Interpretation of John 8:1-11

[blah1234]

Found this story to be interesting. Not only for the message of not passing judgement when you yourself are disobeying your own laws but for his treatment of the woman. Why did Jesus not condemn her? She sinned. He simply told her " ...go and sin no more"

Is this Jesus commanding that we not sin,. implying that we can overcome sin nature? Or is it a call for the woman to believe in him as Lord and she may be absolved of sin by believing in him?

 

[Lion King]

Found this story to be interesting. Not only for the message of not passing judgement when you yourself are disobeying your own laws but for his treatment of the woman. Why did Jesus not condemn her? She sinned. He simply told her " ...go and sin no more"

Jesus Christ did not come to condemn anyone, but to free the world from the spiritual bondage that has held us (i.e to release us from the chains of sin/devil/death etc as prophesied by Isaiah).

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. John 3:17-18

Is this Jesus commanding that we not sin,. implying that we can overcome sin nature? Or is it a call for the woman to believe in him as Lord and she may be absolved of sin by believing in him?

Both, actually.

1. Believe in Christ for the forgiveness of your sins (John 3:16).
2. Through Christ, you have the power to overcome sin/satan. One that is born of God sins no more, because God's Spirit dwells in him (1 John 3:9).

 

[hedrick]

1) Jesus condemned two classes of people: people in authority who abused power, e.g. Pharisees, moneychangers; and lazy followers. He did not in general condemn either non-believers or people guilty of the kinds of sins most Christians tend to focus on: sexual sins and other violations of personal morality. I tend to think that the threats against lazy servants were intended more as a kick in the pants and not seriously telling them they were going to hell, but others may disagree.

On the other hand, adultery is certainly a serious issue, which causes serious damage to other people. He did deal with it at other times. So it's unlikely that he would ignore it. I rather suspect that she was already repentant, and he realized that. She had just about been lynched. Consider her likely state of mind. I think it's likely that at that point she was more in need of acceptance than condemnation.

This is an approach we should probably emulate. If someone we suspect is guilty of sin shows up in a church, the first thing we say to them shouldn't be condemnation. It's normally better to encourage them to get to know Jesus, and then within that context expect them to start dealing with moral problems.

2) Jesus surely realized that we're not perfect, and that there's no way we're going to completely stop sinning. But that doesn't mean we're incapable of stopping a lot of sinful behavior, particularly the most serious. I assume "sin no more" was referring specifically to adultery and related behavior, and didn't imply that he thought she would suddenly become sinless.

 

[blah1234]

Thanks. I didn't realize the history behind this one however. Do you think that these passages are to be believed?

 

[Nanopants]

Found this story to be interesting. Not only for the message of not passing judgement when you yourself are disobeying your own laws but for his treatment of the woman. Why did Jesus not condemn her? She sinned. He simply told her " ...go and sin no more"

Is this Jesus commanding that we not sin,. implying that we can overcome sin nature? Or is it a call for the woman to believe in him as Lord and she may be absolved of sin by believing in him?

Interesting question!

All things through faith I say- real faith, the kind where you rend your heart, not your garments.

It's not possible to be holy, sinless or washed from sin otherwise...

And I believe Jesus knew this- He wouldn't have given her a mandate which was impossible to fulfill, it was a declaration of fact.

Edit: That didn't guarantee that she would not stumble, as we all need to have our feet washed from time to time.

 

[Rhamiel]

Thanks. I didn't realize the history behind this one however. Do you think that these passages are to be believed?

yes
while parts of the Bible are written in prophetic and symbolic ways, like Revelation, the Gospels are not "Once upon a time..." they take place in history, I have no reason to doubt that this happened just like how the Bible said it did

 

[2KnowHim]

Found this story to be interesting. Not only for the message of not passing judgement when you yourself are disobeying your own laws but for his treatment of the woman. Why did Jesus not condemn her? She sinned. He simply told her " ...go and sin no more"

Is this Jesus commanding that we not sin,. implying that we can overcome sin nature? Or is it a call for the woman to believe in him as Lord and she may be absolved of sin by believing in him?

It wasn't a command, but an impartation, faith comes by "hearing", He imparted what she needed, to go and sin no more.

For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the "Rhema" of God.

 

[blah1234]

with regards to this history i wasn't implying symbolic. That particular story doesn't appear in the earliest documents; it was added in later.

 

[toLiJC]

Hi canadian

here we will simply present the excerpt of John 8:1-11 with inserted in brackets explanations in(-to) it

John 8:1-11 "Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees(ie and the theologians and clerics of human(666) religion) brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have(viz. they asked Him this in order to seek a reason) to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground(viz. in order to remind them about the written with the Finger of God Ten Commandments), as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin(ie that one who never transgress(-ed) the Commandments of God) among you, let him first cast a stone at her(ie let he first to transgress the Commandments which were written and given personally from the true God Himself). And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground(viz. and He continued to remind them about the Ten Commandments written with the Finger of God Himself). And they which heard it(ie and when they understood what He said them), being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more(ie go, and at least do not bring evil to another anymore)."

Blessings

 

[hedrick]

Thanks. I didn't realize the history behind this one however. Do you think that these passages are to be believed?

It is virtually certain that this passage is not part of the original text of John. Normally we'd assume it was a later addition, and not take it seriously as history. However given what we know of the attitudes of the early church, I think it's very unlikely that this was created later. Thus I'm inclined to think it's a legitimate story about Jesus that circulated separately and was later put into the NT. But there's no way to prove that.

For what it's worth, Eusebius quotes Papias (2nd Cent) as telling a story that sounds like this, but says it was in the Gospel according to the Hebrews", likely a lost document. There is also a reference to such a story in the early 3rd Cent. Augustine expresses fear that the story might encourage wives to immorality, thus confirming why it may have been omitted. This supplies some support to my theory.

 

[Lee52]

Found this story to be interesting. Not only for the message of not passing judgement when you yourself are disobeying your own laws but for his treatment of the woman. Why did Jesus not condemn her? She sinned. He simply told her " ...go and sin no more"

Is this Jesus commanding that we not sin,. implying that we can overcome sin nature? Or is it a call for the woman to believe in him as Lord and she may be absolved of sin by believing in him?

Another thing to consider is that there are those among us that believe that the Holy Spirit works within our human, flesh and blood bodies to bring about sanctification of the believer, individually, one by one.

I know within my own life, I have days that I am totally in the Lord and can go a day without sinful behavior or thought. I have made it a week, a month, or so, through the power of the Holy Spirit. So, it is possible, with GOD's assistance and strength, to live a holy life, for a temporary period of time. Yet, as Paul writes; "Wretched man that I am! Who can set me free from the body of this death?" He continues; "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin."

We will fall, as has been said before my post. At that point, we must rely upon 1 John 1:9 as our guarantee that GOD is willing and able to once again cleanse us from all unrighteousness. His cleansing is perfect cleansing. He leaves no sin in our life from that point until the next time, whenever that happens until we die to this physical existence and go to be with Him in spiritual form, wearing white robes of victory in Jesus as overcomers spoken about in Revelation 7.

Blessings,
Lee52

 

[Radagast]

That particular story doesn't appear in the earliest documents; it was added in later.

It's referred to by several ancient writers, and it's more likely to have been taken out of some manuscripts than to have been independently added to Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, and Ethopian versions.

As hedrick points out, there are reasons why it may have been omitted.

 

[Radagast]

Why did Jesus not condemn her? She sinned. He simply told her " ...go and sin no more"

Jesus condemned her in the sense of telling her it was a sin and not to do it again.

What Jesus did not do is condemn her to death. This can be taken as a repeal of Old Testament "stoning" laws, as well as introducing a new approach to dealing with sin.

 

[New_Wineskin]

It wasn't a command, but an impartation, faith comes by "hearing", He imparted what she needed, to go and sin no more.

For faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the "Rhema" of God.

Nice !!

 

[New_Wineskin]

Thanks. I didn't realize the history behind this one however. Do you think that these passages are to be believed?

"Believed" - as in an actual event ? Absolutely not . Far too many holes in the story to be plausible .

 

[blah1234]

If we can't believe it to be an actual event then we shouldn't really try to take an lessons from it.

 

[Lee52]

If we can't believe it to be an actual event then we shouldn't really try to take an lessons from it.

And when we start picking and choosing which Scriptures we believe and disbelieve, we run into some really BIG theological issues............