Transcript
Just before I begin our exposition today, I want to say a few things more precisely about
the interpretation of the text. The whole question of hermeneutics, the whole question
of interpretation of a New Testament text, methods of biblical criticism, we made some illusions
to on the first day, but now I just want to say a few things to put it into sharper focus.
We made reference to form criticism in the first day of our study, and I just want to
say, at the outset, just to make some comments to put those into focus. Form criticism and
redaction criticism grew up out of the interpreter's concern to know the historical situation
and the setting out of which a New Testament text or Old Testament text emerges. The form
critic, in other words, wants to know what is the situation in the city, in the church,
in the life of the writers of the text, what's going on, you might say, behind the text,
and that's a very important line of criticism or questioning that should be taken in the
study of a text. We saw it in our very first day when we looked at the references to John
the Baptist in the midst of the opening hymn of the book of John, twice John interrupts
the hymn to make the point that John the Baptist is not the Messiah, and then following
that hymn, the very first comment again that John makes is a paragraph that once again
establishes the fact that John the Baptist is not the Messiah. The form critic, when they
read a text like that, are fascinated with that interruption, with the fact of the interruption,
and they want to know what is the situation in the church that would require John to interrupt
his hymn twice to make that point. Well, obviously there must be some debate, there must
be some controversy or problem concerning who John the Baptist is in the life of the
early church. So that's the role that the form critic plays. Redaction criticism also
of course, in the same boat, wanting to know how the various documents come together
and how they become a text, all the strands and threads that converge and draw together
by the early church to form the text that we read is our final text in the RSV and the
accepted text of the Greek manuscript that stands behind it. These methods of inquiry
are great usefulness, and I want to commend them to you in Bible say, they are part of
what I call the historical question and the technical questions that are inevitably and
inescapably involved in serious Bible study. However, as I also said the first day, it seems
to me that literary criticism, which is the grappling of the text as it stands in the authorized
text before you, letting the text itself speak, finding out what it says before we suggest
what it means. I think one of the greatest errors in preaching is the pastor leaping
too quickly to tell the congregation what a text means before the text has had a chance
to say what it says. Literary criticism tries to let a text, in effect, the literary critic
says, will the Gospel of John please stand? Let's see what it says before we say what it means.
Theologians, and this is where I, in my own opinion, biblical theology I think is so fundamental
for good theology as the underpinning for systematic theology, because the biblical theologian is very
concerned about what the text says, and that's why biblical theologians are don't tend to be as
consistent as systematic theologians, because systematic theologians are mainly concerned with meaning
and correlation, but a biblical theologian is concerned to see what the text says and then
suggest and wonder about what it means. So literary criticism tries to find out what the text says
before we are bold enough to say what it we think it means. So I'm saying in the study of the
gospel, John, it's terribly important that we do literary criticism as well as form criticism
or redaction criticism to find out what the text says. Brevard Childs wrote a commentary on the book
of Exodus. I think it's one of the finest commentaries on the Old Testament there is.
Certainly in the last few years, and it's over in the bookstore, it's just a classic.
And in his commentary on Exodus, he takes on the stormy redaction form critical preoccupation
with the Old Testament Torah, and as you know the Pentateuch has been a storm field for biblical
critics, and I want to read a little quotation from Brevard Childs on an Old Testament text, but
what he says about the Old Testament could certainly apply to us in New Testament studies too.
In the midst of his discussion of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20, Brevard Childs just stops
himself at one point in his commentary and says and tells about all of the raging controversies
over the cyanide and the Exodus tradition strands that are present in the Exodus material,
and which has caused a lot of study of the Ten Commandments to be the kind or of the Torah,
to be the kind of study where when you're all finished, all you have in front of you is this
battle machinery, and it becomes so complicated that the text itself is ignored, and now listen to
what Brevard Childs' writes. He's talking about these two different arguments, the von Rad argument
over against the Sinai argument, and the Exodus is a strand argument. He says both approaches
have failed to deal seriously with the present form of the biblical text. In other words,
that good text we have before us in that Masoretic text. He says both of them fail to deal seriously
with the present form of the biblical text and have focused their major interest on some phase
of the prehistory, in other words, form criticism and redaction criticism. In fact, the history of
research has often demonstrated how, now listen to this, this is Brevard Childs', the history of
research has often demonstrated how effectively the study of the prehistory has functioned in
obscuring the biblical text through false parallels and mistaken ideas of historical development,
and that's what happened to the Gospel of John when it ended up in shambles as a result of the
sort of form critical fascination with that book at the end of the 19th century and the beginning
of the 20th century. I'll read that last sentence from child because I think it's so great. He says
the history of research, and this is true of New Testament as well as Old Testament research,
has often demonstrated how effectively the study of the prehistory has functioned in obscuring
the biblical text through false parallels and mistaken ideas of historical development. I'll
show you what I mean by kind of a ludicrous illustration if you don't mind. I was asked by Theology
Day a few years ago to write a book review of a commentary that had been written on the Psalms,
and I have not written many book reviews, and this was the first one I ever wrote, and so I wrote it,
and this particular scholar was a great scholar, and he did a fine work on the Psalms, but he made
one sentence in his study of the Psalms that really bugged me. He said, you know, the most
helpful way to study the Psalms is to use the form criticism. He says, form criticism will help
us the most in understanding the Psalms, and then he went on to explain what he meant. He says,
for instance, we are really helped in studying the Psalms if we know how they were used in
temple worship. That's what the form critic is interested in. The form critic wants to know how the
Psalm won, or how Psalm 8, or how Psalm 113, the hell out, want to know how was used in temple worship.
If, in other words, this critic went on to say, if you know where the Psalm is used in the history
of Israel's worship, then you can better understand the Psalm. He says, that's the invaluable clue
to the study of the Psalms is form criticism. I scratched my head and I said, oh my goodness,
no, that can't be. That just isn't right. So in my own critique of his book, I said, that's like
saying, now here's my ludicrous illustration, that's like saying that the key to understanding George
Gershwin's rhapsody in blue, which was written in 1933. The key to understanding that music is to
know that, and this is now a fact, a little research on George Gershwin, that musical piece,
the rhapsody in blue, was written by George Gershwin for the dedication of the Brooklyn
Music Hall in 1933, played by Paul Whiteman in New York City. It was commissioned by the
City of New York, Brooklyn, to be played for the dedication of the Brooklyn Music Hall.
Now according to the form critic, if you really want to get inside of the guts of rhapsody
in blue, you must realize that it was written for the opening of the Brooklyn Music Hall.
So then that's the way the form critic proceeds. He says, now, in order then to
under and get the redactionist into this too and watch how it gets, how complicated it gets.
It means then that if we want to understand the ethos and the sensitivities and all the strands
that are present in rhapsody in blue, we must study Brooklyn and we must study the occasion
of that Brooklyn Music Hall. And when we do, what do we discover? We discover that the committee
called George Gershwin on 12 separate occasions before the composition of that piece.
We discover also that there was the various factions in that committee. There was, for instance,
the piano faction. And the piano faction, one of the members of that committee, was himself
an accomplished pianist. And he, we know, called Gershwin personally four times in connection with
that music. And that explains the piano portions in rhapsody in blue. In fact, some scholars even
suggested that piano individual himself wrote those parts. And Gershwin then incorporated them.
Then, of course, there is that rhythmic section of Gershwin's rhapsody in blue. And then we know
that there was a very strong drum and bugle core faction there at that was a part of that committee
as well. We know that they also had an input. Possibly some of them even suggested many of the rhythms
are foreign to Gershwin. They don't seem like his, Porgy and Bess work. So we are suggesting
that perhaps the drum and bugle core faction brought in those rhythms. In other words,
you realize that the result of recent scholarship shows it probably Gershwin only wrote the opening
and final phrases of that music. That's form criticism when it goes absolutely wild. And you have
dismantle machinery. I want to tell you something. Gershwin wrote that music because Paul Whiteman
asked him to do it. And my guess is he never thought once about Brooklyn. He probably never went
to Brooklyn. He probably could care less where it was being played. He wrote it because Paul Whiteman
asked him to write it. And if you want to understand the Gershwin's rhapsody in blue, I want to tell you
how to study it. Let play it and listen to it. The key to the Psalms, I don't think is the way
they were used in worship. I think the key to the Psalms is literary criticism. What do they say?
Listen to the Psalm. Don't destroy it by saying, isn't it wonderful that this Psalm was played for
the dedication of Solomon? Man, that's just because some musician picked it out of the arsenal and
played it for Solomon's dedication. That's not the guts of the Psalm. The guts of the Psalm is
what's in the Psalm. Now, there's the difference between the literary critic and the form critic.
By the way, Dorothy Sayers and C.S. Lewis both had written marvelous things in this subject because
they were both great literary critics, and I commend them to you. All right, now I want to jump
into our text today and do a little form criticism. We are now back to John 6, the sixth chapter.
And in the sixth chapter following our man from Bethesda incident yesterday,
Jesus goes back to Galilee. This is going to be in the gospel of John, the last appearance of our
Lord in Galilee, according to John. And in this account, John tells in his own way, and it's a
remarkable account, really, he gives us the record of the feeding of the 5,000. As you know, you study
John, and you know that's the only miracle that is in all four gospels, apart from, of course,
the resurrection of our Lord. John records that miracle. Evidently, he felt it was such significance
that the feeding of the 5,000 was such a turning point event in the ministry of Christ that he
decides to narrated himself, even though Matthew, Mark, and Luke have all narrated it. So here,
John breaks with his ordinary, his ordinary approach of not repeating the other writers in order
to repeat this incident. And John does something with this incident that the other writers really
don't do. He shows it following this incident. There was a great surge of popularity for Christ,
and then our Lord disappointed that popularity refuses to galvanize the popularity into a people
movement and says the very things, and you can read this all for yourself in the sixth chapter,
that causes in the one hand, within one chapter, we see Christ reaches height of popularity,
and then we see immediately the popularity weighing. And finally, by the end of the sixth chapter,
the disciples themselves are totally chagrin, and Jesus has an encounter with Peter and says,
are you going to leave too, and then Peter says, where shall we go? So it's a tremendous turning
point chapter, chapter 6. The beginning of the great "I am" passages, the "ego eimi" passages,
begin in full force in chapter 6. Now chapter 7. After the seventh chapter starts in Galilee
with our Lord's brothers tempting him. It's interesting, Jesus is not tempted by the devil
in the book of John, but he's tempted by his disciples with almost the same kinds of temptations
as the temptation of the devil. In fact, notice the temptation by his own brothers that the seventh
chapter begins with. After this, Jesus went about in Galilee, he would not go about Judea because
of Jews sought to kill him. Now the Jews' feast of tabernacles was at hand. So his brothers
said to him, leave here and go to Judea that your disciples may see the works that you're doing.
For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself
to the world. Wow, it's almost identical to the devil saying, throw yourself off the temple,
let the angels pick you up, and then the people will follow you. But in John's account, that
doesn't come from the devil. That comes from our Lord's own brothers. And then notice John
himself makes the comment, for even his brothers did not believe in him. See, they didn't trust
Christ. They were trying to get him to do what they felt he should do. And Jesus said to them,
my time is not yet come, but your time is always here. The world cannot hate you, but it hates me
because I testify of it that its works are evil. Go to the fast for yourselves. I am not going
up to this feast for my time as not yet fully come. So saying he remained in Galilee. Ironically,
the next sentence says he went up to the feast though. So he sent his brothers up to the feast,
and then the next day he decides to go up himself. Chapter 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the book of John
are what we call the Feast of Tabernacles Discourse. This is a body of material that stands all by
itself as a remarkable body of material about our Lord going up to Jerusalem in October for the
Feast of Tabernacles. And I want to do our study today in this body of material. The Feast of
Tabernacles is held in October in the Jewish Feast year, and it's an 8-day feast. It wasn't
always an 8-day feast. It was originally a 7-day feast, but this feast was so celebrated. In fact,
some scholars feel it was really the most important feast. It had surpassed Passover
in because of its celebrated nature. And it was the fall celebration. And so by the time of the
first century, an 8-day had been added to this feast so that people could rest up. It gives you
a little idea about how exciting the feast must have been. So they had it with 7-day feast,
but they had an 8-day for people to rest up afterward. And the feast celebrates the 40 years
wandering in the wilderness. That's technically the purpose of the feast.
Each day, the feast contains several dramatic events. Josephus tells us about some of these
and gives us some real insight into how dramatic they were. Each day, the feast begins with a
procession by the priest carrying the gold and pitcher. And a crowd of people would follow him
down to the pool of Siloam. By the way, interesting pool of Siloam, because you'll notice in the
ninth chapter of John, the healing of the man born blind, Jesus sends him to the pool of Siloam
during this feast of Tabernacles incident. So they go to the pool of Siloam and the choir sings Isaiah
12-3 with joy, you will draw water from the wells of salvation as they go down to the pool. And then
the procession goes to the pool, gets a pitcher of water. You see, remember, this feast celebrates the
protection of God of the Jews through the 40 years of wilderness. And so they're going to act out
a lot of things of that 40-year wandering. They get the pitcher of water, they come back to the
to the court of the women and there, which is of course the great court outside the inner court,
and there they have a silver funnel that is over an altar and the water is poured while the people
sing the halal, which is Psalm 113 to 118, they sing the halal all the way back. You know the
halal, Psalm, from a form critical standpoint, it's very interesting that that Psalm is sung at most
of the important feasts of Israel. It's the most important part of the Psalter for their worship.
And that little body of material Psalm 113 to 118 is very messianic and the people sing it during
most of the feasts. And so they sing the halal as they walk back from the pool of Siloam, the priest
pours the golden pitcher of water, isn't it, dramatic, through the silver funnel onto the ground.
Now, that's the morning. Oh, but you haven't heard anything yet. In the evening, they have a sacrifice. Every evening,
in the sacrifice bills, the seven days till on the seventh day they have the sacrifice of the bull.
Then after that, they light the four great candelabras. And Josephus, in his works, tells us that when
these candles were lighted in the court of the women, it illuminated the whole city of Jerusalem.
They were huge pools, like Olympic torches. They were huge pools of oil. And the priests took
some of their old clothes and threw them into the pools, which became like a wick. And they would
light these huge four great candles. And as Josephus says, it illuminated the entire city. So they were
tremendous sense of drama in the Feast of Tabernacles. Now, let's go to our text. Psalm, or rather, John 7:37. And I think with that little bit of background to what's happening all around Jesus,
maybe this text is going to leap at us a little more. All right, chapter seven, on the last day of
the Feast. Now, that's probably the seventh day, because they always saw the eighth day as a rest
up day, though it's still a part of the Feast. So let's think of this probably, we're going to make
a guess. There's probably the seventh day of the Feast. On the last day of the Feast, the great
day, especially since John calls it the great day, which would set it up as the seventh day,
Jesus stood up and proclaimed, if anyone thirsts, let him come to me and drink. Wow. In other words,
are you still thirsty? Then come to me and drink. And then our Lord gives a kind of compound
quotation from about three different Old Testament passages with this next sentence,
he who believes in me, as the scripture has said, out of his heart, shall flow rivers of living
water. And that's kind of a compound sentence, because there's no actual sentence precisely like
that in the Old Testament. But there are about four prophetic passages that are all quite like that.
So Jesus does a kind of compound, a J.B. Phillips, sort of sense translation of about four
different passages in the Old Testament. Now, this he said about the Spirit, by the way, John never
uses the word Holy Spirit in his gospel except in the opening when he has John, the Baptist speak,
and John the Baptist says Holy Spirit. But you know, this is a Johannine mark that in John's book,
also in 1st, 2nd, 3rd John, and one of the reasons is another argument in favor of giving
book of Revelation to John. In the book of Revelation, John never says Holy Spirit, he always says Spirit.
If you have a King James Version, you know in 1st John 5, there is a password, Holy Spirit appears,
but that's a bad text. That's not in the great manuscripts. So John always says Spirit.
But he knows about the word Holy Spirit because he knows it in, quote, John the Baptist in the
opening chapter with the word Holy Spirit. But he always says Spirit. That's John's just a mark
in John's writings. Okay. Now, this Jesus said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him
were to receive for as yet the Spirit had not been given because Jesus had not yet been glorified.
And then the next few verses from 40 onto the end of the 7th chapter tells about a controversy
that breaks out as a result of this amazing invitation from Christ. Are you still thirsty?
Come to me and drink. And then notice the controversy. When they heard these words, some of the people
said this is really the prophet. Others said this is the Christ, but some said is the Christ to come
from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David and comes from
Bethlehem, the village where David was. So there was a division among the people over him. Some of them
wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him. Aren't you grateful that John gives us this
sense of the strain and background? We're getting some insight into what was causing objection to
Christ. And then it goes on. The officers then went back to the chief priest and the Pharisees
who said to them, why did you not bring him? The officers answered, no man ever spoke like this man.
The Pharisees answered them, are you let us stray also? Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees
believed in him? Don't you love that? You don't find any Presbyterian ministers believing that
doctrine, do you? But this crowd who do not know the law, there occurs Nicodemus who had gone to
Jesus before and who was one of them said to them, does our law judge a man without first giving
him a hearing and learning what he does? And they replied, are you from Galilee too? Search and you
will see that no prophet is to rise from Galilee. See Jesus has a strong Galilee in accent and they
know that he's from Galilee. And so the argument swirls around him. Okay, I want to make a few
observations about this text and then continue. On the last day of the feast, Jesus stands and says,
are you still thirsty if you are? Come to me. Does it seem strange to you that Jesus would wait
until the last day for such a question? Notice how the text opens. He goes against the advice of
his own brothers to say, why don't you go up to Jerusalem during the Feast of Tabernacles?
You know everybody has these little booths and these round in the fields and everybody celebrating
and there's all these ceremonies every night. What a marvelous time to do your teaching. And
our Lord rejects his brothers' advice and goes up on the last day. And does it seem strange that
you would, I mean the people are about ready to leave and go home? It doesn't make sense. Our Lord
blows so many chances to build up a people movement and to galvanize the people that are around him.
So does it seem strange to you that Jesus would wait until the very last day for this huge question
he asks? Well, I've been thinking about that and no, I don't think it's strange. I think it just
shows that Jesus is a wise teacher and that it shows that his timing is perfect. I mean
like W. H. Auden, you know if you read his great poem for the time being which is his Christmas
oratorio, Auden is very clever. He goes through the entire birth of Christ and all of it's
significant and then he comes up the 20th century and then he saves his big question
not in the contemplative part of the for the time being oratorio when they're contemplating the
life of Christ but at the very end he has a few lines like this. Well, he says now Christmas is over
and we've packed up all the ornaments. We put all the ornaments into the attic and he says,
oh yes, Christmas, that's that time of year we all try unsuccessfully to love all our relatives.
One of the great W. H. Auden lines, that's what Christmas is, the time we tried unsuccessfully
to love all our our relatives and then comes the big line of for the time being by W. H. Auden.
He says, oh but Christmas, remembering the stable, where for once in our lives,
everything became a U and nothing was an I. He drops it suddenly on the last day.
In other words, isn't it true just before Christmas starts you're all caught up with the euphoria
of the event but when Christmas is over then you're a really star. You know more suicides occur
at Christmas than any other time of the year. Why? Because you're so let down. It was supposed to be
so wonderful. It was supposed to be, the family was all going to love each other and mother does
this big turkey or ham and everybody's so happy and then this big family argument over politics
Reagan just got elected. Everybody's mad as can be or their happiest can be and then there's
one person that voted for Carter and so everybody's fighting. It's all upset and then you try
it on success. We love all your relatives and that's the way it is with this feast too.
Feast of Tabernacles. They've gone seven days. They're worn out. They've done too much celebrating
and then Jesus says, is anyone still thirsty? How shrewd. Are you still thirsty? Well you've
been doing this feast for a whole week and silver funneling all golden pitcher. How much more do you
want? And now at the end what's it all mean? Is anybody's thirsty? Come to me.
That's what Jesus does. You got to remember that within this feast is real recognize three great
thirsts in this feast though I'm sure during the celebration the people forgot what they were
but they're three great thirsts. The thirst for identity is at the heart of this feast. They
remembered in the feast that's why it's called the Feast of Booths. They remember that God chose
his people and he never forgot them as they wandered. They're pilgrim people that God chose and
led. That's what Feast of Tabernacles celebrates. Secondly it celebrates the thirst for salvation.
That's why there's a sacrifice every evening of an animal. And third the feast celebrated purpose.
The purpose of Israel and that's where the lights come in. You know in the Israel the light was
always a sign of the light unto our pathway to show us the way to go. How we're supposed to go
and these three thirsts Jesus Christ now says to these these people, are you still thirsty? Then come
to me. He speaks to them to the in terms of the very core of this celebration and of these yearnings.
Are you still thirsty? And then he places himself at the center of this question and the result
is an argument an intense argument that people are deeply troubled. Now the proof of how trouble they
are doesn't happen on this day but it happens the next day and now we move to the eighth chapter
of very famous and disputed texts. If you have an RSV if you have the old RSV you will notice that
chapter 8 verse 1 through 11 is relegated the footnotes. That was a great tragedy. Fortunately in
the new RSV which was done with Roman Catholic Church since the Roman Catholic Church's official text
is the Latin Vulgate. And since this text Romans 8 1 through 11 is in the Latin Vulgate this text has
now been reinstituted. If you have the latest RSV Oxford annotated common Bible you will notice that
the John 8 1 through 11 has been once again reestablished into the text. In my opinion it should
never have been taken out of the text because though it does not appear in the eastern group of
manuscripts it appears in all of the western group of manuscripts in Codex Bezae and of course in
the Latin Vulgate. This is a curious text. Why is it not here? For instance if you studied the
textual criticism of John 8 this is the woman caught in adultery you know thrown at Christ's feet.
You know that in some text it appears here, some text it appears at the end of John like a footnote
and in some manuscripts it appears in the book of Luke. Why is it not here? You know something
interesting I'll give you my own hypothesis. This is a good example of a text that was suppressed
and I think it's a tribute to the early church that so few texts were suppressed. This is in
studying this you should not call this a gloss. This is not an addition of a text. Here's a case
where a text was actually suppressed and I agree with the hypothesis Raymond Brown where he makes
raises the possibility that maybe the reason this text is not in the eastern group of manuscripts
is that some of the early church people felt the text was too dangerous. That it might encourage
people to be immoral and so there was an attempt to suppress the text but those monks bless their
hearts. They were probably told all right now you take that out that's X-rated and we don't want our
children reading that text because it may it shows Christ soft on adultery or that's what they
maybe thought and so it was repressed and those monks said it doesn't seem right to take this
text out so they squeezed in at the end of the book of John as a PS and others shoved it over in
Luke. Remember John was the most important book so they shoved it over in Luke and put it there.
This text belongs here. I think I'm prepared to show you that this text fits right in the temple
of the temple discourses it makes sense right here and I don't have time to go into this in
more detail now but I wouldn't encourage you to do all the readings you can on this on the
textual issue of John 8.1 to 11 read my own commentary and I think I hope I make a case for it
I believe the text belongs right here it's just that here's a good case of a text that was suppressed
one of the only cases new testament and yeah I think it was suppressed because of this material
of what it said now some critics say oh but there's some non-Johannine language in here but there
but that is not a persuasive argument because this text is very Johannine the the non-Johannine
language the only non-Johannine language in this text is if you have your text in front of you
is where it says the scribes and the Pharisees John never says that anywhere in any of his writing
that is a synoptic phrase scribes and Pharisees however as Raymond Brown points out there are several
variants which says scribes where it says high priests and Pharisees so I would hold for that
variant that that's just a scribal error because you'll notice in verse in the seventh chapter it
mentions the high priests and the Pharisees are having the debate and so I agree with Raymond Brown
that the that we should prefer high priests and Pharisees and then you cannot make the objection
that a non-Johannine phrase is in the text also John style of a sides that I already observed with
you yesterday he loves to make a size this text is filled with the typical Johannine a size so
this is very much Johannine material all right listen to it think was just happening feast of
tabernacles last day Jesus stood and said if you are you still thirsty come to me people are
all disturbed they're upset everybody's turned up and now any then happens an incident occurs
and it has amazing implications all right chapter 8 verse 1 actually starts with 753 so
each went to their own house Jesus went to the mount of olives first reference the mount of
olives as you know his great friends Lazarus and Mary and Martha live there we'll discover that
later in John's gospel Jesus went to mount of olives early in the morning he came again to the temple
all the people came this would now be the eighth day of the feast all the people came to him
and he sat down and taught them the scribes and the Pharisees and I hold for the variant reading
high priests and Pharisees in other words Sadducees and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught
in adultery and placing her in the midst they said to him teacher this woman has been caught in
the act of adultery now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such what do you say about her
and they're correct of course in their in their Old Testament theology Leviticus 2010 says that a man
and woman caught in adultery both the man and the woman should be stone and so they say to Jesus
this woman's caught in the act of adultery the law says to stone her what do you say about her
now notice John me first aside from John he loves to make a sides this they said to tempt him this is
the Greek word Pareto which means to tempt or test they said it's the same word used by the devil
when the devil tempts Jesus this they said to test or tempt Jesus that they might have some
charge to bring against him John's not fooled for one minute by the pious quotation of the Old
Testament by these Sadducees and Pharisees I mean what's the test if Jesus says yes I think you
should stone this woman because Leviticus 20 verse 10 says to do it if Jesus were to take that
attack he would certainly win a lot of points with those people who feel keenly that the law has
been compromised but there is an edict the 30 AD edict which by the way John in chapter 18 verse 31
tells us about and we now have been able to a test with Roman documents the Romans had issued an
edict in 30 AD that prohibited the Jews the right of capital punishment that's why they had to
bring Christ to Pilate to be crucified. Rome preserved the ius gladii to themselves, the right of
the sword, that means that Jewish courts were not permitted the right to stone anymore as a matter of
fact they had not stone for adultery for many years so it was kind of a moot point but nevertheless
the law said it that the adulterous person should be stone so if Jesus says yes by all means let's
have the law fulfilled once from for all he would win a lot of zealots to his side but he would be
immediately in trouble with Roman authorities because he would have incited to riot and the Romans
were very much against anarchy in any form that is the essence of the pox Romana on the other hand
if Jesus says no don't stone this woman then how will he be able to sustain his claim to the truth
and the fact that he supports the Torah the will of God I mean we know already that the people want a
prophet like Elijah they want one who has no truck with evil they want one who has no compromise
with evil and Jesus now will lose the respect of the people either way if he says don't stone this
woman then he loses the respect of those people who want a victim and you know something if you
want to win an election the way to win an election in my state California is to be tough on crime
is to be for the capital punishment issue is to be for the stern punishment of criminals that's
the way to win an election we want victims I don't know it's psychologically complex I know the idea
of shifting guilt system author if you can give me an authorized victim people just love an authorized
victim and when Jesus so if Jesus no don't stone that woman he then takes the way an authorized
victim caught in the very act mind you and yet he is a no-win situation and that's why John calls
it a temptation I think there's a third reason why John calls it a temptation and that's because
of the cynical use that the law is being the cynical use of the law the people according to John
when he calls it a temptation he makes a point that they don't use the law of Leviticus to preserve
the family but they're using the law to entrap Jesus just like the devil use Psalm 91 to entrap Jesus
here is evil under a disguise of light but they have no concern about the family if in
in other words why didn't they bring the man if she was caught in the act of adultery they could
have brought the man too but they brought the woman and they have one victim and they would
perfectly be they'd be happy to have her stone you know the Jews did stone people a Steven
was stone illegally and probably the crowd would have would have liked to stone if Christ had said
yeah hey do it because they're asking for a technical interpretation he's a rabbi but this is
a temptation John says I'm grateful that John has the guts to call it what it is have you ever
been tempted that way where people will use something purer or apparently purer in order to
entrap you they have no motive to know what the answer is but they've set a booby trap for you
and that's what they do for Jesus now what does Jesus do I want to read the text this is a very moving
text now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such what do you say about her and as they said
this to test him that they might have some charge to bring against him Jesus bent down and wrote
with his finger on the ground and they continue to ask him you know everybody interpreters now
have to be very careful about interpretation I give you I'll give you a basic rule of interpretation
and I tried to abide by this rule in my commentary and revelation believe it makes the commentary
different kind of commentary than most commentaries really turn out to be in that book. My rule of
interpretation is lean is better than luxurious and like the if you certain commentators became
fascinated to know what Jesus wrote in the sand and many ridiculous sermons have been preached
about what Jesus wrote in the sand because John is not at all interested in what Jesus wrote in the
sand and they and to take that tack of interpretation misses the obvious point John's not interested in
what Christ wrote in the sand and frankly I have no speculations to make whatsoever though I in
writing my commentary I read about 45 of them speculations the important thing is is that Jesus
is silent and he slows everything down
Jesus is interposing his own self in between this highly inflamed and tense situation
and when he stoops over and writes in the sand by the way it stirs up the crowd they get so mad
they continue to ask what do you say about it come on don't don't evade what are you writing
what do you say about it and he just writes in the sand and slows everything down
I honestly think that one of the first tasks in being a peacemaker is to slow everything down
and that's what he does he slows this down watch the text that goes on so they continue to ask him
and then he stood up and said to them let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw
stone in her famous answer of Jesus Christ one of the most famous sentences in all the Bible
it's interesting they say what do you say about her Jesus slows this event down with his majestic
silence authoritative silence then stands and says what do you say about yourself he shifts the
question to them it's by the way do you hear echoes are you still thirsty are you thirsty
you know they've been celebrating salvation each night with the sacrifice are you forgiven
are you without sin where are you he shifts the question from what do you say about her
to what do you say about yourself and her and there's that incredible authoritative ship
and then an amazing thing happens in the text after he said this let him who's without sin among
you be the first to throw a stone in her then once again he bent down and wrote with his finger on
the ground this majestic silence again this slow down and now an amazing sentence but when they
heard it they went away one by one beginning with the eldest and Jesus was left alone with the woman
standing before him you know folks there's one good thing about being older there is a tendency
among older people to lose their sense of infallibility the one problem of youth is what makes youth
so exciting but the problem of youth is that sense of infallibility so it makes sense psychologically
to me that from the oldest to the youngest they would first recognize their sinfulness the old
the older ones recognize their frailty first the young drop their rocks the last I went to the
World Council of Churches meeting in Uppsala 1968 and I was sitting at lunch with the a delegate
from he was actually a visitor from Rome and during that convention if any of you were at the
World Council you know that was the convention that the youth took over that convention they were
absolutely they had their own special newsletter and they were really just lambasting everything
was going on at that convention I'm not saying it was bad it was probably a lot of good things
were happening but boy the youth delegates had that whole World Council convention absolutely
in terror and this Roman Catholic priest said to me at dinner one night he says you know I am
sure glad I came to this convention because I learned something about you Protestants I learned
that you don't need a pope and I said well what do you mean he says because you already have
infallibility your youth are infallible and you don't need a pope your your youth are infallible
they make infallible statements every single day in their newsletter they had infallible statements
about Eugene Carson Blake and about Mr. Huff and everybody else and what the World Council of
Churches was and wasn't doing in fact every day in their newsletter they had this ship of the
World Council of Churches and then toward the end of the convention convention they had the
ship sinking and finally at the end they only had the end of the ship up they it was a very glum
betrayal but he says you don't need a pope you've got a pope you know this text is a marvelous text
from the eldest to the youngest they gradually perceived their own what Paul's tell it calls
their own ambiguity and finally they left and now Jesus is left with a woman alone notice the
count is not over though so Jesus looked up and said to the woman now the woman's alone
woman where are they has no one condemned you notice what he does to her this woman now obviously
she knows that she was used as a victim in some plot of the temptation to try to entrap Christ
they don't care about the adultery and yet she is going to be used as a scapegoat in their attempt to
ensnare Christ so imagine the bitterness and imagine the feeling of injustice that she feels even
though she is a sinner and Jesus now says to her something that's psychologically very sound
he says to her where are your accusers and he forces the woman to look around and realize there
is no one they're accusing her he doesn't want this woman to go through the rest of her life
a low grade paranoia where are your accusers and she has to say there's no one there
and then Jesus says neither do I accuse you go and do not sin again then he calls her to the way of
righteousness but now some one other thing has got to be observed in this text in the deepest level
in this text Jesus Christ has interposed himself with his own authority in his own grace
he's interposed himself in the midst of this scene and has done it in behalf of the crowd
now I want you to watch that subtle point Jesus has spared the crowd from doing something horrible
from bringing even worse condemnation upon themselves by the moment they use a stone against this
woman and our Lord interposes himself and protects the crowd and he protects the woman
in this incident but I want you to realize that this text should not be sentimentalized
this woman gains ground in this incident she is set free she is forgiven she's called
the way of righteousness wow all in one day but as she gains ground I want you to realize in this
text that Jesus Christ loses ground don't sentimentalize this text when this event was over everybody
did not go around Jerusalem say oh what a wonderful thing we just experienced we watched Jesus
out with the crowd isn't that thrilling oh no Jesus Christ has taken a victim away from the crowd
he has interposed his own life in the midst of that tragic scene and the crowd will never forgive
him for that no one loves a peacemaker believe me and the shadow of the cross is over this event
the beginning of the redemption theology of John from the narratives of John now is becoming clear
he has taken her place all right verse 12 again Jesus spoke to them saying
I am the light of the world he who follows me shall not walk in darkness
Feast of Tabernacles is fulfilled are you thirsty
do you need the light do you want to know what the way of righteousness is what the Torah of God is
you know the word Torah means the will of God here is the will of God and the Redeemer now is
center stage I am the light of the world
heavy father we thank you for this text this is a very moving text because
it confronts us with our own sin it confronts us with our own need for forgiveness
and Lord it also confronts us with our own anger our desire to get even our desire to find those
that are wrong and then to see them punished Lord we thank you for this
amazing and surprising and bold interruption of a vicious human cycle
and their standing in the midst of that interruption is Jesus Christ himself the one who satisfies
our thirst and the one who is the light of the world who fulfilled that yearning that these
men had even in their temptation to know what is the will of God what is the law and here is the
one who now brings the law full circle and fulfills it in his redemption amen