The particular passage in question is found in John 8:3-11. It reads, in context (emphasis added):
“Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, IN THE VERY ACT. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?’ This they said, TESTING HIM, THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING OF WHICH TO ACCUSE HIM. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, ‘He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first’ [better: ‘let Him throw THE first stone’]. And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, BEING CONVICTED BY THEIR CONSCIENCE, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, ‘Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said to her, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.'”
We need to understand that Jesus did NOT come to destroy the law (Matthew 5:17-20). He did not come to declare that the Ten Commandments were obsolete and that adultery was no longer a sin. At the same time, the passage in John 8 points out that the scribes and Pharisees came to test or tempt Him, so that they could accuse Him. In what way was this a test?
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible points out:
“Had our Lord condemned the woman to death, they might have accused him to Pilate, as arrogating to himself the power of life and death, which the Romans had taken away from the Jews [compare John 18:31]; besides, the Roman laws did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death. On the other hand, if he had said she should not be put to death, they might have represented him to the people as one who decided contrary to the law, and favored the crime of which the woman was accused.”
We also need to keep in mind that Christ had not come in the flesh to condemn or destroy, but to save human life (compare Luke 9:56). It was simply not His purpose to get involved in the affairs of this world. For instance, He refused to become judge or arbitrator over those who fought over their inheritance (compare Luke 12:13-14).
John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible points out:
“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… Nor did he come into the world to condemn it, but that the world, through him, might be saved [John 3:17]…”
Christ expects this same kind of approach and conduct from His disciples today. He told Pilate that His servants–either His angels or His disciples–would not fight, as His Kingdom was not (and still is not) of this world (John 18:36). That is one reason why Christ’s disciples are opposed to joining the military or voting in governmental presidential elections or serving on a jury.
We should note that Christians, who live under the conditions of the New Covenant, are NOT to carry out or participate in any way in the execution of criminals. As we explain in our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound”:
“God gave Israel certain national laws, for instance in Deuteronomy 16 and 17, dealing with the punishment and, in certain cases, the execution of criminals. Converted Christians are servants of the New Covenant, which gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). They are not to judge or condemn another person. Christ said that he who is without sin may cast the first stone (John 8:7). At the same time, we are told that nobody can claim to be without sin (1 John 1:8). Therefore, Christians are not to participate, for instance as jurors, in the judicial systems of this world. In addition, the Church today is not to carry out the death penalty, either. Rather, the ministry is to preach today reconciliation and eternal life (2 Corinthians 5:18–21).”
Under Old Testament law, both the adulteress AND the adulterer had to be stoned (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22), if they had been convicted based on the accusations of at least two witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6). In addition, the witnesses had to cast the first stones (Deuteronomy 17:7). We can see from the foregoing that the situation before Christ did not even come close to such a “trial” and “conviction” and “sentencing,” as required by the law.
First, even though the woman was allegedly caught in the very act of adultery, the accusers did not present the man. Secondly, when Christ challenged them by pointing out their hypocrisy, they all disappeared, so that Christ and the woman were left without any accuser. No valid or legal judgment was pronounced by any competent judge, and even if it had been, the witnesses had disappeared so that the sentence could not have been carried out.
Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible states: “They had accused her, but they had not proceeded to the act expressive of judicial condemnation.”
Based on all of these factors, Christ told the woman that He did not condemn her to death either. Barnes elaborates:
“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.”
Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible adds the following thoughts: “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.”
Compare also Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: “The law appointed the hands of the witnesses to be first upon the criminal, and afterwards the hands of all the people, so that if they fly off, and do not condemn her, the prosecution drops.”
However, Christ admonished the woman not to continue sinning. Even though Christ did not claim “civil authority,” He nevertheless showed that He “regarded the action of which they accused her as sin” (Barnes), and He commanded her to cease from sinning–especially from the act of adultery. If we apply Christ’s comments, that He was not “condemning” the person, in a spiritual sense, we have to conclude that Christ forgave the woman her sins. God forgives us upon true repentance (compare Acts 2:38; Acts 17:30; 1 Kings 8:33-40). Christ, knowing our thoughts and hearts (compare Luke 5:22), could and would have seen that the woman before Him had deeply repented of her sin, and so Christ forgave her. We find, in similar instances, that Christ forgave sins upon repentance (compare Luke 7:36-50). At the same time, Christ cautioned the woman caught in the act of adultery, not to return to her former adulterous conduct (compare John 5:14).
Lead Writer: Norbert Link
