Amen. If you would please turn with your Bibles to the Gospel of John in chapter 8. John writes, “They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them.”
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and placing her in the midst, they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now, in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him.
Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground, and as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.
But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones. And Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.”
This is the word of the Lord. Thanks be to God. Let us pray.
Heavenly Father, we know that we are all to be judged. Help us to be confident and assured, knowing through faith in your Son that when the time comes, we will not stand condemned. Build us up in this hope and faith as we hear your word. We pray this in Jesus’ name. Amen.
So today we are encountering one of the most well-known passages from John’s gospel. But sometimes it is known best for what it is not. Please take a look at the printed text of your Bible. I’m sure that you will find there a note saying something to the effect of “the earliest manuscripts do not have John 7:53 through 8:11.”
We ought to take a moment to talk about what that does and does not mean for us. Now remember, we do not have any of the original manuscripts known as the autographs for any book of the Bible. Everything that we have are copies of copies, and there is a whole science that is devoted to uncovering with a high degree of confidence the original and most authentic version of the text.
The science is called textual criticism, and it’s done by comparing older and newer manuscripts and identifying where they might have differences. Most of those differences fall into the realm of transcription errors, kind of like our modern typos, with the most common type of differences being misspellings. When there are differences between manuscripts, the older copy is generally deferred to as being the more reliable.
In the few instances where there are significant differences, like here between these copies, no version of that text of scripture is used uniquely or primarily in support of any necessary doctrine of the faith. Nothing depends on this passage alone.
Our confidence in this science is why we do affirm and are able to believe that scripture is both inherent and infallible in the autographs. We believe that it’s only the original texts that are truly authoritative, not our copies and translations, because these are certain to have mistakes and errors. And that’s why we put different footnotes in there noting those differences.
Now the oldest and most complete manuscript of John’s gospel that we have is known as P66. It was found in Egypt in 1952 and it was transcribed sometime during the late 2nd century and mid 3rd century, likely between about 150 and 250 AD. It consists of 156 5 1/2 by 6 1/2 pages with about 15 to 25 lines on each page, and really, it’s only missing a few verses here and there. However, today’s passage is absent, and there is no noticeable gap within the written text that suggests it should be present.
Well, the oldest manuscript recovered that has this story is the Codex Bez, which is believed to have been transcribed around 400 AD. So scholars conclude that this story was likely not written in the autograph, but they also do believe that it was probably a preserved early oral tradition from the time of the Apostles.
So what does that mean for us? Did John write it? Does the story belong there? Is this, or is this not, actually inspired scripture? Should we pay attention to it, or should we just skip over it?
I’d answer those questions as: John probably not; does it belong here? Maybe, maybe not. But I do believe it belongs somewhere, and it has been received and used as inspired scripture since the time of the early church. So it is worth paying attention to, and it is certainly worth not skipping over.
But why have I reached to this conclusion, and why do I encourage you to share it with me? Because the story, at a minimum, is true-ish. It sounds like what Jesus would say or do based on the rest of the gospels. No biblical doctrines depend on it; it has no direct effect upon what we must know and believe concerning who Jesus is and the salvation we receive by faith in him alone.
Because composition by John the Evangelist, the disciple of Jesus, is not what makes it scripture; it’s the inspiration and influence of the Holy Spirit that makes it scripture. The human writer is not the justifying cause for its acceptance; instead, it is the text’s acceptance and use by the church. Even if it was added to John’s gospel a little later, this story has been used as true inspired scripture for the majority of Christian church history.
So this story and the lessons we can learn from it remain spiritually beneficial as it does not contradict or deny anything taught elsewhere, and it also doesn’t teach anything new.
So let’s examine this received text. After the Festival of Booths, they went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now remember this: that Jesus was living in Capernaum, Galilee, and that up until recently he had been avoiding Judea over the past while because he knew that the Jews were trying to kill him.
But now he shifts his ministry focus from Galilee to the areas surrounding Jerusalem. We see the same shift in location emphasized within the synoptic gospels after his Transfiguration on the mount. After this point, John never again mentions Jesus returning home to Galilee before his passion and death.
Now it’s also very unlikely that Jesus would have gone to the Mount of Olives and stayed on the Mount of Olives. He was not there camping out, but we also know that the town of Bethany was located on the mount, or at least just on the other side of it, and that’s where his friend Lazarus lived. So it’s fair to assume that Jesus probably went and stayed with him and his sisters Mary and Martha, but that detail is not certain or obligatory.
It’s not written in the text, but early in the morning he came again to the temple and all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. Even though the feast was over, a large number of people remained in and around Jerusalem living and studying, and more importantly, worshiping. Jerusalem was not a Roman administrative center, but it was still an important and busy city. So Jesus could easily continue to have a large, attentive, and diverse audience.
Presuming that this was the day after the great day and the day after the Pharisees and the priests had become upset because the Levite officers did not arrest Jesus as they commanded. It was also the day after Nicodemus suggested that Jesus be given a fair hearing before the Jewish leaders.
The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. Placing her in the midst, they said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
Although the explanation for their action is given here by the writer, they said this to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. There are several things wrong, troubling, and problematic with this account.
First, the scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus this woman whom they were accusing of a religious crime: adultery. Why? Even if they were testing Jesus and trying to trap him into either condemning the woman or denying the law of Moses, bringing her to Jesus and asking his opinion was irrational and unjustifiable. Jesus held no official religious authority; Jesus was not a member of the Sanhedrin; he was not recognized as a judge of the people. He had neither the right nor the position to answer them.
Second, they cited the law of Moses, implying that they have already used its authority to judge this woman and condemn her, declaring what her punishment ought to justly be. So again, they invalidate asking Jesus their question. It was irrelevant because they announced both her crime and the punishment, suggesting she had already been tried, and that it was something that could not be argued against or appealed. So Jesus’s opinion did not matter.
Third, and most concerning, where was the other guilty party? Where was the guy? Why was he not present? Why was he not being condemned alongside her? Deuteronomy 22 is clear and straightforward: “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die—the man who lay with the woman and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”
But here she stands accused, condemned, and alone. Where was her adulterous accomplice? So if what they were doing was fair, true, or right, if it was a legitimate query, if they actually wanted Jesus’s opinion, then both accused persons should have been brought to Jesus for judgment. Otherwise, Jesus rightly had nothing to say because the scribes and Pharisees had already said everything necessary under the law.
Now suddenly, Jesus’s response begins to make a lot more sense. How did Jesus respond to their question? Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. Jesus simply began to doodle, paying them no mind. He ignored them because they had interrupted his teaching. He refused to validate and affirm their rudeness by dignifying their interruption with an answer. They were acting like unruly, attention-seeking children disrupting whatever was rightfully going on.
So hearing no question that required a response, Jesus just simply doodled and ignored them, waiting for the Pharisees to finish so that he could resume and go back to teaching the people who actually wanted to learn. Can any of y’all teachers or parents relate?
And so as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. They kept bothering him until finally Jesus gave them an answer, but it was not the answer they hoped or expected.
Jesus returned to his doodling, ignoring them and dismissing them. He responded to them here with what has become one of the most well-known and often quoted lines of scripture: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” Or more commonly, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
That turn of phrase is very pithy and quite quotable, and it’s used by people frequently to justify getting away with almost anything, proving that people completely missed Jesus’s point in saying this. This red-letter statement is so very well known, but considering its origin here in this potentially questionable passage, we must wonder if there is support for its sentiment elsewhere.
Yes, Matthew 7:1 says, “Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.” Same sentiment, just different phrasing and context.
“Judge not, that you be not judged,” is also frequently used to justify, excuse, or try and get away with anything that we know we ought not to be doing. I mean, none of us wants to be judged, right? Especially when we’re guilty. So we try to deflect as a defense, trying to convince others to not do what we do not want them to do by warning them that if they do, then the same will happen to them.
“Don’t throw stones,” “Don’t judge me, because you don’t want to be judged either”—proving how much they miss the point. Both expressions are concerned with right, good, and proper judgment. Neither one is a prohibition against righteous judgment.
This expression here goes further than just the mere fact of judgment to also be concerned with the execution of justice—the consequence of judgment. Jesus forces us to consider the question: who is rightfully in a position to condemn?
After Jesus commanded, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her,” all of the woman’s accusers disappeared. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones. And Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him.
See, Jesus had just reminded them of the law’s requirement that the hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death. And after the hand of all the people, “So you shall purge the evil from your midst.” Jesus reminded them that since they had judged her, convicted her, and condemned her, then they were duty-bound to carry out the sentence.
Jesus also applied his teachings about righteous and fair judgment to this declaration by also reminding them of what God requires from his people: that we do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with our God. Because God desires steadfast love, or elsewhere mercy, and not sacrifice, just as Jesus had answered a different group of Pharisees in Matthew 12:7.
So why did they leave? They likely left because they were being convicted of their sin and because they could not deny the truth that Jesus was right. They knew that what they were trying to do was wrong, and they could not deny it even to themselves because these men were all moral people. They knew the difference between right and wrong, and their hearts were not so hardened by their sin that they were utterly depraved and without conscience.
Notice that when they left, it was the older and wiser ones who left first—the ones who knew scripture better, those who had done the most introspection, and those who were willing to be the most honest with themselves.
Everybody left until only Jesus and this accused woman remained. Now the accepted principle of Old Testament justice held that especially if stoning a person for sin, those who accused and condemned someone participated in the execution. The reason for this was multi-layered.
On the first level, according to scripture, it was a commanded part of how they should purge the evil from Israel. On a second level, participation in the execution was a sign of and considered to be a rejection of that sin. They would not be able to say that they did not know or that they were not warned.
And on a third level, by requiring the accuser to participate, it ensured that if they were being false but undiscovered, then the blood guilt for condemning an innocent person would surely still fall upon them. But since Jesus was the only person remaining and the only person there who could possibly accuse her and enforce divine justice, this story calls to mind the words of Paul, “Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died, more than that, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.”
The principle that both Paul and the writer here are teaching is that in matters of justice, the only ones who possess the right and responsibility to condemn are the righteous. And the only person who is truly righteous is Jesus Christ, the one who died and who was raised, and who, fortunately for us, is presently defending his people before the judgment seat of God by cloaking them with the imputation of his own earned righteousness so that we might be first declared righteous and then to become actually righteous through the Holy Spirit’s work of sanctification.
Jesus is the only one with the right and authority to judge and condemn anyone. When he returns on that great resurrection day, he surely shall judge the living and the dead. He will dispense holy justice with all righteousness, separating his sheep from the goats and sending them on to either eternal life in his kingdom or eternal condemnation and torment in the outer darkness and lake of fire.
But that’s the will. What about the right thing? What did Jesus do once it was just him and the woman? He stopped his doodling, stood up, and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.”
Did Jesus do the right thing? Was this response and decision made by Christ righteous? Of course he did, because he’s Jesus. But on the one hand, it does not seem quite right. I mean, how ought we to understand and interpret Jesus’s response here? Or to put it another way: How can we know that Jesus did judge rightly?
Well, elsewhere scripture says, “Keep far from a false charge, and do not kill the innocent and righteous, for I, the Lord, will not acquit the wicked.” And then the Lord passed before Moses and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children to the third and fourth generation.”
And lastly, “On the evidence of two witnesses or of three witnesses, the one who is to die shall be put to death. A person shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”
So I ask you, was this justice? Did Jesus let a guilty person go free? Did Jesus forgive her alleged transgression, or did he just simply give her a pass and ignore her sin? His decision was just, but it was not justice; it was mercy.
Allegedly, this woman was caught in the act of adultery, so her guiltiness and sin ought not to have been in doubt. We know that God cannot acquit the wicked or declare them to be righteous and innocent if they’re not. However, we also know that out of his great store of steadfast love, God is willing to forgive iniquity and transgression and sin when someone has repented.
So the key to understanding this is found in Jesus’s question to her: “Has no one condemned you? Where are they?” Remember, the scribes and Pharisees intentionally brought this woman to Jesus, asking him to judge and condemn her for her alleged sin.
But now that Jesus was ready to listen to her accusers, to hear their evidence against her, there was no one willing to speak against her. There were not two nor three witnesses gathered to speak against her, and so the charge could not be substantiated. I mean, did everybody leave because they felt convicted by their own sinfulness and understood that their own lack of righteousness prohibited them from condemning her as Jesus implied? Or did everyone leave because it was all just a setup and the woman was honestly not guilty of adultery as she was charged?
Most sermons and interpreters that I’ve heard or read speaking about this passage usually interpret things as the first case. But in light of the deeper dive we’ve been doing in John and considering the growing willingness of the Jews to forgo due process in the case of Jesus, as we saw in the end of John 7, I suspect that they might have been willing to go so far as to try and convince Jesus to convict an innocent woman.
But now, with no witnesses to speak against her, Jesus rightly and justly said to her, “Neither do I condemn you,” because there is no evidence to justify a conviction. But notice, however, that although Jesus did not condemn her, neither did he forgive her for her sins, nor did he wave his hand and ignore them. Yet the impact of her past sins does seem to just disappear.
She was found not guilty in this case not because she was innocent of transgression, but because there is no longer a charge able to be brought against her. Jesus does not really deal with her past within the story; instead, he’s more focused and concerned with her future, commanding her to “Go and from now on sin no more.”
This conclusion and command are the reason why this story is rightfully included in scripture. I mean, consider what this story teaches us about our salvation, specifically our justification.
If we assume that the original charge against her was true and she actually was caught in the act of adultery, then she was guilty as sin, deserving to be condemned. And we know that each and every one of us are also guilty of sin. This may be a few sins, many sins, big sins, or small sins, but still, each and every sin deserves God’s wrath and curse both in this life and that which is to come, for the wages of sin is death.
So we know that we are each guilty, and we all do deserve to be condemned. We’re all like this woman in that sense; we’re all sinners.
Now imagine, if you will, that you find yourself standing before Christ’s white throne, with Satan standing opposite. The devil opens up a thick, heavily bound book and begins to read, accusing you publicly by naming off, listing, and proclaiming every sin that you have ever committed. Your head hangs low in shame and disgrace, expecting to be condemned, especially when you glance up and notice Jesus, who is seemingly not even paying attention to the case being argued before him.
I mean, your heart would just sink as you wonder what is going on. But while Satan continues to accuse you, another book is opened by an angel and gets handed to Jesus, with the angel pointing to one line. You catch a glimpse of the cover, which reads “The Lamb’s Book of Life.”
Jesus raises a hand and silences Satan. Then he announces before the divine court that your name is written in his book, explaining that since he has already accepted your guilt for sin and suffered your deserved penalty on the cross, and given you his righteousness and obedience as a gift, that Satan can be dismissed.
Finally, after Satan leaves, Jesus then asks you, “Where is your accuser? Has no one condemned you?” “Neither do I condemn you,” he proclaims, “your sins are forgiven because I have paid your debt. For you are righteous in our Father’s eyes.” And then he commands you, “Go and from now on sin no more,” as he welcomes you into his eternal kingdom.
But back to the woman accused of adultery. We don’t know whether or not Jesus forgave her sin, but we know that Jesus refused to condemn her without evidence. We do not know whether or not she obeyed Christ afterwards. We do not know whether or not she went and sinned no more. But we do know that she was given a second chance; she was given the opportunity to earnestly repent of her sins and to live a changed life of obedient faith in righteousness.
Like her, we all have encounters with Jesus, and we have heard the message of the gospel. We know that Jesus forgives the sin of his chosen people whenever we repent. We know that the gospel is offered freely and universally, but that only the effectually called will respond to it with faith and obedience.
I mean, heeding the command of Christ and responding to the gospel by going and sinning no more is not certain or sure evidence that a person can say there are a lot of good godless people out in the world.
Many people are kind and charitable, loving and moral, because those attributes are not unique to Christians; those attributes are part of the universal moral law—a part of our universal human requirement to love our neighbor, especially as understood by the second table of the law, the fifth through tenth commandments.
But if a person does not do this, then they cannot be a Christian. If a person goes out and continues to intentionally, blatantly, and without any sign of repentance or remorse, sin, then that is a certain sign that someone has not been regenerated and redeemed, no matter what they may say or claim.
Actions truly do speak louder than words, which is why James tells us that faith apart from works is dead. Because the truth of what a person believes is proven by what they do and what they do not do. Just because a person once said the sinner’s prayer or came down to the front of a church during an altar call or simply grew up in the church as a child of believing Christian parents does not mean that they’re actually redeemed and forgiven.
If they are acting according to the principles and standards of the world, acting contrary to the word of God, then it is nearly certain that they are not or not yet. God’s mercy and grace does not give us the freedom or a license to sin. Instead, our sense of obligation and our duty to be righteous is increased because we now know what our sin is—cosmic treason against the divine sovereign—and we now want to live and be right in his eyes.
So although we do not know how this once accused woman responded to the grace and mercy that Jesus is said to have shown her, we are confident that justice will be done in her case and in every case. Divine justice will be and is satisfied either in the person of Jesus Christ, his suffering and death, or within the guilty person.
And although we do not know how this once accused woman responded to the grace and mercy that Jesus is said to have shown her, each of us has our own opportunity to choose rightly in response to the grace and mercy that Christ shows us.
So repent and believe. Flee from sin so that whenever you fail, whenever your old sinful nature gains an advantage over you, and the Holy Spirit convicts you for sinning, then you may repent and confess your sins, and you may ask for Christ’s forgiveness, confident and certain that he will forgive you.
Hear the good and glorious news of the gospel. If you know and believe that the Lord God has called you to himself, if you know and believe that Jesus has died for your sins, that he has been raised to bring you into eternal life with him, and that he presently reigns in heaven for your good benefit and is interceding for you before the Father; if you trust that faith in Jesus Christ is your only hope for salvation, redemption, and rescue in this life and in death, then know that your sins have been forgiven, that your moral debt of sin has been satisfied with the atoning blood of Jesus Christ.
Therefore, go and from now on sin no more. Live life obedient to Christ according to his word. Live as the righteous that Christ has declared you to be and as the Holy Spirit is transforming you to be. Because this is the command of Jesus Christ: love the Lord, love others, and then also go and sin no more. Amen.