No Condemnation

If you have an ESV version of the Bible, you may have noticed an unusual notation just before the beginning of this passage.

If you have other Bibles, you may also have it also.

So on the ESV, it says,

The earliest manuscripts do not include 753 to 811.

You guys seeing that?

Yeah.

So for that statement, that could raise some questions for us.

So I'm going to do something slightly unusual today.

And instead of preaching one sermon like I usually do, I'm going to preach two sermons.

So you guys will be leaving here at about 2 p.m.

No, it will be two short messages.

The first message is going to be about the trustworthiness of God's Word.

It's going to be a topical message dealing with this issue, explaining what's going on in this passage.

And the second message is going to be from this text.

But because I'm convinced that this text is not actually part of Scripture, I'm going to ground it in other parts of Scripture that actually teach what this passage is trying to teach.

So first, what does it mean when it says that the earliest manuscripts do not include chapter 753 to chapter 8, verse 11?

So it's referring to the fact that there are many different manuscripts upon which our English translation of the Bible is based.

Because the Bible, the New Testament was written in Greek, Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic.

And we do not have the originals, the original manuscripts of the Bible.

And to be honest with you, that's probably a good thing for our sake.

You remember, for example, Moses used that bronze serpent to heal people who were illnesses.

And then the Israelites prostituted themselves to that bronze serpent and used it as an idol.

I mean, can you imagine if we had actual original manuscripts of the Bible?

I could imagine that being a source of idolatry very quickly for people.

And so it might just be better that we don't have it.

But if we don't have the original manuscripts, for that reason, people have to combine and really look at all the different manuscripts that are available to us

in order to ascertain what exactly was originally written, what the original text was.

And that's what we call textual criticism.

And textual criticism is the science of studying and comparing all extant copies of ancient documents to recover the original text.

Because they were handwritten.

There's some variations between them.

And there's a good reason to suspect that this passage was not actually part of the Gospel of John originally.

And there are two main categories of reasons for that.

The first category is external.

The external reasons for thinking that is you compare it to the other manuscripts and then realize that a lot of the earliest manuscripts, the best manuscripts, don't have this passage.

And the internal reason for this is that if you look at the Gospel of John itself, it seems to be more consistent if you take this passage out rather than leave it in.

So I'm going to explain that in a second.

So the external reasons.

So first, so this story that we just read is missing from all of the Greek manuscripts of John before the 5th century.

And this was written in the 1st century.

So that's pretty alarming, right?

So it's not in any of them.

In all the writings of the church fathers commenting on the Bible and on this book in particular,

they don't seem to know about this passage at all.

So a lot of church fathers wrote commentaries on the Bible and on the Gospel of John, and they write about all the other passages.

But when they get here to 742, they skip right to 812 as if they didn't even know it existed.

And then thirdly, none of the church fathers in the East, the Eastern Church, cite this passage at all until the 10th century.

And finally, when this story finally begins to appear in the Gospel of John, instead of appearing consistently in one place, it appears in three different places.

So it appears in two other parts, three other places in John.

And in one instance, it shows up after Luke 21, 38, which shows us that maybe this story was circulating on its own,

and the scribes decided to find a place for it somewhere where they thought it might fit.

And there's also good internal reasons to doubt that this was part of the passage.

And the very simple one is, it's very abrupt, the way it begins.

And if you take out 753 to 811, it flows very seamlessly from the previous verse to the next.

And then secondly, this is more subjective.

Mark and Matthew and Luke refer consistently to the scribes and the Pharisees.

That's kind of like a stock phrase that they use a lot.

But John never uses that phrase.

He prefers to refer to them, the Jewish opposition to Jesus, as simply the Jews.

And the word scribes is never mentioned, but in this passage, where he says the scribes and the Pharisees.

So it's not part of his normal vocabulary.

So considering all of these things, the best scholars, the biblical scholars in the world,

for example, Don Carson, who teaches New Testament at Evangelical Divinity School,

Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, he writes,

the evidence is against the efforts to prove that this narrative was originally part of John's gospel.

And modern English versions are right to rule it off from the rest of the text,

or to relegate it to a footnote.

And then similarly, Brutz Metzger was probably one of the most influential New Testament scholars

and textual critics of the 20th century.

He taught at Princeton Theological Seminary.

He writes, the evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming.

It's just a fancy of saying, wait, I'm saying this paragraph was probably not written by John originally.

So for some of us, if you think about this, and then we think about the fact that there's discrepancies

among various biblical manuscripts, it raises an alarm for some of us.

Does that mean that the Bible is unreliable?

Does that mean that the original manuscripts of the Bible were not passed on faithfully to our generation?

What if there's all these variations, then how are we supposed to know which one is the correct one?

And if a part of it is not true, not to be trusted, then how can we know we can trust any of the other parts?

So these are the questions that I'm hoping to answer for you because I think it's of pastoral importance.

But I want to assure you that there's no need to panic because the truth is that until the invention

of the printing press in the 15th century, no one expected different copies of books to be identical

because they never were because they're always hand copied by fallible people.

And there's mistakes in sight, hearing, judgment, knowledge.

And most of the variations that we find are in insignificant areas such as just minor grammar or spelling.

And many of them actually came about because the scribes were trying to recover the original.

They're saying, well, I don't think this is supposed to be there.

I don't think this grammatical error is supposed to be there.

I don't think this was, so they tried to fix it to what they thought was the original.

And that's the result in a lot of the variations.

And this passage and the end of Mark in 16, 9 to 20 are the only two passages in the entire Bible

where such a significant chunk of it has been added to the text.

So really there's nothing like this in the rest of scripture.

And so just to tell you, so people, Christians have existed for the last 2,000 years.

And before the 15th century, all these things that we might now be alarmed by,

they never caused a crisis of faith for any of those believers as they were reading those Bibles.

And let me provide some context and to inspire some confidence in the scripture that we have,

that that's what God intended for us to have.

And so, because we're not the only ones that study ancient literature, right?

So a lot of people study ancient literature.

The Bible's not the only ancient literature.

And I'm a classicist by training.

So in college, I studied the classics, meaning literature from the classical period

for maybe like 8th century BC to 5th century AD, Greco-Roman world literature.

And one of the books I read was Homer's Iliad, right?

You guys know about it.

And it was written in the 8th century BC.

And it was one of the most popular works of ancient literature.

So it's actually one of the best preserved than compared to the other ancient literature.

And there's 647 ancient manuscripts of Homer's Iliad

before the advent of the printing press.

And the earliest of those manuscripts is from the 10th century AD.

So it's 1,700 years removed from when the original thing was written.

And yet, when I read that in class, in college,

when we're taught that they say with 100% confidence,

that's what Homer wrote, and you're reading what Homer wrote, right?

And in the same way, I also read Euripides' tragedy called Medea.

And there's only 12 surviving manuscripts.

And the earliest manuscript they have is 900 years removed.

From when it was written, right?

So that's, again, yet people teach that, saying this is what Euripides sold.

And you can be confident that as you read that.

And just mention a couple more briefly.

Caesar's Gallic Wars, 10 copies only, surviving.

1,000 years removed from the original.

Aristotle's Poetics, five copies remaining.

1,400 years removed from the original.

And then compare that to Scripture.

The New Testament here, let's see.

There's a total of 5,801 Greek manuscripts.

And there's even more if you count the ancient handwritten manuscript translations.

10,000 Latin manuscripts, 9,300 manuscripts in other languages,

like Syriac and Coptic.

That adds up to a whopping total of 25,000 manuscripts of Bible,

of the New Testament by itself.

And the earliest Greek manuscript that has been found is actually of the Gospel of John,

which we're in.

And it's dated around 125 A.D.,

which is less than 100 years and possibly even less than 50 years removed from the original.

Not 1,400 years removed like Homer's,

not 900 years removed like Euripides Medea.

No ancient literature is nearly as well attested as Scripture.

And the more data you have,

the more opportunity you have to correct the error.

So think about it this way.

If you imagine there's only two copies of the Gospel of John,

and one of them has this story of the adulteress,

and one of them doesn't.

Then, I mean, you really can't tell them

whether it was supposed to be in there or not, right?

You kind of have to flip a coin.

But the more you have,

let's say you have thousands of them,

then you can consider the age of the documents,

how accurately preserved they were,

and also where they came from,

the geographic diversity of the documents,

to determine whether or not,

what text was original.

And that effort,

textual criticism of the Bible,

has been so successful

that the most renowned biblical scholars conclude this.

So F.J. A. Hoare, for example, says,

after a lifetime research and study,

he says, not more than 1,000th part

of the whole New Testament

is affected by differences of reading.

That's 0.1% of the New Testament.

And then F.F. Bruce writes,

the variant readings about which any doubt remains

among textual critics of the New Testament

affects no material question of historic fact

or of Christian faith and practice.

Meaning the different readings that are there,

it's inconsequential things.

Now, what about the Old Testament?

Let me just mention that briefly.

So it's not as well attested as the New Testament,

but it is still far better attested

than any of its ancient contemporaries.

So there's about 11,000 Old Testament manuscripts

in existence.

And the Bibles that we have

is based on the Mesoretic text,

which is a text of the Old Testament,

a complete text from the 9th century A.D.

And until recently, that was the oldest one we had.

That was the most reliable one we had.

Until in the 1950s, just five decades ago,

six decades ago,

there was a discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls,

which actually was exhibited

at the Museum of Science a few years ago.

And they found well over,

you know, I mean, well over hundreds of documents.

And they had every book represented

in the Old Testament except for the Book of Esther.

And they were dated as far back as 200 B.C.

So it pushed back the oldest manuscript date

for the Old Testament by 1,000 years,

over 1,000 years.

And this is really cool.

And I just saw this in September 2016,

so last year.

And the New York Times published an article

about the computer scientists

at University of Kentucky.

They just perfected a new technology

which allows them to unfurl,

digitally unfurl damaged text

that previously no one was able to unfurl before.

And one of those texts

was a 2,000-year-old En Gedi scroll,

which had a text,

two chapters out of the Book of Leviticus.

And when they compared that

to the Masoretic text,

it was exactly identical,

100% identical to what we had.

I mean, that's unbelievable.

So we can be confident that what we have

in the Old Testament and New Testament

is what God intended for us to have.

And that, I want to tell you,

is a historical miracle.

I mean, if you think about it,

because the Bible is not a short book,

as you all know.

It's 40% longer than War and Peace, right?

And some of you, I mean,

some of us may not even have read it

cover to cover yet,

yet this book has been hand-copied,

written by hand,

thousands and thousands and thousands of times

by people like us

over thousands of years.

And not a few people

have tried to destroy the Bible, right?

Emperor Diocletian, the Roman emperor,

tried to wipe the face of the earth

with all the Bible.

He wanted to destroy all the Bibles,

and he issued an edict of such

in 303 AD

and declared two years later

that he succeeded,

but he didn't, right?

And still today,

the Bible is the most widely read

and sold book in the world.

3.9 billion copies sold worldwide

over the last 50 years.

I think Harry Potter's third

or something like that,

so it's like,

doesn't even come close

to the copies sold.

And this is,

and if you subject

other ancient literature,

religious texts of other faiths

to the same sustained,

rigorous criticism

that the Bible has endured,

none of them will be remaining.

They will be roundly discredited.

And we have,

this is not a historical accident.

It's God's providential care for us

and preserving his word for us.

Because he says in 2 Timothy 3.15,

scriptures are able to make us wise for salvation

through faith in Christ Jesus.

And all scriptures breathe out by God

and profitable for teaching,

for reproof,

for correction,

and for training in righteousness

that the man of God may be complete,

equipped for every good work.

Because God gave us scripture

to make us wise unto salvation,

because God gave us scripture

to equip us for every good work,

he also ensured

that it would be passed on faithfully

to future generations.

I hope that stirs,

you know,

your love for God

and for his word,

that he,

this is a precious book that we have.

God preserved it.

And it's such an incredible first

for us to live in this generation

with more access to the Bible

than ever before.

And that we speak English.

I mean,

we have a number of translations

from the original Bible

when so many cultures,

so many languages don't have any.

And as I was preparing this,

I was reminded of a YouTube video I saw

of missionary footage in China

when they brought a suitcase full of Bibles

to Chinese believers

who had never had their own Bibles before.

If you guys haven't seen it,

I'd encourage you to look it up.

Chinese Christians get their first Bibles.

And as you look at that,

there's like a,

I mean,

it's like a football game here

or something like that.

They're cheering.

And as they open the suitcase,

there's a joyous stampede

to the suitcase.

Everybody grabs one

and they're holding it like this.

Many of them in tears of gratitude,

crying that this is what they were waiting for.

This is what they were looking for.

And one woman in particular stands up

and crying,

holds the Bible to her chest like this

and says,

this is what we needed the most.

It's a precious book

that God preserved for us

so we can encounter God,

so we can get to know Jesus

and know salvation.

Let's treasure it and cherish it

and trust,

trust it and read it.

New Year's a good way to start that.

So that's the first sermon.

Now let's turn to the text.

Since it's been a little,

there's been some times past,

so I'm gonna read it again.

Chapter 753 to 811.

They went each to his own house,

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.

Early in the morning,

he came again to the temple.

All the people came to him

and he sat down and taught them.

The scribes and the Pharisees

brought a woman

who had been caught in adultery.

And placing her in the midst,

they said to him,

Teacher,

this woman has been caught

in the act of adultery.

Now,

in the law,

Moses commanded us

to stone such woman.

So what do you say?

This,

they said to test him,

that they might have some charge

to bring against him.

Jesus bent down

and wrote with his finger

on the ground.

And as they continued to ask him,

he stood up and said to them,

Let him who is without sin among you

be the first to throw a stone at her.

And once more,

he bent down and wrote

on the ground.

But when they heard it,

they went away one by one,

beginning with the older ones.

And Jesus was left alone

with the woman standing before him.

Jesus stood up and said to her,

Woman,

Where are they?

Has no one condemned you?

She said,

No one, Lord.

And Jesus said,

Neither do I condemn you.

Go,

and from now on,

sin no more.

Now,

even though this is probably

not part of scripture,

it's very likely that the story

actually happened

because a similar story

is preserved by a church historian

named Eusebius.

And so it's probably happened.

And it's consistent with the Jesus we see

in scripture.

And after all,

John does concede in chapter 20,

30,

that Jesus did many other signs

in the presence of the disciples

which are not written in this book.

So it's plausible

that John perhaps told someone,

one of his disciples,

this story.

It got written down

and it was circulating by itself.

And then later,

several centuries later,

it got included in the text.

So it's plausible.

It's an event that probably happened.

And this passage teaches

that Christ fulfills the law

given through Moses

with his grace and truth.

And so first,

I'm going to talk about

the law given through Moses.

And then secondly,

about the grace and truth

that came through Jesus Christ.

And so the rising action

of this dramatic story

is in verses 3 and 4

where scribes and the Pharisees

bring a woman

who had been caught in adultery.

And then they ask Jesus,

placing her in front of him,

Teacher,

this woman has been caught

in the act of adultery.

Now,

there's something quite suspicious

about this

because first,

you wonder how

the scribes and Pharisees

caught this woman.

Right?

Because the Jewish law

required that

in order for a serious punishment

to apply to someone,

they have to be caught

in the very act

of that sin.

So they had to have

walked in

on her committing adultery.

And adultery

is not something

that just kind of happens

out in the open, right?

It usually happens

in closed doors,

behind closed doors

in secret.

So then how did

these scribes and Pharisees

catch this woman

in the act of adultery?

And then we begin to wonder,

maybe this was perhaps

staged.

And perhaps the man

involved in the adulterous

relationship was in on this

and informed the scribes

and Pharisees

of the upcoming rendezvous.

And second,

you also wonder

what happened to the man

involved in adultery.

Because you can't commit

adultery by yourself.

Right?

You need two people

to commit adultery.

Where is the man?

Leviticus 20.10

specifically commands,

if a man commits adultery

with the wife of his neighbor,

both the adulterer

and the adulterer

shall surely be put to death.

So where is the man?

So the fact that the scribes

and the Pharisees

only dragged the woman

to this impromptu court

reveals kind of

their chauvinism

and possibly confirms

our first suspicion

that this adulteress

was framed.

She probably did

commit adultery.

She was caught in the act,

but she was nevertheless

framed.

And it seems,

as is unfortunately

the case in many

cultures and societies

around the world,

people frequently

will just wink at

men who have

extramarital relationships

and let them continue

to carry on

their respectable lives.

But they had

much harsher,

severer punishment

for women

who have

extramarital relationships.

And so,

when they ask

their next question,

they reveal

their true motive

in verse 5.

Now,

in the law,

Moses commanded us

to stone such women.

So,

what do you say?

And this,

they said to test him

that they might have

some charge to bring

against him.

So,

they're not asking

this question sincerely,

but they want to lay

a trap for Jesus.

Because even though

the Old Testament

did prescribe

the death penalty

for adultery,

in order to communicate

the sanctity of marriage

and to communicate

the utmost importance

of sexual purity,

the penalty wasn't,

historical evidence suggests,

historically enforced.

The punishment

was not enforced

by the Jews.

And one of the main

reasons for that

is because it was

difficult to catch

people in adultery.

It was more common

to suspect one's spouse

of adultery.

And the Bible

prescribed different

processes when you

had suspicions of adultery

for adjudicating

such matters.

And this is not

unlike,

you know,

this is similar

to a modern example

in Colorado,

for example,

they have

law against adultery.

Adultery is prohibited

by law in Colorado.

But it's not punishable

by law in Colorado.

So it's kind of

similar to that.

So there is a punishment

prescribed here,

but it wasn't enforced

historically speaking.

And so the Pharisees,

the fact that

the scribes and the Pharisees

bring this,

even though they

hadn't previously

enforced this at all,

they bring this to Jesus

because they're not

concerned with justice

or holiness,

but because they just

want to test Jesus

and put him

between a hard

and a rock

and a hard place.

And how are they

doing that?

How are they putting

Jesus between a rock

and a hard place?

Because if Jesus

denied the Mosaic law

and said,

no, we are not

stoning this woman,

then this would

cause outrage

among the observant Jews

who believed

in the law of Moses.

And this would

immediately discredit

Jesus as a teacher

of the law.

But if he enforced it,

they would mean

caving to the scribes

and the Pharisees'

duplicity and prejudice

and contradicting

his own example

of showing compassion

to the sinful,

disreputable,

and broken people

as he has been

doing consistently.

And not only that,

he would also be

violating Roman law

because Roman law

did not grant

the Jewish court

the right to administer

capital punishments

for cases like this.

So either answer

he would give,

he would be in trouble,

he would lose

his following,

he'd be discredited.

And so now that

brings us to the climax

of this traumatic story.

And Jesus responds

to their question

with an unusual act

and an unexpected answer.

He says in verses 6 to 8,

Jesus bent down

and wrote with his finger

on the ground.

And as they continued

to ask him,

he stood up and said to them,

let him who is

without sin among you

be the first to throw

a stone at her.

And once more,

he bent down

and wrote on the ground.

So what's going on,

right?

What is Jesus writing?

Why didn't John,

or why didn't whoever,

why didn't they tell us?

We want to know

what he wrote

on the ground.

And no one knows

what he wrote

on the ground,

even though

biblical scholars

and pastors

and teachers

have been debating

this for centuries.

No one knows

exactly what he wrote

on the ground.

And I don't think

that's given to us

because it's not important

what he wrote

on the ground,

but it's important

that he wrote

on the ground.

And the reason why

is this,

because in the entire Bible

there's only two other instances

where it speaks of

writing something

with one's finger.

Can you guys think of that?

You don't have

to answer out loud,

but it's Exodus 31

and Deuteronomy 9.

Both talk about

the Ten Commandments

on two tablets of stone

written with

the finger of God.

And Jesus writes

with his finger

on the stony ground.

So,

that's a powerful statement.

That's a subversive statement.

The scribes

and the Pharisees

said in legalistic arrogance

in verse 5,

Now in the law,

Moses commanded us

to stone such women,

but Jesus tells them,

I am the God

who wrote the law.

Moses commanded you,

I am the author

of the law.

And then in light

of that truth,

the attempt

of the scribes

and the Pharisees

look quite pitiful,

doesn't it?

And Jesus bends down,

writes with his finger.

Then,

he gives

an unexpected answer

to go with his

unusual act.

He says,

Let him

who is without sin

among you

be the first

to throw

a stone at her.

Now,

this is a direct

reference to

Deuteronomy 17,

6-7.

It says,

On the evidence

of two witnesses

or of three witnesses,

the one who is to die

shall be put to death.

A person shall not

be put to death

on the evidence

of one witness.

The hand of the witnesses

shall be the first

against him

to put him to death

and afterward

the hand of all the people.

So you shall purge

the evil from your midst.

So the law,

by putting the burden

of enforcing

the death penalty

on the witnesses

themselves,

it bound

their conscience

to make sure

that they can't

be false witnesses

bringing a false case

because they are

going to have to have

the blood of that

innocent person

on their hands

if that's what

they're doing.

So they have to be

the first to throw

the stone.

And Jesus knows this,

so he says,

No,

I'm not going to be

the one to cast

the stone.

You're the witnesses.

You be the first

to cast the stone

if you're the witnesses

and true witnesses.

And also,

in Deuteronomy 19,

16-9,

it's specified

that if a

malicious witness

arises to accuse

a person of wrongdoing,

and if the witness

is a false witness

and has accused

his brother falsely,

then you shall

do to him

as he had meant

to do to his brother.

So you shall purge

the evil from your midst.

So when Jesus says,

Let him who is

without sin among you

be the first

to throw a stone at her,

he's not expecting

or demanding

sinless perfection.

He's not saying,

No,

only if you're perfect

can you judge this woman.

That's not what he's saying.

What he's saying is that

if you wish to put

this woman to death

for adultery,

then you better not

be guilty of yourselves.

You better testify

to your innocence

by being the first

to throw the stone at her.

Now,

the woman was not

without guilt.

She was an adulteress.

But the scribes

and the Pharisees

were also not without guilt

because they framed her.

They were complicit

in this,

bringing this woman

to this court.

They were duplicited.

They were malicious

witnesses

that Deuteronomy 19

was talking about.

And they deserve

to be punished

in the same way

that this woman,

in the same way

they intended

to punish this adulteress.

And so Jesus,

who made the law,

who wrote the law,

of course,

knows the law

better than the scribes

and the Pharisees.

And so without denying

the Mosaic law,

he cuts right through

their hypocrisy

and duplicity

and then he appeals

to their conscience.

So you can imagine

the tense standoff,

Jesus resuming riding

with his finger

on the stony ground.

And the scribes

and the Pharisees

kind of looking

about each other

to see if any one

of them dared

to cast the first stone.

And one by one,

they walk away.

They came to shame Jesus,

but they walk away

in shame.

And when at last,

only Jesus is left

standing with the woman,

he says to her,

Woman,

where are they?

Has no one condemned you?

And then she responds,

No one, Lord.

And Jesus continues,

Neither do I condemn you.

Go,

and from now on,

sin no more.

Jesus pardoning this woman,

forgiving this woman,

shows that he,

shows his divinity

because Old Testament taught

and the Jews

have been teaching faithfully.

Forgiveness,

pardoning for sin

is an exclusively

divine prerogative.

Because sin is always

committed against God,

the lawgiver.

It is only God

who can pardon for those,

pardon those

who have broken the law.

And Jesus here

assumes that prerogative

because he is

the son of God.

And even though

he is uniquely qualified

to judge this woman,

to condemn this woman

as the sinless

and perfect

son of God

and son of man,

yet he chooses

to pardon her.

But,

grace is not the only thing

he gives her.

He also speaks

the truth to her

because he tells her,

sin no more.

Because grace doesn't mean

we get a free past

and we get to sin

as much as we want

from now on, right?

Because Jesus tells her,

sin no more.

No condemnation also

means no more sin.

Those who have been

pardoned from sin

ought to live

as those who have

nothing to do with sin.

That's how God

intends for us to live.

Jesus extends grace

but he also brings truth.

Now,

before I go into

exhorting you

on the basis

of this passage,

let me ground

this passage

in other parts

of scripture

to make sure

the scriptural authority

rests behind it.

And you have seen

the consistent picture

of this throughout

the Gospel of John.

John 1.17

in the prologue

which is really

the thesis

of the Gospel of John,

it said that

the law was given

through Moses,

grace and truth

came through Jesus Christ.

And Jesus here

is fulfilling that statement.

Yes,

the law was given

through Moses

but Jesus here

brings the grace

and truth of God

to the world.

And likewise,

John 3.17

which we also

went through said,

for God did not

send his son

into the world

to condemn the world

but in order

that the world

might be saved

through him.

So Jesus here

doesn't condemn her.

He's consistent

with what the picture

of him that we have seen

throughout the Gospel of John.

He pardons her.

Just as he approached

the Samaritan woman

who had been outcast,

who had been outcast

because of a lot

of her illicit

sexual relationships

and in the same way

he approached her

and offered her

eternal life,

Jesus here

pardons this adulteress.

But on what basis

does Jesus do that?

Because this woman

betrayed her husband.

Husband's trust

she renewed

on her marriage oath.

Family is the building

block of society

and marriage

is the bedrock

of the family.

Yet she violated

that sacred

marriage bond.

And not only that,

she sinned against God.

the holy God

who gave her

the good gift

of marriage

and who designed

marriage to be

a lifelong commitment

between a man,

one man,

and one woman.

How can Jesus

simply say,

neither do I condemn you?

Where's the justice?

Where's God's holiness?

Jesus can offer

forgiveness

forgiveness

to those who believe

in him

only because

he knows

that he is

headed to the cross

where he will die

to take away

the sin of the world.

But his atoning death

on the cross

no matter

what enables him

to forgive,

extend forgiveness

to us,

no matter where

you have been,

no matter what sins

you have committed

in your life,

that's the only basis

in which Jesus

can say to us,

neither do I condemn you.

Now go sin

no more.

Perhaps you

don't think of yourself

as much of a sinner.

Maybe you think

you're a good person

unlike the adulteress

in this story.

But Matthew 5, 28

tells us that

everyone who looks

at a woman

or a man

with lustful intent

has already committed

adultery

with her in his heart.

God cares not only

about our actions,

he also cares

about our sinful heart.

And when we look

within ourselves,

we know that we all

fall short of God's

standard for us.

We're all,

without Christ,

just dead trees.

And it doesn't matter

how many fruit

you staple

onto this dead tree,

the fruit doesn't last,

right?

Because the tree's dead.

That's our hearts

apart from Christ

and his transforming

work through the Spirit.

So we all need

to come

to Jesus

and hear him

say to us,

neither do I condemn you.

Go and from now on

sin no more.

Maybe you're

very aware,

you're keenly aware

of your sin.

Maybe you're so aware

of it

and so ashamed of it

that you have sinned

in your life

that you've never

shared with anyone else.

what Proverbs 28,

13 teaches us,

whoever conceals

their sins

does not prosper,

but the one

who confesses

and renounces them

finds mercy.

Maybe you fear

judgment,

maybe you fear

losing something,

a reputation,

your job,

whatever it might be.

Your instinct

of self-preservation

is misleading you

in this case

because healing

lies in confession

and it's not enough

that you confess

to God

between you

and him alone.

James 5, 16

says,

confess your sins

to each other

and pray for each other

so that you may be healed.

Sin wants to lie hidden.

Sin wants to remain isolated

because that's where

it is strong.

That's where it eats away

with guilt.

When sin is brought

into the light,

that's where it withers.

That's where it loses

its strength.

And only community

where we can have

people,

sinners,

confessing their sins

to each other

is a community

formed around

the cross of Jesus Christ.

That's the only place

where we can dare

to be a sinner.

So dare to be

a sinner today.

Confess your sins

to Jesus

and to one another

and hear him say to you,

neither do I condemn you.

Now go and leave

for like you said.

Perhaps you are already

a believer

and you do confess

your sins.

But maybe you don't

take repentance,

reformation of your ways

seriously.

Now I'm saved now

so I don't have to worry

about continuing

to make progress,

continuing to be sanctified

because I'm going to die

and go to heaven anyway.

But then remember then,

Jesus didn't stop

at saying,

neither do I condemn you.

He also said,

go and from now on

sin no more.

If you are abusing

the grace of God

and paying little heed

to obedience

and sanctification,

then you're in

mortal spiritual danger

because God's

saving grace,

his justifying grace

is also the same

sanctifying grace.

It matures us.

As J.C. Ryle,

a Puritan pastor,

he writes,

the Christian life

is not like animal life

which grows up

to a certain point

and then stops.

Rather,

it is like plant life

which grows

and keeps growing

in strength

and vigor

all its days.

That's how we were

meant to live.

Now leave the life

of sin.

Go and sin

no more.

So then,

for all of us,

no matter where we are

on that spectrum,

no matter where we have been,

Jesus is sufficient

for all of us.

Because no matter

where we are

in our spiritual walk,

we need him.

And as we see

in this passage

and in other scriptures,

never was there

a more gracious Savior.

Never was there

a more just

and truthful Lord.

The law

was given

through Moses.

Grace

and truth

came

through Jesus

Christ.

There is no

condemnation today

for those who

entrust themselves

to Jesus.

So I ask you,

plead with you,

every one of you,

do that today.

Let's pray together.

God,

we thank you,

we praise you

for your mercy.

we thank you

that you are

a gracious

Savior

so that we can

approach you

without fear.

It is your love

for us

that

compels

our love

for you.

So now we ask

God

that you would

help us,

you would make us,

Trinity Cambridge Church,

a community

defined

and motivated

by this grace

you have shown us.

In Jesus' name

we pray.

Amen.