Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:11
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
11. No man, Lord ] We must bear in mind that ‘Lord’ may be too strong a translation of the Greek word, which need not mean more than ‘Sir’ (see on Joh 6:34). But as we have no such ambiguous word in English, ‘Lord’ is best.
Neither do I condemn thee ] He maintains in tenderness towards her the attitude which He had assumed in sternness towards her accusers: He declines the office of judge. He came not to condemn, but to seek and to save. And yet He did condemn, as S. Augustine remarks, not the woman, but the sin. With regard to the woman, though He does not condemn, yet He does not pardon: He does not say ‘thy sins have been forgiven thee’ (Mat 9:2; Luk 7:48), or even ‘go in peace’ (Luk 7:50; Luk 8:48). “We must not apply in all cases a sentence, which requires His Divine knowledge to make it a just one” (Alford). He knew whether she was penitent or not.
go, and sin no more ] Or, go and continue no longer in sin. The contrast between the mere negative declaration and the very positive exhortation is striking. See on Joh 5:14.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Neither do I condemn thee – This is evidently to be taken in the sense of judicial condemnation, or of passing sentence as a magistrate, for this was what they had arraigned her for. It was not to obtain his opinion about adultery, but to obtain the condemnation of the woman. As he claimed no civil authority, he said that he did not exercise it, and should not condemn her to die. In this sense the word is used in the previous verse, and this is the only sense which the passage demands. Besides, what follows shows that this was his meaning.
Go, and sin no more – You have sinned. You have been detected and accused. The sin is great. But I do not claim power to condemn you to die, and, as your accusers have left you, my direction to you is that you sin no more. This passage therefore teaches us:
1.That Jesus claimed no civil authority.
2.That he regarded the action of which they accused her as sin.
3.That he knew the hearts and lives of men.
4.That men are often very zealous in accusing others of that of which they themselves are guilty. And,
5.That Jesus was endowed with wonderful wisdom in meeting the devices of his enemies, and eluding their deep-laid plans to involve him in ruin.
It should be added that this passage, together with the last verse of the preceding chapter, has been by many critics thought to be spurious. It is wanting in many of the ancient manuscripts and versions, and has been rejected by Erasmus, Calvin, Beza, Grotius, Wetstein, Tittman, Knapp, and many others. It is not easy to decide the question whether it be a genuine part of the New Testament or not. Some have supposed that it was not written by the evangelists, but was often related by them, and that after a time it was recorded and introduced by Papias into the sacred text.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 11. Neither do I condemn thee] Bishop Pearce says: “It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a magistrate, and had not the witnesses before him to examine them, and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees, and also how little reason there is to conclude from hence that Christ seems in this case not enough to have discouraged adultery, though he called it a sin. And yet this opinion took place so early among the Christians, that the reading of this story was industriously avoided, in the lessons recited out of the Gospels, in the public service of the churches; as if Jesus’s saying, I do not condemn thee, had given too much countenance to women guilty of that crime. In consequence of this, as it was never read in the churches, and is now not to be found in any of the Evangelistaria, and as it was probably marked in the MSS. as a portion not to be read there, this whole story, from Joh 8:1-11, inclusive, came, in length of time, to be left out in some MSS., though in the greater part it is still remaining.” Thus far the judicious and learned bishop. How the passage stands in all the MSS. hitherto collated may be seen in Wetstein and Griesbach. After weighing what has been adduced in favour of its authenticity, and seriously considering its state in the MSS., as exhibited in the Var. Lect. of Griesbach, I must confess, the evidence in its favour does not appear to me to be striking. Yet I by no means would have it expunged from the text. Its absence from many MSS., and the confused manner in which it appears in others, may be readily accounted for on the principles laid down by Bishop Pearce above. It may however be necessary to observe, that a very perfect connection subsists between Joh 7:52 and Joh 8:12 – all the intermediate verses having been omitted by MSS. of the first antiquity and authority. In some MSS. it is found at the end of this Gospel; in others a vacant place is left in this chapter; and in others it is placed after the 21st chapter of Luke. See at the end of this chapter. Joh 8:59
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
She tells him, None had. He replies, Neither did he. He did not acquit her, for he was not to make void the law of God; nor did he condemn her: he was neither a witness in the case, nor yet a secular judge, to whom such judgments did belong; he was only to speak to her, as the Mediator and Saviour of man.
Go, I discharge thee, as being coram non judice, before one who in my present capacity am no judge to hear this cause, and to give sentence in it.
Sin no more; whatever becometh of thee as to mans judgment, thou hast reason to fear the greater judgment of God, if thou goest on in a course of sin. Nor doth he say, Commit adultery no more; but, sin no more. No partial repentance or sorrow for any particular sin will suffice a penitent that hopes for any mercy from God; but a leaving off all sin, of what kind soever it be.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
She saith, no man, Lord,…. No man said a word to me, or lift up his hand against me, or moved a stone at me:
and Jesus said unto her, neither do I condemn thee; Christ came not into the world to act the part of a civil magistrate, and therefore refused to arbitrate a case, or be concerned in dividing an inheritance between two brethren, Lu 12:13. Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved, Joh 3:17; nor would he pass any other sentence on this woman, than what he had done; nor would he inflict any punishment on her himself; but suitably and agreeably to his office; as a prophet, he declares against her sin, calls her to repentance, and bids her
go and sin no more; lest as he said to the man he cured at Bethesda’s pool, a worse thing should come unto her. Wherefore the Jew s has no reason to object to this conduct of Christ, as if he acted contrary to the law, in De 13:5. “Thou shalt put the evil away from the midst of thee”; and also to the sanctions of all civil laws among men, which order the removal of evil, by putting delinquents to death; and he observes, that those that believe in him, do not follow him in this, but put adulterers and adulteresses to death; and that indeed, should his example and instructions take place, all courts of judicature must cease, and order be subverted among men: but it should be observed, that our Lord manifested a regard, even to the law of Moses, when he bid this woman’s accusers that were without sin, to cast the first stone at her; though as for the law in De 13:5, that respects a false prophet, and not an adulterer or an adulteress; nor do the civil laws of all nations require death in the case of adultery; and did they, Christ here, neither by his words nor actions, contradicts and sets aside any such laws of God or man; he left this fact to be inquired into, examined, and judged, and sentence passed by proper persons, whose business it was: as for himself, his office was not that of a civil magistrate, but of a Saviour and Redeemer; and suitably to that he acted in this case; he did not connive at the sin, he reproved for it; nor did he deny that she ought to suffer according to the law of Moses, but rather suggests she ought; but as this was not his province, he did not take upon him to pronounce any sentence of condemnation on her; but called her to repentance, and, as the merciful and compassionate Saviour, gave her reason to hope pardon and eternal life.
s R. Isaac Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 47. p. 435, 436.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
No man, Lord (, ). “No one, Sir.” She makes no excuse for her sin. Does she recognize Jesus as “Lord”?
Neither do I condemn thee ( ). Jesus does not condone her sin. See 8:15 for “I do not judge (condemn) any one.” But he does give the poor woman another chance.
Henceforth sin no more ( ). See also 5:14 where this same language is used to the impotent man. It literally means (prohibition with present active imperative): “Henceforth no longer go on sinning.” One can only hope that the woman was really changed in heart and life. Jesus clearly felt that even a wicked woman can be saved.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “She said, No man, Lord,” (he de eipen oudeis, kurie) “Then she replied, no one, sir,” not even one, much less two or more, Num 35:30.
2) “And Jesus said unto her,” (eipen de ho lesous) “So, Jesus then said,” spoke words of compassion and kind rebuke.
3) “Neither do I condemn thee:” (oude ego se katakrino) “Neither do I condemn you or judge you at all,” Joh 3:17, as if you were yet under Mosaic law and without two or more witnesses, else I would myself be a lawbreaker, Luk 12:12; Joh 8:17; Deu 19:15.
4) “Go, and sin no more.” (poreuou apo tou nun meketi hamartane) “Go and from now and hereafter sin no longer,” after the manner of charges that have just been thrust at you by the enemies of me, lest certain judgement befall you, Joh 5:14; Act 17:30-31; Heb 9:27; Joh 12:48. He condemned sin while pardoning the sinner, as expressed also Joh 4:14.
Jesus did not set up Himself to condemn the law of Moses or to pick up stones to execute it, as a civil or political administrator. This story compassionately illustrates the blending of judgement and mercy which meet in the Person and work of Jesus Christ.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
11. Neither do I condemn thee. We are not told that Christ absolutely acquitted the woman, but that he allowed her to go at liberty. Nor is this wonderful, for he did not wish to undertake any thing that did not belong to his office. He bad been sent by the Father to gather the lost sheep, (Mat 10:6😉 and, therefore, mindful of his calling, he exhorts the woman to repentance, and comforts her by a promise of grace. They who infer from this that adultery ought not to be punished with death, must, for the same reason, admit that inheritances ought not to be divided, because Christ refused to arbitrate in that matter between two brothers, (Luk 12:13.) Indeed, there will be no crime whatever that shall not be exempted from the penalties of the law, if adultery be not punished; for then the door will be thrown open for any kind of treachery, and for poisoning, and murder, and robbery. Besides, the adulteress, when she bears an unlawful child, not only robs the name of the family, but violently takes away the right of inheritance from the lawful offspring, and conveys it to strangers. But what is worst of all, the wife not only dishonors the husband to whom she had been united, but prostitutes herself to shameful wickedness, and likewise violates the sacred covenant of God, without which no holiness can continue to exist in the world.
Yet the Popish theology is, that in this passage Christ has brought to us the Law of grace, by which adulterers are freed from punishment. And though they endeavor, by every method, to efface from the minds of men the grace of God, such grace as is every where declared to us by the doctrine of the Gospel, yet in this passage alone they preach aloud the Law of grace. Why is this, but that they may pollute, with unbridled lust, almost every marriage-bed, and may escape unpunished? Truly, this is the fine fruit (210) which we have reaped from the diabolical system of celibacy, that they who are not permitted to marry a lawful wife can commit fornication without restraint. But let us remember that, while Christ forgives the sins of men, he does not overturn political order, or reverse the sentences and punishments appointed by the laws.
Go, and sin no more. Hence we infer what is the design of the grace of Christ. It is, that the sinner, being reconciled to God, may honor the Author of his salvation by a good and holy life. In short, by the same word of God, when forgiveness is offered to us, we are likewise called to repentance. Besides, though this exhortation looks forward to the future, still it humbles sinners by recalling to remembrance their past life.
(210) “ Voyla la beau fruict.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(11) She said, No man, Lord.She simply answers His question. There is no plea for forgiveness. There is no attempt at defence. We know not what passed in her heart; we know not what was written upon her countenance. We know not whether the word Lord was simply the Sir of courtesy, or whether it contained something of the reverence of worship. He knew all.
Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.Or, more exactly, and be no longer a sinner. There is no expression of forgiveness or peace as we find in other cases. (Comp. Mat. 9:2; Luk. 7:48.) He does not condemn her, for God sent not His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved (Joh. 3:17). His words must have come to her as words of mercy in contrast to the angry words of those who dragged her before Him. He does not condemn her, and yet by these words she must have been condemned more truly than by any words of accuser. He does not condemn her; and yet the very words which bid her go are the condemnation of her sin. (Comp. Joh. 5:14.) As in the case of the woman of Samaria (John 4), there is something in the tone and manner of dealing with this woman which goes beyond all words; and as we read the narrative the heart completes the picture, and we feel it preserves for us a real incident in our Lords ministry of mercy. It is a mark of truthfulness that the narrative tells us no more. It has not the completeness of an apocryphal story. We feel we should like to know more. She passed from His presence as her accusers had before. What came afterwards to her and to them? Did she, in obedience to the words now heard, go forth to a new life, rising through penitence and faith to pardon, peace, purity? Did they who shrink from His presence now, so learn His words as to come to that Presence again, seeking not judgment on others, but pardon for themselves? Over all the veil is drawn. We may not trace the history of lives known only to themselves and to God; but the lessons are patent, and remain to condemn every human judgment of anothers sin; to condemn every sin in our own lives; to declare to every sinner the forgiveness which condemns not.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
11. Neither do I condemn thee Namely, as a legal judge pronouncing a judicial sentence; such as they had required of him. Nor, indeed, as a divine judge; for that office he reserves to his second coming, (Joh 8:15.)
Neander says: “He takes the sin out of the domain of earthly judicature, which is foreign to his own divine office, into his own peculiar province of morality.” He deals with her not by human but by divine law. Go As he claimed no municipal authority to detain her.
Sin no more Though as a judge Jesus, as having no jurisdiction, could not condemn her, yet, as a preacher of righteousness, he rebukes her of sin, and as a Redeemer points her to repentance and reformation.
On the whole, though unable to assign this narrative to the authorship of John, we conclude that in none of the instances of Jewish tempting of Jesus are his replies more delicately discriminating or more transparently wise.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And she said, “No man, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on sin no more”.’
She replies, ‘no man, Lord’. Here her ‘Lord’ means a respectful and grateful ‘Sir’. But it is probable that the writer intends us to see in Him the Lord of glory.
Now that the Law interpreters have passed their verdict the case is closed. The crowds can only be content that He shows mercy. ‘Neither do I condemn you.’ He alone has the right to condemn her, but He is ready to forgive. His mercy, however, is tinged with a warning, ‘go your way, and from now on sin no more.’ His forgiveness is not to be seen as a licence to sin, or as an amelioration of her crime, it is rather an offer of a new beginning to a repentant woman. None in the crowd can doubt that He has not condoned the sin.
The story has an ageless beauty. Jesus did not step back one iota from the standards of purity set by His Father, yet at the same time He has turned the tables on those who are bristling at the sins of others but ignoring their own sins. Nor does He excuse the woman, even though He has shown remarkable concern for her position. On the other hand He also recognises that she shares the weaknesses of mankind. One mistake can be forgiven. It will be a different matter if she makes a practise of it.
Jesus alone could have carried this situation off in this way, for He was without sin. That is why He can speak to the woman as He does. Not for one moment does He wish to convey the idea that her sin is unimportant, nor is He saying that as we all sin we can be lax with each other and not be too concerned about sin. Rather He is stressing that we are all guilty. ‘Do not sin again’ would apply equally to the Pharisees, and to us. And while the account also tells us that forgiveness for sin is available, it is important to notice that it is not for habitual sin.
The account was probably placed here because it was seen as an example of the light being in the world and shining before and on men. Those who refused to receive the light walked away back into their darkness. But others like the woman were responsive to that light and received it. It also illustrates what Jesus means when He says later, in Joh 8:15, ‘you judge after the flesh. I judge no man’. For in this incident the judgment of the Pharisees has been shown to be lacking, while, without appearing to judge, His judgment is shown to have been true and recognised by all. He does not need to judge, the light of His life and teaching does the judging for Him. But He will certainly judge in the last day.
Note: When reading this account we have to look at the circumstances and at the motives, and of course Who was there. We must not just treat it as case where a genuine question is asked about a genuine difficulty. It is the very opposite. It was in a charged atmosphere. The Pharisees were concerned only to destroy Jesus. They did not really care what happened to the woman.
There were many known adulteresses around. Why did they pick on her? Probably because it happened at the ‘right’ time and fitted in with their plans. The woman was simply a useful tool. Indeed it is probable that some of the accusers were themselves adulterers. None bay so loudly as those who are covering up for their own failure. Perhaps therefore that lay behind Jesus’ comment about those without sin. Possibly such a fact was well known as applying, especially amongst the eldest.
But the truth is that His enemies were simply trying to take advantage of strong feelings of patriotism and the hatred of the people to their own subjection to the Romans, in order to destroy Jesus. So we are not to see this as a genuine appeal for a decision on a legal matter, nor the reply as the last word on such a matter. When it came to the death penalty, except for in cases of blasphemy, justice was in the hands of the Romans. Today we do not suffer too many pangs of conscience at the fact that local adulterers are not stoned to death. Nor do we campaign for the death sentence on them. For we accept the fact that we live in a country where there are different laws and we have to live by them. So was it then. (If you lived in an extreme Muslim country it would be very different).
Jesus recognised the principle laid down by Paul that God set our rulers over us and we are in general to submit to their laws. And indeed the Pharisees knew that. What the Pharisees were asking was only on a matter of theoretical principle, for none of them intended to stone the woman whatever Jesus said. Had they intended it they should have done it already. But they would not so risk the wrath of the Romans.
So this was not a genuine appeal for a legal decision. In fact they knew quite well what the correct answer would have been. They really did not have to ask Jesus. And Jesus knew it. And everyone around knew it. Nor was anyone in a mood to appreciate (or indeed had any desire to appreciate) arguments about the finer points of the Law. Jesus could have commenced a detailed argument about the validity of human law, about which principle was more important than the other, and so on. But no one who was there wanted that kind of an answer because they were not interested in principles. It was not a serious legal forum. It was all a set up.
Thus He wanted to face the Pharisees up with their own hypocrisy. That was why He spoke as He did. You will notice that the Pharisees did not continue arguing. They went away, eldest first, because He had faced them up with their own guilt.
Notice that He had basically agreed the position. He did not deny the Law of God. And they were free to carry out the sentence it required if they willed. But only if they themselves were blameless. Thus they were instead made to face up to their own sinfulness. Jesus did not say that men could not carry out the death penalty. He did not forbid it to the Pharisees. He did not even lay down a principle that no man could carry out a sentence unless they were totally free from sin. He in fact made no positive declaration except to say that they could carry out God’s Law.
But what He rather did was face them up to themselves. He turned the tables on them. He ‘showed them up’ in front of the people for what they really were. He drew attention to their own hypocritical lives. He basically said, ‘in wrath remember mercy’. For even those Pharisees who had not themselves committed adultery were consorting with those who had. They had no intention of carrying out the penalty right from the beginning. That was not really the question. The question was whether they could disgrace Him in front of the people, or even better have the Romans deal with Him. And they finished up themselves disgraced.
It should be noted that once the accusers had gone the case was decided. The witnesses were the ones who had to cast the first stones. Once the witnesses withdrew their testimony there was no case to answer.
It was not the woman and her sin that was on trial at all here. Had the question been genuine, and had it been asked when the Jews were an independent nation living under the genuine basis of Pentateuchal Law, and had the questioners really been concerned about morality, His answer may well have been very different.
What principles then can in fact be drawn from this incident?
1) Firstly that no man is worthy individually to make such a decision about another human being. It must be a joint decision and left to a court of law to decide and arrange for the carrying out of the penalty on the basis of law. It was not to be decided on the basis of a lynch mob.
2). Secondly that God’s Law stands firm as a final standard, but that there is also a duty to recognise the principles of law in the society in which we live, and to abide by them.
But finally there is another principle. That the Judge of all the world was there and could determine the sentence as He would given, in the light of all the circumstances. Note that He forgives the woman. He in no way releases her from her sinfulness as though it did not matter. But He delays her judgment until the Last Day in order to give her time to repent. Then she will be judged by whether she took advantage of His forgiveness or not.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
Ver. 11. Neither do I condemn thee ] Hence an Anabaptist will argue that adultery is not to be punished (as they did from that text, “whoremongers and adulterers God will judge,” therefore men ought not to meddle with them). But they may as well say that inheritances are not to be divided between brethren, because our Saviour refused to divide them,Luk 12:14Luk 12:14 , it being without the lists of his calling, no proper employment of his.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 8:11 . And she said: “No one, Lord”. . “Neither do I condemn thee,” that is, do not adjudge thee to stoning. That He did condemn her sin was shown in His words . Therefore Augustine says: “Ergo et Dominus damnavit, sed peccatum, non hominem”.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Lord. See App-98. B. a.
thee. He does not say “thy sin”. He speaks judicially.
sin. App-128.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
Joh 8:11. , go) He does not add, in peace; nor does He say, Thy sins are forgiven thee; but, hereafter sin no more: ch. Joh 5:14, [Jesus to the impotent man] Sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:11
Joh 8:11
And she said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more.-With none to execute the law, he showed the mercy of God and told her to sin no more. To condemn her was to execute like sentence upon her. This he did not do; but in kindness condemned the sin, warned to sin no more and let the woman go. [Go and “sin no more is a strong implied rebuke of the womans past life, and charge to repent and lead a different life. It also implies an opening of the door of hope if she complied with the conditions. The Christians mercy ought to be like that of Jesus-sorrow for the sinner but indignation for sin. It should lead him to seek to save men from sin and to open the door of hope to the fallen.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Neither: Joh 8:15, Joh 3:17, Joh 18:36, Deu 16:18, Deu 17:9, Luk 9:56, Luk 12:13, Luk 12:14, Rom 13:3, Rom 13:4, 1Co 5:12
go: Joh 5:14, Job 34:31, Pro 28:13, Isa 1:16-18, Isa 55:6, Eze 18:30-32, Mat 21:28-31, Luk 5:32, Luk 13:3, Luk 13:5, Luk 15:7, Luk 15:10, Luk 15:32, Rom 2:4, Rom 5:20, Rom 5:21, 1Ti 1:15, 1Ti 1:16, 2Pe 3:15, Rev 2:21, Rev 2:22
Reciprocal: Jdg 19:3 – speak Psa 85:8 – but 1Co 15:34 – sin not 1Jo 2:1 – that
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
MORAL OFFENCES
Go, and sin no more.
Joh 8:11
Christ took the matter out of its lower levelas a social evilor between man and man, and aimed at spiritual benefits. Let us look at the history from this point of view.
I. Christs method with the accusers.Remember what they were, and in what spirit they came. They were hard, proud men. They were, each one, from the eldest to the youngest, as guilty, and more guilty than the woman, whom they so severely charged; and they lay, and prosecuted the charge without mercy. Their motive, too, was utterly bad: they wanted to place Christ in a dilemma, that they might accuse Him. They knew His gentle and loving spirit; and they wished to push it to a conclusion which would make Him contradict the law of Mosesthat is, the law of the landand so bring Him in guilty of contumacy, or treason. That was the line of the Pharisees.
(a) Sinners are more severe to sinners than good men are. The holier a person grows, the more tender and the more sympathetic he is with sin.
(b) When a mans own conscience is lashing him, he will assume a sterner aspect towards the same, or any other sin, in another person.
Christs desire all along was to bring both the Pharisees and the woman into a state of salvation. And, as a necessary step to salvation, He desired to convince them all of sin. But, though the object was the samewith the Pharisees and with the womanthe means He used were most different.
II. Christs method with the sinner.To save her soul was evidently our Lords one thought. And He proceeded to do it in His own strange, loving way, as only He can do it. What that sin of hers was to Him, the Infinitely Pure, accustomed to the chastenesses of heaven, only the purest among us, can, in the smallest measure, see!
(a) Mark how sin affected Him. It did not alienate Him for a moment. It did not separate Him. She was never despised. She was not degraded. She was not even reproached.
(b) He would bring her to penitence, that He may bring her to peace. And how will He do it? By love; all love. The past is not mentioned. He raises her. He expels sin by virtue; an old feeling by a new affection. He makes Himself attractive and lovely to a heart lonely, as only sin can make us lonely. Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
(c) Observe in her answer a confidingness; a ray of good; an awe. She said, No man. Lord. And then, so instant, so free, so generous, so good, so like HimselfNeither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more. See what Jesus would be, at that moment, to that woman! How she would love Him! How she would be always trying to please Him! How she would draw close to Him!
(d) Throw refinement into your dealings with gross sin. Where sin is the greatest, be you the gentlest! And treat everybody hopefully.
Rev. James Vaughan.
Illustration
When a man has been kept from all open and flagrant acts of sin by the Hand that held him up, he is apt to grow self-righteous and self-satisfied; he slowly enters into the family of the Pharisee. The sins we do speak speak for themselves, and the danger is light compared with that self-esteem, or at least that self-content, that prevented men from coming to the Baptist, and at last prevented them from coming to our Lord. There are truer measures for sin than those which the law has laid down. The use of sin is to convince us of our sinfulness, to bear witness with the Word of God that we cannot win heaven by our own goodness, nor deserve the good things which the Lord provides.
Fuente: Church Pulpit Commentary
Joh 8:11. And she said. No man, Lord. Her answer is a simple statement of the fact. Perhaps the word Lord may indicate the deep impression of the greatness of Jesus that had been made upon her mind.
And Jesus said, Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from this time sin no more. The word I is peculiarly emphatic. The language, it will be observed, is not a sentence of acquittal: it is rather an intimation to the woman that she has still space given her for repentance and faith. Let her use her opportunities, and profit by the tender compassion of Him who drew publicans and sinners to His side, then will still more gracious words be addressed to her. Instead of Go thy way, from this time sin no more, she will receive the joyful assurance, Daughter, thy faith hath saved thee, go in peace. We are told nothing of the effect produced upon the woman by the remarkable scene in which she had borne a part. But every reader must feel how worthy of Him who came not to destroy mens lives but to save them were the words of Jesus upon this occasion. The narrative has lived on through all ages of the Church as an illustration, not less striking than any other recorded in the Gospels, of that Divine wisdom with which Jesus knew how to combine what human wisdom has never been able to unite,condemnation of sin, and free and unrestricted mercy to the sinner.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 11
The account of the adulterous woman here concluded is wanting in many of the earliest and best copies of the New Testament; and it is difficult now to ascertain whether it was omitted in some transcripts, or added without authority in others. It contains the highest internal evidence of being genuine; for an incident more strikingly characteristic of the genius and spirit of our Savior’s teaching is not on record.