unto him. Can it be that the rulers indeed know that this is the Christ?" Nevertheless, the multitude who were asking these questions did not know their own minds, for they added, "Howbeit we know this man whence he is; but when the Christ cometh, no one knoweth whence he is."

To this confused answer Jesus replied, "Ye both know me, and know whence I am, and I am not come of myself, but he that sent me is true, whom ye know not. I know him; because I am from him and he sent me."

This was about equivalent to saying that they knew him in a sense, but that they did not know him as the messenger from God, because they did not know God. They did not recognize his real character as the Son of God and, therefore, had no real knowledge of him or of whence he came.

In the midst of the excitement, when the fickle multitude were divided and wavering between belief and unbelief, the Jewish rulers seem to have withdrawn from the crowd to some council chamber in another part of the temple, where they held a formal or informal conference. The result of this conference was the sending of officers to arrest Jesus. The coming of these officers seemed to suggest to our Lord's prophetic soul a future time when he would be arrested and killed, for he said, “Yet a little while I am with you and I go unto him that sent me. Ye shall seek me and shall not find me, and where I am ye cannot come."

These words added to the confusion of the Jews that were présent, and they said amongst themselves, "Whither will this man go that we shall not find him? will he go unto the Dispersion among the Greeks and teach the Greeks?"

In the meantime the officers who came to arrest Jesus, seeing the excitement and fearing that his arrest might precipitate a riot and result in the calling in of the Roman guards, or for other reasons, failed to execute their commission, and returned to the chief priest and Pharisees without him. When they were asked why they had not brought him they said, "Never man so spake." The Pharisees therefore answered them, "Are ye also led astray? Hath any of the rulers believed on him, or of the Pharisees? But this multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed. Nicodemus saith unto them (he that cometh to him before, being one of them), Doth our law judge a man, except it first hear from himself and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search and see that out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,"

Nicodemous probably did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but he might have referred the Jews to the fact that Jonah, Elijah, and Nahum and others were Galileans.

The last great day of the feast found Jesus teaching the people, and about the time when the priest was pouring the water of Siloam from the golden pitcher into the silver funnel west of the altar, Jesus cried to the multitude "If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink. He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living waters."

The intensity of this proclamation and the impression made on the multitude are indicated by the record that some of those present said, "This is of a truth the prophet"; Others said, "This is the Christ"; but others obthat Jesus was only a Galilean and that the Christ was to come of the seed of David and from Bethlehem.

XLIV

THE WOMAN ACCUSED OF ADULTERY

John 8:7. "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

(John 7:53-8: 11.)

T

HE history of the woman taken in adultery is found in the received text, and includes the last verse of the seventh and the first eleven verses of the eighth chapter of the gospel by John. It is not found in the oldest manuscripts, and a majority of the most able and conservative Bible students in this day are of the opinion that it was not written by the evangelist John. Augustine and others who hold that it was a part of the original manuscript, would explain its not being found in the oldest existing manuscripts by saying that it was expurged because of the supposed license given to sin. It should be said, however, on the other hand, that the entire diversity from the style of narrative of John is regarded by many as sufficient reason for questioning its genuineness even if it had a place in the oldest manuscripts. Edersheim leaves it out of the history altogether, and says, in a foot note, that "it presents a veritable climax of impossibilities." He does not, however, produce any adequate reason for so sweeping an assertion. If it were found in the best manuscripts, there is no objection literary, ethical or historical that would warrant any hesitation in accepting it; and, in view of all the known facts, we are

inclined to believe that it is a substantially correct account of an historical event, even if it was not originally written by John the evangelist. The candid and intelligent student will not find in it the shadow of an approval of sin. In it all Jesus manifests the pure and loving compassion of one who came to seek and to save the lost. No event in his history places his spirit in more direct contrast with the spirit of the scribes and Pharisees than this event. Heartless, compassionless hypocrites, caring nothing for real purity, but filled with malicious and cunning hatred, saw in this wretched sinful woman a possible means of harassing and annoying Jesus Christ by compelling him to either approve her execution or to come in conflict with the law of Moses. (Deut. 22: 22.) These Jews assumed the attitude of champions of purity according to the demands of the law of Moses, but they would throw on Jesus Christ the responsibility of making the application of that law in this particular case, for they inquired, "What then sayest thou of her?"

There was no doubt as to the woman's guilt, but, if her accusers were zealous for the righteous enforcement of the law, why had they not brought the man with the woman? Was this a miniature picture of the world's way of dealing with this sin in all the ages?

The mortal agony of a sinful woman kindled no compassion in the hard hearts of her accusers as they cunningly constructed this trap to bring the great Teacher into disrepute. It seemed as though Jesus must either approve the sentence, and, by so doing possibly involve himself with the Romans, or he must array himself against this law of Moses. At first he seemed either to hesitate or to disregard the appeal that had been made to him, for he stopped and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they pressed the question upon him, rais

ing himself from his stooping attitude, and looking with divine dignity, not only into their faces, but into the most profound recesses of their impure, hypocritical hearts, he said, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." His words were the sword of the Spirit, discerning the thoughts and purposes of the self-righteous accusers, and, while he again stooped and wrote on the ground, they passed out one by one, beginning from the eldest even unto the last. They had been summoned before the bar of their own consciences, and conscience made cowards of them all.

When Jesus again looked up, they were all gone and he said to the woman, "Where are they? did no man condemn thee?" she said, "No man, Lord." He then said to the woman, "Neither do I convict or condemn thee; go thy way; from henceforth sin no more." Misery and mercy were alone together. Compassion for lost sinners had brought Jesus Christ down into this sinning, suffering world, and it is only in the world's judgment that this woman had committed the unpardonable sin. To this sinner, as well as to others, Jesus Christ could bring pardon, and to this sinner, as to all others whose sins are forgiven, he said, "from henceforth sin no more."

This account of the woman taken in adultery may lack the evidence necessary to convince the devout Biblical critic that it is genuine; but it certainly cannot be excluded on ethical grounds. It reveals the compassionate spirit of Jesus in contrast with the heartless spirit of his enemies; and it teaches lessons that the purest and truest men and women of this generation will admit the Christian church should lay to heart. The law of Moses was a school-master to lead to Christ, and it may seem harsh, but it was not more cruel than the law that now