Introduction
Those
of you who have little kids know that sometimes they can ask really hard
questions. How many of you have lost a pet just to have your child ask you if
the beloved pet is now in heaven? Whether it’s that kind of question or some
other question, when they’re very young, simple answers are usually sufficient.
But let me warn you that when those children become young adults like both my
children are, simple answers rarely suffice. Hard questions of a child turn
into life and death questions when children become young adults. Both of my
girls are home from college for winter break and I was having lunch with my
oldest daughter the other day when the conversation turned to the matter of
lifestyle choices by some of her friends. She wanted to know when or if she
should say something to her friends about some of the choices they are making.
We had a long and fruitful conversation about the matter and I realized that
this is a difficult topic for many if not most Christians especially in our
western culture where it is considered unacceptable to pass judgment on anyone
about anything. I understand the Christian’s struggle in this area, especially
when they are labeled A Sinner Casting Stones at sinners.
However, Christians struggle in this area because they have an incorrect or
truncated understanding of Jesus’ teaching in the story about the woman caught
in adultery and in danger of being stoned to death. Therefore, this week’s
lesson will take a closer look at Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in
adultery and whether or not Jesus prohibits passing judgment specifically in
the context of A Sinner Casting Stones
at sinners.
Subject
Text
John 8:3-11
3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees
brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher,
this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now
what do you say?” 6 They
were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning
him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin,
let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began
to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with
the woman still standing there. 10
Jesus straightened up and asked her, “Woman, where are they? Has
no one condemned you?” 11 “No
one, sir,” she said. “Then neither do I condemn you,” Jesus declared. “Go now
and leave your life of sin.”
Textual
Criticism
I don’t normally comment
about textual criticism of biblical manuscripts because it’s usually extremely
tedious and technical but it is important to note that many highly respected
scholars are convinced that John 7:53-8:11 is not authentically Johannine. This
section of John’s Gospel is not
included in a very long list of early and diverse manuscripts.
“When one adds to this
impressive and diversified list of external evidence the consideration that the
style and vocabulary of the pericope differ noticeably from the rest of the
Fourth Gospel, and that it interrupts the sequence of 7.52 and 8.12ff., the
case against its being Johannine authorship appears to be conclusive.
At the same time the account
has all the earmarks of historical veracity. It is obviously a piece of oral
tradition which circulated in certain parts of the Western church and which was
subsequently incorporated into various manuscripts at various places…Sometimes
it is stated that the pericope was deliberately expunged from the Fourth Gospel
because Jesus’ words at the close were liable to be understood in a sense too
indulgent to adultery.”[1]
As you might imagine, this
is used by many to discredit the text in part or in whole. However, this is
unnecessary. Let’s not stick our head in the sand and ignore good, sound
scholarship but let’s also remember that God is still in control and doesn’t
make mistakes. The text was included in the final biblical canon for a reason
and I don’t believe it’s really that difficult to imagine Jesus saying precisely
what the text tells us. With that in mind, let’s look at what the subject text
is teaching.
Context
“The
first seven chapters of the Gospel of John contrast Jesus, the ‘Greater Prophet’
of the New Covenant, with Moses, the prophet of the Old Covenant. This
contradistinction culminates in the test of the woman caught in adultery in
chapter 8.”[2] If we
only consider our subject text, then we naturally assume that Jesus was
innocently teaching in the temple when the religious leaders happened to catch
a woman in the act of adultery and brought her to Jesus for his verdict on the
matter. However, if we allow the preceding text to lay the contextual
foundation for our subject text, we will quickly realize that there is
something nefarious going on, for just the day before the day that our subject
text takes place, the religious leaders sent the temple guards to arrest Jesus
who was then too teaching in the temple. Keeping this in mind, how do you
suppose that in less than 24 hours the religious leaders are only interested in
Jesus’ verdict about a woman caught in adultery? The Law did, in fact, require
that an adulterer was to be put to death. However, absolutely everything about
the situation described by out subject text smells like a set-up to try and
trap Jesus into saying or doing something that they could use to indict him.
The woman and her adulterous behavior was simply a ruse to disguise the true
motivations of the religious leaders. Nevertheless, Jesus uses the opportunity
to expose the religious leaders and teach us a very important lesson about sin,
judgment, condemnation, forgiveness, grace and holiness.
Text
Analysis
When
you read vv. 3-4, what sticks out to you? There’s a giant flashing neon sign
that is screaming: “Set-up! Trap! Trouble!” Let me offer you a couple of texts
that provide the basis for the charge against this woman. 1) The seventh
commandment: “You shall not commit adultery.” (Ex 20:14; Dt 5:18); and 2) If a
man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her
and the woman must die. (Dt 22:22; cf. Lev 20:10). “Promiscuity in the world of
the Bible was not simply a lack of sexual discretion but a symptom of the risks
that a household was taking with its land and children. Husbands and fathers
were responsible for the honor of their women, which was associated with sexual
purity. Their own honor derived in large measure from the way they discharged
this responsibility.”[3] So
now that you have the basis for their charge against this woman, read vv. 3-4
again and see if it doesn’t become immediately obvious to you that something is
wrong with the picture. The text says she was caught in adultery not accused of
having committed adultery. I’m trying not to be overly graphic with my point
but the act of adultery requires a woman and
a man! Where is the man? What does the Law require? Why is only the woman
brought to Jesus? That should be your first clue that there is trouble afoot. “The
witnesses bring the woman to Jesus before a crowd and heap public shame on her.
They could have kept her to one side and brought her case to Jesus privately.
But their approach to the problem indicates that they wish to trap Jesus, and
her personal life is incidental. They have no interest in a trial. They are
thinking about a public lynching, and they want Jesus to make judgment.”[4]
In v.
5 the religious leaders seem to be reminding Jesus that the Law instructs them
to stone the woman because of her actions. However, the Law simply states that
the woman (and the man) is to be put
to death. This might seem like a technicality at first blush since stoning her
would be putting her to death. But it’s an important detail in the overall
contour of the text that finds the religious leaders singling out one
particular sin in one particular person in order to advance their cause. They
have no problem manipulating God’s Word if it serves their purpose. How often
does this happen today in our own Christian and secular communities? One
particular person and their particularly egregious sin is used as giant billboard
with flashing lights screaming: “Look here! Look here! Don’t look anywhere
else! I don’t want you to see anything else!” To make matters worse, Scriptures
are used, usually grossly out of context, to cloud real motives or to mask the
sins of accusers. V. 6a demonstrates that this is precisely what the religious
leaders are doing when they use this woman’s sin to advance their own cause.
However, there’s something even more important hiding behind the religious
leaders’ accusations as we will see shortly.
I
want to address vv. 6b, 8 together and then come back to v. 7 as the
hinge-point of our subject text. You might be shocked by this but do you want
to know what Jesus was writing in the dirt in vv. 6b, 8? I have no idea and
neither does anyone else. Of course, this hasn’t stopped scholars and
theologians from offering their hypotheses but that’s where it should end. No
one knows what Jesus wrote in the dirt. Nevertheless, I’ll give you a couple of
ideas of what some theologians and scholars have advanced as possibilities. The
early church advanced the possibility that Jesus was writing part of Jeremiah
17:13: “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust because they
have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” Some scholars believe that
Jesus was writing from Exodus 23:1: “Do not help a wicked man by being a
malicious witness.” Now both of those sound quite plausible. However, they are,
nevertheless, hypotheses and that’s precisely what they should remain as far as
I’m concerned. That might just have to be one of the questions I ask Jesus when
I see him. What is far more important is the verse that falls between these two
verses.
In v.
7 Jesus stops writing in the dirt and stands to address the religious leaders
with a masterful response to their charge of adultery against the woman when he
says that the one among them who is without sin should cast the first stone. It
is interesting to note how well known this verse is among unbelievers! If they
know nothing else about the bible, they know and quickly recite the idiom that
‘He who lives in a glass house shouldn’t cast stones!’ This is the modern
version of our subject text. This is also the text that drags so many
Christians into the weeds to silence them and their Christian witness. Let me
just clarify what Jesus is doing and
what he is not doing in this verse.
What Jesus is doing is exposing the
hypocrisy and selfish motivation of the religious leaders. The religious
leaders cared nothing for this woman nor for what is right or wrong, they cared
about fulfilling their mission of trapping Jesus. Some believe that women were
easily mistreated and that a husband could simply accuse his wife of adultery
and have her executed but this was not the case in ancient Israel. “The law
required strong testimony from two witnesses who saw the couple in a sexual
context: lying in the same bed, unmistakable body movements, and positive
identities. The two witnesses had to see these things at the same time and
place so that their testimony would be identical. Such evidence virtually
required the witnesses to set a trap…The law also expected that if a person
witnessed another about to commit a sin, compassion required them to speak up.
These witnesses stand silently, neglecting their moral obligation to give
guidance to the woman. They want to catch her and use her.”[5] Jesus
refuses to allow Scripture to be used as a tool for someone’s personal agenda
or as a weapon of condemnation.
Jesus
is not saying that there is nothing
wrong with adultery (Jesus himself condemns adultery elsewhere when he gives
his instruction about divorce (Mt 5:32; 19:9)) or because we are sinners, we
are not permitted to hold anyone accountable for their words or actions.
Furthermore, Jesus is not saying that
only someone who is sinless can speak out against sin. Jesus is referring
directly to the instruction from Deuteronomy 17:7 that says witnesses must be
the first to carry out the death sentence. However, the instruction in
Deuteronomy, and elsewhere where judgment was commanded, was for the purpose of
maintaining a holiness standard among God’s people. This was clearly not the
purpose of the religious leaders and Jesus knew it. So he added a twist to the
commandment from Deuteronomy 17:7 that turned the spotlight away from the
actions of the accused and directed it toward the motivation and character of
the accusers. “As in many societies around the world, so here: when it comes to
sexual sins, the woman was much more likely to be in legal and social jeopardy
than her paramour. The man could lead a ‘respectable’ life while masking the
same sexual sins with a knowing wink. Jesus’ simple condition, without calling
into question the Mosaic code, cuts through the double standard and drives hard
to reach the conscience.”[6] It
is clear, from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, that the Church has
a duty to correct and discipline its members (cf. Mt 18:15-17; 1 Cor 5:1-13; 2
Cor 13:1-3; Gal 6:1-2). Christians have a duty to deal with the sins of other
Christians. The issue of dealing with the sin of non-Christians is another
matter that I will cover later. So, aside from their nefarious motivations, in
what other way were the accusers in our subject text wrong?
In v.
9, we see that Jesus’ words have accomplished their intended purpose or
reaching into the heart of the woman’s accusers. Slowly, we see them drop their
stones and retreat. I just presented the argument for why the Church has a duty
to deal with sinners within the Church. The basis for this has its roots in
Israel’s duty to deal with the sins of the people within Israel. Nowhere in the
Law does it state that only those who are sinless can confront or correct
sinners so why did these men leave instead of making this point to Jesus? Although
our subject text doesn’t say as much, “Many manuscripts specifically say that
the accusers were ‘convicted by their own conscience’, but their stunned departure
testifies as much. Those who had come to shame Jesus now leave in shame.”[7] Now
that her accusers have gone, Jesus is free to deal with this woman and touches
on a crucial flaw in the approach of her accusers—condemnation! In vv. 10-11,
Jesus deals with the matter of condemnation when he asked the woman if there
was anyone left to condemn her. When she confirms that none of those who had
accused her remained, Jesus, the one who actually had the right and power to
condemn her, renders his verdict of forgiveness and foregoes condemnation. You
see, Jesus’ mission and ministry was not forged in the fire of condemnation but
in forgiveness and reconciliation. The transcendent error committed by the
religious leaders was rooted in an incorrect understanding of eschatology
involving the anticipated Messiah. The time had not yet come for condemnation.
The time then, as well as the time now, is for salvation not condemnation (cf.
John 3:17-18a). There is a finality to the act of condemnation that is not part
of process of correction unless we are able to compartmentalize the
condemnation of a word or deed separately from the condemnation of a person.
This can be very difficult at times depending on the type of sin in question.
For example, can you condemn the act of homosexuality without condemning the
person? It is, of course, possible and necessary but is nevertheless very
difficult. Ultimately, what is equally as important as Jesus’ forgiveness in
his exchange with the woman is his command for the woman to move forward from
that point and leave her life of sin. “The proper response to mercy received on
account of past sins is purity in the future.”[8] By
this simple command, Jesus puts to rest any criticism that he is not serious
about the sin of adultery or any other sin for that matter since Jesus doesn’t
specify the sin of adultery when he tells the woman to leave her life of sin.
However, Jesus is more interested in reconciliation at this point than he is in
condemnation and this should be our motivation as well. There will be a time
for final judgment and condemnation for both Christians (Mt 7:21-23; 2 Cor
5:10) and non-Christians (Mt 5:29-30, 25:31-46; Mk 9:43-48). But now is a time
for people to be reconciled to God through Christ and thereafter to become
conformed to the image of Christ in holiness. Salvation is of paramount
importance for a lost and hurting world but God’s plan doesn’t end there. For believers,
God’s plan is to advance them in holiness remembering that continued sin is the
antitheses of that plan.
Application
This
is such a difficult lesson for us here in the west where tolerance for
everything (except Christianity of course) is prized above virtually everything
else. However, as Christians we cannot neglect our responsibility to correctly
judge the words and deeds of those within the Church so let me try and give you
a few basic principles that might help you. First, we must make a distinction
between dealing with believers and dealing with unbelievers. I want to take us
back to an instruction I referenced earlier from Paul that reads: 9 I have written you in my letter
not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are
immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have
to leave this world. 11 But
now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself
a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a
drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the
church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked man from
among you.” I don’t want to wander too
far from our subject text but Paul’s teaching makes it clear that we must deal
differently with believers and unbelievers. Specifically, judging, correcting
and disciplining Christians is the business of the Church while judging,
correcting and disciplining unbelievers is the business of God. This is an
extremely important distinction that must be considered. Having said that, I
only want to say a few things about dealing with the sinful words and/or deeds
of unbelievers so I can focus, instead, on our dealings with believers.
Unbelievers
There
are countless behaviors that are universally destructive to humanity such as
addictions, abuse (physical, emotional or psychological), sexual promiscuity,
and repeated exposure to sensational and gratuitous sex and violence just to
name a few. Some are more obvious than others but the destructive nature of some
cases seems absolute and necessitates intervention of some kind. While there
may be a biblical basis to intervene in or confront someone’s destructive
behavior, explicitly using a biblical argument as the reason for your
intervention or confrontation will be useless. It seems immediately obvious
that someone who doesn’t believe in Christ isn’t going to care that you have
sound biblical reasoning for your intervention or confrontation. Therefore, you
had best be armed with an argument that does not rely explicitly on biblical
reasoning. Whether or not you are qualified to intervene in or confront
someone’s destructive behavior from a non-biblical perspective, you are always
qualified to tell them about Christ and possibly lead them to Christ with the
hope that God will either deal with their destructive behavior or provide you
with an opportunity in the future to confront them in the context of one
believer confronting another believer. I believe the presence of the Holy
Spirit is the essential element for there to be real and lasting transformation
and the Holy Spirit is only personally present within the lives of believers. Absent
the inner-workings of the Holy Spirit, God will use other means to properly deal
with the sinful words and/or deeds of unbelievers.
Believers
You
would think that confronting a fellow Christian about their sinful words and/or
deeds should be natural (even if it’s not easy). But the Church (at least the
Church in the west) has adopted the attitude of the world that says that
because we too are sinners, we have no right to judge anyone else’s sin.
Furthermore, the world contends, and the Church has adopted the philosophy,
that the root of all conflict is intolerance when really the root of all
conflict is sin! Instead, as I have outlined above, the Church has a duty to
confront and correct sin within the Church. The question is not whether we
should but how should we confront a fellow believer with their sinful words
and/or actions? The answer is not always obvious but I’ll offer you a few basic
rules of thumb to use. They are by no means absolute but might help you decide how
you should confront another believer. Have you earned the right to speak into
another person’s personal life? By that I mean, does your life reflect the kind
of obedience and faithfulness that you are challenging someone else to emulate?
Does the person you are confronting know with complete certainty that you have
their best interest and the interest of the Church at heart? Finally, don’t
deceive yourself! What is your motivation for confronting another believer? Are
you trying to demonstrate your spiritual superiority or are you honestly
grieved that a brother or sister in Christ might be wounding themselves or
someone else and tarnishing the reputation of the Church by their sinful words
and/or deeds? Let me illustrate: Many years ago I was part of a local church
that was healthy and thriving. However, one of the more prominent ministry
members was dealing with a secret drug addiction that suddenly became very
public and ugly. The pastor of the church, who is also a close, personal friend
and mentor of mine, led the church through the process of confronting this
person, leading the person through a public confession and public forgiveness,
prescribing and monitoring the appropriate discipline and eventually restoring
the person as an active member of the church community and eventually back into
ministry. It was beautifully biblical! Since I know this pastor personally, I
know his motivation had nothing to do with spiritual superiority and everything
to do with his love for this person and his love for the local church and the
Church universal. This is an illustration for the way we should deal with the
sinful words and/or deeds of Christians in our lives as well. Let’s not be
foolish about this—if you see a child playing in the street with a car
approaching, are you really not going to intervene just because you’re guilty
of having played in the street yourself at one point? Let me ask you this: Who
is better qualified to warn a friend about the destructive force of sin than
someone who bears the scars of having smashed their own lives against the
jagged rocks of sin? I want to say this again: Before you decide how you will
confront someone, ask yourself ‘why’ you are confronting that person. What is
your motivation? Be honest with yourself! Don’t hide behind any excuses even if
you are able to disguise your real motivation from those around you because you
can’t hide them from God and you will answer to him. Don’t condemn yourself by
trying to condemn another person because you think you’re better than they are
or you’re doing them or the Church or God a favor! Always, always, always do this with sincere love,
compassion, gentleness, honesty and great humility knowing that you have needed
and will continue to need forgiveness for your own sins! If your conscience is
clear then you need not fear being labeled A
Sinner Casting Stones at sinners.
[1] Bruce M.
Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the
Greek New Testament, (New York, NY: American Bible Society, 2001), pp.
188-189.
[2] Charles
P. Baylis, 1989, “The woman caught in adultery: a test of Jesus as the greater
prophet.” Bibliotheca Sacra 146, no.
582: 171-184. ATLASerials, Religion
Collection, EBSCOhost (accessed
December 31, 2012).
[3] T.
Desmond Alexander and David W. Baker, eds., Dictionary
of the Old Testament Pentateuch, (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press,
2003), p. 296.
[4] Gary M.
Burge, John, The NIV Application
Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 2000), p. 242.
[5] Ibid.
[6] D. A.
Carson, The Gospel According to John,
(Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, CO., 1991), p. 336.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.,
p. 337.
No comments:
Post a Comment