Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical? | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > April (Web-only)

Christianity Today, April (Web-only), 2008 |

Is 'Let Him Who Is Without Sin Cast the First Stone' Biblical?

Scholars are cautious about the story of the woman caught in adultery.

Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra | posted 4/23/2008 09:15AM

2 of 2

So far, no modern translators have chosen to leave it out altogether.

"If you leave it out without any comments," said Ben Witherington, professor at Asbury Theological Seminary, "there are bound to be thousands of Bible readers asking, 'Is this Thomas Jefferson's Bible?'"

But leaving it in can be dangerous, too, especially when Christians breeze past the notes to concentrate on the story. It's difficult to understand how to treat such a sequestered passage; pericope adulterae continues to be much used as evidence of Jesus' character and as an example to believers.

The note in most Bibles does not say the story isn't authentic, but that the oldest manuscripts do not include it. Laypeople assume that translation teams must have a good reason for including the passage, Wallace said.

Douglas Moo, professor at Wheaton College, said that Christians should be cautious about using "Go, and sin no more" or "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Wallace said pastors have a responsibility to communicate the truth of this text to their congregations. "We need to be as thoroughly biblical as we can be … [There] is a huge amount of ignorance that we're catering to in the Christian public.

"A person hearing these words should recognize that they have no authority as authentic words of Jesus," he said. Christians who are reading the story, he said, should give it the same authority as any other unsubstantiated early Christian teaching about Jesus.

Related Elsewhere:

See also today's interview with Dan Wallace on the manuscript discoveries.

J.I. Packer answered the question," How can I reconcile my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture with comments in Bible translations that state that a particular verse is not 'in better manuscripts'?

first page |

2 of 2

share this page

April (Web-only) 2008, Vol. 52

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment

Reader Reviews are below

Subscribe to Christianity Today and get 3 free trial issues. No credit card required.

Please allow 4-6 weeks for delivery. Offer valid in U.S. only.

If you decide you want to keep Christianity Today coming, honor your invoice for just $19.95 and receive nine more issues, a full year in all. If not, simply write "cancel" across the invoice and return it. The three trial issues are yours to keep, regardless.

Click here for international orders

2-for-1 Gifts!

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Displaying 1 - 3 of 63 comments.

See all comments

Jack	Posted: May 01, 2008 11:24 PM


> How can I reconcile my belief in the inerrancy of Scripture > with comments in Bible translations that state that a particular verse > is not 'in better manuscripts'? Simple: Change your belief to acknowledge that Scripture is not inerrant--which it isn't. That doesn't mean it's not scripture, however.

Clark Coleman

Posted: April 29, 2008 8:24 PM

2-part reply cont'd (space limitations). As the Pharisees often did, they tested Jesus' divinity claim by giving him a truly unsolvable dilemma. Jesus could advocate disobedience to the Romans (stoning) or not following the law strictly (not stoning). His answer amounts to: Your dilemma is caused by your own sins, which are the reason God permits heathens to rule over the Promised Land and you. If anyone here has no sin, he is not responsible for this dilemma, and he can cast the first stone. Of course, no such man existed. I do not believe that this was a simple message of forgiving all sins, consistent with the Sermon on the Mount, etc. Jesus would have to advocate a blanket amnesty from punishment under the law in order to be consistent with such interpretations. Why amnesty for one woman out of all sinners, while thieves, etc., continue to get the prescribed punishments? Why not ask where the offending man is, if that was his point? Jesus made a 1st century Jewish/Roman point.

Clark Coleman

Posted: April 29, 2008 7:50 PM

I believe that the proper interpretation of the verse resolves the tension between this verse and the rest of scripture. Though many here have denied that such tension exists, you don't have to look too deeply to find it. As some have pointed out, we are called to judge sins in the church, which is not the same as judging someone's eternal destiny. Furthermore, the law required death for adultery, and Jesus was not setting aside the law before his crucifixion. Leviticus 20:10 might prescribe death for both the man and woman in adultery, it is a leap of logic to infer that one party cannot be punished without the other. New Testament scholar F.F. Bruce explained the dilemma facing the Pharisees in this passage. The law required death, but Roman law did not permit a death sentence for adultery. The Jews lived under Roman law. If they stoned the woman, they would be prosecuted for murder by the Romans. If they don't stone her to death, they are not following the law.

The allotted time for commenting has ended.