She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
What inimitable tenderness and grace! Conscious of her own guilt, and until now in the hands of men who had talked of stoning her, wondering at the skill with which her accusers had been dispersed and the grace of the few words addressed to herself, she would be disposed to listen, with a reverence and teachableness before unknown, to our Lord's admonition. "And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more." He pronounces no pardon upon the woman-like "Thy sins are forgiven thee;" "Go in peace" - much less does He say that she had done nothing condemnable; He simply leaves the matter where it was. He meddles not with the magistrate's office, nor acts the Judge in any sense (John 12:47). But in saying "Go, and sin no more," which had been before said to one who undoubtedly believed (John 5:14), more is probably implied than expressed. If brought suddenly to conviction of sin, to admiration of her Deliverer, and to a willingness to be admonished and guided by Him, this call to begin a new life may have carried with it what would ensure and naturally bring about a permanent change.
[The genuineness of this whole section, including the last verse of John 7:1-53 - twelve verses-is by far the most perplexing question of textual criticism pertaining to the Gospels. The external evidence against it is immensely strong. It is wanting in the four oldest manuscript-the newly-discovered Codex Sinaiticus ('Aleph (')), the Alexandrian Codex (A), the Codex Vaticanus (B), and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - and in four other valuable Uncial manuscript, although two of these have a blank space, as if something had been left out; it is wanting also in upwards of 50 Cursive manuscript: of ancient versions, it is wanting in the venerable Peshito Syriac and its Philoxenian revision, in one and probably both the Egyptian versions-the Thebaic and Memphitic-the Gothic, probably the Armenian, and two or three copies of the Old Latin: several of the fathers take no notice of it-as Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril, Chrysostom: it is wanting in the most ancient tables of the sectional contents of the Gospels, though afterward inserted as an additional section: the variations in the manuscript which insert it exceed in number and extent those in any other part of the New Testament: and of those manuscript which insert it, four Uncials and upwards of fifty Cursives have an asterisk or other critical mark attached to it, as subject to doubt or requiring investigation.
The internal evidence urged against it is, that it unnaturally interrupts the flow of the narrative, whereas if John 8:12 come immediately after John 7:52, all is natural; that the language of this section is strikingly dissimilar, especially in the particles, to that of John; and that the statement in John 8:1, as to Jesus having gone to the mount of Olives, is one of the strongest grounds of suspicion, since nowhere else in this Gospel is "the mount of Olives" mentioned at all, nor does our Lord's passing the night there agree with this or any stage of His public life except the last. That we have here very strong evidence against the genuineness of this section, no intelligent and impartial judge will deny. Moved by this evidence, Lachmann and Tischendorf exclude it from their text; Tregelles prints it in small type below the approved text, which Alford also does; and hardly any recent critics acknowledge it as John's, except Stier and Ebrard, to whom may be added Lange and Webster and Wilkinson (though the latter do not, like the former, grapple with the difficulties).
But let us look at the other side of the question. Of the four most ancient manuscript which want this section, the leaves of two at this place have been lost-of A, from John 6:50-71; John 7:1-53; John 8:1-52; and of C, from John 7:3-53; John 8:1-33. We have, therefore, no certainty whether those manuscript contained it or not. As to the two (L and Delta) whose spaces are not long enough to make it possible that they contained this section, the inference is precarious, since no more may have been intended by those spaces than simply to indicate that there a portion of text was wanting. But it is found in seven Uncial manuscript, though the letters in that most remarkable one, the Codex Bezae (D), are said to be very different from the others, while in one of the others but a small number of the verses is given, and in another one verse is wanting; it is found in above three hundred of the Cursive manuscript without any note of question, and above fifty more with an asterisk or other mark of doubt.
Of versions, it is found in the Old Latin-which may be held to neutralize the fact of its absence in the Peshito Syriac, as the one appears to have been executed for the Western churches about as early as the other for the Eastern; and it is found in the Vulgate; while Jerome, to whom we owe that revision of the venerable Old Latin, states that in his time-the fourth century, and we have no manuscript of older date than that-this section was found 'in many manuscript both Greek and Latin.' Turning now from external to internal evidence in favour of this section, it appears to us to be almost overpowering. Requesting the reader to recall the exposition of it, we confidently ask if historical authenticity is not stamped upon the face of it, and-admitting that some such incident as this might not be beyond invention-whether the very special and singularly delicate details of it could be other than real.
And if the question be, Whether, supposing it genuine, there were stronger motives for its exclusion, or, if spurious, for its insertion? no one who knows anything of the peculiarities of the early Church can well hesitate. The notions of the early Church on such subjects were of the most ascetic description, and to them the whole narrative must have been most confounding. Augustine accordingly says, 'Some of slender faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, have removed it from their manuscript, fearing, I believe, that an immunity to sin might be thought to be given by it.' Nor was he alone in ascribing the omission of it to this cause. Such a feeling in regard to this section is sufficient to account for the remarkable fact that it was never publicly read along with the preceding and following context in the early churches, but reserved for some unimportant festivals, and in some of the service-books appears to have been left out altogether.
In short, to account for its omission, if genuine, seems easy enough; but for its insertion, if spurious, next to impossible. Moved by these considerations, a middle course is taken by some. Meyer and Ellicott, while convinced that it is no part of the Gospel of John, are equally convinced of its historical truth and canonical authority; and observing how closely John 8:1-59 agrees with Luke 21:37, think that to be its proper place. Indeed, it is a singular fact that four of the Cursive manuscript actually place it at the end of Luke 21:1-38. Something very like this is Alford's view. This, of course, would quite explain the mention (in John 8:1) of "the mount of Olives," and our Lord's spending the night there being His last week. But this theory-of a fragment of authentic canonical Gospel History never known to have existed in its proper place (with the exception of four pretty good manuscript), and known only as part of a Gospel to which it did not belong, and with which it was out of keeping-can never, in our judgment, be admitted.
Scrivener, while impressed with its internal excellence, thinks the evidence against it too strong to be resisted, except on the singular theory that the beloved disciple himself added it in a later edition of his Gospel, and that thus copies having it and copies wanting it ran parallel with each other from the very first-a theory, however, for which there is not the slightest external evidence, and attended, it seems to us, with greater difficulty than that which it is designed to remove. On the whole, though we admit the difficulties with which this question is encompassed, as the narrative itself bears that stamp of originality, truth, purity, and grandeur which accord so well with Its place in the Gospel History, so the fact that wherever it is found it is as part of the Fourth Gospel, and among the transactions of the Feast of Tabernacles, is to us the best proof that this is, after all, its true place in the Gospel History; nor does it appear to us to interrupt the flow of the narrative, but entirely to harmonize with it-if we except John 8:1, which must be allowed to remain among the difficulties that we, at least, find it not easy to solve.] But see P.S. p. 486.
Remark: While a sanctimonious hypocrisy is not unfrequently found among unprincipled professors of religion, a compassionate purity which wins the fallen is one of the most beautiful characteristics of real religion. But until Christ appeared, this feature of religion was but dimly realized, and in the Old Testament but faintly held forth. It was reserved for the Lord Jesus to exhibit it in all its loveliness. In this incident, of the Woman Taken in Adultery, we have it in its perfection, while the spirit of the men that brought her to Jesus, appearing in such vivid contrast to it, acts but as a foil to set it off. See the notes at Luke 15:1-2.