In the musical The King and I the King of Thailand hires British schoolteacher Anna Leonowens as part of his attempt to bring his nation into the modern world. To say that she upends his comfortable little world is an understatement. The king begins to question lots and lots of things. Things that he thought were clear are no longer so clear. What is right and what is wrong? And not just about morality, about politics, business, education, and more. He comes out with the song Puzzlement. Here are some excerpts:
When I was a boy
World was better spot
What was so was so
What was not was not
Now I am a man;
World have changed a lot
Some things nearly so
Others nearly not
There are times I almost think
I am not sure of what I absolutely know
Very often find confusion
In conclusion I concluded long ago
In my head are many facts
That, as a student, I have studied to procure
In my head are many facts
Of which I wish I was more certain I was sure!
When my father was a king
He was a king who knew exactly what he knew
And his brain was not a thing
Forever swinging to and fro and fro and to
Shall I, then be like my father
And be willfully unmovable and strong?
Or is it better to be right?
Or am I right when I believe I may be wrong?
There are times I almost think
Nobody sure of what he absolutely know
Everybody find confusion
In conclusion he concluded long ago
And it puzzle me to learn
That tho' a man may be in doubt of what he know
Very quickly he will fight
He'll fight to prove that what he does not know is so!
It's a puzzlement!
Perhaps we could sum up the whole song with the sentence, “The more you learn the less you know.” I think that is a message Jesus would have liked to get across to the scribes and Pharisees in the gospel reading. They certainly needed to reconsider what they thought they knew about God’s ways and the religious laws.
But interestingly the text itself is also one where the more you learn the less you know. Most of you don’t have your Bibles with you, but I invite you to look it up sometime soon. When you read the text you’ll find a footnote saying something like this… This is what is in my Bible, “On the basis of the best manuscripts and other ancient evidence, scholars generally agree that this story was not originally part of the Gospel of John. It may, however, be based on early oral traditions about Jesus.” (Harper Collins Study Bible, 1993, Pg. 2028)
So, it’s a text about not being too certain that has its own uncertain background! This text does remind us that not everything Jesus did shows up in the Bible, and that the Bible’s own history of formation is often a convoluted thing. It’s scraps, fragments, contradictions that came to shape over centuries. The formal codified books that we have didn’t come into being until centuries after Jesus. If we say that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit, then let’s make sure we take seriously what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, especially John’s gospel, “The wind blows where it chooses, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.” (John 3:8) We have to remember that Christian faith does not fit into a tidy little box with ribbons and a bow.
The story itself also has confusing and incomplete information, but not from Jesus. A woman who has been caught in adultery is brought to Jesus while he is in the temple in Jerusalem. There are several irregularities in the scribes’ and Pharisees’ actions. They say they have caught her in the “very act” and yet they have no witnesses to prove the case. Plus, where’s the man? If they want Jesus to offer his thoughts then they’d better have more information.
They also show they don’t really know the law. They speak as if the religious law requires the death penalty only for adulterous women. By absence of the man involved and by overlooking his consequences according to the law, you’d get the feeling that only the woman is to be punished. Not so. According to Leviticus 20:10 and Deuteronomy 22:22 the punishment is to be equal. In fact, the religious law is mostly concerned with the protection and stability of the man’s actual wife and children. The thrust of the law is based on keeping family stability. The thrust of the law is not about God demanding death for a sin committed.
Interestingly the Mishnah, a 2nd century Jewish writing about ways and applications, explicitly mentions only the man’s punishment and nothing for the woman. Thus, whether we like or agree with all these old religious laws or not, their actual language and intent is to be lenient on the woman involved and focus on the man’s accountability. But in the scene we find in the gospel the woman is to be stoned and the man is nowhere to be found!
What does Jesus do? Does he point out to them their legal missteps and misunderstanding? No. He bends down and starts writing in the ground.
Much speculation has been made over the centuries about what he wrote. But the truth is no one knows for sure – which all fits into this text full of unknowns and uncertainties. The fact that we aren’t told what it wrote tells us that we’re not to worry about what he wrote. The key thing is that Jesus does not engage the scribes and Pharisees. He refuses to acknowledge their trap, for a trap it is. The scribes and Pharisees have created a situation where the religious law and the life of this woman are merely pawns in their greater agenda. Jesus simply will not play along. He will not let himself be defined by other people’s categories.
I believe we all find ourselves in that sort of place quiet often. People want situations to be black and white, either or. Either you’re pro-choice or pro-life. Either you’re for the death penalty or you’re not. Either you’re pro-immigration or you’re anti-immigration. And so on and so on. But don’t you often find yourself getting uneasy about being pushed to choose? What about all the nuances of the situation? Must your life be defined one way or another based upon society’s categories and not your own?
God is the ultimate decider. Not the religious laws. Not the national laws. Not social norms and customs. Jesus refuses to be so categorized, and so do we.
Look at what Jesus does. When they keep questioning him and questioning him (I think it is important for us to pause in our imagination of the story to realize that Jesus stays silent for quite a long time. His response is not immediate), Jesus finally straightens up again and says, “Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Then notice Jesus does not stay standing tall and defiant. He does not dare them to start stoning her. He bends down and writes on the ground again; effectively disengaging himself from the situation. Jesus will not play by their rules.
I suppose we could think it a reckless move. The life of a woman is on the line here and Jesus is calling their bluff. But what if he was wrong? What if they did stone her? We’ll never know. Again, the text does not give us as many answers and certainties as we may want.
The people begin to leave one by one, beginning with the elders. Eventually it is just Jesus alone with the woman standing in front of him.
Then Jesus does something that I think is key to all of this. He speaks to her. Notice that she has not spoken until now. She has been a silent pawn in the manipulation of others. No one has noticed her humanity or value. But Jesus does.
The problem with either-or categories in social and political debate, and this goes for both conservative and liberal thinking, is that ultimately people become objectified. Or perhaps they are stood up as examples, but not for their own needs, for the political agenda of others.
Jesus, with no agenda, no point to make, no nothing, simply sees the fullness of the human in front of him and acknowledges her true worth. He then tells her that he does not condemn her. He says to go and sin no more.
Tyrants and bullies over the centuries have taken the phrase, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone,” and used it to get away with all sorts of things. But that is an abuse of this text. Similarly those who make this into a morality tale about the woman’s sin miss the point.
The point, going back to the song Puzzlement, is to acknowledge that we cannot claim absolute knowledge, power, or authority. God alone knows all. God alone can decide with truth. God alone can judge. That is God’s role. God has not given us such decisive authority.
Any parent knows that raising children does not happen by a rule book. What works for one child may not for another. And you try lots of stuff hoping that it will work but never being sure. Should you be lenient? Should you be severe? You never know for sure. The point is to do so with humility.
And I think that is our great takeaway from this text. It is not to live in uncertainty or live by walking on eggshells. No, that is not what God intended. It is to live with humility in your decisions, not gloating when they are right and not becoming defensive when they are wrong.
Ultimately that is how God’s love is shared in its most powerful form, when it is done with a knowledge of our own limits and shortcomings; and sins. And then applied with care.
No comments:
Post a Comment