What do these two verses mean to you?

[acex87]

In reading the following passages, I have considered what they are saying, and in turn I'd like to ask what they mean to you:

"She replied, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "i do not condemn you either. Go, and from now on do not sin anymore."" John 8:11

As you may well recognize, this is the passage about the adulterous woman. Jesus ends with instructing her: 'from now on do not sin anymore'. The part that is crucial to consider is 'from now on', because Jesus had not yet died for our sins, so how could she not sin anymore 'from now on'? Jesus would not have given her an impossible directive, so what gives?

In connection with this thought, I turn your attention to the Old Testament as well:

"If you act rightly, you will be accepted; but if not, sin lies in wait at the door: its urge is for you, yet you can rule over it." Genesis 4:7

This passage is about Cain before he kills Abel. Yahweh tells Cain that sin urges for him, but that '[he] can rule over it'. The text does not say that any outside source is needed to do so, and as we know, this was after the fall in the garden as well. So it falls within the timeline of Humanity being under sin. Yahweh painted Cain's path forward as a choice, rather than something he could not help; Cain had the power within himself to choose, and we all know how the story goes.

So, what do these verses/passages mean to you, without adding anything or taking away anything from what they say?

 

[bobinfaith]

Hello acex87;

What these passages mean to me are so profound. I have experienced feeling condemned and reflecting when studying John 8:2-11;

10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” - ESV

When I read this passage I could feel the woman's remorse but her conviction was deeper. Having the judgmental crowd around, I could sense their supposed intentions of righteousness but lacked the disposition of Jesus' character before them which was KEY.

But the crowd of men, amongst them Jewish leaders disregarded the law, pointing darts and arrows at the woman without the suspected man. An adultery would require both to be stoned under Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22.

The leaders were attempting to trap Jesus but He could see through them. If the woman was stoned the Romans didn't allow the Jews to carry their own execution. If the woman was spared from being stoned it would violate the Law.

The one thing missing is what I call, the Jesus Love Command. The woman expected a quick death sentence for her sin, but instead she received grace, forgiveness and life from who other than our Lord and Savior.

Again, I discerned being up against the wall from such a condemning crowd. It brought the woman from remorse to a deeper conviction for her act of adultery. Jesus saw her repenting heart and forgave but instructed her to abandon "your life of sin."

Though Jesus had not gone to the cross yet, His directive to the woman was / is still a directive in our daily obedience to God. Jesus, also being the Son of God knew the directions in the woman's life going forward and his directive of obedience to her was still vital.

In my personal life mistakes were met with those who were quick to condemn me; I deserved it and was expecting just. Then out of nowhere one thing was said that somehow turned my life with grace, forgiveness and God's second chances, so to speak. If anything, it brought me closer to God, with lessons learned but a reminder when I ministered to others in their extreme sin or transgressions in the Church and life.

In regard to Genesis and the "connection" to John 8, Genesis 4:6-7 is a teaching how sin can fester when we don't rule over it, in both circumstances.

6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why do you look despondent? 7 If you do what is right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” - HCSB

Anger or a furious spirit doesn't just point to anger but can lead us to other sinful acts of jealousy, covetousness, murder, deception, blamelessness and adultery. The devil is deceptively brilliant!

In this verse I can't literally know what Cain was thinking as God loved and guided him, "but you must rule over it.” God empowers us to rule or rebuke the principalities of darkness in each of us. God also gives us free will to receive His instruction, or go our own way. Adam and Eve chose the latter as well as Cain.

In my personal experience I've done both which is why the lessons have been a lifetime for me. I was raised in a Church going family but I was not sheltered as a child. There were advantages in the low road that I couldn't get in the high road, and vice versa.

I'm addressing my personal thoughts and life experience in the verb of this topic.

God bless you, Jonathan and your entire family.

Bob

 

[acex87]

Hello acex87;

What these passages mean to me are so profound. I have experienced feeling condemned and reflecting when studying John 8:2-11;

10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” - ESV

When I read this passage I could feel the woman's remorse but her conviction was deeper. Having the judgmental crowd around, I could sense their supposed intentions of righteousness but lacked the disposition of Jesus' character before them which was KEY.

But the crowd of men, amongst them Jewish leaders disregarded the law, pointing darts and arrows at the woman without the suspected man. An adultery would require both to be stoned under Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22.

The leaders were attempting to trap Jesus but He could see through them. If the woman was stoned the Romans didn't allow the Jews to carry their own execution. If the woman was spared from being stoned it would violate the Law.

The one thing missing is what I call, the Jesus Love Command. The woman expected a quick death sentence for her sin, but instead she received grace, forgiveness and life from who other than our Lord and Savior.

Again, I discerned being up against the wall from such a condemning crowd. It brought the woman from remorse to a deeper conviction for her act of adultery. Jesus saw her repenting heart and forgave but instructed her to abandon "your life of sin."

Though Jesus had not gone to the cross yet, His directive to the woman was / is still a directive in our daily obedience to God. Jesus, also being the Son of God knew the directions in the woman's life going forward and his directive of obedience to her was still vital.

In my personal life mistakes were met with those who were quick to condemn me; I deserved it and was expecting just. Then out of nowhere one thing was said that somehow turned my life with grace, forgiveness and God's second chances, so to speak. If anything, it brought me closer to God, with lessons learned but a reminder when I ministered to others in their extreme sin or transgressions in the Church and life.

In regard to Genesis and the "connection" to John 8, Genesis 4:6-7 is a teaching how sin can fester when we don't rule over it, in both circumstances.

6 Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you furious? And why do you look despondent? 7 If you do what is right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” - HCSB

Anger or a furious spirit doesn't just point to anger but can lead us to other sinful acts of jealousy, covetousness, murder, deception, blamelessness and adultery. The devil is deceptively brilliant!

In this verse I can't literally know what Cain was thinking as God loved and guided him, "but you must rule over it.” God empowers us to rule or rebuke the principalities of darkness in each of us. God also gives us free will to receive His instruction, or go our own way. Adam and Eve chose the latter as well as Cain.

In my personal experience I've done both which is why the lessons have been a lifetime for me. I was raised in a Church going family but I was not sheltered as a child. There were advantages in the low road that I couldn't get in the high road, and vice versa.

I'm addressing my personal thoughts and life experience in the verb of this topic.

God bless you, Jonathan and your entire family.

Bob

Thanks for the thoughtful response Bob — I agree with you on the emphasis on mercy, restraint from condemnation, and personal responsibility in both passages.

One thing I’m still curious about, though, is how we understand what these texts assume about the person being addressed before any theological framework is applied.

For example, in Genesis 4:7, the language Yahweh uses toward Cain seems to describe sin as something external and opportunistic (“crouching at the door”), but also explicitly says Cain can rule over it. There’s no statement there about inability or bondage — it reads more like a warning paired with an assertion of capacity.

Likewise, in John 8, Jesus doesn’t frame his words to the woman as aspirational or symbolic, but as a direct imperative: “from now on, do not sin anymore.” What stands out to me is that he issues this command without first explaining how she will be enabled to do so, which seems to suggest he considers obedience meaningfully possible.

I’m not trying to collapse these passages into a single doctrine — I’m more interested in what each text, on its own terms, presupposes about human agency. Do they assume an underlying inability to resist sin, or do they treat moral choice as genuinely operative in the moment?

I’d be interested to hear how you read that aspect of the wording itself.

-Jonathan

 

[bobinfaith]

One thing I’m still curious about, though, is how we understand what these texts assume about the person being addressed before any theological framework is applied. For example, in Genesis 4:7, the language Yahweh uses toward Cain seems to describe sin as something external and opportunistic (“crouching at the door”), but also explicitly says Cain can rule over it. There’s no statement there about inability or bondage — it reads more like a warning paired with an assertion of capacity. Likewise, in John 8, Jesus doesn’t frame his words to the woman as aspirational or symbolic, but as a direct imperative: “from now on, do not sin anymore.” What stands out to me is that he issues this command without first explaining how she will be enabled to do so, which seems to suggest he considers obedience meaningfully possible. I’m not trying to collapse these passages into a single doctrine — I’m more interested in what each text, on its own terms, presupposes about human agency. Do they assume an underlying inability to resist sin, or do they treat moral choice as genuinely operative in the moment?

I’d be interested to hear how you read that aspect of the wording itself.

-Jonathan

Good morning, acex87;

You ask good questions. I also ask my questions directly to God. A couple of examples;

Habakkuk, the minor prophet while scratching his head, asked God openly and directly why He tolerated injustice toward His people and allowed the Babylonians to oppress and punish Judah.

Thomas, one of the Apostles doubted Jesus' Resurrection. It was Thomas' absence that led to his skepticism of Christ, but his personal experience later led Thomas to believe.

Keep in mind that both were divinely anointed as prophet and apostle by God, yet they questioned Him.

What I red and black-lighted to your post, I'm addressing my answer in general to everyone;

When we put aside questionable doubt (as Habakkuk and Thomas did,) theological framework, inability/bondage not being stated, Christ's words to the woman not being aspirational or symbolic and presuppositional, all these are assumptions. However, it's still our choice, to question God directly.

When we replace assumptions with absolute, it is final, perfect, without exception or consolation received with firm belief. This is also our choice.

God's response to each of us is His Promise. He will make known all these things reference Romans 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 2:9-10.

Problem with Cain, he was empowered to rebuke Satan "crouching at the door" but chose sin over Abel.

Speaking for myself through some tough lessons and choices I made and had to process, I choose absolute with God and His Word. I cannot limit God's ability to make anything clear to me.

I'm just a man and at times have my personal doubts even with my taught doctrine of absolutes. God doesn't always answer by gentle nudging over me. He will demonstrate tough love as He guides me. I believe Jesus demonstrated this to the woman in John 8. I have all the faith that at that moment, she believed.

My wife and I have been married 40 years but just in the last 4 years we have read the complete Bible, questioning and discussing together. We are experiencing a more personal and resilient faith in God, as we continue to read and witness the Biblical accounts and teachings.

Finally, we both agree that if we truly believe Genesis 1:1 then we will believe the entirety of God's Word.

God bless you, Jonathan.

Bob

 

[David]

So, what do these verses/passages mean to you, without adding anything or taking away anything from what they say?

The issue here really is not whether Cain or the woman had some inner moral power apart from God. Scripture never frames it that way. What both passages are doing is establishing responsibility before a holy God, not celebrating human ability.

In Genesis 4:7, God is not affirming Cain, He is warning him. Sin is portrayed as an active thing, crouching at his door and seeking to have dominion over him. When God says Cain must rule over it, He is not saying that Cain has righteousness within him. He is telling Cain that he will be held responsible for what he chooses. And that distinction matters. The Bible is clear elsewhere that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked ~Jeremiah 17:9, that there is none righteous, no, not one ~Romans 3:10. Cain’s later murder of Abel proves that when left to himself, fallen man will choose sin even when warned.

The same principle is in play in John 8. When Jesus tells the woman, “Go, and sin no more,” He is not implying that she has the power to live sinlessly by her own will. John himself says if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves ~1 John 1:8. He is calling her to repentance, to a decisive breaking with a known pattern of sin, not to moral perfection apart from grace. The command simply shows her what righteousness looks like, not what fallen humanity can muster on its own.

God often commands what is right even when man cannot do it without divine assistance. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” ~1 Peter 1:16, is not given because holiness is within man’s natural grasp. It is given because God is holy and so is worthy of our holiness. The law is holy, just and good ~Romans 7: 12, even if it can do nothing to actually cure sin.

So when Scripture talks about our responsibility in these passages, it is not talking about moral self-sufficiency. It is assuming a real moral responsibility. Cain was warned and accountable, and he still chose sin. The woman was shown mercy and told to walk a different way. But in neither case is the point man’s strength. In both cases, the focus is God’s holiness. Scripture is not asking what man can do. It is declaring what God demands.

The problem is, when we start trying to defend human strength, we move the center away from God’s glory. Scripture never does that. The Bible is always focused on God. Man’s failure doesn’t lower God’s standard. It just shows man’s need. And that need is meant to lead us to repentance and to Christ, not to confidence in ourselves.

God has commanded all men everywhere to repent ~Acts 17:30. Not because repentance is a compliment to human strength, but because Christ is Lord and worthy of our obedience.

 

[acex87]

Good morning, acex87;

You ask good questions. I also ask my questions directly to God. A couple of examples;

Habakkuk, the minor prophet while scratching his head, asked God openly and directly why He tolerated injustice toward His people and allowed the Babylonians to oppress and punish Judah.

Thomas, one of the Apostles doubted Jesus' Resurrection. It was Thomas' absence that led to his skepticism of Christ, but his personal experience later led Thomas to believe.

Keep in mind that both were divinely anointed as prophet and apostle by God, yet they questioned Him.

What I red and black-lighted to your post, I'm addressing my answer in general to everyone;

When we put aside questionable doubt (as Habakkuk and Thomas did,) theological framework, inability/bondage not being stated, Christ's words to the woman not being aspirational or symbolic and presuppositional, all these are assumptions. However, it's still our choice, to question God directly.

When we replace assumptions with absolute, it is final, perfect, without exception or consolation received with firm belief. This is also our choice.

God's response to each of us is His Promise. He will make known all these things reference Romans 1:20 and 1 Corinthians 2:9-10.

Problem with Cain, he was empowered to rebuke Satan "crouching at the door" but chose sin over Abel.

Speaking for myself through some tough lessons and choices I made and had to process, I choose absolute with God and His Word. I cannot limit God's ability to make anything clear to me.

I'm just a man and at times have my personal doubts even with my taught doctrine of absolutes. God doesn't always answer by gentle nudging over me. He will demonstrate tough love as He guides me. I believe Jesus demonstrated this to the woman in John 8. I have all the faith that at that moment, she believed.

My wife and I have been married 40 years but just in the last 4 years we have read the complete Bible, questioning and discussing together. We are experiencing a more personal and resilient faith in God, as we continue to read and witness the Biblical accounts and teachings.

Finally, we both agree that if we truly believe Genesis 1:1 then we will believe the entirety of God's Word.

God bless you, Jonathan.

Bob

Bob, thank you for the thoughtful and gracious response. I really appreciate the way you highlighted Jesus’ mercy and the contrast between him and the crowd — that’s absolutely central to the passage.

What I was hoping to explore a bit more deeply is not so much how we feel about these verses, but what the texts themselves assume about the people being addressed.

In John 8:11, Jesus doesn’t just forgive — he then says, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” He doesn’t explain the mechanics, but he speaks as though this is a meaningful directive given in that moment, following mercy already shown.

Likewise in Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door, yet adds, “but you must rule over it.” That statement seems to place a real decision before Cain, even though we know he tragically chooses otherwise.

I’m less interested in building a doctrine from these verses and more interested in letting them speak on their own terms — especially since Jesus consistently treats people as morally responsible agents when he addresses them.

Thanks again for engaging in the spirit you did. I appreciate it.

-Jonathan

 

[acex87]

The issue here really is not whether Cain or the woman had some inner moral power apart from God. Scripture never frames it that way. What both passages are doing is establishing responsibility before a holy God, not celebrating human ability.

In Genesis 4:7, God is not affirming Cain, He is warning him. Sin is portrayed as an active thing, crouching at his door and seeking to have dominion over him. When God says Cain must rule over it, He is not saying that Cain has righteousness within him. He is telling Cain that he will be held responsible for what he chooses. And that distinction matters. The Bible is clear elsewhere that the heart of man is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked ~Jeremiah 17:9, that there is none righteous, no, not one ~Romans 3:10. Cain’s later murder of Abel proves that when left to himself, fallen man will choose sin even when warned.

The same principle is in play in John 8. When Jesus tells the woman, “Go, and sin no more,” He is not implying that she has the power to live sinlessly by her own will. John himself says if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves ~1 John 1:8. He is calling her to repentance, to a decisive breaking with a known pattern of sin, not to moral perfection apart from grace. The command simply shows her what righteousness looks like, not what fallen humanity can muster on its own.

God often commands what is right even when man cannot do it without divine assistance. “Be ye holy; for I am holy” ~1 Peter 1:16, is not given because holiness is within man’s natural grasp. It is given because God is holy and so is worthy of our holiness. The law is holy, just and good ~Romans 7: 12, even if it can do nothing to actually cure sin.

So when Scripture talks about our responsibility in these passages, it is not talking about moral self-sufficiency. It is assuming a real moral responsibility. Cain was warned and accountable, and he still chose sin. The woman was shown mercy and told to walk a different way. But in neither case is the point man’s strength. In both cases, the focus is God’s holiness. Scripture is not asking what man can do. It is declaring what God demands.

The problem is, when we start trying to defend human strength, we move the center away from God’s glory. Scripture never does that. The Bible is always focused on God. Man’s failure doesn’t lower God’s standard. It just shows man’s need. And that need is meant to lead us to repentance and to Christ, not to confidence in ourselves.

God has commanded all men everywhere to repent ~Acts 17:30. Not because repentance is a compliment to human strength, but because Christ is Lord and worthy of our obedience.

David, thank you for engaging the question — I want to respond carefully, because I think the key issue here is how we allow Jesus himself to frame moral responsibility.

I agree with you that Scripture never presents humans as self-sufficient apart from God. That isn’t what I’m arguing. What I’m trying to do is resist drawing conclusions that Jesus himself does not draw.

Take John 8:11. Jesus forgives the woman and then says, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” He doesn’t qualify that command, delay it, or reinterpret it. He speaks as though it is a meaningful directive given in the context of mercy already extended. Jesus doesn’t frame this as an abstract ideal meant only to expose inability; he speaks to her as a person capable of responding.

The same is true in Genesis 4:7. God warns Cain that sin is crouching at the door, but then says, “you must rule over it.” The narrative later shows that Cain fails — but the failure doesn’t negate the fact that a real alternative was placed before him. Warning and capacity aren’t mutually exclusive in the text.

My concern is methodological: when we say that commands do not imply any real capacity at all, we risk softening Jesus’ own moral language — especially when he repeatedly speaks in terms of refusal, unwillingness, and doing or not doing.

Jesus consistently holds people accountable for how they respond to truth and mercy. He grieves refusal. He praises obedience. He warns those who hear but do not do. That is the framework I’m trying to preserve.

So I’m not claiming these passages teach human independence or self-righteousness. I’m simply asking that we allow Jesus’ words — and the assumptions embedded in them — to stand on their own terms, without importing conclusions he never states.

-Jonathan

 

[bobinfaith]

Bob, thank you for the thoughtful and gracious response. I really appreciate the way you highlighted Jesus’ mercy and the contrast between him and the crowd — that’s absolutely central to the passage.

What I was hoping to explore a bit more deeply is not so much how we feel about these verses, but what the texts themselves assume about the people being addressed.

In John 8:11, Jesus doesn’t just forgive — he then says, “Go, and from now on sin no more.” He doesn’t explain the mechanics, but he speaks as though this is a meaningful directive given in that moment, following mercy already shown.

Likewise in Genesis 4:7, God tells Cain that sin is crouching at the door, yet adds, “but you must rule over it.” That statement seems to place a real decision before Cain, even though we know he tragically chooses otherwise.

I’m less interested in building a doctrine from these verses and more interested in letting them speak on their own terms — especially since Jesus consistently treats people as morally responsible agents when he addresses them.

Thanks again for engaging in the spirit you did. I appreciate it.

-Jonathan

Good morning, acex87;

I hope your Sunday is blessed. After reading your post I don't know what else I can add but I can ask the glory of God be revealed when He explains these things you inquire.

My personal prayer request for you is God will make plain the verb (not action, but identify the subject) you are inquiring regarding Genesis 4:7 and John 8:11.

I have to scoot and attend Church. I'll be back this afternoon.

God bless you, Jonathan.

Bob

 

[David]

So I’m not claiming these passages teach human independence or self-righteousness. I’m simply asking that we allow Jesus’ words — and the assumptions embedded in them — to stand on their own terms, without importing conclusions he never states.

Jonathan, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, because I think that's where we're talking past one another. Are you saying that when Jesus gives an unconditional command, He presupposes that the one being commanded has the moral ability to obey it at that point in time, apart from divine enablement?

If so, then please just say so explicitly so we can deal with that in light of Scripture. If not, then please be explicit as to what conclusion you think Jesus' words logically lead us to.

One cannot deal with commands in Scripture in a vacuum of the rest of Scripture. Jesus commands repentance and faith, but He also says no one can come to Him unless the Father draws him ~John 6:44. So please let me know specifically what you are affirming, and not just what you're denying.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Just as a side point....the ESV Bible states: THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11.

John ch 8 starts with verse 12 as the story of the woman caught in adultery isn’t included in the earliest manuscripts.....so where does it come from, and who put it there as the beginning of this chapter?

There are a lot of reasons scholars give for this....which include that...

• It doesn’t appear in any of the manuscripts from before the fifth century AD.
• The style of the Greek doesn’t match the rest of John.
• It breaks up the flow of the text.

It’s a great story, but it didn’t belong there in the first 4 centuries of Bible copying.
Scribes were sometimes inclined to add to the text to make it more appealing.

There is a little footnote at the bottom of the page in the ESV that implies, not that the story of the woman caught in adultery didn’t happen, but that it belongs somewhere else in the narrative. That is of course open to speculation.

In any case the subject matter of the thread is important.....and that is that there are actually two kinds of “sin” spoken about in Scripture....the one that affects our DNA...which is “inherited” from Adam.....and the one we commit as an act contrary to what God says is right in his word. The first one we have no choice in because it is born in us...
Psalm 51:5..
“Look, I was guilty of sin from birth,a sinner the moment my mother conceived me.” (NET)

The second one we choose as an act of defiance, if we know God’s laws.
It’s the disobedience that is the sin.....just as it was from the beginning. Both Adam and his wife knew that disobedience resulted in death, which was plainly stated and restated by the woman.....you can’t complain about the penalty if you knew what it was before the sin was committed.

As for the story of the woman....Jesus was sent to preach only to Jews, so if this woman was Jewish, she already knew the law, but had disobeyed it.
An interesting part of the story is Jesus statement...”let he who is without sin cast the first stone”.....no one came forward....words did not convict her and their actions showed that he was correct.....no one had the right to judge her....all were sinners too, and they knew it.

Therein lies the lesson....don’t judge unless you are sinless yourself. ...concentrate on your own conduct, and in achieving your own salvation and leave the rest up to Yahweh. (John 6:44; 65)
No one can come to Jesus without an invitation from his Father.

Jesus came to give us the Father’s assurance that he understands what sin is and what it does to us humans (Psalm 103:13-14)....he wants us to repent and turn around in order to receive his forgiveness....Jesus gave his life so that could take place....what a precious gift! (John 3:16)

 

[bobinfaith]

Just as a side point....the ESV Bible states: THE EARLIEST MANUSCRIPTS DO NOT INCLUDE 7:53-8:11. John ch 8 starts with verse 12 as the story of the woman caught in adultery isn’t included in the earliest manuscripts.....so where does it come from, and who put it there as the beginning of this chapter? There are a lot of reasons scholars give for this....which include that...

• It doesn’t appear in any of the manuscripts from before the fifth century AD.
• The style of the Greek doesn’t match the rest of John.
• It breaks up the flow of the text.

It’s a great story, but it didn’t belong there in the first 4 centuries of Bible copying.
Scribes were sometimes inclined to add to the text to make it more appealing.

Hello Auntie Jane;

Thank you for sharing your post.

What you are referring to is the pericope adulterae and has been the center of debate and controversy for more centuries than I can ever know.

Your constructive points are included in the mix of the various reasons why this passage was omitted, included in other translations and why.

This is more than a great story / text to make it more appealing. Actually, it is a profound teaching by Jesus with many lessons for the disciple to apply.

I tell you the truth. This remains a challenge to me in teaching and preaching John 7:53-8:11 for many years. It has ministered to marriages bringing reconciliation and unfortunately other marriages paid no heed nor had ears to hear.

In the meantime, going forward, I have all the faith this is an authentic teaching and history of Jesus.

As long as the Lord gives me this Word I will continue to make it a practice to share, teach and preach this message, hermeneutically, emphasizing and distinguishing between Law, hypocrisy and repentance, forgiveness and grace.

God bless you, Aunty Jane, your entire family.

Bob

 

[David]

In any case the subject matter of the thread is important.....and that is that there are actually two kinds of “sin” spoken about in Scripture....the one that affects our DNA...which is “inherited” from Adam.....and the one we commit as an act contrary to what God says is right in his word. The first one we have no choice in because it is born in us...

Let me come at this the way Scripture itself handles it, because that’s really where the clarity comes from. Even if someone set John 7:53–8:11 aside completely, the question being discussed here does not go away. Jesus gives commands like this all through the Gospels. He says, “Repent ye, and believe the gospel” ~Mark 1:15, and “Strive to enter in at the strait gate” ~Luke 13:24. Those are not illustrations or ideals. They are commands, and commands establish accountability before God.

I also want to gently tighten up the phrase about “achieving your own salvation,” because Scripture is very clear there. Salvation is not achieved. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God” ~Ephesians 2:8. Obedience does not earn salvation. Obedience flows from the fact that God is holy and has the right to command His creatures. Repentance is commanded not because man can save himself, but because God is Lord.

And the lesson is not “don’t judge unless you are sinless yourself.” That is not how Jesus taught. He condemned hypocritical judgment, not righteous judgment. In the same Gospel He says, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment” ~John 7:24. Paul also says believers are to judge matters inside the church ~1 Corinthians 5:12. So the issue is not silence about sin. It is truth spoken without hypocrisy.

Scripture lays two truths before us without apology and without weaving them together into a watered down gray. God commands sinners to draw near to Him. “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest” ~Matthew 11:28. But the Bible also says no man can come to Christ unless the Father draws him ~John 6:44. These are not competitors. The Bible doesn’t try to split the difference between these two truths. God is sovereign. Man is responsible.

When Jesus says, “Go, and sin no more” He is not giving His power away to be accomplished by man. He is speaking as King. He has shown mercy to that woman and now He commands what every king should – repentance. Mercy does not remove responsibility. Mercy heightens responsibility.

That is the tension Scripture maintains. That is the tension we should maintain as well.

 

[David]

Does Scripture present human beings as morally responsible responders to God’s commands, even while salvation itself depends entirely on God’s grace and initiative?

It seems to me this is really what we keep running into from different directions in this thread, even when we’re talking past each other a bit. The Bible never treats those two ideas as rivals. It keeps them side by side.

God draws. God shows mercy. God saves. And yet God also commands, warns, calls for repentance, and holds people accountable for what they do with the light they’re given. Scripture doesn’t apologize for that tension or try to smooth it out.

And it seems like that’s the point we keep bumping into here. Not a disagreement over verses, but how we let the Bible hold responsibility and grace together the way it actually does.