Did Jesus Forgive the Adulteress Woman?

[Dravin]

I meant adulteress. It's proper english.

Then Vort is correct, you were being redundant.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Vort]

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

LOL. Need the Laugh button here.

[prisonchaplain]

Try harder.

Ignore Beefche's counsel here, VORT--Please do not try harder!

[Guest]

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!

That's a false dichotomy though. Jesus saying, "neither do I condemn you" doesn't mean "I forgive you".

There are a lot of lessons to be gleaned from this one story. One of the lessons is "condemnation". Condemnation here does not mean the Final Judgement. Condemnation here refers to Judgement in the Law of Moses that is meted out solely by the Sanhedrin under the Roman rulers. In John 5, Jesus declared that the Father is committing all judgement to the Son. And it is this particular declaration of Jesus that the people were "testing" him on - To see if he will perform the official judgement (or the condemnation) of the adulteress, basically usurping the authority of the Sanhedrin. We can go back to John 3 to see that Jesus' mortal ministry was not to Condemn the world but to Save the world through the Atonement. And hence, he tells the woman, "Neither do I condemn you". That wasn't what his purpose was. His purpose was to atone for our sins.

Now, about forgiveness. This is a different lesson we take out of this same story.

In Miracle of Forgiveness it says:

No Forgiveness Without Repentance

This connection between effort and the repentance which attracts the Lord's forgiveness is often not understood. In my childhood, Sunday School lessons were given to us on the 8th chapter of John wherein we learned of the woman thrown at the feet of the Redeemer for judgment. My sweet Sunday School teacher lauded the Lord for having forgiven the woman. She did not understand the impossibility of such an act. In my years since then I have repeatedly heard people praise the Lord for his mercy in having forgiven the adulteress. This example has been used numerous times to show how easily one can be forgiven for gross sin.

But did the Lord forgive the woman? Could he forgive her? There seems to be no evidence of forgiveness. His command to her was, "Go, and sin no more." He was directing the sinful woman to go her way, abandon her evil life, commit no more sin, transform her life. He was saying, Go, woman, and start your repentance; and he was indicating to her the beginning step to abandon her transgressions.

That's really as simply as one can put the lesson put forth on this chapter about forgiveness.

[Dravin]

That's really as simply as one can put the lesson put forth on this chapter about forgiveness.

And I note that it wasn't about how it's because she didn't go and confess to the proper authority, so that clears that aspect of the discussion up.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Dravin

[Bensalem]

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

I laughed.

[Magen_Avot]

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.

Ummm...., I've always took the Saviors response to mean He didn't condemn her to 'death' because that was the topic of the discussion. What do I know?

then again I'm not the scholarly type.

As to the discussion overall:

To me it kinda flies in the face of the repentance process because we have to show the fruits of repentance to obtain the effects of the atonement. If the Lord did mean anything else, (which I'm willing to accept because I'm not Him) then it is ambiguous except to them who have been enlightened by the spirit of revelation and perhaps knowledge of the people, customs and language.

Otherwise, it would seem it's pretty easy to be forgiven for adultery, and since He is not a respecter of persons we should all be easily forgiven,....

hmmm, spiritual welfare?

[rameumptom]

I simply disagree with then Elder Kimball. The view on salvation back in the 1950s and 60s when this book was written was very different than how GAs now are looking at it.

Back then, GAs did not distinguish between salvation and exaltation, being forgiven vs being holy, etc. So, they lumped all things into one big pile, and occasionally forced an interpretation onto a Bible story that just does not fit properly. So it is in this instance.

Christ DID forgive her. All that is required to be forgiven is to believe and repent. She was likely forced to be humble by the threat of the men seeking to stone her (note that only she was grabbed, and not the male adulterer). Christ will forgive whom he will forgive, as it says in D&C.

Now, his giving her forgiveness does not mean she was worthy of exaltation. It only means that she was forgiven and was made sinless through his atonement. She could escape physical and spiritual death as a gift of grace.

To "go and sin no more" is a command to live a righteous life. Now that she is forgiven, she must seek to become holy, which requires a change of lifestyle.

[rameumptom]

I suggest that we begin studying the concepts of Justification and Sanctification, and especially grace, as taught in the Bible and Book of Mormon. Once understood, we will see that forgiveness comes easier from Christ than Elder Kimball suggested. Now, forgiveness of the Church may not be as easy. Still, even it is changing. In Elder Kimball's day, adultery meant automatic excommunication. Now it doesn't. I've seen former bishops only receive disfellowshipping or probation!

I think therefore that we need to stop reading Miracle of Forgiveness as if it were scripture. It isn't. Heck, it includes a story about Sasquatch! How does that tie in to anything? It shows the focus of GA writing back then. Elder Kimball was an apostle, a witness of Christ. He was not a theologian. Even Elder McConkie was not a theologian, but a scriptorian. The difference? A scriptorian may have his biases already in place, and uses the scriptures to support his views. A theologian searches for the meaning within the scriptures, and determines his views from the study. Scriptorians established the curse of Cain, for example, by working it backwards into the scriptures. Theologians will not find the curse of Cain in the scriptures, as it just isn't really there.

When Christ told the thief on the cross that he would be in Paradise that day, he meant it. The thief was forgiven of his sins just that fast. When Alma suffered for his sins, all it took was a sincere prayer of repentance to be rescued from hell. For the adulterous woman, all it required was a humble heart and Christ forgave her.

Each of these still needed to learn to be holy, in order to gain exaltation through Sanctification. I've written quite a bit on all of this in my Book of Mormon lessons, as the BoM is very consistent on it all. I suggest we all spend time reading what the scriptures actually teach regarding forgiveness, etc. President Kimball was an inspired man of God, no doubt. But his Miracle of Forgiveness has come to the end of its time. It has many errors in it regarding forgiveness and sin, because he was using the best understanding he had at the time. However, I would really like to see Elder Oaks, Holland or Christianson to write a new version of the book. I think we would see it in a very different light.

[Suzie]

One of my favorite stories in the NT because it shows in such a magnificent way how wise Jesus was. He knew exactly why the pharisees brought this woman to him, he knew they were expecting him to say something and condemn him yet he threw the burden to them and it worked out perfectly.

Most people focus on whether or not Jesus forgave the woman. I like to focus on the fact that he didn't condemn her, he didn't humiliate her, he didn't point out fingers at her, he didn't scorn her, or mocked her, he didn't embarrass her. He showed such a deep love and concern for this woman.

I think that's the great message behind this story. A message about how WE should be with others. Sometimes we believe we have all the answers and try in a conscious or subconscious way to try to "fix" people and tell them how wrong they are, sometimes we condemn harshly those who do not believe in the same way as we do or they simply chose a different lifestyle than the one we think is the "right" one. Sometimes we believe we are better than others, more educated, more righteous, more experienced, more spiritual... just because we have the Gospel in our lives and attend Church every Sunday...but just like my signature reads:

"Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car."

[prisonchaplain]

Ram...many thanks. I understand that folk would want to defend President Kimball's teaching. As I said, I see him making a point about follow through. Nevertheless, it did not sit well with me that one could read this story and surmize, "Well of course she wasn't forgiven--she hadn't completed the proper process yet--all Jesus did was spare her the immediate punishment."

Those responses left me confused. I can understand using the story of the woman caught in adultery as an introduction to a lesson on following through--but to suggest that the lesson is clear throughout the story? I'm not seeing it.

[Vort]

Ram...many thanks. I understand that folk would want to defend President Kimball's teaching. As I said, I see him making a point about follow through. Nevertheless, it did not sit well with me that one could read this story and surmize, "Well of course she wasn't forgiven--she hadn't completed the proper process yet--all Jesus did was spare her the immediate punishment."

Until someone provides the precise quote, I don't believe Elder Kimball wrote any such thing. The Kimball Miracle of Forgiveness quote provided by anatess (?) certainly has nothing of the sort in it.

[Maureen]

This is how I see it. Condemn is defined as:

con·demn

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment

Jesus did not condemn her, therefore he did not find her guilty of anything. Nothing to repent of and nothing to forgive. He gave her gentle advice to not sin any more (I'm assuming the sin she got caught committing.)

M.

[bytor2112]

This is how I see it. Condemn is defined as:

con·demn

1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.

2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment

Jesus did not condemn her, therefore he did not find her guilty of anything. Nothing to repent of and nothing to forgive. He gave her gentle advice to not sin any more (I'm assuming the sin she got caught committing.)

M.

Er.....if he gave her "gentle" advice to not sin anymore....wouldn't she have something to repent of since you allude to the fact that she did indeed sin before the advice?

[bytor2112]

Ram.....Didn't Joseph Smith say that Christ told the thief “This day thou shalt be with me in the world of spirits”?

And......I am frequently surprised at your dismissal of President Kimball and Elder McConkie in preference to "modern scholarship". I don't think they are as out of touch as you allude to.....I wonder if President Monson would agree with you?

Edited July 19, 2012 by bytor2112

[Carl62]

Ram...many thanks. I understand that folk would want to defend President Kimball's teaching. As I said, I see him making a point about follow through. Nevertheless, it did not sit well with me that one could read this story and surmize, "Well of course she wasn't forgiven--she hadn't completed the proper process yet--all Jesus did was spare her the immediate punishment."

Those responses left me confused. I can understand using the story of the woman caught in adultery as an introduction to a lesson on following through--but to suggest that the lesson is clear throughout the story? I'm not seeing it.

Prisonchaplain, if I could give you ten 'thank you's' I would. You hit the nail right on the head!

[bytor2112]

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.

Except that punishments of death were administered by the Roman occupiers. An attempt to trap the Savior? Could that be part of the reason for HIS response?

[Maureen]

Er.....if he gave her "gentle" advice to not sin anymore....wouldn't she have something to repent of since you allude to the fact that she did indeed sin before the advice?

But Jesus chose at that moment to not condemn her of her sin, as if the sin never happened. And his gentle advice gave the woman the hint that she still needed to make better choices in the future.

M.

[Guest]

But Jesus chose at that moment to not condemn her of her sin, as if the sin never happened. And his gentle advice gave the woman the hint that she still needed to make better choices in the future.

M.

The bolded phrase is not true. Jesus did not mete out condemnation, not because he treats the woman as if the sin never happened. The woman was sinful. There's no getting around that. By the way, I saw your dictionary post on the word condemn. John 8 is a lot more than the dictionary meaning. Condemnation as used in that chapter is referring to the formal judgement of the Sanhedrin and the Romans rulers and their then policies in keeping the Law of Moses.

God's avoidance of the condemnation (he didn't tell the people to go ahead and mete formal judgement and cast stones as the Law of Moses requires) is a testament to his higher law - the atonement of sins to life as opposed to the condemnation of sins to death.

[livy111us]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed or not, but the story of the woman taken in adultery does not exist in the earliest and the best manuscripts of the Bible. The Pericope Adulterae, as it is called, was not added to the Bible until later centuries. Some manuscripts that did have this story, it was indicated that it was spurious. Bart Ehrman wrote:

"Familiar passages to readers of English Bible -- and the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the 20th century -- include the woman taken in adultery, the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma, even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament" (Misquoting Jesus, page 82)

This link does a great job at examining the evidence of the Pericope Adulterae The Story of the Adulteress

If this story never actually happened, then it wouldn't matter what fictional answer was given to the adulteress woman.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if this has been addressed or not, but the story of the woman taken in adultery does not exist in the earliest and the best manuscripts of the Bible. The Pericope Adulterae, as it is called, was not added to the Bible until later centuries. Some manuscripts that did have this story, it was indicated that it was spurious. Bart Ehrman wrote:

"Familiar passages to readers of English Bible -- and the King James in 1611 onward, up until modern editions of the 20th century -- include the woman taken in adultery, the last 12 verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma, even though none of these passages can be found in the oldest and superior manuscripts of the Greek New Testament" (Misquoting Jesus, page 82)

This link does a great job at examining the evidence of the Pericope Adulterae The Story of the Adulteress

If this story never actually happened, then it wouldn't matter what fictional answer was given to the adulteress woman.

Things like these I don't get.

Okay, let's just say that I believe you... that John 8 was not written into the Bible until 1611... why does that make the story of the adulteress not "actually happen"?

Okay, follow my thought process here. I wrote a biography back in 1980 about President Marcos. Finished the book then published it and people started reading it. Then in 2000, I decided I'm going to write another biography covering incidences in the life of Marcos that was not in the first book. Sold that book too. So because it wasn't in the first biography, then the 2nd book is completely bogus? How about now that it's 2012, I decided to combine both books into one book and republish it... What now? Oh no... now we have pieces of the biography that is not true because it didn't exist in the first book.

Baloney.

Disclaimer: I never wrote any biographies in my life. Illustration purposes only.

[prisonchaplain]

Anatess, livy is pointing out that very real likelihood that this much beloved story is not an actual account, and may not belong in scripture. LDS theology, even more than my own, bolster's this point--the Bible is true as far as it is translated correctly. Well, part of that would be including the right verses. The longer ending to the gospel of Mark has been questioned for decades. Even translations that include it, usually bracket it off, and include notations very much like what livy shared.

My sense is that the lessons of the story can be found in other passages. So I may use the story as illustration. However, I would not build foundational doctrine on disputed passages like this.

Why your illustration does not work is that you wrote both editions in your example, as well as the compilation. Livy is suggesting that the longer ending of Mark was not part of the original manuscript--that it was never something the author wrote.

[Jamie123]

I suspect the whole thing was actually staged to put Jesus in an impossible position ("tempting him, that they might have to accuse him" in the KJV translation). Maybe the "adultress" was a party to it, or maybe she was a well-known neighbourhood "s*ut" whom no one had taken much notice of until she suddenly became useful. Either way, it's interesting nothing is said of the man she supposedly committed adultery with. The stoning - though prescribed by Mosaic law - would have been considered murder under the Roman system. (If you think otherwise, ask yourself why the Sanhedrin didn't simply stone Jesus for blasphemy, instead of handing him over to Pilate. If the highest Jewish court was not authorised to perform an execution, why should a bunch of common-or-garden Pharasees have such power?) Thus if Jesus had approved of the stoning he would have been party to murder, while if he had disapproved of it, his enemies could have accused him of defying the Jewish law in favour of one imposed by foreigners. Jesus - as in the "paying taxes to Caesar" episode - had an answer that took his opponents completely by surprise.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Jamie123

[Dravin]

Except that punishments of death were administered by the Roman occupiers. An attempt to trap the Savior? Could that be part of the reason for HIS response?

I never thought of that, makes the snare all the more ingenious doesn't it? He says, "No, don't stone her." and he is rejecting the Law of Moses, if he says, "Yes, let's do this." then they can run to the Romans about him usurping their authority.

[skalenfehl]

Luke 5:23 Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

Matthew 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?

Mark 2:9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk?

The real question is, did she go and sin no more?