Moreover, we do not know if further ramifications followed as venereal disease, pregnancy, loss of husband and/or children (if applicable in her case), loss of job, depression, guilt, etc. Having one's sins forgiven does not mean that the consequences of the sin are obliterated in this life. David was forgiven in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, but the consequences that were set in motion by the sin followed David to his grave. It is to David's credit that he never accused God of dealing too severely with him or whined concerning the matter. For many, stoning would have been the preferred choice over the above. No, her sin was neither condoned nor soft peddled.
Lest the reader still have the slightest reservation that our major points have been inaccurate or mistaken, we call to his attention that these same points are confirmed, being presented afterward in the same chapter! Jesus asserted that He was not there to judge men (vs.15), not yet (cp. John 5:22; 18:36 - i.e.," now")! But if He does judge now (in questions other than civil or criminal matters) in "Family" matters and the like, His judgment will be true (vs.16). In the same verse, Jesus acknowledges that He is not executing this wisdom by His own God power and attributes, but by the power and wisdom of His Father (via the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Heb.2:4 etc.). He then brings up the point from the Law which calls for the necessity of at least the attestation of two witnesses in establishing truth (vs.17), and in verse 36 Jesus makes unmistakably clear that He has final authority.
Majestically, we have seen the Lord Jesus the Christ in an awesome display of wisdom, mercy, love and compassion employ only several Scriptures from the Law and merely 15 words (only 9 in the Greek) to vanquish the wicked. Then with only 21 words (Greek = 18), He both judged and restored a sinning saint. Truly - He is Worthy!
Why then was the story deleted or footnoted? Again, no name was given for the man but had he not been influential (even a scribe or Pharisee) he would have been brought out with the woman. Perhaps a certain religious Gnostic (Origen) who walked about castrated and barefoot while trying to work his way into the Kingdom of God might be offended by a story which, as originally written, exposed a religious leader as having committed adultery. Of this we are not certain, but as to the interpretation of the story given above, that we proclaim to the glory of God.
Tragically, most naturalistic scholars today feel so certain that the pericope is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matter as unprofitable.1 Their arguments against the authenticity of the section are largely arguments from silence and the most telling of these silences is generally thought to be that of the Greek Church "Fathers".2 Bruce Metzger (1964) affirms that no Greek Father refers to the pericope until the first part of the 12th century.3 For the critic, this frail external evidence is conclusive. However, Constantine von Tischendorf lists nine manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the verses under discussion and also one which may be of the 8th century.4 Yet not one Father commented upon these verses from the 9th until the 12th century,
2 Ibid., p. 156.
3 Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, op. cit., p. 223.
4 Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 156.
