João 8
William Hendriksen · Citado em PreceptAustin
João 8
Hendriksen writes - Much has been written with respect to the authenticity of this story. Is it to be considered a genuine part of the Fourth Gospel written (or at least dictated) by the apostle John? Also, regardless of whether John himself wrote it, does it belong in the Bible, or should it be removed from Scripture? In answer to the first question it should be clearly stated that the facts at our disposal do not enable us to declare definitely that the apostle himself wrote or dictated this account. As to the second, it is our conviction that these same facts indicate that no attempt should be made to remove this portion from Holy Writ." Hendriksen then goes on to give 7 excellent points that support the authenticity of the writing, which are found on page 32 of Exposition of the Gospel according to John - which can be borrowed) QUESTION - Does John 7:53-8:11 belong in the Bible? ANSWER - The story of the woman caught in adultery is found in John 7:53—8:11. This section of Scripture, sometimes referred to as the pericope adulterae, has been the center of much controversy over the years. At issue is its authenticity. Did the apostle John write John 7:53—8:11, or is the story of the adulterous woman forgiven by Jesus a later, uninspired insertion into the text? The Textus Receptus includes John 7:53—8:11, and the majority of Greek texts do. That is the reason the King James Version of the New Testament (based on the Textus Receptus) includes the section as an original part of the Gospel of John. However, more modern translations, such as the NIV and the ESV, include the section but bracket it as not original. This is because the earliest (and many would say the most reliable) Greek manuscripts do not include the story of the woman taken in adultery. The Greek manuscripts show fairly clear evidence that John 7:53-8:11 was not originally part of John’s Gospel. Among the manuscripts that do contain the section, either wholly or in part, there are variations of placement. Some manuscripts put the pericope adulterae after John 7:36, others after John 21:25, and some even place it in the Gospel of Luke (after Luke 21:38 or 24:53). There is internal evidence, too, that John 7:53—8:11 is not original to the text. For one thing, the inclusion of these verses breaks the flow of John’s narrative. Reading from John 7:52 to John 8:12 (skipping the debated section) makes perfect sense. Also, the vocabulary used in the story of the adulterous woman is different from what is found in the rest of the Gospel of John. For example, John never refers to “the scribes” anywhere in his book—except in John 8:3. There are thirteen other words in this short section that are found nowhere else in John’s Gospel. It certainly seems as if, somewhere along the way, a scribe added this story of Jesus into John’s Gospel in a place he thought it would fit well. Most likely, the story had been circulating for a long time—it was an oral tradition—and a scribe (or scribes) felt that, since it was already accepted as truth by consensus, it was appropriate to include it in the text of Scripture. The problem is that truth is not determined by consensus. The only thing we should consider inspired Scripture is what the prophets and apostles wrote as they “spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21). Those who favor the inclusion of the story of the woman taken in adultery point to the sheer number of Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. They explain its omission in early manuscripts as an attempt by overzealous church leaders to prevent misunderstandings. Here is the theory of those who favor inclusion: John wrote the passage just as it appears in the Textus Receptus. But later church leaders deemed the passage morally dangerous—since Jesus forgives the woman, wives might think they could commit adultery and get away with it. So, the church leaders tampered with the Word of God and removed the passage. To leave the passage in, they reasoned, would be to make Jesus seem “soft” on adultery. Later scribes, following the lead of the Holy Spirit, re-inserted the pericope, which should never have been removed in the first place. The fact, however, remains that John 7:53—8:11 is not supported by the best manuscript evidence. Thus, there is serious doubt as to whether it should be included in the Bible. Many call for Bible publishers to remove these verses (along with Mark 16:9–20) from the main text and put them in footnotes. Because we’re talking about certain editions of the Bible being “wrong” in certain ways, we should include a few words on the inerrancy of Scripture. The original autographs are inerrant, but none of the original autographs are extant (in existence). What we have today are thousands of ancient documents and citations that have allowed us to (virtually) re-create the autographs. The occasional phrase, verse, or section may come under scholastic review and debate, but no important doctrine of Scripture is put in doubt due to these uncertainties. That the manuscripts are the subject of ongoing scholarship does not prove there is something wrong with God’s Word; it is a refining fire—one of the very processes God has ordained to keep His Word pure. A belief in inerrancy underpins a reverent, careful investigation of the text. GotQuestions.org TECHNICAL NOTE FROM NET NOTES - This entire section, John 7:53–8:11, traditionally known as the pericope adulterae, is not contained in the earliest and best MSS and was almost certainly not an original part of the Gospel of John. Among modern commentators and textual critics, it is a foregone conclusion that the section is not original but represents a later addition to the text of the Gospel. B. M. Metzger summarizes: “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming” (TCGNT 187). External evidence is as follows. For the omission of 7:53–8:11: 𝔓66, 75 א B L N T W Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 33 565 1241 1424* 2768 al. In addition codices A and C are defective in this part of John, but it appears that neither contained the pericope because careful measurement shows that there would not have been enough space on the missing pages to include the pericope 7:53–8:11 along with the rest of the text. Among the MSS that include 7:53–8:11 are D 𝔐 lat. In addition E S Λ 1424mg al include part or all of the passage with asterisks or obeli, 225 places the pericope after John 7:36, f1 places it after John 21:25, {115} after John 8:12, f13 after Luke 21:38, and the corrector of 1333 includes it after Luke 24:53. (For a more complete discussion of the locations where this “floating” text has ended up, as well as a minority opinion on the authenticity of the passage, see M. A. Robinson, “Preliminary Observations regarding the Pericope Adulterae Based upon Fresh Collations of nearly All Continuous-Text Manuscripts and All Lectionary Manuscripts containing the Passage,” Filologia Neotestamentaria 13 [2000]: 35–59, especially 41–42.) In evaluating this ms evidence, it should be remembered that in the Gospels A is considered to be of Byzantine texttype (unlike in the epistles and Revelation, where it is Alexandrian), as are E F G (MSS with the same designation are of Western texttype in the epistles). This leaves D as the only major Western uncial witness in the Gospels for the inclusion. Therefore the evidence could be summarized by saying that almost all early MSS of the Alexandrian text type omit the pericope, while most MSS of the Western and Byzantine texttype include it. But it must be remembered that “Western MSS” here refers only to D, a single witness (as far as Greek MSS are concerned). Thus it can be seen that practically all of the earliest and best MSS extant omit the pericope; it is found only in MSS of secondary importance. But before one can conclude that the passage was not originally part of the Gospel of John, internal evidence needs to be considered as well. Internal evidence in favor of the inclusion of 8:1–11 (7:53–8:11): (1) Jn 7:53 fits in the context. If the “last great day of the feast” (7:37) refers to the conclusion of the Feast of Tabernacles, then the statement refers to the pilgrims and worshipers going home after living in “booths” for the week while visiting Jerusalem. (2) There may be an allusion to Isa 9:1–2 behind this text: John 8:12 is the point when Jesus describes himself as the Light of the world. But the section in question mentions that Jesus returned to the temple at “early dawn” (Ὄρθρου, Orthrou, in 8:2). This is the “dawning” of the Light of the world (8:12) mentioned by Isa 9:2. (3) Furthermore, note the relationship to what follows: Just prior to presenting Jesus’ statement that he is the Light of the world, John presents the reader with an example that shows Jesus as the light. Here the woman “came to the light” while her accusers shrank away into the shadows, because their deeds were evil (cf. 3:19–21). Internal evidence against the inclusion of 8:1–11 (7:53–8:11): (1) In reply to the claim that the introduction to the pericope, 7:53, fits the context, it should also be noted that the narrative reads well without the pericope, so that Jesus’ reply in 8:12 is directed against the charge of the Pharisees in 7:52 that no prophet comes from Galilee. (2) The assumption that the author “must” somehow work Isa 9:1–2 into the narrative is simply that—an assumption. The statement by the Pharisees in 7:52 about Jesus’ Galilean origins is allowed to stand without correction by the author, although one might have expected him to mention that Jesus was really born in Bethlehem. And 8:12 does directly mention Jesus’ claim to be the Light of the world. The author may well have presumed familiarity with Isa 9:1–2 on the part of his readers because of its widespread association with Jesus among early Christians. (3) The fact that the pericope deals with the light/darkness motif does not inherently strengthen its claim to authenticity, because the motif is so prominent in the Fourth Gospel that it may well have been the reason why someone felt that the pericope, circulating as an independent tradition, fit so well here. (4) In general the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar (see D. B. Wallace, “Reconsidering ‘The Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery Reconsidered’,” NTS 39 [1993]: 290–96). According to R. E. Brown it is closer stylistically to Lukan material (John [AB], 1:336). Interestingly one important family of MSS (f13) places the pericope after Luke 21:38. Conclusion: In the final analysis, the weight of evidence in this case must go with the external evidence. The earliest and best MSS do not contain the pericope. It is true with regard to internal evidence that an attractive case can be made for inclusion, but this is by nature subjective (as evidenced by the fact that strong arguments can be given against such as well). In terms of internal factors like vocabulary and style, the pericope does not stand up very well. The question may be asked whether this incident, although not an original part of the Gospel of John, should be regarded as an authentic tradition about Jesus. It could well be that it is ancient and may indeed represent an unusual instance where such a tradition survived outside of the bounds of the canonical literature. However, even that needs to be nuanced (see B. D. Ehrman, “Jesus and the Adulteress,” NTS 34 [1988]: 24–44). Double brackets (Jn 7:53NET) have been placed around this passage to indicate that most likely it was not part of the original text of the Gospel of John. In spite of this, the passage has an important role in the history of the transmission of the text, so it has been included in the translation. John 8:2 Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them. early: Jn 4:34 Ec 9:10 Jer 25:3 44:4 Lu 21:37 and he: Mt 5:1,2 26:55 Lu 4:20 5:3 John 8 - Multiple Sermons and Commentaries Herod's Temple - Click to enlarge TEACHING IN THE TEMPLE Early in the morning He came again into the temple (hieros - the temple complex) - Jesus was a "morning Person!" In Mk 1:35+ we see read "In the early morning, while it was still dark, Jesus got up, left the house, and went away to a secluded place, and was praying there." Luke 21:38+ records "And all the people would get up early in the morning to come to Him in the temple to listen to Him." So it is clear from other passages that Jesus redeemed the time all the time, including early in the morning. He knew His time on earth was short and His mission to mankind was great and so He did not waste time. We are not certain exactly where in the temple (hieros) Jesus taught (see the temple complex above). Note the time sensitive word again which indicates that Jesus made previous visits to the temple. THOUGHT- This is a good pattern for all of us to follow. Morning times should be spent in His Temple. Our body of course is His temple today (1Cor 6:19-20+) and we do well to present ourselves to Him as a living and holy sacrifice for a time of worship in His Word and in prayer (Ro 12:1+). A T
João 8
Hendriksen - What caused his cheeks to burn with indignation was the fact that these men, intent upon committing the sin of murdering the very Messiah, posed as if they were shocked by the infinitely lesser (though still grievous) offence of this woman!..;These scribes and Pharisees were acting in the capacity of witnesses and accusers. Yet the sin of the accused was as nothing in comparison with their perverseness. (Borrow Exposition of the Gospel according to John - chapters 7-21) And said to them, "He who is without sin among you - After they leaders had persisted in asking Him, He responds to them verbally with a dagger aimed straight at their wicked hearts! Without sin (amanartetos) is used only here and describes the one who is guiltless before God. Oddly, the word is not used for the sinlessness of Jesus, perhaps to bring out the greatness of his freedom from sin by avoiding any suggestion that it was a mere inability to sin. Jamieson on without sin—not meaning sinless altogether; nor yet, guiltless of a literal breach of the Seventh Commandment; but probably, he whose conscience acquits him of any such sin. J C
João 8
Hendriksen writes "In their death they will experience no comfort and no peace of any kind, only dark despair. The One whom they have rejected will not be present to help them in their need. In their sin—all their sins viewed collectively, but separately in verse 24 (sins)—they will die. The wrath of God resting upon them, they will go to the place of everlasting perdition. They cannot go where Jesus is going; namely, to the Father." (BORROW Exposition of the Gospel according to John PAGE 44-45) It is possible to seek Christ in vain. -- J C Ryle J C Ryle on you will seek (zeteo) Me and will die (apothnesko) in your sin (hamartia) - This means that His hearers would seek Him too late, having discovered too late that He was the Messiah whom they ought to have received. But the door of mercy would then be shut. They would seek in vain, because they had not known the day of their visitation. And the result would be that many of them would die miserably “in their sins,”—with their sins upon them unpardoned and unforgiven. Mounce has another thought on you will seek Me - When he says, “you will look for me,” it could mean that when he is gone they will continue to look for the Messiah (the one they did not recognize Jesus to be), but more likely it means that their understanding of who he really is will come too late. They will search for him, but to no avail. (See The Expositor's Bible Commentary) John MacArthur on you...will die in your sin - The reality of this sobering truth, which is repeated throughout Scripture, is that those who reject Christ will suffer the consequences of their sin—eternal separation from God. By refusing the Light of the world, they doom themselves to the eternal darkness of hell (Matt. 8:12; 22:13; 25:30). Such as lie down in sin in the grave shall have sin lie down with them in hell to all eternity. -- William Burkitt Burkitt on you...will die in your sin - Better a thousand times to die in a ditch than to die in our sins! They that die in their sins shall rise in their sins, and stand before Christ in their sins. Such as lie down in sin in the grave shall have sin lie down with them in hell to all eternity. The sins of believers go to the grave before them; sin dieth while they live. The sins of unbelievers go to the grave with them.” What is your sin? Why is sin singular and not plural, sins? A T
João 8
Hendriksen adds on I heard...I speak that "The same (or a very similar) thought is expressed in John 3:11; 5:19, 30, 32, 37; 7:16. What Jesus has heard (from all eternity) from the Father, these things he utters not only to the Jews but to Jew and Gentile alike; they are meant for all, for the entire world. (BORROW Exposition of the Gospel according to John - Chapters 7-21) Bob
João 8
Hendriksen - We....accept the view of Calvin and most other commentators ( = The entire section is an uninterrupted story: those who in verse 30 are described as having believed in him are the same as those who oppose him vehemently in the verses which follow. There is no transition from one group to another. The people who are described in verses 30 and 31 do not have genuine faith, as the subsequent verses also clearly indicate.) as being by far the most natural. All this does not mean that there is no transition. There is, indeed, a transition; but it is not from one group to a totally different group. The transition is from one attitude to another attitude within the same group of people. That transition is very clear. It is, in fact, a striking change. As soon as Jesus shows these people that mere mental acceptance (as to Jesus being the Messiah of their dreams, for instance) is not enough, but that they must surrender themselves to him as their personal Deliverer from bondage to Satan and to sin, they become furious and no longer believe in him in any sense. (Exposition of the Gospel according to John - chapters 7-21) Robert Mounce after discussing the various ways writers try to explain believers (Jn 8:30-32) juxtaposed to non-believers (Jn 8:33-59) says "The simplest answer is that as the paragraph continues Jesus is directing his remarks to those whose “faith” was far more cerebral than personal and life changing. They had mentally acquiesced to the idea that Jesus had been sent from God, but they were not prepared to respond to the ethical and moral consequences of that truth.....The radical demands of the NT have as their goal the spiritual transformation of sinful people into the image of Jesus Christ—a demanding challenge that cannot countenance anything less than full commitment. “Live in my word,” says Jesus in effect. “Let what I say control your every action, and you will show that you really are my disciples.” (See The Expositor's Bible Commentary) J C
João 8
Hendriksen notes that "Jesus himself furnishes a commentary on the meaning of freedom. One is free when sin no longer rules over him, and when the word of Christ dominates his heart and life (see Jn 8:34, 35, 37). One is free, therefore, not when he can do what he wishes to do but when he wishes to do and can do what he should do." (Borrow Exposition of the Gospel according to John - chapters 7-21) Steven
João 8
Hendriksen - The seed of Abraham seeking to kill the very One to whom Abraham looked forward with joyful anticipation (Jn 8:56)!...When Jesus here emphasizes that the very seed of Abraham is seeking to kill him, he is beginning to show them that, after all, Abraham is not their father in the spiritual sense. Who then are the real children of Abraham? All true believers. See Rom. 4:11, 12; Gal. 3:7, 29. To be sure, Jesus does not state this in so many words; yet, this truth, proclaimed by Paul, is clearly implied in the words of the Lord. (BORROW Exposition of the Gospel according to John - Chapters 7-21)(Bolding added) David Thompson - Jesus said unless you are right with Me, you are not right with God and you are not right with Me, because you want to kill Me and My word has no effect on you whatsoever. Abraham was willing to believe God and obey God even to the point of sacrificing his own son. A T
João 8
Hendriksen has an interesting explanation of Jesus' word finding no place in these Jews - Murder-plots occupy such a large space in the hearts of these Jews that there is no space (chora; hence, here the verb choreo) left for the word of Jesus! We have here another instance of litotes. The real meaning is: you completely reject my word! (BORROW Exposition of the Gospel according to John - Chapters 7-21) Steven Cole on Jesus' word finding no place -The word translated “no place” can mean, “My word makes no progress in you.” Or, as we saw in 8:31, they did not continue in Jesus’ word, which is the mark of His true disciples. As I said last week, continuing or abiding in Jesus’ Word is the key to experiencing consistent victory over sin. True children of God can say with the psalmist (Ps. 119:11), “Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against You.” (True and False Children of God) In 1Th 2:13 Paul describes the power of the Word that found no place in these Jews. "For this reason we also constantly thank God that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also performs its work in you who believe." The problem of these Jews was that they did not welcome Jesus' word nor believe it and thus they shut down the power of the word to work in their lives.
João 8
Hendriksen - The enemies will not be able to say that they never had an opportunity to listen to the proclamation of the Gospel! To keep the word of Christ means to: a. accept it by faith, b. obey it, and c. stand guard over it. See also 8:55; 14:23, 24; 15:20; 17:6; and 1 John 2:5. Any one (whether Jew or Gentile, it does not matter in the least!) who does this will certainly never see (i.e., experience; cf. on 3:3) death (BORROW Exposition of the Gospel according to John - chapters 7-21)
João 8
Hendriksen - The glory of a vain pretender or usurper, a braggart or megalomaniac, is empty. It has no substance or merit. But Jesus definitely does not belong to this class....The very One who by these base and wicked vilifiers is proudly called “Our God” glorifies the Son whom they reject! This proves how empty was their claim and how wicked their attack. The Father is ever engaged in (notice continuative force of the present participle) the glorification of the Son. He does this by enabling the Son to perform mighty works (Jn 11:4; cf. Acts 2:22), by causing his virtues to stand out in connection with his suffering and rewarding him for it (Jn 12:16; 13:31; 17:1, 2, 5; cf. Phil. 2:9–11); and at times even by a direct voice from heaven (see on Jn 1:34). “This Father you call Our God,” says Jesus, and he continues: (BORROW Exposition of the Gospel according to John - chapters 7-21)