A favorite story of mine concerning Jesus is the account of the encounter with the woman caught in the act of adultery. It reveals so many elements concerning the heart of Jesus. Here it is:

John 8:2-11 NASB
(2) Early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people were coming to Him; and He sat down and began to teach them.(3) The scribes and the Pharisees *brought a woman caught in adultery, and having set her in the center of the court,(4) they *said to Him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in adultery, in the very act.(5) "Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women; what then do You say?"(6) They were saying this, testing Him, so that they might have grounds for accusing Him. But Jesus stooped down and with His finger wrote on the ground.(7) But when they persisted in asking Him, He straightened up, and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."(8) Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.(9) When they heard it, they began to go out one by one, beginning with the older ones, and He was left alone, and the woman, where she was, in the center of the court.(10) Straightening up, Jesus said to her, "Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?"(11) She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

When it comes to the subject of adultery, the teachings of the Old Testament are pretty clear. And since Jesus and the religious leaders of the day are students of said scriptures, all are quite aware of the ramifications. The adulterer is to be served the death penalty, by stoning (Lev. 20:10, Deut. 22:22). The pious crowd is quite willing to carry out the verdict. At other times the Scribes would be studying the minute details of the Law of God, and the Pharisees would be busy with exacting interpretations of those same rules. However, at this moment they have zealotry in their eyes and stones in their hands, quite willing to kill this woman in the names of God and piety.

Interestingly, Jesus is most concerned with the lack of empathy on the part of these accusers, even more than the breaching of the Law of Moses by this pitiful sinner. These men, with stones in hand, have no clue of their kinship with the woman, for if they did then they would be quicker to forgive and slower to inflict pain.

"He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

So, here is the test I must pass in order for me to claim the right to condemn another person. It’s a simple test, with only two questions:

(1) Concerning my own heart and life, am I beyond reproach?
(2) Concerning Jesus, am I absolutely sure that he would pronounce condemnation?

That’s it. If I can answer “Yes” to these two questions, then I can pick up a stone.

Interestingly, Jesus never condemned this woman. With grace, he offered to her forgiveness and another chance. However, he did condemn the Scribes and Pharisees many times and with strong language. “You brood of vipers. You hypocrites…” They hated Jesus. Such people usually do, even as they feign to be his friends. It is rather clear that the best way to be claimed an enemy of God is to seize the right that belongs to Him alone- to condemn the worth of another human being.

And so our little lesson about Adultery can be applied to the subject of Divorce. The scriptures are abundant in opposition to the matter.

Thus the Divorcee stands before us, perhaps defiantly, perhaps fearfully. We gather up our rocks and we say to Jesus, “This person was caught in Divorce, in the very act…” “And The Law says…

He can’t remarry
She cannot hold a position of leadership in the church
They are to be relegated to second-class status. But, we’ll take their money-

And Jesus will look at the accusers, with fire in his eyes, and state: “Let He who is without sin cast the first stone.”

Why are you not in his shoes?
Why has your life turned out differently? Be very carefully with your response, that you do not speak as a Pharisee in what you proclaim. More likely, it is simply and profoundly by the grace of God that you have avoided the snares that have claimed others.

Look at other areas of your life, other events. Granted, this person has a Divorce, considered by some to be a black mark upon his life. Yes, you can give yourself a big smiley face because you passed that test of life! But, how about the other tests? You know, of course, there are other Commandments in addition to this 11^th Commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Divorce”? For example: …no other gods..- Ex. 20:3, …remember the Sabbath…- Ex. 20:8, …Honor thy father and mother…- Ex. 20:12.It

Let’s cut to the chase. If anyone deserves to be stoned, it is the Pharisee, not the adulterer. How dare he be so self-righteous, so opposite of the very heart of Jesus with his stone cold lack of love? The biggest difference between the two is that her sin is public, while his is of the heart. And, apparently, she is closer to finding forgiveness. Yet Jesus is amazing. He tolerates a lot of Pharisees and Scribes in the church of today.

It is time for us to drop the stones, and the pretense.

---

posted by: bawdy (reply)
post date: 02.18.08 (11:48 am)

Just to clarify..it's ok to stone people for terrible blog posts, right?

---

posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 02.18.08 (2:05 pm)

How far do we take this? Just with individuals? What about those we neglectfully condemn for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Seems to me we have a responsibility to ensure that we don't allow those who represent us to condemn others either for the sin of living in a place we've decided is ours to occupy. I don't understand how this can be separated. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't.

Good post... extrapolate further. As you point out, sin is sin.

---

posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 02.18.08 (2:05 pm)

How far do we take this? Just with individuals? What about those we neglectfully condemn for simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time? Seems to me we have a responsibility to ensure that we don't allow those who represent us to condemn others either for the sin of living in a place we've decided is ours to occupy. I don't understand how this can be separated. I'm pretty sure Jesus wouldn't.

Good post... extrapolate further. As you point out, sin is sin.

---

posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 02.18.08 (2:08 pm)

Oops... kill this and the duplicate please. Duh.

---

posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 02.20.08 (11:18 pm)

The Kingdom is within. The Church as an institution is exposed by this very teaching as a fraud. The Pauline Christ Cult hardly resembles any element of the more authenticated teachings of the great mystical teacher called Yeshua. The Gnostic Gospels appear a much more credible rendering of what Yeshua might have taught than does either the Canonical Gospels or the self-aggrandizing letters from Paul to the Pauline aligned churches.

If there's ever been an historical candidate for the prophesied Anti-Christ -- I'd put Paul in the running. Without Paul, there's no way to turn the teachings of Yeshua into an institution supportive of political power or human repression -- particularly the oppression/repression of women and slaves.

The Inner Kingdom requires neither a King nor a Priest. So, we have the Apostle Paul to make Christianity safe for both.

---

posted by: DaveToo (reply)
post date: 02.22.08 (11:25 am)

Reply to: kurtmaddox
Sunday evening, we considered I Corinthians 13. It is an amazing statement about love, used at weddings and funerals and innumerably to lift people toward the sublime. It is a writing that I dare say would rival anything, anywhere, on the subject. It is credited to the Apostle Paul.

This reply from you took me aback, for it does not seem characteristic of your usual capacity to be earnest and still hold onto a spirit of gentility. What's going on? Perhaps you can explain, but the statement does not seem germane to my effort to infuse insistence upon the rule of love in how we treat all others, including the sinner in our midst.

---

posted by: DaveToo (reply)
post date: 02.22.08 (11:27 am)

To All:
I cannot access my blog. Somehow, someway, dear-old-t-blog has changed my password, and will not e-mail me opportunity to correct the issue. So, I'm persistent. I send Nick a t-mail daily. And, I'll be posting on DaveToo for a while. Who knows, this may continue to serve as a useful alter-ego?

---

posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (1:07 am)

Reply to: DaveToo

I don't doubt that the Apostle Paul was earnest or that he had the same capacity to love as any other human being, including Osama Bin Laden, who I understand from reading about him is the picture gentleness, manners and equanimity to those around him. What I am saying is that the Apostle Paul's theology is infused with the same oppressive morality as is the Old Testament. Remember, when I use the term "Anti-Christ", I'm not speaking of a monstrous Satanic figure in any literal sense, but, rather of a theology that seems out of line with the often progressive teachings attributed to Jesus.

I'm also saying that of the two bodies of teachings -- the Canonical Gospels coupled with the writings of Paul and the Gnostic Gospels discovered just a few decades ago at Nag Hammadi -- give me the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary any day over 1st or 2nd Corinthians.

As for beautiful prose on the subject of "love", you'll find no more eloquent words on that subject than is found in the Qu'ran. Moreover, there isn't a single faith tradition of any kind which doesn't wax eloquently about the subject of love. Take this from the Bhagavad Gita:

"I look upon all creatures equally; none are less dear to me and none more dear. But those who worship me with love live in me, and I come to life in them."

Of course, there is also my favorite quote from the Gita:

"As a man can drink water from any side of a full tank, so the skilled theologian can wrest from any scripture that which will serve his purpose."

I believe this is exactly what the Apostle Paul succeeded in doing -- he wrested that which would serve his own purposes from the verbal stories he knew about Yeshua. Of course, later church leaders also pitched in over the years to further mold the Apostle Paul's words toward their own purposes.

---

posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (1:17 am)

More directly to your advocacy of the Apostle Paul as a great and loving example from scripture, let me as you the following:

1. Where's the "love" in condoning slavery?
2. Where's the "love" in repressing women?

Now, I happen to believe that in these instances, the good Apostle was simply a man of times and likely much more progressive than nearly any of his contemporaries. As a great humanist, Saul of Tarsus likely move the ball forward a bit.

The problem for your team is that this Saul becomes the "Apostle Paul" whom Iraneous converts into an infallible/inerrant spokesperson for God Almighty.

So, are we to believe that God Almighty must have been as much of a myogynist as the Apostle Paul?

---

posted by: tarroc (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (3:21 am)

In the spirit of what you have writen about ,do you condemn divorce?If so,do you advocate for a person to stay in a shell of a marriage?

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (7:18 am)

Reply to: tarroc
With respect, the answers to your queries are quite clear in what I have written. I do not condemn divorce. It is a case-by-case issue concerning right or wrong, and the ultimate judge is God. A "shell of a marriage"? No, people should not stay together strictly because of religious conviction. There needs to be relationship, respect, and love. However, emotions are cheap, and not a final judge in the matter.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (9:55 am)

Reply to: kurtmaddox
You seem on a roll, my friend! I'm just not sure that you have read I Corinthians 13, or the writings of Paul, for a while. Perhaps you can come up with better examples from extra-biblical literature, but what you share does not measure up to the eloquent words of Paul. He describes Christian love as being selfless, patient, gentle, absolutely forgiving, etc. His description of love comes from the heart, and is not motivated by the worth of the recipient. That's very different, I believe, from what you find in the Koran. We are to love the unlovely, even the hateful. No place for personal vengeance.

Concerning the condoning of slavery and the oppression of women within the Bible: It's a worthy subject for those of us who claim a divine inspiration of the scriptures. As I dialog with "Letting Go Of God" in my tandem blog, DaveToo, I'll be seeking to deal with the subjects.

However, I'm pretty sure no effort of mine will be sufficient for you. You're convinced. Perhaps you are even close-minded? But, the conversation should be fun and perhaps enlightening.

---

posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (4:26 pm)

Reply to: PastorDave

Ha! Ha! I love you using the term "extra-Biblical" as if there's a heirarchy of literature that makes a value judgement inherent to a passage being "Biblical" or "EXTRA-Biblical"!

As for "being on a roll", heck, PD, I'm always "on a roll" -- it's a defining characteristic of personality and one I've cultivated to my own detriment over the past decade or so of being a very open-minded opponent of exclusive religious dogma. My agenda isn't so much to prove anything to anyone as it is to at least ask the obvious questions any intellectually honest proponent of any one of the various "go to heaven or go to hell" belief systems should be willing to answer.

Your own desire to focus on the ubiquitiously quoted "love chapter" from Paul's first letter to the Church at Corinth is a great example of the unbalanced presentation of "Biblical" exegesis that occurs in Christian pulpits, blogs and published books & articles continually.

"The Bible is God's inerrant Word. God is good. I believe the Bible. Therefore, I am good. If I study the Bible and DO WHAT IT SAYS I SHOULD DO AND THINK HOW I THINK IT SAYS I SHOULD THINK THEN I WILL BE DOING GOOD IN THE EYES OF GOD."

Really?

Sure, there's the lovely poetic language of Paul to the Corinthians regarding the nature of love. I'm not suggesting Paul's words aren't eloquent. I am suggesting there isn't anything unique to the analogies Paul uses that can't be found elsewhere in both theological and secular texts, including other areas of scripture.

What touches an individual concerning such things is very dependent on the expectations of the person reading the words. I don't know of many literary scholars who would list the Apostle Paul's writings as great literature -- even for his period.

Paul's words to the Corinthians concerning the nature of true love are certainly the most cohesive and poetic to be found in the New Testament. So, Christians and folks who live in Christian cultures turn to those passages to find the appropriate words for their important ceremonies.

Again, all very proper and expected.

You are suggesting, however, that 1 Corithians 13 contains some special insight or poetic power which gives these passages a special place above the writings on love from other traditions. I find it particularly pugnacious that you claim the Koran has an inherent value defecit when it comes to speaking on the nature of true love. I didn't use any examples from the Koran, but, I'll try to find some time to research if there are grand love themes to be found in Muslim scriptures. I'll be surprised if I don't find dozens of passages worthy of praise and contemplation in the same vein as 1 Corithians 13.

Again, the interesting point to me is that it is never enough for Christian to simply content that their scriptural contemplations rank AMONG the great ancient texts. No, they must always be SUPERIOR texts in every way lest anyone claim that the Koran has any value whatsoever in the realm of seeking truth, beauty and/or wisdom from ancient literature.

I also enjoy the charge of being "close-minded" since what you really mean is that I'm "close-minded" when it comes to the product you happen to be selling. The truth is that I'm absolutely open-minded -- even to evidence that there is a Cosmic/Personal Deity who takes a keen interest in my personal affairs and who someone has seen fit to bestow upon my life all sorts of undeserved blessings while deciding that He can do nothing about the plight of a starving child with HIV in Africa.

I don't see any evidence there is such a Deity. Further, I'm not sure it would be a good thing if there were such a Deity.

You and are both atheist when it comes to Zeus, Zoroaster, Shiva and L. Ron Hubbard. Further, you've declared many times on your blog that there is something inherently wrong with the Koran which goes beyond the fact they don't recognize Jesus Christ as the One and Final Savior of All Mankind.

Still, you chaf at the notion that the rest of the world might see your Bible and your Yahweh in the same light that you see Allah, Muhammed & Zeus -- as hopeful fantasies.

Obviously, there's also nothing I could say that would be "sufficient" for you... Does that make you "close-minded" as well?

There is, however, a distinct difference between you and I. I've pointed out this distinct and meaningful difference many times. You teach that if I don't come over to seeing things God's way (your way, of course), then I'll be locked out of the Kingdom of God for eternity.

If you don't see the wisdom of my point-of-view then whatever consequences coming your way or just those consequences inherent to your decisions themselves while you're here on this earth going about your business.

But, you and the Apostle Paul both "love" me, of course :-)

---

posted by: kurtmaddox (reply)
post date: 02.23.08 (11:27 pm)

For the record, I really do love you and I love our little debates even if there's a whole lotta clangin' goin' on! lol!

---

posted by: bhattathiri (reply)
post date: 03.27.08 (3:28 pm)

The American justice Dept. have recently approved the power of yoga and meditation vide a recent judgement in the American court."Man Who Slapped Wife Sentenced to Yoga, It's Anger Management, Says Judge."
Prosecutor Lincoln Goodwin agreed to a sentence of probation without jail time because Cross had no significant criminal history
Albert Einstein
When I read the Bhagavad-Gita and reflect about how God created this universe everything else seems so superfluous.

Your Name:


Your Comment: