John 7:53-8:11 and Theonomy

B.J. · #1 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 05:50 PM

In his book Theonomy in CHristian Ethics, Bahnsen argues that there is some question as to the authenticity of this event. (pg.228) Recently a person asked me to answer a question about why Christ did not insist this women be stoned id Theonomy were a correct teaching. I looked to see how Bahnsen answered this criticism and was surprised to read his defense. Is this a wide spread debated text of authenticity?

Pilgrim · #2 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 05:51 PM

I am no theonomist, but I would imagine the answer would be that there weren't two witnesses as required by the law (they all left) and that the man wasn't there either.

danmpem · #3 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 05:52 PM

I am not sure. Does he elaborate at all as to why there is question?

Daniel Ritchie · #4 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.J.

In his book Theonomy in CHristian Ethics, Bahnsen argues that there is some question as to the authenticity of this event. (pg.228) Recently a person asked me to answer a question about why Christ did not insist this women be stoned id Theonomy were a correct teaching. I looked to see how Bahnsen answered this criticism and was surprised to read his defense. Is this a wide spread debated text of authenticity?

Yes it is; someone should be able to provide a link to threads in the Translations and Manuscripts Forum where this issue has been discussed previously.

Daniel Ritchie · #5 (**permalink**) 01-19-2008, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I am no theonomist, but I would imagine the answer would be that there weren't two witnesses as required by the law (they all left) and that the man wasn't there either.

The law demanded that both parties were to be executed, not just the woman. The Pharisees were going against the law of God.

Pilgrim · #6 (**permalink**) 01-20-2008, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.J.

In his book Theonomy in CHristian Ethics, Bahnsen argues that there is some question as to the authenticity of this event. (pg.228) Recently a person asked me to answer a question about why Christ did not insist this women be stoned id Theonomy were a correct teaching. I looked to see how Bahnsen answered this criticism and was surprised to read his defense. Is this a wide spread debated text of authenticity?

See here

Iconoclast · #7 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 12:46 AM

I am not totally sure how a theonomist would answer this, but i always feel that this section is often not understood.

The question;

Quote:

Recently a person asked me to answer a question about why Christ did not insist this women be stoned id Theonomy were a correct teaching.

is imo , missing the whole point of this teaching.

Jesus answers the issue in verse 11.
He as sinless could have stoned her, She was guilty. He had mercy on her.
Under the law she was guilty,but as an object of mercy Jesus forgave her of her sin. It would seem that she was elect and if so, Rom.8:31-34 would apply

Quote:

31What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?

32He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?

33Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.

34Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.

If the law-giver makes provision for and forgives the sin, that should cover it.

Amazing Grace · #8 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B.J.

In his book Theonomy in CHristian Ethics, Bahnsen argues that there is some question as to the authenticity of this event. (pg.228) Recently a person asked me to answer a question about why Christ did not insist this women be stoned id Theonomy were a correct teaching. I looked to see how Bahnsen answered this criticism and was surprised to read his defense. Is this a wide spread debated text of authenticity?

If you really look at this account, Christ agreed she should be stoned. He never said she did not deserve to be stoned according to Law. And I disagree about the 2 witnesses not being present. Unless this was just a fabricated accusation, ie she was framed, there were enough people there to stone her.

But even God in Christ is not bound

larryjf · #9 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 10:47 AM

I was under the impression that the power of the sword rested with the State. So wouldn't it only be appropriate for the Roman State to execute in that time?

KMK · #10 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

I was under the impression that the power of the sword rested with the State. So wouldn't it only be appropriate for the Roman State to execute in that time?

Good point. Also, Jesus was not the High Priest. Would he have judicial authority to sentance her? I know He is the Holy One of Israel and all, but He was still 'under' the law.

Daniel Ritchie · #11 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by larryjf

I was under the impression that the power of the sword rested with the State. So wouldn't it only be appropriate for the Roman State to execute in that time?

Good point. Also, Jesus was not the High Priest. Would he have judicial authority to sentance her? I know He is the Holy One of Israel and all, but He was still 'under' the law.

In his humiliation he did not hold the office of the civil magistrate, therefore, he had not authority to judge such a matter. Moreover, it is abundantly clear from the passage that the Pharisees were out to trick the Lord.

FenderPriest · #12 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 02:48 PM

I've come to see the text as a commentary on the perversion of the accusers. Note:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 22:22

If a man is caught having sexual relations with a married woman both the man who had relations with the woman and the woman herself must die; in this way you will purge evil from Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:10

If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Both the man and the woman are to be put to death, but only the woman is brought forth, showing that even if this were a proper trial, it's not lawful. I've seen the text teaching that there's a greater, more fundamental sin than adultery here - the perversion of God's law. It's a mock trial, and so in the face of the great judge, the verdict is given against the accusers. Jesus doesn't over turn her penalty, he recognizes that this is an unfair trial and rules in her favor, or rather, shows mercy.

Also, as a note, D.A. Carson doesn't comment on this text - if I remember correctly, he thinks it's a later insertion (though I could be wrong). I've read that it could be misplaced from Luke's gospel account. Carson discusses the text in the intro to his commentary on John, but I can't remember off hand what he said about it.

Amazing Grace · #13 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

I've come to see the text as a commentary on the perversion of the accusers. Note:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deuteronomy 22:22

If a man is caught having sexual relations with a married woman both the man who had relations with the woman and the woman herself must die; in this way you will purge evil from Israel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leviticus 20:10

If a man commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Both the man and the woman are to be put to death, but only the woman is brought forth, showing that even if this were a proper trial, it's not lawful. I've seen the text teaching that there's a greater, more fundamental sin than adultery here - the perversion of God's law. It's a mock trial, and so in the face of the great judge, the verdict is given against the accusers. Jesus doesn't over turn her penalty, he recognizes that this is an unfair trial and rules in her favor, or rather, shows mercy.

Also, as a note, D.A. Carson doesn't comment on this text - if I remember correctly, he thinks it's a later insertion (though I could be wrong). I've read that it could be misplaced from Luke's gospel account. Carson discusses the text in the intro to his commentary on John, but I can't remember off hand what he said about it.

Jacob hits on a point. I disagree with Carson, it is in there and should teach a lesson. The lesson is about the Grace of Christ. Period. Too many gymnastics and exegetical speculations to determine otherwise.

8:3 The experts in the law 4 and the Pharisees 5 brought a woman who had been caught committing adultery. They made her stand in front of them 8:4 and said to Jesus, 6 “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. 8:5 In the law Moses commanded us to stone to death 7 such women. 8 What then do you say?” 8:6 (Now they were asking this in an attempt to trap him, so that they could bring charges against 9 him.) 10 Jesus bent down and wrote on the ground with his finger. 11 8:7 When they persisted in asking him, he stood up straight 12 and replied, 13 “Whoever among you is guiltless 14 may be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8:8 Then 15 he bent over again and wrote on the ground.

8:9 Now when they heard this, they began to drift away one at a time, starting with the older ones, 16 until Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 8:10 Jesus stood up straight 17 and said to her, “Woman, 18 where are they? Did no one condemn you?” 8:11 She replied, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”]]

Jesus did not disagree with the penalty in the Law.

Coram Deo · #14 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 06:48 PM

I was surprised to learn that there are questions about this text.. I was unaware that it was and is questioned.... But I just read John Calvin and he agreed....

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Calvin

It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by FenderPriest

Also, as a note, D.A. Carson doesn't comment on this text - if I remember correctly, he thinks it's a later insertion (though I could be wrong). I've read that it could be misplaced from Luke's gospel account. Carson discusses the text in the intro to his commentary on John, but I can't remember off hand what he said about it.

MMasztal · #15 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 07:58 PM

What I always wondered is what did Jesus write on the ground? Some say the 10 Commandments. J Vernon McGee opined that Jesus may have written the names of women with whom these Pharisees may have had their own "trysts".

Contra_Mundum · #16 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 08:10 PM

The issue isn't whether the pericope "belongs" in one or another of the gospels at all. Perhaps it was in one of them, was removed, floated, or maybe it was never in any one of them. That's actually quite irrelevant. Acts 20:35 contains a quote from Jesus that not one of the Gospels have, but clearly was meant by the Spirit to be preserved.

The question is: "Do YOU, Christian, hear the Voice of your Shepherd in that text?" (John 10:16, 27). Who cares what this or that scholar writes about "insertion" or "excision"? The truth is this: that for the greater part of church history now, the church has indeed heard the Word of God in this text. It has defied any and all attempts to "forget" or "remove" it.

Frankly, if you were convinced that Ephesians was NOT God's Word, you should not regard it as authoritative. Most people accept a "received" Bible in any case, and basically submit to the "mind of the church" as expressed consistently now for nearly 2000 years uninterrupted. Luther, whatever his (early) reservations about the epistle of James, was prepared in the end to accept that it was probably a problem with his own "hearing" and not that James was erroneously considered a part of the NT.

So, if you are not convinced the pericope adulterae belongs in the Bible, and cannot submit to the mind of the church on the issue, then do not treat it reverently. For my part, I have never doubted its authentic ring. And it has never troubled me in the least that John himself may not have had it in his Gospel.

armourbearer · #17 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

The question is: "Do YOU, Christian, hear the Voice of your Shepherd in that text?" (John 10:16, 27). Who cares what this or that scholar writes about "insertion" or "excision"? The truth is this: that for the greater part of church history now, the church has indeed heard the Word of God in this text. It has defied any and all attempts to "forget" or "remove" it.

Very well stated.

shackleton · #18 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 08:26 PM

I thought the point of the story was, if you are without sin then you can cast a stone, (the point being, you are as bad as she is in some area, sin is sin), Christ was without sin and able to stone her, but he showed mercy.
I have always seen and heard this explained as a story proving God's grace and mercy expressed through Christ.

KMK · #19 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

The issue isn't whether the pericope "belongs" in one or another of the gospels at all. Perhaps it was in one of them, was removed, floated, or maybe it was never in any one of them. That's actually quite irrelevant. Acts 20:35 contains a quote from Jesus that not one of the Gospels have, but clearly was meant by the Spirit to be preserved.

The question is: "Do YOU, Christian, hear the Voice of your Shepherd in that text?" (John 10:16, 27). Who cares what this or that scholar writes about "insertion" or "excision"? The truth is this: that for the greater part of church history now, the church has indeed heard the Word of God in this text. It has defied any and all attempts to "forget" or "remove" it.

Frankly, if you were convinced that Ephesians was NOT God's Word, you should not regard it as authoritative. Most people accept a "received" Bible in any case, and basically submit to the "mind of the church" as expressed consistently now for nearly 2000 years uninterrupted. Luther, whatever his (early) reservations about the epistle of James, was prepared in the end to accept that it was probably a problem with his own "hearing" and not that James was erroneously considered a part of the NT.

So, if you are not convinced the pericope adulterae belongs in the Bible, and cannot submit to the mind of the church on the issue, then do not treat it reverently. For my part, I have never doubted its authentic ring. And it has never troubled me in the least that John himself may not have had it in his Gospel.

Couldn't the same be said for the Johannine Comma, the conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, and the last chapter of Mark?

And, BTW, isn't it possible that there might be various lessons gleaned from the alduterous woman?

Coram Deo · #20 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 09:15 PM

By that reasoning, the Apocrypha could also be used for gleaning various lessons, Could it not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

And, BTW, isn't it possible that there might be various lessons gleaned from the alduterous woman?

VirginiaHuguenot · #21 (**permalink**) 01-21-2008, 09:26 PM

Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, pp. 150-159:

Quote:

4. The Woman Taken In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)

The story of the woman taken in adultery (called the pericope de adultera) has been rather harshly treated by the modern English versions. The R.V. and the A.S.V. put it in brackets; the R.S.V. relegates it to the footnotes; the N.E.B. follows Westcott and Hort in removing it from its customary place altogether and printing it at the end of the Gospel of John as an independent fragment of unknown origin. The N.E.B. even gives this familiar narrative a new name, to wit, An Incident In the Temple. But as Burgon has reminded us long ago, this general rejection of these precious verses is unjustifiable.

(a) Ancient Testimony Concerning the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11)

The story of the woman taken in adultery was a problem also in ancient times. Early Christians had trouble with this passage. The forgiveness which Christ vouchsafed to the adulteress was contrary to their conviction that the punishment for adultery ought to be very severe. As late as the time of Ambrose (c. 374), bishop of Milan, there were still many Christians who felt such scruples against this portion of John's Gospel. This is clear from the remarks which Ambrose makes in a sermon on David's sin. "In the same way also the Gospel lesson which has been read, may have caused no small offense to the unskilled, in which you have noticed that an adulteress was brought to Christ and dismissed without condemnation . . . Did Christ err that He did not judge righteously? It is not right that such a thought should come to our minds etc." (32)

According to Augustine (c. 400), it was this moralistic objection to the pericope de adultera which was responsible for its omission in some of the New Testament manuscripts known to him. "Certain persons of little faith," he wrote, "or rather enemies of the 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 had said 'sin no more' had granted permission to sin." (33) Also, in the 10th century a Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of "casting out the account which teaches us how the adulteress was taken to Jesus . . . saying that it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things." (34)

That early Greek manuscripts contained this pericope de adultera is proved by the presence of it in the 5th-century Greek manuscript D. That early Latin manuscripts also contained it is indicated by its actual appearance in the Old Latin codices b and e. And both these conclusions are confirmed by the statement of Jerome (c. 415) that "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." (35) There is no reason to question the accuracy of Jerome's statement, especially since another statement of his concerning an addition made to the ending of Mark has been proved to have been correct by the actual discovery of the additional material in W. And that Jerome personally accepted the pericope de adultera as genuine is shown by the fact that he included it in the Latin Vulgate.

Another evidence of the presence of the pericope de adultera in early Greek manuscripts of John is the citation of it in the Didascalia (Teaching) of the Apostles and in the Apostolic Constitutions, which are based on the Didascalia.

. . . to do as He also did with her that had sinned, whom the elders set before Him, and leaving the judgment in His hands departed. But He, the Searcher of Hearts, asked her and said to her, 'Have the elders condemned thee, my daughter?" She saith to Him, 'Nay, Lord.' And He said unto her, 'Go thy way: Neither do I condemn thee.' (36)

In these two documents (from the 3rd and 4th centuries respectively) bishops are urged to extend forgiveness to penitent sinners. After many passages of Scripture have been cited to enforce this plea, the climax is reached in the supreme example of divine mercy, namely, the compassion which Christ showed to the woman taken in adultery. Tischendorf admitted that this citation was taken from the Gospel of John. "Although," he wrote, "the Apostolic Constitutions do not actually name John as the author of this story of the adulteress, in vain would anyone claim that they could have derived this story from any other source." (37) It is true that R. H. Connolly (1929) (38) and other more recent critics insist that the citation was not taken from the canonical Gospel of John but from the apocryphal Gospel according to the Hebrews, but this seems hardly credible. During the whole course of the argument only passages from the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are adduced. Can we suppose that when the authors of these two works reached the climax of their plea for clemency toward the penitent they would abandon the Scriptures at last and fall back on an apocryphal book?

Another important testimony concerning the pericope de adultera is that of Eusebius (c. 324). In his Ecclesiastical History Eusebius gives extracts from an ancient treatise written by Papias (d. 150), bishop of Hierapolis, entitled Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord. Eusebius concludes his discussion of Papias' writings with the following statement: "The same writer used quotations from the first Epistle of John, and likewise also from that of Peter, and has expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains." (39)

From this statement of Eusebius naturalistic critics have inferred that Eusebius knew the pericope de adultera only as a story occurring in the writings of Papias and in the Gospel according to the Hebrews and not as a part of the canonical Gospel of John. This conclusion, however, by no means follows necessarily. Eusebius may have been hostile to the story of the woman taken in adultery not only because of moralistic objections but also because it was related by Papias. For Eusebius had a low opinion of Papias and his writings. "He was a man of very little intelligence," Eusebius declared, "as is clear from his books." (40) It may very well be that the disdain which Eusebius felt for Papias made him reluctant to mention the fact that Papias' story occurred also in some of the manuscripts of the Gospel of John. At any rate, an argument against the genuineness of John 7:53-8:11 based on Eusebius is purely an argument from silence, and arguments from silence are always weak. Instead of stressing Eusebius' silence it is more reasonable to lay the emphasis upon his positive testimony, which is that the story of the woman taken in adultery is a very ancient one, reaching back to the days of the Apostles.

Also the Spanish Father Pacian (c. 370) appealed to the perico