The number one most abused story in scripture... maybe never actually happened in the first place. 
I'm talking, of course, of the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7. This is the favorite story for progressives because it's so easy to read a "gentle" Jesus into the text-- an easygoing Jesus who shrugs off sexual sin, doesn't care for the law, and reserves all his ire for the rule-followers.
This story has always seemed a little... weird to me. The Law of Moses was pretty rigid about requiring formal court proceedings and witnesses for those accused of adultery. And under Roman occupation, the Jews had no authority to carry out capital punishment, anyway.
And remember, it was Jesus who gave the Law in the first place and never, ever broke it. He attests to the divinity of the Law all throughout His ministry, and his harshest condemnation of the Pharisees wasn't against their zeal for the Law He gave, but against their bastardization of the Law He gave. So why then, would He seem to make an exception to the Law in this case?
And what of the weird standard He seemed to have set: "He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her?" No wonder progressives love that verse-- on its face, Jesus seems to be saying "All mortal law enforcement and punishment is illegitimate."
Then, when everyone else leaves, we're told Jesus basically says "You're good, just don't do it again, okay?" No time for repentance or anything? That doesn't sound like the same Jesus who warned of hellfire if we even think unchaste thoughts, does it?
This whole story seemed... off to me, like a jarring interruption to the narrative of the Gospels. And it turns out there's a reason for that: that story probably didn't happen, or at least not the way it's depicted.
This whole story is absent from many of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John we've discovered, and the other early manuscripts that do contain it surround it in marks indicating it's likely pseudepigraphical-- an addition added by the copyists.
That doesn't necessarily mean the whole exchange was made up. Perhaps it was a true story circulated by word of mouth and later added by copyists many decades later where they thought it fit. Maybe John himself added it to a "second edition" the copyists had access to.
We don't know how or why this story was added to the Gospel of John, but we do know it was added long after the Gospel was written.
If you love and rely on a "tolerant, non-judgmental" Jesus based on this anomalous passage while dismissing the demanding, no-nonsense Jesus of the rest of the Gospels-- the Jesus who told His followers it's better to pluck their own eyes out than to commit serious sins-- then may I suggest you're building on a sandy foundation.
If you think that, like the adulterous woman, you can intentionally and willfully break God's commandments, and He will simply wave them away the moment your sins come to light, you are gravely mistaken. Serious sin carries serious consequences, even after years of wholehearted repentance.
As disciples of Christ, we cannot excuse any sin-- beams and motes alike. Of course we seek to minister with full charity and patience. But never with even an iota of permissiveness.
One of Satan's more effective tactics today is to convince people there is such a thing as being "too righteous" and "trying too hard" to follow God. Many have bought into this pernicious lie and believe Jesus surely doesn't mind if they "get a few free ones." Surely Jesus loves them so much, He'll let them in along with a few of their pet sins.
But true scripture speaks starkly against this ideology. Jesus never condemned someone for "trying too hard" or for "being too righteous."
No, the impossible standard He requires us to shoot for is "be ye therefore perfect."
Don't excuse sin in yourself, or in others. And don't try to use this questionable story to shut down discussion on morality.
I'm talking, of course, of the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 7. This is the favorite story for progressives because it's so easy to read a "gentle" Jesus into the text-- an easygoing Jesus who shrugs off sexual sin, doesn't care for the law, and reserves all his ire for the rule-followers.
This story has always seemed a little... weird to me. The Law of Moses was pretty rigid about requiring formal court proceedings and witnesses for those accused of adultery. And under Roman occupation, the Jews had no authority to carry out capital punishment, anyway.
And remember, it was Jesus who gave the Law in the first place and never, ever broke it. He attests to the divinity of the Law all throughout His ministry, and his harshest condemnation of the Pharisees wasn't against their zeal for the Law He gave, but against their bastardization of the Law He gave. So why then, would He seem to make an exception to the Law in this case?
And what of the weird standard He seemed to have set: "He who is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her?" No wonder progressives love that verse-- on its face, Jesus seems to be saying "All mortal law enforcement and punishment is illegitimate."
Then, when everyone else leaves, we're told Jesus basically says "You're good, just don't do it again, okay?" No time for repentance or anything? That doesn't sound like the same Jesus who warned of hellfire if we even think unchaste thoughts, does it?
This whole story seemed... off to me, like a jarring interruption to the narrative of the Gospels. And it turns out there's a reason for that: that story probably didn't happen, or at least not the way it's depicted.
This whole story is absent from many of the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of John we've discovered, and the other early manuscripts that do contain it surround it in marks indicating it's likely pseudepigraphical-- an addition added by the copyists.
That doesn't necessarily mean the whole exchange was made up. Perhaps it was a true story circulated by word of mouth and later added by copyists many decades later where they thought it fit. Maybe John himself added it to a "second edition" the copyists had access to.
We don't know how or why this story was added to the Gospel of John, but we do know it was added long after the Gospel was written.
If you love and rely on a "tolerant, non-judgmental" Jesus based on this anomalous passage while dismissing the demanding, no-nonsense Jesus of the rest of the Gospels-- the Jesus who told His followers it's better to pluck their own eyes out than to commit serious sins-- then may I suggest you're building on a sandy foundation.
If you think that, like the adulterous woman, you can intentionally and willfully break God's commandments, and He will simply wave them away the moment your sins come to light, you are gravely mistaken. Serious sin carries serious consequences, even after years of wholehearted repentance.
As disciples of Christ, we cannot excuse any sin-- beams and motes alike. Of course we seek to minister with full charity and patience. But never with even an iota of permissiveness.
One of Satan's more effective tactics today is to convince people there is such a thing as being "too righteous" and "trying too hard" to follow God. Many have bought into this pernicious lie and believe Jesus surely doesn't mind if they "get a few free ones." Surely Jesus loves them so much, He'll let them in along with a few of their pet sins.
But true scripture speaks starkly against this ideology. Jesus never condemned someone for "trying too hard" or for "being too righteous."
No, the impossible standard He requires us to shoot for is "be ye therefore perfect."
Don't excuse sin in yourself, or in others. And don't try to use this questionable story to shut down discussion on morality.
No comments:
Post a Comment