If she didn't sin, why did Jesus say "Go and Sin No More"?
New Testament – John 8.11 -
Jesus is talking to the adulteress, and asks her if anyone had condemned her.
She answers, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”
Here’s my question. If Jesus says “Go and sin no more” isn’t he suggesting / implying that she did sin, even if no one is condemning her?
And that seems to counter what he said a sentence before “Neither do I condemn you.” It seems contradictory, that in one verse Jesus denies condemning her, but in the next verse, he implicitly does so. The words No More are the giveaway.
Wouldn’t it have been better to say “Don’t sin in the future” or even “Live well” instead of referring to the adulteress’s actions?
Observing members:
0
Composing members:
0
8 Answers
Adultery is the sin. He’s just saying He’s not condemning her for it, but moving forward, not to sin. See back then they usually stoned adulterers to death. In this case, perhaps she hadn’t been caught.
So when Jesus says, “Go and sin no more,” He is not expecting that this woman is going to leave her sinful flesh
Sin is anything that goes against God’s will and His laws. To commit sin is to transgress or disobey these laws. The lust to sin dwells in human nature. In other words, it is contaminated and motivated by the sinful tendencies that dwell in all people as a result of the fall into sin and disobedience in the garden of Eden. This… More
at the door and never be tempted again. He is telling her to say no to the sin that dwells in her and stop the desire from being conceived; stop the temptation from becoming sin.
https://activechristianity.org/why-did-jesus-say-go-and-sin-no-more-if-thats-impossible
You’re talking about the very precise wording in a statement that is a translation from an earlier work that was itself a second or thirdhand account over several generations of the actual statement made by Christ. The point is that the most we can say about this encounter (assuming it’s an accurate depiction of historical events) is that the person who recorded it (or at least someone involved in the process of canonization) was implying that the adulteress did sin.
When I interpret Biblical passages, I try to avoid dissecting the language to such a degree, because I assume that it’s not a perfect account of what was said at the time. I do think the broader theme that we should abstain from judging others and offer forgiveness is a healthy approach to life in most circumstances. Whether or not you believe in Christ as a supernatural being, I do think there very valuable messages in the New Testament—this being one of them.
“Condemn” here doesn’t mean “regard as sinful”, it means “condemn to punishment/death.” You’re interpreting “condemn” with too weak a sense. He’s acknowledging that it’s a sin but disagreeing with the Pharisees citing the Old Testament as evidence that she should be put to death for her sin. Instead, he’s imploring her to stop sinning; she has a second chance.
@All I think we just had a religious question with no cussing or slamming. All answers were factual and educated! Impressive.
Because the OP is a classy guy…
He (Jesus) is forgiving the woman of her sins and telling her so. No one has actually charged her with adultery (no one has condemned her) and Jesus is not going to either…he is forgiving her sin, but telling her to not sin in the future.
Adultery in the Roman world was viewed a lot more harshly than it is today. That makes Jesus’s words all the more surprising. It shows us that he was kind hearted, a quality that sometimes requires a lot of courage.
Response moderated (Spam)
Answer this question