Jesus: The Voice of Mercy
John 7:53–8:11
Although John 7:53–8:11 is not original to the Gospel, the account accurately reflects Jesus’ character by condemning hypocritical judgment while extending mercy to the sinner and calling her to repentance; the passage’s consistent themes reinforce confidence in Scripture’s reliability.
Outline
- Textual history and reliability of the passage
- Hypocritical accusers
- Marginalized victim
- Attempted trap
- Condemnation of hypocrisy
- Extension of mercy
- Call to repentance
- Conclusion on imagining Jesus’ response
Themes: Voice of Mercy · Hypocrisy · Textual Criticism · Marginalized · Repentance · Compassion · Balance of Mercy and Holiness · Woman Caught in Adultery
Key Cross-References: John 8:2-11, Matthew 23:13-30, Mark 2:15-17, Luke 7:36-50, John 4, Matthew 7:1-5, Leviticus 20:10, John 3:17, John 5:14
MANUSCRIPT
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone!" This morning, we are all familiar with this powerful phrase. It serves as a profound invitation to self-reflection, urging us to consider our own sins before judging others. It stands as a stark condemnation of hypocritical judgment and simultaneously calls us toward compassion and mercy.
This phrase has proven so relevant and resonant throughout the ages that it has permeated political discourse, courtroom speeches, social commentary, and even literature and film.
The widespread use of this phrase by both believers and non-believers around the world underscores its profound relevance to the human experience. We have all felt the sting of judgment from hypocrites and, at times, have recognized our tendency to act as those hypocrites.
As you likely know, these words find their origin in chapter 8 of the gospel of John. Let’s read the account together:
John 8:2-11 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 ((The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 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. 7 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.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 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. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”))
Now, as we read that remarkable account of the woman caught in adultery, were you distracted by anything in your translation? Perhaps your translation has an open bracket starting in chapter 7, verse 53 and a closed bracket in John 8:11, or double brackets. Perhaps in addition to these brackets there is a marginal, or footnote reading something like:
“The earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11”
As we approach this passage, it's crucial that we confront the textual concerns associated with it. I believe that by addressing these issues openly, you'll find that your trust in the reliability of Scripture is not weakened, but rather reinforced.
As the footnotes in your translations indicate, this passage is absent from the earliest and most reliable manuscripts of the gospel of John.
Two of our oldest and most reliable manuscripts are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex Vaticanus contains a nearly complete copy of the Greek Old Testament and most of the New Testament, dating to the mid-4th century. Codex Sinaiticus, also from the mid-4th century, contains the entire Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Notably, neither of these ancient manuscripts contains the account of the woman caught in adultery. In addition to these nearly complete ancient Bibles, we have even older papyri of the Gospel of John:
Papyrus 66, dated to around AD 200, is a nearly complete codex of the Gospel of John. It is one of the oldest extensive papyri of the New Testament.
Papyrus 75, dated from around AD 175 to 225, is a codex containing significant portions of the Gospels of Luke and John. Significantly, Papyrus 75 closely aligns with Codex Vaticanus, which is dated about 100 years later, indicating that the text of the New Testament was transmitted accurately.
Again, relevant to our discussion about John 8, neither Papyrus 66 nor Papyrus 75 contains this passage. The oldest manuscript evidence supporting its inclusion dates from the 5th century, in the form of Codex Bezae, a manuscript known for its unique readings and textual variants.
There are other notable issues which reveal significant uncertainties about this passage’s authenticity. Some manuscripts that include this passage mark it with asterisks or other markings, signaling to readers that its authenticity was under question even in ancient times. Moreover, the passage does not have a consistent placement within the manuscripts; it appears in various locations—after John 7:52 in some manuscripts, after John 7:36 in others, and even in different books such as after Luke 21:38 in one instance. These markers and the shifting placement of the passage suggest that scribes themselves were unsure about its originality and struggled with how to integrate it into the Gospel texts, reflecting ongoing debates about its canonical status.
So, in light of this information, how is it that this passage has worked its way into our English translations, and into our cultural imaginations?
Jerome included this passage in his Latin translation of the Bible, though we are unsure of his Greek source. The inclusion of this passage in the Latin solidified its acceptance in the Latin-speaking Church and set a tradition for the medieval manuscripts which would influence early English translations.
The first complete English translation of the Bible, the Wycliffe Bible from 1380 was based upon the Latin Vulgate.
Tyndale in 1526 translated directly from Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New. For the Greek he used Erasmus’ edition of the Greek New Testament (which would later be finalized as the Textus Receptus). Tyndale’s Greek source included John 8:1-11.
Miles Coverdale produced the first complete Bible printed in English in 1535. His work, which was heavily dependent upon Tyndale’s, included this passage.
Following this tradition, the Geneva Bible in 1560 and ultimately the King James Version in 1611 both included this passage.
It wouldn’t be until the 19th and 20th centuries that the significance of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus would be fully recognized, along with discoveries of ancient manuscripts like Papyrus 66 and 75. These manuscripts provided insights into the form of the New Testament dating back as early as 175 AD. This was significantly earlier than the Greek texts underlying the English translations mentioned above, which were based on manuscripts no older than the 12th century.
So, this passage has been part of our English Bible tradition for about 600 years. For this reason, even in light of the manuscript evidence against its inclusion, our modern English Bibles include it. However, they do so while acknowledging that it is not in the oldest, and what are considered the most reliable manuscripts.
What then should we make of all of this? Should the fact that we have this passage in our English Bibles shake our confidence in the accuracy of our translations? I think it should reinforce it.
The fact that Bible translators accompany this passage with footnotes or brackets indicates a commitment to integrity and transparency. The church is so committed to possessing a Bible which best reflects the originals, that it is willing to let go even of a beloved passage like the account of the woman caught in adultery, if it means a greater fidelity to the text as God intended it.
We can have confidence that our English translation is an accurate reflection of the original text. The New Testament is among the best-attested works of ancient literature, with over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts, and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages. These manuscripts range from the 2nd century to the medieval period, providing a broad base for textual comparison and validation.
The vast majority of variations across these manuscripts are minor, such as differences in spelling or word order, and do not affect the core teachings of the Christian faith. The sheer volume of manuscripts allows scholars to use textual criticism techniques to identify and correct errors, enhancing confidence in the texts' fidelity to the original writings.
Scholars also rely on the writings of the early church fathers, who quoted extensively from the New Testament scriptures in their own letters and theological works. These writings serve as an additional check, as they help to confirm the content of the New Testament texts as they were known in the early centuries of Christianity.
The asterisks or brackets in your English translation around John 8:1-11, should remind you of the strength of textual criticism — they show that scholars are not simply accepting texts uncritically but are rigorously examining and comparing manuscripts to determine the most authentic text. It should remind you that Christians are committed to ensuring that their Bible is as accurate as possible.
Now, all that being said, what are we going to do with this text this morning?
What I’m going to suggest to you this morning is that there is nothing unique or novel about the things taught in this text. The character of Jesus, the nature of his opponents, the moral and spiritual lessons found within it are all consistent with and supported by other scriptures. Scriptures which are not at all in doubt.
With that in mind, let’s walk through this text together and examine the themes present that are entirely consistent with the presentation of Jesus throughout the gospels.
First of all, consider the Hypocritical Accusers
1. The Hypocritical Accusers According to verse 3, it is the scribes and Pharisees who have brought this woman to Jesus. We’ve learned much about Pharisees in our study of John so I won’t say much here. However, we haven’t yet encountered the scribes, and this is the only mention of them in John’s gospel, so let’s start with them. The scribes were a group of Jewish officials and scholars who were experts in the Mosaic Law (Matt 2:4; 17:10; Mark 12:35: 15:1; ). They taught, maintained and copied the scriptures, and served as legal experts in religious courts. Although we often find the Pharisees and the scribes together, the scribes could be associated with both Pharisees and Sadducees (Mark 2:16; Luke 5:30; Acts 23:9). Some passages refer to “the Pharisees and their scribes (Luke 5:30),” or “the scribes of the Pharisees (Mark 2:16),” indicating that there were also scribes of the Sadducee party. The scribes were highly educated men who played a major role in Jewish society, both in terms of religious life and legal matters. Their deep knowledge of the law often saw them engaging in discussions and debates about its interpretation and application. The Pharisees relied upon the scribes for their interpretations of the scripture. It’s their interpretation which the Pharisees would teach, and seek to apply to everyday life. Oh, and one other thing about the scribes in Jesus’ day – they were largely bloodthirsty religious hypocrites In Matthew 23 when Jesus pronounces his woes upon the hypocrites of his day he starts each statement with, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!”
Matthew 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.
Matthew 23:15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves.
Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
Matthew 23:25 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
Matthew 23:27 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people's bones and all uncleanness.
Matthew 23:29-30 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and decorate the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’
So, in this text we have the usual suspects - hypocritical religious leaders obsessed with the tedium of the law while possessing no mercy or empathy toward others. And what are these hypocrites doing in this story? They are hauling a sinful woman into the middle of a crowd in the temple and presenting her before Jesus for judgment. So far the scribes and Pharisees are presented in a way true to their character! They are the HYPOCRITICAL ACCUSERS, she is who I’m going to call THE MARGINALIZED VICTIM.
2. The Marginalized Victim The story has the scribes and Pharisees haul the woman out publicly, while Jesus is teaching in the temple and placing her in the midst of the crowd. Why in the midst of the crowd? First, because they have no care for this woman’s reputation, but also this is meant to be a public shaming. A public shaming which they threaten to turn into a public stoning. Is it consistent with the rest of the gospel of John and the other gospels to see these religious leaders as having a lack of mercy toward sinners? Yes.
Mark 2:15-17 And as he reclined at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners were reclining with Jesus and his disciples, for there were many who followed him. 16 And the scribes of the Pharisees, when they saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors, said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?”
To the scribes and the Pharisees, sinners were sinners were sinners. They were men and women fit for judgment and far from repentance. They were not to be associated with, even for the purpose of evangelism. Jesus on the other hand, was different. He responded to them in Mark 2 by saying:
17 … “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”
Jesus came to forgive, and so he came for sinners. He came with mercy, and so he came for those in distress. He came to seek and save, and so he came to the lost. But, the marginalized victim in this story is also a woman. Women within first-century Judaism were of a lower social status.
They had limited legal rights.
Their testimony in court was not given the same weight as a man’s.
They had few rights where marriage and divorce were concerned.
They had limited educational opportunities compared to men.
Is it consistent with the rest of the gospel of John to see marginalized individuals, rejected by society but shown mercy by Jesus? Absolutely.
Jesus showed mercy to the crippled, the paralyzed, the deaf, and the blind. He loved those that society neglected like the poor, the fatherless and the widows. He was willing to embrace individuals that society deemed unapproachable.
Regarding sinners, in Luke 15 Jesus tells the parable of the prodigal son which is entirely designed by Jesus to call out hypocrisy and reveal God’s merciful character toward those who repent, no matter who they are, or what they’ve done.
In Luke 23 we find the account of the thief on the cross, who with his last fleeting breaths, and after a life of crime, repents and places his faith in Jesus. In that moment, Jesus assures him that he will have a place in the kingdom of God.
How about the idea of a sinful woman in particular? Do we find Jesus interacting with and showing mercy to sinful women? Absolutely. A few chapters earlier in John 4 we have the awesome account of Jesus seeking out and talking with a Samaritan woman. He sits at a well and talks with her about her life. He knew that she had had multiple illicit relationships and was presently within one. Far from condemning her out-of-hand, he helped her see her need for eternal life, and how she had been attempting to fill that emptiness with sin. Tenderly he ushered her out of her life of sin, and into the kingdom of God.
We find a similar account in Luke 7:
Luke 7:36-50 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and reclined at table. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner, when she learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.” 40 And Jesus answering said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he answered, “Say it, Teacher.” 41 “A certain moneylender had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they could not pay, he cancelled the debt of both. Now which of them will love him more?” 43 Simon answered, “The one, I suppose, for whom he cancelled the larger debt.” And he said to him, “You have judged rightly.” 44 Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven—for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
Jesus loves those who hypocritical religion rejects. Clearly the woman in Luke 7 understood her need for Jesus. She came with a repentant spirit and an expression of sacrificial love toward Jesus, knowing that he had the authority to forgive sin and usher sinners into the kingdom of God. She was well aware of her sinfulness and her need for forgiveness, its for this reason that her worship and her thankfulness toward Jesus was so profuse.
Whereas the Pharisees couldn’t tolerate having her in their presence, Jesus saw her as a sinner in need of forgiveness, and recognized her repentant heart. She was a lost sheep in need of being found. She was sick and in need of a physician. She was a sinful woman yes, but sinful women don’t need hypocritical condemnation, they need a merciful saviour. So, although we might question whether this text in John 8 belongs in scripture, it is clear that what is being taught here is entirely consistent with the character of Jesus and the nature of his opponents.
What do we see next, in addition to the HYPOCRITICAL ACCUSERS and the MARGINALIZED VICTIM We see the ATTEMPTED TRAP.
3. The Attempted Trap To make the scribes and Pharisee’s treatment of this woman even worse we find that they are publicly shaming her and threatening to have her stoned, not because they were genuinely concerned about the breaking of the law, or with the moral standards of their religion but because they wanted to use her as a pawn in order to entrap Jesus. Look at verses 3-6:
John 8:3-6 ((The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 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.
So, we ask, is this the type of behaviour we’ve come to expect from the scribes and Pharisees from other passages? Absolutely. In Matthew 22:15 we find the Pharisees plotting how they might entangle Jesus in his words in order to accuse him. In Mark 10 we find them coming to Jesus with a question about divorce for the sole purpose of trying to entrap him. In Luke 11 we read:
Luke 11:53-54 As he went away from there, the scribes and the Pharisees began to press him hard and to provoke him to speak about many things, 54 lying in wait for him, to catch him in something he might say.
So they’ve sprung what they think is a crafty attempt to entrap Jesus in his words so that they can accuse him. What specifically is it? They’ve brought to him a question about the law against adultery.
“Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
Jesus had previously contrasted their understanding of Moses with his own teachings. Remember the sermon on the mount? “You have heard it said, but I say to you…” Well, they are putting him to the test, “This is what Moses says about adultery, so what do you say?”
In what ways is this a trap?
If Jesus opposes the stoning of this woman, he could be accused of disregarding the law of Moses, which would immediately discredit him, making him a false teacher and lead to his arrest.
If Jesus agrees with the stoning, he would appear to contradict his own teaching on mercy and forgiveness. Further, he could run afoul of Roman law which reserved the right to exercise capital punishment to Roman authorities, and not the Jews.
The scribes and Pharisees think they have Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. They think they’ve backed him into a corner from which he has no way to escape. But, like the other passages in which they have attempted to entrap Jesus, he is said to turn the tables in masterful fashion. In addition to the HYPOCRITICAL ACCUSERS and the MARGINALIZED VICTIM, and the ATTEMPTED TRAP, next we see THE CONDEMNATION OF HYPOCRISY.
4. The Condemnation of Hypocrisy First, look at their statement in verse 5:
John 8:5-9 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
Were they right about the law? Sort of. The law in Leviticus did call for the death penalty for adultery. However, they left out a portion. Leviticus 20:10 says:
Leviticus 20:10 ¶ “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Do you notice anything? The penalty is indeed death, but it applies to both the adulterer and the adulteress. I wonder, where is the man in all of this? It appears that they are selectively applying the law to a woman, which they are using simply as a pawn to entrap Jesus. They are using the Law, which they claim to so revere as a cover for their malicious intent. Look at Jesus’ response:
6 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.
What did he write on the ground? We don’t know and there is no use speculating. It’s likely that the story has Jesus write on the ground simply to communicate his disinterest in the question. They’ve come filled with a hateful urgency as if this woman needs to be dealt with swiftly and harshly, and Jesus in this story calmly draws in the sand with his finger as if to show no interest in their question. It continues:
7 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.”
This is an allusion to the book of Deuteronomy which states that it is the witnesses who bring an accusation against an individual who should be the first to cast the stones of judgment. No doubt, we are intended to think of these scribes and Pharisees as recalling Leviticus 20:10 in this moment. After all, the law is clear, both the male and the female involved in adultery are guilty. If they are going to apply the law with such strictness to this woman, then they must be willing to apply it equally to any man guilty of the same. Jesus is depicted as calling out their double-standard.
Is his response consistent with how we might see Jesus respond elsewhere in the gospels? Absolutely.
Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that you be not judged. 2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. 3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Jesus consistently denounces hypocrisy. While judgment, admonition, and confrontation are sometimes necessary, it is crucial to first examine one's own motivations and biases. In the case of the woman accused of adultery, the real issue was not her guilt, which was acknowledged, but rather the hearts of her accusers. They were hypocrites using the law not as a means to uphold justice, but as a weapon to punish others. They wielded the law without mercy, or empathy and applied it with prejudice. They may have been technically correct in their judgment, but they were hypocritically corrupt in their hearts and Jesus never entertained such hypocrisy.
The idea here is not to say that we should never confront others, as is clear from verse 4. What he is condemning here is the hypocritical judgmentalism that was employed by the Jewish leadership of his day. They possessed no self-awareness, were blinded to their own sin, and magnified the sins of others. Genuine judgment comes from the sincere heart of an individual who is well aware of his own frailties, and has the best interest of their brother in mind. Such confrontation is always meant to gain a brother or sister, not condemn them. The story continues:
8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 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.
Apparently when the law is equally applied, and they are really called to satisfy it to the letter, no one is left innocent. Jesus is seen as turning the tables and applying their harsh application of the law on them, and none of them could stand. So, none are left before him but the sinful woman. Now, is this some fanciful depiction of Jesus or is such a calling out of hypocrisy and such a turning of the tables upon the hypocrites consistent with what we see elsewhere in scripture?
In Matthew 22 they try to ensnare him by asking whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar.
In the same chapter they try to trip him up with a question about what is the greatest commandment.
On multiple occasions they try to use the law to out him as a Sabbath breaker.
On each of these occasions, Jesus skilfully employs a proper interpretation of the law to expose them as the ones ignorant of scripture. Every time they felt they had laid a fool-proof trap to catch him in his words, they found themselves ensnared by it. This story picks up that same theme. The scribes and Pharisees are depicted as attempting to shame a woman in order to entrap Jesus, only to find themselves caught in their own trap and leaving the scene shamed by Jesus. So thus far we’ve seen the HYPOCRITICAL ACCUSERS, the MARGINALIZED VICTIM, the ATTEMPTED TRAP, THE CONDEMNATION OF HYPOCRISY, and next we see something else which is entirely consistent with what we know about Jesus. We see THE EXTENSION OF MERCY.
5. The Extension of Mercy Once all this woman’s accusers flee the scene, Jesus stands up from drawing in the sand and says to her:
John 8:10-11 “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”))
Called out for their hypocrisy, no one was willing to stand as her accuser. Jesus is presented as shining the light of the law upon the dark hearts of the hypocrites, and they scatter like rats. Now, with all the so-called witnesses gone, there is no one left to accuse her. Case dismissed! Then, Jesus is depicted as saying, “Neither do I condemn you.” Does this sound like something Jesus would say in such a scenario? Absolutely.
John 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
When the hypocritical religious leaders saw sinners, they saw people ripe for judgment and condemnation. When Jesus saw sinners he saw suffering people who needed salvation. His earthly mission was not to condemn, but to provide the means of salvation for all who would believe in Him. What I think is clever about this text is that the scribes and Pharisees are depicted as bringing this sinful woman to Jesus in order to bait him into showing mercy, so that they could condemn him. In other words, so consistent was his reputation of compassion that they knew, when presented with a sinner, he would extend mercy and not judgment.
So then, does that mean that Jesus was light on sin, and all about love above holiness? Not at all. What we see lastly in this passage, in addition to the HYPOCRITICAL ACCUSERS, the MARGINALIZED VICTIM, the ATTEMPTED TRAP, THE CONDEMNATION OF HYPOCRISY, THE EXTENSION OF MERCY, is a CALL TO REPENTANCE.
6. The Call to Repentance Once the hypocrites were out of the picture, Jesus could address this woman’s sin. He is presented as saying in verse 11,
John 8:10-11 “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”))
So, this isn’t a story presenting Jesus as excusing, overlooking, or otherwise downplaying sin. It’s a story meant to call out hypocritical judgment and illustrate Jesus’ heart toward sinners. After showing mercy to this woman, he then says “go, and from now on sin no more.” That is, repent of your sin. Is this consistent with how we see Jesus respond to sinners elsewhere in scripture? Absolutely.
A few chapters earlier in John 5 we find the account of Jesus healing the lame man at the pool of Bethesda. At the end of the account we read this:
John 5:14 Afterward Jesus found him in the temple and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse may happen to you.”
Earlier in John 4, as we've noted, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman at the well, who was also involved in sexual sin. In this encounter, He skillfully balances mercy with a direct acknowledgment of her sin. This exemplifies Jesus' ability to extend compassion to sinners without condoning or validating sin.
This balance is crucial, yet it's one we often struggle to achieve. On one hand, we may find ourselves harshly judging others' sins hypocritically; on the other, we might excuse sin under the guise of love. Jesus, however, did not succumb to either extreme.
This understanding is especially relevant in our current cultural climate, where personal identity is frequently conflated with one's sinful behaviors. In such a context, rejecting someone's sin is often said to be the same as rejecting the person themselves. This fallacy leads to a distorted view of love and acceptance, suggesting that affirmation of sin is necessary for genuine love. Jesus, however, never allowed for such flawed thinking.
We are to love sinners, while never affirming sin. We should denounce sin, while never passing hypocritical judgment. We ought to see sinners through a lens of compassion, being stirred by their lostness and their need for salvation. On the other hand, we must always reject societal pressures that attempt to equate compassion with affirming or allying with sin.
CONCLUSION
We began by considering the pedigree of this passage and whether or not it should be included in our Bibles. We suggested that it should not be viewed as inspired, or included in our Bibles. That being said, what we’ve done this morning is show that there are no themes or ideas in this text which are foreign to the rest of scripture. There is nothing about the character of the Jewish leadership, or the nature of Jesus which is not consistent with the balance of the New Testament. Further, we’ve seen that the way in which Jesus is depicted as responding to the Jews and the sinful woman is reflective of exactly how we would expect him to respond in light of what we learn in the gospels.
I think that we can learn something very helpful from this passage. At some point in the history of Christianity, someone wrote a story about a woman caught in adultery and imagined how Jesus might respond to her, and the hypocrites who accused her. Whoever that was, was very familiar with the scriptures and the character of Jesus. They produced an account which accurately portrayed Jesus and which was perfectly consistent with how the inspired scriptures present him and his interactions with hypocrites and sinners.
I say we can learn something from this because we would do well to also imagine how Jesus might respond to individuals that we encounter in our day-to-day lives. For instance,
There is no passage in the Bible showing Jesus responding to a drug addict.
There is no passage where Jesus addresses someone with a gambling addiction.
There is no passage where Jesus sits and speaks with a homosexual or trans person.
There is no passage where Jesus addresses habitual pornography use.
We would do well then to take all that we know about Jesus from the gospels, his nature, his character, and his response to sinners and imagine how he might address these individuals.
Further, we would do well to consider the nature and character of the religious hypocrites as presented in the gospels and let them serve as warnings to us as we consider how we might be tempted to respond to such people.
Like whoever wrote John 8:1-11, we should first ensure that we are thoroughly familiar with what the inspired scriptures say about Jesus and then carefully consider how he might respond to both hypocrites and sinners – even in scenarios not addressed in scripture.
If we do this we might be surprised to find that we’ve been guilty of hypocritical judgment, or of excusing sin in the name of love, or of prejudice against the marginalized, or of failing to call people to repentance.
Although John 8:1-11 may not be inspired, it seems to be a good exercise in asking “what would Jesus do?” And what would he do? He would condemn hypocritical judgment while extending mercy to sinners, perfectly balancing his extension of mercy with a call to genuine repentance.
Let us do the same.
