Did Jesus Forgive the Adulteress Woman?

[Carl62]

In reading the 8th chapter of John, it tells the story of Jesus and the aduteress woman. For years I always believed that the Lord had forgiven her of this sin but a friend of mine told me that President Kimball said in 'The Miracle of Forgiveness' that this wasn't true and that she hadn't gone through the proper authorities for the repentance process. Is my friend correct on this? If it's the case that she wasn't forgiven, then why did the Lord clearly say to the woman in John 8:11 "Neither do I condemn thee"? Why wouldn't this have been forgiveness? If the Lord is clearly saying to that woman that he will not condemn her for that particular sin anymore, then why would she need to go any further and confess to anyone else? Just trying to understand this. Thanks.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Carl62

[Dravin]

If it's the case that she wasn't forgiven, then why did the Lord clearly say to the woman in John 8:11 "Neither do I condemn thee"? Why wouldn't this have been forgiveness? If the Lord is clearly saying to that woman that he will not condemn her for that particular sin anymore, then why would she need to go any further and confess to anyone else? Just trying to understand this. Thanks.

Keep in context the scene, she was pulled before him and set-up to be condemned to death by stoning. Her accusers, who by the Law of Moses were supposed to throw the first stone, had slunk away convicted by their conscience and thus didn't condemn her to death by stoning. So her accuser and the crowd didn't condemn her to stoning and neither did he.

To be fair I can see how one could come to either reading based strictly on the text.

[Guest]

In reading the 8th chapter of John, it tells the story of Jesus and the aduteress woman. For years I always believed that the Lord had forgiven her of this sin but a friend of mine told me that President Kimball said in 'The Miracle of Forgiveness' that this wasn't true and that she hadn't gone through the proper authorities for the repentance process. Is my friend correct on this? If it's the case that she wasn't forgiven, then why did the Lord clearly say to the woman in John 8:11 "Neither do I condemn thee"? Why wouldn't this have been forgiveness? If the Lord is clearly saying to that woman that he will not condemn her for that particular sin anymore, then why would she need to go any further and confess to anyone else? Just trying to understand this. Thanks.

In the Miracle of Forgiveness, it mentions that Jesus did not condemn the woman. But neither did he mete out forgiveness. Jesus' reply to the woman was, "Go and sin no more" not "I forgive you". It's not that the adulteress didn't go through the proper authority... it is simply that she has not repented of her sin. Not yet, anyway. The important piece we need to take away from this is that the repentance process is not a 5 second, "I am sorry" business. It is a process that one needs to go through to have a change of heart. And the woman still has to go through that change to be fully forgiven. To go and sin no more...

[Carl62]

In the Miracle of Forgiveness, it mentions that Jesus did not condemn the woman. But neither did he mete out forgiveness. Jesus' reply to the woman was, "Go and sin no more" not "I forgive you". It's not that the adulteress didn't go through the proper authority... it is simply that she has not repented of her sin. Not yet, anyway. The important piece we need to take away from this is that the repentance process is not a 5 second, "I am sorry" business. It is a process that one needs to go through to have a change of heart. And the woman still has to go through that change to be fully forgiven. To go and sin no more...

But anatess, if Jesus is stating that he will not condemn her for the sin from that day on, then what other alternative can there be than that she was forgiven? I can't possibly imagine Jesus saying that to her right there on the spot, then on the day of judgement punishing her for that sin because she didn't go through the other authorities later on. That would be outrageous!

[Guest]

Metanoia is the Greek word that is translated as repent -

Meta = change (like metastable is in a state of flux or change between two states)

noia = mind / conscience / how you perceive what reality is (paranoia)

So Metanoia = change how you perceive what reality is.

I don't think anyone can judge another's heart, we probably don't know enough about the adulteress woman to know if she went through this process or not.

Yes. But it is clear that from the time that the people walked away from her, to the time that Jesus told her, "neither do I condemn thee"... she has not had the opportunity to repent quite yet. In the passage, she was caught and taken in the act of adultery - not some adultery that she has done ages ago that she might have repented of already.

[Vort]

I've sort of come around 180° on this issue. Not that many years ago (well, probably ten or twenty, so maybe it was that many years ago), I firmly believed that Jesus had forgiven the adulterous woman on the spot, seeing her true repentance and all that. I was actually rather indignant that some felt to deny the pure mercies of Christ to one he had seen fit to forgive.

I am months from being 50, and my viewpoint has changed (as, perhaps, have my critical reading skills). When Christ says to the woman, "Neither do I condemn thee", I don't think he's saying "You stand forgiven and clean from your adultery." Rather, as Dravin explained, I think he was simply saying, "I have no wish of fulfilling the particulars of the law of Moses upon you for your transgression."

I am not sure that President Kimball was correct in his proclamation that she had to visit with the "proper authorities" (if indeed he did write that). As I understand the law of Moses, she would have to go to the temple priest with a sin offering to fulfill the letter of the law. But to whom would she have confessed? Her husband, perhaps, if she had one. Other than that, I don't know that confession to authority made sense to her. In any case, she had in effect already confessed to the greatest spiritual authority on earth (or ever), and his instruction to her was to go and sin no more. In my (current) opinion, this was enough to allow her to work out her repentance.

But I no longer believe that Christ's words alone to her constituted an exculpation or expiation from her sin.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Vort

[prisonchaplain]

It could be that President Kimball was making a point about being thorough in repentence, and so used the woman caught in adultery as an example. Even in this story, famous for the reprieve Jesus gave her, we cannot be certain if she received full forgiveness, since repentence is not clearly demonstrated. As part of a sermon or homily, that could be an effective illustration.

On the other hand, in simply looking at the story, it does seem likely that she received the fullness of the atonement. After all, if Jesus says to you specifically, "Go and sin no more," to me it means I do not have to sin anymore--I am now spiritually empowered to live holy.

So, it seems possible to receive President Kimball's point that repentence must be done in a thorough and proper way, while recognizing Jesus' great act of grace, and his empowerment for holiness.

[Carl62]

I simply read into it exactly how Jesus said it when he says "Neither do I condemn thee". Nothing more, nothing less. I don't try to make 2+2=5.

[Vort]

I simply read into it exactly how Jesus said it when he says "Neither do I condemn thee". Nothing more, nothing less. I don't try to make 2+2=5.

But of course, this is exactly what the rest of us are doing.

If your opinion is already firmly set, why did you bring the issue up on a discussion list?

[Dravin]

I simply read into it exactly how Jesus said it when he says "Neither do I condemn thee". Nothing more, nothing less. I don't try to make 2+2=5.

Did you miss my post where I did exactly that and was able to reach a different conclusion about what condemnation he was speaking of? He said neither do I condemn you, which ties his condemnation into the condemnation of her accusers. Were they also, in not condemning her, wiping away her sin?

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Dravin]

But of course, this is exactly what the rest of us are doing.

If your opinion is already firmly set, why did you bring the issue up on a discussion list?

It's the age old: "I'm not putting any interpretation on the scriptures, you are! I'm giving you the plain text reading!"

[Carl62]

But of course, this is exactly what the rest of us are doing.

If your opinion is already firmly set, why did you bring the issue up on a discussion list?

My opinion wasn't firmly set when I started this thread, but after reading the above statements it tends to lead me to think that what Jesus said was what he meant.

[Vort]

My opinion wasn't firmly set when I started this thread, but after reading the above statements it tends to lead me to think that what Jesus said was what he meant.

Again, we all believe that Jesus meant what he said and said what he meant. This does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that Jesus was forgiving the woman. That is a gloss, a meaning you are assigning to his words.

[Dravin]

My opinion wasn't firmly set when I started this thread, but after reading the above statements it tends to lead me to think that what Jesus said was what he meant.

Most interesting, that's the same conclusion others, such as myself or Vort, have reached.

[Carl62]

This does not inexorably lead to the conclusion that Jesus was forgiving the woman.

And then again, maybe it does.

[Bensalem]

I think President Kimball was stressing the need for everyone to seek out priesthood authority in the community in order to complete the process. In other words, it is not just about you and your relationship with Christ; it is about your relationship to the community of Christ, meaning the LDS Church since we are the only ones with His priesthood authority.

[MarginOfError]

I would interpret Christ's statement to the woman the same way I would interpret his statement to any of us. When he says, "Go thy way and sin no more," my understanding is that he is saying "neither do I condemn thee...at this time." If we can free ourselves of our sinful choices and inclinations, then He will forgive us our sins at the day of judgment.

But I think focusing on whether or not the woman received forgiveness misses the point of the story. As was pointed out earlier, Christ was stating that he did not see a need to hold up the particulars of the law of Moses; he was, afterall, just about to transcend that law. It seems to me that the message He was trying to convey was that we should not try to purge society of sinful people, but try to purge sinful people of sin.

[Dravin]

And then again, maybe it does.

Actually it demonstrably doesn't. The demonstration? Some of the posts in this thread. I too believe that Christ meant what he said and said what he meant and haven't come to the conclusion that you did.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Vort]

And then again, maybe it does.

I guess that pretty much seals the deal.

[Vort]

PS "Adulteress woman" is redundant.

[Dravin]

PS "Adulteress woman" is redundant.

To be fair he probably meant adulterous.

[Vort]

To be fair he probably meant adulterous.

Here I was trying to be funny. Thanks a bunch, Dravin!

[Dravin]

Here I was trying to be funny. Thanks a bunch, Dravin!

Maybe I should have waited until someone mistook which part you thought was redundant and lambasted you for painting all women as adulteresses? :)

[beefche]

Here I was trying to be funny. Thanks a bunch, Dravin!

Try harder.

[Carl62]

To be fair he probably meant adulterous.

I meant adulteress. It's proper english.