An Exegetical Study on John 8:1-11 - Essay Example

?An Exegetical Study of the Prologue of John 8 11 Exegesis is the process of uncovering the literal meaning of a text and seeks a critical explanation of any text especially a religious text, read exegenesis of the Bible. The main aim of a Biblical exegesis is the relevant exploration of the textual meaning and the discovery of the textual significance. Exegesis includes textual criticism into the history and origins of the text, analysis of grammatical and syntactical features, the author’s historical and cultural backgrounds, and the textual meaning to the original, historical audience. Primarily, an exegetical paper demonstrates an understanding of the primary text through discussion of one periscope or major themes in the reference text1. This paper concentrates on the exegenesis of Prologue of John 8:1-11. It will take concern on the text itself and not on the modern issues or secondary sources comparable to the text in context. The purpose of this paper is to perform a thorough exegetical analysis on the Prologue of John 8:1-11. In an attempt to attain the objectives of the study, the basic and relevant details of the prologue will be surveyed and analyzed informatively. Additionally, the relevant background information on the prologue will undergo a detailed examination in its context. A clear analysis and interpretation of the background and the text will henceforth follow to deduce an outright textual meaning of the prologue. Indeed, the study will actually analyze textual criticism into the history and origins of the text and analyse the grammatical and syntactical features of the prologue. It will address the historical and cultural background of John in light with the prologue. The paper will articulately address the textual meaning of the original, historical audience that the author and the prologue address. Moreover, a verse by verse exposition of the text and a universal exposition of the prologue will seek to establish the text’s author flow of thought. The paper will seek to achieve relevance and significant meaning to the primary text as seen in the Prologue of John 8:1-11. The paper will use relevant scholarly sources to support the thesis of the Exegetical Study of the Prologue of John 8:1-11. More so, the study will apply a section in the paper that uses the Exegetical Study in a short sermon that relates to people in the 21st Century. A summary and a conclusion of the exegenesis will terminate the exegetical study of John 8: 1-11. The opening verses of each of the four Gospels (John, Mark, Matthew, Luke) provide provisional knowledge on the prospects of Jesus’ life and ministry. However, John makes the most detailed use of the prologue form to bring out Christological emphasis in his writings. In addition, John is the only Gospel that entails a poetic prologue and speaks of Jesus’ pre-existence as the Logos2. The prologue of John 8:1-11 was written by John a disciple of Jesus Christ. However, the original source of this prologue has been subject to scholarly debates from many interpreters in relation to its target original audience and its relationship to the rest of the Gospel. Indeed, the exact genre of the prologue still remains a mystery with some scholars arguing that it originated from hymnic traditions of the early church (Beasley-Murray) or the Gnostic faith (Bultmann, [1971]3. Moreover, there are arguments relating to the original audience of the prologue with some scholars saying that that the hymn was originally directed to John, and only came to the Christian usage upon the final edition of the entire gospel. However, there is no evidence relating Gnostic texts Bultmann works and fourth Gospel’s composition hence the Gnosticism and the Prologue mutual exclusivity and incompatibility4. It is Brown’s suggestion that the prologue was written in a Christian circle but independently of the Gospel itself and hence its intrinsic similarities of the Gospel and Johannine Epistles. Generally, According to R. Brown, the style of the pericope is not Johannine either in vocabulary or grammar but closely relates to Lukan material5. Indeed, due to lack of understanding and inability to exegete the story, many religious leaders and laymen oppose the inclusion of the prologue of John 8:1-11 in theological-scholastic circles. In light of this prologue, Jesus foresaw the religious leaders’ (scribes and Pharisees) intent to place Him on the horns of a dilemma between the law and his ministry. Indeed, if he condemned the adulterous woman to stoning according to the Law of the O.T., He would have crossed lines with the Roman authorities. On the other hand, He chose to release her from the arm of the law, his followers who he was sharing a bible study at the temple would doubt and denounce His claims as Messiah because a Messiah would never contradict the Word of God. The adulterous woman was brought in Temple area covered with humiliation as the religious leaders’ demonstrated lack of concern for her life or her shame. The Pharisees pretended to seek the truth from the Lord but were categorically seeking to use the woman as a bait to ensnare Jesus Christ and ensure the death of their antagonist irrespective of the fate of the adulterous woman6. Most conspicuously, Jesus realized their sinister motive upon establishing that the equally guilty man was not present. He assumed that the guilty man might have in his presence at that time or he may be an influential religious leader whose identity had to be concealed. He equally could not rule out the notion that the guilty man may be a religious leader who risks his personality and position for a conspiracy aimed at entrapping Jesus. It was only fair for the religious leaders to bring on the guilty many also for purposes of accessing equal justice. Hence, contrary to the conviction of many, Jesus forgave the adulterous woman. Indeed, many people interpreted this to mean that Jesus has nullified the laws of God and God himself is now full of God of mercy, love, and compassion to the extent of not punishing sin. However, it is good to realize that God still condemns sin, has not changed his mind, or softened his position from the Old Testament to the New Testament. Indeed, Jesus did not denounce the Laws of God or exempt the adulterous woman from punishment but manifested the fact that the God of wrath in the Old Testament has evolved into a God of love, grace, and compassion in the New Testament. Ideally, God never changes (Mal.3:6), he hates sin not people and His holy nature and justice now calls for righteous judgment and punishment. Most significantly is the fact that Jesus himself in the process of forgiving the adulterous woman upheld the requirements of the law in that He categorically gave the religious unbelievers the liberty to stone her (verse 7). In doing this, he encouraged them to obey the law but on the contrary, He told them to obey the Law - but challenged their consciences by daring them with no sins to cast the first stone against the adulterous woman7. Indeed, this challenge was meant to serve two purposes. By challenging the scribes and Pharisees to personally stone the adulterous woman, this was subjecting them to Roman authorities thus exonerating Jesus from any blame. In fact, the Roman law did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death since , the Romans had taken the power of life and death away from the conquered Jews (Joh.18:31). Nevertheless, since the scribes and Pharisees had a clear intention of using this loophole to charm Jesus to breaking the law, they would actually subject themselves to the calamity they had dug (Pro.26:27). Questions also arise as to what Jesus wrote on the ground upon being challenged by the religious leaders. For a fact, there are no records on what the Lord wrote upon the ground but most assuredly, whatever he wrote had a significant effect on the conscience of each of the accusers. Nevertheless, one can relevantly assume that whatever he wrote was a Scripture and from the Law as the Law enjoys the prerogative of convicting sin (Rom.3:20, 7:7 & 8b; 7:13). After all, even the scribes and Pharisees hoped to use the Law in trapping Jesus into unlawfulness (vs.5). However, subject to his immense wisdom (I Cor.12:8; Heb.2:4), Jesus used the same law to ensnare them to their planned condemnation. Indeed, Jesus stooped to the ground in two consecutive times even as the scribes and Pharisees nagged Him to judge the adulterous woman. As He did this, the effect was very clear on the faces of these men and indeed the second time he stood up the men was already gone. He must have written from Deuteronomy 19:15-19 where a sobering effect comes over of the “unrighteous" or "false" witnesses. They bring forth the knowledge of a reversed penalty planned upon the accused and hence they were frightened. Indeed, they stood false and unrighteous in relation case although the actually guilty. This is due to the fact even the witnesses in this case were also not blameless. At the same time they would still not come forward and identify the man who committed adultery with the woman in question. As such, if they dared come forward and attempt to stone the woman without naming the man, then such an act would only bring selfsame judgment to them. Hence, going away was the only logical resolute for them. Another issue that brings a lot of instability in this prologue is the question whether this was the best that decision for Jesus at the time. Indeed, it is so true that Jesus did not condone the woman's adultery. Actually, Jesus did not have the power to seemingly, contradict the Roman law by condemning the woman to stoning. Although Jesus was the son of God, only God who had the capacity to judge all flesh at that time and in any other time8. Another confusing scenario arises on whether the adulterous woman got a more lenient punishment from Jesus. In a more insightful observation, though the woman was forgiven, she did not get it all easy. First is because the humiliation of being caught in the very act of adultery will forever remain with her and her conscience will keep remembering that. At the same time, the manner in which she was brought with the threat of public execution was significantly terrifying and shameful to her. Indeed, Jesus did not mince any words by calling adultery "sin" and not any other convenient affair that confirms that the woman had lost eternal rewards attached to purity. The forgiveness of the reference sin could not reverse this upon further commitment of sins. Similarly, the forgiveness of sins could not guarantee absence of attached problems like venereal diseases, pregnancy, and loss of job, family breakup, depression, and inner guilt to adultery. Indeed, the forgiveness of sins does not preempt the consequences of the sin in one’s life. As such, though the woman was forgiven, the punishment well deserved her, the Law, and the ministry of Jesus Christ. However, despite this many naturalistic scholars feel that the prologue is not genuine and should thus not apply in the modern church. They base their arguments on the authenticity relating to the silence in the prologue as the name of the guilty man and what Jesus wrote on the floor is not given. Indeed, they relate this silence to the Greek Church "Fathers". Actually, no Greek Father referred to the prologue until the 12th century (Bruce Metzger (1964). Moreover, the comments of the early Fathers were connected to the "periscope de adultera" which conspicuously missed in the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church. This is the reason as to why the early fathers disregarded the prologue Chrysostom (345-407) and Cyril (376-444)9. In addition, modern commentators and textual critics conclude that the prologue is an additional text of the Gospel and not an original precept. Indeed, B. M. Metzger summarizes that “the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the periscope of the adulteress is overwhelming”10. Summary and Conclusion It is quite clear that Jesus Christ did not break the law, did not give a lenient punishment to the adulterous woman nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the scribes and Pharisees. The scribes and Pharisees judge others, and yet do the same thing wrongs. Those who seek to judge others should actually be blameless. Indeed, Jesus was not on a position to judge but to make sinners repent. The sinners in this case include the scribes and Pharisees, adulterous woman, and the concealed guilty man. Although the religious leaders sought to insnare Jesus, He aimed at convincing and converting them. Indeed, Jesus did not meddle with the authorities’ jurisdiction but concentrated on what she was called to do on earth. The forgiveness actually came with caution, to go, and sin no more, which was a very suitable direction. Therefore, we should also seek to the lives of criminals by aiding the salvation of their soul with the same caution. We should equally value the fact that Jesus does not condemn us and we should hence reside in forgiveness and sin no more. Works Cited Brown, Sherri. Gift upon Gift: Covenant through Word in the Gospel of John. New York: ProQuest, 2008. Burgon, John. The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels. London: Cosimo, Inc., 2007. Culpepper, Alan. The Gospel and Letters of John. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998. Gorman, Michael. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. London: Baker Books, 2008. Harris, Hall. “Exegetical Commentary on John 8”. Bible.org. Web 11, May 2012. http://bible.org/seriespage/exegetical-commentary-john-8 Jones, Floyd. “The Pericope de Adultera”. King James Bible page .Web 11, May 2012. http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. New York: United Bible Societies, 1971. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971. Ridderbos, Herman. The Gospel According to John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987. Schwager, Don. "Let him who is without sin cast the stone". Daily Scripture and Meditation. Web 11, May 2012. http://www.rc.net/wcc/readings/john8v1.htm Read More