Book of John
Week 23 – April 22, 2014
Chapter 8
These first 12 verses are very famous. There is a tremendous amount of knowledge of this parable. “He
who is without sin cast the first stone” is one of the most known quotes of Jesus in all of the Bible.
Much has been made of this story for its tone, its morality and its invective to not judge others. The
problem is it’s missing from the earliest Greek manuscripts – the Syria and Coptic gospels from the
Armenian, old Georgian and from the old Latin manuscripts. It is safe to say it is not found in any
ancient Greek (early) manuscripts. When it does show up, it is found in other positions – after verse 36
or 44, or at the very end of John, and even after Luke 31:38. Also, the versions that do begin showing up
are filled with textual variants – many variants. Also, the Greek itself is very un-John-like. One is a
word found only in these verses. Also, it doesn’t fit either the context or the larger idea in this passage of
Jesus’ interaction at the temple during the festival.
Against this backdrop we have to ask ourselves if this story sounds authentic in some way. Is it a part of
the ongoing truth about Jesus that was circulating during the early years of the church that needed to be
told but was left out of the gospel records and added in due to its importance as a signature moment in
Jesus’ life? Most scholars feel that it is fair to assume its truthfulness – at least its truthfulness about
Jesus’ character. Did this at least happen? We don’t know. The early church had a huge bias against
sexual sin. They would never have dreamed up a scenario where Jesus allowed a woman “caught” in the
act of deeply offensive sexual sin go unpunished. They would have made up a different story. So, many
say it is authentic in its essence. A story of a similar nature is found in the gospel to the Hebrews, but it
isn’t a sexual sin nor is this gospel considered authoritative by anyone. There are some details in this
story that point to borrowing – the mention of the Mount of Olives. This is the only mention while the
three synoptic all speak of it with regularity.
8:1-11 – Scribes (NIV, “teachers of the law”) are never mentioned in John but here. This sin had to be
seen in the act; compromising positions didn’t count. It’s early, and they were caught in the act? Sounds
unlikely a morning, in-the-light-of-day discovery. Also, in cases like this, the accused were kept in
custody while a case was made. Publically bringing her to a judgment was both unusual and against
protocol. Also, were these men actually planning on stoning her in the middle of this festival? Not
likely! They would have done so secretly. They had no power of capital punishment, and when women
were stoned, as they were at times during the Roman era, they did so secretly so no Roman rulers knew
or they did so with women the Romans wouldn’t have been concerned about. If the plan was to get Jesus
to order a stoning that would anger the Romans, that’s one trap. But the kinds of traps that the leaders of
Israel were generally trying to spring on Jesus had to do with him breaking Mosaic Law. Adultery was a
fairly common problem, so much so, that the death penalty aspect of the Mosaic Law was largely
ignored. Men would not be charged under adultery laws; they committed property crimes. Most men
immediately divorced their wayward wives and accepted a monetary payment for the damage done to
their property. The damage was never knowing whose offspring a child would be forever. I’ll stop here.
These are all problems with the text – it’s John-likeness, its historical and context accuracy. There is
1
much to say to persuade us to leave it out of the text, but it does point to Jesus’ attitude toward sin and
judgment, which I do believe are truly a part of the truth about Jesus.
He does not condemn her; he doesn’t forgive her either. He gives her an opportunity to repent – to go
and leave her life of sin. There is grace in this moment. He doesn’t say that her sin wasn’t important, and
since she’s shown no remorse at all, he doesn’t even offer forgiveness. But he leaves the door open to all
of this. And this is the Jesus we know – placing the responsibility on our shoulders to recognize out sin,
repent and live righteously. There is enough truth here to recognize this could be a real Jesus story. But
we have to be careful in canonizing more than the big idea. The details are fuzzy.
8:12 – The title or image of “light of the world” was very prevalent in Jewish literature. This title had
been used for Israel, Jerusalem, the Patriarchs, the Messiah, God, famous Rabbis and the law (Keener).
This term always referred to as something of great significance, something that stood above the common
people or places of life. If the section about the women caught in adultery is not original to the text, then
the last words spoken refer to Jesus’ common origins in Galilee. For Jesus to then immediately say he is
the light of the world is a counter-statement against him being common in any fashion. His origins are
the primary subject in this gospel. His claim to be the light of the world takes us back to the gospel’s
prologue, but this can only happen if we know how important being the light of the world was to this
group of people. “To walk in darkness” was a known notion. It meant to either not know where you are
going or to be going the wrong way. We must keep in mind that part of the festival that Jesus was
attending, the Feast of the Tabernacles, included a time of lighting a multitude of torches throughout the
city and a huge candelabra lighting in the court of women – all as a means of remembering the presence
of God as a flame during the nights in the wilderness. Much of the Feast of the Tabernacles reminded
the Jews of God’s provision following the Exodus. Jesus equates himself with God’s presence in guiding
the Jews in the wilderness by calling himself the light of the world and speaking about giving both
direction and the light of life.
The Mishnah tells us in Tractate Sukkah 5:3, that there was not a courtyard that did not reflect the light
of the “house of water drawing” ceremony during the Feast of the Tabernacles. Jesus was not simply
saying a new thing; what he was saying about himself was deeply rooted in what was happening right at
the moment! Oh, and Jesus was almost certainly teaching in the court of women, the place where all of
the lighting had taken place. We are uncertain just which day these events took place. If it was the last
day – the 8th day, the Sabbath – then Jesus was speaking on the one day no lights were lit. If so, his
calling himself the light of the world has even more meaning in that he was speaking on a day of
darkness.
8:13-14 – The Pharisees respond but not to what Jesus has said; they respond to a legal technicality. No
one’s testimony about themselves was considered valid. The Mishnah was very clear: No one may
testify of himself. To establish fact one needed two witnesses with reliable character. For Jesus to say he
was anything went against all legal and social norms. Anyone who drew attention to their own place, or
importance or standing was considered rude. Deuteronomy 19:15 and 17:6 established the necessity of
two witnesses. Long-standing social rules established not speaking on your own behalf. Jesus’ selfwitness that he is the light of the world isn’t addressed by the Pharisees, only the technical aspect of his
speaking on his own behalf. They say, “No matter what you say, it is invalid.” In other words, Where
are your witnesses? Who is speaking for you? Jesus has been down this road before. Back in 5:31ff,
Jesus acknowledged he needed two witnesses to give his testimony validity – or he did in the minds of
2
men. There he said, John and God the Father were my witnesses. This time he doesn’t give in to the
tone of their response. He again states the facts: He does not need two witnesses. He can testify on his
own behalf because of where he is from and where he is going! We know what he is talking about; he is
from Heaven, from God and he is going back to God. These men questioned him even being a prophet
based on his origins in Galilee. Now, Jesus says directly, You have no idea where I am from or where I
am going. All of your assumptions about Galilee are meaningless when it comes to the core issues of
who I am!
8:15-19 – The word “krino,” to judge, has two essential senses: (1) to judge as in sitting in a position
that hears evidence and then determines what is right or wrong in a justice sense, or (2) to come to a
well-informed decision after being presented with the realities of a situation. Jesus uses both senses here.
He judges no one. At that moment, he is not making judicial decisions about the justice of people’s
actions. He will someday, he’s said so, but he wasn’t at the time. They were “judging” by the flesh
(sarx). “Human standards” is how the NIV translates it, but it is a bit rougher than that. The flesh is
generally not a good thing. He is well aware of the fact.
According to their (the Pharisees) thinking, the best anyone can be is a teacher sent by God. They were
fairly certain that no prophets were being sent by God. In their minds there was some possibility of a call
by God on someone’s life. Not a chance, though, that someone could be sent from God and by God.
This was too much. Jesus’ claim to be the light of the world, one who came from God, immediately put
him in a fleshly category as someone who couldn’t be from God – this was the judgment of the flesh.
Their standards did not allow for Jesus’ claims. But Jesus makes a strong point in verse 16, But even if I
do judge – and he’s already claimed he would earlier – his judgments (in a judicial sense) would be true
(alethinos) precisely because he is not making decisions alone. He is making decisions based on his
union with the one who sent him. The NIV has “Father” in this verse. The best reading is “I am not
alone but I am with the one having sent me.” “I stand with the Father who sent me,” as in the NIV,
sounds like a statement of unity with God – they stand together as two witnesses. I don’t think this is
Jesus’ point. His point is that he came from someone who instructed him in what his mission was, and it
was salvation not judgment. He says, “But even if I judged, it would be true because I am staying true to
the one who sent me,” not, “because I am standing with the Father.” I know these are small differences,
but they do make this passage read differently – particularly, the issue of two witnesses is not on Jesus’
mind. He is able on his own to testify to his having come from heaven; he isn’t trying to find a way to
satisfy their earthly, fleshly expectations.
But he knows they will not be able to understand what he is saying. He knows they will continue to fall
back to their fleshly judgment. So again, as he did in John 5:37, he invokes the Deuteronomy 19:15
stipulation that no one is to convict without the substantiation of two or three witnesses. Here, Jesus is
saying, there are two witnesses to refute your charge and substantiate my testimony – me for myself and
“the having sent me Father.” Notice, Jesus says, “It is written in your law.” In actuality, most of what
they are appealing to isn’t actually written in their law, but is a part of their assumptions about things –
that no prophet can come from Galilee, that no one can claim to be sent “from God.” Their next question
proves this. There were Mishnah stipulations (Rosh Hashanah 1:7) which disallowed fathers and sons
from testifying on one another’s behalf. The notion was they would lie for family and couldn’t be trusted
witnesses for each other. But this wasn’t law; it was the working out of the law among scholars. It
makes perfect sense that the next question is “Where is your father?” Two things: (1) Jesus has said his
father testifies to his having come from heaven, that his father has given him a mission which makes his
3
judgments true. They want to know where this father is – they want to talk to him or (2) they have a
reason to question his parentage. From all we know, Joseph has died. Also, we know that Jesus was
often shamed over his parentage. They are questioning his origins. His origins take him back to Galilee
if he is talking about his father in the present tense – the ongoing sense of something happening now and
on into the future. Then they are pointing out that if his “father” is dead, then Jesus just might be talking
about the man who got his mother pregnant and has re-entered Jesus’ life. We don’t want to take this too
far, but it comes up again in verse 41. Jesus is not in a mood to answer their question directly. He says
simply that if you knew me, implying more than a cursory knowledge of him, plus a knowledge that
grows out of a past relationship, if you knew me, you would have known (and now he offends them
again) my father – that is, if they realize he is talking about God, if they are thinking of earthly things,
then it is clear that they will miss his point. He is telling them they do not know God. This would have
offended them. His point might have been, You know about him, even some about me, but you do not
know either God or me and so you have these offensive questions about me. This might have angered the
Pharisees; otherwise, there would have been no reason to expect them to try and seize him (piazo).
Again, the “arrest” word.
8:20 – John gives us an aside that tells us he was well aware of where these events took place. If this
was written after 70AD, which I believe, then he is hoping people have a working knowledge of the
now-destroyed temple. The Greek says, “These words he spoke in the treasury teaching in the temple.”
There is a problem with “treasury.” It was a small place in the court of women where money was kept.
There is no record of anyone teaching in the treasury. This court where the treasury was located did
contain the 13 trumpet-shaped boxes where people brought their offerings. Each box listed how the
money in that box would be used (that list is found in Mishnah Shekalim 6:5), and while that space was
never called the treasury, it was a space where teachers could teach both men and women. Most likely,
John means Jesus was in the court of women near the offering boxes near the treasury teaching. This
makes sense. It puts Jesus in a specific locale, a locale that was very near the court of the Sanhedrin. It
makes sense to me that Jesus would be talking about judgment and knowing God within earshot of the
court where the most “Godly men” made their judgments. The greater point is that even though he was
in a very public place saying very unusual things so near the temple leadership, no one seized him – not
because they didn’t want to, but because they couldn’t. His hour had not yet come, and that hour was
completely in the hands of God. Again, I don’t understand how this worked, but work it did. As
offensive as Jesus was to the religious leaders (and we need to take note that no mention of the crowd is
made for a long time past 7:44), we are just dealing with opposition in these passages. Jesus is not in
danger. No one could do anything until his hour came and, even then, that hour was completely under
his control – his allowing of the action.
Weekly Class Study:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Sept. 17 - Introduction
Sept. 24 – Chapter 1:1-3
Oct. 1 – Chapter 1:4-11
Oct. 8 – Chapter 1:12-15
Oct. 15 – Chapter 1:16-23
Oct. 22 – Chapter 1:24-34
Oct. 29 – Chapter 1:35-51
Nov. 5 – Chapter 2:1-22
Nov. 12 – Chapter 2:23-3:15
Dec. 3 - Chapter 3:16-30
Dec. 10 – Chapter 3:31-4:4
Dec. 17 – Chapter 4:5-27
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
4
Jan. 14 – Chapter 4:28-44
Jan. 21 – Chapter 4:45-5:9
Feb. 11 – Chapter 5:10-24
Feb. 18 – Chapter 5:25-40
Feb. 25 – Chapter 5:41-6:15
March 11 – Chapter 6:16-34
March 25 – Chapter 6:35-59
April 1 – Chapter 6:60-7:11
April 8 – Chapter 7:12-30
April 15 – Chapter 7:31-53
April 22 – Chapter 8:1-20