The man for guilty people

So in our world of 24-hour news coverage, there's a psychosocial phenomenon which researchers identify and study called moral outrage.

And it's everywhere, especially on social media platforms.

So moral outrage is a venting of anger, a display of anger against a third party on the social media platform for some perceived wrong.

And let me tell you, I mean, you're probably in social media more than I am, but it is usually vicious.

And as I say, it's everywhere.

And so, for instance, when moral outrage spews out against a large clothing manufacturing corporation protesting sweatshop environments in third world country and exploitation of workers,

then it's vehement and appears as if it's motivated by concerns for justice.

But research by social psychologists have shown that in spite of an appearance of justice,

moral outrage is more often than not driven by self-interest.

That's a quite interesting thing, isn't it?

Now, how does that work?

Well, research shows that there's a connection between a person's vending or moral outrage and a sense of guilt.

A person wants to prove that they're a good person in moral outrage, according to the research.

And so it works like this.

When self-image is challenged, then the natural tendency for a person is to act to restore that self-image and point of security.

And then add into that, says the research, since justice is often reduced to a personal feeling of what is right,

moral outrage then becomes a tool by which people alleviate feelings of personal guilt.

And so it works again like that.

A person buys and enjoys the cheap fashion produced by sweatshops in third world countries.

They have a sense of guilt about doing so.

And they alleviate their guilt, according to the research, by spewing forth at the corporations who are perceived to be guilty of producing this stuff.

And the interesting trick of it is that they appear to be concerned for justice without actually addressing their own actions or undoing their own actions.

They can present one way in social media while living quite differently in practice.

Outrage against these cheap, exploitative fashions, but spending much time in the shops buying the things.

Now that same principle appears in a religious context.

And moral outrage in a religious context, I believe, presents as self-righteousness.

The desire of a person to show that they are good by punishing harshly a third party rather than confronting, undoing, or changing their own behaviors and beliefs.

And that's what takes us into these verses this morning.

The self-serving moral outrage of the Jewish religious leaders opens these verses.

Now, if the story had been original to John's record, then I don't think he could have got a better story to fit.

So I actually think it does fit the flow of John's writings, personally.

A crowd has gathered to hear Jesus teach.

And, if you were looking at it as an original thing, just the day before,

the Jewish religious leaders had gone out of their way to try and intimidate the crowd to turn against Jesus.

But here they are, you know, if it was original, the very next day, gathering to hear Jesus.

Then the religious leaders turn up and create a terrible scene.

They drag a poor woman before the crowd and they make her stand there in public.

That of itself, in the culture of the day, was a shameful thing to do.

But it gets worse.

Because, clearly, these leaders were determined to shame, humiliate, and ultimately kill this poor woman.

It's a sordid story.

Now, what do we know?

Well, we know from the story that her guilt was beyond doubt.

She had actually been caught, as it says here, it's very graphic, so forgive me, but the text says it.

She had actually been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse.

Since it was early in the morning, perhaps she had been caught just minutes earlier

and dragged from that bed, disheveled and made to stand publicly in front of this crowd.

With witnesses ever so eager to expose her guilt and see her condemned and see her killed.

And so, from there, the woman's now positioned.

And the leaders attempt to force Jesus to pass the harshest judgment on this woman.

They want Jesus to sanction, stoning her to death.

And they appealed to the law of Moses as the ultimate authority on matters of life and death.

Now, here's the go.

The story thus far.

These guys, in their moral outrage, present as guardians of justice and righteousness and holiness.

But secretly, their moral outrage was directed at Jesus.

We're told there in the text that they wanted to test.

And the word test is a very specific word.

It means tempt or trip up into some criminal action.

Jesus.

And so we see their real heart's intention.

Quite different from the surface presentation.

They wanted to see Jesus shamed and killed.

More so even than they wanted to see this woman shamed and killed.

And they're pretty clever in the way they approached it.

Because, you see, if Jesus refuses to uphold the law of Moses,

then he himself would be publicly shamed and rejected as a lawbreaker.

That's a clever move.

But it's the horns of a dilemma.

Because if he actually insists on the woman being stoned to death,

then most likely, at least this is what they've been betting,

that he would have appeared heartless and ruthless.

And perhaps then lost public support from the crowd for that very heartlessness.

And then even again, there's a third possibility.

Because the Jewish, the Roman authorities under occupation said that only they could sanction

the issuing of a death penalty.

So perhaps there are even the thought that if they could get Jesus to sanction the stoning of this woman,

then they could actually take Jesus to the Roman authorities

and get him into trouble there and possibly get them to deal with Jesus.

The point is that their outrage was so great at Jesus.

Why?

Because he had challenged their theology or their ideology of religion.

They wanted him dead.

And they cared little, whether it was the crowd that lynched him or the Roman authorities.

Now friends, I want to suggest this morning,

and there's going to be a play on this idea of temple abuse,

I want to suggest that this is a case of horrible temple abuse

that we're seeing in the story at this point.

Remember, part of the story, and I think it's a significant part of the story,

verse 2,

He came again to the temple.

All of this has just been playing out in the temple courts.

Now why is that significant?

Well, I think it all has the hallmarks of a setup for a start.

So the law very clearly and specifically said

that the man caught in adultery was equally culpable as the woman.

So the question arises, why was he not dragged before the crowd?

The law was clear that witnesses had to actually see the couple engaging in sexual intercourse.

No good witnesses saying, well, I think she's up to no good.

They actually had to see her in a compromising,

or see the party in a compromising position.

So the question then arises,

well, how did enough witnesses happen to see

this woman and her partner

in the act

so early in the morning

all at the same time?

It smacks of some sort of setup, doesn't it?

But it gets worse.

When you think about the temple

and what the temple represents,

the context in which this is unfolding,

the temple was the place

where God's people came to receive God's grace,

his compassion and mercy,

his forgiveness,

and ultimately restoration of relationship with God

as sinful people.

Then you have the scribes and the Pharisees,

the Sanhedrin,

the Jewish religious leaders.

They are actually the formal enforcers

of God's purposes

among God's covenant people,

especially through the temple.

So their job, as it were,

or part of their job at least,

was to mediate God's grace

to God's sinful people,

bringing the two together

so that forgiveness,

acceptance,

and relationship with God and life

might continue.

But the reality for this woman

is that she was dragged to the temple

for shame,

humiliation,

and ultimately death.

Do you see the contrast,

the jarring that's happening there?

The prospect of a painful,

slow death

in the courts of the temple.

And so I say,

those who dragged her there

were temple abusers

because they actually hated Jesus

more than they hated sin.

So the context of the temple

was just a guise

for their own agenda.

Their moral outrage

was not shaped by God's character,

less was it shaped by God's word.

It was shaped by self-interest.

And this poor woman

was just a means

to their own ends.

And the brutality

and the tragedy of this story

just becomes sickening.

Defending their performance-based religion

against the challenge of Jesus

meant that they had come to lose

any sense of grace,

any sense of mercy,

any sense indeed

of personal holiness before God.

The result was

these men presented

as harsh,

unloving,

graceless men

who in fact,

while they presented

as honouring God,

were actually dishonouring God.

And friends,

I want to suggest to you

this morning,

that's always the way

with self-righteousness.

Self-righteous people.

Because self-righteousness

is in fact

self-salvation.

And so these men,

following on the theme

from John

that we've been looking at

over the last weeks,

these men

have no thirst

or hunger for Jesus.

Why?

Because

they know

their thirst

or hunger

even for God's grace.

Why?

Because

they've already

satisfied their hunger

and thirst

in themselves

through their

religious actions.

And that has been

so satisfying to them

that they'll protect it

at all costs,

even

at point of

orchestrating murder

and exploiting

this poor woman.

Abusing this poor woman.

And so

what you have here

is a picture

of self-righteousness.

And it's still with us

to this day.

And it's still in churches

to this day.

Where you have people

who in the name of Christ

or in the name of God

pursue good things,

holiness

and justice.

But they do it

in a way that's harsh

and unloving

and graceless

and merciless.

good things

gone bad.

Now I want to suggest

in stark contrast

then we see the moral

outrage of Jesus.

And the moral outrage

of Jesus

interestingly

and perhaps even

surprisingly

is directed

entirely

at the Jewish leaders

and not

this poor woman

at all.

So the story goes

that Jesus

in response

to their

pressure

to get them

to pronounce

death sentence

on this woman

Jesus just

puts his head down

writing something

in the dirt

but essentially

silent.

And they're getting

more and more

annoyed

by the minute.

We're not told

how long Jesus

did that

but certainly

we're given

the impression

in the story here

that they were

seriously annoyed.

They were wanting

to get this whole

shabby thing

over with.

When he finally

speaks

it is the

religious leaders

he pronounces

verdict on

not the woman.

He exposes

the self-righteous

to shame

and humiliation.

I think it's not

too much to say

I've pondered this

this week

so if you think

it's over the top

well then forgive me

for this

but I think it's right.

I think it's not

too much to say

that Jesus

through this story

shows himself

to hate the sin

of self-righteousness

in these men

even more than

the sin of adultery

in that woman.

At least

the woman

we get

sense from the story

at least the woman

had a sense

of her sin

and her shame

before God.

She was in touch

with herself.

The Jewish

religious leaders

by contrast

apparently

had no awareness

of their sin

no awareness

of themselves

until Jesus

forces them

to confront

the truth

about themselves

and he does.

They were concerned

primarily

for their own agenda

their own reputation

and they thought

they were doing

something really good.

The problem is

they weren't concerned

for God's honour

at any point in this.

They were supposed

to care for God's people

they were supposed

to point God's people

in their sinfulness

back to truth

and righteousness

but they showed

no concern

or compassion

for the spiritual

plight of this woman

in her shame

and in her misery

and they offered her

no comfort

and no hope.

And when you dig

down into it

then you see

failure at a different level

hypocrisy

at a different level

because these guys

even though they

appealed to the law

of Moses

were only selectively

applying the law

of Moses themselves.

So for instance

the woman

by definition

would have been

declared unclean

because of her adultery.

For them to associate

being in the same area

or touch this woman

would then have

made them unclean.

Either way

neither party

should have been

in the temple.

But that seems

to go unnoticed.

Then again

as I've hinted at it before

the law

demanded death

for murderers

as well as adultery.

If you go back

to Leviticus

and Numbers

and look where

these laws

are spelled out

every time

there's sexual immorality

and murder

intentional sins

they're put together

and death penalty

is suitable

for each

for both.

And yet we have

these guys here

demanding the death

of this woman

while failing

to say

that their own

murderous intentions

towards Jesus

equally deserve death.

And then again

if you dig back

into Leviticus

and Numbers

you will see

that this notion

of accusing

somebody

of a capital crime

and that is a crime

punishable by death

had very very

strict and clear

quality control

standards

in respect

of witnesses.

So the scripture

is very very clear

that the witness

not that they can

ever be perfect

it's not as if

Jesus is saying

you can only

be involved

in this process

if you've never

ever sinned

in any way.

That's not what he's saying.

The clear evidence

of the law

is that the witnesses

must not

in any way

have connived

in the sin

that they're bringing

to the court

for justice.

In other words

there's no possibility

of a set up

a mixed motive

a mixed agenda.

You can't use

a person

for your own ends.

Further

the person

the witness

must have been active

must have been able

to show

the courts

that they had been active

in trying to prevent

the sin

and trying to redirect

the person involved

in the sin

into paths

of righteousness

and truth.

In other words

they can't just

grab somebody

and bring them

before the courts

as a first resort

that should only

be a last resort

due to the intransigence

of a sinner.

And then thirdly

witnesses

had to initiate

the stoning

and the reason

why that is

because

they had to be

convinced in themselves

that there was

no other option

for dealing

with this situation

than to kill

this person.

So whatever

Jesus was writing

in the dirt

and we don't know

what it was

or whether he's

just drawing

cartoon figures

out

we don't know

but when he speaks

his words

bringing all this

to bear

let him who is

without sin

cast the first stone.

That's sweeping

all this stuff up

and they would have

known this.

And so Jesus

exposes

their own shame

because clearly

these men

clearly these men

were not concerned

to obey

the law

of Moses

properly

and Jesus

exposes

them

in their hypocrisy

as ruthlessly

as they

sought to expose

this woman.

And again

as they had

treated this woman

so miserably

Jesus shows

them

no compassion

he offers

them no grace

rather

he forces

them

to leave

in shame

and humiliation

before the crowd.

And again

friends

I want you to see

how Jesus

does that so well

and so repeatedly

in his ministry.

He reverses

the roles.

The one

who comes

in self-righteousness

determined

to inflict shame

and humiliation

on another

is exposed

by Jesus

and retreats

in shame

and humiliation

before Jesus.

Pretty powerful

picture I think.

And so

we ought not

to be surprised

at that

because

an unwillingness

to judge

yourselves

according to the

laws of scripture

actually

reduces

our authority

to judge

others.

And then

perhaps

most surprisingly

of all

Jesus

moves

this woman

from shame

towards

honor

dignity

and life.

The contrast

and the treatment

of this woman

could not be clear.

Verse 9

the words there

say that the

Jewish religious

leaders

they just

went away

the word there

is abandon

they just

abandoned her

they left her

standing in front

of the crowd

in her shame

and humiliation

and misery

they just

walked away

and there she

was just

standing

so awful

when she was

no longer

useful to their

scheme

they just

abandoned her

well

Jesus doesn't

abandon her

such a warm

lovely response

from Jesus

in fact

though she is

guilty as charge

and Jesus

doesn't move away

from that

she is

guilty as charged

and unclean

because of her

sin

and has brought

God's name

into disrepute

of one of God's

special people

though all of that's

true for her

and Jesus knew

all that was

true for her

he speaks to her

with compassion

and offers her

a fresh start

a new hope

for a new life

now it's really

important to

understand how

this works

this is not

a general

acquittal

or a declaration

of not guilty

by Jesus

even though

he alone

was the one

who was without

sin and even

though he

therefore would

have been the

one who either

had the authority

to condemn

or acquit

but I don't think

that's what's

happening here

he does not

condone her

sin

and in fact

pushes her

towards genuine

repentance

and turning

away from

the sin

so I think

it works like

this in summary

Jesus saying

to this woman

I'm extending

you mercy

and grace

and that means

henceforth

responding

to God's

mercy and grace

by living a life

henceforth

to God's glory

mercy from

God

must result

in a life

lived to

God

and for

God

and perhaps

my friends

again

perhaps that's

why these

verses are

here

because

they form

a book

end

with a story

back from

chapter 4

about the

women of

Samaria

similar

sort of

situation

they illustrate

the teaching

about Jesus

being the

bread of

life

the hunger

satisfier

and the

thirst

quencher

she illustrates

that Jesus

will satisfy

these deep

longings

she has been

chasing

in the

so-called

danger

and excitement

of illicit

sex

and we've

got to

understand

at this

point

that she

would have

been a

willing

partner

in that

adultery

so she

was looking

for something

other than

her husband

she was

looking for

as I say

the excitement

or something

satisfying

she was

looking for

and Jesus

is saying

no

no

no

I'm

recognizing

your hunger

and your thirst

but you're

looking for it

in all the

wrong places

I'm giving you

a chance

to point you

to me

but once again

you see

that involves

more temple

abuse

so here's

where the

play and the

idea of

temple abuse

comes in

the Old

Testament

law

and temple

if you go

back and read

through

Leviticus

and Numbers

the Old

Testament

law

had no

recourse

for the

intentional sin

of murder

or adultery

there's no

sacrifice offered

to sort

things out

with God

the only

option a

person in

that situation

has

is to

throw

themselves

directly

on God's

mercy and

grace for

forgiveness

forgiveness

and this

is exactly

what Jesus

knows

and exactly

what he

points this

woman to

ultimately the

temple always

pointed God's

people to

God's grace

in forgiveness

and new

relationship

the Pharisees

sadly had come

to see it as a

place of

condemnation

and that's all

they could see it

because of their

position of

self-righteousness

but here's the

play

because Jesus

has already

identified himself

earlier in the

ministry as the

true temple

the new

temple

so the new

reality for this

guilty woman

was that the

true temple

pushed her to

experience and

know new

satisfaction

new grace

but it wasn't

about trying

harder in

real performance

based religion

it was not

about what she

could or would

ever do

it was on the

basis of what he

could and would

do for her in his

death as the true

temple

so ironically as we

unpack this story

I believe that Jesus

knew that someone

would die as a

result of this

incident

the leaders

wanted the woman

to die

but Jesus

knows it will be

him who will die

he knows he will

be condemned to

death for her

sin

while she is

freed into life

and so it works

like this

Jesus is able to

move her towards

life

because he was

actually in

Jerusalem

precisely moving

himself towards

death

what a contrast

with the self

righteous leaders

convincing themselves

that they are good

enough by punishing

others whom they

deem to be wicked

but Jesus is

preparing to be

considered bad

himself to be

considered a

criminal himself

to make guilty

sinners like this

woman look good

in the eyes of

God

his moral outrage

is completely

different

she is a

sinner

but Jesus the

true temple

has not come to

condemn guilty

people like her

he came to

deliver

he came to

save them

he came to

make them

acceptable to

God and

reconnect them

into the life

of God's rich

blessing

the life we

all long for

so ladies

can I have a

special moment

of your time

to make this

application to

you guys this

morning

generic guys

I would suggest

to you this

morning that

Jesus ought to

be the darling

the absolute

darling of the

hashtag me

too community

he's the

truly caring

man that

every woman

hungers and

thirsts for

he understands

this woman's

deep longings

he cares

for women

this woman in

particular

he speaks the

truth to you

in love as

he did to

this woman

he points

you to

true life

and points

you away

from a

life of

false

intimacy

false

satisfaction

false

thirst

quenching

so we

find ourselves

living today

in an epidemic

of domestic

abuse

an epidemic

of adultery

as both men

and women

seek to

satisfy their

thirst and

their hunger

in one another

or in sex

outside of

marriage

but the

real solution

can only be

new relationship

and life

in Jesus

but you know

it's sad isn't

it that our

society would

rather look for

the answer

in legislation

we've got to

have legislation

to stop these

things

or we'll

have the

hashtag

me too

we'll create

a shaming

culture to

deal with

these things

rather than

looking at a

renewing

culture

of honouring

in an

overflow

response of

being renewed

and honoured

by God

this woman

in pursuing

adultery

was looking

for validation

satisfaction

intimacy

fulfilment

happiness

but she

ended up

broken

isolated

scorned

and shamed

in other

words this

woman was

chasing the

life

chasing life

as she

thought it

to be

but she

found death

in the midst

of that

life

the final

reality

as the

story ends

is that

in the

presence of

Jesus

she had

the opportunity

to find

life

in the

midst of

death

let me

pray

lord help us

not to trip

up on some

of the

textual

problems

of this

passage

help us

to see

just the

warmth

and

compassion

of the

lord Jesus

Christ

help us

help us

lord to

find

in

ourselves

those

elements

of

self

righteousness

self

salvation

and root

them out

so we

might truly

be people

who are

shaped by

you and

your character

and your

word

and that we

in turn

lord might be

people of

grace who

can extend

grace

in truth

and love

amen

amen

to

who

stood

out

he

sorry

to

to

you a

can go

m