the passage at the end of the Gospel; others again, after Joh_7:36, or Joh_8:12; still others place it after Luke 21. It not rarely appears in the manuscripts mutilated.” Ibid.

This position of the authorities presents a great critical problem, which at best makes the section in its present place suspicious; especially when we consider that Origen has not the passage, that Tertullian and Cyprian, when they write on subjects which would bring it in, do not mention it, and that the older manuscripts of the Peshito are without it.

2. The condition of the text. This is the sorest side of the passage. Reading disputes reading. Compare Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf.28 “We have three very different texts,—an unheard-of case in the Gospel of John. Besides the received text, Griesbach gives two others: first the text of Cod. D., secondly one compiled from other manuscripts.” Lücke. This diversity seems unaccountable, unless a traditional apostolic relic (oral or in Hebrew, or preserved in substance with free variations was scattered through different copies before it resulted in this passage.

[To this unusual number of variations must be added the entire diversity from the narrative style of John, which Meyer and Alford regard as the most weighty argument against the passage. Here belong the terms ὄρθρου, πᾶς ὁ λαός, οἱ γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ φαρ., ἑπιμένειν, ἀναμάρτητος, καταλείπεσθαι, κατακρίνειν, which are net otherwise used by John, the absence of his usual οὗν which occurs but once in this passage, while δέ is here found eleven times. Hengstenberg misses also the “mystic twilight” which is characteristic of John’s style. Upon the whole, the style is more like that of the Synoptists. Tischendorf (ed. VIII. p.829) says categorically: “Locum de adultera non ab Johanne scriptum esse cerctissimum est.”—P. S.]

3. The historical connection of this with other occurrences in the Gospel.

A. In this respect many doubts have been raised, which must, of course, be carefully weighed.

(a) That Joh_7:53 refers to Sanhedrists returning to their houses, not to festal pilgrims returning to their homes, is obvious. This, however, yields a very suitable connection. They had expected Christ to be brought before their bar, and now were compelled—to go home disappointed and divided.

(b) The statement in Joh_8:1, that Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. It is thought that this method of securing Himself against the snares of His enemies was not employed by Jesus till the time of the last passover. Yet the fact that this was necessary is here evident enough; for the Sanhedrin was seeking to arrest Him. Lücke’s reasoning (p. 255) overlooks this point.

(c) Joh_8:2 : “All the people came unto Him.” Even if the great day of the feast, on which Jesus made His last appearance, was the eighth, there would be nothing to prevent all the people who did not immediately leave Jerusalem, from assembling the next day in the temple.

(d) The Scribes, γραμματεῖς, who do not elsewhere appear in John, are strange here.29 Their appearance here, however, is in keeping with the immediately succeeding fact that a question of the law comes up; the strangeness of it is not decisive. Other differences of expression are less important (see Lücke, p. 257).

(e) It seems not clear whether the Scribes appear as witnesses, or as accusers, or as judges. Plainly as accusers, or as judges who would refer their decision, in irony, to the tribunal of Jesus; not as zealots, according to Wetstein.

(f) There is no mention of the adulterer (Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22; Deu_22:24). This signifies nothing at all.

(g) According to the Rabbins the legal punishment of adultery was strangulation (Lücke, p. 259). On this point Michaelis has justly denied the authority of the Talmud, and has asserted, on a comparison of Exo_31:14; Exo_35:2 with Num_15:32-35, that the formula put to death, generally means stoned. Besides, strangulation is frequently used first only as an alleviation of the prescribed penalty, as in the burning in the middle ages.

(h) But what temptation was there in the question? Chiefly the fact that Jesus had not yet officially declared Himself Messiah, while He nevertheless was largely acknowledged as such among the people, and seemed Himself to give occasion for such recognition. The procedure with the adulteress was, therefore, in its very form, a temptation to Him to declare Himself concerning His authority (with reference to Moses). Then in the matter of the case lay a further temptation, to wit, in the conflict between the so-called commandment of the law on the one hand, and the prevailing milder practice and the known gentleness of Christ on the other. To this question, however, we must return.

B. But now the apparently strange features are offset by a number, which speak for the genuineness of the narrative.

(a) The feast of tabernacles was pre-eminently a joyous popular feast of the Jews; it was celebrated in the good time of the year; such a sin as the one here narrated, might easily occur.

(b) The writing of Jesus on the ground is so peculiar a feature, that it would hardly have been fabricated.

(c) The same may be said of His challenge; “He that is without sin among you,” etc., and of His closing word to the woman.

[(d) the peculiarity of the whole incident, as presenting to the Lord a case of actual sin on its direct merits, is in its favor. Such an incident might be said to meet a want, or at least to fill a place of its own, in the gospel history. And if such an incident occurred at all, John would be the Evangelist most likely to notice and record it; since he is the one to record the somewhat kindred issue raised by the disciples over the man born blind, chap. 9. With so many cases of actual human misery, and of general sinfulness, brought before the Lord for His treatment, “whether in pretence or in truth,” and with various hypothetical cases of conscience put to Him, it would seem suitable that we should have one case of actual and flagrant crime.—E. D. Y.]

Nothing, therefore, can be adduced against the details of the story or its connection with other facts of the Gospels; it is even a question, whether there are not special data in its favor.

4. As to the connection of the section with the preceding and following portions of the Gospel: It is clear that the story of the adulteress in this place not only introduces no disturbance, but even serves to elucidate the discourse of Christ in Joh_8:12 sqq. The woman had walked in darkness; her judges had admitted that they found themselves in darkness in regard to the disposal of this case; but for the very purpose of making an assault of the power of darkness upon the Lord with their captious question. This connection does not exclude a further reference to the temple-lights and the torch-light festivities in the celebration of the feast of tabernacles.

One of the principal questions is the question of internal criticism: Is it conceivable that the Jewish rulers would so early make a captious attack upon the Lord by an ironical concession of His Messiahship? We must here, in the first place, remember that the enemies of Jesus at the last passover made a whole round, a very storm, of such assaults upon Jesus (Leben Jesu, II. 3, p. 1218). The situation there was this: They first endeavored, by their authority, to confound Him before the people in the temple-enclosure with the question, by what power He thus appeared; but He baffled them with counter-questions. He maintained His position before the people, and seemed unimpeachable; while they were impotent. Then they had recourse to craft; they ironically assumed that He was the Messiah, in order to catch Him in entangling questions. It is now asked, Is it conceivable, that they had already attempted this trick before? In the Synoptical Gospels there could be no mention of this, because they relate only the last attendance of Jesus at a feast. But in John we should expect earlier attacks of the same sort to be mentioned, if any had occurred. A decisive preliminary question, however, is this: How came the Jewish rulers to their diabolical irony and the ensnaring questions which proceeded from it? The history answers: by the sense of impotence which came with the perception that with force and authority they accomplished nothing.

This condition already existed here at the feast of tabernacles, when even the officers who had been sent to take Jesus, returned paralyzed by His word and unsuccessful, and when a division began to appear even in the Sanhedrin itself. The impotent embarrassment of force was there, and with it the devilish counsel of craft.

Accordingly this maneuvre was thrice repeated; first at the feast of tabernacles as recorded in this section; then at the feast of dedication in the winter, as recorded in Joh_10:24; finally at the last passover, when these tempting proposals became so thick, that, we may well infer the rulers of the Jews had accustomed themselves to it by former practice. Of course in this first instance their assumption of His Messiahship is very equivocal; it does not reach the full measure of its insolence till the last passover.

But the same condition of things which brought the rulers of the Jews to this stratagem—that is, the previous failure of their forcible attempt,—led Jesus, for the purpose of security, to withdraw for the night to the mount of Olives. He would therefore be here just in the right place according to Joh_8:1.

That the gospel history thus gains much in lifelike development, connected progress, is palpable. And at the same time the exhibition of the Jewish feasts in their religious and moral degeneracy becomes more complete. We have already observed that, in the view of John, the tragic dissolution of Judaism in the gradual completion of the murderous design of the Jews against Christ at their successive feasts. This is the one side; the other is the religious and moral decay of the people themselves, which comes to light at the great feasts. At the passover, the great passover of the Jews, this decay manifests itself in the transfer of the whole traffic in sacrificial animals and money into the temple itself, chap. 2. At the feast of Purim, the feast of brotherhood and deliverance, it shows itself in the leaving of the sick without attendance, help, or sympathy in their Bethesda, chap. 5. The feast of tabernacles, the great feast of popular thanksgiving and joy, appears defiled by licentiousness, scenes of adultery, and partizan, temporizing policy among the Pharisees (who here let the guilty man run free), chap. 8, while the blind brother is left to beggary and Pharisaic alms, chap. 9, against the law of Deu_15:4. The feast of dedication, Joh_10:22, seems not distinguished by any similar mark of corruption, unless it is symbolical that the storm of winter blows through Spirit-forsaken halls which the Spirit of Christ alone still quickens, and that the multitude of the people, who at other times always gathered to protect the Lord, have fled before wind and weather, so that the Jews can suddenly surround Him, and at last propose to bury him under a heap of stones in the middle of the very court of the temple.

Internal evidence, therefore, speaks decidedly for this, as the proper place for the section in hand. If the alternative is, either that the tradition of the early church for definite reasons partially overlooked and then dropped this section, or that it inserted the passage here as an ancient relic of Ephesian tradition from John,—the former theory is not more difficult than the latter. Indeed the prevalence of the ascetic spirit in the church might almost make the omission of a larger section of this character more probable than insertion. We observe a late interpolation of a few words in 1Jn_5:7-8. We consider the passage, 2Pe_1:20 to 2Pe_3:2, an interpolation, but entirely taken in substance from the Epistle of Jude (Apostol. Zeitalter, I., p. 155). On the other hand, the conclusion of Mark, Joh_16:9, seems to afford an example of omission rather than of interpolation. Now it is easy to imagine that the centuries of ascetic austerity, from the end of the second century to the end of the fourth, might scruple to read in public this passage, in which the guilt of adultery seemed to be so leniently dealt with.

We must, therefore, by all means consider any words of the fathers which speak of such a scruple. Ambrose: Profecto si quis ea auribus otiosis accipiat, erroris incentivum erroris incurrit [quum legit … adulteræ absolutionem, Lubrica igitur ad lapsum via] (Apol. Davidis posterior, chap. 1). Augustine: Hoc infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicæ vel potius inimici veræ fidei, credo, metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud quod de adulteræ indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit, qui dixit: “Deinceps noli peccare” (De adulterinis conjugiis, II. 7). Nicon [from the 10th century in Coteler. Patr. Apost., I. 238]: The Armenians expunged the pericope from their version: βλαβερὰν εἷναι λέγοντες τοῖς πολλοῖς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀκρόασιν (see Lücke, p. 249). Augustine’s declaration we have only to change from one of pastoral animadversion to one of historical criticism. The scruple was begotten not of the interested unbelief of some individual husbands, but of the ascetic, weak faith of a legalistic age. (Against this Lucke, p. 248 and 252, can bring nothing that amounts to more than assertion.)30

It may be supposed that the disuse of the passage passed through different stages. 1. The narrative stood in its place, but was left standing and passed over in the public readings, or in discussions of the question of marriage. The ascetic Tertullian could form a very suitable predecessor to Cyprian in such a step, and Origen an equally suitable predecessor to others. 2. Next, perhaps, the pericope began to undergo improvement by other readings (e. g., Cod. D, ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ instead of ἐν μοιχείᾳ), and especially abbreviation. 3. Some transcribers then went further, and transferred the pericope to the end of the Gospel as an appendix. 4. This led to the last stage of entire omission. But now the codices which had kept the pericope reacted. The passage came to be inserted again in various places, either where we have it now, or after Joh_7:36, or after Joh_8:12, or, with the view of combining this temptation with those of the last passover, after Luke 21. In this process some accepted it with a mark of addition or even of rejection. From this twofold procedure the critical confusion in regard to this section resulted.

In any case the passage is an apostolic relic.31

But another thing in favor of the genuineness of it is the πάλιν οὖν αὐτοῖς ἐλάλησεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Joh_8:12, and the εἶπεν οὖν πάλιν αὐτοῖς, Joh_8:21. The words in Joh_8:21 literally refer to the words of Joh_7:34. It is harder to see the reference of the first πάλιν, if we have to take in the idea; “I am the light of the world,” The Lord, however, already implied this to them in Joh_5:35-36 sqq. John was a light, and yet only a witness to Christ who was appointed for their deliverance, Joh_8:40. Apart from this, the terms of Joh_8:12 : “Then spake Jesus again unto them,”—must be taken absolutely, meaning simply that He addressed them again. In other words: by their attack upon His life they had, in all reason, already brought His intercourse with them to a close. But then, Joh_8:1-11, they had apparently relented, and though He knew that their question was put to Him in malicious hypocrisy, yet He let it pass in the official form which it assumed before the people. He was committed to the people, after this recognition of the rulers, to resume intercourse with them; but that He might soon say to them once more, that He shall forsake them and give them up. Thus the two occurrences of πάλιν in chap. 8 form, in our view, a distinct demand for the section concerning the adulteress.

As to the opponents, as well as the advocates, of the genuineness of this passage, compare Lücke, p. 243, and Meyer [p. 320–323, 5th ed.].

Joh_8:1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.—This retirement for the night to the mount of Olives (Gethsemane or Bethany) was caused by the direct demonstration of the Sanhedrin against the freedom and life of Jesus. At the same time it forms a significant counterpart to the words: “Every man went unto his own house.” To them everything, meantime, remained in the old way; but not to Him, for He saw further. During His last residence in Jerusalem this method of spending the night in the mount of Olives appears as a fixed rule, Luk_21:37.

Joh_8:2. And early in the morning.—Ὄρθρου. John writes elsewhere πρωί̈ (Joh_18:28; Joh_20:1; πρωί̈α, Joh_21:4), Luke, on the contrary, ὄρθρου. It is to be observed here, however, that the term ὅρθρου denotes more precisely the dawn of morning, and that it is intended to denote just this time. And all the people.—Πᾶς ὁ λαός. If John elsewhere prefers ὁ ὄχλος, the multitude, or οἱ ὄχλοι, the multitudes, we must consider that He here intends to signalize the gathering of the whole remaining mass of festal pilgrims to Jesus in the temple. The same may be said respecting the καθίσας ἐδίδασκ. αὐτ. [which is not used by John]; He again set Himself right down among them, as if He wished to begin again, after He had provisionally foiled the attack of the Sanhedrists. That the γραμματεῖς, the scribes, are here named, though not elsewhere, arises from the fact that a question of scriptural law comes up in the sequel. And the frequently recurring δέ, too, instead of the Johannean οὗν, has an internal reason in the great series of unexpected incidents which here begins. That Jesus goes to the mount of Olives, is accounted for by the beginning of the hostile machinations, Joh_8:1. That He returns to the temple in spite of the persecution (Joh_8:2), is due to the fact that the scribes and Pharisees now make as if they would acknowledge Him (Joh_8:3), though they mean only to tempt Him, Joh_8:6. The like may be said of most, of the subsequent occurrences thus introduced. Only the great accumulation of the δέ seems certainly strange; but in these unusual turns there was less occasion for an οὖν.

Joh_8:3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him, etc.—Certainly not as a distinct act of zealotry (Wetstein); nor as a formal deputation of the Sanhedrin. Probably it is the committee of a particular synagogue-court, with which on the one hand the zealots who had taken the woman in her crime, leagued themselves as witnesses, and which, on the other hand, acts in concert with the Sanhedrin. The case was just now brought before a Jewish court; it is thought well fitted to be made a trap for the Lord, by an ironical concession, for reasons above-mentioned, that He is the one to decide it. The party cannot be described as “not official” (Meyer), because in that case it could not have deferred its judgment to the Lord. As the death-penalty was involved, the Sanhedrin must have been in concert.

Joh_8:5. Taken in the very act.—Ἐπαυτοφώρῳ, i.e., ἔπὶ [ἐπ’] αὐτοφώρῳ, in ipso furto.32 “The man, who was likewise liable to death (Lev_20:10; Deu_22:24), might have escaped.” Meyer. Though stoning, according to Deu_22:23-24, was ordered for the particular case in which a betrothed bride yielded herself to unchastity (because she was regarded as already the wife of her spouse), it does not follow that this guilty woman must have been a betrothed bride (Meyer), since in the passage referred to the death-penalty uniformly appointed for adulteresses (Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22) seems only to be more particularly described (Michaelis, Tholuck, Ewald, and others). The sentence of the Talmud: Filia Israelitæ si adultera, cum hupta, strangulanda, cum desponsata, lapidanda, on the one hand cannot be decisive for that period, on the other may only mean a modification of the general penalty of stoning for a nupta.

Joh_8:6. Tempting him.—That this means a malicious temptation, not innocent questioning (Olshausen), the clear sense of the term in other places proves. But wherein consisted the precarious alternative, which was to entangle Him? Interpretations: 1. The antagonism between the Roman criminal law, which did not punish adultery with death, and the law of Moses. Their expectation was that He would declare Himself for Moses against the Roman law, and then they would accuse Him to the Romans. Hence the σὺ οὗν τί λέγεις, Joh_8:5. A plan, therefore, similar to that of the question about tribute-money, Matthew 22 (Schulthess, Meyer). It is nothing against this, as Lücke thinks, that the criminal law of the Romans in the provinces did not override the peculiar customs or ordinances of the respective peoples. But this interpretation is, no doubt, opposed by the fact that a declaration of the woman’s being worthy of death might be joined with a reference of the plaintiffs to the legal court, besides the fact that they would either have to execute the penalty themselves, or, as informers against Jesus, openly violate the precept of Moses.

2. The issue lay between the traditional tribunal of the people and the supposed new tribunal of the Messiah: the question being, whether Jesus would leave the decision to the ordinary course, or would at once take it upon Himself. Undoubtedly this was a leading point in the temptation; this gave the temptation its form (see above); but it was not the whole of it (Baumgarten-Crusius, et al.).

3. The alternative was the old, strict letter of the law, and the looser popular practice which had gained prevalence, which no longer visited adultery with death; hence the question of a judicial process or none at all (Ebrard). But with this alternative in full view their question would have condemned themselves. The popular practice had a sort of indulgent tradition on its side.

4. The alternative was the Mosaic law literally applied and the known gentleness of Christ. A negative answer would appear, therefore, as in contradiction with Moses; an affirmative answer, as in contradiction with Himself (Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, and others). A modification of this view is, that they certainly expected the lenient decision, in order to charge Him with opposition to Moses (Euthymius, Bengel, Neander, et al.). This modification increases the tangling dilemma. But this was not simply an issue between the rigor of Moses and the mildness of Christ; it had reference to the old legislation of Moses and the new reformation of the law by Christ as opposed to the traditional practice of the Jews. If He had simply affirmed the Mosaic letter, He would have invaded the rabbinical tradition and practice, the existing order of things, the popular opinion and feeling concerning Himself; they would have turned the tradition against Him. If He had affirmed the popular practice, they would have turned the letter of Scripture against Him. But they wished above all things to find out whether He would venture, with Messianic authority, to lay clown a new law. On another interpretation, by Dick (Stud. und Krit., 1832), and Baur’s view, see Meyer.

And with his finger wrote33 on the ground.34—Some manuscripts, such as E. K., add μὴ προσποιούμενος [dissimulans], others καὶ προσποιούμενος [simulans]; that is, according to Lücke, in the one case: not merely feigning; in the other: only feigning. Manifestly exegetical additions. According to the correct interpretation of Euthymius Zigabenus, the whole act of stooping down and writing on the ground was symbolical, and was meant to express inattention to the questioners before Him. Lücke: “This gesture was familiar to antiquity as a representation of deep musing, perplexity or languor of mind;” see the examples in Lücke, p. 269, note 1, where Wetstein also is quoted. It is, therefore, contrary to the spirit of the text to ask what Jesus might have written (Michaelis: the answer: “As it is written” Bede: the sentence in Joh_8:7; conjectures in Wolf and Lampe).35

If we ask, why Jesus does not here enter upon the question, as He did in like cases at the last passover,—it is not enough to answer, that He would not interfere in civil matters (Matthew 22; Luk_12:13 sq., Meyer), or that He would intimate that the question was too malicious to deserve an answer (Luthardt). We have rather to consider that He has not yet received His distinct introduction as Messiah in Jerusalem by the public hosanna, and now abstains from any official offer of Himself as Messiah, and indeed intends not to appear at all as Messiah, according to their idea. Therefore, as this matter is still in suspense, He also leaves His position towards their question in suspense; He neither rejects nor accepts it. But He certainly does already assume the expression of a calm majesty which is not pleased to have its leisure and recreation intruded upon with a street scandal. If they really take Him for the Messiah, they must consent to this.

Joh_8:7. He that is without sin among you, etc.36—The test just named, they stand. They continue in their questioning. Hence He now gives them the New Testament decision, “Without sin.” As ἀναμάρτητος, sinless, occurs only this once in the New Testament (though frequently in classic usage), it cannot be made into an inconsistency with the style of John. How is the word “without sin,” to be understood?

1. Erasmus, Zuingle, Calvin, Baur, Hase [Owen] make it absolute sinlessness. Hase therefore thinks that the answer is a proof of the apocryphal nature of the section; so do Paulus and Baur, since the demand that only sinless men alone should act as judges and pronounce sentence, is utterly inadmissible.

2. Meyer [p. 330], after Lücke: “Whether He means freedom from the possibility of fault (of error or of sin), like Plato in Pol. I., p. 339 B., or freedom from actual fault [comp. γυνὴ ἀναμάρτητος Herod. v. 39]; and likewise, whether He means this latter in general (2Ma_8:4), or in respect to a particular category or species of sin (2Ma_12:42; Deu_29:19), is to be decided solely by the context. And here freedom from sin must be understood, not indeed of adultery specifically, because Jesus could not presume this of the whole hierarchy even in view of all their moral corruption; but of unchastity, because one guilty of this stands in question and before the eyes of all as an actual opposite of ἀναμάρτητος [sinless one]. Compare ἁμαρτωλός, Luk_7:37. Ἁμαρτάνειν, Jacobs’ ad Anthol. X., p.111; and in Joh_5:14, in μηκέτι ἁμάρτατε, a specific sort of sinning is meant; and the same injunction given in Joh_8:11 to the adulteress, is the authentic commentary on this ἀναμάρτητος.” So De Wette also, and Tholuck [and Alford]. Yet Lücke (and De Wette likewise) takes in addition the moral point of view: Jesus would not trench upon the office of civil justice; He looked at the case solely in its moral aspect and with reference to the βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (Luther: “Therefore we have preaching in the kingdom of Christ, and when this preaching comes, it supersedes swords, judge, and all”).

The question is: In what relation did Christ place Christian morality to the theocratic civil law of Moses? And here it must be remembered that, with the Pharisees, the idea of being a sinner, and of being without sin, had reference to the law. Publicans and sinners are such as are fallen under Levitical discipline, liable to excommunication. But now the Levitical discipline was, according to the spirit of the law, so ideal that, strictly taken, it made every one necessarily unclean (see Hag_2:12 sqq.; our Comm. on Matt. chap. 3). And this is most especially true with regard to sexual impurities and offences. The law, therefore, in its full ideal consistency, could not be carried out; and the mitigations of it in practice partook not only, on the one hand, of laxity, but, on the other, of moral earnestness, which must scorn to apply the law with hypocritical rigor in particular cases, when it could not apply it consistently in all. (Luther and Zwingle had scruples about the discipline of church law in similar consistency.) Christ, therefore, by His word, approves the prevalent leniency, but at the same time leads His hearers back to the principle of the ideal stringency.

His expression means, in the first place: Whosoever among you knows himself to be Levitically clean, particularly in respect of sexual defilements and unchastity, let him begin the execution of the penalty upon the woman. It presumes that no one will venture to proceed, and the conscience of the accusers must sanction this judgment. Then, secondly, in this actual impossibility of restoring the Mosaic rigorism is couched the deeper moral principle, that, in the Christian point of view, any condemnation of a guilty person by a host of accusers and judges who deem themselves guiltless, must be abandoned. For it must be considered that the legal condemnation presupposed this guiltlessness; and, at the same time that theocratic penalty of death stood for damnation (the cutting off of its soul from its people). Christ could no longer recognize either the innocence of those supposed to be clean, nor the liability of the culprit to damnation (which in fact the Mosaic system had only aimed to exhibit symbolically). The Old Testament had now unfolded itself into the New, which laid down on the one hand, the liability of all, even of human judges, to damnation, and on the other hand, the capacity of all even of the fallen, for salvation.

This, however, in the third place, does not supersede human acquittal and condemnation; it only shows that they must proceed upon a new basis (sympathy of the sentence with the sinner) and caution against hasty and over-stringent judgment). How, far, then, this principle should allow the civil punishment of seduced or infatuated women, Christ leaves to the future, but intimates that, on the part of severity, stringency and pride, there is a motive equally ready to hold the culprit to punishment. It was itself a death-penalty, that the adulteress was socially outlawed and condemned.

It must further be considered how singularly Christ distributes His decision between Himself and the appellants or Jewish court. He states the principle, that is the vital idea of the law; but they are left to apply it according to their best knowledge and conscience: First judge themselves, then others.

Let him be the first to cast a stone at her [not the first stone; βαλέτω, not only permission, but command].—According to Deu_17:7, the witnesses were to cast the first stone. But here the first one means him who will have the courage to condemn as being himself innocent.—According to the Rabbins the first blow struck the breast, often with fatal effect.

Joh_8:8. And again he stooped down.—The Prophet, the Messiah, had solved His problem and returned to His rest, and represented His leisure in symbolical recreation, that they may understand that it now rests with them to act, that is, in the first place to condemn themselves. He is discharged of the matter. And as He has previously not looked nor glanced at the woman in her conscience of guilt, so He now does the same with them. Jerome: He would give them room to make their escape. [Inconsistent with Joh_8:6.]

Joh_8:9. [They went out, ἐξήρχοντο, descriptive imperfect.—One by one, εἷς καθ’ εἷς, or εἶς καθεῖς (instead of καθ’ ἕνα). A later Greek formula.—The preposition is here adverbial. Comp. Mar_14:19; Rom_12:5; Act_21:21; the Hebrew לְאַחַד אֶחָד, and Winer, p. 234.—P. S.].—Being convicted by their own conscience.—Tholuck: “It is historically attested, that at that time many prominent Rabbins were living in adultery.” Wagenseil on the Sota, p. 525. And some of them must have feared that when He should lift up Himself again, they might hear something further, which would be still less pleasant (Musculus).

Beginning at the eldest.37—Fritzsche and others construe so as to make ἀρξάμ. ἀπὸ τ. πρεσβυτέρ. substantially a parenthesis; the main statement being, that they went out even to the last; this being more particularly described by the parenthesis; the eldest made the beginning. Winer and Tholuck: They went out, the eldest leading off; and the ἕως τ. ἐσχ. is a breviloquent addition. The former interpretation seems clearer; and in many manuscripts this last addition is wanting. The eldest went out first, partly because of a guilty conscience, partly because they were the more shrewd. Is not πρεσβύτεροι here an official name? This is at least probable, because the group is a judicial one; hence Lücke, De Wette and others take it of rank. Meyer (and Tholuck, 7th ed.), on the contrary: This is not yielded by the contrast; there would then be no proper antithesis; it is a phrase: from the first to the last. But from the oldest to the last is no antithesis. On the contrary, a sufficiently clear antithesis is: from the elders (of the synagogue) to the last, i.e. the servants, 1Co_4:9. The expression: to the last, might, however, have been afterwards added, to destroy the definiteness of the term elders, which perhaps might have given the section a wrong and offensive bearing in the Christian congregations.

[“They went out—what else could they do? Not stop there, with the people gazing alternately at them, and at the finger moving to and fro on the ground! They retreat, but observe how orderly they do it. The Evangelist is careful to inform us that they ‘went out, one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last.’ Perhaps they hung back for a moment, no one disposed to go first, lest he should thereby seem to betray himself the greatest sinner in the lot. So, to avoid suspicion, they will depart in the order of age. As well-bred men, they give precedence to seniority, the younger bowing out the elder.—‘Not before you, sir, reverend Doctor—Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Jehudi,’ etc. They leave; the people staring after them: their long robes and broad phylacteries not quite so imposing as when they came in. They are gone. The court has adjourned. There has been an adjudication, not precisely that for which the court was called. There has been a conviction not of the accused, but of the accusers, and they, self-convicted, not daring to look the Judge in the face, who could see them through and through.”—From a sermon of Dr. Mühlenberg on the Woman and her Accusers. N. Y., 1867.—P. S.]

Left alone, and the woman.—Only the band of accusers had gotten away; the disciples and the people who were looking on could remain. But that the woman remained standing as if bound, and did not withdraw, seems to show what an impression Jesus made upon her conscience. She stood, as if bound to His judgment-seat.

Joh_8:10. Hath no man condemned thee?—The οὐδείς is emphatic; but so is the condemn, κατακρίνω [not found elsewhere in John]. It denotes the sententia damnatoria of theocratic judgment, a sentence of death considered at the same time as a religious reprobation. Meyer remarks that since these people came asking advice, the vote of each one is the only thing intended. But in asking advice they wished to refer to the Lord a judicial sentence, which He referred back to them, and this is therefore the thing in question. Hence it is neither, on the one hand, the actual “stoning” (Wolf) which is meant, nor on the other hand a mere moral condemnation (Tholuck), nor any dismissal of the reference (Meyer).38 The people had left the decision to Him, though in irony; and they did the same again, when He in a conditional way cast the decision back upon them. When He now says: if they have desisted from their condemnation, I also condemn thee not,—unquestionably He means this in the New Testament sense, as in Joh_3:17; Mat_18:11. But in this case her acquittal is included in His decision, so far as He interprets the tacit practical verdict of her accusers. This is proved by His next words. This withholding of moral condemnation is, however, no withholding of moral judgment. Augustine (Tract. xxxiii.): Quid est Domine? faves ergo peccatis? Non plane ita. Attende, quod sequitur: ‘vade, deinceps jam noli peccare.’ Ergo et Dominus damnavit, sed peccatum, non hominem” [Ambrose: Emendavit ream, non crimen absolvit.—P. S.]

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. See the exegesis particularly on Joh_8:1-2; Joh_8:6-7, etc.

2. If the section of the adulteress can be restored to the credit of genuineness, it materially enriches the history of the life of Jesus. A systematic view of the progress of the persecution of Jesus by the Sanhedrin commends the theory of its genuineness according to the rules of internal criticism. It would be natural, that the temptation of Jesus which proceeded upon the ironical assumption that He was the Messiah, should form a series and climax. And the conduct of Jesus perfectly accords with the existing state of the Messianic question, on account of His official position towards the question whether He was the Messiah.

3. The conduct of Christ in this situation exhibits majestic elevation, calmness, prudence, wisdom, and boldness.

4. The only mention of Jesus’ writing; and that in the sand of the earth, no one knows what. His usual form of writing was a writing of the law of the Spirit in hearts with the flame of His word.

5. He that is without sin among you: (1) Acknowledgment of the Mosaic law in their view. Stone her if you please; she has deserved death according to the law of Moses. (2) Assertion of His New Testament ground. But first judge yourselves. Stone her not till one without sin be found who may begin the stoning. (3) Indication of the relation between the Old Testament and New Testament points of view. Christ declares the principle and spirit of the law of Moses. Then they may act according to their best knowledge and conscience. It must not be forgotten that the death penalty according to the letter of the Jewish law was at the same time a reprobation.

The Roman church considers Christ a second Moses, a new law-giver; and according to her He must have given a stricter law of marriage. But with a properly religious legislation a ministry of death also is connected (2 Corinthians 3). And of those who in this view insist on remaining under the law, the words of the apostle in Gal_3:10 hold good.

6. On the other hand, here in the group of accusers and judges are fulfilled the words of 1Pe_4:17 : “The time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God.”

7. Christ can transform the tribunal of the legalists into an asylum of criminals, into a means of repentance and of the call of grace.

8. The New Testament gentleness the source of a New Testament severity in questions of moral conduct.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The retirement of Christ to the Mount of Olives outside the city of Jerusalem, an example for the persecuted company of believers.—The first temptation of Christ by a show of recognition on the part of the rulers of the Jews.—This temptation compared with the other (subsequent) ones.—The adulteress: or, a life-like and warning scene from the joyous ecclesiastical and popular festivals of Israel.—The law of marriage a favorite question of the Pharisees.—Conjugal infidelities a measure of the spiritual decay of popular life.—The diabolical craft, which would make the show of a holy zeal for the law a snare for the Lord.—Analysis of the temptation: (1) Crafty plotting. Apparent homage was to impose upon them all. (2) Malicious assault they aim not at the execution of the woman, but at the execution of the Lord. (3) Heartless, cruel procedure. The woman, in a form of judicial process no longer practised, was to be sacrificed as a means to an end. (4) Shameless law question. They sought to make either zeal for Moses or an approval of their own tradition and custom a capital charge against the Lord. (5) Unsuspecting blindness. They know not how soon their double judgment against the woman and against the Lord is to be turned into a judgment against themselves. (6) The most headstrong obduracy. Though in their conscience convinced of their unworthiness to condemn the woman they still do not perceive their sin against the Lord.

The conduct of the Lord towards His tempters: 1. Their hypocritical homage to the Messiah He meets with the calm, stately action of Messianic majesty (He stooped down, etc.). 2. Their tempting of His Spirit He meets with the searching of their conscience. 3. Their Pharisaic question concerning the highest grade of punishment He meets with the question of the gospel concerning the innocent Judges 4. Their judgment was to work death and damnation; His judgment aims at deliverance and salvation. 5. They come as accusers and judges, they go as condemned. 6. They intended to destroy a holy one; He rescues a lost sinner.—Or: 1. His silence a condemnation of their craft and excited passion. 2. His stooping and looking down a condemnation of their shameless treatment of the woman’s shame. 3. His writing, a mysterious action, pointing to the wicked mysteries of their life.—Christ and the Pharisees compared as judges of the adulteress: (1) With respect to rigor. Their rigor is an uncharitable delight in the damnation of the sinner after gross outward sins. His rigor delights in salvation, and presses on their conscience with a wholesome condemnation of the Spirit. (2) In respect to gentleness. Their gentleness is carnal laxity which encourages sin. His gentleness is overpowering grace which destroys sin.—Christ is not a new Moses, but the Redeemer from sin by the law of the Spirit.—The position which Christ takes toward civil legislators and judges: (1) He stands distinct from them, in that He makes no civil laws. (2) He stands in connection with them, in that He furnishes them the law of the Spirit, the fundamental principles for their legal administration.—The glorification of the ancient light and law in the new covenant: (1) The perfection of rigor. The perfect knowledge of sins recognizes all as worthy of death and perdition. (2) The perfection of gentleness. The full gracious perception of faith recognizes all as called to the salvation of the children of God. (3) The perfection of administration. The decided life of the Spirit fixes the standard of law and discipline between the perfect rigor and the perfect gentleness.—The judgment of Christ a word of terror for the guilty consciences on both sides: (1) The woman must tremble under the words: “Let him be the first to cast a stone at her.” (2) The accusers under the words: “He that is without sin among you” (i.e. he that is not himself worthy of death).

The guilty woman before the judgment seat of Christ: (1) How she stands bound to the judgment seat, till He has spoken. (2) How she is released with a Saviour’s word: Sin no more.—The Christian spiritual care of released criminals, particularly of penitent fallen ones.—The silence of the woman an intelligible language of penitence to the Lord.—The judgment of the Pharisees in the light and judgment of Christ.

Starke: Nova. Bibl. Tub.: The wickedness of the ungodly knows how to abuse even the law, the punishment of faults, the best and holiest things. Shame, that stupidity and silliness undertake to tempt wisdom itself. It does not become teachers and preachers to try to have one foot in the pulpit and the other in the council chamber.—Hedinger: Thou hypocrite, look into thine own bosom.—Though no magistracy can be without sin it should nevertheless not be chargeable with the sins which it must visit with bodily punishment upon others. Magistrates ought to be honest persons who fear God, Exo_18:21.—Quesnel: Prudence and love require that we should give persons an opportunity to withdraw, without ado and disgrace, from a bad cause, into which their passsion has seduced them.—Zeisius: What a mighty, and in truth irresistible witness is the conscience of man! Thus must they themselves come to shame who seek to put others, especially faithful teachers, to shame; treachery comes home to him that forges it.—Preachers must be no doubt earnest and zealous with great sinners, but not with gross harshness, for this does not improve and edify.—Hedinger: The pulpit should not meddle in secular affairs, and much less should the secular order meddle with spiritual matters.—Canstein: If any one is rescued from the hands of justice, he should be diligently exhorted not to abuse his deliverance, but prove his gratitude to God and men.

Gerlach: The answer of Jesus puts their cunning to shame, without infringing the law, justice, or love.—At the same time His sentence guards the woman against despair by pointing at the sinfulness of all. He does not extenuate the sin of the adulteress; but He hints at inward sin which puts one further from God than gross outward transgressions.—To drive these hypocrites away needs only a word of the Lord which strikes the heart like a hammer that grinds the rock.—Now Jesus could exercise His saving office. He forgives her the sin, etc.—This implies not the slightest disapproval of legal punishments. [But it no doubt does imply a Christian principle for the criticism and reformation of civil punishments].

Braune: Early in the morning, with much watchfulness, Jesus was in the temple, the place where He loved to labor all the day. The thought of His approaching death and the various impressions of His work upon different hearts; it seems as if this doubled His zeal.—The sins which in Christendom also attach to Sundays and feast-days.—The previous evening that session against the Redeemer had been held; then (during the night) this case comes. How natural the thought, that Jesus might be caught by means of it. And now the Pharisees and scribes are in concert, etc.—She says: “Lord;” she feels the majesty of Jesus, and this implies that she certainly condemns herself, Mat_21:31.—Deliverance from the hand of civil justice is not yet deliverance from the almighty hand of the holy God.—Jesus with His meekness showed a greater judicial earnestness than the severest condemnation to death can express.

Heubner: Unto the Mount of Olives. John gives a hint that Jesus is approaching the time of His passion.

Joh_8:3. “But the Scribes and Pharisees” [instead of the Eng. Vers. And], intimates the contrast: these scribes had spent the night in working out new plans against Jesus.—(The woman). To all her shame, to her fear of death which already took hold of her soul, was now added the eye of the pure and Holy One who judged without respect of persons.—It is no good fortune to remain undiscovered in transgressions.—The heavy guilt and shame of adultery are evident from all laws of antiquity against it (and also the evil of that neglect, oppression and improper use of woman, which have been gradually done away with by Christianity alone).—Men may be zealous for the divine law with evil hearts.—Worldlings and hypocrites have a passion for bringing good people into perplexity with entangling questions. But Jesus shows us the way of Christian wisdom to escape the snares of men.—Thunder from a clear sky could not have so terrified the sinners as the word of the Lord, which must have smitten them with the fear that He knew their secret sins.—Cicero Ad Verrem 3. exord.: Vis corruptorem vel adulterum accusare? Providendum diligenter, ne in tua vita vestigium libidinis appareat. Etenim non est ferendus accusator is, qui quod in altero vitium reprehendit, in eo ipso deprehenditur.—The wonderful power of conscience even in hypocrites.—No man, Lord: It sounds like a sigh of anguish, shame and faith.—Christ’s office is not to condemn, but to show mercy and redeem.—We should never uncharitably bring the secret sins of our neighbor into the light.—Despair not of improving those who have fallen very low.—Gossner: He went early to His work; the people came early to hear Him. Early let our souls be given to Him, for He comes early into His temple, the heart.—O poor men, let the stones lie which ye would cast at your fellow-sinners and fellow-pilgrims on this earth.—Besser (after Bengel): Your names are written in the earth, Jer_17:1; Jer_17:13.—(From Luther): They fancy that the stones are looking at them and it seemed long to them before they could find a hole and get to the doors.—The difference between the Pharisees and the woman: They, convicted by their conscience, get away from Jesus; she, convicted by her conscience, stays by Jesus.—The two were left alone: Misery and commiseration (miseria et misericordia, pitiableness and pity), says Augustine.—What malice prompted the Pharisees to do, was made to drive a lost sheep into the arms of the good shepherd.

[Schaff: A suitable text for the Midnight Mission and at the dedication of Magdalene asylums, but to be wisely and cautiously handled. See an excellent sermon on the text by Dr. Muhlenberg, of St. Luke’s Hospital, preached and published in New York, 1867.—The startling contrast: a woman guilty of a most heinous crime and exposed to public ignominy worse than death, confronted with the Purest of the pure, who condemned even an impure look as adultery in germ.—Christ acts here not as an avenging judge, whose duty is to administer the law, but as a merciful Saviour and Sovereign with the privilege of pardoning. So He acted towards the Samaritan woman and Mary Magdalene.—He does not make light of sins against the seventh commandment, but, in His parting word: “Sin no more,” He recognizes the enormity of the woman’s guilt and exhorts her to break off from all sin (not adultery only) at once and forever.—The wisdom of our Saviour in avoiding the snare of the Pharisees and rebuking their conscience, and His tender and holy mercy in dealing with the poor woman.—The heartless cruelty of modern society in turning the seduced adulteress over to perpetual infamy, while winking at the greater crime of the seducing adulterer.—Christ metes out the same truth and justice to great and small, respectable and disreputable alike. “He reverses the judgment of the world which casts the stone of infamy at the ruined and leaves the author of the ruin unharmed.”—Social respectability was the shield of the character of the Pharisees and Scribes, and yet their spiritual pride, hypocrisy and secret unchastities made them more guilty in the eyes of the Lord than the open shame of the poor woman at whom they were ready to cast stones. “The publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you,” Mat_21:31-32.—(From Muhlenberg): The service of the Midnight Mission is to approach fallen women in the spirit of the Saviour, “with the voice of brotherly and sisterly concern; to let them feel that they are not utterly friendless; to address them with unaffected sympathy; to whisper in the ear words of the one true Friend; to be Christ’s missionaries to them by night, like Himself seeking the lost in a benighted world: this is no dark mission, but a mission of blessed light, illumined of heaven, cheered too with the light of penitence and gratitude.”]

Footnotes:

[23][Wordsworth (p. 309) says that it to found in more than 300 cursive MSS—P. S.]

[24][Also E. F. S., but in N. the passage is marked with asterisks in the margin, in S. with obeli. Ten cursive copies put it at the end of John, some insert it at the end of Luke 21—P. S.]

[25][“In multis et Græcis et Latinis codicibus; Adv. Pelag., II. 17. It should also be added that moot of the copies of ties Itala and Vulgata contain the section—P. S.]

[26][To which must be added Cod. Sin. Tiechendorf (I., p. 826) enumerates the following uncial MSS. as witnesses against the section: א.A.B.C. L. T. X. Δ.; but A. and C. are here defective, and L. and Δ. have an empty space, though not sufficient for the whole passage.—P. S.]

[27][Euthymius remarks that the pericope from Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:12 παρα τοῖς ἀκιβέ σιν ἀντιγρά φοις ἠ οὐχ εὕρηται, ἥ ὠβέλισται. Διὸ φαί νονται παρέ γγραπτα καὶ προσθή κη—P. S.]

[28][Also Tregelles, Alford and Wordsworth. Godet (II., 199) says: un sari text apostolique n’ a jamais été exposé à des altérations si considérable.—P. S.]

[29][John names the Pharisees twenty times,—four times in connection with the chief priests, but never with the Scribes as here.—P. S.]

[30][Wordsworth also urges this point, especially the severe discipline of the Eastern church towards adultery. According to Bingham (Antiqu. XVI, chap. 11), S. Basil’s Canons prescribe fifteen years’ penance for adultery, the Council of Ancyra seven years’, the Council of Eliberis (in Spain) five years’ for a single act, and ten if repeated. Webster and Wilkinson: “The views of the fathers of the nature and objects of Christ’s mission, and of the distinction between the covenants of the law and the gospel, were imperfect and limited… If the story appeared improbable, from moral considerations, to expositors of the third and fourth century, it would appear far more so, on the same grounds, to those of the seventh and eighth.”—P. S.]

[31]See Leben Jesu, II., p. 952; Hitzig, Ueber Joh. Mark., p. 208 sqq.; and Meyer’s designation of it as an “apocryphal document” is therefore extremely unbecoming. [In his fifth edition (p. 320), Meyer does not call it so, but rather “ein aus der apostolischen Zeit herrührendes Schriftstück, eine ural’e Reliquie evangelischer Geschichle.”—P. S.]

[32][Also the adjective αὐτόφωρος, caught in the very theft, and generally in the very act.—P. S.]

[33][κατέγραφεν or έγραφεν, a descriptive imperfect, He kept writing.—P. S.]

[34][This minute circumstance Hengstenberg considers as a mark of fiction unworthy of Christ; Meyer, Stier and Alford, correctly as a mark of originality. The hypocritical malignant questioners well deserved this contemptuous treatment. Writing or figuring on the ground may indicate ennui or distraction of mind or embarrassment or deep reflection or intentional indifference to what is going on. The last case is the only one that is applicable to Jesus, and the gesture here has the same meaning as His words, Mat_22:28 : Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? (Comp. also Luk_12:14.) This disregard and rebuke implied in the act itself, is the thing essential, not the words or signs written; else they would have been recorded. It is therefore idle to ask what he wrote on the ground.—P. S.]

[35][Some MSS. add after the word κατέγραφεν (Joh_8:8): the sins of every one of them. Wordsworth: An emblem that the law which He Himself had given, had been written on earthly and stony hearts. Very fanciful. Lightfoot and Besser: the curses written by the priest against unfaithful women, Num_5:17. Augustine and others: reference to Jer_17:13 : “They that depart from me shall be written in the earth.” Wolf and Lampe, like Bede, conjecture that he wrote the sentence in Joh_8:7; Godet: the sentence of the judge which must be written. But Christ evidently did not wish to listen to them or to act as judge, and when asked the second time, He did not answer their question about the woman, but reminded them of their own sins.—P. S.]

[36][Owen remarks on this verse: “This is one of the most profound and searching remarks to be found in the whole gospel. ‘Who are you that you should be so clamorous for the meting out of punishment to this woman? Have you no sins of your own to be repented of? Is it your appropriate task to sit in judgment upon your fellow-men, as though you yourselves were perfect and deputed of God to do this! Look to your own hearts, inspect your own conduct in the light of God’s law (Mat_5:28; Mat_5:32), and be less solicitous in respect to the exact degree or kind of punishment to be meted out to your fellow-men.’ ”—P. S.]

[37][Or as Lange below explains πρεσβύτεροι from the elders, the presbyters of the synagogue.—P. S]

[38][In his fifth edition, p. 332, Meyer says on,οὐδὲ ἐγώ σε κατακρ: “This is not a sentence of forgiveness, like Mat_9:2; Luk_7:48, nor yet mere refusal of jurisdiction,… but a reversal of the condemnation, in the consciousness of His Messianic mission, which was not to condemn, but to seek and to save the lost, Joh_3:17; Joh_12:47; Mat_18:18.”—P. S.]

III

Christ, The Light Of The World, The Real Fulfilment Of The Jewish Torch-Light Festivities, As Against The Pretended Seers, The False Lights, In Israel. The Adulteress, And Christ’s Sentence. His Ideal Appearance At The Court Of The Jews, And The Two Witnesses. The Judges Shall Come Into Judgement. A Twofold Lifting Up Of Christ At Hand. Appearance Of Yielding; Or, A Great Vacillation Towards Faith

(Joh_7:53) Joh_8:1-30

Joh_7:53. And every man went unto his own house. [;]

Joh_8:1 [But]1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives: 2And early in the morning lie came again into the temple, and all the people2 came unto him; and he sat down and taught them.3 3And the Scribes and [the] Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery [or in sin],4 and when they had set her in the midst, 4They say unto him [The priests say unto him, tempting him that they might have to accuse him],5 Master, this woman was taken6 in adultery, in the very Acts 5 Now Moses in the law commanded 6us, that such should be stoned: but what [what then] sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him.7 But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger, wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not [omit as though he 7heard them not]8 So [But] when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast [be the first to cast] a stone at her. 8And again he stooped down, and wrote [with his finger]9 on the ground. 9And they which heard it being convicted by their oivn conscience [And when they heard this, they], went out one by one, beginning at [with] the eldest [or, elders, ὰπὸ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων], even unto the last:10 and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman [omit and saw none but the woman],11 he said unto her, Woman,12 where are those thine accusers? [where are they?]13 hath no man condemned 11thee? [Did no one condemn thee?] She said, No man [no one], Lord. And Jesus [he] said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and [henceforth]14 sin no more.

12Then spake Jesus [Jesus therefore spoke] again unto them [see Joh_7:37 sqq.], saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in [the]15 darkness, but shall have the light of life. 13The Pharisees therefore said unto him, Thou bearest record [witness] of thyself; thy record [witness] is not true. 14Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record [witness] of myself, yet [omit yet] my record [witness] is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go: but ye cannot tell [know not] whence I come, and [or]16 whither I go. 15Ye judge after the flesh, I judge no man. 16And yet if I judge [But even if I myself judge], my 17judgment is true:17 for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. It is also [Moreover, it is] written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am one that bear [he who beareth] witness of myself; and the Father that sent me, beareth witness of me. Then said they [They said therefore] unto him. Where 19is thy Father? Jesus answered, Ye neither know [neither] me, nor my Father: if ye had known me, ye should have known [would know] my Father also.

20These words spake Jesus [he]18 in the treasury, as he taught [while teaching] in the temple: and no man [no one] laid hands on him, for his hour was [had] not yet come.

21Then said Jesus again [Again therefore he said] unto them, I go my way [I go away], and ye shall [will] seek me [in vain], and shall [will] die in your sins [sin]: 22whither I go, ye cannot come. Then [Therefore] said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come. 23And he said to them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above; ye are of this world; I am not of this world. 24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall [will] die in your sins: for if ye believe not 25that I am he, ye shall [will] die in your sins. Then [Therefore] said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning [For the beginning; or, To begin with (I am) that which I even say to you].19 26I have many things to say, and to judge of you [before I fully express myself concerning myself]: but he that sent me, is true; and I speak20 to the 27world those things which I have heard of him [what I heard from him]. They 28understood not that he spake [spoke] to them of the Father. Then [Therefore] said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall [will] ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself, but as my21 Father hath taught me, I speak these things. 29And he that sent me is with me: the Father [he]22 hath not left me alone; for I do always those [the] things that please him.

30As he spake [spoke] these words, many believed on [in] him.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

[The whole section concerning the adulteress, from Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:11, is omitted as spurious, or bracketted as doubtful by the critical editors of the Gr. Test. Hence I have italicized the E. V. to distinguish it from the undisputed text. (The same course should be pursued with Mar_16:9 ff.) Without anticipating the very full and judicious discussion of the genuineness by Dr. Lange in the Exeg. and Chit, below, I shall only state the chief authorities for both opinions, and the conclusion to which I have attained:

1. The section is defended as genuine by Augustine (who comments on it in Tract. xxxiii., and suggests, in another place, De conj. adult., II. 7, that it was thrown out of the text by enemies or weak believers from fear that it might encourage their wives to infidelity), Mill, Whitby, Fabricius, Lampe, Maldonatus, Corn. a Lapide, Bengel, Michaelis, Storr, Kuinoel, Hug (R. C.), Scholz, Klee, Maier (R. C.), Home, Owen, Webster and Wilkinson, Wieseler, Ebrard, Stier, Lange.

2. It is rejected as an interpolation (though not on that account as untrue) by Erasmus, Calvin (?), Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Semler, Paulus, Knapp, Lücke, Tholuck, Olshausen, Bleek, De Wette, Baur, Reuss, Luthardt, Meyer, Ewald, Hengstenberg (who regards it as an apocryphal fiction of some strongly anti-Jewish Christian of the second century), Godet, Wordsworth (?), Scrivener. So also Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, Wescott and Hort.

The prevailing critical evidence, though mostly negative (especially from the Eastern Church), is against the passage, the moral evidence for it; in other words, it seems to be no original part of John’s written Gospel, but the record of an actual event, which probably happened about the time indicated by its position in the 8th chapter. The story could not have been invented, the less so as it runs contrary to the ascetic and legalistic tendency of the ancient church which could not appreciate it.

It is eminently Christ-like and full of comfort to penitent outcasts. It breathes the Saviour’s spirit of holy mercy which condemns the sin and saves the sinner. It is a parallel to the parable of the prodigal, the story of Mary Magdalene and that of the Samaritan woman, and agrees with many express declarations of Christ that He came not to condemn, but to save the lost (Joh_3:17; Joh_12:47; Luk_9:56; Luk_19:10; comp. Joh_5:14; Luk_7:37 ff.). His refusal to act as judge in the case, has a parallel in a similar case related by Luk_12:13-15. The conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees in trying Jesus with ensnaring questions is characteristic and sustained by many examples of the synoptical Gospels. Calvin, who is disposed to reject it, admits that it “contains nothing contrary to the apostolic spirit.” Meyer (p. 321), while disowning its Johannean origin, says: “It entirely agrees with the tone of the Synoptical Gospels, and betrays not the least indication of a dogmatic or ecclesiastical reason which might account for its later invention.” It is moreover so manifestly original, and has so many positive witnesses in its favor, especially in the Western church, that it may be regarded as a genuine relic of the primitive evangelical tradition which was handed down in various recensions, but treated with great caution from fear of abuse in a licentious age, until in the second, certainly in the third, century it found its way into many copies of the Gospel of John. (Comp. Meyer.) Some older critics supposed that it is the same story as that which Papias (perhaps from the mouth of John) related of “a woman taken in many sins” (ἐπὶ πολλαῖς ἁμαρτίαις, not one ἁμαρτία, as in our case), and which was contained in “the Gospel of the Hebrews ”(Euseb. H. E., III. 39); but this Judaizing Gospel would hardly have given currency to a story so strongly anti-Jewish. Alford suggests that John himself may have, in this solitary case, incorporated a portion of the current oral tradition into his narrative; Wordsworth and others, that John delivered the story orally, and that another hand wrote it first on the margin from which it afterwards passed into the text. But these are mere conjectures.

The number of readings is unusually large. There are two main recensions, that of the received text (from which the E. V. is made), that of Cod. D. (Cod. Bezæ) which is somewhat abridged; both are given with the lectiones variantes by Tischendorf, ed. VIII., I. pp. 830–836, and Tregelles, p. 417. To these may be added a third and more lengthy recension of other MSS. differing from those on which the received text is founded (see Griesbach and Wordsworth, p. 309).

For the critical details, the reader is referred to Dr. Lange’s discussion below, Lücke's Com., Vol. II, pp. 243–279; Meyer, pp. 320–323; Tregelles on the Text of the Gr. Test., pp. 236–243; Tischendorf (ed. VIII.), Bloomfield’s Recensio Synoptica, Alford (ed. VI), and Wordsworth.—P. S.]

Footnotes:

[1]Joh_8:1.—[Δέ, unquestioned in the original, does not appear in the English Version.]

[2]Joh_8:2.—Codd. G. S. U., ὄχλος; not decisive against λαός.

[3]Ibid.—[Cod. D. omits the words of the text. rec. καὶκαθί σας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτού ς. Not decisive.]

[4]Joh_8:3.—Cod. D.: ἐπὶ ἁμαρτίᾳ γυναῖκα είλ. [instead of ἐν μοιχεία]. Euphony.

[5]Joh_8:4.—[The insertion is from Cod. D.: λέ γουσιν αὐτῷ ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτὸν οἱ ἱερεῖς, ἵνα ἔχωσιν κατηγορείαν ὐτοῦ The text. rec. omits these words here, but has them in Joh_8:6. Cod. M. has them at the close of Joh_8:11.—P. S.]

[6]Joh_8:6.—[Different readings and spellings: κατειλήφθη (aor. I., with augmentum for κατελή φθη, as εἴληφα stands instead of the unusual λέ ληφα, see Winer, p. 69), κατελήφθη, κατείληπται, εἴληπται, κατειλημμέ νην, καταληφθεῖσαν.—P. S.]

[7]Joh_8:6.—[This clause must be omitted here, if it is inserted with Cod. D. in Joh_8:4.—P. S.]

[8]Ibid.—In e.g. K., μὴ προσποιούμενος is added. In others, καὶ προσπ. Both exegetical.

[9]Joh_8:8.—[The rec. omits here τῷ δακτύλῳ, which Cod. U. supplies. Cod. D. and others have the strange addition: ἑυὸς ἕκάστου αὐτῶν τας ἁμαρτό ας.—P. S.]

[10]Joh_8:9.—e.g. H., etc., omit ἕως τῶν ἐσχάτων; D. and others: ὥστε πά ντας ἐξελθεῖν. [Alford in his version adopts the reading of Cod. D.: “But each of the Jews went out, beginning with the elders, so that all went out.”—P. S.]

[11]Joh_8:10.—Καὶ γυναικό ς (and seeing none but the woman), is wanting in D. M. S.

[12]Ibid.—Ἡ γυνή wanting in D. E. F., etc.

[13]Joh_8:10.—[Ποῦ εἰσιν; So Cod. D., etc. The text. rec. inserts ἐκεῖνοι οἱ κατήγοροί σου.—P. S.]

[14]Joh_8:11.—[The text. rec. reads καί, but Cod. D. ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν which is more forcible.—P. S.]

[15]Joh_8:12.—Instead of περιπατήσει, Lachmann and Tischendorf, after Codd. B. C. K. T. have περιπατήσῃ.

[16]Joh_8:14.—Codd. D. K. T. and many others read ἤ. The καὶ probably comes from the preceding sentence, [Codd. Sin., καὶ.]

[17]Joh_8:16.—B. D. L., etc., ἀληθινή. So Lachmann, Tischendorf [Alford. Cod. Sin. supports here the text. rec., ἀληθής]

[18]Joh_8:20.—The ὁ Ἰησοῦς interpolated after ἐλά λησεν.

[19]Joh_8:25.—[On this difficult passage and its many interpretations, see the Exeg. and Crit. Alford renders τὴν ἀρχὴνὅτι καὶ λαλῶ ὑμῖν. In very deed (or essentially), that which I also speak (discourse) unto you. Noyes: In the first place, I am just that which I speak to you. Am. B. U. (Conant): That which I also say to you from the beginning. Lauge: Fars. Erste das, was ich auch euch sage (sagen mag).—P. S.]

[20]Joh_8:26.—B. D. K., Lachmann, Tischendorf: λαλῶ, instead of λέγω. [Cod. Sin., λαλῶ.]

[21]Joh_8:28.—Μου, an interpolation, according to many authorities [Cod. Sin. among them].

[22]Joh_8:29.—According to B. D. L., etc., ὁ πατήρ should be dropped. [Cod. Sin. has it, but instead of μετ̓ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν• οὐκ ἀφῆκέ με μόνον, reads οὐκ ἀφῆκέ με μόνον• μετ̓ ἐμοῦ ἐστίν.]

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 8

1. The Woman Taken in Adultery. (Joh 8:1-11.)

2. The Light of the World. (Joh 8:12.)

3. His Testimony Concerning Himself and the Father. (Joh 8:13-20.)

4. His Solemn Declarations. (Joh 8:21-47.)

5. Before Abraham Was, I Am. (Joh 8:48-59.)

The first verse belongs to the preceding chapter. The officers returned without Him, bearing their testimony that “never man spake like this man.” Nicodemus ventured his timid defense. Then every man went to his own house while the Lord went to the Mount of Olives.

The story of the woman taken in adultery has been rejected by many leading scholars. It is claimed that it is nothing less than a forgery. The chief arguments against it are the following: That the story is missing in some of the oldest manuscripts and earlier translations; that some of the Greek Fathers never refer to it; that it differs in style from the rest of the Gospel of John, and that the incident ought to be discredited on moral ground. However all these arguments have been proven invalid. Many old manuscripts have the story as well as some of the oldest translations. Others of the so-called church-fathers speak of it. There can be no question whatever of its genuineness. It was omitted on purpose in certain manuscripts. The Grace, which shines forth so marvelously in the Lord’s dealing with the woman, was unpalatable to teachers who mixed Law and Grace. They left it out for a purpose. [“The argument from alleged discrepancies between the style and language of this passage, and the usual style of St. John’s writing, is one which should be received with much caution. We are not dealing with an uninspired but with an inspired writer. Surely it is not too much to say that an inspired writer may occasionally use words and constructions and modes of expression which he generally does not use, and that it is no proof that he did not write a passage because he wrote it in a peculiar way.”]

It was a clever scheme from the side of the Scribes and Pharisees to tempt Him. The Law of Moses demanded her death by stoning. If He gave as an answer, “let her be stoned!” He would contradict His own testimony that He came not to judge, but to save. If He declared that the guilty woman was not to be stoned, then would He break the law. They appealed to Him as teacher, not as judge. He was silent and stooped down and wrote with His finger in the ground. (The words, “as though He heard them not” are in italics and must be omitted.) It is the only time we read of our Lord that He wrote. The finger which wrote in the ground was the same which had written the law in the tables of stone. What He wrote we do not know; but it was symbolical of the fact that the law against man is written in the dust, the dust of death. Not alone had the woman deserved death, but all were equally guilty. After His demand, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,” the oldest in the company left first till the Lord was alone with the guilty woman. He did not set aside the law, and yet He manifested His marvelous Grace. The self-righteous accusers were condemned and sneaked into darkness, away from Him Who is the Light. The woman addressed Him as Lord, showing she believed on Him; and He told her to go and sin no more. The Grace He shows demands holiness.

The scene occurred in the Temple and the words He spoke following this incident were likewise spoken there. A great testimony again follows, which He gives concerning Himself. He is the Light of the world; it is not confined to Israel, but the light is to reach the Gentile nations. This is revealed in the Prophet Isaiah. After Messiah’s complaint, “I have labored in vain,” the rejected One is to be the light to the Gentiles. “I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the ends of the earth.” (Isa 59:1-6.) Then follows an individual promise. He that followeth Him walks not in darkness, but has the light of life. In Him is life as well as light; there is then fellowship with God for the child of life, fellowship one with another if we walk in the light. He then bore additional testimony concerning Himself. He knew where He came from and whither He went. The blind Pharisees did not. And when He spoke of the fellowship of Himself and the Father, they asked, “Where is thy Father?” They were blind and blinded, and knew neither Him nor the Father.

Very solemn are the declarations in Joh 8:21-29. They are as solemn and as true today as when they were uttered by the lips of the Son of God. “I said therefore unto you that ye shall die in your sins; for if ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins.” Rejecting Christ, not believing on Him, means to die in sin. When they ask Him again, “Who art thou?” He answered, “Absolutely what I am also speaking to you.” [The rendering of the Authorized Version is incorrect.] He is the Word, the Truth, the Life, the Light. He is, in the principle of His being, what also He speaks. Essentially, precisely, what He is, He also speaks. The phrase “lifting up” means His crucifixion. (See 3:14 and 12:32.) After that event His vindication would come. He is the “I am.” Many believed on Him. Were they true believers or the same class as we find at the close of the second chapter? Most likely they misunderstood His statement of being lifted up. They may have thought of Him becoming King; they certainly knew nothing of the Cross.

More teaching follows. To be a true disciple means to abide in His Word. By the Word and the Spirit we are begotten, and to live as a disciple needs abiding in His Word. The Son is the Deliverer Who makes free from the power of Satan and of Sin, of which He bears witness.

This interesting chapter ends with a startling self-revelation of His absolute Deity, that He is the Eternal Jehovah. Eleven times the name “Abraham” is found in the eighth chapter of John. At the close the Lord speaks of Abraham having seen His day and rejoiced. He saw it in faith. Then when the Jews expressed their astonishment He answered, “Before Abraham was, I AM!” It is the most positive, the clearest declaration of our Lord of His Eternity, that He is God. He is the “I AM”--Jehovah. Thus this great testimony has always been received. We let a few of the ancient teachers speak:

Chrysostom observes: “He said not before Abraham was, I was, but, I AM. As the Father useth this expression I AM, so also doth Christ, for it signifieth continuous being, irrespective of all time. On which account the expression seemed to the Jews blasphemous.”

Augustine says: “In these words acknowledge the Creator and discern the creature. He that spake was made the Seed of Abraham; and that Abraham might be, He was before Abraham.”

Gregory remarks: “Divinity has no past or future, but always the present; and therefore Jesus does not say before Abraham was I was, but I am.”

The Unitarians try to explain this away by saying, “Jesus only meant that He existed as Messiah in God’s counsels before Abraham.” Astonishing! How do they know what He meant? It is a satanic invention. The Jews knew better. They understood what He meant. They took up stones to stone Him because they knew He claimed absolute Deity. A miracle followed. The Greek means literally “He was hid.” Their eyes must have been holden as He went out of the Temple and passed by.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER 3

THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN

Joh 8:1-11. I merely insert this caption through courtesy to the English reader; but will be excused from the exposition, as this item is entirely absent from the original, having been interpolated in post-apostolic times, as John, in whose gospel it appears in the E. V., is the last writer, and he never wrote it. There is no doubt but it was added by some of the clergy after the Constantinean apostasy as an apology for sin.

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chapter 17

THE WOMAN TAKEN IN ADULTERY.

And they went every man unto his own house: but Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto Him, Master, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such; what then sayest Thou of her? And this they said, tempting Him, that they might have whereof to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. But when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground. And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. And Jesus lifted up Himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee; go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.- Joh_7:53 - Joh_8:1-11.

This paragraph, from chap. Joh_7:53 - Joh_8:1-11 inclusive, is omitted from modern editions of the Greek text on the authority of the best manuscripts. Internal evidence is also decidedly against its admission. The incident may very well have happened, and it bears every appearance of being accurately reported. We are glad to have so characteristic an exposure of the malignity of the Jews, and a view of our Lord which, although from a novel standpoint, is yet quite consistent with other representations of His manner and spirit. But here it is out of place. No piece of literary work is so compact and homogeneous as this Gospel. And an incident such as this, which would be quite in keeping with the matter of the synoptical Gospels, is felt rather to interrupt than to forward the purpose of John to record the most characteristic and important self-manifestations of Christ.

But as the paragraph is here, and has been here from very early times, and as it is good Gospel material, it may be well briefly to indicate its significance.

1. First, it reveals the unscrupulous malignity of the leading citizens, the educated and religious men, the Scribes and Pharisees. They brought to Jesus the guilty woman, tempting Him (Joh_8:6); not because they were deeply grieved or even shocked at her conduct; nay, so little were they impressed with that aspect of the case, that, with a cold-blooded indelicacy which is well-nigh incredible, they actually used her guilt to further their own designs against Jesus. They conceived that by presenting her before Him for judgment, He would be transfixed on one or other horn of the following dilemma: If He said, Let the woman die in accordance with the law of Moses, they would have a fair ground on which they could frame a dangerous accusation against Him, and would inform Pilate that this new King was actually adjudging life and death. If, on the other hand, He bid them let the woman go, then He could be branded before the people as traversing the law of Moses.

Underhand scheming of this kind is of course always to be condemned. Setting traps and digging pitfalls are illegitimate methods even of slaughtering wild animals, and the sportsman disdains them. But he who introduces such methods into human affairs, and makes his business one concatenated plot, does not deserve to be a member of society at all, but should be banished to the unreclaimed wilderness. These men posed as sticklers for the Law, as the immovably orthodox, and yet had not the common indignation at crime which would have saved them from making a handle of this womans guilt. No wonder that their unconscious and brazen depravity should have filled Jesus with wonder and embarrassment, so that for a space He could not utter a word, but could only fix His eyes on the ground.

Making all allowance for the freedom of Oriental manners from some modern refinements, one cannot but feel some surprise that such a scene should be possible on the streets of Jerusalem. It reveals a hardened and insensible condition of public opinion which one is scarcely prepared for. And yet it may well be questioned whether it was a more ominous state of public sentiment than that in the midst of which we are living, when scenes, in character if not in appearance similar to this, are constantly reproduced by our novelists and play-writers, who harp upon this one vile string, professing, like these Pharisees, that they drag such things before the public gaze for the sake of exposing vice and making it hateful, but really because they know that there is a large constituency to whom they can best appeal by what is sensational, and prurient, and immoral, though to the masculine and healthy mind disgusting. Many of our modern writers might take a hint from our German forefathers, who, in their barbarian days, held that some vices were to be punished in public, but others buried quickly in oblivion, and who, therefore, punished crime of this sort by binding it in a wicker crate, and sinking it in a pit of mud out of sight for ever. We certainly cannot congratulate ourselves on our advancement in moral perception so long as we pardon to persons of genius and rank what would be loathed in persons of no brilliant parts and in our own circles. When such things are thrust upon us, either in literature or elsewhere, we have always the resource of our Lord; we can turn away, as though we heard not; we can refuse to inquire further into such matters, and turn away our eyes from them.

Few positions could be more painful to a pure-minded man than that in which our Lord was placed. What hope could there be for a world where the religious and righteous had become even more detestable than the coarse sin they proposed to punish? No wonder our Lord was silent, silent in sheer disturbance of mind and sympathetic shame. He stooped down and wrote on the ground, as one who does not wish to answer a question will begin drawing lines on the ground with his foot or his stick. His silence was a broad hint to the accusers; but they take it for mere embarrassment, and all the more eagerly press their question. They think Him at a loss when they see Him with hanging head tracing figures on the ground; they fancy their plot is successful, and, flushed with expected victory, they close in and lay their hands on his shoulder as He stoops, and demand an answer. And so He lifts Himself up, and they have their answer: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. They fall into the pit they have digged.

This answer was not a mere clever retort such as a self-possessed antagonist can always command. It was not a mere dexterous evasion. What these scribes would say of it to one another afterwards, or with what nervous anxiety they would altogether avoid the subject, we can scarcely conjecture; but probably none of them would affect to say, as has since been said, that it was a confounding of things that differ, that by demanding that every one who brought an accusation, against another should himself be open to no accusation Jesus subverted the whole administration of law. For what criminal could fear condemnation, if his doom were to be suspended until a judge whose heart is as pure as his ermine be found who may pronounce it? Might not these scribes have replied that they were quite aware that they themselves were guilty men, but no law could lay hold of any outward actions of theirs, and that they were there not to talk of their relation to God or of purity of heart, but to vindicate the outward purity of the morals of their city by bringing to judgment this offender? They did not thus bandy words with our Lord, and they could not; because they knew that it was not He who was trying to confound private morality and the administration of law but themselves. They had brought this woman to Jesus as if He were a magistrate, though often enough He had declined to interfere with civil affairs and with the ordinary administration of justice. And in His answer He still shows the same spirit of non-interference. He does not pronounce upon the womans guilt at all. Had they taken her before their ordinary courts He would have raised no word in her favour; did her husband after this prosecute her he can have feared no interference on the part of Jesus. His answer is the answer not of one pronouncing from a judgment-seat, nor of a legal counsel, but of a moral and spiritual teacher. And in this capacity He had a perfect right to say what He did. We have no right to say to an official who in condemning culprits or in prosecuting them is simply discharging a public duty, See that your own hands be clean, and your own heart pure, before you condemn another, but we have a perfect right to silence a private individual who is officiously and not officially exposing anothers guilt, by bidding him remember that he has a beam in his own eye which he must first be rid of, a stain on his own hands he must first wash out. The public prosecutor, or judge is a mere mouthpiece and representative among us of absolute justice; in him we see not his own private character at all, but the purity and rectitude of law and order. But these scribes were acting as private individuals, and came to Jesus professing that they were so shocked with this womans sin that they wished the long-disused punishment of stoning to be revived. And therefore Jesus had not only a perfect right, as any other man would have had, to say to them, Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? but also, as the searcher of hearts; as He who knew what is in man, He could risk the womans life on the chance of there being a single man of them who was really as shocked as he pretended to be, who was prepared to say he had in his own soul no taint of the sin he was loudly professing his abhorrence of, who was prepared to say, Death is due to this sin, and then to accept such proportionate punishment as would fall to his own share.

Having given His answer His eye again falls, His former stooping attitude is resumed. He does not mean to awe them by a defiant look; He lets their own conscience do the work. But that their conscience should have produced such a result deserves our attention. The woman, when she heard His answer, may for a moment have trembled and shrunk together, expecting the crashing blow of the first stone. Could she expect that these Pharisees, some of them at least good men, were all involved somehow in her sin, tainted in heart with the pollution that had wrought such destruction in herself, or supposing they were so tainted, did they know it; or supposing they knew it, would they not be ashamed to own it in the face of the surrounding crowd; would they not sacrifice her life rather than their own character? But every man waited for some other to lift the first stone; every man thought that some one of their number would be pure enough and bold enough, if not to throw the first stone, at least to assert that he fulfilled the condition of doing so that Jesus had laid down. None was willing to put himself forward to be searched by the eyes of the crowd, and to be exposed to the still more trying judgment of Jesus, and to risk the possibility of His, in some more definite way, revealing his past life. And so they edged their way out through the crowd from before Him, each desiring to have no more to do with the business; the oldest not so old as to forget his sin, the youngest not daring to say he was not already corrupt.

This reveals two things, the amount of unascertained guilt every man carries with him, guilt that he is not distinctly conscious of, but that a little shake awakens, and that weakens him all through his life in ways that he may be unable to trace.

Further, this encounter of Jesus with the leading men gives significance to His subsequent challenge: Which of you convinceth Me of sin? He had shown them how easy it was to convict the guilty; but the very ease and boldness with which He had touched their conscience convinced them His own was pure. In a society honeycombed with vice He stood perfect, untouched by evil.

This searching purity, this stainless mirror, the woman felt it more difficult to face than the accusing scribes. Alone with Him who had so easily unmasked their wickedness, she feels that now she has to do with something much more awful than the accusations of men-the actual irrevocable sin. There was no voice now accusing her, no hand laid in arrest upon her. Why does she not go? Because, now that others are silent, her own conscience speaks; now that her accusers are silenced, she must listen to Him whose purity has saved her. The presence among us of a true and perfect human holiness in the person of Christ, that is the true touchstone of character; and he who does not feel that this is what actually judges all his own ways and actions, has but a dim apprehension of what human life is-of its dignity, its responsibilities, its risks, its reality. Our sin, no doubt, hems us round with a thousand disabilities, and fears, and anxieties in this world, often dreadful to bear as the shame of this woman; there gradually gathers round us a brood of mischiefs we have given birth to by overstepping Gods law, a brood that throngs our steps, and makes a peaceful and happy life impossible. Other men come to recognise some of our infirmities, and we feel the depressing influence of their unfavourable judgment, and in the secresy of our own self-reflection we think meanly of ourselves; but this, overwhelming as it sometimes becomes, is not the worst of sin. Were all these evil consequences abated or removed, were we as free from accusing voices, either from the reflected judgment of the world or from our own memory, as that woman when she stood alone in the midst, yet there would then only the more clearly emerge into view the essential and inseparable evil of sin, the actual breach between us and holiness. The accusation and misery which sin brings generally either make us feel that we are expiating sin by what we suffer, or put us into a self-defensive attitude. It is when Jesus lifts His true eye to meet ours that the heart sinks humbled, and recognises that apart from all punishment and in itself sin is sin, an injury to Gods love, a grievous wrong to our own humanity. In the attitude of Christ towards sin and the sinner there is an exposure of the real nature of sin which makes an ineffaceable impression.

But what will Jesus do with this woman thus left on His hands? Will He not visit her with punishment, and so assert His superiority to the accusers who had slunk away? He shows His superiority in a much more real fashion. He sees that now the woman is self-condemned, lies under that condemnation in which alone there is hope, and which alone leads to good. She could not misunderstand the significance of her acquittal. Her surprise must only have deepened her gratitude. He who had stood her friend and brought her through so critical a passage in her history could scarcely be forgotten. And yet, considering the net she had thrown around herself, could our Lord say Sin no more with any hope? He knew what she was going back to-a blighted home-life, a life full now of perplexity, of regret, of suspicion, probably of ill-usage, of contempt, of everything that makes men and women bitter and drives them on to sin. Yet He implies that the legitimate result of forgiveness is renunciation of sin. Others might expect her to sin; He expected her to abandon sin. If the love shown us in forgiveness is no barrier to sin, it is because we have not been in earnest as yet about our sin, and forgiveness is but a name. Do we need an external scene such as that before us as the setting which may enable us to believe that we are sinners, and that there is forgiveness for us? The entrance to life is through forgiveness. Possibly we have sought forgiveness; but if there follows us no serious estimate of sin, no fruitful remembrance of the holiness of Him who forgave us, then our severance from sin will last only until we meet the first substantial temptation.

We do not know what became of this woman, but she had an opportunity of regarding Jesus with reverence and affection, and thus of bringing a saving influence into her life. This scene, in which He was the chief figure, must always have remained the most vivid picture in her memory; and the more she thought of it the more clearly must she have seen how different He was from all besides. And unless in our hearts Christ finds a place, there is no other sufficient purifying influence. We may be convinced He is all He claims to be, we may believe He is sent to save, and that He can save; but all this belief may be without any cleansing effect upon us. What is wanted is an attachment, a real love that will prompt us always to regard His will, and to make our life a part of His. It is our likings that have led us astray, and it is by new likings implanted within us that we can be restored. So long as our knowledge of Christ is in our head only, it may profit us a little, but it will not make new creatures of us. To accomplish that, He must command our heart. He must control and move what is most influential within us; there must arise in us a real and ruling enthusiasm for Him.

Perhaps, however, the chief lesson taught by this incident is that the best way to reform society is to reform ourselves. There is of course a great deal done in our own day to reclaim the vicious, to succour the poor, and so on; and nothing is to be said against these efforts when they are the outcome of a humble and sympathising charity. But they are very often adulterated with a spirit of condemnation and a sense of superiority, which on closer inspection is found to be unjust. These scribes and Pharisees, when they dragged this woman before Jesus, felt themselves on quite another platform than that which she occupied; but a word from Christ convinced them how hollow this self-righteous spirit was. He made them feel that they too were sinners even as she, and none of them was sufficiently hardened to lift a stone against her. This is creditable to the Pharisees. There are many among us who would very quickly have lifted the stone. Even while striving to reclaim the drunkard, for example, they arraign him with an implacable ferocity that shows they are quite unconscious of being sharers in his sin. If you challenged them, they would clear themselves by vehemently protesting that they had not touched strong drink for years; but do they not consider that the almost universal intemperance of the lowest class in society has a far deeper root than individual appetite; that it is rooted in the whole miserable condition of that class, and cannot be cured till the luxuries of the rich are by some means sacrificed for the bitter need of the poor, and the rational enjoyments which save the well-to-do from coarse and open vice are put within reach of the whole population? Poverty, and the necessity it entails of being content with a wage which barely keeps in life, are not the sole roots of vice, but they are roots; and so long as we ourselves, in common with the society in which we live, are involved in the guilt of upholding a social condition which tempts to every kind of iniquity, we dare not cast the first stone at the drunkard, the thief, or even their more sunken associates. No one man, and no one class, is more guilty than another in this great blot on our Christianity. Society is guilty; but as members who happen by the accident of our birth to have enjoyed advantages saving us from much temptation which we know we could not have stood, we must learn at least to consider those who in a very real sense are sacrificed for us. Among certain savage tribes, when a chiefs house is built, slaughtered slaves are laid in pits as its foundation; the structure of our vaunted civilisation has a very similar basement.

Still it is one of the most hopeful features of present-day Christianity that men are becoming sensible that they are not mere individuals, but are members of a society; and that they must bear the shame of the existing condition of things in society. Intelligent Christian men now feel that the saving of their own souls is not enough, and that they cannot with complacency rest satisfied with their own happy condition and prospects if the society to which they belong is in a state of degradation and misery. It is by the growth of this sympathetic shame that reformation on a great scale will be brought about. It is by men learning to see in all misery and vice their own share of guilt that society will gradually be leavened. To those who cannot own their connection with their fellow-men in any such sense, to those who are quite satisfied if they themselves are comfortable, I do not know what can be said. They break themselves off from the social body, and accept the fate of the amputated limb.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

Joh 8:1-11. Ἰησοῦς δὲ—καὶ μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε) The wisdom and effectual power which Jesus evinced in the history of the adulteress are so great, that it is strange this remarkable portion of the Gospel history should be accounted by many in the present day as uncertain. It is also omitted in the Codex Ebnerianus, but only from verse 3; and at the end of the Gospel according to John it is so supplied, and attached to verse 2, that it is readily apparent, that the transcribers removed only from public reading this portion, which they acknowledged as genuine. In the book, Joh. Lami de Eruditione Apostolorum, describing the Florentine Greek manuscript of the four Evangelists, he says, ‘In the Gospel of John, Iambic verses were written in the end. There comes first an index of the nineteen chapters. The tenth chapter had been omitted, and, out of the regular order, in the front, there was recounted περὶ μοιχαλίδος, concerning the Adulteress, whose history is extant in the Gospel itself. The writing is of the twelfth century.’—P. 230.[217]—ἐπορεύθη, went) as one who had no home. Comp. ch. Joh 7:53, “Every man went unto his own house.”—εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν Ἐλαίων, to the mount of Olives) to that mountain, in which they were afterwards about to take Him; ch. Joh 18:2, “Judas also, which betrayed Him, knew the place; for Jesus oft-times resorted thither with His disciples;” whereas they had only made the attempt, but in vain, at ch. Joh 7:30.

[217] The passage is omitted by ABCT MSS. of the oldest class, LXΔ; by the Old Latin Cod. Vercellensis, the Peshito Syriac, the Memphitic, and Thebaic; by Origen and Chrysostom. D is the oldest MS. that has it; also the Old Latin Cod. Veronensis; the Vulgate; the Æthiopic.—E. and T.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_8:1-3. ʼΕπορ.] down from the temple.

εἰς τ. ὄρ. τ. ἐλ.] where He passed the night; comp. Luk_21:37. Displays the synoptic stamp in its circumstantiality of description and in the use of words; instead of ὄρθρου (Luk_24:1), John uses πρωΐ (Joh_18:28, Joh_20:1; comp. πρωῑìα, Joh_21:4); for πᾶς ὁ λαός John uses ὁ ὄχλος and οἱ ὄχλοι; καθίσας ἐδίδ. αὐτ. is synoptical; on ἐδίδασκεν, however, without mention of the topic, comp. Joh_7:14; the γραμματεῖς never appear in John; nor does he anywhere name the Mount of Olives.

The crowd of people, after the conclusion of the feast, would not be surprising, considering the great sensation which Jesus had caused at the feast.

The expression Scribes and Pharisees is the designation in the synoptic narrative for His regular opponents, answering to the Johannean οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι. They do not appear here as Zealots (Wetstein, Kuinoel, Staeudlin), whose character would not correspond either with their questioning of Jesus or with their subsequent slinking away; nor even as a Deputation from the Sanhedrim, which certainly would not have condescended to this, and whose delegates would not have dared to let the woman slip. It is rather a non-official tentative attack, like several that are narrated by the Synoptics; the woman has just been taken in the very act; has, as a preliminary step, been handed over to the Scribes and Pharisees for further proceedings; has not yet, however, been brought before the Sanhedrim, but is first made use of by them for this attempt against Jesus.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 8:1 . καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἕκαστος … The position of these words almost necessitates the understanding that the members of the Sanhedrim are referred to. But in this case the contrast conveyed in the next clause, Ἰησους δὲ ἐπορεύθη , is pointless. εἰς τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν , to the Mount of Olives. Cf. Mat 24:3 ; Mat 26:30 ; Mar 13:3 . Lodging probably in the house of Lazarus, He returned to the city before dawn (Joh 8:2 ) ὄρθρου δὲ πάλιν παρεγένετο εἰς τὸ ἱερόν . Plato, Protag. , 310 A, reckons ὄρθρος a part of the night. καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς ἤρχετο , i.e. , those designated ὁ ὄχλος in the preceding chapter. καὶ καθίσας , and He sat down and began to teach them. But this quiet and profitable hour was broken in upon.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Chap. 8:1.] John never elsewhere mentions the Mount of Olives (not even in ch. 18:1): and when he introduces a new place, it is his habit to give explanations (see ch. 1:45; 5:2, and λεγομένην ch. 4:5; 19:13, 17). (Stier, who says (iv. 348, edn. 2), “The simple answer to Alford’s remark is, that John here, and here only, mentions the Mt. of Olives,” omits all allusion to this habit of the Evangelist, which alone gives weight to my remark.)

πορεύομαι with εἰς is not found elsewhere in John; but (in the Gospels) only in Matt. and Luke, and the frag. Mar_16. fin. Nor is ὄρθρον, nor παραγίνομαι εἰς nor ὁ λαός in this sense, but always ὁ ὄχλος (see ὁ λαός ch. 11:50; 18:14): nor such an expression as καθίσας ἐδίδασκεν αὐτούς (v. r.):—but all these are found in Luke. It is not in John’s manner to relate that Jesus taught them, without relating what He taught.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE “PERICOPE DE ADULTERA”

(7:53-8:11)

The section (περικοπέ) of the Fourth Gospel which contains this incident is contained in many late manuscripts and versions, but it cannot be regarded as Johannine or as part of the Gospel text.

It is not found in any of the early Greek uncials, with the single exception of Codex Bezae (D), being omitted without comment in אBNTWΘ. L and Δ omit it, while leaving a blank space where it might be inserted, thus indicating that their scribes deliberately rejected it as part of the Johannine text. A and C are defective at this point, but neither could have contained the section, as the missing leaves would not have had room for it.

The section is omitted also in important cursives, e.g. 22, 33, 565 (in which minuscule there is a note that the scribe knew of its existence). The Ferrar cursives, i.e. fam. 13, do not give it in Jn., but place the section after Luk 21:38, where it would be, indeed, in better agreement with the context than before Joh 8:12. Cursives 1, 1582, and some American MSS. place the section at the end of the Fourth Gospel. Cursive 225 places it after Joh 7:36.

The Old Syriac vss. (whether in Tatian’s Diatessaron, Syr. sin., or Syr. cur.) betray no knowledge of the passage, nor is it contained in the best MSS. of the Peshitta. In like manner the Coptic vss. omit it, e.g. the fourth century Coptic Q (see p. xvi). Some of the O.L. MSS. are also without it, e.g. a f l* q.

Even more significant is the absence of any comment on the section by Greek commentators for a thousand years after Christ, including Origen, Chrysostom, and Nonnus (in his metrical paraphrase), who deal with the Gospel verse by verse. The earliest Greek writer (Euthymius Zygabenus or Zygadenus) who comments on it lived about 1118, and even he says that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

Further, the evidence of vocabulary and style is conclusive against the Johannine authorship of the section. The notes which follow demonstrate this sufficiently. Nor in its traditional place does it harmonise with the context. It interrupts the sequence of 7:52 and 8:12f.; while 7:53 is not in harmony with what goes before, and has no connexion with 8:12f.

The early Greek evidence in favour of the mediæval view that the section is an authentic part of the Fourth Gospel reduces itself to the witness of Codex Bezae (D), a manuscript with many other Western interpolations. The section is found in the great mass of later uncials and cursives, whatever be the reason of this intrusion into the more ancient text. To be borne in mind, however, is the significant fact that in many of the later MSS. which contain it, the Pericope de adultera is marked with an obelus (e.g. S) or an asterisk (e.g. ΕΜΛ).

The Latin evidence in its favour is considerable. The section appears in several O.L. texts, e.g. b e (sæc. v.) and ff2 (sæc. vii.), as well as in Jerome’s Vulgate. Jerome says expressly “in multis graecis et latinis codicibus inuenitur de adultera,” etc. (adv. Pelag. ii. 17). Augustine (de conj. adult. ii. 6) accounts for its omission from some texts, by hinting that the words of Jesus which it records might seem too lenient.

The section is found also in some late Syriac and Coptic texts, while omitted in the earlier and better versions.

These facts show that the authorities on the side of the Pericope are almost wholly Western, and do not become numerous in any language until after the acceptance by Jerome of the section as Johannine. Jerome seems to have followed here some Greek MSS. not now extant. This evidence is, however, wholly insufficient to justify the inclusion of the narrative in the Fourth Gospel. The ignoring of it by the early Greek MSS., vss., and commentators is thus left unexplained.

Nevertheless, the story of the adulteress seems to be an authentic fragment of early tradition as to the sayings and actions of Jesus. The story is mentioned (although not referred to the Fourth Gospel) in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), a passage which goes back to the fourth century or perhaps even to the third. It must have been current as a tradition in the third century at any rate. Eusebius probably refers to it when he says of Papias that “he relates another story of a woman who was accused of many sins before the Lord which is contained in the Gospel according to the Hebrews” (Eus. H.E. iii. 39). Whether Papias got the story from the extra-canonical “Gospel according to the Hebrews,” or from some other source, is not certain. But that the Pericope de adultera is the story which Papias told has been accepted by many critics; and, accordingly, in Lightfoot’s Apostolic Fathers the passage [Jn.] 7:53-8:11 is printed as one of the surviving fragments of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis.

This is highly probable, but is not certain. All we can assert with confidence is that the passage is very like the Synoptic stories about Jesus; while its tenderness and gravity commend it as faithfully representing what Jesus said and did when a woman who had sinned unchastely was brought before Him.

No reason for the ready acceptance in the West of the story as evangelical, and of its incorporation in the Latin Gospels as early as the fourth century, can be assigned with certainty. It is perhaps significant that in the Apostolic Constitutions (ii. 24), where we find the narrative for the first time, it is cited as a lesson to bishops who are inclined to be too severe to penitents. Now writers like Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, who discuss at length the problems of discipline for adultery, never mention this case. Like the rest of the Church, East and West, in the second and third centuries, they held that punishment for fornication ought to be very severe, inasmuch as it seemed essential to mark the divergence of Christian ethics from heathen ethics on this point. But by the time we reach the fourth century, ecclesiastical discipline began to be relaxed and to be less austere; and a story which had been formerly thought dangerous because of its apparent leniency would naturally be appealed to by canonists and divines as indicating the tenderness with which our Lord Himself rebuked sins of the flesh. It was but a short step from quoting the story as edifying to treating it as suitable for reading in Church. It would thus get into lectionaries, and in the Greek Menology it is the lection for St. Pelagia’s day. From its insertion in Evangelistaria, it readily crept into Gospel texts, from which Jerome did not feel it practicable to expel it. Perhaps thus, or somewhat thus, its presence in the textus receptus of the Fourth Gospel is to be explained.

The text of the Pericope which is given here is that adopted by Hort. The various readings are more numerous than in any other part of the N.T., and a large number of explanatory glosses were added to the text in ancient times. Hort’s analysis of these can hardly be improved. We have to do here only with the later uncials, and these are cited by the customary letters (EGH, etc.) as explained by Gregory or Scrivener. We cite the cursive 1071 because of its remarkable agreement with D in this section. (See K. Lake, Texts from Mount Athos, p. 1481.)

7:53. ἐπορεύθησαν. So D, etc., with O.L. and vg.; the rec. has ἐπορεύθη with minor uncials and fam. 13.

πορεύεσθαι εἰς … occurs only at 7:35 in Jn., who prefers πορ. πρός (cf. 14:28, 16:28, 20:17); the constr. is common in the Synoptists.

8:1. τὸ ὄρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν is, again, a Synoptic term, not occurring again in Jn. When Jn. introduces a place-name for the first time he is apt to add a word of explanation (4:5, 11:1), but nothing of the kind is here.

Mention of the Mount of Olives would fall in with the story referring to the week before the Passion, when Jesus lodged at Bethany; cf. Mar 11:11, Mar 11:19, Mar 11:13:3.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 8:1-2. A striking analogy to the Synoptic narrative, both in the matter and the form; comp. Luk 21:38.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER VIII.

The story of the woman taken in adultery, 1-11.

Jesus declares himself the light of the world, 12.

The Pharisees cavil, 13.

Jesus answers, and shows his authority, 14-20.

He delivers a second discourse, in which he convicts them of

sin, and foretells their dying in it, because of their

unbelief, 21-24.

They question him; he answers, and foretells his own death,

25-29.

Many believe on him, in consequence of this last discourse, 30.

To whom he gives suitable advice, 31, 32.

The Jews again cavil, and plead the nobility and advantages of

their birth, 33.

Jesus shows the vanity of their pretensions, and the wickedness

of their hearts, 34-47.

They blaspheme, and Christ convicts and reproves them, and

asserts his Divine nature, 48-58.

They attempt to stone him, 59.

NOTES ON CHAP. VIII.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

VIII.

(1) It is an instructive example of the way in which the artificial division into chapters often mars the sense. that one verse of this section is found at the close of the last chapter, and the remainder in this.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.—The Mount of Olives is nowhere mentioned by St. John. In Joh_18:1 he describes the locality, but without this name (see Note there). His habit, moreover, in giving topographical details of Palestine is to explain them for his Greek readers. (See Note on Joh_4:5.)

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. the mount of Olives] S. John nowhere mentions the Mount of Olives (comp. Joh_18:1), and when he mentions a new place he commonly adds an explanation: Joh_1:44, Joh_4:5, Joh_5:2, Joh_6:1, Joh_19:13; Joh_19:17. The phrase for ‘went unto’ is not found in S. John. Both occur in all three Synoptists.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.

Ver. 1. Jesus went unto the mount of Olives] His usual oratory. There he prayed by night, and then early in the morning he came again into the temple to preach. Thus he divided his time between praying and preaching. So did the ministers of the Old Testament, Deu 33:10, and of the New, Act 6:2. So must all who will do good of it; since Paul may plant, Apollos water, but God only gives increase, 1Co 3:6.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Mount of Olives - The mountain about a mile directly east of Jerusalem. See the notes at Mat 21:1. This was the place in which he probably often passed the night when attending the feasts at Jerusalem. The Garden of Gethsemane, to which he was accustomed to resort Joh 18:2, was on the western side of that mountain, and Bethany, the abode of Martha and Mary, on its east side, Joh 11:1.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The last verse of the foregoing chapter, and the eleven verses that follow in this, are not found in the greater part of our present Greek copies, yet they are in some manuscripts and so are retained in the Protestant translation. We read nothing of them in the commentaries of St. John Chrysostom or St. Cyril; but St. Jerome (lib. ii. con. Pelag. tom. 4, part 2, p. 521. Ed. Ben.) says, they were found in many both Latin and Greek copies. St. Ambrose (Ep. 52.) says this passage, of the woman taken in adultery, was always famous in the Church. St. Augustine expounds them, tract. in Joan, &c. (Witham)

===============================

[BIBLIOGRAPHY]

In multis Latinis et Græcis codicibus invenitur. S. Hierom. [i.e. St. Jerome] See the Greek edition of the New Testament, at Amsterdam, ex officina Westenians, an. 1711, in notis Criticis in fin, p. 17.

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

A mountain within less than two miles of Jerusalem, whether our Saviour, when he was at Jerusalem, was wont often to withdraw, for privacy and devotion, Mat 24:3; 26:30; Luk 21:37; 22:39.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The Feast of Tabernacles Continued. Christ the Light of the World

Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:11. The woman taken in adultery. All modern critics agree that this section is no original part of the Fourth Gospel. It is not in the author's style; it breaks the sequence of our Lord's discourses, and is omitted by most of the ancient authorities. Probably it is an authentic apostolic tradition inserted here to illustrate the principle of Joh_8:15. Some MSS place it at the end of the Gospel. The incident probably took place in Holy Week, and is therefore appropriately inserted by some MSS after Luk_21:38.

3. In adultery] The woman was only betrothed, not married, otherwise her punishment would not have been stoning, but strangulation, for so the rabbis interpreted Lev_20:10; Deu_22:22. But inasmuch as among the Jews betrothal was almost equivalent to marriage (see on Mat_1:18), the sin of a betrothed woman was regarded as a species of adultery.

6. Punishment of death for this offence was obsolescent, and some think that they wished to make Jesus unpopular with the people by inducing Him to advocate its revival. More probably they wished to embroil Him with the Roman authorities, who would not allow a death-sentence to be executed without their permission. The displeasure of Jesus was largely due to the officiousness of the accusers. It was not their business to accuse and judge the woman, but that of the husband and the judges. They had neither a legal nor a moral right to interfere. Wrote] Christ was always reluctant to interfere in civil disputes: see Mat_22:21; Luk_12:13-15; Joh_18:36. Writing on the ground was a symbolical action well known in antiquity, signifying unwillingness to deal with the matter in hand.

7. Without sin] Christ read their hearts, and under His searching glance all felt themselves sinners, if not against the letter, yet against the spirit of the seventh commandment: cp. Mat_5:28. They could not condemn her without condemning themselves. A stone] The principal witnesses cast the first stone (Deu_17:7; Act_7:58).

9. In the midst] viz. of the disciples who alone were left. Augustine says strikingly, 'the misera before the Misericordia.'

11. Neither do I condemn thee] i.e. to judicial punishment, such as your accusers demand. Our Lord's gentle dealing with the woman was due to His desire not to break the bruised reed. She had already suffered much, and (we may suppose) was bowed down under the burden of sin. He perceived that in her case a warning to sin no more would suffice: cp. Luk_7:36-50.

Joh_8:12 to Joh_10:21. The narrative of the Feast of Tabernacles (interrupted by the interpolated section Joh_7:52 to Joh_8:11) is resumed. The scene is the Temple (Joh_8:20), the time the last day of the feast (Joh_7:37).

12. The light of the world] The idea of the Messiah as 'the Light' was familiar to the Jews (see Luk_1:78-79; Luk_2:32), and was especially appropriate at the Feast of Tabernacles, during which (or perhaps on the first day only) the two colossal golden candlesticks in the Court of the Women were lighted. Christ as 'the Light of the world' dissipates the darkness of ignorance and sin. The light of life] i.e. My guidance which leads to life eternal.

13. See on Joh_8:17.

14. 'The law as to witnesses applies only to human witnesses. It does not apply to Me, who am more than man, seeing that I know that I came down from heaven, and shall return thither.'

15. 'You judge only by outward appearance, and hence cannot discern the Divine in Me.'

17. Cp. Deu_17:6; Deu_19:15.

17, 18. If the testimony of two men is true, how much more true is the testimony of two witnesses who are divine!

18. See on Joh_5:36, Joh_5:37.

20. In the treasury] or, rather, 'by the treasury.' The 'treasury' consisted of thirteen brazen trumpet-shaped chests, in which were placed the Temple tribute and the people's voluntary offerings. They stood in the Court of the Women.

21-30. Another discourse of Jesus, delivered probably on the same day (some think a few days later). Jesus speaks of His return to the Father, which is misunderstood by the Jews and explained by Him. He also seeks to convince them of sin, and to show them their need of a Saviour.

21. I go my way (by death), and ye shall seek me (vainly in your misfortunes as your deliverer), and shall die in your sins (RV 'sin') (because you refuse to believe on Me as your Saviour): cp. Joh_7:34.

22. Will he kill himself?] and thereby enter Gehenna, the punishment awarded to suicide? (Jos. 'Wars,' iii. 8, 5). In that case we shall certainly not care to follow Him! The mockery is more bitter than in Joh_7:35,; q.v.

23. Their earthly hearts are without the higher wisdom and divine life of those who are born of God.

24. I am he] viz. the Messiah, and the Saviour. He alone can say, 'Thy sins be forgiven thee.'

25. Even the same] viz. the Messiah. This rendering alone suits the context. Another translation is, 'Why do I even speak to you at all?'

26. 'I have much fault to find with you, but I refrain. I am not sent to judge you, but to teach you; and I teach you the absolute truth about God, which I learnt from Him before I came into the world.'

28. When ye have lifted up the Son of man (upon the cross), then shall ye know that I am he] (i.e. the Messiah), because My death will be followed by My Resurrection, which will be a token from God that My words are true.

31-59. Joh_8:31 begins another speech, delivered on the same day to those Jews who were inclined to regard Him as the Messiah. When these half-believers find that Jesus demands an entire change of heart, a breach with orthodox Judaism, and faith in Himself as the eternal Son of God, their feeling towards Him is changed to violent hatred.

31. Believed on him] RV 'believed him.' They had believed His statement (Joh_8:24-26) that He was the Messiah, but they had not believed 'on' Him with religious faith as the Light and Life of men.

31, 32. Christ's words exasperated these Pharisaic believers, because He implied (1) that they would have to amend their lives in order to abide in His word, whereas they considered their conduct perfect; (2) that they were ignorant of saving truth, whereas they regarded themselves in complete possession of it; (3) that they were not spiritually free, because superstitiously attached to the letter of the imperfect Mosaic Law.

33. They pretend to think that Jesus is alluding to their political bondage to the Romans. They indignantly deny the imputation of bondage. They declare themselves the superiors of their oppressors.

35. A slave, unlike a son, formed no part of the family. He could be sold or expelled at will. So these Jews, slaves of sin and of the letter of the Law, were no true members of the Messiah's kingdom, and would be expelled from it. The Son] RV 'the son.'

37. Their desire to kill Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, proved that they were not children of Abraham, but of Satan. Hath no place] RV 'hath not free course.' They had received Christ's word for a moment, and then contemptuously rejected it.

41. Fornication] i.e. impure or superstitious worship, as often in the OT. The Jews claim to be the true spiritual, as well as the natural, descendants of Abraham. Inheriting his covenant and faith, they have 'one Father, even God.'

43. They misunderstood his expressions (speech), because the subject-matter of His discourse (word) was altogether above them. He was speaking of spiritual things which are spiritually discerned.

44. He was a murderer from the beginning] viz. of the human race, when he sought to destroy our first parents, and abode (RV 'stood') not in the truth, i.e. in that state of innocence in which he was created. This is the only certain allusion in the Gospels to the fall of Satan (Luk_10:18 is doubtful).

46. Christ argues from His sinlessness to His veracity. Since His enemies can find no fault with His life, they ought to believe His words. Christ's sinlessness is affirmed not only by Himself, but by His most intimate disciples: cp. Joh_6:61; 1Pe_2:22; 1Jn_3:5.

48. To Jesus' declaration that His hearers are 'not of God,' i.e. not true Israelites, they retort that He Himself is 'a Samaritan,' i.e. a heretic.

Hast a devil] They cannot deny Christ's miracles or the power of Christ's words, so they ascribe them to diabolical agency: cp. Mat_12:24.

49. Christ's works cannot proceed from the devil, because they are designed to honour, not Satan, nor Himself, but God.

50. And (RV 'but') I seek not mine own glory: there is one (i.e. God) that seeketh it for Me, and judgeth those who withhold it from Me, and so dishonour Me.

51. By dishonouring Jesus the Jews have incurred the judgment of the Father (Joh_8:50), i. e. the penalty of eternal death. But this judgment is not irrevocable. If even now they will obey Christ's word, they may escape eternal death.

52. The Jews understand our Lord to speak of natural death, and so to claim to be immortal, and the giver of immortality. Such a claim, implying superiority to all the prophets of the OT., seems to them the effect of frenzy or diabolical possession.

53, 54. 'The Son' (says Westcott) 'makes Himself to be nothing. He is and declares Himself to be that which the Father, so to speak, makes Him.'

56. 'I am greater than your Father Abraham, for Abraham looked forward with exultation to the manifestation of one greater than himself, one in whom all the nations of the earth should be blessed.'

He saw it] either in prophetic vision, or, as some think, from Paradise.

57. The Jews understand, or pretend to understand, our Lord to mean that He was alive in the time of Abraham!

58. Before Abraham, etc.] lit. 'Before Abraham was born, I AM.' Christ seems here to declare Himself to be the Jehovah, or I AM of the OT., the eternal, self-existent Creator: cp. Exo_3:14.

59. Going through the midst of them, and so passed by] RV omits these words.

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. Mount of Olives—The mount of Olives is nowhere else mentioned in John. By the other Evangelists it is mentioned as the usual retiring place of Jesus at night during Passion Week. And this brings the narrative to the precise place where we assign it.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EXPLANATORY AND CRITICAL NOTES

Joh_7:1-12. For the general exposition of this section see Homiletic Notes, pp. 233–235.

Joh_7:2. Early in the morning (ὄρθρου).—St. John’s usual word is πρωῒ (Joh_20:1, and comp. Luk_21:38).

Joh_7:3. The scribes and Pharisees.—St. John does not name the scribes in his Gospel; they are included under the general name the Jews.

Joh_7:6. As though He heard them not.—Omitted in best copies.

Joh_7:12. Again.—See Joh_7:37. Our Lord here perhaps makes use of the other great symbolical feature of the feast of tabernacles—the lighting of the candelabra at night in the Court of the Women. There were divided opinions regarding Him among the people, and He gave them another opportunity of arriving at the truth.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Chap. Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:12

The Light of the World as Revealer.—Whatever view be taken of the position of this narrative in the gospel, its authenticity is generally held. The feast of tabernacles, with all its joyousness, was past. The joyous morning assemblages were over, the lights at eventide blazed no more in the temple courts. But the Saviour came early to the temple intent on His great work; and as the crowds of festival worshippers still remaining in Jerusalem gathered round Him, “assuming the position of an authoritative teacher” (Mat_5:1) He sat down and taught.

I. Jesus is the light of the world in revealing the evil in men’s hearts.—

1. Whilst engaged in teaching He was interrupted by His ever-vigilant foes. They brought before Him a poor creature, who, instead of having her heart brought nearer God in the religious and joyous feast just ended, had given herself over to sin of the grossest and most debasing nature. The guilty wretch had evidently been brought before the Sanhedrin for judgment; and it was so clear a case that had they dared they would have carried out the old sentence of capital punishment. Hearing that Jesus was teaching in the temple, they brought the guilty woman before Him, hoping thereby to entrap Him, and gain for themselves the name of being zealous for the law.

2. The Pharisees had formerly tempted Him on this subject (Mar_10:2-12), and had been sharply reproved for the laxity of their conceptions regarding the holiness of the marriage tie. On this occasion they probably thought they might “turn the tables” on Christ, by entrapping Him either into giving a too lenient judgment, or by answering their question in the affirmative, thus bringing Himself under the penalties of the Roman law.

3. And, moreover, they either misread their own law, or presumed that Jesus was ignorant of it. The punishment for adultery was stoning only in special circumstances (Deu_22:23-24). In what form the punishment was to be carried out in other cases was not specified (Lev_20:10). Here, then, “Jesus seemed forced to occupy a position opposed either to the law of Moses or to the Roman authority” (Luthardt). It was the same kind of snare into which they endeavoured to draw Him on the question of the tribute money (Mat_22:17).

4. But Jesus knew the hearts of these men (Joh_2:24-25). Their hypocrisy could not hide their true feelings and motives from Him. They professed to revere the law; but in reality this law, like others, had become a dead letter to them. The whole Jewish community, during our Lord’s time on earth, had become more or less corrupted by Roman licentiousness, and the sanctity of the marriage tie was disregarded. The more enlightened and spiritual custom of the time was to deprive the guilty woman of her dowry and divorce her; and our Lord seems to have stamped this method with His approval so far (Mat_5:31-32). But He sternly disapproved of the granting of divorce for trifling causes, and with so much facility as seems to have obtained. But these Jews did not want any direction or guidance as to their procedure; they simply wished to entrap the Saviour, and to render Him obnoxious to the people as a subverter of the law, or to the Roman authorities, as recommending the exercise of the power of life and death to the Jews.

II. Jesus is the light of the world in the revelation of the higher and spiritual law.—

1. The divine wisdom of the Saviour defeated the evil purpose of His enemies. He came “not to judge the world”—not to usurp the functions of human justice, but to reveal the higher law toward which human law and justice should ever be more closely conformed as men come under the influence of the gospel. He raised the case above a merely human level; and did He not perhaps point to what is too often forgotten, even among Christian communities, that the framers and administrators of the law should model their enactments and actions as nearly as possible to the revealed and eternal law of righteousness?—

“And earthly power doth then show likest God’s

When mercy seasons justice.… Consider this—

That in the course of justice none of us

Should see salvation: we do pray for mercy;

And that same prayer doth teach as all to render

The deeds of mercy.”

Shakespeare.

2. These men had no true sense of this divine attribute of justice; in brutal fashion they dragged in this poor criminal before the assembled people. They were therefore not the men to administer the law, since they had no true sense of the spirit of the law. Our Lord did not say that human justice in this and other cases should not be carried into effect; but the men who carry it into effect must have true ideas concerning it.

3. He, therefore, raised the case to a higher tribunal. He brought accusers and accused alike before the bar of conscience. Stooping down, He wrote on the ground (Joh_7:6), as if intimating that a judicial sentence such as they desired was to be delivered; for such sentences were not only spoken, but written. And when the sentence came it was with crushing effect—not first on the accused, but on the accusers: “He that is without sin,” etc. (Joh_7:7). Here the claims of the holy law were vindicated perfectly; and those self-constituted judges, conscience-smitten, stole away one by one in utter confusion.

III. Jesus is the light of the world in that He points out the way of safety.—

1. When the last footfall of the baffled and retreating conspirators had died away on the ear, our Lord turned to the poor sinner brought thus before Him in shame and disgrace.

2. The question, “Where are?” etc. (Joh_7:10), does not mean, Has no man accused and convicted thee of this crime? That, alas! was evidently plain enough. The meaning is, Hath no man offered to carry out the death sentence they threatened? Therefore His further words, “Neither do I,” etc., simply mean, “Neither do I pronounce that sentence.” He gave her indeed an opportunity for repentance, as His closing words show, while at the same time He intimated the enormity of her guilt: “Go and sin no more.”

3. He condemned the sin; and it is noteworthy there is no word of forgiveness and peace, such as we find at Luk_7:48. As in the case of the woman of Samaria, our Lord’s manner of reference to the sin stamps it with its true nature.

4. Thus “the judges were made to feel that freedom from outward guilt is no claim to sinlessness; and the offender, in her turn, was led to see that flagrant guilt does not bar hope” (Westcott).

5. We learn that human justice should be modelled on the divine righteousness; that those who carry into effect the decrees of human justice should be men of a righteous, God-fearing disposition; that there is another bar before which men, even though acquitted or condemned by human law, must stand; and that men must forsake sin ere they can have forgiveness and peace.

Joh_7:12. The world’s need of Christ, the Sun of righteousness.—How important is the material sun in its relation to our world! Without its light and heat-rays darkness and death would reign. The world’s existence, humanly speaking, depends on the continuity of our earth’s relation to that star. It is the most important to us of all the starry hosts. It would, therefore, be a bold assertion for any man to make that he was as important to the moral and spiritual life of men as the sun to their physical life. Yet here we have such an assertion made. Jesus came, as it appears from the narrative as it stands, over-night from Bethany to the temple early in the morning. The sun had lately risen, clothing in light “the mountains round Jerusalem,” and gladdening all nature by its rising. Jesus, in view of the glorious scene, seems to say, Just as the sun has awakened animated nature to new life in a new day, so am I come to give spiritual awakening to those slumbering in the darkness of sin and error. [Or if the narrative is to be continued from Joh_7:52 to Joh_8:12, then His reference may have been to the candelabra in the temple court, and His meaning somewhat similar.] And Jesus had given good reason to those who heard Him for this claim of His. His works of power, His words of wisdom, marked Him out as more than human—to be what He claimed to be, the Messiah, the promised Sun of righteousness, the Light of the world. Notice:—

I. The world needed such a light.—

1. There are some questions which have in all ages engrossed, and will engross, the minds of men, and which cannot be answered by unaided reason. There are problems that puzzle and perplex which no merely human intellect has solved or can solve. These subjects lie in lofty regions, on heights to which philosophy and science vainly attempt to climb. They have been shrouded in darkness, like earth at midnight—have been dimly discerned, as through a mist, distorted, etc.

2. This has been so with the knowledge of God, of the means of approach to Him, of a future life. By reason men have attained to only dim and illusory conceptions of these great subjects, and it has been long felt that reason alone cannot here pronounce decisively.

3. By the light of natural religion men can go only a little toward the verification of such great truths; and even when they seem to have attained to a clearer view, the mists of doubt roll down, and it vanishes from their ken.

II. Jesus is the light of the world in that He leads men to a true knowledge of the nature and character of God.—

1. Among the nations at large, as regards this, darkness prevailed. The most cultured nations of antiquity had not risen above idolatry. Only a few voices called men to a better knowledge, and they were either unheeded or stopped.

2. Amongst barbarous tribes the darkness “was such as might be felt.”

3. There was but one exception—Israel; and in their case tradition had encrusted the windows of the soul and darkened their spiritual vision.

4. The further men had gone from the primitive revelation, the further they had fallen from the true knowledge and love of God. They bowed down to all the hosts of heaven, and finally came to “worship devils” (1Co_10:20). And this description is still true of the great heathen world.

5. But in the gospel of Christ there is given such a view of the nature and character of God as satisfies the heart. The existence of such a Being clears up the enigmas of life, and makes what at first sight seems “a dubious maze without a plan” to appear full of meaning and order. There is revealed to us One immeasurably removed above our highest uninspired conceptions. His government is seen to be founded on laws which are the expression of His own perfect character, and obedience to which is seen to be for the welfare of the race, etc.

III. Jesus is the light of the world in that He made known the way by which men can approach to God acceptably.—

1. It is not enough for sinful men to know that there is a God; they must know how they stand related to Him. All the religions of the world were framed with a view to this end.

2. Even the chosen people, when Jesus came to earth, needed light on this subject of subjects. They had retained the letter of their law, but had lost the spirit of the law (Joh_7:23-24). They misapprehended the prophets. Tradition and ritual were what the Pharisee trusted in; whilst the Essene leaned to asceticism and the Sadducee to rationalism. But in none of these ways was there any true approach to God (Mic_6:6).

3. Jesus has shown us the way of access to the Father. He revealed God as holy, abhorring sin, by no means clearing the guilty; and as the sinner, gazing on His revelation of the Holy One, cries out, “Depart from me,” etc., Jesus presents Himself as the Lamb of God, etc. (Joh_1:29). Sinners are shown that, though eternal Justice forbids that a free, unconditional escape from the guilt and penalty of sin should be granted, yet a way has been found whereby justice and mercy can be and are reconciled. It is true certain conditions are affixed to this boon. Men are required to repent of and renounce sin, and accept the pardon and peace offered in Christ.

4. Thus Christ enlightened the world on this fact of such importance. The Morning Star of promise gleamed in sacrifice and rite and prophecy in the early Church. But it was when He came to earth that the full light shone on our world; and in view of His redemptive work He could say, “I am the light,” etc.

IV. Jesus is the light of the world in revealing to men the existence and eternity of life beyond the grave.—

1. For the assurance of the existence of a future life men have ever longed. This has been to them a supreme question. Reason can offer no final solution of the problem. The disproportion in the allotment of rewards and punishments here, and the longing after immortality, deep seated in the human heart, may lead to a presumption that there is a life beyond. But reason has no absolute authority, and cannot state definitely whether that life she longs and hopes for will be eternal.

2. Revelation tells us of a future spiritual life. In patriarchal times God’s people lived in the consciousness of that higher life. He was the God of the living, and not of the dead (Mat_22:32). But it was reserved for Jesus Christ, not only by His teaching, but by His actual rising from the dead, to bring “life and immortality to light.”

3. In view of all this Jesus has proved Himself to be “the light of the world.” But the knowledge of the truth will not avail unless He is to each individual the Sun of righteousness. He who enters some gloomy cell, shutting himself in from the brightness of noonday, may indirectly benefit from the sun, for its heat rays will warm even the air of his prison; but he cannot rejoice in its light. So if men shut themselves up in their sin and self-righteousness, the radiancy of the Light of the world will be well-nigh vain, so far as they are concerned. They must open their hearts to receive Him, if they would be blest by the brightness of His rising. And those on whom He has risen will shine in ever-increasing light until the perfect day of which Christ is the eternal light.

HOMILETIC NOTES

Joh_7:1-11. Pericope adulterœ.—Most Biblical scholars are now agreed that this narrative forms no part of the original text of this Gospel. Their conclusions rest not only on external but on internal grounds. Several great scholars, however, admit its genuineness, and defend it as part of the sacred text. The evidence for and against its retention may be briefly stated.

1. It must have existed as a part of the Gospel narrative in the third or even in the second century; for it is quoted in the Apostolic Constitutions.

2. The Church fathers Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, etc., admit the genuineness of the passage, and comment upon it.

3. It is contained in MSS. ranging from the fifth to the eleventh century (D, F, G, H, etc.), and in about three hundred cursives; and, of course, some of these may be copies of earlier MSS. than any now known. Jerome, e.g., mentions that it was found in many MSS. of his time. And his evidence here is unimpeachable. It appears also in early MSS. of the Vulgate and Ethiopic versions, among others. Such are the main facts of the evidence for its genuineness as part of this Gospel. On the other hand, there is a great weight of evidence which seems to exclude it from its position here.

1. It is not found in the great uncial MSS. א, (A), B, (C), L, X, etc.; for although A and C are defective at this point, it is considered from an estimate of the extent of the portions missing that it was not in the complete copies. It is omitted also in fifty cursives.

2. The passage is marked with asterisks, etc., in several of the MSS. which contain it; whilst in others its position is altered. In one document it is placed after Joh_7:36; in others at the end of the Gospel; and in others still after Luk_21:3. It is not commented on by Origen, Cyril, Chrysostom, and others.—Scrivener, “Intro.,” etc.

Internal evidence.—

1. There is great variation in the texts where it is admitted. Griesbach distinguished three distinct texts: (a) the Textus Receptus, (b) that of Codex D, and (c) what might be called a composite text (see Godet).

2. There are in the narrative forms of expression which seem to distinguish the passage from the Gospel as a whole. But this part of the internal evidence must not be pressed too strongly. The occurrence here of one or two words and phrases nowhere else found in this Gospel is not conclusive against the authenticity of the passage. If τὸ ὅρος τῶν ἐλαιῶν, e.g., occurs here only, so does κέδρος in Joh_18:1. Nor must what seems a “want of harmony between the spirit of the narrative and the context of St. John” (Godet) be too much insisted on. Many scholars have failed to see this want of harmony. A consideration of the evidence for and against the passage seems to lead, at all events, to the conclusion that the narrative is a genuine apostolic tradition; and there is much force in the suggestion of Augustine that it was kept out of the text by those of little faith, who were afraid it might lead to moral laxity. It is not impossible that it was first “bracketed” in some MSS., as not to be read in the public assemblies, and in copies of the MSS. omitted. The following weighty words of Dr. Reynolds wisely sum up the controversy: “Though the spirit, atmosphere, and phrase suggest the Synoptic tradition rather than the Johannine, yet it must not be forgotten that there are many Synoptic passages in John’s Gospel, and Johannine phrases in the Synoptists. The criticism proceeding from moral timidity has failed to recognise the grandeur of the entire proceeding. It contains no palliation of incontinence, but a simple refusal of Jesus to assume the position of a civil judge or executor of the law, in face of the established political supremacy of Rome; while the Lord made a demand for personal holiness, and an appeal to conscience so pungent that, in lieu of condemning to death a sinful woman, He judged a whole crowd of men, convincing them of sin, while He gave the overt transgressor time for repentance and holier living.” Bishop Wordsworth (Greek Testament in loc.), whilst concluding that the passage contains a true history, in all probability from St. John, and delivered by him orally, considers that it was not a part of his written Gospel, and was probably added first on the margin of MSS., and thence crept into the text. And he draws from the investigation of the whole difficulty these moral inferences: a. Thankfulness to God for the solid foundation on which the proof of the genuineness and inspiration of the canon of Scripture rests. This passage consists of twelve verses only. Few doubt its authenticity. But its canonicity is the question at issue. How much and minutely has this been discussed! How rigid has been the scrutiny to which the canonical Scripture has been subjected before being received as the work of the Holy Spirit by the universal Church! And, in proportion to the rigidness of the scrutiny, how solid the ground of our belief in the inspiration of Scripture! b. It reminds us of our privilege in possessing so many MSS. belonging to an early age of the Church’s history—proofs of the genuineness of the text. c. It leads to a careful examination of the grounds on which our belief in the inspiration of Scripture is based. d. It excites us to thank Him who not only gave Scripture, but founded the Church universal to guard Scripture and assure us of its inspiration.

Joh_7:1-12. Illumination of the temple court at the feast of tabernacles.—One of the features of the joyful feast of tabernacles was the illumination of the city at nightfall, on at least the first evening of the festival, but probably on the other evenings as well. Large candelabra were lighted in the court of the women, and threw their radiance afar. Probably a partial illumination of the city took place; at all events, “many in the assembly carried flambeaux.” The wicks of the lamps in the temple court are said to have been “furnished from the cast-off garments of the priests.” Festivities were kept up for some time after the lighting of the lamps, the light of which was seen far and wide. Very striking must have been the spectacle on such occasions. And the ceremony had a meaning. Just as the pouring out of the water of Siloam in the morning reminded the people of God’s goodness to them at the rock in Horeb, so the sudden lighting up of the darkened temple court, and adjacent parts of the city, reminded the festive crowds of the “pillar of fire by night” (Exo_13:21) which guided them in the wilderness. If the passage Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:11 is not retained as part of this Gospel, then it may be held that in Joh_7:12 our Lord was referring to the preparations for lighting the candelabra or the actual lighting of them. He would thus call attention to Himself as the true guide over life’s pilgrim ways in the darkness of our present state: “He that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness.” If, however, the pericope be retained (from Joh_7:53 to Joh_8:11), we should infer that our Lord, entering the temple in the early morning and pointing to the rising sun, then drew attention to Himself as the true and only light of the world of men. Both images may be legitimately referred to Him (Isa_4:5; Mal_4:2).

ILLUSTRATIONS

Joh_7:12. The manner in which mankind had wandered from the light.—The early fathers of the race would hand down to their children the knowledge of God they possessed as the framer of the heavens and earth, which continually tell of His glory. “But,” as one has beautifully said, “this precious truth was vitiated among their hands. By dint of admiration for the works of God they took them in the end for God Himself; and the stars which appeared to announce His glory became in turn their divinities” (Massillon).

Joh_7:12. Men by nature have wandered far from the light and knowledge of God.

Chaldean shepherds, ranging trackless fields,

Beneath the concave of unclouded skies

Spread like a sea, in boundless solitude,

Look’d on the polar star, as on a guide

And guardian of their course, that never closed

His steadfast eye. The planetary five

With a submissive reverence they beheld;

Watch’d, from the centre of their sleeping flocks,

Those radiant Mercuries, that seem’d to move,

Carrying through ether, in perpetual round,

Decrees and resolutions of the gods;

And, by their aspects, signifying works

Of dim futurity, to man reveal’d.

The imaginative faculty was lord

Of observations natural; and, thus

Led on, those shepherds made report of stars

In set rotation passing to and fro,

Between the orbs of our apparent sphere

And its invisible counterpart, adorn’d

With answering constellations, under Earth,

Removed from all approach of living sight,

But present to the dead, who, so they deem’d,

Like those celestial messengers, beheld

All accidents, and judges were of all.

The lively Grecian, in a land of hills,

Rivers, and fertile plains, and sounding shores,

Under a cope of variegated sky,

Could find commodious place for every god,

Promptly received, as prodigally brought,

From the surrounding countries, at the choice

Of all adventurers. With unrivall’d skill,

As nicest observation furnish’d hints

For studious fancy, did his hand bestow

On fluent operations a fix’d shape;

Metal or stone, idolatrously served.

And yet, triumphant o’er this pompous show

Of art, this palpable array of sense,

On every side encounter’d; in despite

Of the gross fictions chanted in the streets

By wandering rhapsodists; and in contempt

Of doubt and bold denials hourly urged

Amid the wrangling schools—a “spirit” hung,

Beautiful region! o’er thy towns and farms,

Statues and temples, and memorial tombs;

And emanations were perceived, and acts

Of immortality, in nature’s course,

Exemplified by mysteries that were felt

As bonds, on grave philosopher imposed

And armèd warrior; and in every grove

A gay or pensive tenderness prevail’d

When piety more awful had relax’d.

Wordsworth

Joh_7:12. Reason not the light of men.

Dim as the borrow’d beams of moon and stars

To lonely, weary, wandering travellers,

Is reason to the soul: and as, on high,

Those rolling fires discover but the sky,

Not light as here; so reason’s glimmering ray

Was sent, not to assure our doubtful way,

But guide us upward to a better day.

And as those nightly tapers disappear

When day’s bright lord ascends our hemisphere;

So pale grows reason at religion’s sight;

So dies, and so dissolves in supernatural light.

Some few, whose lamp shone brighter, have been led

From cause to cause, to nature’s secret head,

And found that one first principle must be;

But what or who, that UNIVERSAL HE;

Whether some soul encompassing this ball,

Unmade, unmoved, yet making, moving all;

Not even the Stagirite himself could see,

And Epicurus guess’d as well as he.

As blindly groped they for a future state,

As rashly judged of Providence and fate,

But least of all could their endeavours find

What most concern’d the good of human kind.

Thus anxious thoughts in endless circles roll,

Without a centre where to fix the soul:

In this wild maze their vain endeavours end:

How can the less the greater comprehend?

Or finite reason reach Infinity?

For what could fathom God were more than He.—John Dryden.

Joh_7:12. Christians in Christ are lights in the world.—Every Christian is a light of the world; for he should know and be assured what manner of man he is, and what is his standing with God—that he comes from God, and … in Christ has a holy standing, having become a new man, and shall eternally abide with God. In this condition I live and bear the cross; therefore I know whence I have come. I am truly no more the old Hans or Claus, who was descended from Adam; but I am a Christian. I bear a name common to all, with all those who are new born.… And at the end of this life heaven stands open for me, so that with all the saints I may go thither. I am sure of my position; my glory has a most precious foundation. But the “evil men and seducers” stand in great peril; they know not whence they come and whither they go, are uncertain of their condition, and pass on as in a dream.—Luther, quoted by Besser.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

Jesus

Joh 7:53 to Joh 8:11; is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate context Joh 7:12-46 beginning with Christ’s declaration, "I am the light of the world." seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees, as recorded in; Joh 8:9; as also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisee’s words (Joh 7:41).

The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The Woman Taken in Adultery.

The arraignment of the guilty woman:

v. l. Jesus went into the Mount of Olives.

v. 2. And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down and taught them.

v. 3. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

v. 4. they say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

v. 5. Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such should be stoned; but what sayest Thou?

v. 6. This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not.

The members of the Sanhedrin, after the excited discussion which broke up their meeting, went each one to his house. But Jesus, having no home or definite place of sojourn in Jerusalem, went to the Mount of Olives, very likely to the town of Bethany, where His friends Martha, Mary, and Lazarus lived, in whose house He was always a welcome guest. But very early the next morning, as soon as the Temple-gates were opened for the morning sacrifices, He was back again, to continue His work of teaching the people. The Lord was indefatigable in His labors for the salvation of mankind, a shining example to all His servants. Jesus had no trouble in getting an audience; all the people that came to the Temple went to Him, and He addressed the assembly, teaching them words of eternal life. As a teacher in the Temple-school, as a teacher in the house of God, He sat before the people and instructed them. But the scribes and Pharisees, whose vindictive hatred would hardly give them any rest, were planning some way of taking the Lord unawares and ruining His standing with the common people. They brought an adulteress and placed her before Him, indicating that they were arraigning her before Him as judge. This was an altogether irregular proceeding, for they had their church courts, as well as their civil judges; but they were seeking occasion against Him. The woman was placed in the midst, to expose her shame before all, whereupon they stated their accusation, incidentally addressing Jesus, with mock courtesy, as "teacher. " There could be no doubt as to the guilt of the woman; it was a plain case of a flagrant transgression. But to the scribes and Pharisees the fate of the woman evidently was a secondary consideration, especially since the old church-laws were no longer carried out in all their stringency. They state the ordinance of Moses in a case of this kind, See Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22-23; Lev 21:9; Eze 16:38-40, but in a way implying a contrast between the Old Testament teacher and Jesus, for their question is: What now sayest Thou? It was a malicious temptation, and in no way an innocent questioning; their object was to find some accusation against Him. "Where shall He now go, the poor man Christ, when every avenue of escape is shut off? If He should keep silence, that would not agree. very well. If He says Yes, it is against His preaching; if He says No, it is against Moses. " But His enemies were disappointed, for Jesus, having stooped down, wrote on the ground with His finger, not for shame of the deed itself and the brazen hardness of the persecutors, as has been stated, but in order to convey to them, in a most emphatic way, that He wanted nothing to do with this matter, that it in no way concerned Him, but was a matter for their courts. The punishment of adultery was the business of the government: The idea of inveigling Him into an apparent opposition to the Law of Moses did not appeal to Him. It was a deliberate, an accusing silence. Note: If only all people to whose attention the shame and disgrace of a neighbor’s sin is brought would assume at once this reproachful silence! It would. effectually stop malignant gossiping.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 8:12

The Festival of Epiphany

I. There is no figure more common in Scripture, and none more beautiful, than that by which Christ is likened unto light. Incomprehensible in its nature, itself the first visible, and that by which all things are seen, light represents to us Christ, Whose generation none can declare, but Who must shine upon us ere we can know aught aright, whether of things Divine or human. Itself pure and uncontaminated, though visiting the lowest parts of the earth, and penetrating its most noisome recesses, what does light image, if not that undefiled Mediator who contracted no stain, though born of a woman in the likeness of sinful flesh? Who can question that the rising of Jesus Christ, was to the moral world what the sun is to the natural?

II. Without pleading that the state of the world, before Christ came, was a state of total darkness, we may yet affirm that Christ emphatically came as the light of the world. In no district of the earth—not even in Judæa, though privileged with revelation—was there anything that could be called more than the dawning of the day. Types there were—significative ceremonies—mysterious emblems, but these do not constitute the day. At best, they were but a twilight, that gave promise of the morning; and if that be all we can affirm of Judæa, then certainly, until the light of which we have been speaking, there brooded over other lands a darkness that might be felt. Here and there were lingering traces of a patriarchial religion; but every year saw the gathering of thicker gloom, and streak after streak grew dim on the firmament.

III. Such was the state of the whole Gentile world when He appeared, whom the prophecy announced as "a light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death." Was the testimony exaggerated, or has it been justified by events? Wheresoever the Gospel has been published and received as a communication from God, the darkness has fled as night flies before the sun. It hath hung the very grave with bright lamps, and rekindled the spirit of an almost quenched immortality. The pardon of sin, justification through the Mediator’s righteousness, the gradual overcoming of the corruptions of nature, guidance in difficulty, guardianship in danger, comfort in affliction, triumph in death—all these are in the portion of him who follows Christ—followeth Him in faith as his surety, in obedience as his pattern. And are not these the light—yea, the light of life?

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1829.

I. Jesus had often spoken this word before. Every act of mercy He did, spoke to the men who were the subjects of it. St. John dwells specially upon His cure of blindness. He takes that as an instance, and the clearest and liveliest instance, of the effects which were produced by all His miracles. Each sufferer felt that a power of darkness had taken hold of him; that a portion of the beauty and joy of the universe was hidden from him. The appearance of a deliverer who could set him free from his plague, was the appearance of a Light. He was brought out of a cave; the air that breathed upon the rest of men, was breathing on him; the common sun was shining on him. Christ’s word was light; the entrance of it into the soul gave light, and that light diffused itself through every part of the man. It brought health and vigour wherever it encountered sickness and decay.

II. Divines are wont to make distinctions between Christ the Teacher of the world at large, and Christ the Teacher of the heart and conscience of each man. They talk of an outward Christ and an inward Christ. The Evangelists indulge in no such refinements. The Christ who was born of the Virgin, who suffered under Pontius Pilate, reveals Himself—not to the eyes of those who actually see and handle Him, but to a spirit within them. And so there is no need of artificial rules and distinctions, such as doctors invent for their own confusion. The Light makes the distinction. It is not the distinction of Pharisee or Publican, of religious men or irreligious. It goes deeper than that. It is the distinction between that in every man which welcomes the light, and claims kindred with it, and that in every man which eschews the light and would fain extinguish it for ever. It expresses itself in these words, "He that followeth Me shall not walk in darkness." The Light of the world is not put out. Now have death and the grave been converted into the great testimonies for life and immortality. Now may each man, who has the sentence of Adam upon him, know that he is a kinsman of the Son of God. Now may he follow Him; and so, when the darkness is thickest around him and within, not walk in it, but see the Light of Life.

F. D. Maurice, Sermons, vol. iv., p. 203.

References: Joh 8:12.—H. Melvill, Voices of the Year, vol. i., p. 109; W. J. Hall, Church of England Pulpit, vol. x., p. 421; Good Words, vol. vi., p. 274; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. viii., p. 369; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 193; A. McAuslane, Christian World Pulpit, vol. ii., p. 321; W. M. Taylor, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 80; G. Matheson, Moments on the Mount, p. 250; E. Bersier, Sermons, 1st series, p. 136. D. Fraser, Metaphors of the Gospels, p. 16. Joh 8:15.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xv., p. 168. Joh 8:18.—Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 82; W. M. Taylor, The Gospel Miracles, p. 101. Joh 8:22.—T. Foster, Lectures, vol. i., p. 51.

Joh 8:23

Methods of Living

There are three methods of living in this world: we may live from beneath, or from within ourselves, or from above.

I. I need only distinguish the first mentioned method of life from beneath. We can easily recognise it, or any temptation in our own thoughts, from its bottomless pit. The world has received Christian education enough to lead it, publicly and before men, at least to repudiate the method of the devil in life. Christianity has, at least, dethroned Satan from open public recognition, if it has not banished the demons of private life.

II. The second method of life just mentioned is a very common one, and is good so far as it goes. It contains much truth, leads to many honourable works. It is the effort to live as a human being may best live in the powers of his own reason, and out of the motives of his own heart. Persons whose idea of life is to develop themselves to the utmost of their own powers and opportunities, to make the most, the best of their lives, often reach admirable results. But having acknowledged the fair fruits which we find growing sometimes upon this human, non-religious principle of living, if we turn now to the New Testament, we meet a difficulty in our text. The Scripture, apparently, fails to recognise this second, intermediate method of living. Jesus leaves out of his view of life altogether, the middle way. Jesus judges life as one looking back upon it from beyond the years; He speaks to human nature as one seeing into the eternal principles and necessities of things. The question between the Gospel with its two ways, and human nature with its third way, reduces itself to this: Is not this intermediate way—this middle method between heaven above and hell below—a path which we should reasonably expect would come somewhere to a break; when he who would follow it further will be compelled to scale the height, or plunge into the abyss? Is this method of life at least but a temporary or provisional method? And if this be so, can it now be justified as a necessary or reasonable expedient for a life?

III. We must allow that a provisional way of living is justifiable only upon the supposition that it is necessary, or that we can do no better. One may live as well as he can in a tent, provided there is no material at hand of which he may build a house. But there are materials, sound and ample, for a Christian home for life. Christ finds the child that was lost, and sets him in the midst of the Divine Fatherhood. The Christian life, the life from above, is the open, large, out-of-door life of the soul; the life not shut into itself, but looking out upon all realities and open to the whole day of God.

N. Smyth, The Reality of Faith, p. 180.

References: Joh 8:24.—J. Keble, Sermons from Lent to Passiontide, p. 357; G. S. Barrett, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 83. Joh 8:26.—F. W. Farrar, Church of England Pulpit, vol. v., p. 197.

Joh 8:28

The Gathering of the Nations

I. This text is a prophecy of the very widest scope. Christ is not so much addressing a few Jews as the whole world when He says: "Ye shall know that I am He." Christ is represented as the centre of attraction, towards which should be drawn from the whole community, the material of that Church which is to be for ever the great trophy of Omnipotence.

It would not be true that Christ is the Saviour of all men and specially of them that believe, if there were other names besides His under heaven by and through which the guilty might be pardoned; but now that there is deliverance-through this Mediator for all of every land, who are willing to receive Him as the free gift of God, and none except through that Mediator for a solitary individual in a single district of the earth,—we can affirm that by a Divine and irreversible appointment, the weary and the heavy-laden must be brought to Christ, or remain for ever burdened and laden with the weight of their iniquities. And they are brought to Christ; He is sending out His ministers to every section of the habitable globe, and Hit Spirit is everywhere accompanying the message, and making it mighty to the casting down the strongholds of ignorance and unbelief. In one quarter and another—one of this family and two of that—the nations are being subdued to the Messiah: there is enough, abundantly enough, to prove that all of which the prophets have spoken shall yet be gloriously exhibited on the stage of this creation.

II. But if we can plead that the prophecy before us has already received, and is constantly receiving, a partial accomplishment, are not coming days charged with its unrestricted fulfilment? It is possible that the thoughts of the Saviour, when uttering this prediction, were on the glorious and palmy days of the Church—days for which the faithful from the beginning have earnestly longed, and on which inspired writers have lavished the majesty of their loftiest descriptions. When the men of every age and of every land, linked in indissoluble brotherhood, shall crowd towards the Mediator as their common deliverer, their all in all, and cast their crowns at His feet, and sweep their harps to His praise, then will the prophecy receive its last and its noblest accomplishment; and all orders of intelligence, connecting the crucifixion, as a cause, with the magnificent gathering as an effect, will bear its enraptured witness to the thorough verification of the words, "When ye have lifted up the Son of Man, then shall ye know that I am He."

H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 1699.

References: Joh 8:29.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xx., No. 1165; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. ii., p. 264; F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of St. John, p. 226. Joh 8:31.—F. F. Goe, Penny Pulpit, No. 930. Joh 8:31, Joh 8:32.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. vii., p. 318; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 80. Joh 8:31-35.—J. Caird, Christian world Pulpit, vol. x., p. 376.

Joh 8:32

There are two powers that chiefly fashion our characters, and through our characters our lives, and these two are the discipline which we undergo either from ourselves or from others or from circumstances, the light wherewith God enlightens our souls. We live in the midst of our fellows, and we catch from them peculiar habits of action, of feeling, of thought. But discipline is not the only power that forms us; there is another power that acts in another way, and that is the power of clear insight, the power given by the light of truth, whenever that light reaches the soul. The discipline of life is bound up with the discipline of the conscience, and each helps or hinders the other.

I. It is the light, it is the possession of the truth, that makes the man free. This light is necessary to crown all other inward gifts. I do not say that light is the highest gift; love is surely higher, and that humility which is the especial mark of love. But light is the gift which brings with it true freedom. Light is the gift which makes all other gifts have their fullest and best use. Even love needs light to do its work. How large a part of the uncharitableness of mankind is really due to the want of light. The fact is, that there is no such bondage as darkness. The darkness that hides the truth, more effectually robs the man of his real freedom, than even his weakness and want of desire to have that freedom.

II. Now, how does the light come, and can we do anything to bring it? The light of truth is in some degree like the light of heaven. It comes by God’s ordinance for the most part, and not wholly by man’s seeking. The pearl of great price was found by the man who was seeking goodly pearls. He sought for truth; and he found in the course of his search the one truth of all. But the treasure hid in a field was found by one who was not seeking at all. The truth was given in the course of God’s providence, and looked as if it came by chance. No man can be certain of finding the great truth which shall light up his own individual life in a particular way, or at a particular time. All that can be said is, that to this case emphatically the promise applies, "He that seeketh, findeth." In other words, the first condition of finding the truth is that you shall wish to find it.

Bishop Temple, Rugby Sermons, 3rd series, p. 149.

References: Joh 8:32.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. v., p. 104; vol. x., p. 193; G. Brooks, Five Hundred Outlines of Sermons, p. 399; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. x., p. 39; Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 1; vol. xv., p. 102; E. de Pressensé, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 68. Joh 8:33.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iii., p. 85. Joh 8:33-36.—G. Salmon, Non-Miraculous Christianity, p. 206. Joh 8:33-48.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xvi., p. 22. Joh 8:34.—S. Baring Gould, One Hundred Sermon Sketches, p. 136; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ix., p. 103; Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 88.

Joh 8:35

I. We see here the possible ending of the tyranny of sin. "A slave abides not in the house for ever." Therefore the very fact that the service of sin is so hard a slavery shows it to be unnatural, abnormal, and capable of a termination.

II. The actual deliverer, "The Son abideth ever." "If the Son make you free, ye shall be free indeed." The conversion of the mere possibility of freedom into actual fact requires two things: that the Deliverer should be the Son of God, and that He should be the Son of man.

A. Maclaren, Sermons preached in Manchester, 3rd series, p. 31.

References: Joh 8:36.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. x., No. 565; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. xi., p. 321; E. de Pressensé, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 68; J. Keble, Sermons from Lent to Passiontide, p. 346; H. Melvill, Penny Pulpit, No. 2627. Joh 8:37.—Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes, Gospels and Acts, p. 142.

Joh 8:39

The great law which Christ here lays down is that that which is historically true may be morally false; men may be genealogically akin, and spiritually alien; natural relation may be forfeited by moral apostasy.

I. Jesus Christ dispossesses men of pedigree and claim, and status and record, unless the men themselves are of the right bulk and colour and quality and force. The Abrahamic dignity is not superimposed, or handed down like an heirloom; every man must support his claim by his spirit and his action. If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham; but because ye do not the works of Abraham, ye have no right to use the holy man’s name.

II. Jesus Christ showed the Jews, and therefore showed all men, what the test is by which a pure descent may be known. If God were your father, ye would love Me—that is the test—because ye would know Me; my disguise would not conceal Me, you would be moved by a strange feeling of kinship; you would say, Though we never saw this man before, He belongs to us and we belong to Him; in His voice is music, in His touch is resurrection; we will take up our abode with Him. If God were your father, you would rise above all local prejudice, and seize the essence of the truth; you would know the Divine through every disguise.

III. If, then, we are of God, and have the really godly spirit in us, wherever we find truth, or beauty, or the beginning of the best life, we shall say, Lo, God is here, and I knew it not; this heathen book is, in respect of all these deep, true, pure words, none other than the house of God and the gate of heaven. Here is a flower growing in the fissures of a rock; is it an orphan flower? is it a self-made flower? If it could come down from its rocky heights and walk into the well-cultured garden, might it not say, "We have all one father, and one gardener hath taken care of us every one? I am glad to have come down from my stony isolation, and I am thankful to be able to join the floral brotherhood." What if the garden brotherhood should say, "We do not know thee; we are of our father the gardener; who art thou? what is thy pedigree?" They would be foolish flowers, and not deserve to live another year. It is by the operation of this same law that we know brotherhood. Being of the same quality, we accost one another in the same language.

Parker, Christian Commonwealth, Feb. 17th, 1887.

References: Joh 8:42.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxi., No. 1257; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. ix., p. 313; Parker, Sermons in Union Chapel, Islington, p. 118; Ibid., Inner Life of Christ, vol. iii., p. 302. Joh 8:43.—F. D. Maurice, The Gospel of St. John, p. 240. Joh 8:44.—E. Paxton Hood, Preacher’s Lantern, vol. ii., p. 285. Joh 8:45.—Homilist, vol. iii., p. 629.

Joh 8:46

The Absolute Sinlessness of Christ

I. The sinlessness of our Lord has been supposed to be compromised by the conditions of the development of His life as man—sometimes by particular acts and sayings which are recorded of Him. When, for instance, we are told in the Epistle to the Hebrews that our Lord "learned obedience by the things that He suffered," this, it is argued, clearly means progress from moral deficiency to moral sufficiency, and as a consequence it implies in Him a time when He was morally imperfect; but, although the growth of our Lord’s moral nature as man implies that as a truly human nature He was finite, it does not by any means follow that such a growth involved sin as its starting point. A moral development may be perfect and pure, and yet be a development. A progress from a more or less expanded degree of perfection is not to be confounded with a progress from sin to holiness. In the latter case there is an element of antagonism in the will which is wholly wanting in the former. Christ’s life is a revelation of the moral life of God, completing God’s previous revelations, not merely teaching us what God is in formulas addressed to our understanding, but showing us what He is in characters which may be read by our very senses and which may take possession of our hearts.

II. Now, the sinless Christ satisfies a deep want of the soul of man—the want of an ideal. Other ideals, great as they are in their several ways, fall short, each of them, of perfection, in some particular, on some side. When we examine them closely, however reverently we scan them, there is One beyond them all—only One—One who does not fail. They, standing beneath His throne, say, each of them, to us with St. Paul, "Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ." But He, above them all, asks each generation of His worshippers—asks each generation of His critics—that passes along beneath His throne, "Which of you convinceth Me of sin?"

III. The sinless Christ is also the true Reconciler between God and man. His death was the crowning act of a life which throughout had been sacrificial; but, had He been conscious of any inward stain, how could He have desired—how could He have dared—to offer Himself in sacrifice to free a world from sin? Had there been in Him any taint—the least of personal evil to purge away, His death might have been endured on account of His own guilt. It is His absolute sinlessness which makes it certain that He died, as He lived, for others.

H. P. Liddon, Penny Pulpit, No. 511.

A Sense of Sin

I. A sense of sin is chiefly fed by the Holy Ghost on the fruits of evil, the results which it always bears. Those are the providences of God to awaken and strengthen the sense of sin; and He has surrounded us with the sorrows and the evils and the shame that spring from weakness, in order to prevent the healthy soul from becoming indifferent to evil. The act of sin in a man is not the real spiritual evil that has long been lurking and hiding about a man’s mind and heart and soul. The fault is only the bodily shape of the spiritual wickedness by which God in His mercy revealed the sinner to Himself. We are not punished at last for that lie, or for that blow, or that word sharper than any blow; but we are punished for that internal nature, for that violent heart, for that unloving and unlovely soul which cannot get to heaven, which has daily grown by use and become by habit our second nature, slowly overgrowing and choking all the good seed which our Lord has sown in the fields of our life, and counteracting all the graces by which He has sought throughout our life to give us a new heart in communion with His own.

II. When a man has been kept from all open and flagrant acts of sin by the Hand that held him up, he is apt to grow self-righteous and self-satisfied; he slowly enters into the family of the Pharisee. The sins we do speak for themselves, and the danger is light compared with that self-esteem, or at least that self-content, that prevented men from coming to the Baptist, and at last prevented them from coming to our Lord. There are truer measures for sin than those which the law has laid down. The use of sin is to convince us of our sinfulness, to bear witness with the Word of God that we cannot win heaven by our own goodness, nor deserve the good things which the Lord provides.

J. Gott, Family Churchman, April 28th, 1886.

References: Joh 8:46.—Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. ix., No. 492; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. v., p. 6; H. P. Liddon, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 83; Contemporary Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 315; S. Leathes, Preacher’s Lantern, vol. iv., p. 299. Joh 8:46-59.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. ii., p. 150; Homiletic Quarterly, vol. i., p. 60.

Joh 8:48

The Bad Mind makes a Bad Element

I. This subject puts in a sad light of evidence what may well enough be called the weak point of Christianity—viz., the fact that the souls to be saved will be always seeing themselves in it, and not seeing it as it is; turning it thus into an element as dry as their dryness, as bitter as their bitterness, as distasteful and oppressive as their own weak thraldom under sin. The grand difficulty in the way of a general conversion is, that the bad minds of the world so immediately convert the gospel into their own figure.

II. We here perceive what is the true value of condition. I do not blame, of course, a true attention to condition; it is even a duty. But the notion that we are really to make our state bad or good by the surroundings of life, and not by what is within us, not only violates the Scripture counsel, but quite as palpably the dictates of good sense; it is, in fact, the great folly of man. For a bad mind is of necessity its own bad state, and that state will be just as bad as the man is to himself, neither more nor less, come what may. If the bad state is in you, then everything is bad; the internal disorder makes all things an element of disorder—even the sun in the sky will be your enemy.

III. We discover in this subject what opinion to hold of the meaning and dignity of the state sometimes called misanthropy. This very foolish state of mind has one legitimate cure, and one that is true reason itself—conviction of sin. Misanthropy and world-sickness are the bad state felt; conviction of sin is the bad state understood. That is a conceited misery; this the shame of a self-discovering weakness, guilt, and spiritual disorder.

IV. It is clear, on this subject, that we have little reason for troubling ourselves on questions that relate to a place of future misery. The bad mind has the fire and brimstone in itself.

V. The salvation of man is possible only on the ground of a great and radical change in his inmost temper and spirit. What is wanted for the felicity of man is clearly not a change of place or condition, but a change in that which makes both place and condition what they are.

H. Bushnell, Christ and His Salvation, p., 278.

Joh 8:51

Christ our Life

I. In Christ all shall be made alive; but that the depth and extent of the Scriptural term life can never be limited to the mere revival of the soul from death or unconsciousness seems obvious on the most cursory inspection of the sacred volume. So far is mere immortality from answering to this gift of life, that there is a species of immortality to which the title of death, "eternal death," and the "second death" is given. It appears hence that this life, as well as the death spoken of in the text, is essentially a moral, not a merely physical, state or notion; that it is a blessed and spiritual vitality. To express His highest spiritual bestowments no term is more frequently employed by our blessed Lord than "light." Now, this light is itself perpetually connected with His descriptions or intimations of the life He was to bestow. "My followers shall have the ’light of life,’" He declares to the Pharisees; while the shadow of death is, as you know, the constant type of a state of hopeless spiritual ruin.

II. The more you reflect on this mighty theme, the more you will see that Christ’s offer, instead of being limited to any of the forms of life, grasps them all; that He must raise the dead as Judge and Saviour, that He may punish and that He may save; that He bestows a quickening principle of spiritual life upon the soul, which must pass the grave, for nothing holy can perish; it partakes of the Divine nature; it is incorruptible seed, and must flower in Paradise; finally, that of this last consummate state He is also Lord and Donor, and in love shall rejoice as He beholds the same light which once was dawn hereafter settling on that noon which knows no sunset.

III. "He that keepeth My saying shall never see death." Many a dark century has passed away since the walls of the temple echoed these glorious words—words, one would deem, that, uttered from God to man, might well change the face of the world. It is no momentary adoption of the faith and law of Christ to which eternal life is the promised recompense. God will not condescend to take His place among the fashions of the day. Christianity is a new life.

W. Archer Butler, Sermons, Doctrinal and Practical, p. 90.

References: Joh 8:51.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 89; H. Wilmot-Buxton, The Life of Duty, vol. i., p. 176. Joh 8:54.—Contemporary Pulpit, vol. ix., p. 241.

Joh 8:56

Christ’s Day, or Christmas Joys

I. The text does not tell us that Abraham had any distinct foresight of the manner of Christ’s birth. That was a mystery which remained locked up in the secret chambers of God’s counsels, until it seemed good to the Holy Ghost to reveal it to the prophet Isaiah. But the meaning of the words My day in the text must clearly be the day or season of Christ’s coming, and dwelling upon earth, the day or season of that earthly life into which He entered. This, then, is the day which our father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see, the day of the coming of Him in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, the day of Christ’s coming to dwell upon earth, in order that He might deliver mankind from their sins.

II. If we have the spirit of Abraham, if we have the faith of Abraham, we must rejoice, as Abraham rejoiced, in the thought that we are to see Christ’s day. The Christian is to rejoice at the coming of Christ, because He who is the Lord of light and life brings both one and the other. This He did, when He first came, to the whole world. The whole world was lying in darkness and in the shadow of death, when the Sun of righteousness arose and turned its darkness into light, its night into day. The whole world was rotten at heart and palsied in all its limbs, when Christ came and breathed His spirit into it, and said, "Arise and walk." And as it was with the whole world, when Christ first came as on this day to deliver it out of its deadly darkness, so is it still with the soul of every one to whom Christ comes for the first time. These, then, are the reasons why we are to rejoice in the coming of Christ; that, whereas without Christ we are blind, Christ opens our eyes and enables us to see; that whereas without Christ we are deaf, Christ enables us to hear; that whereas without Christ we are in darkness and know not where we are nor whither we go, Christ sheds the clearest, brightest light both upon us and upon everything around us: that, further, whereas without Christ we are bound with the chains of sin, Christ came to burst those chains and to deliver us into the glorious liberty of the children of God; in a word that, whereas without Christ we are without God in the world, Christ has set us at one with God—that, whereas without Christ we are at war with God, with each other, and with ourselves, Christ came to bring us peace with ourselves, with each other, and with God.

J. C. Hare, Sermons in Herstmonceux Church, p. 111.

References: Joh 8:56.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 20; Homilist, 3rd series, vol. iii., p. 151.

Joh 8:58

The text is one of those rare passages in which Jesus Christ appears to stand upon His own dignity, in which the Lowly, the Humble, the Unresisting Son of man asserts His high origin, claiming to be God, for it amounts to no less: God from everlasting. "Before Abraham was, I am."

I. Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ. He had a glimpse of that day of the birth of Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, as He had a glimpse also of the manner in which Jesus Christ should work out our redemption. He took his son Isaac and offered him up on Mount Moriah—that Isaac so exceedingly dear, of whom it was said, that "in Isaac shall thy seed be called." He offered him up, his one hope of becoming the father of many nations. And that act of Abraham—that act of faith, was counted unto him for righteousness; and he is held up for ever as the father of the faithful. To him, as St. Paul writes, "The Scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the Gospel, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed."

II. Jesus Christ Himself lived before Abraham was born. Whenever God is spoken of as holding communion and as being visible to man, it is in the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God, the Son, Jesus Christ. It is He who declares to us the Father. It is He who represents God to us, and is Himself God, even Jesus Christ. This was He who talked with and was called the friend of Abraham. It was He who was the Giver of the Law to Moses, it is He by whose agency the worlds were made, God the Supreme Deity dwelleth in the light which no man can approach: but Jesus Christ who is the image of the Invisible God, hath manifested, made known, declared to us, what God is; how good, how gracious, how ready to forgive, and how rich in mercy to those who call upon Him. It follows, then, that we should honour and worship Him as God, we should draw near with all reverence, with all holiness, with bowed heads and bowed hearts, to present our supplication before Him.

R. D. B. Rawnsley, Village Sermons, 3rd series, p. 62.

References: Joh 8:58.—G. T. Coster, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xvi., p. 88; C. Kingsley, All Saints’ Day, and Other Sermons, p. 116. Joh 8:59.—J. Keble, Sermons from Septuagesima to Ash Wednesday, p. 343. Joh 8:59.—A. P. Stanley, Three Hundred Outlines on the New Testament, p. 79; Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. vii., p. 57. Joh 9:1.—T. Birkett Dover, The Ministry of Mercy, p. 123. Joh 9:1.—Homiletic Magazine, vol. xii., p. 103; S. G. Matthews, Christian World Pulpit, vol. xiv., p. 266; J. Keble, Sermons on Various Occasions, p. 475.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

The foregoing chapter gave us an account of a most excellent sermon, which our Saviour preached in the temple, at the feast of tabernacles. Now the feast being ended, Jesus did not tarry in the city all night, but went out of it two miles, as he frequently used to do, to the mount of Olives. Although it was so dangerous for him to be seen any more in Jerusalem, yet early the next morning he returns again to the city, enters the temple, and falls upon his work of preaching without fear and with indefatigable diligence.

O what a busy, useful life was this of our Saviour’s! He spent the day in preaching in the temple, the night in privacy and prayer on the mount of Olives; and the next morning he returns to his work of preaching again. Thus was he always holily and painfully employed. To glorfiy his Father, and to be useful and beneficial to mankind, was his food by day, and his rest by night.

Lord, how little do we resemble thee, if, when thy life was all pain and labour, ours be all pastime, pleasure, and recreation.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

J. W. McGarvey's The Fourfold Gospel [LXXIX. Story of the Adulteress].

LXXIX. THE STORY OF THE ADULTERESS. (Jerusalem.) dJOHN VII. 53-VIII. 11.

[This section is wanting in nearly all older manuscripts, but Jerome (A. D. 346-420) says that in his time it was contained in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts," and these must have been as good or better than the best manuscripts we now possess. But whether we regard it as part of John's narrative or not, scholars very generally accept it as a genuine piece of history.] d53 And they went every man unto his own house [confused by the question of Nicodemus, the assembly broke up and each man went home]: 1 but Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. [Probably crossing the mountain to the house of Lazarus and sisters.] 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down [as an authoritative teacher did-- Mat_5:1], and taught them. 3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, 4 they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act. [The woman had probably been brought to the rulers for trial, and they had seen in her case what appeared to be a promising means of entrapping Jesus. In the presence of the woman and the form of their accusation we see their coarse brutality. The case could have been presented to Jesus without the presence of the woman, and without a detailed accusation.] 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such [It was a case under Deu_22:22. Stoning was the legal method of capital punishment]: what then sayest thou of her? 6 And this they said, trying him, that they might have i whereof to accuse him. [They were placing Jesus in a dilemma. They reasoned that he [451] could not set aside the law of Moses and clear the woman without so losing the confidence and favor of the people as to frustrate his claim to be Messiah. They thought he would therefore be compelled to condemn the woman. But if he ordered her to be put to death, he would be assuming authority which belonged only to the Roman rulers, and could therefore be accused and condemned as a usurper.] But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. [His act was intended to make them vehement, and to give his answer greater effect. What he wrote is unimportant and immaterial, and hence was not told.] 7 But when they continued asking him [they insisted on an answer, hoping that he would so explain away the seventh commandment as to encourage them in breaking the sixth], he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. [Under the law ( Deu_17:7), the witnesses were to cast the first stone. Jesus maintained and vindicated the law, but imposed a condition which they had overlooked. The one who executed the law must be free from the same crime, lest by stoning the woman he condemn himself as worthy of a like death. There is no doubt that the words of Jesus impressed upon them the truth that freedom from the outward act did not imply inward purity or sinlessness-- Mat_5:27, Mat_5:28.] 8 And again he stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground. [Thus giving them the opportunity to retire without the embarrassment of being watched.] 9 And they, when they heard it, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest, i even unto the last [the oldest was first to be convicted of his conscience, because his experience of life's sinfulness was necessarily the fullest]: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst. [I. e., in the midst of the court, where the crowd had been.] 10 And Jesus lifted up himself, and said unto her, Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee? [This question is asked to pave the way for the dismissal of the woman.] 11 And she said, No man, Lord. ["Lord" is ambiguous; it [452] may mean "Master" or simply "sir."] And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more. [The woman did not ask forgiveness, so no words of pardon are spoken. Compare this case with Luk_12:14. Jesus did not come as an earthly judge; neither did he come to condemn, but to save. The narrative shows how Jesus could deal with malice and impurity in a manner so full of delicacy and dignity as to demonstrate the divine wisdom which dwelt within him.]

[FFG 451-453]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

John Chapter 8

In chapter 8, as we have said, the word of Jesus is rejected; and, in chapter 9, His works. But there is much more than that. The personal glories of chapter 1 are reproduced and developed in all these chapters separately (leaving out for the moment from verse 36 to 51 of chapter 1(Joh 1:36-51)): we have found again the Joh 1:14-34 in chapters 5, 6, and 7. The Holy Ghost now returns to the subject of the first verses in the chapter. Christ is the Word; He is the life, and the life which is the light of men. The three chapters that I have now pointed out speak of what He is in grace for men, while still declaring His right to judge. The Spirit here (in chap. 8) sets before us that which He is in Himself, and that which He is to men (thus putting them to the test, so that in rejecting Him they reject themselves, and shew themselves to be reprobate).

Let us now consider our chapter. The contrast with Judaism is evident. They bring a woman whose guilt is undeniable. The Jews, in their wickedness, bring her forward in the hope of confounding the Lord. If He condemned her, He was not a Saviour-the law could do as much. If He let her go, He despised and disallowed the law. This was clever; but what avails cleverness in the presence of God who searches the heart? The Lord allows them to commit themselves thoroughly by not answering them for awhile. Probably they thought He was entangled. At last He says, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast the stone.” Convicted by their conscience, without honesty and without faith, they quit the scene of their confusion, separating from each other, each caring for himself, caring for character not conscience, and departing from Him who had convicted them; he who had the most reputation to save going out first. What a sorrowful picture! What a mighty word! Jesus and the woman are left together alone. Who can stand unconvicted in His presence? With regard to the woman, whose guilt was known, He does not go beyond the Jewish position, except to preserve the rights of His own Person in grace.

This is not the same thing as in Luk 7:1-50, plenary pardon and salvation. The others could not condemn her-He would not. Let her go, and let her sin no more. It is not the grace of salvation that the Lord exhibits here. He does not judge, He was not come for this; but the efficacy of the pardon is not the subject of these chapters-it is the glory here of His Person, in contrast with all that is of the law. He is the light, and by the power of His word He entered as light into the conscience of those who had brought the woman.

For the Word was light; but that was not all. Coming into the world, He was (chap. 1:4-10) the light. Now it was the life that was the light of men. It was not a law that made demands, and condemned; or that promised life on obedience to its precepts. It was the Life itself which was there in His Person, and that life was the light of men, convincing them, and, perhaps, judging them; but it was as light. Thus Jesus says here-in contrast with the law, brought by those who could not stand before the light-”I am the light of the world” (not merely of the Jews). For in this Gospel we have what Christ is essentially in His Person, whether as God, the Son come from the Father, or Son of man-not what God was in special dealings with the Jews. Hence He was the object of faith in His Person, not in dispensational dealings. Whoso followed Him should have the light of life. But it was in Him, in His Person, that it was found. And He could bear record of Himself, because, although He was a man there, in this world, He knew whence He came and whither He was going. It was the Son, who came from the Father and was returning to Him again. He knew it, and was conscious of it. His testimony, therefore, was not that of an interested person which one might hesitate to believe. There was, in proof that this man was the One whom He represented Himself to be, the testimony of the Son (His own), and the testimony of the Father. If they had known Him, they would have known the Father.

At that time-in spite of such testimony as this-no one laid hands on Him: His hour was not yet come. That only was wanting; for their opposition to God was certain, and known to Him. This opposition was plainly declared (Joh 8:19-24); consequently, if they believed not, they would die in their sins. Nevertheless He tells them that they shall know who He is, when He shall have been rejected and lifted up on the cross, having taken a very different position as the Saviour, rejected by the people and unknown of the world; when no longer presented to them as such, they should know that He was indeed the Messiah, and that He was the Son who spoke to them from the Father. As He spake these words, many believed on Him. He declares to them the effect of faith, which gives occasion to the true position of the Jews being manifested with terrible precision. He declares that the truth would set them free, and that if the Son (who is the truth) should set them free, they would be free indeed. The truth sets free morally before God. The Son, by virtue of the rights that were necessarily His, and by inheritance in the house, would place them in it according to those rights, and that in the power of divine life come down from heaven-the Son of God with power as resurrection declared it. In this was the true setting free.

Piqued at the idea of bondage, which their pride could not bear, they declare themselves to be free, and never to have been in bondage to any one. In reply, the Lord shews that those who commit sin are the servants (slaves) of sin. Now, as being under the law, as being Jews, they were servants in the house: they should be sent away. But the Son had inalienable rights; He was of the house and would abide in it for ever. Under sin, and under the law, was the same thing for a child of Adam; he was a servant. The apostle shews this in Rom 6:1-23 (compare chaps. 7 and 8) and in Gal 4:1-31; Gal 5:1-26. Moreover, they were neither really, nor morally, the children of Abraham before God, although they were so according to the flesh; for they sought to kill Jesus. They were not children of God; had they been, they would have loved Jesus who came from God. They were the children of the devil and would do his works.

Observe here, that to understand the meaning of the word is the way to apprehend the force of the words. One does not learn the definition of words and then the things; one learns the things, and then the meaning of the words is evident.

They begin to resist the testimony, conscious that He was making Himself greater than all those whom they had leant upon. They rail upon Him because of His words; and by their opposition the Lord is induced to explain Himself more clearly; until, having declared that Abraham rejoiced to see His day, and the Jews applying this to His age as man, He announces positively that He is the One who calls Himself I am-the supreme name of God, that He is God Himself-He whom they pretended to know as having revealed Himself in the bush.

Wondrous revelation! A despised, rejected man, despised and rejected by men, contradicted, ill-treated, yet it was God Himself who was there. What a fact! What a total change! What a revelation to those who acknowledged Him, or who know Him! What a condition is theirs who have rejected Him, and that because their hearts were opposed to all that He was, for He did not fail to manifest Himself! What a thought, that God Himself has been here! Goodness itself! How everything vanishes before Him!-the law, man, his reasonings. Everything necessarily depends on this great fact. And, blessed be His name! this God is a Saviour. We are indebted to the sufferings of Christ for knowing it. And note here, how the setting aside formal dispensations from God, if true, is by the revelation of Himself, and so introduces infinitely greater blessing.

But here He presents Himself as the Witness, the Word, the Word made flesh, the Son of God, but still the Word, God Himself. In the narrative at the beginning of the chapter He is a testimony to the conscience, the Word that searches and convicts. Joh 8:18, He bears testimony with the Father. Joh 8:26, He declares in the world that which He has received of the Father, and as taught of God He has spoken. Moreover the Father was with Him. Joh 8:32-33, the truth was known by His word, and the truth made them free. Joh 8:47, He spoke the words of God. Joh 8:51, His word, being kept, preserved from death. Joh 8:58, it was God Himself, the Jehovah whom the fathers knew, that spoke.

Opposition arose from its being the word of truth (Joh 8:45). Opposers were of the adversary. He was a murderer from the beginning, and they would follow him; but as the truth was the source of life, so that which characterised the adversary was, that he abode not in the truth: there is no truth in him. He is the father and the source of lies, so that,if falsehood speaks, it is one belonging to him that speaks. Sin was bondage, and they were in bondage by the law. (Truth, the Son Himself, made free.) But, more than that, the Jews were enemies, children of the enemy, and they would do his works, not believing the words of Christ because He spoke the truth. There is no miracle here; it is the power of the word, and the living word is God Himself: rejected by men, He is, as it were, compelled to speak the truth, to reveal Himself, hidden at once and manifested, as He was in the flesh-hidden as to His glory, manifested as to all that He is in His Person and in His grace.

John Nelson Darby — Synopsis of the Books of the Bible: the New Testament (c. 1857–1862) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1. Went unto the mount of Olives. For the night, as he was wont to do the last week of his life.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

Connecting Statement:

Verse 1 tells us where Jesus went at the end of the previous chapter.

General Information:

While some texts have Joh 7:53 - 8:11, the best and earliest texts do not include them.

General Information:

The next part of the story begins in verse 2 as Jesus has returned to the temple.

all the people

This is a general way of speaking. It means "many people."

The scribes and the Pharisees brought

Here the phrase "the scribes and the Pharisees" is a synecdoche that represents some of the members of these two groups. AT: "Some scribes and Pharisees brought" or "Some men who taught the Jewish laws and some who were Pharisees" (See: Synecdoche)

a woman caught in the act of adultery

This is a passive statement. You may translate it in an active form. AT: "a woman whom they had found committing adultery" (See: Active or Passive)

translationWords

Mount of Olives

temple

scribe

Pharisee

adultery

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

1–11. The number of various readings in this section is very large, and we have not the data for constructing a satisfactory text.

1. τὸ ὄρος τῶν Ἐ. The M. of Olives, which is mentioned 10 times by the Synoptists, is not mentioned by S. John (comp. Joh 18:1); and when he introduces a new place he commonly adds an explanation: Joh 1:44, Joh 4:5, Joh 5:2, Joh 6:1, Joh 19:13; Joh 19:17. Πορεύεσθαι εἰς, frequent in the Synoptists, does not occur in S. John.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.