088. Chapter 29 - The Woman Taken in Adultery
Chapter 29 - The Woman Taken in Adultery John 7:53;John 8:1-11
Textual Problem The genuineness and authenticity of this passage have been the subject of great controversy. Genuineness means whether it is the work of John or someone else. Authenticity means whether it is a true statement of what actually happened. Even a conservative writer such as Sadler declares it is not part of the Gospel of John as originally written. A. T. Robertson adopts the wild guess of some critics: This paragraph can no longer be considered a part of the Gospel of John, but it is in all probability a true story of Jesus, very likely drawn by early students from the collection of Papias published about a.d. 140.
There is general agreement that this is an authentic account of a historic event. The scene is so completely in harmony with the character of all who appear in it and is so unique and extraordinary that it bears in itself the evidence of historic verity.
Manuscript Differences The reasons for the wide rejection of the passage as a part of John’s Gospel are as follows: (1) Most of our ancient Greek manuscripts omit it. Radical scholars have been working for some years on a new Greek text of the New Testament which they hope will supplant the standard texts of Westcott and Hort, and of Nestle. This new text came from the press late in 1966. The editors are Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren. This text omits John 7:53; John 8:1-11 and prints it as an appendix at the close of John’s Gospel. The textual evidence against the passage is printed in a footnote. The list of manuscripts, translations, and writers which omit the passage are given as follows: omit 7.533-811 p66, 75) Avid B Cvid L N T W X Y D QY053 0141 22 33 157 209 565 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 Lect ita, f, 1*, q syrc, s, copsa, bo mss, ach 2 got arm geo Diatessarona,f Clementvid Tertullian Origen Cyprian Chrysostom Nonnus Cyril Cosmos Theophylact comm. include passage following 7.52 D (F) G H K M U G 28 700 892 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1344 1365 1546 2148 2174 Byz itaur, c, e, ff2, j, 1mg, r1, vg syrhms, pal copbomss armmss eth Didascalia Ambrosiaster Apostolic Constitutions Ambrose Greek and Latinacc. to Jerome Jerome Augustine Vincent Taylor lists the manuscripts, translations, and early Christian writers which omit the passage as follows: p66)B W Q 22 33 157 565 al a bc f 1* q sy sa bo arm geo goth IrCl Or Tert Cypr Nonn (The Text of the New Testament, 1961, p. 98).
It is not found in about one hundred cursives.
(2) Several manuscripts publish it at the end of the Gospel or after Luke 21:1-38. (3) Some ancient writers, such as Chrysostom and Cyril, do not refer to it in their commentaries. (4) internal evidence is argued against it on the ground of differences in vocabulary, minor textual differences, and especially that it mentions “the scribes and Pharisees” together. They are not mentioned together elsewhere in the Gospel; therefore, John could not have written this passage! (5) If 7:53-8:11 is omitted, the text fits together harmoniously. (6) An unusual number of manuscript differences are found in the text of these verses.
Evidence in Favor of the Passage In favor of the retention of this passage as a true account from the pen of John and as properly located at this point in his narrative are the following proofs: (1) The a.v. and the a.s.v. have retained the passage in the Gospel of John and at this point in his narrative. The a.v. publishes it without question. The scholars who translated the a.s.v. had a much wider base of ancient manuscripts and were more critical. They put brackets around the paragraph to warn the reader that there is considerable manuscript variation. They attach the following footnote:
Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53; John 8:1-11. Those which contain it vary much from each other. In assessing this footnote it should be noted that the almost exclusive emphasis which the translators of the a.s.v. placed upon Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus ()) has been strongly criticized. The manner in which the manuscripts which contain the passage differ from each other is mainly in the location of the passage. A few manuscripts put it at the close of the Gospel. Four inferior manuscripts put in the Gospel of Luke at the end of chapter 21. The differences in the wording of the text are the natural result of the general confusion over the passage.
(2) This passage is found in D, a very important ancient manuscript, and in F G H K U E M, and 331 cursives. The Latin manuscripts, many of them very ancient, are almost solidly for the passage. Vincent Taylor lists the textual evidence in favor of the passage as follows:
D 28 700 et al. pler b* c e ff2 j lc z vg sypal Ambr Ambst Aug Jer I 1583 fam. 13 (The Text of the New Testament, 1961., p. 981).
(3) The style is exactly that of the rest of John’s Gospel, which is best proved by the childish criticism that it mentions the “scribes and Pharisees” together. If no stronger argument than this can be brought against the style, then it certainly is identical! (4) It fits perfectly here into the context of John’s narrative as to time, place, persons, atmosphere, and outcome. It furnishes a most fitting and beautiful introduction to the great sermon on “The Light of the World.”
(5) The omission of the passage from many manuscripts and its different location in several others has a very simple explanation. A copyist at an early date misunderstood the teaching of the passage and omitted it. Neither do I condemn thee does not mean that Jesus did not condemn the sin of adultery. He did not order execution of the death sentence. It means, “Neither do I condemn thee to death.” Later copyists, seeing that one of the manuscripts did not have this passage. became troubled over it and omitted it, or put it doubtfully at the close of the book. Augustine suggested this explanation for its omission in some manuscripts and its dislocation in others. He held that some copyists, thinking it excused adultery, felt it must not be genuine and authentic.
A.S.V. Decision
Although the American Standard Version carries the footnote stating that “most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53; John 8:1-11,” yet the majority of the translators of the a.s.v. finally cast their vote in favor of the passage, and it was retained in the text. This means that the translators attached great importance to the presence of the passage in so many of the early versions which were made from Greek manuscripts far older than any Greek uncials we now possess. This is the very point on which the translators of the a.s.v. have been severely criticized; namely, that they rested exclusively on the evidence of the Greek uncials which now happen to be in our possession (mainly) and B) and did not allow due weight to the translations made in the early centuries when Greek manuscripts must have been available which were close to the time when the original documents were written. In a matter such as whether a passage recording an entire scene in the life of Christ was in the autograph copy John wrote, the testimony of the versions is of the utmost importance. While the testimony of the copies of the versions in our possession is not unanimous, it is hard to see how the passage can be in so many copies of so many early versions and not have been in the original. Copies of versions that omit the passage have the same explanation as obtains for the Greek manuscripts — misunderstanding of the content by a copyist.
Jerome and Augustine
It is true that the copies of these versions which we possess are not so old as copies of Greek uncials in our possession. This immediately concentrates attention on Codex Beza (D), and finally causes the evidence to converge on the testimony of Jerome and Augustine. Codex Beza offers double testimony in this case; it has the Greek text and the Latin Version in parallel columns. It not only testifies to the presence of this passage in Greek texts of the fourth century, but through the Latin Version it reaches back into the preceding centuries. The fact that Codex Beza has some peculiar traits raises the question as to whether it bears isolated testimony in this case. The testimony of Jerome becomes very important at just this point. He declares that the passage was contained in “many, both Greek and Latin codices.” This trail leads immediately to the famous library at Caesarea, where the first great textual critic, Origen, had collected such a grand collection of manuscripts. When Jerome talked of this passage being in many Greek and Latin manuscripts, he was not speaking of some limited collection of inferior manuscripts; during his years of study in the library at Caesarea he had at his disposal the rich fruits of Origen’s lifetime of study in the field of textual criticism, and the manuscripts Origen had collected. Origen is persistently cited as against this passage. but this is purely the argument from the silence of writings of Origen which we now possess.
One certainly should place into the balance the weight of Jerome’s decision in favor of the passage. It is possible, of course, that Jerome disagreed with Origen in his conclusions, but Scrivener declares that Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome closely agree on matters of textual criticism and use the same manuscripts and the same canons of criticism:
It is not therefore wonderful if, employing as they did and setting a high value on precisely the same manuscripts of the N.T., the readings approved by Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome should closely agree (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol.II, p. 270). On a matter of such importance as this entire passage, we would expect Jerome to register any disagreement he had with Origen’s decision before him. Since Jerome is actually discussing the integrity of this text, this argument from silence would be worth more than the same type of argument used to attempt to cite Origen against the passage, when we have no direct discussion of the authenticity of this passage in Origen’s extant writings. Scholars who defend the passage point out that Origen’s homilies and commentaries are lacking or mutilated over John 5:1-47; John 6:1-71; John 7:1-53. The evidence from Codex Beza is usually stated as from the fifth century, but as we have just seen, it reaches back into the earlier centuries. The testimony of Jerome is usually labeled as “fifth century,” but actually it is “fourth century,” since Jerome finished his Vulgate translation of the New Testament in a.d. 384. This is close to the date of the oldest Greek uncials in our possession. Jerome specifically declares the antiquity of the textual evidence on which he rests in recording the more general acceptance of the passage in the West: “Among the Latins, as being in their old version, the narrative was more generally received for St. John’s.”
John 7:53; John 8:1-11 is found not merely in the Old Latin, and the Vulgate, but the Ethiopic, the Persic, Boharic, Gothic, and Anglo-Saxon. There are thirty-eight codices of the Old Latin and more than eight thousand copies of the Vulgate now in our possession. While their testimony is not unanimous, Jerome’s statement concerning the Old Latin manuscripts he had examined in the fourth century is significant.
Scrivener The most celebrated textual critic who defends both the genuineness and authenticity of the passage is Scrivener. He holds it was written by the apostle John and that it is correctly placed at this location in his narrative. He has a theory with which he attempts to solve the manuscript differences: He holds that John published two editions of his Gospel and that this passage was not in the first edition, but that John inserted it in the second. It is curious that he should have evolved such a theory when the mistake of one very early copyist, who misunderstood the meaning of the passage, is all that was necessary to have brought about the confusion in the manuscripts.
Augustine
Augustine offers another solution of the difficulty. He was a contemporary of Jerome and profited by all the textual and translation labors of Jerome. He was familiar with the lifetime of prodigious work which Origen had given to this field. Augustine says that the passage had been omitted by men of weak faith or by enemies of the true faith who feared that the passage might lead to low morals (De Adulterinus Con jugiis, II:c7:III).
Radical Critics The sharp contrast between the blunt manner in which some critics discard the passage and its defense by others is illustrated in the following. C. H. Dodd twice gives a summary rejection: “The Pericope Adulterae, vii 53-viii.ll in the Textus Receptus, is omitted as being no part of the original text of this Gospel” (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 346; cf. p. 158). Vincent Taylor speaks in the same manner: The authorities which attest the passage are almost entirely Western or of late and inferior standing. Moreover, as in the case of John 8:3-4, the vocabulary and style are non-Johannine. One must conclude that it is a late Western insertion derived from some traditional source (The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 346, p. 98).
Conservative Scholars
Meyer, who rejects the passage, nevertheless lists twenty-two scholars who defend it (Com. on John, p 257). H. C. Reynolds in the Pulpit Commentary on John names fifteen scholars who accept the passage. Scrivener cites the defense of the passage by the distinguished British scholar Dean Brugon as particularly noteworthy (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 365). Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi (C), which are continually cited against the passage, are defective at this place with a number of pages lost from the manuscripts. But Tischendorf and others counted the number of probable lines on each missing page and the number of probable letters on each line and by this method came to the conclusion that it was lacking in A and C. Scrivener points out, however, that the counting of the lines and letters is not absolutely accurate: The reckoning, as McClellan remarks (N.T., p. 273), “does not preclude the possibility of small gaps having existed in A and C to mark the place of the Section, as in L and D” (The Text of the New Testament, 1961., p. 365).
It is interesting that some very recent authors discussing this passage omit A and C as against the passage, e.g., Vincent Taylor (Commentary on Mark (1952),, p. 98). And yet Taylor cites Origen against this section, although the homilies and commentary are also defective at this place in the Gospel of John. The great emphasis which is placed upon the internal evidence concerning non-Johannine style is given thorough discussion by Lange in his commentary on John: “The entire diversity from the narrative style of John which Meyer and Alford regard as the most weighty argument against the passage...” (p. 268). Lange then replies at length to each of the eight arguments against the content of the passage and offers four citations in support of it. He shows how the passage fits the entire context at this point in the narrative. He says, “Internal evidence, therefore speaks decidedly for this, as the proper place for the section in hand.” He lays particular emphasis upon John 8:12, John 8:21 as proof: “Again therefore Jesus said to them”; “Therefore he said again to them.” He cites the evidence from Jerome, Augustine, and Ambrose.
Among the more recent writers who defend the passage is William Hendriksen in his New Testament Commentary. He says, Our final conclusion, then, is this: 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 (The Gospel According to John, p 25).
Internal Evidence The most significant recent defense of this passage is by Dr. Alan F. Johnson of Moody Bible Institute in an article “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae,” published in Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (Vol 9, No. 2, Spring; 1966). The entire article is devoted to the internal evidence. He establishes the importance of this angle of the discussion by citing the statement of Meyer that the passage is “quite alien to the Johannean thought and expression” (Com. on John, p. 244). In his paper Johnson demolishes the entire collection of arguments from internal evidence. He is very careful in his own statement: “However, though the majority to the contrary, a few competent scholars have examined the evidence carefully and have been reluctant to consider the passage as an interpolation” (p. 91).
Johnson challenges the entire statistical method of testing. Those who reject the passage point out fourteen new words not used by John in his undisputed writings. They also argue on the basis that only twenty-six out of seventy-five “preferred words” which John ordinarily uses are found; and that certain Johannine words and particles are totally absent. Johnson rests upon the exposure of the shallow character of this computer system of testing the style of a passage by referring to the University of Cambridge scholar G. U. Yule, who holds that ten thousand words are required for solid statistics. Johnson points out that there are only 174 words in this passage. He shows that John 2:13-17, which has never been questioned, could be excluded from the Gospel of John by the same statistical method.
Johnson carefully analyzes the data assembled by R. Morgenthaler against the passage in his Statistics of New Testament Vocabulary (1958) to the effect that out of eighty-two vocabulary words used in John 7:42-53; John 8:1-11, fourteen do not occur elsewhere, and the argument rests on the absence of preferred words. Johnson shows that the same statistical method can be used to deny the Pauline authorship of his epistles, and that this method of testing style has been applied to the writings of Cicero and found to be utterly unreliable.
Against the citations of those who reject the passage Johnson places “a stylistic trait of the fourth Gospel.” It is immediately evident that his position is subject to the very attack he has just made against the statistical method, for he also has only 174 words on which to rest. He defends his position from this attack by holding that the evidence he presents in favor of the passage does not consist in a collection of new words or old words counted up out of the passage, but “a stylistic trait” which has been overlooked in the discussion. He cites John’s habit of “interjecting short explanatory phrases which interpret the significance of the words that have just been spoken in the narrative.” This explanatory phrase found in John 8:6, this he said, is used by John in ten other passages in the book: John 6:6, John 6:71; John 7:39; John 11:13, John 11:51; John 12:6, John 12:33; John 13:11, John 13:28; John 21:19.
Johnson concludes that the pericope is not to be excluded from the Gospel of John on the basis of statistical tabulations, that the distinctive literary trait of John 8:6 must be explained by those who reject the passage, and that a re-interpretation of the external evidence of John 7:53; John 8:1-11 is in order. A re-interpretation of the external evidence will not be necessary for those who on the basis of their own independent study have already approved the decision of the translators of the a.v. and the a.s.v. in retaining the passage in the Gospel of John. The Service The scene opens with an early-morning teaching session Jesus was holding in the temple court (undoubtedly the court of Gentiles). After the furious discussions of the preceding day, Jesus had retired to the Mount of Olives. This evidently means Bethany and probably the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus. He spent the nights in Bethany throughout the final week. We find that Jesus was following the same procedure now. There were other disciples in Bethany, but we naturally think of this home as welcoming the Master. The beginning of public services early in the morning was characteristic of a time when night services were rare. It was also an indication here of the great excitement which had resulted from the clash with the hierarchy the day before, the attempt to arrest Him, and His magnificent defense of His Messianic claims. The Interruption The scribes and Pharisees waited until the preaching service was in progress with a great multitude about Jesus listening to His teaching before they sprung the trap which they had ready to bring about His destruction. When they came bringing in a woman taken in adultery, they demanded that He either sustain the Old Testament law and pass the death sentence upon her which they immediately would execute, or else that He repudiate the law. They showed their utter hypocrisy by not bringing the guilty man and demanding the death sentence upon him also. The law was very explicit in decreeing the death penalty for both guilty parties (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22). The law demanded death for both, but did not specify stoning. Phinehas used a javelin (Numbers 25:7, Numbers 25:8). Stoning was the customary method of execution. The Trap
If Jesus refused to pass the death sentence, they would accuse Him immediately as a traitor to the Old Testament law because He had refused to sustain its decrees and had condoned sins it condemned. They were careful to present their demand when Jesus was in the midst of a public service so that the multitude would all be witnesses against Him to destroy His influence throughout the nation. If Jesus took the other horn of the dilemma and passed the death sentence upon her, then they would execute the woman and proceed to Pilate the governor with charges that He was in rebellion against Rome and inciting the people to rebel. The Romans had forbidden anyone but Rome to exact the death penalty. The Jews were permitted to try cases and exact any penalties short of death. The Jewish leaders thought they had this trap so carefully set that there was no escape for Jesus. The Handwriting on the Ground
Jesus turned aside and stooped down and wrote on the ground. Since this was the temple area paved with stones, the writing could have been done with the finger in the sand and dust gathered on the floor from thousands of passing feet. The a.v. has the additional clause as though he heard them not. This last clause is omitted from the a.s.v. because of the manuscript evidence against it. The following suggestions have been made as to why Jesus wrote on the ground: (1) “The habit was the usual one to signify preoccupation of mind or intentional indifference.” But this does not explain why He showed such deliberate indifference.
(2) The most absurd explanation is that He turned aside “to indicate shame — ‘He stooped, wishing to hide His face.” This explanation is not only entirely foreign to the spotless character of Jesus and the absolute calmness with which He called all sinners to repentance, but is proved to be false by the manner in which He proceeded to meet the situation, to put His enemies to flight, and to pass judgment in a manner which has been inimitable. His manner of meeting the situation in the home of Simon the Pharisee of Galilee also refutes this suggestion (Luke 7:36-50).
Motive
(3) Sadler thinks He wrote in the sand to remind the Pharisees of the law in Numbers 5:11-30, where “the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle” was to be used in the miraculous test to be applied. But that was a test in case of suspicion, and this is a case where absolute proof was available.
(4) The best explanation is that His silence and seeming preoccupation did not arise out of His own hesitancy or embarrassment, but was a deliberate act to multiply their embarrassment when He exposed their hypocrisy. The silence of Jesus concentrated the attention of the crowd in a most dramatic manner on the problem, and emboldened the Pharisees to push loudly their demand so that, when Jesus finally turned on them, His words fell with deadly convicting power and drove them from Him. When He turned from them the second time and wrote on the ground, His action created a deathlike silence in which men feared to move or breathe. He had challenged the Jewish leaders to kill the adulteress, but He knew they would flee from the ghosts in their own conscience. We do not know what Jesus wrote. It is the only time we read of Jesus’ writing. The Decision
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her” (John 8:7). The law had decreed that in case of apostasy, the witnesses should be the first to cast stones, and then the others present were to join in the execution (Deuteronomy 17:2-7). It would be very perverse to attempt to universalize the declaration of Jesus, for it would prevent the maintenance of law and order. If it required perfect people to pass judgment, then no judgment could ever he rendered against any criminal. But the reply of Jesus was amazingly appropriate in this case. We naturally wonder whether these scholars had heard and discussed the teaching of Jesus that the person who harbors the desire for adultery is as guilty as the person who commits the deed. Their action in leaving speaks for itself as to their conscience. The pressure upon them was increased a thousandfold by Jesus’ action in turning aside and writing again in the sand. He certainly did not turn aside “to give them the opportunity to return without the embarrassment of being watched.” The crowd who had been hearing the teaching of Jesus were watching every move with intense concentration. Jesus was attempting to increase rather than decrease their embarrassment. The longer Jesus waited and they hesitated, the more relentless the pressure became.
Fugitives from Justice As the scribes and Pharisees left, one by one, the eldest went first. Some have surmised that the eldest went first because their “experience of life’s sinfulness was necessarily the fullest.” But this is not true. Some young persons have experienced more of “life’s sinfulness” in their short stay in this world than many older people have experienced in many years. It seems rather that the oldest left first because they were leading in this confrontation and hence were closest to the extreme heat when Jesus had turned on them His face filled with divine wrath. They had been transfixed and withered by the look of Jesus as well as His words. They became terrified at the thought of having to face His wrath again. As they left the front row, those in back found themselves without any protection in front; they likewise slipped away to escape. There was the furious pressure of their conscience within and fear of further exposure from without. Men will cry out in the judgment for the rocks and the mountains to fall on them and hide them from the face of the Lamb turned on them in wrath (Revelation 6:16, Revelation 6:17). We cannot tell whether the oldest had the hardest hearts or whether they were the chief sinners. But they were the leaders in this scene to trap Jesus. The immediate pressure would have been greatest upon them. If they had stoned the woman, they might have been passing the death sentence upon themselves. The Sinner and the Savior
“And Jesus was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the midst” (John 8:9). The woman had been placed in the most prominent place as the charge had been made and the sentence demanded. In the midst implies that the crowd is still present, as also the apostles. The ones who left were the crowd of scribes and Pharisees who had brought the case before Jesus. The entire circle around Jesus which had been occupied by the national leaders was now vacant.
“Woman, where are they? did no man condemn thee?” (John 8:10). This shows clearly that the ones who had left were the ones who had accused her. The question clearly means “condemn thee to death.” This is what the scholars had demanded and what Jesus had challenged them to do. They had already testified against her and condemned her as guilty. But they had not dared to put their condemnation into action.
“No man, Lord.” No hint is given in the account as to the attitude of the woman when she was brought before Jesus and the multitude, whether she was defiant or terror-stricken. But now when she has heard the words of Jesus and looked into His divine face, she is humbled and repentant. We cannot tell how much she knew of the claims of Jesus to deity, so we cannot be sure of the content of the word kurios as she addressed Him. It can mean either Lord or sir. It is significant that both the a.v. and the a.s.v. translate “Lord.” While we cannot absolutely close the case as to what conception she had in addressing Him as Lord, it certainly is significant that she did not call Him Teacher, or Master, or a prophet. She did not address Him by His personal name Jesus. She called Him Lord. No other translation of the word in this passage fits the historic facts and the spirit of the entire scene. Her Repentance Her reply was humble, arid the answer of Jesus, leaving open the door of hope, makes plain her repentance. Jesus did not say to this adulteress, however, what He said to the repentant harlot in Simon’s home in Galilee: “Thy sins are forgiven thee.” That woman’s repentance was not just beginning, but was now complete. She had given proof of this in her new life, her self-humiliation, and her devotion to Jesus. This woman was commanded now to go and give proof of her repentance in her changed life.
It is impossible to maintain that the woman had not changed her attitude and was not repentant. “He needed not that any should bear witness concerning man; for he himself knew what was in man” (John 2:25). The thoughts and intents of the heart of each person were laid open before Him. If this woman had been defiant, unrepentant, and determined to continue in her wickedness, Jesus would have given her such a stinging rebuke as He had just delivered to the Pharisees. His kind and merciful words to her tell unmistakably of her determination to enter into a new life.
Christ as Judge
“Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more” (John 8:11). He did not palliate her crime. No one could be more severe than Jesus in condemning adultery. The Sermon on the Mount presents to mankind the extreme difficulty of conquest of all impure thoughts. But Jesus refused to pass the death sentence, and showed her that forgiveness was possible if she would repent and live nobly. Jesus had pursued such a stern course with her accusers because of their attitude, character, and purpose. When asked to judge between brothers quarreling over their inheritance, Jesus had simply refused to act as judge, but in this case it was a direct attack upon Him. Moreover, because the Pharisees were utterly base and hypocritical, Jesus used a method which revealed their wickedness to the crowd. He also showed the difference between the law and the gospel; the one offered only justice; the other extends mercy to all who will accept salvation at God’s hands and upon His terms. The seven-branched candlestick flickering in the holy place of the temple offered no hope to this woman. Jesus presents Himself as the Light of the world, offering redemption to all.
Revelation of Deity
They were standing in the temple in the presence of a multitude. The furious debate with the national leaders had rocked the capital for days. It is highly improbable that any intelligent person could have been in Jerusalem during this exciting part of the ministry of Jesus even for a few minutes and not heard of the thrilling drama being enacted in the temple day after day; they would learn how Jesus was claiming to be the Son of God and performing the most prodigious miracles to sustain His claim to deity, how the Pharisees had charged Him with blasphemy of His claim, how they had repeatedly undertaken to stone Him to death, but had always become fainthearted and shrunk away at the last moment. To all this background must be added the inevitable impact of His divine Person and His amazing words and actions during this critical scene. When He turned aside and wrote on the ground twice, He was not only meeting the trap of the Pharisees with a very deadly move to uncover their hypocrisy, but He gave time for the crowd, and also the woman, to reflect. In the presence of death, the woman suddenly came to her hour of decision. Whether or not she was making her full confession of faith as she saluted Jesus as Lord, her answer and the reply of Jesus show her determination to live a new life. While lowering the scepter of wrath and revoking the death sentence, Jesus gently commanded her to go forth and demonstrate the new life to which she was now pledged.