Review of: Matthew Henry,
Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible , (1706), ch. 8
Matthew Henry was born in 1662 in a Welsh farmhouse close to the border of England and Wales. A few weeks earlier, his father Philip Henry (1631-1696) had been ejected from his ministry in the Established Church.
Along with nearly two thousand other ministers, Philip Henry had refused to submit to the Act of Uniformity, which had come into effect on 24 August 1662 and was radically opposed to all that Puritans like Henry stood for.
Philip thus left his charge at Worthenbury, Shropshire, and took up residence a few miles away at Iscoed, Flintshire. Matthew Henry’s formative years were consequently spent in a Christian community that lay ‘under the cross’ of state harassment and persecution.
Childhood and conversion
Matthew was Philip Henry’s second son. Born prematurely to his mother Katherine Henry, he apparently suffered from a weak constitution during his childhood. But what he lacked in physical health he made up for in spiritual vigor.
There is credible evidence that he could read portions of the Scriptures when he was only three years old. And according to his own reckoning, his conversion took place before he turned eleven. It was one of his father’s sermons that, in Henry’s words, ‘melted’ him and caused him to ‘enquire after Christ’.
Schooled by his gifted father till he was eighteen, Henry went on to study at a Nonconformist academy in Islington, then a village near London. After 1662, Nonconformists like Henry were barred from graduating from either of the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge. As a result, various Nonconformist academies had come into existence to provide a liberal arts education and training for ministry.
The tutor at this academy was an eminent Presbyterian scholar, Thomas Doolittle (1631-1707), who had been converted as a boy in Kidderminster under the preaching of Richard Baxter (1615-1691). In 1682, however, persecution forced the academy to move, and Henry returned home.
Ministry in Chester
Three years later he journeyed again to London, this time to study at Grays Inn, one of four principal London centers for law studies. Whatever the immediate motives behind this move, Henry ‘ever kept in view’ the vocation of pastoral ministry, says John Bickerton Williams in his biography of the Puritan commentator. However, this ambition was not realized until 1687.
Upon his return from London in June 1686, Henry began preaching in the neighborhood of his parents’ farm. The following year, while on business in Chester, he spoke for a number of evenings in the house of a baker.
His preaching made a favorable impression on a good number of Chester Nonconformists, and he was subsequently asked to become the minister of a Presbyterian congregation in the town.
Henry went once again to London to be ordained on 9 March 1687 by six Presbyterian pastors. This group included Richard Steele (1629-1692), a native of Cheshire who had been involved in the ordination of Matthew Henry’s father thirty years’ earlier.
Henry began his ministry in early June 1687. Over the course of the next two decades his congregation increased to more than 350 members. Not surprisingly, his success as a pastor caused other churches to seek him as their minister.
Door of opportunity
He declined calls from two London churches in 1699 and 1702, a Manchester cause in 1705, and from two more London churches in 1708. The church in the capital that had sought to call him in 1699 was located in Hackney, and they renewed their efforts in 1710.
Discussion between Henry and the leadership of this church went back and forth for several months. Finally, in mid-July 1711, Henry set down on paper eleven reasons he believed were leading him to London.
Foremost among them was his conviction that ‘a much wider door of opportunity to do good’ was open in London than in Chester. He also noted that in London he would have much better access to printers and libraries, a matter of some concern since he was now engaged in writing his monumental commentary on the Word of God.
His ministry in London commenced on 18 May 1712. It is noteworthy that he preached to a much smaller congregation that Lord’s Day than the one he had left in Chester. According to J. B. Williams, there were fewer than a hundred members in the church when Henry came. The two years of ministry in London were ones of zealous activity, but also ones in which Henry became increasingly ill, suffering from diabetes and repeated attacks of kidney stones. Worn out by his labors, he died from a stroke while on a preaching tour of Cheshire in June 1714.
Exposition of the Bible
Henry was the author of a goodly number of publications, some of which had a wide circulation in the years following his death — for example, A Communicant’s Companion (a treatise on the frame of heart in which to receive the Lord’s Supper written in 1704) and Directions for Daily Communion with God (1712). But the work for which Henry is best known is undoubtedly The Exposition of the Old and New Testaments.
Henry had begun this massive work in November 1704. By the time of his death ten years later, the project had got as far as the end of the book of Acts. It would be finished by a number of ministers after his death.
The commentary is quintessentially Puritan. It focused on biblical spirituality and was alert to the need to glorify God in the whole of life. It was also chock-full of the terse and piquant aphorisms that the Puritans delighted to use to penetrate the hearts of their hearers and readers. Here are a few examples:
‘God’s grace can save souls without preaching, but our preaching cannot save them without God’s grace, and that grace must be sought by prayer’ (on Ezekiel 37:1-14).
‘Ministers may be serving Christ, and promoting the great ends of their ministry, by writing good letters, as well as by preaching good sermons’ (on Acts 18:7-11).
‘It is easier to build temples than to be temples to God’ (on 2 Chronicles 24:1-14).
‘The pleasures of sense are puddle-water; spiritual delights are rock water, so pure, so clear, so refreshing — rivers of pleasure’ (on Exodus 17:1-7).
‘The beauty of holiness is that which the grave, that consumes all other beauty, cannot touch, or do any damage to’ (on Psalm 49:6-14).
The Exposition’s influence
The ministry of George Whitefield (1714-1770), who was born the year Henry died, was deeply impacted by his commentary. He read it throughout his ministry. A recent study by an American scholar, David Crump, has shown that Henry’s ‘in depth, practical, Calvinistic and biblical exposition’ formed the backdrop for many of Whitefield’s sermons.
Whitefield’s friend, the hymn-writer Charles Wesley (1707-1788), was so moved by Henry’s comments on Leviticus 8:35 that he based one of his most famous hymns on them. Henry had written: ‘we have every one of us a charge to keep, an eternal God to glorify, an immortal soul to provide for, needful duty to be done, our generation to serve; and it must be our daily duty to keep this charge, for it is the charge of the Lord our Master, who will shortly call us to an account about it’.
Gripped by this comment, Wesley sat down to write A charge to keep I have in which he used many of Henry’s actual phrases.
Some words by the Calvinistic Baptist preacher and educator John Ryland Sr (1723-1792) sum up the impact that Henry’s Exposition made in the decades following its publication.
‘It is impossible for a person of piety and taste’, declared Ryland, ‘to read the Exposition of Mr. Henry without wishing to be shut out from all the world to read it through without one moment’s interruption’.
Henry himself well knew this delight in good Christian books. He stated in his diary on one occasion: ‘I am always best when alone. No place is like my own study: no company like good books; especially the book of God’.
Little wonder, then, that he helped to shape the spirituality and Christian convictions of so many eighteenth and nineteenth century readers.
Matthew Henry, Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible (1706)
In this chapter we have,
I. Christ’s evading the snare which the Jews laid for him, in bringing to him a woman taken in adultery (v. 1–11).
II. Divers discourses or conferences of his with the Jews that cavilled at him, and sought occasion against him, and made every thing he said a matter of controversy.
1. Concerning his being the light of the world (v. 12–20).
2. Concerning the ruin of the unbelieving Jews (v. 21–30).
3. Concerning liberty and bondage (v. 31–37).
4. Concerning his Father and their father (v. 38–47).
5. His discourse in answer to their blasphemous reproaches (v. 48–50).
6. Concerning the immortality of believers (v. 51–59).
And in all this he endured the contradiction of sinners against himself.
Though Christ was basely abused in the foregoing chapter, both by the rulers and by the people, yet here we have him still at Jerusalem, still in the temple. How often would he have gathered them! Observe,
I. His retirement in the evening out of the town (v. 1):
He went unto the mount of olives; whether to some friend’s house, or to some booth pitched there, now at the feast of tabernacles, is not certain; whether he rested there, or, as some think, continued all night in prayer to God, we are not told. But he went out of Jerusalem, perhaps because he had no friend there that had either kindness or courage enough to give him a night’s lodging; while his persecutors had houses of their own to go to (ch. 7:53), he could not so much as borrow a place to lay his head on, but what he must go a mile or two out of town for. He retired (as some think) because he would not expose himself to the peril of a popular tumult in the night. It is prudent to go out of the way of danger whenever we can do it without going out of the way of duty. In the day-time, when he had work to do in the temple, he willingly exposed himself, and was under special protection, Isa. 49:2. But in the night, when he had not work to do, he withdrew into the country, and sheltered himself there.
II. His return in the morning to the temple,
and to his work there, (v. 2.)
1. What a diligent preacher Christ was: Early in the morning he came again, and taught. Though he had been teaching the day before, he taught again to-day. Christ was a constant preacher, in season and out of season. Three things were taken notice of here concerning Christ’s preaching. (1.) The time: Early in the morning. Though he lodged out of town, and perhaps had spent much of the night in secret prayer, yet he came early. When a day’s work is to be done for God and souls it is good to begin betimes, and take the day before us. (2.) The place: In the temple; not so much because it was a consecrated place (for then he would have chosen it at other times) as because it was now a place of concourse; and he would hereby countenance solemn assemblies for religious worship, and encourage people to come up to the temple, for he had not yet left it desolate. (3.) His posture: He sat down, and taught, as one having authority, and as one that intended to abide by it for some time.
2. How diligently his preaching was attended upon: All the people came unto him; and perhaps many of them were the country-people, who were this day to return home from the feast, and were desirous to hear one sermon more from the mouth of Christ before they returned. They came to him, though he came early. They that seek him early shall find him. Though the rulers were displeased at those that came to hear him, yet they would come; and he taught them, though they were angry at him too. Though there were few or none among them that were persons of any figure, yet Christ bade them welcome, and taught them.
III. His dealing with those that brought to him
the woman taken in adultery, tempting him.
The scribes and Pharisees would not only not hear Christ patiently themselves, but they disturbed him when the people were attending on him.
1. The case proposed to him by the scribes and Pharisees,
who herein contrived to pick a quarrel with him,
and bring him into a snare, v. 3-6.
(1.) They set the prisoner to the bar (v. 3): they brought him a woman taken in adultery, perhaps now lately taken, during the time of the feast of tabernacles, when, it may be, their dwelling in booths, and their feasting and joy, might, by wicked minds, which corrupt the best things, be made occasions of sin. Those that were taken in adultery were by the Jewish law to be put to death, which the Roman powers allowed them the execution of, and therefore she was brought before the ecclesiastical court. Observe, She was taken in her adultery. Though adultery is a work of darkness, which the criminals commonly take all the care they can to conceal, yet sometimes it is strangely brought to light. Those that promise themselves secrecy in sin deceive themselves. The scribes and Pharisees bring her to Christ, and set her in the midst of the assembly, as if they would leave her wholly to the judgment of Christ, he having sat down, as a judge upon the bench.
(2.) They prefer an indictment against her: Master, this woman was taken in adultery, v. 4. Here they call him Master whom but the day before they had called a deceiver, in hopes with their flatteries to have ensnared him, as those, Lu. 20:20. But, though men may be imposed upon with compliments, he that searches the heart cannot.
[1.] The crime for which the prisoner stands indicted is no less than adultery, which even in the patriarchal age, before the law of Moses, was looked upon as an iniquity to be punished by the judges, Job 31:9–11; Gen. 38:24. The Pharisees, by their vigorous prosecution of this offender, seemed to have a great zeal against the sin, when it appeared afterwards that they themselves were not free from it; nay, they were within full of all uncleanness, Mt. 23:27, 28. Note, It is common for those that are indulgent to their own sin to be severe against the sins of others.
[2.] The proof of the crime was from the notorious evidence of the fact, an incontestable proof; she was taken in the act, so that there was no room left to plead not guilty. Had she not been taken in this act, she might have gone on to another, till her heart had been perfectly hardened; but sometimes it proves a mercy to sinners to have their sin brought to light, that they may do no more presumptuously. Better our sin should shame us than damn us, and be set in order before us for our conviction than for our condemnation.
(3.) They produce the statute in this case made and provided, and upon which she was indicted, v. 5. Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned. Moses commanded that they should be put to death (Lev. 20:10; Deu. 22:22), but not that they should be stoned, unless the adulteress was espoused, not married, or was a priest’s daughter, Deu. 22:21. Note, Adultery is an exceedingly sinful sin, for it is the rebellion of a vile lust, not only against the command, but against the covenant, of our God. It is the violation of a divine institution in innocency, by the indulgence of one of the basest lusts of man in his degeneracy.
(4.) They pray his judgment in the case: "But what sayest thou, who pretendest to be a teacher come from God to repeal old laws and enact new ones? What hast thou to say in this case?’’ If they had asked this question in sincerity, with a humble desire to know his mind, it had been very commendable. Those that are entrusted with the administration of justice should look up to Christ for direction; but this they said tempting him, that they might have to accuse him, v. 6.
[1.] If he should confirm the sentence of the law, and let it take its course, they would censure him as inconsistent with himself (he having received publicans and harlots) and with the character of the Messiah, who should be meek, and have salvation, and proclaim a year of release; and perhaps they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for countenancing the Jews in the exercise of a judicial power. But,
[2.] If he should acquit her, and give his opinion that the sentence should not be executed (as they expected he would), they would represent him, First, As an enemy to the law of Moses, and as one that usurped an authority to correct and control it, and would confirm that prejudice against him which his enemies were so industrious to propagate, that he came to destroy the law and the prophets. Secondly, As a friend to sinners, and, consequently, a favourer of sin; if he should seem to connive at such wickedness, and let it go unpunished, they would represent him as countenancing it, and being a patron of offences, if he was a protector of offenders, than which no reflection could be more invidious upon one that professed the strictness, purity, and business of a prophet.
2. The method he took to resolve this case,
and so to break this snare.
(1.) He seemed to slight it, and turned a deaf ear to it:
He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. It is impossible to tell, and therefore needless to ask, what he wrote; but this is the only mention made in the gospels of Christ’s writing. Eusebius indeed speaks of his writing to Abgarus, king of Edessa. Some think they have a liberty of conjecture as to what he wrote here. Grotius says, It was some grave weighty saying, and that it was usual for wise men, when they were very thoughtful concerning any thing, to do so. Jerome and Ambrose suppose he wrote, Let the names of these wicked men be written in the dust. Others this, The earth accuses the earth, but the judgment is mine. Christ by this teaches us to be slow to speak when difficult cases are proposed to us, not quickly to shoot our bolt; and when provocations are given us, or we are bantered, to pause and consider before we reply; think twice before we speak once: The heart of the wise studies to answer. Our translation from some Greek copies, which add, me prospoioumenos (though most copies have it not), give this account of the reason of his writing on the ground, as though he heard them not. He did as it were look another way, to show that he was not willing to take notice of their address, saying, in effect, Who made me a judge or a divider? It is safe in many cases to be deaf to that which it is not safe to answer, Ps. 38:13. Christ would not have his ministers to be entangled in secular affairs. Let them rather employ themselves in any lawful studies, and fill up their time in writing on the ground (which nobody will heed), than busy themselves in that which does not belong to them. But, when Christ seemed as though he heard them not, he made it appear that he not only heard their words, but knew their thoughts.
(2.) When they importunately, or rather impertinently,
pressed him for an answer,
He turned the conviction of the prisoner upon the prosecutors, v. 7.
[1.] They continued asking him, and his seeming not to take notice of them made them the more vehement; for now they thought sure enough that they had run him aground, and that he could not avoid the imputation of contradicting either the law of Moses, if he should acquit the prisoner, or his own doctrine of mercy and pardon, if he should condemn her; and therefore they pushed on their appeal to him with vigour; whereas they should have construed his disregard of them as a check to their design, and an intimation to them to desist, as they tendered their own reputation.
[2.] At last he put them all to shame and silence with one word: He lifted up himself, awaking as one out of sleep (Ps. 78:65), and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. First, Here Christ avoided the snare which they had laid for him, and effectually saved his own reputation. He neither reflected upon the law nor excused the prisoner’s guilt, nor did he on the other hand encourage the prosecution or countenance their heat; see the good effect of consideration. When we cannot make our point by steering a direct course, it is good to fetch a compass. Secondly, In the net which they spread is their own foot taken. They came with design to accuse him, but they were forced to accuse themselves. Christ owns it was fit the prisoner should be prosecuted, but appeals to their consciences whether they were fit to be the prosecutors. a. He here refers to that rule which the law of Moses prescribed in the execution of criminals, that the hand of the witnesses must be first upon them (Deu. 17:7), as in the stoning of Stephen, Acts 7:58. The scribes and Pharisees were the witnesses against this woman. Now Christ puts it to them whether, according to their own law, they would dare to be the executioners. Durst they take away that life with their hands which they were now taking away with their tongues? would not their own consciences fly in their faces if they did? b. He builds upon an uncontested maxim in morality, that it is very absurd for men to be zealous in punishing the offences of others, while they are every whit as guilty themselves, and they are not better than self-condemned who judge others, and yet themselves do the same thing: "If there be any of you who is without sin, without sin of this nature, that has not some time or other been guilty of fornication or adultery, let him cast the first stone at her.’’ Not that magistrates, who are conscious of guilt themselves, should therefore connive at others’ guilt. But therefore, ( a. ) Whenever we find fault with others, we ought to reflect upon ourselves, and to be more severe against sin in ourselves than in others. ( b. ) We ought to be favourable, though not to the sins, yet to the persons, of those that offend, and to restore them with a spirit of meekness, considering ourselves and our own corrupt nature. Aut sumus, aut fuimus, vel possumus esse quod hic est—We either are, or have been, or may be, what he is.
Let this restrain us from throwing stones at our brethren, and proclaiming their faults. Let him that is without sin begin such discourse as this, and then those that are truly humbled for their own sins will blush at it, and be glad to let it drop. ( c. ) Those that are any way obliged to animadvert upon the faults of others are concerned to look well to themselves, and keep themselves pure (Mt. 7:5), Qui alterum incusat probri, ipsum se intueri oportet. The snuffers of the tabernacle were of pure gold. c. Perhaps he refers to the trial of the suspected wife by the jealous husband with the waters of jealousy. The man was to bring her to the priest (Num. 5:15), as the scribes and Pharisees brought this woman to Christ. Now it was a received opinion among the Jews, and confirmed by experience, that if the husband who brought his wife to that trial had himself been at any time guilty of adultery, Aquae non explorant ejus uxorem—The bitter water had no effect upon the wife. "Come then,’’ saith Christ, "according to your own tradition will I judge you; if you are without sin, stand to the charge, and let the adulteress be executed; but if not, though she be guilty, while you that present her are equally so, according to your own rule she shall be free.’’ d. In this he attended to the great work which he came into the world about, and that was to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the prisoner to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors too, by showing them their sins.
They sought to ensnare him; he sought to convince and convert them. Thus the blood-thirsty hate the upright, but the just seek his soul.
[3.] Having given them this startling word, he left them to consider of it, and again stooped down, and wrote on the ground, v. 8. As when they made their address he seemed to slight their question, so now that he had given them an answer he slighted their resentment of it, not caring what they said to it; nay, they needed not to make any reply; the matter was lodged in their own breasts, let them make the best of it there. Or, he would not seem to wait for an answer, lest they should on a sudden justify themselves, and then think themselves bound in honour to persist in it; but gives them time to pause, and to commune with their own hearts. God saith, I hearkened and heard, Jer. 8:6. Some Greek copies here read, He wrote on the ground, enos hekastou auton tas hamartias — the sins of every one of them; this he could do, for he sets our iniquities before him; and this he will do, for he will set them in order before us too; he seals up our transgressions, Job 14:17. But he does not write men’s sins in the sand; no, they are written as with a pen of iron and the point of a diamond (Jer. 17:1), never to be forgotten till they are forgiven.
[4.] The scribes and Pharisees were so strangely thunderstruck with the words of Christ that they let fall their persecution of Christ, whom they durst no further tempt, and their prosecution of the woman, whom they durst no longer accuse (v. 9): They went out one by one. First, Perhaps his writing on the ground frightened them, as the hand-writing on the wall frightened Belshazzar. They concluded he was writing bitter things against them, writing their doom. Happy they who have no reason to be afraid of Christ’s writing! Secondly, What he said frightened them by sending them to their own consciences; he had shown them to themselves, and they were afraid if they should stay till he lifted up himself again his next word would show them to the world, and shame them before men, and therefore they thought it best to withdraw. They went out one by one, that they might go out softly, and not by a noisy flight disturb Christ; they went away by stealth, as people being ashamed steal away when they flee in battle, 2 Sa. 19:3. The order of their departure is taken notice of, beginning at the eldest, either because they were most guilty, or first aware of the danger they were in of being put to the blush; and if the eldest quit the field, and retreat ingloriously, no marvel if the younger follow them. Now see here, 1. The force of the word of Christ for the conviction of sinners: They who heard it were convicted by their own consciences. Conscience is God’s deputy in the soul, and one word from him will set it on work, Heb. 4:12. Those that had been old in adulteries, and long fixed in a proud opinion of themselves, were here, even the oldest of them, startled by the word of Christ; even scribes and Pharisees, who were most conceited of themselves, are by the power of Christ’s word made to retire with shame. 2. The folly of sinners under these convictions, which appears in these scribes and Pharisees. (1.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to make it their principal care to avoid shame, as Judah (Gen. 38:23), lest we be shamed. Our care should be more to save our souls than to save our credit. Saul evidenced his hypocrisy when he said, I have sinned, yet now honour me, I pray thee. There is no way to get the honour and comfort of penitents, but by taking the shame of penitents. (2.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to contrive how to shift off their convictions, and to get rid of them. The scribes and Pharisees had the wound opened, and now they should have been desirous to have it searched, and then it might have been healed, but this was the thing they dreaded and declined. (3.) It is folly for those that are under convictions to get away from Jesus Christ, as these here did, for he is the only one that can heal the wounds of conscience, and speak peace to us. Those that are convicted by their consciences will be condemned by their Judge, if they be not justified by their Redeemer; and will they then go from him? To whom will they go?
[5.] When the self-conceited prosecutors quitted the field, and fled for the same, the self-condemned prisoner stood her ground, with a resolution to abide by the judgment of our Lord Jesus: Jesus was left alone from the company of the scribes and Pharisees, free from their molestations, and the woman standing in the midst of the assembly that were attending on Christ’s preaching, where they set her, v. 3. She did not seek to make her escape, though she had opportunity for it; but her prosecutors had appealed unto Jesus, and to him she would go, on him she would wait for her doom. Note, Those whose cause is brought before our Lord Jesus will never have occasion to remove it into any other court, for he is the refuge of penitents. The law which accuses us, and calls for judgment against us, is by the gospel of Christ made to withdraw; its demands are answered, and its clamours silenced, by the blood of Jesus. Our cause is lodged in the gospel court; we are left with Jesus alone, it is with him only that we have now to deal, for to him all judgment is committed; let us therefore secure our interest in him, and we are made for ever. Let his gospel rule us, and it will infallibly save us.
[6.] Here is the conclusion of the trial, and the issue it was brought to: Jesus lifted up himself, and he saw none but the woman, v. 10, 11. Though Christ may seem to take no notice of what is said and done, but leave it to the contending sons of men to deal it out among themselves, yet, when the hour of his judgment is come, he will no longer keep silence. When David had appealed to God, he prayed, Lift up thyself, Ps. 7:6, and 94:2. The woman, it is likely, stood trembling at the bar, as one doubtful of the issue. Christ was without sin, and might cast the first stone; but though none more severe than he against sin, for he is infinitely just and holy, none more compassionate than he to sinners, for he is infinitely gracious and merciful, and this poor malefactor finds him so, now that she stands upon her deliverance. Here is the method of courts of judicature observed.
First, The prosecutors are called: Where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee? Not but that Christ knew where they were; but he asked, that he might shame them, who declined his judgment, and encourage her who resolved to abide by it. St. Paul’s challenge is like this, Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? Where are those their accusers? The accuser of the brethren shall be fairly cast out, and all indictments legally and regularly quashed.
Secondly, They do not appear when the question is asked: Hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. She speaks respectfully to Christ, calls him Lord, but is silent concerning her prosecutors, says nothing in answer to that question which concerned them, Where are those thine accusers? She does not triumph in their retreat nor insult over them as witnesses against themselves, not against her. If we hope to be forgiven by our Judge, we must forgive our accusers; and if their accusations, how invidious soever, were the happy occasion of awakening our consciences, we may easily forgive them this wrong. But she answered the question which concerned herself, Has no man condemned thee? True penitents find it enough to give an account of themselves to God, and will not undertake to give an account of other people.
Thirdly, The prisoner is therefore discharged: Neither do I condemn thee; go, and sin no more.
( a. ) As her discharge from the temporal punishment: "If they do not condemn thee to be stoned to death, neither do I.’’ Not that Christ came to disarm the magistrate of his sword of justice, nor that it is his will that capital punishments should not be inflicted on malefactors; so far from this, the administration of public justice is established by the gospel, and made subservient to Christ’s kingdom: By me kings reign.
But Christ would not condemn this woman,
( 1. ) Because it was none of his business; he was no judge nor divider, and therefore would not intermeddle in secular affairs. His kingdom was not of this world. Tractent fabrilia fabri—Let every one act in his own province.
( 2. ) Because she was prosecuted by those that were more guilty than she and could not for shame insist upon their demand of justice against her. The law appointed the hands of the witnesses to be first upon the criminal, and afterwards the hands of all the people, so that if they fly off, and do not condemn her, the prosecution drops. The justice of God, in inflicting temporal judgments, sometimes takes notice of a comparative righteousness, and spares those who are otherwise obnoxious when the punishing of them would gratify those that are worse than they, Deu. 32:26, 27. But, when Christ dismissed her, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more.
Impunity emboldens malefactors, and therefore those who are guilty, and yet have found means to escape the edge of the law, need to double their watch, lest Satan get advantage; for the fairer the escape was, the fairer the warning was to go and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal should, as Christ here, help to save the soul with this caution.
( b. ) As her discharge from the eternal punishment. For Christ to say, I do not condemn thee is, in effect, to say, I do forgive thee; and the Son of man had power on earth to forgive sins, and could upon good grounds give this absolution; for as he knew the hardness and impenitent hearts of the prosecutors, and therefore said that which would confound them, so he knew the tenderness and sincere repentance of the prisoner, and therefore said that which would comfort her, as he did to that woman who was a sinner, such a sinner as this, who was likewise looked upon with disdain by a Pharisee (Lu. 7:48, 50): Thy sins are forgiven thee, go in peace. So here, Neither do I condemn thee.
( a. ) Those are truly happy whom Christ doth not condemn, for his discharge is a sufficient answer to all other challenges; they are all coram non judice—before an unauthorized judge.
( b. ) Christ will not condemn those who, though they have sinned, will go and sin no more, Ps. 85:8; Isa. 55:7. he will not take the advantage he has against us for our former rebellions, if we will but lay down our arms and return to our allegiance.
( c. ) Christ’s favour to us in the remission of the sins that are past should be a prevailing argument with us to go and sin no more, Rom. 6:1, 2. Will not Christ condemn thee? Go then and sin no more."
- Matthew Henry