Perhaps “overide” is a wrong termonlogy to use, as it implies that I’m minimizing the law of stoning for a law of love. But I would not take the view that these laws contradict each other; only that the Lord shows us how to deal with the law of the first covenant as children of God. Under the first covenant (what the religious leaders of Jesus’ time had access to), they could only adhere to the written code by doing their best against that standard. But Jesus (as our God and example) was teaching us the principles of the New covenant; namely that as we operate under the “fruit of the Spirit” we are not under the law of the letter. We do in effect supercede one covenant for the fruit of another.

There is no problem with the cross of Christ accomplishing everything for this New covenant. However, during His earthly ministry, wasn’t the Lord giving us an example of the “law of Christ” in action? And my theory is that living by the fruit of the Spirit (which apparently can’t be done simultaneously with the law of Moses because it uses two very different methods of operation) puts on a demension of pleasing the Lord that the first covenant could not.

I am not one of those who say that the law of Moses is no longer in existance; only that there is a different way to deal with that everlasting law of God as believers in Christ. Hope that’s not too confusing.

Bec. we know that Jesus wouldn’t be ignorant of what Paul describes later in ROMANS 7.

But this still leaves the problem of that verse in CORINTHIANS, and a kindred one in REVELATION, “Your works are not complete.”

I’d say be careful thinking one can always overide one law with another law. Jesus does not do away with the Law of Stoning by the Law of Love…Rather He doesn’t cast the stone now, because he takes the stone later for her on the cross. Justice isn’t done away with by love, it is fulfilled by love when Jesus takes the stone for her on the cross.

I’ve heard the “overide” principle used to do away with many commands God expects of Christians because this person can perform mental gymnastics and say “God doesn’t expect me to do X because I’ve pasted over it with command Y”

Such thinking neuters the bible with the bible. I know you don’t mean that, but I’ve had to deal with that working with youth until my claws come out…

We fail when we try the Pharisaical method of righteousness: controlling the sin directly and ignoring the driving force behind the sin. The failure of the law is in its inability to change us, or even to significantly control us.

What we must do, I believe, is allow Jesus to change our inner being, our deepest beliefs–then out of that new inner being will emerge righteousness. The righteousness of Christ in us. Then we can go “and sin no more.”

And guess what, I have scoured the commentaries and worn my lips thin asking pastors, and nobody can answer the question. They either pat me on the head and tell me I’ve got psychological problems, or they suggest “can’t you just trust Him?” or they accuse me of “residual Purgatory teaching in your system”—LMTO!!!—(never mind that I was never a Catholic nor had the slightest Catholic leanings), or they advise me to memorize one of the many comforting verses (which is a “remedy” I had already unsuccessfully tried for many years before they ever brushed me off that way), or they say to “rest in the character of Christ,” (yes, but it is precisely the “character of Christ” that tells me to go and sin no more, for crying out loud!), or some other bromide. But the answer to the conundrum? Not a one of them has it.

I’m keen to reiterate some of the comments already posted here:

1. The paraphrase of “go live your life” does seem to be a generous interpretation of the more common translation “go and sin no more”. Is it possible for you to look at this further?
2. Should this passage really both later addition, and not a real record of anything Jesus said, are there other examples from the Gospels that demonstrate such “gracious” words from Christ that are not linked to ongoing requirements for observance of law (or not sinning). It seems to me that this story reflects a great deal of Pauline thinking and is, in some respects, no entirely consistent with the Gospel Jesus, who encourages continued obedience to the law.

Although I realise that 2000 years of scholarship have already been directed at question 2 (and probably 1 also) and that the internet never really gives us the space to properly discuss these issues.