What does John 8:5 mean?

Explanation

John 8:5 refers to an interaction between Jesus and the scribes and Pharisees during which they present Jesus with a woman caught in adultery.

They cite the Law of Moses, which prescribes stoning as the punishment for adultery, and then challenge Jesus with the question, "but what sayest thou?" The accusers intend this as a trap for Jesus: if He upholds the Mosaic law, He could be seen as lacking mercy; if He contradicts it, He could be accused of opposing the Law.

The situation is a test of Jesus' wisdom and authority.

Historical Context

During the time when this event is described in John's Gospel, Judea was under Roman rule.

The Jewish people lived according to the Law of Moses, as found in the Hebrew Scriptures, particularly the first five books collectively known as the Torah.

Adultery was a serious offense, and the Mosaic law did prescribe death by stoning as a punishment (as found in Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22-24).

However, the power of capital punishment had been taken away from the Jewish authorities by the Roman government, so they would not have been able to legally carry out such an execution without Roman consent.

Theological Insights

Theologically, this verse is often interpreted as demonstrating Jesus' insight into the human condition and His embodiment of both justice and grace. He is seen as upholding the Law's righteousness while also offering forgiveness and a chance for repentance.

Some Christian theologians see Jesus' handling of the situation as reflecting the new covenant that He came to establish, which transcends the strict legalism of the Mosaic law with principles of grace and forgiveness.

Practical Applications

From a practical viewpoint, John 8:5 teaches about the balance between justice and mercy.

It encourages believers to consider not only the letter of the law but the spirit behind it.

It also speaks against the self-righteous judgment of others and highlights the importance of self-reflection on one's own sinfulness before condemning another.

Cross-References

• Leviticus 20:10 (KJV): "And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."
• Deuteronomy 22:22-24 (KJV): "If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”
• John 8:7 (KJV): "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

Language Study

The key phrase in this verse is "Moses in the law commanded us." The Greek words for "commanded" (entellomai) and "law" (nomos) signify authority and the legal/cultural system of the Jewish people.

The accusers are emphasizing the authority of the Law of Moses to validate their assertion that the woman should be stoned.

Cultural and Religious Comparisons

In the ancient Near East, adultery was considered a significant offense, often against the husband's property rights over his wife. Various cultures had severe punishments for adultery.

In ancient Mesopotamian law codes, like those of Hammurabi, we also find harsh punishments for adultery, although not all prescribed death.

Scientific Perspectives

The scientific perspective may engage with John 8:5 through the lenses of psychology and sociology, particularly studying how laws and punishments impact social order and interpersonal relationships.

Modern criminology might critique the effectiveness of capital punishment in deterring crime and the ethical implications of such irreversible sentences.

Commentaries

Various biblical scholars and commentators have provided interpretations of John 8:5.

Many focus on Jesus' wisdom in handling the situation, some discuss the legality of the Pharisees' actions under Roman rule, while others reflect on the passage as an illustration of divine mercy overcoming legal judgment.

Still, some question the authenticity of this passage, noting its absence in the earliest manuscripts of John's Gospel.

However, those who accept it as canonical emphasize its consistency with Jesus' character and message.