John 8
23 June 2006
I heard a sermon on John chapter 8 last weekend. For the slack who don’t look stuff up the story is of the woman caught in adultery. It’s got whooper brackets around it. Almost every big gun I know says it isn’t part of the original text (Metzger, Carson the early church fathers) blah, blah… uncharacteristically Luken blah, blah.
Having said that how would I/you preach a sermon on it? The sermon I heard took the main point as Jesus humility (ie Jesus was prepared to stoop and associate with sinners etc)
I’m not sure I agree with this. The more I thought about it the more I thought the point of this passage is more that God’s justice and God’s mercy and how they are held together in the person of Jesus. Jesus doesn’t condemn the woman rather forgives (has mercy on) her and sends her off telling her to sin no more (justice). What do you think?
Posts
Mike.
Is this my first post on your site? Long time reader. First time poster.
Hmmm...
For a quick defence of *not* preaching it: Click Here.
I have not preached on it as my main text since thinking about all this. But I have felt free to allude to it in preaching a sermon on something else. Like, I almost always use it when I'm preaching on Hosea. The allusions are astounding to Hosea.
I'd watch the ‘Blah Blahs’ re this variant. There could be something in it. Can I say that with humility on your site?
That having been said, how about these [I like yours too!]:
1. God loves even adulterous Israel.
2. You can't trap Jesus [esp. when you are *using* someone to do it]
3. The Torah is now [and never was] not the only basis by which God looks at us.
4. Jesus is in control [something about sovereignty and the looking down.]
5. Older people know obvious things -- or are at least more likely to know the truth about having sinned.
6. How about: Don't cast stones unless you've never sinned. [Although it’s worth asking if there is a diff between 'casting stones' and 'discerning' where someone needs redemption. Jesus does that here.]
7. Jesus is the only one who could have cast a stone... and didn't.
8. Grace teaches us to say 'No'. [Thank Paul re Titus].
Thanks Mike for the chance to think about that. That was very stimulating, and I’m keen to hear more from others.
I might put a post up about that myself.
Sorry that was long. I couldn't help myself...
No worries my tone is never one of disrespect. I was being slightly ironic.
For the record I have great respect for the thinkers of our time (Carson is one example) and for others who know truckloads more about the Bible than I.
Having said that thanks for the comment it's great to have you aboard.
I would not preach it either!!! (that's kind of half a joke because I don't preach - duh) - but whenever we have done a series through John - it has been skipped.
I have however heard a sermon on the passage - preached by a woman to a mixed congregation - and her main point was that Jesus was the only man who has ever lived who wasn't sexist - because he loved her.....afterall, where is the man who was caught in the adulterous relationship = the others were probably cheering him on in the background...she also made some big point about Jesus playing with stones on the ground - but I didn't get that.......that was a corker of a heresy sermon!!!
Good question - I love posts like this one.
Ruth -- it is a good question to ask, though. Where was the offending guy??
Still. Hard to know how to deal with this passage.
Can we use it as an illustration? Like we feel that we have license for in any other sermon about any other illustration? An illustration with limitations? But not 'the Word of God'.?
Is that how to move forward?
Someone at college did choose to preach on this text for their 'college-sermon' (all final-year students are expected to preach during a college chapel service). But I wasn't there.
I think the best way I've heard it used is as an illustration - or example of the way the Bible is constructed...I like that type of sermon!
It is a fair question as to where the man was - but I don't think her conclusion that the others were cheering him on the sideline was an appropriate conclusion!!
Justin - what do you think this passage would be an illustration of??
I think there is some Humility in that passage a bit hard to decifer though, but i think if u want to teach real humility in a sermon, I think Jesus on the cross is the answer. He went humbly to the cross, could have made a mountain out of a mole hill about it, but no. Matthew 26:39 " Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you" complete submission in that verse and humility. Mind Blowing!!
thanks Josh for you comment. I agree I espcially love that passage in Philipians 2 definately one of my faves.
I would certainly preach on it (were I a preacher), and I consider it part of the canon - even though it may not have been part of the original text.
Yes, the blah blah's, maybe its a Tasmanian meaning?? But whenever I say blah blah, its kind of saying " I don't want to crap on and on, but I want to make a rough point". Well at least that's what I'd mean by 'blah blah'.
Good points justin.
I have issues with it, just like the last part of Mark... (i.e the bit that's obivously tacked on after the women are told that jesus is risen and the women who see th angel run away because they are afraid).
Hmmmm, controversy!
Ruth -- You said: It is a fair question as to where the man was - but I don't think her conclusion that the others were cheering him on the sideline was an appropriate conclusion!!
Absolutely! Crazy talk.
The text says that they were trying to *trap* Jesus. The woman - sinner as she is -- is being *used* by the teachers of the law and the Pharisees. Theres no guy there, because there doesn't need to be the guy there. The woman will do for the purposes of the religious leadership.
You ask: what do you think this passage would be an illustration of??
I'm thinking: "God loves even adulterous Israel." Like Gomer is an illustration of Israel etc.
I guess it would depend on who I was identifying with in the narrative. Am I the woman? [Hmmm.] Or am I the stone thrower? Or...
What do you think? Am I on the right path?
I'm interested to find out the possible motivation for adding John 8, if it not part of the original text.
Was there some kind of heresy going in say the 2nd century that said that Jesus didn't forgive sins like adultry, so the writers wanted to add something explicit about God's grace in this respect...?
Dumb lazy question coming .....does it say elsewhere in the bible the quote about he who is without sin casting the first stone??
Sorry - I'm too lazy to look it up - and you guys are BIble brains.
Craig - why do definite about preaching on it?
I don't like sermons on it - and I don't think I'd use it as an illustration either (were I to preach!) - it might just confuse people further about whether it is God breathed or not.
Having said that, Justin - I am interested in your Israel adulterer idea - could you expand further? Who do you think you're meant to identify with in the story??
( I really am getting lazy tonight - I should go read the passage myself and work out my own answer to that - but I'm sick, so I prob wont do it!!)
Hi Mike,
i discovered your blog through Sherrin's. I think your blog is good and that it's got a good mix of relections on your life and big ideas. That makes it interesting.
I thought i'd leave a comment cos i felt a bit weird reading it but not knowing you that well.
cheers
yvonne
Ruth, you might know this already but www.biblegateway.com have lots of different translations and you can search pretty well using the advanced search. Sometimes I don't want to go look it up, but on the computer is less effort!
Actually Bron - you first introduced me to biblegateway a few months ago!!!
I feel too sick to concentrate on heavy things - that's why I haven't looked it up. I might when I feel better.
Although I do prefer to read printed page to computer screen.....but someone keeps moving my Bible!!!
Craig - why do definite about preaching on it?
Well, partly because everyone else was saying they wouldn't!
But mostly because it is a part of the Word of God - I wouldn't dare leave it out!
Having said that, Justin - I am interested in your Israel adulterer idea - could you expand further?
I just mean that the OT is clear that Isreal is like a wife who has gone after her other lovers. No time to look it up, but I'm thinking Ezekiel 16,23 [I think], Hosea, Jer 31 etc.
Israel is [like] a promiscuous woman. And in Hosea 2, Hosea puts Gomer up 'on trial', as it were. On trial in front of Israel's leaders. And it becomes clearer and clearer through Hosea 2 that Hosea is not talking about Gomer, but Israel herself.
To which the original hearers were meant to 'drop their proverbial stones', gulp, and [presumably] say: "Oops. We are the guilty ones. Not just this woman Gomer."
But in Hosea 3:1-3 [link in my first comment], Hosea redeems her and says to her: "You must not be intimate with any other man as long as you live." etc.
The links to the [oral tradition?] of John 8 are strong. Here is a woman. Here is Isreal's leadership condemning her, and here is God incarnate redeeming her life from sin.
God loves even promiscuous Isreal.
Now -- If I were going to speak on Hosea, you could very easily hear an illustration... Yancey style. Chappo style.
Why not use John 8 instead of your own one? There is a strong possibility that this is part of the oral tradition of the day [thanks Craig]. And it is a brilliand story.
Someone fight me on this! I am enjoying the conversation.
Sorry re length.
Who do you think you're meant to identify with in the story??
Both. Sometimes one, sometimes both. Bit like the Wasteful Son.
Narrative does that.
Hope youa re feeling better.
Thanks Justin for that long answer - that was helpful. I'm reading through Hosea with someone at the moment, and it is one of my fav OT books - cause I think I get it (on the whole - not in too much detail! - well more than other OT books!)
I don't want to be the only one to disagree with you Justin - and I see better the link you're making - but don't you think it would be very distracting to use this passage as an illustration??
ell, partly because everyone else was saying they wouldn't!
lol!
Why do you think it's part of God's word. I very much dont think it is..
Justin
I really like the idea of using a John 8 as an illustration if I was doing a sermon on Hosea.
Very often in preaching we jump to some very obsure illustrations from our culture. I think that's it's important that we always consider if there is an illustration in God's word first brcause his illustrations are simply better.
Why do you think it's part of God's word. I very much dont think it is...
This is a huge question Ruth! How do we "decide" what is (and isn't) part of God's word? Why accept John 7, but not John 8? Come to that, why accept the gospel of John, and not the gospel of Thomas?
(Those are real questions - I'd like to hear everyone's answers...)
Here's my answer. The church did not have authority to define the canon (accepted word of God). However, God gave the church the ability to recognise the canon. And that is what the early church did - it recognised some writings as being part of the inspired word of God.
I accept Mark, not because St Mark wrote it, but because it was accepted as canoncial by the church. So it doesn't really matter if Mark wrote every word in the book or not. And it doesn't matter if the last 12 verses were tacked on by someone else or not. God, in his providence, may have ordained that this is how Mark's gospel was to come to us. Why not?
But with regards to the end of the Mark, and John 8, these were accepted by the early church as canoncial (and also by the Reformers!)
I believe we have no more authority to exclude John 8, than to exclude John 7 and 9...
Well, I've been restraining myself from posting on this this thread until now, but I will have to say that I am, of course, in complete agreement with Craig.
Craig and John -- how do you handle textual varients, then? Do you just let them go through to the keeper? All of them?
variants...
Thats a great question Justin - exactly what I was talking to Con Campbell about on the weekend. He's totally into this stuff.
The vast majority of textual variants are very minor - I think we are free to go either way. What I am not comfortable with is the whole sale excision of a passage that was accepted by the church previously.
I know I'm not being wholly consistent there, but I think I'm being more consistent than those who tie canoncial authority too closely to historical/textual criticism.