BeachCast.TV: Bible Exploration, Apologetics and Church History with Dr. Chase A. Thompson:

What is the church - is it a sacred building that religious people gather in? Can a building be holy at all? Is church a religious service that you go to - "We need to get up and get dressed up to go to church" According to the Bible, the church isn't a place, or a building, or a service at all - but a people, a household, a family! With some great insights from Charles Spurgeon.

Hello Friends - we've made it to the weekend, not that it means as much as it used to. Our family went for a walk today - still allowed under day three of the California Coronavirus shutdown - and my sixteen year old son asked what day it was tomorrow. Upon finding out it was Saturday, he sort of sadly remarked, "I guess that doesn't really mean anything anymore." And honestly, at least in the short term - I suppose he's right to some degree. How rapidly the world has changed, and yet, how constant is the character and love of God:

5 "I will come to you in judgment, and I will be ready to witness against sorcerers and adulterers; against those who swear falsely; against those who oppress the hired worker, the widow, and the fatherless; and against those who deny justice to the resident alien. They do not fear me," says the Lord of Armies. 6 "Because I, the Lord, have not changed, you descendants of Jacob have not been destroyed.

Malachi 3:5-6

He is still on His throne. Yes, He is shaking the world, but He is good, and we are not consumed because of His great mercy. Today's Bible readings include Exodus 32, Proverbs 8, John 11 and Ephesians 1. Exodus 32 contains what may be one of the most unintentionally funny passages in the Bible - a passage that shows us 80+ year old men are capable of coming up with excuses for their bad behavior that are just as bad as the excuses of children and teenagers:

21 Then Moses asked Aaron, "What did these people do to you that you have led them into such a grave sin?"22 "Don't be enraged, my lord," Aaron replied. "You yourself know that the people are intent on evil. 23 They said to me, 'Make gods for us who will go before us because this Moses, the man who brought us up from the land of Egypt—we don't know what has happened to him!' 24 So I said to them, 'Whoever has gold, take it off,' and they gave it to me. When I threw it into the fire, out came this calf!"

Exodus 32:22-24

Our focus passage today is John 11, and our big Bible question comes from verses 23-26

23 "Your brother will rise again," Jesus told her.24 Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me, even if he dies, will live. 26 Everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?"

John 11:23-26

Things are scary right now, and if most of us are being honest, our great fear is all about death. Maybe we aren't ourselves afraid to die, but maybe we are afraid somebody close to us will, and that is why the world is shaking from this coronavirus situation. To be clear, this is NOT another flu, or a spicy flu. Consider Italy, which is being devastated by the Coronavirus. During this flu season from October to January 20 approximately 2.7 MILLION people in Italy got the flu (certainly more have since then) During that time period, around 240 people died. 2.7 MILLION infected and 240 deaths. That's bad - that's a lot of flu, and a lot of sadness to lose 240 people. However, the Coronavirus is quite different. Thus far, since January, 47000 Italians have gotten the coronavirus and more than 4000 have died. I'm NOT saying this to frighten you in the least, but to sober us up - especially those of us who are dismissing this as overhyped and overblown. This thing is bad, and it is devastating Washington, California and New York right now in a way that shows us Americans are NOT exempt in the least from this thing.

So - what is our response? To be afraid?? No, actually. My son tonight sent me a fantastic video from Francis Chan that underscored one important theological truth that we should all be aware of right now: The MOST OFTEN REPEATED COMMAND IN THE BIBLE IS, "FEAR NOT!" So - HOW can we not give into fear in the midst of this scary pandemic? I'm glad you asked - let's read John 11, and then come back and talk about it.

The reason that we don't give into fear in the face of a very real and powerful enemy like coronavirus is because the worst it can do is kill. You might think that is pretty bad, and it is pretty bad...but it is not an ultimate bad. It is a temporary bad. I recall when I was a teenager - the exact age of my son now - I was riding on my ten speed in the slanted cul-de-sac that our home was located on. I was wearing shorts, and spinning in ever tightening circles until all of the sudden, my bike lost leverage, and I skidded across the asphalt. Unfortunately, that skid took off almost a square foot of flesh from the side of my thigh - which was horrible painful. It took about a month or more to heal, and it was miserable for that month, because it would 'weep' or drain through my bandages and my clothes. GROSS! But you know what? That was so long ago, and so temporary, that I chuckle about it now, and don't even cringe. Death will be like that when we are standing in the promise of Jesus being the resurrection and the life. Consider this paradoxical promise of Jesus in Luke 21:

16 You will even be betrayed by parents, brothers, relatives, and friends. They will kill some of you. 17 You will be hated by everyone because of my name, 18 but not a hair of your head will be lost. 19 By your endurance, gain your lives.

Luke 21:16-18

YOU WILL BE BETRAYED, you will be HATED, you will be KILLED...but NOT A HAIR WILL BE LOST! How in the world can that be? And the wonderful answer is that Jesus is the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in Jesus - even if they die - WILL LIVE! That's good news. For the follower of Jesus, to LIVE is Christ and to DIE is GAIN! How?! Because He IS the RESURRECTION and the LIFE! Consider Hebrews 6:

17 Because God wanted to show his unchangeable purpose even more clearly to the heirs of the promise, he guaranteed it with an oath, 18 so that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we who have fled for refuge might have strong encouragement to seize the hope set before us. 19 We have this hope as an anchor for the soul, firm and secure. It enters the inner sanctuary behind the curtain. 20 Jesus has entered there on our behalf as a forerunner,

Hebrews 6:17-20

And 1 John 3:

See what great love the Father has given us that we should be called God's children—and we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it didn't know him. 2 Dear friends, we are God's children now, and what we will be has not yet been revealed. We know that when he appears, we will be like him because we will see him as he is. 3 And everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself just as he is pure.

1 John 3:1=3

In the coronavirus, we are facing a scary enemy, to be sure...but we face it with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-merciful Jesus - with a HOPE in HIM that is FIRM AND SECURE like an anchor in our soul. Let's close with a couple of C.S. Lewis thoughts on Jesus as the resurrection and the life. The first is pretty deep, so feel free to read it at the website, or back up and listen a couple of times:

He is the representative 'Die-er' of the universe: and for that very reason the Resurrection and the Life. Or conversely, because He truly lives, He truly dies, for that is the very pattern of reality. Because the higher can descend into the lower He who from all eternity has been incessantly plunging Himself in the blessed death of self-surrender to the Father can also most fully descend into the horrible and (for us) involuntary death of the body. Because Vicariousness is the very idiom of the reality He has created, His death can become ours. The whole Miracle, far from denying what we already know of reality, writes the comment which makes that crabbed text plain: or rather, proves itself to be the text on which Nature was only the commentary. In science we have been reading only the notes to a poem; in Christianity we find the poem itself.

C. S. Lewis, A Year with C. S. Lewis: Daily Readings from His Classic Works, ed. Patricia S. Klein, 1st ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2003), 139.

Then we come to the strangest story of all, the story of the Resurrection. It is very necessary to get the story clear. I heard a man say, 'The importance of the Resurrection is that it gives evidence of survival, evidence that the human personality survives death.' On that view what happened to Christ would be what had always happened to all men, the difference being that in Christ's case we were privileged to see it happening. This is certainly not what the earliest Christian writers thought. Something perfectly new in the history of the Universe had happened. Christ had defeated death. The door which had always been locked had for the very first time been forced open. This is something quite distinct from mere ghost-survival. I don't mean that they disbelieved in ghost-survival. On the contrary, they believed in it so firmly that, on more than one occasion, Christ had had to assure them that He was not a ghost. The point is that while believing in survival they yet regarded the Resurrection as something totally different and new. The Resurrection narratives are not a picture of survival after death; they record how a totally new mode of being has arisen in the Universe. Something new had appeared in the Universe: as new as the first coming of organic life. This Man, after death, does not get divided into 'ghost' and 'corpse'. A new mode of being has arisen. That is the story. What are we going to make of it?

C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock, ed. Walter Hooper (HarperOne, 1994), 169–170.

Then Aslan stopped, and the children looked into the stream. And there, on the golden gravel of the bed of the stream, lay King Caspian, dead, with the water flowing over him like liquid glass. His long white beard swayed in it like water-weed. And all three stood and wept. Even the Lion wept: great Lion-tears, each tear more precious than the Earth would be if it was a single solid diamond. And Jill noticed that Eustace looked neither like a child crying, nor like a boy crying and wanting to hide it, but like a grown-up crying. At least, that is the nearest she could get to it; but really, as she said, people don't seem to have any particular ages on that mountain. "Son of Adam," said Aslan, "Go into that thicket and pluck the thorn that you will find there, and bring it to me." Eustace obeyed. The thorn was a foot long and sharp as a rapier. "Drive it into my paw, Son of Adam," said Aslan, holding up his right fore-paw and spreading out the great pads towards Eustace. "Must I?" said Eustace. "Yes," said Aslan. Then Eustace set his teeth and drove the thorn into the Lion's pad. And there came out a great drop of blood, redder than all redness that you have ever seen or imagined. And it splashed into the stream over the dead body of the King. At the same moment the doleful music stopped. And the dead King began to be changed. His white beard turned to grey, and from grey to yellow, and got shorter and vanished altogether; and his sunken cheeks grew round and fresh, and the wrinkles were smoothed, and his eyes opened, and his eyes and lips both laughed, and suddenly he leaped up and stood before them—a very young man, or a boy. (But Jill couldn't say which, because of people having no particular ages in Aslan's country. Even in this world, of course, it is the stupidest children who are most childish and the stupidest grown-ups who are most grown-up.) And he rushed to Aslan and flung his arms as far as they would go round the huge neck; and he gave Aslan the strong kisses of a King, and Aslan gave him the wild kisses of a Lion. At last Caspian turned to the others. He gave a great laugh of astonished joy.

C. S. Lewis, Words to Live by: A Guide for the Merely Christian, ed. Paul F. Ford, Adobe Digital Edition. (HarperCollins e-books, 2009), 255–256.

Jesus told Martha in John 11 that He was the resurrection and the life. What does this mean for Christians today, and how does it comfort and encourage us in the midst of a worldwide pandemic?

Hello friends, and welcome into the Bible Reading Podcast. This is Day 3 of Shelter in Place for us Californians, and such decisions are likely coming for many across the United States. These are strange and scary times, but the Body of Christ is no stranger to tribulation and trials! Today's Bible passages are Exodus 31, Proverbs 7, John 10 and Galatians 6. One day soon we will discuss one of the bigger Bible questions out there: Do the Old Testament Sabbath Commands still apply to New Covenant Christians? But today our focus is more pastoral, and less theological. Consider this beautiful passage in Galatians:

9 Let us not get tired of doing good, for we will reap at the proper time if we don't give up. 10 Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us work for the good of all, especially for those who belong to the household of faith.

Galatians 6:9-10

This is such an important passage for the time we find ourselves in. We will be fruitful in this season as the blood-bought church of the Living and Resurrected Jesus IF WE DO NOT GIVE UP. And, in the midst of this pandemic, we must WORK FOR THE GOOD OF ALL - especially for those who are in the faith. Just briefly, let us consider the part of this command that many of us aren't going to get, unless it is shouted at us a bit. Paul, under the inspiration and AUTHORITY of the Holy Spirit, commands us to Work for the GOOD of ALL. Who does ALL include? I'm glad you asked.

If you are a die-hard Republican, ALL includes Democrats. and Vice-versa. If you are a big Alabama fan, ALL includes Auburn fans, and vice-versa. You love the 49ers? ALL includes the Raiders, and vice-versa If you are a saved follower of Jesus who believes He is the only way to salvation (as I do!) then ALL includes Islamic people, atheists, agnostics, and people who think Christians are fools. If you are a cessationist, all includes charismatics and contiuationists. (and vice-versa) If you are a Calvinist, ALL includes Arminians! If you are a Baptist, ALL includes Methodists (and vice versa)

Maybe you are getting it now. I hope I am! Aside from this command to do good to all - which is an excellent reminder for us right now, I want to focus on the promise in Scripture that we will REAP and be fruitful IF WE do NOT give up! Let's talk a little about perseverance, beginning with a few Bible passages to spur us on and encourage us NOT to give up:

Ten Bible Verses on Perseverance and NOT Giving Up:

But as for you, brothers and sisters, do not grow weary in doing good.

2 Thessalonians 3:13

Therefore, since we have this ministry because we were shown mercy, we do not give up.

2 Corinthians 4:1

But the one who looks intently into the perfect law of freedom and perseveres in it, and is not a forgetful hearer but one who does good works—this person will be blessed in what he does.

James 1:25

12 A man who endures trials is blessed, because when he passes the test he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love Him.

James 1:12

3 And not only that, but we also rejoice in our afflictions, because we know that affliction produces endurance, 4 endurance produces proven character, and proven character produces hope. 5 This hope will not disappoint us, because God's love has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Romans 5:3-5

2 Consider it a great joy, my brothers, whenever you experience various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance. 4 But endurance must do its complete work, so that you may be mature and complete, lacking nothing.

James 1:2-4

10 Don't be afraid of what you are about to suffer. Look, the Devil is about to throw some of you into prison to test you, and you will have affliction for 10 days. Be faithful until death, and I will give you the crown of life.

Revelation 2:10

17 You will be hated by everyone because of My name, 18 but not a hair of your head will be lost. 19 By your endurance gain your lives.

Luke 21:17

8 Be sober-minded, be alert. Your adversary the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion, looking for anyone he can devour. 9 Resist him, firm in the faith, knowing that the same kind of sufferings are being experienced by your fellow believers throughout the world.

1 Peter 5:8-9

11 This saying is trustworthy: For if we have died with Him, we will also live with Him; 12 if we endure, we will also reign with Him; if we deny Him, He will also deny us; 13 if we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.

2nd Timothy 2:11-13

"A society of good Christian people will split into pieces over a petty quarrel, or mere matter of opinion, while all around them the masses are perishing for want of the gospel. A miserable little mouse, which no cat would ever hunt, takes them off from their Lord's work. Again, intelligent men will spend months of time and heaps of money in inventing and publishing mere speculations, while the great field of the world lies unploughed. They seem to care nothing how many may perish so long as they can ride their hobbies. In other matters a little common sense is allowed to rule, but in the weightiest matters foolishness is sadly conspicuous. As for you and me, John, let us kill a mouse when it nibbles our bread, but let us not spend our lives over it. What can be done by a mousetrap or a cat should not occupy all our thoughts. "The paltry trifles of this world are much of the same sort. Let us give our chief attention to the chief things,—the glory of God, the winning of souls for Jesus, and our own salvation. There are fools enough in the world, and there can be no need that Christian men should swell the number. Go on with your ploughing, John, and I will go on with my preaching, and in due season we shall reap if we faint not."

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, John Ploughman's Pictures: More of His Talk (Redding, CA: Pleasant Places Press, 2005), 57.

THIS verse occurs in the Epistle to the Galatians, which so plainly sets forth the grand doctrine of justification by faith, and teaches us, most plainly, that salvation is not of works, but of grace. As if to confound for ever those who say that the doctrine of free grace is unpractical, the apostle, before he closes his epistle, exhorts believers to labour, and in the verse before us gives us a sentence worthy to be printed in letters of gold and hung up for ever before the eyes of all Christian workers, "Be not weary in well doing." It is true, my brethren, that you are not to save yourselves by well doing. Your motive is not selfish, but because you are saved already you desire to manifest the power of gratitude, and to prove to all the world that those who receive a free salvation are the very men who most cheerfully labour to please God and to bring glory to his name. O ye who are debtors to infinite mercy, "Be not weary in well doing."

The apostle, at the time he wrote our text, had in his mind's eye the well doing which by its alms does good unto all men, and also that kindness which leads hearers of the gospel to communicate in all good things unto him that teacheth. Truly it is easy to be weary in these matters. Almsgiving certainly is disheartening work. One is so continually being deceived that giving to the poor becomes a weary business. Impostors abound on all sides: this city of London swarms with impostors who would deceive Solomon himself. I do not wonder that men are driven to organize their charity, which frequently means bringing it to an end. The tendency is to excuse themselves because at some time or other they have been victimized.

A cruel hardness is abroad which talks philosophy, and renounces almsgiving for fear of disturbing our delightful social economy. Almsgiving, if we are to believe some men, has become a crime... To these people it seems odd that our Lord should have commended anything so inconsistent with political economy as giving to the poor. According to the modern school we may expect those to be blessed who see people hungry and give them no meat, thirsty and give them no drink, sick and in prison and never visit them... I trust, however, that the Christian spirit which is compassionate to the poor will never die out among us, and that, notwithstanding all the difficulties under which we may have to labour, we may not be weary in well doing, for despite all deceits and impositions, in due season we shall reap if we faint not.

C. H. Spurgeon, "The Cause and Cure of Weariness in Sabbath-School Teachers," in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 23 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1877), 625–626.

CLOSING BLESSING AND BENEDICTION (Meditate on this Jewel of Encouragement:)

11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to His glorious might, for all endurance and patience, with joy 12 giving thanks to the Father, who has enabled you to share in the saints' inheritance in the light. 13 He has rescued us from the domain of darkness and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son He loves. 14 We have redemption, the forgiveness of sins, in Him.

Colossians 1:11-14

Paul gives an amazing promise to followers of Jesus in Galatians 6 - that they will reap a great harvest, if they don't give up. In these dark and scary times, how does the Bible encourage us to keep going - to persevere, and not quit?

Hello friends, and welcome to Shelter in Place, Day #2. We managed to survive the first day, but already the kids are growing restless. Today's Bible passages are Exodus 30, Proverbs 6, John 9, and Galatians 5. One of these days, I'd like to explore John 9:41, but today is not that day.

"If you were blind," Jesus told them, "you wouldn't have sin. But now that you say, 'We see,' your sin remains.

John 9:41

Today is the day we consider the Bible's teaching on the fruit (singular!) of the Spirit. This comes from Galatians 5:

19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, moral impurity, promiscuity, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish ambitions, dissensions, factions, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousing, and anything similar. I am warning you about these things—as I warned you before—that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, and self-control. The law is not against such things. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also keep in step with the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

Galatians 5:19-26

Those that are of the flesh, that is to say - those that are untransformed humans will live their lives in a way that is dominated by the works of the flesh - there will be outbursts of anger, hatreds, strife and jealousy, as well as the pursuit of drunkenness, sexual promiscuity with multiple partners outside the bounds of marriage, cliques, coveting and jealousy, and basically of the things that one can see celebrities modeling on Instagram on any given day. These represent the values and vices of the world - those things that humans pursue and desire and give their lives to, along with those weaknesses in humanity that come out in unfiltered ways among those are are not transformed by the Gospel and the Spirit. Paul is not merely saying that the BAD people of the world display the works of the flesh, but that EVERY human will live and breathe the works of the flesh, because they have been corrupted by the Fall in Genesis 3, and their hearts are bent towards the evils mentioned here, and bent away from the character traits of God. Consider God's assessment of unredeemed humanity in Genesis 6:

5 When the Lord saw that human wickedness was widespread on the earth and that every inclination of the human mind was nothing but evil all the time, 6 the Lord regretted that he had made man on the earth, and he was deeply grieved.

Genesis 6:5-6

So - when you see 'works of the flesh,' don't think bad guys, think humanity. However, as Paul has been sharing with us, those who believe the Gospel are transformed. This isn't a work of self-discipline in the same way that somebody who is out of shape can work very hard and become extremely physically fit - the transformation from God is not an outer effort of the flesh like working out, but an inner ministry and re-creation of the Holy Spirit that transforms the very nature, desires and inclinations of a person. Indeed, that transformation is so radical and complete that Paul talks about it in terms of death - the death of the 'old man' - the man of flesh and humanity and the new life that comes from the indwelling Spirit of Christ:

19 For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live for God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21 I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died for nothing.

Galatians 2:19-21

That transformation and salvation, says Paul, does NOT come from the efforts of the flesh, or through works, or through obedience to all of God's commands - the transformation happens by grace, through faith, and is an activity of the Spirit. Growth and sanctification also do not come as a work of the flesh or through human effort, but it is a continuous and ongoing work of transformation by the Spirit.

Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law or by believing what you heard? 3 Are you so foolish? After beginning by the Spirit, are you now finishing by the flesh? 4 Did you experience so much for nothing—if in fact it was for nothing?

Galatians 3:2-4

An issue we have, however, is that the flesh desires things that are often the opposite of what the Holy Spirit would have us desire.

16 I say then, walk by the Spirit and you will certainly not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh desires what is against the Spirit, and the Spirit desires what is against the flesh; these are opposed to each other, so that you don't do what you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

Galatians 5:16-18

The old self, or the old man, as Paul calls it, often tries to come back from the dead, as it were, as a sort of zombie, and lead our hearts back to the desires and works of the flesh.

take off your former way of life, the old self that is corrupted by deceitful desires, 23 to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, 24 and to put on the new self, the one created according to God's likeness in righteousness and purity of the truth.

Ephesians 4:20-24

The good news for a saved follower of Jesus is that our old self/old man was CRUCIFIED, so though sometimes the desires return to us, that old man is dead, dead, dead.

5 For if we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be in the likeness of his resurrection. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be rendered powerless so that we may no longer be enslaved to sin, 7 since a person who has died is freed from sin.

Romans 6:5-7

So now, we don't live a life that is filled with the things of the old self (like sexual immorality, greed, idolatry, factions, cliques, jealousy, etc) but a life that is filled with the nature and blooming in us character of Jesus - these character traits of Jesus are called the fruit of the Spirit. As we learn from Him, seek first His Kingdom, follow His ways, and follow Him, then the fruit of the Spirit will grow in our lives. We can't make that fruit grow, but IT WILL GROW if we are abiding in Jesus. Consider John 15:

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 Every branch in me that does not produce fruit he removes, and he prunes every branch that produces fruit so that it will produce more fruit. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, and I in you. Just as a branch is unable to produce fruit by itself unless it remains on the vine, neither can you unless you remain in me. 5 I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without me.

John 15:1-5

The Fruit of the Spirit does NOT come to us in the same way that fitness and a chiselled body comes to a weightlifter. The Fruit of the Spirit grows in the soil of our lives naturally as long as we are rooted and grounded in Christ.

6 So then, just as you have received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, 7 being rooted and built up in him and established in the faith, just as you were taught, and overflowing with gratitude.

Colossians 2:6-7

Let's close with some spiritual wisdom on the fruit of the Spirit from a man who was my first spiritual hero (when I was 8 or 9, I devoured biographies about him) the British missionary to China, Hudson Taylor:

Fruitfulness.--The careful student of Scripture will notice the parallelism between the teaching of the First Psalm and that of our LORD in the Gospel of John, where in the sixth chapter we are taught that he who feeds on CHRIST abides in Him, and in the fifteenth chapter that he who abides brings forth much fruit. We feed upon CHRIST the incarnate WORD through the written Word. So in this Psalm he who delights in the Law of the LORD, and meditates upon it day and night, brings forth his fruit in his season.

There is something beautiful in this. A word spoken in season how good it is; how even a seasonable look will encourage or restrain, reprove or comfort! The promise reminds one of those in John about the living water thirsty ones drink, and are not only refreshed, but become channels through which rivers of living water are always flowing, so that other thirsty ones in their hour of need may find seasonable refreshment.

But the figure in the Psalm is not that of water flowing through us as through a channel; but that of fruit, the very outcome of our own transformed life--a life of union with CHRIST. It is so gracious of our GOD not to work through us in a mere mechanical way, but to make us branches of the True Vine, the very organs workers, for there is a fundamental difference between fruit and work. Work is the outcome of effort; fruit, of life. A bad man may do good work, but a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.

The result of work is not reproductive, but fruit has its seed in itself. The workman has to seek his material and his tools, and often to set himself with painful perseverance to his task. The fruit of the Vine is the glad, free, spontaneous outcome of the life within; and it forms and grows and ripens in its proper season. And what is the fruit which the believer should bear? May it not be expressed by one word--Christliness? It is interesting to notice that the Scripture does not speak of the fruits of the SPIRIT, in the plural, as though we might take our choice among the graces named, but of the fruit, in the singular, which is a rich cluster composed of love, joy, peace, longsuffering, etc. How blessed to bring forth such fruit in its season!

"His leaf also shall not wither." In our own climate many trees are able to maintain their life throughout the winter, but unable to retain their leaves. The hardy evergreen, however, not only lives, but manifests its life, and all the more conspicuously because of the naked branches around. The life within is too strong to fear the shortened day, the cold blast, or the falling snow. So with the man of GOD whose life is maintained by hidden communion through the Word; adversity only brings out the strength and the reality of the life within. The leaf of the tree is no mere adornment. If the root suggests to us receptive power in that it draws from the soil the stimulating sap, without which life could not be maintained, the leaves no less remind us of the grace of giving, and of purifying. They impart to the atmosphere a grateful moisture; they provide for the traveller a refreshing shade, and they purify the air that is poisoned.... Keep a tree despoiled of its leaves sufficiently long and it will surely die. So unless the believer is giving as well as receiving, purifying his life and influence, he cannot grow nor properly maintain his own vitality. But he who delights in the Law of the LORD, and meditates in it day and night--his leaf shall not wither.

Hudson Taylor: The Works of Hudson J. Taylor

Paul discusses the fruit of the Spirit and how they are the opposite of the works of the flesh. What are the works of the flesh? What is the fruit of the Spirit? How does a Christian turn away from the destructive works of the flesh, and walk in the fruit of the Spirit?

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it's going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I'll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We're in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors.

ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn't start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn't have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that's when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven't done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today's episode – episode #78 – I split today's show into two parts so it wouldn't be too long.

In today's reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what's going on here, and was this story original to John's Gospel, or was it a later edition?

The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.

Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament. Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other.

Summary of the Passage

7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.

8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.

8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn't answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don't know how much time passed after Jesus' challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.

8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin.

Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine

This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It's a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.

The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,

"No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae's special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences and even incidences."[5]

Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John's gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.

The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]

There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn't found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.

While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which "prove" its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions "de", "oun", "kai", and "asyndeton" in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]

Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase "early morning" are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.

While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.

Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages!

Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine

Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.

The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.

The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.

Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,

"In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."[14]

This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome's statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.

Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it's removal from some manuscripts,

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." [16]

While Augustine's hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine's – that the passage is a stumbling block.

The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer.

While many commentators have pointed out the "disruption" of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17, NIV)

The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, "Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?" (John 7:26, NIV)

While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of "de", "touto" and "legein" [18]

My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase "meketi amartane" (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. "ina ecosin" (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. "Kai palin" (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase "eis ten gen" (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn't add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to "prove" that this Pericope is non-Johannine.

A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, "It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form."[19]

What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome's quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.

Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, "has all the earmarks of historical veracity"[21], and Raymond Brown writes, "There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus."[22]

If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, "come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages."[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24] In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn't contain the books!)

A Deeper Look at the Text

We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus' ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus' teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.

In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don't – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.

The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also "trapped") The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.

This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John's Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems. In this particular instance, if Jesus were to "rule" that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.

The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader's hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah's words, "Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water." (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown's proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.

By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It's very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the "prosecution's" case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by "without sin" in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren't correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]

It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.

The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning.

Application

If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn't explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.

The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn't even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.

I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus' challenge to the religious leaders, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother's eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly.

Conclusion

An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.

[1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.

[2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)

[3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220

[4] Brown, Raymond E. John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982, 335

[5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50

[6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix

[7] Burge, Gary M. "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144

[8] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 142

[9] Hodges, Zane C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329

[10] Poythress, Vern S. "Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions" (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362

[11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)

[12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)

[13] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 323

[14] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330

[15] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330

[16] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 331

[17] Trites, Allison A. "The Woman Taken in Adultery" (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144

[18] Johnson, Alan F. "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96

[19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary. (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)

[20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335

[21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220

[22] John 1-11, p. 335

[23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99

[24] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" pages 146-148

[25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary

[26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary

[27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334

[28] James, Stephen A. "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50.

[29] "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." Pages 45-46

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it's going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I'll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We're in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors.

ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn't start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn't have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that's when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven't done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today's episode – episode #78 – I split today's show into two parts so it wouldn't be too long.

In today's reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what's going on here, and was this story original to John's Gospel, or was it a later edition?

The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.

Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament. Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other.

Summary of the Passage

7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.

8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.

8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn't answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don't know how much time passed after Jesus' challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.

8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin.

Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine

This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It's a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.

The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,

"No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae's special characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences and even incidences."[5]

Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John's gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.

The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]

There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn't found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.

While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which "prove" its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions "de", "oun", "kai", and "asyndeton" in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]

Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase "early morning" are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.

While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.

Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages!

Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine

Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.

The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.

The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.

Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,

"In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord."[14]

This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome's statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.

Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it's removal from some manuscripts,

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." [16]

While Augustine's hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine's – that the passage is a stumbling block.

The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer.

While many commentators have pointed out the "disruption" of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." (John 3:17, NIV)

The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, "Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?" (John 7:26, NIV)

While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of "de", "touto" and "legein" [18]

My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase "meketi amartane" (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. "ina ecosin" (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. "Kai palin" (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase "eis ten gen" (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn't add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to "prove" that this Pericope is non-Johannine.

A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, "It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form."[19]

What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome's quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.

Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, "has all the earmarks of historical veracity"[21], and Raymond Brown writes, "There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus."[22]

If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, "come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages."[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24] In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn't contain the books!)

A Deeper Look at the Text

We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus' ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus' teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.

In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don't – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.

The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, "If a man is found sleeping with another man's wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die." (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, "If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also "trapped") The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.

This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John's Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems. In this particular instance, if Jesus were to "rule" that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.

The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader's hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah's words, "Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water." (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown's proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.

By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It's very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the "prosecution's" case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by "without sin" in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren't correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]

It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.

The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning.

Application

If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn't explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.

The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn't even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.

I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus' challenge to the religious leaders, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother's eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly.

Conclusion

An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.

[1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.

[2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)

[3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220

[4] Brown, Raymond E. John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City: Doubleday, 1982, 335

[5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50

[6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix

[7] Burge, Gary M. "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144

[8] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 142

[9] Hodges, Zane C. "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329

[10] Poythress, Vern S. "Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions" (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362

[11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)

[12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)

[13] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 323

[14] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330

[15] "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 330

[16] As quoted in "Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" 331

[17] Trites, Allison A. "The Woman Taken in Adultery" (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144

[18] Johnson, Alan F. "A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae" Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96

[19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary. (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)

[20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335

[21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220

[22] John 1-11, p. 335

[23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99

[24] "A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)" pages 146-148

[25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary

[26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary

[27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334

[28] James, Stephen A. "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50.

[29] "The Adulteress And The Death Penalty." Pages 45-46

Download the other episode too - it contains the discussion of the Woman Caught in Adultery!