John 7:53-8:11
Then each went to his own home. But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
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. 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." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
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. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
These verses have been questioned and challenged by scholars for long time. Some of the most ancient and reliable manuscripts do not contain this story. Yet most agree that it is consistent with the life and teaching of Jesus.
What is the overall point of this passage? How would you summarize it in a sentence or two? How does it fit with the entire Gospel?
How did the Pharisees catch this woman?
How does this story show a contrast between Law and Jesus (see John 1:16-17)?
Why does Jesus not condemn this woman?
What does he "declare" to her?
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
So, what's going on with you?
There were a few late posts on last week's blog that you may have missed regarding different religions and churches. We can continue that discussion if you want.
Another thing I am interested in is your view of the Presbyterian Church (USA) deciding that it is OK for non-celebate homosexuals to be ordained as clergy.
Does that decision have anything to do with our passage for the week?
I think that question is a trap.. ha ha. no really, I think the Presbyterian cleargy thing does have something to do with our scripture this week. It should remind us not to pick up any rocks. at least I can't. But I personally would choose not to be biblically led by those clergy. It's one thing for a person to stumble and sin and be forgiven (even clergy). I fall all the time. and I think I have learned a great deal from folks that have fallen got back up asked forgivness and then taught others what not to do. I think some of those folks make the best teachers. but it's a whole other thing to sin intentionally and continue to do so knowing the biblical truth, and simply write it off as a life preference. But we still owe it to God to love them and treat them as we want to be treated no matter what side of the fence they run on.. I just wished that all people (me included) would judge in the same manner as this weeks scripture shows. Then nobody would be chucking any rocks at anyone else. I am curious though do those clergy just skip the parts in the bible about same sex issues and sexual imorality. It would be hard to teach folks things that they don't even practice..??
Thanks,
Jon Goller
I forgot to ask, what was Jesus writing on the ground? Like doodles, or a message, or what? any ideas? Or was he just ducking cause he figured the rocks would be flying?? things that make you go Hmmm??
Jon Goller
The PC-USA has struggled w/this issue for many years, now. I regret that this is the decision they finally settled on. I suspect it will drive many from the denomination. I think a big part of the problem is that the current leadership is very liberal, much more so than the average church member. It'll be a long time before small, conservative congregations accept gay pastors. The northeastern churches and California will be chomping at the bit for gay ministers, of course, but the midwestern and southern congregations won't put up with it.
I can't judge the Presbyterians too harshly, tho. They are one of the most accepting and open-hearted denominations you could ask for,they genuinely want to serve Christ, and they have done this chiefly by championing the underdog and the oppressed. They've just taken it too far.
Donna
I really enjoyed your post on the PCUSA deal. I was hoping others would jump in, so I have stayed “quiet” until now. Both of you make good points.
Certainly the Presbyterians are good people, even the liberal leaders (ha ha). Many of the key founders of our Restoration Movement were Presbyterians, by the way.
Donna makes a good point that there is a difference in belief between a few liberal leaders and most of the lay people; this homosexual initiative just barely passed even at the liberal leader level, if I understand it correctly.
In my opinion it takes some pretty serious rationalization/justification/distortionization (made up a word) to get to the point you can read Scripture and say that practicing homosexuality is ok. I think a person can be a homosexual and be in a saving relationship with God, along as he/she is not practicing that lifestyle, just a like people who may be prone/tempted to steal or commit adultery are in a saving relationship with God. He calls us to leave our “life of sin.”
I believe the church generally has mistreated homosexuals, and this, in part, is why there is such a backlash. We must extend grace and mercy to all people. The story this week provides a good model. Right?
Also, I think this issue illustrates what can happen when you begin trying to figure out life without starting with Scripture. If I begin with my wants/desires, then I tend to see in Scripture what I want to see. It is not within man to direct his steps.
Fairly early this morning I went for a nice 6 mile run, up in the Hoosier National Forest. I parked at the Spice Valley Baptist Church and ran up the big hill to access the trail head. The trail from Sherwood Road runs across a ridge to the big microwave tower at Georgia. Along the way, about a half mile before you get to the tower, there is a cemetery.
There are some really old graves there. I stopped this morning because someone had placed 2 American flags on 2 of the stones. I could not make out the names or dates on the stones. The weather over the years has badly eroded/faded the names and dates. I did notice, however, one readable stone, next to one of the “flagged” ones. It said “Blevins.” Mr. Belvins died in 1907 at age 80. Think about that! Made me think the other graves, the ones with flags, may contain Civil War vets. On the Blevins stone, which was rather large, it noted the birth of twins on January 26. I think it was 1899. Then it noted the dates of death: January 26, 1899 and January 31, 1899. I guess one died at birth and the other one 5 days later.
Regarding our text and the "divine doodling," there are some who think that Jesus was writing the sins of those would-be rock throwers. Can you imagine that? Having your sins, some of them secret, written in the dirt by Jesus?
What do you think?
HERE is an interesting article about church attendance and marital bliss. Makes sense to me.
I came across this earlier this morning.
Study: Americans Know Fewer Evangelicals than Homosexuals
According to a recent study, Americans are more likely to know a gay or lesbian person than an evangelical, the Christian Post reports. Conducted by Ellison Research, the study found that only 24 percent of Americans who say they are not evangelical know an evangelical very well, compared to 53 percent who say they know a homosexual person very well. These numbers are more startling when contrasted with demographics statistics: Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, noted that homosexuals are estimated to comprise less than 10 percent of the population, while 17 percent of Americans describe themselves as evangelical. "Is this because homosexuals are more open than evangelicals about who they are? Because Americans are more open to knowing a homosexual than an evangelical? Because evangelicals themselves are less likely to reach into the broader community to form relationships?" Sellers asked. "These questions are certainly open to debate."
Any thoughts?
allen
i have been thinking about the text and our class discussion. the text ends with basically "go and sin no more". it seems that a lot of churches miss that part. the idea that is relayed is "we accept you as you are" and they say that is what jesus did which again in the text we see that. however, dont a lot forget the second part? we accept you but... change. isnt that kind of what the presbyterian's are doing? i agree that i think the church as a whole has been too tough on those of the homosexual life style and have not accepted them. they have jumped to the end part; "go sin no more". just seems that christians as a whole have a hard time putting the two together.
rr
As the 4th of July approaches, here are a couple of views regarding the relationship between Christians and country.
Charles Colson: I don’t think that you can simple forget the fact that we live in a kingdom and a state. Our job is to make the state as righteous and conformed to God’s standards as possible. But you can love the Lord your God with your heart, mind, and soul and also love your country as a way of loving your neighbor.
Gregory Boyd: This is the fundamental difference between us. In your book you speak a lot about our duel commitments, our duel allegiances to God and country. I just don’t know where in the New Testament you get that. I can’t imagine Jesus or Paul saying such a thing. God tells us to obey the laws of the land and to pray for peace. Those are our two engagements. But I don’t feel we have any kind of duty to love or defend our country.
Which view is closer to yours?
Good point/post Ryan!
On the Boyd/Colson debate, I'm somewhere in between.
I don't think we can just sit and pray for peace This coincides with praying that starving people will be fed. If we think that the only thing that comes from prayer is God's actions, we don't understand the concept of duty or good works. We are looking to be served instead of serving.
I don't think Jesus lived a passive life. I think he defended himself and others in a non-violent way. Throughout his life, I can't help but think that some of his prayers were to make it through without calling down God's wrath and wiping everything out. Can you imagine how much restraint that involves?
Now, that being said, I just don't get too excited about politics. I think that the whole system has become so money based that the old saying of "let the best man win" is a pipe dream. Money has a way of corrupting everything if used incorrectly (Marriages, Churches, Politics, Lives in general). Money isn't bad, it's the love and miss-use of it that is the problem.
As far as the political situation goes, I just pray that God is in control, I vote for who I think will make the most positive impact on my kids' futures. I don't want them messing with our constitution because I believe it holds the key to our religious freedom. Becuase of that, I try to vote for the party who has the least chance of electing supreme court justices who will support liberal legislation that my kids will have to live with.
I don't live under the dilusion that the USA is God's chosen people. I think he has blessed us for a long time becuase we have been a generous country and we have protected those who needed it when it was needed, even if force was required.
But, every kingdom falls eventually.
Time will tell.
God is in control.
My $.02
Brent
Well said.
Post a Comment