Bible passage of the week 08-06-06

[ZiSunka]

John 8:1-11

>p But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. <p

Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them.

Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?"

This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, "He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first." And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, "Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more."

Let's discuss!

[MrJim]

This is a passage I look to on the topic of "Jury Duty". Sitting in judgment of others is not what the church is called to do.

It is usually commented that perhaps Jesus was writing sins of the accusers in the dust and that's what caused them to walk away.

[ZiSunka]

That’s an interesting point. Certainly. this passage from John 8 and the one preceding it, like the last 7 verses of chapter 7, are about judging. Chapter 7 is about judging without a hearing, and chapter 8 is about judging without a hearing and about condemning without a hearing.

Now that I think about it, 7 is about condemning without a hearing, too, since the leaders wanted to have Jesus brought in so they could condemn him, and when the men who were sent out to get him refused to arrest him because of what they heard him say in the marketplace, the leaders got all upset and said that they didn’t need to hear him because they already knew he was guilty.

The message is clearly here that judging without a hearing is wrong, and condemning to death even those who were caught in the act is wrong, not to thwart justice, but because we are all in fact guilty and deserve to die for our sins. God desires mercy (For I desire mercy and not sacrifice Hosea 6:6). The whole theme of the cross is to provide mercy to the ones who deserve to be condemned.

But does that mean Christians should never serve on a jury?

If this passage is about being condemned without a hearing, and about being condemned by people who deserve to die themselves, does that forbid every Christian to serve in a jury trial where there is no threat of the death penalty?

I'm not challenging our beliefs on this matter, I'm just trying to understand our beliefs well enough to defend them when challenged by other Christians who don't have the same beliefs.

[ZiSunka]

Makes me wonder about those "Christians" who go to people's funerals to throw rocks and shout angry slogans at the deceased. If that isn't judging someone without a hearing, I don't know what is!

How do you think they deal with the above verses?

[MrJim]

Eh, they'd mumble something about jewish law and keep screeching...

As far as the jury thing-whatever the case is, whether civil or capital, it's still sitting in judgment of others. While we need to do it in the church we should let the world do its own judging.

[ZiSunka]

Why were the leaders so set on getting someone else to bring Jesus into the temple to be judged?

Why didn't they just send the temple guards out to get him?

[MrJim]

Why were the leaders so set on getting someone else to bring Jesus into the temple to be judged?

Why didn't they just send the temple guards out to get him?

'Cause then it would look like the establishment was out to get him. Doing it this way they would appear to just be the righteous clergy they wanted to appear to be. Since Jesus was so popular with the people they needed "people" to do the accusing.

[ZiSunka]

What were they hoping he would say about the adulterous woman?

It says they were hoping to trick him into saying the wrong thing. What answer were they hoping he would give?

[MrJim]

What were they hoping he would say about the adulterous woman?

It says they were hoping to trick him into saying the wrong thing. What answer were they hoping he would give?

I always heard they were trying to trap Him-that either way they'd have Him-except that Jesus did something completely unexpected with scribbling in the dust.

[ZiSunka]

What answers could he have given that would have trapped him?

[MrJim]

Had he said she shouldn't be stoned that would violate the Law (Deut 22:23)
Had he said she should be stoned that would be violating Pilate's law not allowing the jews to determine life & death (remember how they had to get Pilate to execute Christ).

[ZiSunka]

Had he said she shouldn't be stoned that would violate the Law (Deut 22:23)
Had he said she should be stoned that would be violating Pilate's law not allowing the jews to determine life & death (remember how they had to get Pilate to execute Christ).

ah! Okay, now I get it! :)

[MrJim]

ah! Okay, now I get it! :)

Glad me & brother wesley could help;)

[ZiSunka]

Why do you suppose the oldest people left first?