Yesterday at COAH (City On A Hill - a church near Melbourne city), a very interesting passage was discussed, being John 8:1-11. This passage brings forth the famous "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" line.
With my recent studies, this passage has become a bit of an enigma to me. I'm not sure what to do with it.
The first issue is whether it should be in the bible at all! The earlier and more reliable manuscripts in fact do not have this passage, with its addition only incorporated into the later copies. Last Saturday I had an interesting discussion with my brother on whether the end of Mark should be in the bible at all, for similar reasons. His view was that no matter who wrote it, we believe that the final bible that we have is the work of God - ie it was inspired by God. Thus whether it was there or not originally does not matter; it is here now in our bible, and thus we should accept it as the word of God.
I'm not too convinced of his argument. For even if we trust in the end result of this bible as being from God, all bibles take pain to state that these 2 passages are missing from the earlier and more reliable sources. Each passage starts with a little note stating so. I feel that they have been left in more for tradition rather than anything, possibly following the King James Bible traditions.
We must acknowledge that our Reformed Christianity nowadays differ from the original pathway of Christianity (ie the Catholics). If we just accept everything as being inspired by God, then certainly we should all be Catholics and following their teachings.
Another possibility is that we should accept whatever was accepted as the Canon when it was introduced. This seems more valid to me, although I'm not sure if these passages were in the gospels at that time. Anyway this area is probably way more complicated that I can reflect on here (and also I must admit that I have not done enough research into this to make a final conclusion).
My second issue is the famous phrase "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her". The pastor at COAH explained that this passage does not mean as we normally think it mean - ie that we shouldn't judge others because we ourselves have sinned too. He rightly explained that those kind of interpretation is wrong (although very often used by Christians and non-Christians alike: "No one's perfect" etc). If that was so, then there will be no source of morality. No sense of right and wrong, anyone can just do anything they want in this life without being judged (until God comes back anyway). The Law of Moses however was a set up jurisdiction for the nation to operate. Sure, we shouldn't judge/condemn others for their sins, for we are sinners too. However, as the government, they are allowed to pass law and judgement upon their people. The judges of the country judge on behalf of the nation, not by themselves.
The pastor went on to explain that what was happening here with the Pharisees and Scribes was just a trap for Jesus (as clearly stated in 8:6), and that this was not a real court case. They're trying to pass on the Law of Moses, but not in the way that the Law itself stated for it to be done. It should be in a private trial, giving the accused a fair chance to present their own case. The male whom she was caught in adultery with should also be there. This was a farce. They were in no legitimate position to be passing on the Law of Moses.
I agree with everything the pastor said. He explained it very well. However... the problem remains. Jesus' words were not "if anyone of you is without sinful intentions, let him cast the first stone", which was what the pastor was arguing for the interpretation of this verse to be. That Jesus was saying that their motives for such judgement were sinful, and thus they cannot pass the sentence of the Law. But Jesus did not say that! I feel like that was eisegesis, rather than exegesis... putting things into the Bible to make it make sense. Jesus clearly said that if anyone is without sin, let them be the first to throw the stone. Furthermore, after they all had left, Jesus told the woman that because none of the others had condemned her, then neither will he. Surely Jesus' motives/intent is pure.... but he does not pass judgement either.
The question then, is the role of the Mosaic Law, and Jesus' abiding to it. Throughout the gospels, Jesus was always a good Jew. He fulfilled all the requirements, did everything he was supposed to. His "breaking" of the Sabbath was in fact a breaking of the extra traditions imposed through the line of the religious leaders, and not breaking of the Law itself. And yet in this case, we see clearly that Jesus is suggesting that it's okay to break the Law. Now Christians will find it easy to accept. Of course Jesus would favour love and mercy and forgiveness over the Law; and nowadays we don't follow a lot of the Law anyway. But I'm confused to why Jesus would suggest it that clearly. Is Jesus saying to the people of that time that they shouldn't be allowed to pass judgement (as a government) over those who do wrong? Surely not??
It goes back to my question of whether this passage belong in the Bible in the first place....hm..
No comments:
Post a Comment