Sermon series: AN EXPOSITION OF THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

John 8:1-11
"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.
Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act.
"Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.
So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first."
And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?"
She said, "No one, Lord," And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Message: We must begin our lesson today with a brief note on the problems and difficulties that surround our text.
The older the manuscripts of the New Testament are, the more valuable they are. They were all copied by hand, and obviously the nearer they are to the original writings the more likely they are to be correct. We call these very early manuscripts, the Uncial manuscripts, because they are written in capital letters; and we base the text of the New Testament on the earliest ones, which date from the fourth to the sixth century. The fact is that out of all these early manuscripts this story occurs only in one, and that is not one of the best. Six of them omit it completely.
Two leave a blank space where it should come. It is not till we come to the late Greek manuscripts and the medieval manuscripts that we find this story, and even then it is often marked to show that it is doubtful.
Though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe, moreover, that what is here recorded really took place, and contains nothing that is in conflict with the apostolic spirit. Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit.
Surely this brings up the question...Why was this story not in those early manuscripts? Augustine gives us a hint. He says that this story was removed from the text of the gospel because "some were of slight faith," and "to avoid scandal." We cannot tell for certain, but it would seem that in the very early days the people who edited the text of the New Testament thought that this was a dangerous story,

***PAGE BREAK***
(Page Two)

a justification for a light view of adultery, and therefore omitted it. After all, the Christian Church was a little island in a sea of paganism. Its members were so apt to relapse into a way of life where chastity was unknown; and were for ever open to pagan infection. But as time went on the danger grew less, or was less feared, and the story, which had always circulated by word of mouth and which one manuscript retained, came back. Thus, in spite of the doubt that the modern translations cast on it, and in spite of the fact that the early manuscripts do not include it, we may be sure that this is a real story about Jesus, although one so gracious that for long men were afraid to tell it. And now, let's consider this wonderful story of compassion and forgiveness.
The scribes and Pharisees were out to get some charge on which they could discredit Jesus; and here they thought they had impaled Him inescapably on the horns of a dilemma. When a difficult legal question arose, the natural and routine thing was to take it to a Rabbi for a decision. So the scribes and Pharisees approached Jesus as a Rabbi with a woman taken in adultery. The original text suggests that this woman was married.
The scribes and Pharisees had many mutual interests. Scribes were a valued profession in a world with limited literacy, and since biblical law was one of the chief subjects of theological discussion, the Pharisees (who were completely committed to the law) made good use of scribal skills.
These religious leaders make their charge explicit, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery." The Greek construction of the sentence makes it clear that these men are making a legal claim; They posses the evidence the law requires to convict the woman.
But what evidence do they need? The law required strong testimony from two witnesses who saw the couple in a sexual context. The two witnesses had to see these things at the same time and place so that their testimony would be identical. Such evidence virtually required the witness to set a trap. But there was another aspect which included a legal rule: "No penalty without a warning." This meant that in the case of any crime it was necessary that a potential offender be warned not do such and such a thing.
Now all this leads us to ask some questions! First, it is impossible for a woman to commit adultery all by herself, so the question arises, "Where was the man?" If the woman had been taken in the very act, as her accusers said, then there should have been a male offender who was taken too. The accusers have permitted him to get away clean. We do not know why a trap should have been set for the woman, but clearly the accusers were bent on having her executed. It may well be that the husband wanted her out of the way and had engaged helpers to secure that end.
The awful malignity of the Lord's enemies is evident on the surface. They brought this adulterous woman to Christ not because they were shocked at her conduct, still less because they were grieved that God's holy law had been broken. Their object was to use this woman to exploit her sin and further their own evil designs. With cold-blooded indelicacy they acted, employing the guilt of their captive to accomplish their evil intentions against Christ.

***PAGE BREAK***
(Page Three)

Their motive cannot be misinterpreted. They were anxious to discredit our Lord before the people. They did not wait until they could interrogate Him in private, but, interrupting as He was teaching the people, they rudely challenged Him to solve what must have seemed to them an unsolvable enigma.
They begin politely by addressing Jesus as "Teacher" and they go on to explain the circumstances. There is apparently no doubt about guilt. The woman was "caught in the very act." The problem was what their course of action should be. They say that Moses prescribed stoning in such cases (v.5), though it should be noted that they do not quote Moses exactly. In both Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 it is provided that both guilty parties be executed, whereas these zealots use the feminine form and confine their attention to the execution of the woman in the case.
It is true that the Jews had come to the view that stoning was to be used where Scripture spoke of the death penalty without prescribing the method. Here, the accusers in their zeal ascribe to Moses words that he did not utter. For them the position in Scripture was plain. But would Jesus agree? They use the emphatic pronoun, "What do YOU say?" On the surface of it, this is a perfectly normal question. They were about to do something that the Romans might not approve of, and they were consulting a religious teacher to make sure that they were doing the right thing according to their religious law.
WHAT DO YOU SAY? An insidious question, indeed.
Had He said, "Let her go," they could then accuse Him as being an enemy against the Law of God, and His own word "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill (Matt. 5:17)had been falsified. But if He answered, "Stone her," they would have ridiculed the fact that He was the "friend of publicans and sinners." No doubt they were satisfied that they had Him completely cornered!
On the one hand, if He passed sentence on her, what became of His own word, "For God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through Him might be saved" ("John 3:17)? Here, then, was the dilemma: if Christ palliated the wickedness of this woman, where was His respect for the holiness of God and the righteousness of His law; but if He condemned her, what became of His claim that He had come here to "seek and to save that which was lost" (Luke 19:10)?
The scribes and Pharisees had a very specific purpose for putting Jesus on the spot with this question. They wanted to make Him face the alternative of becoming either an enemy of the law of Moses (if he would advise that she be not stoned) or else an enemy of the common people whose defender He was reputed to be.
Verse 6 in our text says: "This they were saying to tempt Him, in order that they might have some charge to bring against Him." Their purpose clearly was this: to cause Jesus to give an answer which would be in violation of the law of Moses; next, to place this as an official charge against Him; then on the basis of this charge, to have Him condemned by the Sanhedrin at an official session; and finally, by branding Him as a transgressor of the law!

***PAGE BREAK***
(Page Four)

This purpose may also explain why the man who was involved in this transgression was not brought before the Lord. For the fabrication of a charge against Jesus the arrest of one party was sufficient. In this connection it is not at all certain that the scribes and Pharisees actually meant to have this woman stoned. They were not primarily interested in her; they were simply using her case in order to get at Jesus, who was their real intended victim! And in order to carry out their diabolical purpose against Him, they threw kindness and diffidence to the winds. The shame or fears of this woman, in being thus publicly exposed, meant nothing to them as long as their purpose was being achieved. Such were the religious leaders in Jerusalem! It is only when in our thoughts we enter somewhat into the tragically perverse condition of the hearts so steeped in wickedness that we can appreciate the reaction of Jesus, which is now recorded.
BUT JESUS BENT DOWN AND WROTE WITH HIS FINGER ON THE GROUND. It is impossible to know what Jesus wrote in the dust. Barclay, in his commentary, has four suggestions as to why and what Jesus stooped to write:
(1) He may quite simply have wished to gain time and not be rushed into a decision.
(2) Certain manuscripts add, "As though He did not hear them " Jesus may well have deliberately forced the scribes and Pharisees to repeat their charges, so that, in repeating them they might possibly realize the sadistic cruelty which lay behind them.
(3) Jesus may have been seized with an intolerable sense of shame. He could not meet the eye of the crowd, or of the accusers, and perhaps at that moment least of all of the woman. In His burning embarrassment and confusion he stooped down so as to hide His face, and began writing with His finger upon the ground.
(4) By far the most interesting suggestion emerges from certain of the later manuscripts. The Armenian translates the passage this way: "He Himself, bowing His head, was writing with His finger on the earth to declare their sins: and they were seeing their several sins on the stones." The suggestion is that Jesus was writing in the dust the sins of the very men who were accusing the woman!
AND AS THEY KEPT QUESTIONING HIM, HE STOOD UP AND SAID TO THEM, LET HIM WHO IS WITHOUT SIN AMONG YOU BE THE FIRST TO CAST A STONE AT HER. AND AGAIN HE BENT DOWN AND WROTE ON THE GROUND. To add weight to His answer, Jesus arose. He then gave a reply such as only He was able to give. He did not make light of her sin. Neither did He either expressly or by implication abolish the seventh commandment. He did not even in so many words set aside the law which demanded the death-penalty for offences such as these. On the contrary, without in any way implying that He personally desired her death, He proceeded upon their presumed assumption, as if the law of Moses were to be literally applied in this given case——which even they themselves, of course, did not really want——; but then He showed them that they were not fit to execute the very law which ostensibly they were so eager to carry out!
God's law was a holy and a righteous one, and here we find the Lawgiver Himself turning its white light upon these men who really had so little respect for it

***PAGE BREAK***
(Page Five)

One scholar suggests that what Jesus wrote on the ground was a passage from Exodus 23:7: "Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." If they joined with false witnesses to bring about an execution, their own execution might well follow!
AND THEY WHICH HEARD IT, BEING CONVICTED BY THEIR OWN CONSCIENCE, WENT OUT ONE BY ONE, BEGINNING AT THE ELDEST, EVEN UNTO THE LAST. As the realities of the situation dawned on them they went out. None of them were guiltless, and they came to see that they were in no position to throw stones.
Jesus' saying is a particularly impressive example of His astonishing wisdom in dealing with His critics. In Him truly "are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:3). Jesus' statement ought not to be seen to imply that the law can be enforced only by moral paragons, nor that one cannot pass a judgment on moral issues, or on sexual moral issues in particular, unless one is untainted by any history of wrong deeds or desires. Jesus is confronting us, however, with the need for consistency in passing judgment. The sword of judgment is double-edged. In judging others we judge ourselves, and an unwillingness to pronounce judgment on ourselves undercuts our right to pronounce it on others. Put more generally, God's call to all of us, all of the time, is to live holy, godly lives. Any deviation from that should concern us, as much in ourselves as in others.
Jesus said: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, "Let me take the speck out of your eye," when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." (Matt. 7:1-5) When Jesus spoke like this, as so often in the Sermon on the Mount, He was using words and ideas which were quite familiar to the highest thoughts of the Jews. Many a time the Rabbis warned people against judging others. "He who judges his neighbor favorably, will be judged favorably by God." They laid it down that there were six great works which brought a man credit in this world and profit in the world to come—study, visiting the sick, hospitality, devotion in prayer, the education of children in the Law, and thinking the best of other people. The Jews knew that kindliness in judging is nothing less than a sacred duty.
There are three great reasons why no man should judge another:
(1) We never know the whole facts or the whole person. Long ago Hillel the famous Rabbi said, "Do not judge a man until you yourself have come into his circumstances or situation." The fact is that if we realized what some people have to go through, so far from condemning them, we would be amazed that they have succeeded in being as good as they are!
(2) It is almost impossible for any men to be strictly impartial in his judgment.
It is told that sometimes, when the Greeks held a partic-

***PAGE BREAK***
(Page Six)

ularly important and difficult trial, they held it in the dark so that judge and jury would not even see the man on trial, and so would be influenced by nothing but the facts of the case.
Only a completely impartial person has a right to judge. It is not in human nature to be completely impartial. Only God can judge.
(3). No man is good enough to judge any other man. "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand" (Romans 14:4).
"If we live, we live to the Lord; and if we die, we die to the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that He might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. It is written: As surely as I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow before Me; every tongue will confess to God. So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.
Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way." (Romans 8:8-13).
"Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time, wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God." (1 Cor. 4:5).
Back to our story...those who tried to put Jesus on the spot have walked away in shame, and there stands the woman all alone. "JESUS RAISED HIMSELF, AND SAID TO HER, WOMAN, WHERE ARE THEY? HAS NO ONE CONDEMNED YOU? SHE SAID, NO ONE, LORD. JESUS SAID TO HER: NEITHER DO I CONDEMN YOU. GO AND SIN NO MORE."
The story we have been observing raises the basic question of, How can mercy and justice be harmonized? In the scene here presented to our view we are shown, not by a closely reasoned out statement of doctrine, but in symbolic action, that this problem is not insoluble to Divine wisdom. Here was a concrete case of a guilty sinner leaving the presence of Christ un-condemned. And it was neither because the law has been slighted nor sin palliated. The requirements of the law were strictly complied with, and her sin was openly condemned--"sin no more." Yet, she herself, was not condemned. She was dealt with according to "grace and truth."
Mercy flowed out to her, yet not at the expense of justice. "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ." (John 1:17)"As sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 5:21).
God hates sin; we must make no mistake about that. But He loves sinners——and that includes each of us. In fact, He loves us so much He sent His Son to die--to take the penalty our sins deserved. Jesus stands ready to forgive any person, but confession, repentance, and a change of heart are the properly prepared ground for forgiveness. With God's help we can accept Christ's forgiveness and stop making a practice of wrongdoing...that is why He said to woman...GO AND SIN NO MORE!