‘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 John 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.