The Woman taken in Adultery

This passage is often referred to as the Pericope de Adultera and has caused controversy amongst textual critics because it is omitted from some of the earliest manuscripts. Some argue that it was a later addition (not by John) and others that it is early but was deliberately omitted in some manuscripts because it was embarrassing for the church. This article will not examine the merits (or otherwise) of the text critical evidence[1] but takes an approach that demonstrates through intratextual/intertextual analysis that the pericope is integral to the wider narrative.   Our analysis is therefore literary-intratextual/intertextual rather than text critical.

The Testing of Jesus

The narrator informs us that the incident was manufactured in order to “tempt” (peira,zw) Jesus (KJV) or more accurately, “to test Jesus…that they might have something of which to accuse Him”(John 8:6 NKJV). The Law was quite clear that the punishment for adultery was death by stoning. It is obvious that the Pharisees anticipated that Jesus would allow the woman to go free; this would offer them the perfect opportunity to accuse Jesus of breaking the Law.

Jesus had repeatedly taught his disciples and the wider public about practising the forgiveness of sins, but how could Jesus claim the prerogative to forgive sins on God’s behalf? Surely this privilege belonged only to God? Later in his ministry Jesus would bestow this licence on his disciples allowing them the right to “bind and loose” on earth and in heaven (Matt 16:19); essentially any judgement they made would receive the divine fiat. This was possible because the apostles were endowed with the Spirit – Jesus himself had received the Spirit without measure at his baptism. Moreover, Jesus could say, “Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man. And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me” (John 8:15-16).

The manufactured test (trap) was more complex than simply forcing Jesus into an anti-law, pro-liberal theological stance. The remainder of the chapter is concerned with the legitimacy of Christ (as is much of the Fourth Gospel) and there is a nasty subtext about Jesus’ origins. The “Jews” claim that they are “Abraham’s children” (implying that this was not the case with Jesus) they accuse him of being a “Samaritan” (a half breed Jew with a false religion) and imply that he was “born of fornication” (vv. 39, 41, 48).

In other words, they are indicating that they are aware of the rumours concerning his mothers’ unusual pregnancy (John 6:42).  Mary became pregnant while she was betrothed to Joseph. As they could not attack Jesus on his personal integrity, they schemed to cast aspersions on his origins. He was illegitimate – a bastard and not even a Jew! Moreover, his mother was an adulterer. This would end his Messianic claims for no Jew would follow a Messiah whose parentage (and therefore race) was questionable.

In this clever (and nasty) scheme the woman was “caught in the act” which indicates that the situation was a “set-up” as her lover (a Pharisee?) was not detained for judgement. The Pharisees had prepared the perfect trap.  If Jesus had condemned the woman they would have responded with the challenge; “What about your mother then? Are you going to judge her for adultery?”   On the other hand, if he had instructed them to free the woman as an act of mercy they would have responded; “You are doing this because your own mother committed adultery.”

The Children of Abraham

It could be argued that the above explanation is a classic example of eisegesis – “reading into” the text information that is simply not present. This would be true were it not for the fact that the remainder of the chapter supports this conclusion. In the discussion (argument) that follows between Jesus and the “Jews”, they emphasize their descent from their “father” Abraham. They are establishing their credentials as “true Jews” descendants of the patriarch.  The choice of Abraham is poignant as he had two prominent sons; his firstborn was Ishmael the son of his concubine (bondwoman) Hagar and his heir was Isaac the son that he had with his wife Sarah.

Isaac was the “son of promise” the one through whom the covenants would achieve fruition. His birth was “miraculous” in that Sarah was barren and past the age of child bearing. The story in Genesis depicts tension between the two women. Sarah was so upset with the situation that she asked Abraham to send Ishmael and Hagar away and her decision was supported by Yahweh!

Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever (John 8:34, 35).

The “servant”, the son of the “bondwoman” (Hagar) was sent away but the son (Isaac) remained in the house with his father. Likewise, the Jews would be sent away from the house (temple) into exile but Jesus (the true heir) would remain with the Father. However, the “Jews” ridiculed the necessity to be “set free” they were not bondservants and had never been in bondage to any man (v. 33). This was patently untrue as Abraham had been told that his descendants would serve as slaves in Egypt (Gen 15:13) and now they were serving under the bondage of the Law (while enduring Roman occupation).

Legitimate Sonship

The Abrahamic Genesis narrative features large as the background of John 8. At the core of the dispute is the notion of legitimacy. Who was the legitimate heir of the Abrahamic covenants? One might enquire why Sarah was so upset that she had to send away Hagar and her son Ishmael. In Genesis we are informed that Sarah was disturbed because she observed Ishmael ‘mocking’ Isaac (Gen 21:8-9). This occurred during a feast to celebrate the “weaning” (no longer breastfed) of Isaac, which (in those days) would make him about 3-4 years old and Ishmael about 12-13 years old. Significantly, in Mosaic times, a lad of Ishmael’s age was considered a “son of the Law”.

Ishmael was teasing and mocking his younger half-brother Isaac, no doubt at the instigation of his mother Hagar. The text suggests that the basis of the hurtful mocking was the allegation that Isaac was not truly Abraham’s son.  The subtext is; “I (Ishmael) am Abraham’s son and his heir, you (Isaac) are illegitimate, you are a bastard conceived in the tents of Abimelech”.  Most exegetes miss the connection because of the chapter division between Genesis 20 and 21:

Genesis 20

¹⁷ So Abraham prayed unto God: and God healed Abimelech, and his wife, and his maidservants; and they bare children. ¹⁸ For the Lord had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.

Genesis 21

¹And the Lord visited Sarah as he had said, and the Lord did unto Sarah as he had spoken. ² For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.

Sarah had been acquired as an addition to Abimelech’s harem and during the time she was there God prevented Abimelech from “touching her” and his harem was plagued with infertility. Immediately upon her release she became pregnant!  This is what prompted Hagar to allege that Isaac was not Abraham’s son.  Hagar wanted her son Ishmael to be recognised as the true heir instead they were sent into exile.

Jesus is therefore the true heir (the promised son) and the “Jews” despite their Abrahamic descent are (like Ishmael) sons of the “bondservant” enslaved by sin under the “bondage” of the Law. Jesus had come to liberate them but they (like Ishmael) mocked his legitimacy – he was a bastard and his mother an adulterer – he was probably not even a Jew!  But they (like Ishmael) would be sent into exile –away from the “house” while Jesus (the true heir) would remain in the Father’s presence.

Abraham saw Jesus’ Day

The Abrahamic theme continues to the end of John 8 with the declaration that Abraham saw “my day”:

⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

An obvious reference to Isaac is made with the choice of “rejoicing” and being “glad” as the name of Isaac means laughter and rejoicing (contrast the mocking laughter of Ishmael).  Furthermore, reference to “seeing” (saw my day) is integral to the Abraham narrative as after the sacrifice of Isaac the place was called:  Yahweh Yireh or Yah will be seen (Gen 22: 14). The sacrifice of Isaac was therefore a foreshadowing of the crucifixion an event in which the salvation of Yah could demonstrably be seen (Jesus =Yah saves). Moreover, the r-h combination in Yireh is one that is repeated throughout the narrative –

. . .and Abraham saw (rāāh) the place afar off (Gen 22:4)

  Abram and Sara are even renamed as Abraham and Sarah in order to emphasize the revelatory aspect of the narrative – Abraham and Sarah are able to “see” the day of Yah – the eye of faith allows them insight into Messiah’s day.

Jesus’ Response

How did Jesus respond to this ugly situation? At first he ignored them and wrote in the dust; “But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not” (v. 6). We are not told what he wrote but might it have been Jeremiah 17: 10, 13,

I the Lord search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings….O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters.

When they persisted he challenged them with “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” and then he continued writing. Perhaps he wrote the names of those working behind the scenes, the instigators of the plot. Perhaps he transcribed the names and (hidden) sins of particular individuals. The result was that each man was condemned by his own conscience and left the presence of the Lord.

Jesus was left alone with the woman….all her accusers had gone. The pericope concludes with the words, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. This is what Jesus says to each of us at the breaking of bread.

Conclusion

The Pericope de Adultera is integral to John 8 and fits the theme of legitimacy found in the remainder of the chapter. It was an attempt to smear Jesus on the basis of his parentage, to question his very identity as a Jew and to delegitimize him as the Messiah. Not just the pericope but the whole chapter carries the stamp of historical authenticity as this is the sort of dispute we would expect in the first century rather than the depiction of the deified Christ of subsequent centuries.