John 7:53–8:11 records how the scribes and Pharisees bring a woman who had committed adultery to Jesus so that He can act as judge over her according to the Law of God. Before getting to this well-known passage itself, allow me to briefly comment regarding the claims of some scholars who argue that this passage, known as the pericope adulterae, is not original to the Gospel of John based on the fact that it is not included in surviving Greek manuscripts from the third century. I would counter that its authenticity is confirmed by references to the passage from the ancient Church Father Papias (60-130 AD) and the Didascalia Apostolorum (230 AD), the former which predates and the latter which is contemporary to such manuscripts.[1]
Furthermore, Augustine, writing at the start of the fifth century defends the authenticity of the passage and offers a compelling argument as to why it had been omitted in some manuscripts at the time, by noting that:
Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin.[2]
The passage has also been traditionally received as authentic and canonical by the church throughout its history.
As for the text itself, it is explained why the Pharisees and scribes, who were at enmity with Jesus, sought to put Him in the position where He had to pass judgment over the woman caught in adultery:
This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. (John 7:6)
In other words, the whole purpose of the exercise was to try to reveal that Jesus is antinomian, that is, in opposition to the Law of God. By doing so, they could accuse Him of heresy and condemn Him accordingly. This fact seems to have completely slipped the mind of many biblical commentators, including the great John Calvin himself, who writes concerning the scribes and Pharisees:
that their plan was, to constrain Christ to depart from his office of preaching grace, that he might appear to be fickle and inconsistent … if Christ had consented to the Law, he might be thought to be somewhat unlike himself.[3]
Such an interpretation is wholly at odds with the passage itself, which makes it clear that the Pharisees, who claimed to uphold the Law of Moses, actually had the opposite intention—making Jesus appear at odds with Moses. This is particularly evident in light of the context of this passage as well. Just a short time before this episode, Jesus accused these very Pharisees and scribes of not adhering to the truthfulness of the teachings of Moses as He, Christ, does (John 5:45-47). Therefore, the test posed to Jesus by the Pharisees and scribes in John 8 should be viewed in light of this accusation against them made by Christ in John 5. In other words, the motive was to entice Jesus to contradict Mosaic law, since if they could show that Jesus Himself did not adhere to the Law, His accusations against them would have been false and He would have been exposed as a liar.
But then Jesus does something rather spectacular. After writing something with his finger in the ground, the contents of which we can only speculate, He invites her accusers to start the execution of the sentence which they had in mind, by saying, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (John 8:7). This led to the accusers of the woman being convicted about their own conscience and leaving one by one until all of them were gone. Eventually only Jesus and the woman are left, at which point Jesus stands up and asks a very important question to the woman, “Where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” (John 8:10). When the woman confirms that all of the accusers had left and none remained, Jesus releases her (John 8:11).
Now, there are two very crucial elements in this narrative that are too often easily overlooked: firstly, in John 8:4, the accusers note that the woman “was caught” in the act adultery, with the Greek word used being κατείληφθη, the aorist passive indicative tense of the word “catch.” This means that the accusers themselves are relating a story in which they were not active participants, but only bear knowledge of. In other words, the accusers did not themselves catch the woman in adultery, but only relate that she has been caught in adultery. Their story can be assumed to be true, however, since we do know that the woman had in fact committed adultery based on the fact that Jesus commands her to “sin no more” when He sends her away (John 8:11). Secondly, Jesus, knowing the malicious intent of her accusers in not wanting justice but to try to trap Him, actually rhetorically invites them to participate in her execution, but only on the condition that they themselves are blameless.
These two facts are vitally important in light of biblical Law. It is indeed true that biblical Law requires the death penalty for the crime of adultery (Leviticus 20:10), but that same Law has certain requirements with regard to due process in the execution of such laws. When it comes to the execution of the death penalty, the evidence of “two or three witnesses” (Deuteronomy 17:6, 19:15; 2 Corinthians 13:1) who are reliable (Deuteronomy 19:16) is required. Furthermore, there is another, very important aspect of biblical due process in cases involving capital crimes: the witnesses must not only be present for the trial, but actually participate in the execution itself, to the point of being required to physically administer it themselves (Deuteronomy 17:7). Jesus’ invitation to the accusers, namely to “cast the first stone” if they are blameless, cannot and should not be understood apart from these biblical principles regarding due process spelled out in Deuteronomy.
At the trial of the woman caught in adultery there were no reliable first-hand witnesses to participate in the execution of the woman. In other words, Jesus, following the Law of Moses, through his actions pointed to the fact that the legal requirements for either a conviction or an execution were not met in this particular case, and therefore the woman could receive neither. If one of the accusers present were to “cast the first stone” as Jesus rhetorically invited them to do, they would be directly violating biblical Law themselves (Deuteronomy 17:7). In other words, Jesus was not only addressing their malicious intentions or their sinfulness in general, but also pointing out that by casting the first stone, anyone present would be sinning themselves. Once they realized this, they left in shame. After the case had therefore been dismissed, Jesus then commands the woman to cease from sinning and releases her.
The antinomian interpretation of this passage—namely that the release of the accused by Christ nullifies Old Testament laws regarding capital punishment, and that these laws are at odds with the grace of God revealed in Christ—does not take into account the rigorous administration of biblical justice exemplified by Christ in the case of the woman caught in adultery. Correctly understanding this passage is therefore crucial to upholding the truth that Christ, our supreme Lawgiver and Judge (James 4:12), can never be at odds with Himself.
[1] Darren Slade, “The Historicity of the Pericope Adulterae” (Lynchburg, VA: Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013), 16-17. I also take issue with the textual-critical methodology which simply regards readings in older existing manuscripts as “more authentic” or “closer to the original,” since a convincing argument can be made that older manuscripts are actually less authentic, as their very survival could be an indication of the fact that they were not traditionally regarded as authoritative by Christians and were consequently less frequently used.
[2] Aurelius Augustine, De Conjungis Adulterinis (421), 2:6-7: “Sed hoc videlicet infidelium sensus exhorret, ita ut nonnulli modicae fidei vel potius inimici verae fidei, credo, metuentes peccandi impunitatem dari mulieribus suis, illud, quod de adulterae indulgentia Dominus fecit, auferrent de codicibus suis, quasi permissionem peccandi tribuerit qui dixit: Iam deinceps noli peccare, aut ideo non debuerit mulier a medico Deo illius peccati remissione sanari, ne offenderentur insani."
[3] Jean Calvin, in Evangelium Ioannis: Commentarii (Tholock: Eichler, 1833), 156: “hoc illis consilium fuit, ut Christum ab officio praedicandae gratiae discendere cogeret, ut videri posset varius et inconstans. Si legi subscriberet, videri poterat sibi quodammodo dissimilis.”
Dr. Schlebusch is a historian, philosopher, and theologian from South Africa. He holds two BA degrees (theology and Latin) and a Master’s degree in philosophy from the University of the Free State. In 2018, he graduated with a PhD from the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands.