Sunday, June 21, 2020
John 8:1-11
“No Stones Allowed”
Service Orientation: In a world of shame and guilt, Jesus offers something superior… grace. Following Jesus not only involves a recognition of sin and a reception of His grace, but it also calls for an extension of grace to others when we recognize sin in them.
Memory Verse for the Week: “Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.” Ephesians 4:32
Background Information:
- The New International Version sets off this passage with lines before and after, reflecting the conclusion of the vast majority of biblical scholars (conservative and otherwise): the story of the adulterous woman was not originally part of the Gospel of John. The story appears in late (not early) manuscripts of the Gospel, appears in different locations from manuscript to manuscript, and interrupts the flow from chapter 7 to chapter 8 of the Gospel. Yet many accept the story to be a reliable report of an event in Jesus’ ministry, though it is technically not part of the Christian canon of Scripture. (Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 113) .
- Even though the passage was not written by John, it still may be regarded as a true story. It is unlikely that a later scribe would have made up such a story, given the strict views of the church regarding sexual immorality. The actions and words of Jesus are consistent with what we know of him from the rest of the Gospels. There is no new or unusual information in the passage that adds evidence against its inclusion. The encounter appears as an added snapshot of Jesus in John’s collection, though we can tell that someone else probably took the picture. The event deserves at least consideration in teaching and preaching as an act that Jesus did at some point in his ministry, for it illustrates Jesus’ compassion for sinful people (which includes us all) and his willingness to forgive any sinner; but the story should not be given the same authority as Scripture. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 164)
- In light of the prescriptions for punishment of sexual immorality “They both must be put to death” (see Leviticus 20:10-11, 13-16)—her partner should have been charged along with her and liable to the same death. Was part of Jesus’ displeasure with the accusers focused on their unjust seizure of the woman while her male partner in sin was released? (Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 114)
The question to be answered is…
What does this account contribute to our understanding of Jesus and the gospel?
Answer…
Once again Jesus flips the script on the self-righteous, to not only expose their ulterior motives, but to allow the light of the gospel to reveal the heart of the gospel; grace for sinners.
The word of the day is… grace
How do we see the light of the gospel revealed and at work in this text?
- As Jesus shines light on fakery and inconsistency.
(Mat. 5:27-28; 7:1-2; 9:10-13; 22:34-40; 23:1-39; Luke 10:25-28; 18:9-14; Rom. 14:10-13)
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. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 423)
The religious leaders did not bring this woman to Jesus to promote justice; they used her to try to trap Jesus. (The others involved in this attempt simply mingled with the crowd; see a similar trap in Mark 12:13-17.) Though indignant toward this woman’s sin, the religious leaders brought her to Jesus with political, not spiritual, motives in mind. They forgot the obvious fact that catching someone in the very act of adultery involves catching two people. Their devaluation of the woman (while ignoring the man’s sin) made her no more than a pawn in their efforts to trap Jesus. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 165)
- As personal stock of sin is taken by the crowd.
(Ps. 51:5; Mat. 5:28; Mark 7: 20-23; Rom. 3:23; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 2 Cor. 7:10; Jam. 4:17; 8:34)
Suddenly what they have attempted to make a legal issue is seen as a deeply personal, moral matter. A group of proud, righteous men now find themselves on the same ground as the woman they are about to stone. Their pious armor has been pierced as each one faces the depths of his own sinful nature. Each has to deal with the inner darkness which is so closely intertwined with self-righteous legalism—the savage delight in catching this woman in the act of sinning, the pompous pride in being able to use her as a shameful test case, or the vengeful anger which drives them to get at Jesus. Are not these the ugly passions we all seek to hide? (Roger L. Fredrikson, The Communicator’s Commentary: John, 154)
- As the only one qualified to throw stones, doesn’t.
(Mat. 5:48; John 8:29; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil 2:9-11; Heb. 4:15; 1 Pet. 2:22; 3:18; 1 John 3:5)
Jesus gives the requirements for being a judge, which is something for all of us to hear. We have the right to be the judge of others provided we meet the requirement. That requirement is sinless. May I say to you, my friend, I don’t know about you, but that takes me out of the stone-throwing business. (J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, John, 132)
- As the woman is called to a new and better way of life.
(Mat. 11:28-30; 16:24-25; John 3:16-17; 17:3; Rom. 6:23; James 1:22; 1 Pet. 2:24)
For Grace is given not because we have done good works, but in order that we may be able to do them. (Augustine, Of the Spirit and the Letter)
We must not misinterpret this event to mean that Jesus was “easy on sin” or that He contradicted the law. For Jesus to forgive this woman meant that He had to one day die for her sins. Forgiveness is free but it is not cheap. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 256)
Conclusion…What challenges are present in this text for followers of Jesus today?
A. The challenge to keep our own tendency towards self-righteousness in check.
(Is. 64:6; Mat. 7: 1-5; Mark 11:25; Eph. 2:12; Phil. 3:9; Titus 3:5; James 1:26; 1 John 2:9; 4:19-21)
Those who quote the Scriptures to condemn others are frequently the guiltiest of all. Those who are so solicitous to point to the mote in another’s eye, generally have a beam in their own. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 421)
If you use the law of God to condemn yourself, go ahead, but don’t say it’s from God. If you allow others to use a the law to make you guilty and afraid, go ahead, but don’t call them God‘s servants. If you use the law to judge others, go ahead, but don’t assume that your judgment mimics the judgment of God. If you use the law to make you feel superior to other Christians and pagans, you can do that too, but please remember God didn’t give you the law for that purpose. You aren’t superior or better, not even a little. So deal with it. (Steve Brown, A Scandalous Freedom, 233)
When you point the finger at someone else, there are three fingers pointing back at you. He hasn’t said the law of Moses was wrong; only that, if we’re going to get serious about it, we should all find ourselves guilty. And one by one they get the point and go away. (N.T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part 1, 113)
B. The challenge to truly receive Christ’s forgiveness.
(Ps. 103-11-12; Is. 6:7; John 1:12; Rom. 5:1; 2 Cor. 7:10; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 1:9; 2:1)
A great many people think they are lost because they have committed a certain sin. I have news for you. One is not lost because he is a murderer, or a liar, or a thief, or an adulterer, or because he has borne false witness or committed other sins. A person does these things because he is lost and does not believe in Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ forgives sins. He is the Savior. He died for the sins of the whole world. Any person who comes to the Lord Jesus Christ is forgiven. (J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, John, 133)
C. The challenge to leave our own life of sin.
(Mat. 16:24-25; John 3:3; Acts 14:15; Rom. 1:17; Gal. 5:19-21; Col. 3:1; 1 Pet. 2:24)
Not only must the outward actions be regulated by the Word, but the heart must also be conformed thereto. It is not enough to abstain from murder: the causeless anger must be put away. It is not enough to abstain from the act of adultery: the inward lust must be mortified too (Mat 5:28) (A.W. Pink, Guarding Your Heart, 11)
Perfect behaviour may be as unattainable as perfect gear-changing when we drive; but it is a necessary ideal prescribed for all men by the very nature of the human machine just as perfect gear-changing is an ideal prescribed for all drivers by the very nature of cars. And it would be even more dangerous to think of oneself as a person “of high ideals” because one is trying to tell no lies at all (instead of only a few lies) or never to commit adultery (instead of committing it only seldom) or not to be a bully (instead of being only a moderate bully). (C.S. Lewis, Mere Chrstianity, 70)
Worship Point…
Want your worship to come alive? Reflect on the magnitude of your sin and the even greater magnitude of Jesus’ grace for you.
(Pro. 28:13; Mat. 5:27-28; John 1:12; Rom. 6:14; Eph. 2:8-9; James 4:6; Heb. 4:16)
What makes a church most effective in evangelism is God’s living presence in its worship. But this requires the whole congregation to acknowledge His presence by exalting His transcendence and reveling in His grace. (Phillip Graham Ryken, City on a Hill, 68)
Nobody was ever saved by keeping the law, but nobody was ever saved by grace who was not first indicted by the law. There must be conviction before there can be conversion. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 256)
Gospel Application…
The good news to those in Christ is that there is still no condemnation for those who turn to him.
(Mat. 16:24-25; John 3:17; Rom. 8:1; 11:6; 1 Cor. 10:13; 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 1:7)
Just as prayer is initiated by God relationship is initiated by God too. He came to us when we couldn’t come to him. He loved us when we couldn’t love him. He reached out to us when we couldn’t reach out to him. In other words, the only qualification for being in a relationship with God is to be unqualified. (Steve Brown, Approaching God, 9)
Spiritual Challenge Questions…
Reflect on these questions in your time with the Lord this week, or discuss with a Christian family member or life group.
- If you are a Christian, do you still struggle with guilt? Why is that? What makes accepting Jesus’ forgiveness so difficult for you? What will it take for you to simply trust Jesus’ grace and forgiveness?
- When have you sensed self-righteousness in yourself? How can you increasingly look at others the way Jesus did?
- How does Jesus’ grace toward this woman challenge how you view others? How can this story challenge how you act towards others?
- How can you live more like Jesus in light of this text?
Quotes to note…
When Jesus calls for the one without sin to cast the first stone he accomplishes several things: it relieves him from the charge of having instigated a stoning; it ensures there will not be a stoning, since none of the accusers will want to take responsibility for it; and it causes them to reflect on their own sinfulness before God. It has often been suggested that the eldest accusers were the first to leave (v. 9) because they recognized their own sinfulness more readily. However, leaving in this order may simply reflect the custom of deferring to the elders. In any case, their withdrawal was in fact a confession of sin. Those who came to condemn ended up condemning themselves by not casting a stone. (Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: John, 208)
This was not the first time that the Lord had written “with his finger.” In Ex. 31:18 we rend, “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with Him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” When, then, our Lord wrote on the ground, it was as though He had said, You remind Me of the law! Why, it was My finger which wrote that law! (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 422)
Not a word had Christ uttered against the law; in nowise had He condoned the woman’s sin. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 424)
FURTHER QUOTES AND RESEARCH…
When Jesus calls for the one without sin to cast the first stone he accomplishes several things: it relieves him from the charge of having instigated a stoning; it ensures there will not be a stoning, since none of the accusers will want to take responsibility for it; and it causes them to reflect on their own sinfulness before God. It has often been suggested that the eldest accusers were the first to leave (v. 9) because they recognized their own sinfulness more readily. However, leaving in this order may simply reflect the custom of deferring to the elders. In any case, their withdrawal was in fact a confession of sin. Those who came to condemn ended up condemning themselves by not casting a stone. (Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: John, 208)
This was not the first time that the Lord had written “with his finger.” In Ex. 51:18 we rend, “And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with Him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God.” When, then, our Lord wrote on the ground, it was as though He had said, You remind Me of the law! Why, it was My finger which wrote that law! (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 422)
Not a word had Christ uttered against the law; in nowise had He condoned the woman’s sin. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 424)
It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our advantage. (John Calvin, Commentary on John, Vol.1, 254)
Jesus responded with the now-classic line, If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (8:7). In part, Jesus was echoing Old Testament regulations which (for certain crimes) specified that the witnesses of a crime be the first to cast stones (see Leviticus 24:14; Deuteronomy 17:7). But to this Jesus added the twist that those who would cast the first stones be without sin. This new requirement proved to be insurmountable to these accusers. Stepping forward to cast the first stone would immediately put one before the gaze not only of the crowd (often more knowledgeable than first thought!), but also of Jesus (whose perceptiveness already had been demonstrated repeatedly, as we see in this Gospel). (Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 115)
The order in which the accusers departed may be significant: those with greater maturity, with greater authority, with greater respect were the first to recognize the trap. Given the fact of their sinfulness, would it be better to step forward and face public examination (and exposure) by Jesus, or to retreat and indirectly admit their sinfulness? Though either choice would have had the same outcome, they chose to retreat and thereby avoid any added humiliation of public exposure. (Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 115)
Certain aspects of this story bear stressing. First, Jesus did not approve of her sin, nor simply dismiss her without warning. No, her life of sin must stop. Jesus’ word of release, then, was a word grace, not of permission. Second, Jesus apparently did not intend to teach that no human being can or should make moral judgments about the behavior of others. Such a conclusion could not make sense of other scriptural passages in which Jesus commands His disciples to make moral judgments about human behavior (see Matthew 7:15-23). Furthermore, such a conclusion necessarily becomes self-contradictory: For anyone who corrects another for passing moral judgment has himself passed moral judgment. Third, Jesus especially condemned hypocritical judgment. These scribes and Pharisees had no concern for the woman or her redemption. Nor had they any interest in genuine obedience to the Law of Moses. Jesus was right to refuse to allow “justice” to be enacted at their hands. In short, Jesus celebrated the place of mercy, alongside the necessity of repentance (for the woman) and integrity (for her accusers). (Joseph Dongell, John: A Bible Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition, 115-116)
It is almost certain that this account was not written by the Apostle John. For neither the language nor the style of writing are his. Yet this account has shown up in the inspired record in a variety of places, most recently and permanently in this Gospel, and it is a lovely witness to Jesus’ caring love for one lonely, frightened sinner. The details in the story are so unusual that it is highly unlikely it could have been fabricated, as some have claimed. (Roger L. Fredrikson, The Communicator’s Commentary: John, 153)
A woman, whose name we do not know, has been caught in the very act of adulterous sex. According to the law, this could mean her death (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:20-24). The Pharisees push Jesus to pronounce the final word of judgment, a clever trap, for they surely know of Jesus’ compassion for the weak and sinful. So if He said, ”Let her go,” they could accuse Him of breaking Moses’ law. But if He gave them permission to stone her, He would break the Roman law which did not allow death for anyone without their approval. (Roger L. Fredrikson, The Communicator’s Commentary: John, 153-154)
His response to their insistent demand for some verdict is spiritually devastating for these Pharisees. “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” Suddenly what they have attempted to make a legal issue is seen as a deeply personal, moral matter. A group of proud, righteous men now find themselves on the same ground as the woman they are about to stone. (Roger L. Fredrikson, Mastering the New Testament: John, 154)
The episode took place in the temple court at dawn. The entire affair had the appearance of trickery, a trap specially prepared to catch Jesus. The Sanhedrin would probably not have arisen early in the morning unless there was a special reason for doing so. They forced their way into the center of the group and interrupted Jesus’ teaching by posing a question that created an apparently impossible dilemma for him. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, 90)
In this particular offense there would normally be no witnesses, since its nature would demand privacy. Either the witnesses became such by accident, which would be unusual; or they were present purposely to create the trap for Jesus, in which case they themselves were guilty; or they condoned the deed, and this would make them partners in it. According to Jewish law, in any case of capital punishment the witnesses must begin the stoning. Whether Jesus by his statement implied that they were guilty of condoning or of committing adultery with this woman, or whether he was speaking about past personal guilt is uncertain. In either case, each one of the accusers would either have to admit that he was guilty or else refrain from demanding the woman’s death. (Frank E. Gæbelein, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 9, 90)
It is usually said that this story interrupts John’s flow of thought, as though a patch of a different pattern has been sewn onto a piece of cloth. On the contrary, while the style of Jesus’ self-revelation is quite different in John, this added story contains an example of the Synoptic form of revelation, which shows that Jesus is more than a human prophet. So although there is a patch, the patch is of the same pattern as the whole, albeit less bright. While the style of the material is very different, the substance is quite similar. This specific story is a case in point of what is generally true of the relation between the Synoptics and John. The Synoptics have as high a Christology as John does, though they express it differently. (Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: John, 205)
These opponents have a commendable zeal for righteousness, but theirs is a shallow righteousness that shows no concern for the soul of this woman. They are also being rather deceitful. There is no evidence that this law was carried out with any regularity, so they are raising a question in the name of loyalty to Moses, using a part of Moses’ teaching that they themselves most likely have not kept. Furthermore, since law says both the man and the woman who commit adultery are to be killed, we are left wondering why the man was not brought in as well. It may be that he had escaped, but the fact that only the woman is brought raises suspicions and does not speak well of their zeal for the law of Moses; for if they were really committed, they would have brought the man as well. Indeed, the law makes it clear that stoning could only take place after a careful trial, which included the chance for the condemned to confess his or her wrong (m. Sanhedrin 6:1-4). The hypocrisy of the opponents is evident. (Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: John, 206)
The leaders of Israel are putting God to the test in the person of his Son, repeating the Israelites’ historical pattern on more than one occasion in the wilderness at Meribah and Massah (Ex 17:2; Num 20:13; cf, Deut 6:16; Ps 95:8-9; 106:14). (Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: John, 206)
This act of writing on the ground is itself very significant. Kenneth E. Bailey has pointed out (in unpublished form) that it was unlawful to write even two letters on the sabbath but that writing with dust was permissible (m, Sabbat 7:2; 12:5). If this were the eighth day of the feast, which was to be kept as a day of rest, then Jesus writing on the ground would show that he knows well not only the law but also the oral interpretations. Furthermore, his writing echoes an Old Testament passage, thereby turning it into a symbolic action (Jeremias 1972:228): “O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you will be put to shame. Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water” (Jer 17:13). Here “written in the dust” probably means the opposite of being written in the book of life (Ex 32:32; Dan 12:1); those who have turned away are consigned to death because they have rejected the one who is the source of the water of life. Thus it appears that Jesus is associating his opponents with those whom God condemns for forsaking himself and whom he consigns to death. The judgment that they suggest Jesus execute on this adulterous woman is in fact the judgment that he visits upon them for their rejection of him—the one who has offered them God’s living water (7:38-39). In rejecting Jesus, they are forsaking God, and thereby committing a shameful act. Adultery us shameful, certainly, but they themselves are acting in a shameful way worthy of death. (Rodney A. Whitacre, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series: John, 207)
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 coldblooded indelicacy they acted, employing the guilt of their captive to accomplish their evil intentions against Christ. 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. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 419-420)
Christ’s enemies had thought to ensnare Him by the law of Moses; instead, they had its searching light turned upon themselves. Grace had not defied, but had upheld the law! One sentence from the lips of Holiness incarnate and they were silenced, all convicted, and all departed. At another time, a self-righteous Pharisee might boast of his fastings, his tithes and his prayers; but when God turns the light on a man’s heart, his moral and spiritual depravity become apparent even to himself, and shame shuts his lips. So it was here. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 424)
This blessed incident not only anticipated the epistle to the Romans, but it also outlines, by vivid symbols, the Gospel of the grace of God. The Gospel not only announces a Saviour for sinners, but it also explains how God can save them consistently with the requirements of His character. As Rom. 1:17 tells us, in the Gospel is “the righteousness of God revealed.” And this is precisely what is set forth here in John 8. (Arthur W. Pink, Exposition of the Gospel of John, 426-427)
Forgiveness is not the same thing as ‘tolerance’. Being forgiven doesn’t mean that sin doesn’t matter. On the contrary: ‘forgiveness’ means that sin does matter – but that God is choosing to set it aside. (N.T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part 1, 113)
And the sin that matters even more, as the rest of the chapter makes clear, is the deep-rooted sin which uses the God-given law as a means of making oneself out to be righteous, when in fact it is meant to shine the light of God’s judgment into the dark places of the heart. (N.T. Wright, John for Everyone, Part 1, 113)
They would not be likely to catch a couple in the “very act” of adultery, so we wonder if the man (who never was indicted!) was part of the scheme. The law required that both guilty parties be stoned (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22) and not just the woman. It does seem suspicious that the man went free. The scribes and Pharisees handled the matter in a brutal fashion, even in the way they interrupted the Lord’s teaching and pushed the woman into the midst of the crowd. (Warren Wiersbe, The Wiersbe Bible Commentary, 256)
Conscience is a most important part of our inward man, and plays a most prominent part in our spiritual history. It cannot save us. It never yet led any one to Christ. It is blind, and liable to be misled. It is lame and powerless, and cannot guide us to heaven. Yet conscience is not to be despised. It is the minister’s best friend, when he stands up to rebuke sin from the pulpit. It is the mother’s best friend, when she tries to restrain her children from evil and quicken them to good. It is the teacher’s best friend, when he presses home on boys and girls their moral duties. Happy is he who never stifles his conscience, but strives to keep it tender! Still happier is he who prays to have it enlightened by the Holy Spirit, and sprinkled with Christ’s blood. (J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on John Vol.2, 47-48)
That repentance which consists in nothing more than feeling, talking, professing, wishing, meaning, hoping, and resolving, is worthless in God’s sight. Action is the very life of “repentance unto salvation not to be repented of.” Until a man ceases to do evil and turns from his sins, he does not really repent. Would we know whether we are truly converted to God, and know anything of godly sorrow for sin, and repentance such as causes “joy in heaven”? Let us search and see whether we forsake sin. Let us not rest until we can say as in God’s sight, “I hate all sin, and desire to sin no more.” (J.C. Ryle, Expository Thoughts on John Vol.2, 48)
This is the One about whom more books have been written, pro and con, than about any other person who has ever lived; yet He never wrote anything except this in the sands of the temple floor, which the wind or the feet of the crowd erased. (J. Vernon McGee, Thru The Bible Commentary Series, John, 131)
Aversion for the truth exists in different degrees, but it may be said to exist in everyone of us to some degree, for it is inseparable from self-love. Blaise pascal
Jesus’ statement of permission balanced several crucial points of truth. He upheld the legal penalty for adultery (stoning), so he could not be accused of being against the law. But by requiring that only a sinless person could throw the first stone, Jesus exposed what was in the accusers’ hearts. Without condoning the woman’s actions, he highlighted the importance of compassion and forgiveness and broadened the spotlight of judgment until every accuser felt himself included. Jesus knew the execution could not be carried out. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 166)
Jesus was not saying that only perfect, sinless people can make accurate accusations, pass judgment, or exact a death penalty. Nor was he excusing adultery or any other sin by saying that everyone sins. This event illustrates that wise judgment flows out of honest motives. Jesus resolved an injustice about to be committed by exposing the hypocrisy of the witnesses against the woman. By making the accusers examine themselves, he exposed their real motives. (Bruce B. Barton, Life Application Bible Commentary: John, 166)
These verses are present in most of the medieval Greek miniscule manuscripts, but they are absent from virtually all early Greek manuscripts that have come down to us, representirig great diversity of textual traditions. The most notable exception is the Western uncial D, known for its independence in numerous other places. They are also missing from the earliest forms of the Syriac and Coptic Gospels, and from many Old Latin, Old Georgian and Armenian manuscripts. All the early church Fathers omit this narrative: in commenting on John, they pass immediately from 7:52 to 8:12. No Eastern Father cites the passage before the tenth century. Didymus the Blind (a fourth-century exegete from Alexandria) reports a variation on this narrative, not the narrative as we have it here. Moreover, a number of (later) manuscripts that include the narrative mark it off with asterisks or obeli, indicating hesitation as to its authenticity, while those that do include it display a rather high frequency of textual variants. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 333)
The scribes were the recognized students and expositors of the law of Moses, but so central was the law in the life and thought of first-century Palestinian Jews that the scribes came to assume something of the roles of lawyer, ethicist, theologian, catechist, and jurist. Most of them, but certainly not all, were Pharisees by conviction. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 334)
If Jesus disavowed the law of Moses, his credibility would be instantly undermined: he could be dismissed as a lawless person and perhaps be charged in the courts with serious offences. If he upheld the law of Moses, he would not only be supporting a position that was largely unpopular but one that was probably not carried out in public life, and, worse, which would have been hard to square with his well-known compassion for the broken and disreputable, his quickness to forgive and restore, and his announcement of the life-transforming power bound up with the new birth. (D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, 335)
