10.05.09
Posted in Scripture at 9:07 am by Anthony
The text that we’ll be looking at over the next few days records one of the most powerful moments in Jesus’ ministry. It’s a story that lets us look into the heart of Jesus, and because it shows us Jesus’ heart, it has given grace and hope to many, many people who thought that they were beyond forgiveness, that they were not worthy to come to God, that there was no hope for them. Some people, because they live without h ope, feel that they really have no choice but to continue to self-destruct. In this story we see that there is always hope for forgiveness from the past, and a forgiven past is the doorway to a better future. It’s a message that we all need to hear. It’s the story of a woman caught in the act of adultery.
Take a moment to read John 8:2-11.
Whether you were reading in your Bible or online, you probably noticed something very troubling. There is this note right in the middle of the text that says,
“The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.”
Now that can be disturbing. Maybe this story that gives us so much hope isn’t even supposed to be in our Bibles! And if that’s the case, what are we going to do with it?
First of all, we need to acknowledge that no respected scholar today even tries to claim that this story was part of John’s original gospel. It doesn’t show up in any of the earliest, most reliable manuscripts of the New Testament . Also, the language that’s used is more like that of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) than it is like John, although none of them record the story either.
Now occasionally you’ll run into someone who says that you can’t trust the Bible because the text has been copied and re-copied so many times and so many errors have crept in, that we don’t have any way of knowing that we have the original. Muslims will even claim that, in its original form, the Bible was from God, but they’ll say that anything that disagrees with Islamic belief is a later change that was made. But it’s not just Muslims, a lot of people who don’t want to follow the plain teachings of Scripture will often throw this out as an excuse. And then there are all the honest folks who want to do what’s right, but they’ve accepted these claims and just don’t feel that they can trust the Bible.
But if you can trust any other ancient document, you can trust your Bible. We have to remember that the Bible was written long before the printing press was invented and so the oldest copies of the Bible are hand written. We call them manuscripts. With most ancient works of history that no serious scholar disputes, we have only a few copies that were made hundreds of years after the originals. But with the Bible, we have literally thousands of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, many going back to very close to the time of the original writings. Scholars have spent hundreds of years pouring over the copies of the New Testament comparing them, and –yes, there are differences – but the sheer number and quality of the manuscripts that we have to compare gives us a very high degree of confidence that we can determine the original writings. And in those very few cases where we just aren’t sure, there is not a single issue of Christian doctrine that depends solely on one of these disputed texts.
So, the fact that we know that this story of the woman caught in adultery was not part of John’s original text should not trouble us. Rather, it should reassure us that we do know what the original text was, even though this particular story was not a part of it. There is not some giant conspiract to keep things in the Bible that don’t belong there – you can’t be much clearer than the notes that we see in our Bibles.
So, in spite of all the evidence that this story was not part of John’s text, why is it that every major English translation includes it, most with a note similar to what we see in the NIV?
Well, one reason is probably simply that we love the story. Many of us know have known it from our King James days, and it has become dear to us. Now, that may not sound like a very good reason and, by itself, it isn’t, but it’s important to be honest. The bigger question is, “Why do we love it?” Do we love it because it shows us a different picture of Jesus, or do we love it because it is consistent with everything we know about Jesus?
I believe that it is the later – the Jesus we see in this story is the same Jesus we see throughout the gospels—it’s just that the story brings this loving, compassionate, wise Jesus to life. In fact, this is one of the reasons that, in spite of the fact that this was not originally in John’s gospel, most people believe that this is an authentic, historically accurate story from the life of Christ. Not only is it consistent with everything we know about Jesus, it is not the kind of thing the early church would have made up. You see, the early church, especially in the second and third centuries when they were being severely persecuted, was very tough on sin. These people were dying for their faith, and it was important to them that the church remain pure. So they were very hard on Christians who were sinning; they would not have invented a story like this.
In fact, in the earliest reference we have to this story, it was used to address church leaders and to encourage them to show more grace and mercy. The reference comes from a church manual that was written to guide new converts from in northern Syria in the early part of the third century (called the Syriac Didascalia, if you’re interested). It tells the church leaders that, when someone sins and repents, they should do “as he also did with her who had sinned, whom the elders set before him, and leaving the judgment in his hands, departed.”
This is a clear reference to this incident, so this was a well-known story at a very early stage in the church’s history. And it’s a story that they thought was important enough that it continued to be handed down and eventually worked its way into some copies of John’s gospel. And while this story doesn’t tell us anything new about Jesus that we can’t get elsewhere, it beautifully reminds us of some aspects of his character, and our response to him, that we need to be sure not to miss. More on that next time.
Permalink
11.28.08
Posted in Preaching, Scripture, Theology at 10:44 am by Anthony
This Sunday I’m preaching on one of the texts for the first Sunday of Advent, Mark 13:24-37. Because it didn’t flow that well with the rest of my thought, I had to cut the following paragraph. But I liked it so well that I wanted to say it here!
“Because we are watching for the day of the Lord we do not put our hope in this world. At least not in the sense that “this world” tries to separate itself from the God who created it and who still rules over it. The temple was the focus of the Jews’ national hopes, but Jesus told his disciples not to trust in the temple, because it would be destroyed long before the final end. Just as the hope for the ancient world did not lie in the temple or in any worldly structure, so our hope today does not lie in anything that is of this world. It does not lie in communism or in capitalism, it does not lie in dictators or in democracy, it does not lie in poverty or in prosperity. It lies in the coming of the Son of Man – as he comes into each of our lives personally, and as he comes ultimately to judge the world and to save his own.”
Permalink
04.05.08
Posted in Reading, Scripture at 11:04 am by Anthony
Like other churches in Albany, our church has been involved in the Bible in 90 Days program. It has been great for community unity and has gotten a lot of people into the Word. It has also been very difficult for people to keep up. As a minister, I was able to, but only because I was able to devote part of my “work” day to the task. This week, I completed my Bible reading (in 89 days, no less!), and made a note of it on my Facebook page. A friend of mine asked what new perspectives I had gained from reading the Bible cover-to-cover in a relatively short time span. My reply was off-the-cuff, and I need to think about it more, but I thought I would post my thoughts here:
“As for new perspectives on the Bible, reading the OT was a needed reminder on the wrathful side of God’s holiness. It’s something we don’t talk/think about much anymore, but it dominates there. Another perspective is that I came to the conclusion that the Bible isn’t really meant to be read in 90 days. There were parts, especially in the NT, and there, especially in the gospels, where I really needed to camp out and let Jesus’ words work on my heart, but I didn’t have time because I was rushing to keep up with the schedule.
Not that the experience was a waste — it wasn’t. There are lots of things that tie together that I was able to connect — like the book of Obadiah & Malachi 1 and the Romans 9 thing about “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” Was he really talking about predestination of individuals, or God’s election of certain peoples, e.g. Israelite over Edomites / believers over unbelievers? In thoroughly CofC fashion, I lean strongly toward the later.”
Permalink
09.10.07
Posted in Preaching, Scripture at 1:04 pm by Anthony
Yesterday I preached the crucifixion. It was probably the most sober and personally impacting sermon I have yet to preach. You would think that I would be used to it by now. That Christ died for our sins — however you understand that phrase — is one of the most foundational tenents of our faith. There’s been a lot of discussion about how his death makes possible reconciliation between us–corporately and individually–and God, but there can be no debate that he did die and he did it for us.
Yesterday I preached the event of the crucifixion — how Christ died. The horror of the cross has been portrayed more graphically that I ever could with words or images, so I did not even try. But, as others have said, Scripture does not so graphically portray the pain of the cross as it does the shame of the cross, so that is what I attempted to do in my sermon.
The previous week I had preached on Jesus’ trial before Pilate. In pouring over many images, brilliant paintings, of the crucifixion, I had difficulty finding one that I did not feel was too shameful to display. Actually the artists’ renditions may portray the crucifixion as more modest than it actually was. I don’t even want to think about it. I finally found one image that I felt that I could show, to remind us of the way of salvation that Christ offers. This week I choose not to show any — it just didn’t seem right to put him on display again like that. I’m not saying that I’ll never again show an image of the crucifixion but, focused on the shame as I was, it just didn’t seem appropriate.
Reading Matthew’s account, it is amazing how often the words “mock” and “insult” occur. Why couldn’t they just kill him? What is so amazing is not that people would mock God (they do every day), but that God would take it — and I guess he does that every day, too.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
Isaiah 53:4-6, TNIV
Permalink
05.08.07
Posted in Reading, Scripture at 7:02 pm by Anthony
In The Spirituality of the Cross, Gene Edward Veith, Jr. describes his journey from atheism through mysticism and liberal theology to faith.* He found that the God of the Bible–specifically the Old Testament–revealed a sovereign God who will not conform to our image of what he should be or who we would like him to be.
I remember when I first began to read the Bible seriously. As I read the Old Testament, I was overcome with its sublimity, later horrified by passages such as God’s commands that the Canaanites be slaughtered. I began to realize that God was something “other,” someone far above my comprehension. I realized that I had been constructing God according to my preferences, positing qualities that I liked and ascribing them to the deity I believed in. In effect, I was making God in my image. But the God I was reading about in the Bible, whose energy blasted those who touched the Ark of the Covenant without the mediation of blood, was very different from myself, numinous, holy, and dangerous. And yet He rang true.
I probably never really believed in the vague, domesticated spirit of niceness that I had constructed for myself and found in my humane liberal theology. The real universe, with its danger and consequences and hard edges, such as cancer, shows no trace of having been created by such a sentimental deity. I probably knew, deep down inside, that I was making up a private little religion to make myself feel better, … . But this God I was reading about in the Bible had hard edges. He is absolute, utterly mysterious, and despite all appearances radically righteous. I began to see God in a completely different light, the light of holiness. And I saw myself in the rebellious children of Israel, ungrateful, inconsistent, and idolatrous. (pp. 39-40)
Veith, of course, doesn’t see God as all “hard edges.” He says that
“the reader comes to realize that this God of wrath is also the God of grace, that from the beginning He provided for sacrificial blood to cover His people’s sins, that He came in Jesus, that His wrath is swallowed up in the cross. As we read … we encounter the Law and the Gospel, through which the Spirit works to change our hearts and bind us to Christ.” (p. 39)
*This book is an explanation of Lutheran theology. I find much in common with my understanding of biblical Christianity, but also several important points of difference.
Permalink
05.05.07
Posted in Reading, Scripture, Theology at 8:07 pm by Anthony
Tomorrow I’ll be talking about doubt. I came across the following story which, though it didn’t end up in the sermon, I thought was worth sharing.
Missionary Gracia Burnham, who was held captive by terrorists in the Philippines for more than a year and whose husband was killed during the rescue, writes:
Sometimes I wonder, Why did Martin die when everyone was praying he wouldn’t? Why does Scripture lead you to believe that if you pray a certain way, you’ll get what you pray for? People all over the world were praying that we’d both get out alive, but we didn’t.
Her questions made her realize it isn’t always easy to comprehend God’s nature:
I used to have this concept of what God is like, and how life’s supposed to be because of that. But in the jungle, I learned I don’t know as much about God as I thought I did. I don’t have him in a theological box anymore. What I do know is that God is God—and I’m not. The world’s in a mess because of sin, not God. Some awful things may happen to me, but God does what is right. And he makes good out of bad situations.
Corrie Cutrer, “Soul Survivor,” Today’s Christian Woman (July/Aug 2003), p. 50
Incidentally, I’ve heard Gracia Burnham speak about how, during t heir capativity, they were greatly encouraged by the broadcasts of World Christian Broadcasting. This is a shortwave ministry sponsored primarily by Churches of Christ. I’ve been able to do some writing for them over the past few years.
Permalink
04.24.07
Posted in News, Scripture at 6:54 pm by Anthony
Today I read a news story that quoted one politician who pretended to take the moral high road by saying, “I’m not going to get into a name-calling match with someone who has a 9 percent approval rating,” and then went on to refer to the object of his disdain as an “attack dog.”
Ever done that? “I’m not going to call names,” and then proceed to do so. I’m sure I have. Or, “I’m only telling this because I’m concerned.” Or, “You might want to pray about this … .” Or any of the countless ways that I slide in a verbal dig to build myself up or put someone else down. (Aren’t they they the same thing?)
The Bible has a lot to say about our words. Among the most helpful is James 1:19, “Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak, slow to become angry…” (TNIV).
“I don’t want to call names…,” then don’t.
“I don’t want to gossip…,” then don’t.
“I don’t want to hurt your feelings…,” then don’t.
Quick to listen. Slow to speak. No name calling.
Permalink
