SERIES: The Gospel of John
Portrait of a Prodigal Daughter
SPEAKER: Michael P. Andrus
Introduction:
“How I wish that there was some wonderful place
Called the Land of Beginning Again,
Where all our mistakes and all our heartaches
And all our poor selfish grief
Could be dropped like a shabby old coat at the door
And never put on again.”
The poet who wrote those words, Louisa Fletcher, was expressing a forlorn dream, but I believe there is a place called the “Land of Beginning Again,” and by God’s grace I would like to tell you about it today in a message from God’s Word entitled, “Portrait of a Prodigal Daughter.”
Virtually every Bible printed in the past 50 years has a heading or footnote attached to John 7:53-8:11, informing us that this passage is of questionable authenticity. For example, the Bible I use has the following note right before John 7:53: “The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11).” Then what’s it doing here? How did it get into our Bibles?
The answer is that the King James Version was translated in 1611 from Greek manuscripts dated no earlier than A.D. 1000, and many of those manuscripts contained this story. As scholars and archaeologists of the past century have uncovered manuscripts dated in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, they have found that this story is missing, calling its authenticity into question. However, in deference to nearly 400 years of familiarity and use of the KJV, virtually all Bible publishers leave the story in and footnote it.
Besides, no one is sure why the manuscript evidence is inconsistent. There are two possible explanations. Either the story was not in John’s original Gospel, but later scribes liked it so well they inserted it into the NT several centuries later, or it was in John’s original Gospel, but some early scribes didn’t like it and took it out. I think the latter is actually more likely. In fact, St. Augustine, who lived at the turn of the 5th century, claims the story was removed to avoid scandal, because some interpreted it as taking a light view of the sin of adultery (which I trust we can demonstrate clearly is not the case).
We will probably never know for sure whether these 12 verses constitute a genuine part of the Gospel of John. But we can say this much—the story portrays Jesus in character, it fits the context of John 7 and 8 quite well, and it provides some significant lessons of spiritual value for God’s people. I personally believe it is a true story and will repay us well for the time we invest in it.
The setting for the story is found in chapter 7, where the 8-day Feast of Tabernacles is being celebrated in Jerusalem. Jesus stands up in the Temple on the last climactic day and delivers His great announcement that anyone who is spiritually thirsty may come and drink. Furthermore, He promises rivers of living water to all who believe in Him. The chief priests and Pharisees are scandalized by these implicit claims to deity, and they hatch a plot to kill Him, but their efforts come to naught when the soldiers sent to arrest Him are themselves awed by His teaching. Let’s read John 7:53-8:11:
Then they all went home, but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
11 “No one, sir,” she said.
“Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now and leave your life of sin.”
The Feast is now over, and the last phrase of chapter 7 tells us that “each went to his own home.” Contrast that with the first statement of chapter 8: “But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.” He went there, undoubtedly, to pray, and I believe John wants us to make a connection between the incredible way He handled the test about to be thrown at Him by the religious leaders and the hours He spent in prayer the night before. At dawn the next morning Jesus appears again in the temple. Though the feast is officially over, Jerusalem is still crowded, and within a short time a large group of people gather around Him. He sits down and begins to teach. Apparently, word is relayed to the religious leaders that Jesus is back in the temple and the stage is set for a vicious interruption of His teaching ministry.
A cunning question as the religious leaders try to impale Jesus on the horns of a dilemma. (3-6)
We hear a lot about the scribes (or teachers of the Law, as they are called here) and the Pharisees in the Gospel of John. Just who were these people? At the risk of oversimplification, I suggest that the Scribes were the ones who devised and interpreted the many legalistic requirements of the Mosaic Law, while the Pharisees were the ones who scrupulously obeyed them. Both were religious zealots—they were the militant fundamentalists of their day.
It takes only a cursory glance at our text to see that the religious leaders are operating in their typical mode of judgment and condemnation—first of the sinful woman, then of Jesus Himself. Their actions reveal some timeless principles evident in the lives of all judgmental people.
The method of those who condemn is unmerciful.[i] They bring before Jesus (and, of course, before the crowd gathered in the Temple) a woman caught in adultery. There is no doubt as to her guilt—the Pharisees accuse her, she doesn’t deny it, and even Jesus acknowledges her sin. This, however, does not prevent us from feeling some considerable pity for this woman. Her clothes are probably disheveled and there is shame written all over her face. Instead of just bringing the facts of her case before Jesus, these religious leaders actually drag her before the crowd. There is absolutely no desire to see her repent; no effort to rehabilitate her; she is simply viewed as a tool to get to their real target—Jesus.
Those who judge and condemn others are almost always unmerciful. They gossip, they write anonymous letters, they distort the truth, they use people, and somehow, they justify it all on the basis of the noble goal they are seeking to achieve. That goal may be to expose sin, or preserve an institution, or protect a cause. But God’s Word indicates that it’s never right to do wrong to do right.
The message of those who condemn appears religious or pious. The Pharisees come quoting Scripture. “In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women.” God’s law did indeed call for stoning those caught in such sin (Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:23). Condemners are often technically correct. They carry their rule book with them and are always checking it twice, but they fail to consider the whole law, which considers motives as well as actions, and which considers the motives of the accuser as well as the accused. Condemners see only the sin in others’ lives, never the sin in their own heart, and they almost always cover their nakedness with a heavy coat of self-righteousness.[ii]
If we’re honest we will admit that in many of us there is more than a little Pharisaism. The reason we enjoy pointing out the sins of others is that the exposure of those sins makes us feel relatively more righteous. But this is a complete sham, for God’s standard of righteousness is absolute, not relative, and the sin of judging others is as much a sin as the sins we so readily judge. James makes that point quite clearly when he says,
“For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it…. Judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful…. Anyone who speaks against his brother or judges him speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor?”
None of this should be interpreted as suggesting we have no right to call sin “sin,” or even to rebuke or discipline those who bring disrepute upon the cause of Christ. It speaks more to heart attitude and motive.
The motive of those who condemn is hypocritical. These religious leaders use the woman as a pawn to trap Jesus. They have no concern about her, the law of God, or the truth. He is the one they’re really after. Look at verse 5: “‘In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?’ They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.” What is the nature of this trap? If you go back to verse 4 you discover they are trying to impale Him on the horns of a dilemma
Let’s take a brief aside here to try to understand the nature of the Pharisees’ argument. A dilemma is a kind of logical argument designed to force one’s adversary into a position from which he cannot extricate himself. Some of you will recall that I majored in logic in my graduate work and taught logic for five years on the college level.
Perhaps the most famous dilemma in history is one posed by the Greek mathematician-philosopher-lawyer named Protagoras. He had taught a young, aspiring lawyer named Eulathus the art of pleading before juries, but since Eulathus had no money to pay for the tutoring, he agreed to pay Protagoras back when he won his first case. But when Eulathus finished his course of study, he delayed going into practice. Tired of waiting for his money, Protagoras brought suit against his former pupil for the tuition money that was owed.
When the trial began Protagoras presented his side of the case in a crushing dilemma:
If Eulathus loses this case, then he must pay (by judgment of the court).
If he wins this case, then he must pay (by the terms of our agreement, since
he will have won his first case).
He must either lose or win this case.
Therefore, Eulathus must pay.
Obviously, this leaves Eulathus between a rock and a hard place, which is just another way of saying he finds himself in danger of being impaled on the horns of a dilemma.
The dilemma used by the lawyers and Pharisees against Jesus is of similar form. Its full form might look like this:
If Jesus condones the woman’s action and refuses the death penalty, He
breaks the Law of Moses.
If Jesus condemns the woman and approves the death penalty, He breaks the
Law of Rome, because Rome didn’t consider adultery a capital crime.
But, He must either condone or condemn.
Therefore, He must either break the Law of Moses or the Law of Rome.
No matter how Jesus answers, He will be fatally injured on one of the horns of the dilemma. They have surely finally caught their prey! But the Cunning Question of the religious leaders is followed by an Uncanny Answer from Jesus.
An Uncanny Answer: Jesus escapes between the horns of the dilemma.
Logicians tell us there are three ways a person can deal rationally with a dilemma. First, one can grasp one of the horns and seek to show that it is false. But that won’t work here because the Pharisees are correct in regard to both the Law of Moses and the law of Rome. The second approach one can take is to produce a counter-dilemma. Interestingly, that’s what Eulathus did, showing he had learned well from his former mentor. When it was his turn, he said to the jury:
If I win this case, I shall not have to pay Protagoras (by the judgment of the
court).
If I lose this case, I shall not have to pay Protagoras (by the terms of the
agreement, for then I shall not yet have won my first case).
I must either win or lose this case.
Therefore, I do not have to pay Protagoras!
Unfortunately, history does not record who got gored by the jury in that particular court case. But Jesus employs still a third approach, which is to escape between the horns of the dilemma. That is, He refuses to accept the verdict that He must condone the woman’s behavior or condemn her. He chooses to do neither. But we’re a bit ahead of the story, for Jesus’ first response when the dilemma is laid on Him is found at the end of verse 6: “But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger.”
Jesus writes “with his finger” on the ground. He must have done this for some minutes, for we see in verse 7 that the lawyers and Pharisees persist in pressing Him with the dilemma. Perhaps sensing that Jesus has no answer, they bite at His heels like a wild wolf pack would at a deer about ready to fall.
Just what do you think Jesus was writing? I have found it fascinating to read various conjectures on this question. Some suggest He was doodling, others that He was stalling for time, and still others that He was hiding His embarrassed face from the crowd.
To me the key is the phrase, “with his finger,” plus the fact that the Apostle John throughout his Gospel takes every opportunity to point out to us the deity of Christ. In Exodus 31:18 we read about the giving of the Ten Commandments: “When the Lord finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.” This is the only mention in the Bible of God writing anything, and it is stressed that He wrote it with His finger. Well, it’s not quite the only time, for after Moses broke these tablets of stone God wrote them again.
Now isn’t it interesting that the only time in the Bible Jesus writes anything, He also writes “with His finger” on the ground, and He did it twice (as God also did). Look at John 8:8: “Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.” I do not think it is accidental that John draws these parallels, and to me it is a subtle way of saying that Jesus is to be identified with the God of the OT.
So what was Jesus writing? I believe He was writing the same thing God was writing—the Ten Commandments.
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make any graven image.
You shall not take the Name of the Lord your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy.
Honor your father and mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
I suspect it is at this point that Jesus stopped writing. It says in John 8:7, “When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.'” Then He stooped again and continued writing:
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness.
You shall not covet.
What would be the effect of this, if my supposition is correct? First of all, it would put the woman’s sin in proper perspective. The sin of adultery is a heinous sin, but it is no worse than idolatry or lying or stealing or coveting. By drawing attention to all of God’s Commandments, Jesus is really reiterating the same truth He spoke in Matthew 7, only in different words: “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?… You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.”
But I think there is another expected effect besides just reminding the religious leaders that adultery is not the only sin God hates. I think that by stopping at the Seventh Commandment, as I have suggested Jesus may well have done, He may have been drawing special attention to that specific sinin the lives of the religious leaders themselves.
Do I mean to suggest that perhaps these teachers of the law and these Pharisees may themselves have been guilty of adultery? That’s quite within the realm of possibility. Has it not caught your attention that this woman was brought alone before this kangaroo court? Well, adultery happens to be a sin that one cannot commit alone. So where is the man in the relationship? After all, the Mosaic law called for the execution of both the man and the woman. Is it not possible that this woman was set up and that her partner in sin is one of these very religious leaders?
Dr. James Boice is convinced this is the case, for the Law of Moses, while very severe in its call for capital punishment, also went to great lengths to protect people from false accusation. To convict someone of adultery, the person had to be caught in the very act—not just in a compromising situation. Therefore, to get sufficient evidence it may have been necessary for one of the Pharisees to seduce the woman, with some of the others observing through the keyhole so they could serve as witnesses. But if one of their number was guilty of the physical act, were they not all guilty for planning and participating in such a dastardly deed?[iii]
Of course, we cannot be certain of these details, but we can be certain that the words of Jesus which follow cut these religious leaders to the heart.
He upholds the Law but demands due process. Jesus speaks directly to the religious leaders: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” I do not believe Jesus’ point is that no one who has ever sinned can legitimately make an accusation, for since all of us have sinned that would eliminate discipline in the home, in the church, and even take away the power of the judiciary to punish evil. Rather He is alluding to the Law’s requirement that witnesses of a capital crime initiate the punishment. It would be kind of like requiring the accuser to throw the switch on the electric chair—perhaps not a bad way to keep people from making false accusations. This is another reason why I believe these Pharisees are guilty of adultery themselves, for they are unwilling to initiate the punishment for adultery against the woman.
The hypocrites slowly melt into the crowd. They slink out, beginning with the eldest to the last man. Why the eldest first? Because they had more sense, or perhaps because they had more sin? We do not know. These evil men had come to hear our Lord condemn a poor woman, but instead they hear their own hearts condemning them. They had come to hear Him lay down the stern Law of Moses, but instead they were forced to listen to the still small voice of their own consciences. I can picture the scene in my mind’s eye. Stones begin to thud to the ground. One old Scribe whispers to another, “I just remembered, my wife asked me to pick up a sack of bagels on the way home. I think I’d better go.” And they all go away “until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there.” I believe one could have heard an olive seed drop.
Now the third major scene in our story is what I call …
A Classic Confrontation: The victor and the victim face one another.
Jesus, now the victor over the ravenous spiritual wolves, turns to face the unrighteous victim: “’Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ ‘No one, sir,/ she said. ‘Then neither do I condemn you,’ Jesus declared. ‘Go now and leave your life of sin.’” I want us to note three simple facts here:
Jesus does not condemn the woman.
Nor does He condone her.
Instead, He corrects and challenges her.
First, Jesus does not condemn the woman. He is the only One qualified to cast a stone at her, and He refuses to do so. Why? Is adultery not sufficiently evil to deserve condemnation? Of course, it is, but it is no insurmountable obstacle to eternal life. No one is condemned just because of their sin. He or she is condemned because they refuse the remedy God has offered. John 3:17 says, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.”
Look at it this way. If a man falls overboard from a boat and someone throws him a life jacket, but he tosses it away and proceeds to drown, wouldn’t it be foolish to say he drowned because he fell overboard? Rather he drowned because he refused the life jacket.
The fact that Jesus tells her, “Neither do I condemn you,” convinces me that the woman has not refused God’s provision for her sin, but rather has implicitly recognized Jesus as her Savior. In fact, there is an indication of that in her very words, “No one, sir.” The term “sir” is the same word in Greek as “Lord,” and I believe it has its fullest significance here. The woman is acknowledging that Jesus is more than a man—He is the Lord.
But while Jesus does not condemn her…
He does not condone her either. He clearly says, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” He doesn’t excuse her because she is a victim, or because she grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, or because her hormones are out of balance, or because she is from a dysfunctional family, or because she has a sexual addiction. He doesn’t say, “What you did was OK because it was consensual.” Rather He says to her, “You have sinned.” But He doesn’t stop there either.
Instead, He corrects and challenges her. Jesus tells her to repent and change her course. Now I see real hope here because Jesus never asks us to do the impossible! And the fact that Jesus tells her to stop sinning is further proof, in my estimation, that this woman has come to faith in Jesus as her Savior. For Jesus to give such a challenge before she put her faith in Him would be to mock her; it would be like saying to a drug addict, “Just say no.” But once she has acknowledged His Lordship, He is free to make a declaration of forgiveness and a challenge to holy living.
Principles for right living
Whether caught in the act or uncaught, whether in this sin or some other, every one of us stands guilty before a holy God and in need of His forgiveness. As sinners we must face the fact that the wages of sin is death and that it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the Judgment. I suspect there are some here this morning who have been uncomfortable since the reading of the Scripture earlier in the service because you are currently involved in sexual sin. If so, God is speaking to you through this story and calling you to repent before you destroy your life and family and children. On the other hand, your sin may not be adultery—it may instead be lying or stealing or gossiping or judging. But whatever it is, Jesus offers you forgiveness, not condemnation, and says, “Go now and leave your life of sin.” But because God is a holy God, condemnation will be your ultimate reward if you refuse His forgiveness.
Dealing with sin in the lives of others demands gentleness and humility, for anyone can exercise the heady power to condemn; only those touched by the Spirit of God are able to forgive. Galatians 6:1 reads, “Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.”
When Governor Bradford saw a criminal on his way to the gallows, he uttered the famous statement, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” All of us have experienced the thrill of condemning someone. You know what I mean. There’s a particular person who gets under your skin and you’re the first one to hear a juicy tidbit about him, and you get on the phone and condemn that person before others. Of course, you preface your gossip with those sanctified words, “I thought you would want to pray for so-and-so because of such-and-such.”
But friend, I’ll tell you something that surpasses that is far more satisfying—it is the deep thrill which comes from exercising the power to forgive. It is a divine power, but one that God is willing to share with us. But, you say, what if the guilty person is not a stranger but rather my wife or husband or best friend? What if he or she doesn’t deserve forgiveness? So what? Forgiveness is never deserved. It is always an act of grace.
Everyone has a future, as well as a past, when Jesus Christ enters his or her life.
How I wish that there was some wonderful place
Called the Land of Beginning Again,
Where all our mistakes and all our heartaches
And all our poor selfish grief
Could be dropped like a shabby old coat at the door
And never put on again.
There is, and that place is the Cross. On the cross Jesus died in our place. Because of the cross He says to us, “There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.” And due to the power of the cross He challenges us, “Go and leave your life of sin.”
Communion: The Lord’s Table is the “Place of Beginning Again” par excellence. It is here that we remember the infinite sacrifice made for our sin. We can bring our sins and our failures to this Table and know that the body and blood of Christ are sufficient to cleanse us and renew a right spirit within us.
DATE: February 7, 1993
Tags:
Logic
Pharisaism
Hypocrisy
Finger of God
Ten Commandments
Grace
[i] A portion of my outline, though not the sermon, was, borrowed from Joel C. Gregory, Gregory’s Sermon Synopses.
[ii] The Pharisees judged their own morality on a relative scale. If they weren’t as wicked as other people (or at least weren’t as public with their wickedness), then they took that as reason for pride and self-satisfaction. But since human pride and self-righteousness is a terrible affront to God and is viewed by Him as no better than filthy rags, such people are really as far from God as one can possibly be.
[iii]James Montgomery Boice, The Gospel of John, Vol. 2, chapters 43 & 44.