Dressed in jeans, a long-sleeve T-shirt, and a baseball cap, Bell took his multi-million-dollar Stradivarius violin and played as a street musician in a Washington D.C. subway station during rush hour. Just a few days earlier, Bell had sold out a concert hall with average seat prices of $100. In the subway, over a thousand people walked past him, but only a handful stopped to listen, and he collected a mere $32.  The humorous irony is that a world-class musician, whose concerts people pay a high price to attend, was largely ignored when he performed in an everyday setting. This experiment reveals how judgments and preconceptions can blind us to beauty and talent, even when it's right in front of our eyes. It's a light-hearted yet thought-provoking illustration of how easily we can judge a book by its cover, or in this case, a musician by his venue.

But the fact remains that we are all, pretty much, thoroughly well-versed in the foul art of judging other people.  For some reason, we all like to feel superior to the people around us and our minds do an excellent job or twisting the record just enough to believe that we’re somehow morally and intellectually superior to the people we’re so easily judging in our minds.  But what is that impulse and where does it come from?

Lest we think it an entirely contemporary phenomenon, we need only look to the pages of our Scriptures to see that it’s a problem likely as old as time itself.  Or, nearly close to it.  We don’t ever get the exact reason why Cain slays Abel but chances are it ultimately flowed from the belief that somehow, Cain was better, even though their offerings were considered different by God.

And then we arrive at the 8^th chapter of the Gospel of John.  Now, if you’re looking at certain translations of the Word, then this section is likely bracketed.  Why is that? Well, it’s a way of showing you that, for centuries, this particular piece of Scripture didn’t exactly show up here in the 8^th chapter of John’s Gospel.  In some ancient manuscripts, it appears later in John.  In other ancient sources, the material is in Luke or not in Scripture at all.  So, what gives with this particular piece of Scripture?

Well, let me first say this.  The scholarly conclusion is that this is a legitimate piece of Scripture despite its absence in certain ancient sources.  Augustine alludes to it in his works so it isn’t the case that it was just “manufactured” at a later date.  In fact, several scholars suggest that this particular piece of Scripture was REMOVED by certain copyists and scribes because it potentially takes it “too easy” on sinners.  As in the church didn’t like the ultimate message of grace towards sinners so, well, they just deleted it.    But regardless of how and why it didn’t appear, the fact of the matter is that it does appear in black and white in our New Testaments.  And thus, we need look more closely at the passage.  What’s interesting is that this is a passage that almost everyone knows about, even outside the church.  In fact, I read someone’s commentary that you couldn’t go to a museum in Europe without coming across at least one piece of art that captures this particular scene from our Scriptures.  That is to say that everyone is aware of the story that it tells.  But there are still parts of the story that are left delightfully mysterious.  In fact, I think there’s an entire book dedicated to recording different scholars’ interpretations of what precisely they think Jesus was scribbling on the ground.  And even though that’ll never be solved on this side of eternity, there is much we need to discuss in this material, regardless.

To begin with, let’s discuss the elephant in the room.  Since adultery is a two-person tango, the very first question we need to consider, right off the bat, is where is he man?  Now, it helps to know a little bit about Jewish legal matters of the era in order to get at that answer.  To begin with, in Jewish legal proceedings, it is essential that there are at least two eyewitnesses to the actual act, and they would have to agree on everything.  There’s a story told in Jewish literature outside of Scripture about a person being found innocent only because the two witnesses couldn’t agree on the size of the leaves on the particular day the crime took place.  No, in Jewish legal proceedings at the time, the witnesses needed to be in total and absolute agreement.

And they also needed to see the actual deed happen.  There’s a funny photo of me from when I was about two years old.  It was Christmastime and we were staying at my grandmother’s house.  My grandmother absolutely went over the top for Christmas so her house was packed to the gills with cakes and cookies and, you guessed it, chocolates.  Well, here in this picture of me from way back when shows my face absolutely covered with melted chocolate.  You see, while everyone was sleeping, I’d gotten out of my bed and had gotten chocolate.  Not being quite coordinated enough to get the foil wrappers off, I just sucked the melted chocolate through the wrappers.  I mean, just looking at me, it was obvious that I’d purloined some chocolate.

But that kind of guesswork would’ve have held water in a legal proceeding.  That level of inference would’ve have been accepted testimony.  No, in order to accuse someone, you had to have caught them red-handed.  Which necessarily means that these men who elbow their way into the conversation with this poor woman in tow, would’ve had to have seen the woman with the man to level the kinds of charges they’re bringing.  And yet the man isn’t there.  Could it be that he was actually participating in the plot to frame this woman?  I mean, it is possible, right.  I mean, these accusers didn’t have good intentions at the outset.  What makes me say that?  Because had they really wanted what was best for the family, they would’ve taken the accusations there, to the family.  Not to a public place, amplifying the shame this woman must’ve felt.  I mean, we can’t help but think of Joseph here, right?  Remember, Mary gets pregnant before their marriage.  Yet when Joseph figures out she’s pregnant, he remains quiet about it so as not to bring disgrace on Mary or the family.

But that’s now what these gentlemen have in mind to begin with.  No, from the fact that the man isn’t present to the fact that they bring the woman here, publicly, it all points in the direction that they’re merely using this poor woman in order to entrap Jesus.