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” (John 8:2-11).

This is one of the best-known passages in John’s Gospel, with the last verse being one of the most-quoted (and often misused) verses of all Scripture. We continue our look at conversations with Jesus by looking at the woman caught in adultery. This passage has much to say to us today about how we are to handle sin, and, as usual, John gives us a front-row seat.

Context^[1]

---

This conversation, as it were, takes place at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles (or Booths), the time when obedient Jews lived in handmade shelters to commemorate the time that Israel wandered in the wilderness. John 7:53-8:1 completes the Feast of Tabernacles with the words, “They went each to his own house, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.” Since the observant Jews would have been living in booths during the Feast, it is natural now that they return to their homes. Jesus, however, having “no place to lay His head” (Matt. 8:20), goes instead to the Mount of Olives, as He often did when visiting Jerusalem.

The scene begins, then, the following morning. We’re told that Jesus returned to the Temple courts in the early morning. Coming from the Mount of Olives, this would have placed Him in the Court of the Women. John notes that “all the people” came to Him, and He “sat down” and taught them. Though this phrase has fed the fire of criticism, it is simply John’s attention to detail. Jesus was teaching in the manner of the rabbis of the day–even if His teaching could not be compared with theirs. As the rabbis expounded the Law, Jesus was expounding on the Kingdom.

The Trap by the Pharisees

While teaching the people, Jesus is interrupted (rather rudely) by a boisterous crowd of “scribes and Pharisees,” dragging a woman along with them. Though that construction is used nowhere else in John, it is particularly appropriate the he use it here, since the controversy was supposedly over the Law’s application and the scribes were the “experts” in the Law. They push the woman, who is not named, into the center with Jesus, and gather round. The sense seems to be that the two are surrounded on all sides. Then the Pharisees lodge their complaint. They accuse the woman standing before Him: “She was caught in the very act of adultery! Now, the Law demands that she be stoned. But…. what do You say” (vv. 4-5)? John comments here that this was a “test,” or trap, in order to bring a charge against Him.

We should take note of a few things here. First, the Law demanded death for both the man and woman. The man was conspicuously absent. It is noteworthy that in all His encounters with women who are labeled “sinful,” no judgment is made of the men involved. This evidences a double standard of the time.

Second, the construction “in the act of adultery” has the sense of a door being kicked in and finding the woman in the midst of the act, rather than a husband discovering her unfaithfulness and lodging a charge (the Greek construction suggests rather strongly that she was married). It also suggests that perhaps the man is not present because he cooperated with the leaders, setting up the woman and attempting to trap Jesus.

In any event, Jesus now has a choice (according to the leaders). He can refuse to condemn the woman, in which case the leaders’ scorn of Him would seem to be justified since He is an enemy of the Law. On the other hand, He can insist that the penalty be carried out, and likely lose the support of the common people, since His reputation for compassion is well-known. The trap has been cleverly set.

Jesus’ Response to the Trap

One might wonder if Jesus pondered the situation for a moment. Whether He did or not, He said not a word to the woman’s accusers, only bent down and began to write with His finger! There have been many suggestions on the content and purpose of His writing. It may have been simply a delaying tactic, to draw the eyes of everyone off the woman. There is absolutely no way to know what He wrote on the ground–and any such suggestion would be pure speculation. Why? Because it was the act of writing itself that was important here, rather than what Jesus wrote. Consider this:

• The discussion centered around the Law (specifically the seventh commandment forbidding adultery).
• Those in the crowd familiar with their history would remember that the Ten Commandments were written “with the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18).
• John specifically mentions Jesus writing “with His finger.”

This gives the strong suggestion that Jesus is identifying Himself as the Lawgiver, the One who wrote the Law and is in the best position to interpret it. (In this context, it may be possible that Jesus wrote the Ten Commandments, but as noted above that is unwarranted speculation.)

The crowd seems to have missed the point of the writing, growing impatient and continuing to question Jesus. “Tell us, Teacher! What should we do with her?” Finally, Jesus stood up and gave His reply, one of the best-known statements in all the Gospels: “She should be stoned according to the Law. But, the first ones to cast the stones should be the ones without sin” (v. 7). Often misinterpreted, this verse does not support the idea that sin can only be judged by one who is perfect. Rather, this verse calls for justice–true impartial justice.

The leaders had brought this woman to Jesus under false pretenses. They were not concerned with the administration of justice–that much is clear from the fact that the man is conspicuously absent. They were concerned only with a way to trap Jesus (v. 6). Further, if the supposition that they induced a man to set the woman up, then they were indeed partakers of the sin (the modern legal terms for this are “conspiracy” and “accessory before the fact”).

The Results of the Trap

The ones who sought to trap Jesus now had the trap turned around on them. The staunch observers of the law could not carry out an execution and claim to be righteous, knowing that they had brought the charge under false pretense, and were likely a party to it (at least some were, John does not distinguish individuals within the group). Though John records that “the older ones” left first (another one of those eyewitness details), it is not certain why. It is possible that they recognized the impossibility of making a claim of righteousness in order to carry out the sentence.

In any case, the woman now stands alone with Jesus (and presumably some witnesses, including the disciples). As one writer says, Jesus now “gives the woman a chance to interpret her own situation.” He asks her, “Woman [that same term of respect that He used with his mother in John 2], where are those who accused you? Is there no one left to condemn you?” Of course, she answers, “No one,” and simply awaited His judgment. Jesus simply replies, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.”

These words are some of the best known in the entire Gospel–indeed in the entire New Testament. However, they have sparked considerable division within and without the church. Often one group will emphasize one part of the statement while minimizing the other:

• “Neither do I condemn you.” While some commentators see this as simply Jesus passing no judgement whatsoever, since He had no civil authority, the idea is that Jesus, as the Lawgiver had more right to judge her (and thus condemn her) than anyone else. As He did with the woman who anointed His head with oil and the tax collector Zacchaeus, He chooses to forgive the sin. If this were not true, then the second half of His statement makes little sense and indeed invites the idea that Jesus is simply “overlooking” the sin.
• “Go and sin no more.” This is a simple, direct statement, tied to what has gone before. Because He forgave her, she is to now use that grace as an empowerment to live a pure life. Incidentally, we are not told if this adultery was a one-time event or, as in the case of the woman in John 4, a habitual practice. In any case, the command is the same.

These two statements are inextricably linked. The second statement without the first leads to legalism. The first statement only leads to license. However, the two statements combined lead to liberty–the kind of liberty that is only found in Christ.

Takeaways from this Passage

There is much that we can take from this passage. The primary teaching of the passage is that Jesus, while upholding the Law, did not come to condemn the world. He is the Law-Giver and has more right than anyone to make judgments about the Law, yet the time for judgment will come later.

Beyond that, what are we to do with this passage? What is a man or woman to do who has fallen into the sin described in this passage? This passage has much to say to a world struggling with the aftermath of the sexual revolution. Sexual activity before, alongside and outside marriage is a fact of cultural life–both without and within the church. The church as a whole must come to terms with it. Two key applications emerge from this, then.

First, the passage is a plea for understanding. While it is true that the church must reaffirm and strengthen its teaching regarding the biblical norm of sexual activity within the bond of marriage, blanket condemnation is not appropriate, and indeed is opposed by the example of this passage. In today’s world, when dealing with individuals who have fallen, the church has a pastoral duty to move with sensitivity and a goal of true restoration.

Secondly, the church needs to declare that there is forgiveness and grace in Christ. It is something amazing when the Law-Giver, the I AM should say to a say self-confessed sinner (the woman never denied the charge) with the guilt of the broken commandment heavy on her conscience, “Neither do I condemn you.” This is what “the grace of God” means.

There is no sin outside of Christ’s ability to forgive, even sexual sin. In calling the broken to Christ’s mercy and forgiveness, the church must also be mindful of the other half of that command: “Go and sin no more.” The church is to call for commitment and purity, not to maintain some outward standard, but rather as a response to the undeserved grace of Christ.

^[1] There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this passage and its place in the Gospel. However, a strong case can be made that it was part of the original Gospel but was removed, as noted in the essay in my commentary (see below).