We Christians in particular tend to extremes. We're either the "righteous indignation" type ... the "moral superiority" kind ... or the "I'm a sinner, too, so I can't say anything about your sin" kind ... the "judge not" type. But ... Jesus suggests something different. He says, "First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matt 7:5). That's doing it the hard way.
We live with this tension in our lives and in Scripture. We're supposed to forgive (Matt 6:14-15; Eph 4:32; Col 3:13). Absolutely. And we're told, "He who is forgiven little, loves little" (Luke 7:47), so ... we're supposed to be ... more loving because we've been forgiven so much ourselves. There it is! See? Don't look at others' sins. I mean, isn't that exactly what Jesus did? When they brought that woman caught in adultery and then left, didn't He say, "Neither do I condemn you" (John 8:1-11)? That's a serious misreading of the text (that, by the way, doesn't exist in the earliest manuscripts ... making it unwise to build an entire doctrinal position on the text).
Jesus said He wasn't in a position to be the person that would condemn her to death at that moment. He wouldn't be stoning her for adultery that day. He did not ignore or condone the sin. He specifically said, "Go and sin no more." That is, "You've been sinning up until now ... don't do it anymore." We, too, are called to first recognize and correct our own sin and then assist others in the same. We're called to forgive and love and "if anyone is caught in any trespass, you who are spiritual, restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness; each one looking to yourself, so that you too will not be tempted" (Gal 6:1-2).
In the same way, we are commanded to speak the truth ... in love (Eph 4:15). Speaking the truth is fine and love is fine, but we rarely stick them together. We're to always speak the truth, but always with love ... a primary concern for the best interest of the other person. The hard way. We are not called to overlook sin and, thereby, condone and enable it. We are not called to correct everyone with pointing fingers and righteous outrage. We are also not called to ignore it. We're called first to love and, in that love, address our own sin and then theirs ... always with their own best interests in mind. It's the hard way ... but it's what we're supposed to do.
8 comments:
I was taking to an atheist and he said he wasn't interested in converting me to atheism because whatever makes me feel better is fine. In the face of it, it sounds very magnanimous. But if you really think about it, it is actually very hateful. If Christianity is false, it would be better for me to not believe in it. I told him that believing a true thing is better than believing a false thing, and that I want him to convert to Christianity because I care about him. If you're evangelizing just to make more Christians, you're doing it wrong. You should be evangelizing because you care about these people and want the best for them.
Excellent point about building a theological position on the story of the woman caught in adultery, it's a trap many fall into. Much like building a theological position solely on Matt 25.
It's interesting that Jesus (who had the authority) didn't condemn her to death that day even though it could have been justified by the Law, yet He didn't suggest that she would never be condemned. He wanted her repentance and transformation rather than immediate judgement and punishment.
Another point about this passage--which ties in perfectly with Stan’s theme--is that Jesus presented this important charge to the woman’s accusers: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” (v. 7) Another reminder to be concerned with one’s own sin first before focusing on that of another.
With that thought in mind, personally I don’t see a problem with the doctrines one can deduce from John 8:1-11--if taken in its entirety. First, as I mentioned, I see Jesus reminding the accusers that they too have sins from which to repent before adopting any air of “righteous indignation” towards those around them, and second, as you mentioned, I see Jesus encouraging repentance rather than delivering condemnation. This is the basis of the Gospel, of course.
Can you share how some misinterpret this passage in your experience, Craig?
I agree that “speaking the truth in love” can be a challenging undertaking, but it is the calling of the Christian, as one who has truth and light to impart to others in need of it. One vital way that believers minister to one another--and help strengthen the Body--is through encouragement and admonition towards a mature walk in the Lord; this growth entails facing and forsaking besetting sins--i.e. those “logs in our eye.” The instruction in Matt. 7:3-5 is perfectly dual-purpose--i.e. “As I receive help from you (and/or others) in removing the log in my eye (only a speck from your perspective), I can then ‘see’ clearly enough to help you with the log in your eye (only a speck from my perspective).” This deals equally with prevailing sin in both parties. As you say, acting in either extreme--of judgment and condemnation or indulgence and permissiveness--precludes both giving and receiving love.
Lorna, the most common misinterpretation is, "Jesus didn't condemn sin. Neither should we."
I see. What an odd deduction! However, even if it were true that Jesus didn’t (it’s not, of course), His Father sure did … and does. I think it’s hard to “miss” that in the Scriptures! In any event, thanks for the clarification.
Lorna, Stan pointed out the most obvious problem with this passage. The sense that Jesus is minimizing her sin. They focus on the "neither do I condemn you" and ignore "go and sin no more". I'd also suggest that there is a "now"implicit in the "neither do I condemn you". It is clearly not a blanket "get out of jail free card" and license to sin with impunity. There will be a point where Jesus will be justified in condemning her at the final judgement.
I posted something at my blog about the reason why the witnesses were the ones to cast the first stones. Essentially, a lying witness becomes a murder by stoning an innocent person. It may not be 100% accurate, but it was interesting.
From a big picture sense, it seems crazy to build one's theology of anything based solely on one Scriptural passage. Especially one that may or may not be True. The theology Jesus lived was much more fully realized and multi faceted than can be summed up in one passage.
Like the Matt 25 lovers who grab on to the "what ever you did to these..." as a justification for a social gospel, yet ignore the rest of the chapter.
Thanks for elaborating, Craig. As I remarked to Stan, those who come to such a narrow understanding of that passage in John would do so only by ignoring so much else in the NT. I personally would consider theirs a weak argument, not worth debating.
Post a Comment