Podcasts about John Howard Yoder

In this episode I welcome back long-time friend of the show Cody Cook to discuss his brand-new book The Anarchist Anabaptist: Essays on Radical Christianity and Freedom. In this book he explores the relationship between his Anabaptist faith and libertarian political philosophy. We discuss the meaning and history of the Anabaptist movement, its relationship to the wider Protestant world, and the differences of opinion between various Anabaptist groups. Cody explains the difference between pacifism and non-violence, paedo- and credobaptism, and why many modern Anabaptists are politically progressive. We discuss the John Howard Yoder scandal and how it impacted his legacy, and Cody critiques the political perspectives of N.T. Wright and Michael Bird. Buy a copy of the book today! Media Referenced:Buy The Anarchist Anabaptist: LCI Link: https://libertarianchristians.com/book/the-anarchist-anabaptist/Amazon: https://a.co/d/0AtxLAaInterview on LCP: https://libertarianchristians.com/episode/episode-389-the-anarchist-anabaptist-with-cody-cook/https://anarchistanabaptist.com/https://www.cantus-firmus.com/Cody on X: CantusFirmusCC The Protestant Libertarian Podcast is a project of the Libertarian Christian Institute and a part of the Christians For Liberty Network. The Libertarian Christian Institute can be found at www.libertarianchristians.com.Questions, comments, suggestions? Please reach out to me at theprotestantlibertarian@gmail.com.  You can also follow the podcast on Twitter: @prolibertypod, and YouTube, @ProLibertyPod, where you will get shorts and other exclusive video content. For more about the show, you can go to theprotestantlibertarianpodcast.com. If you like the show and want to support it, you can! Go to libertarianchristians.com, where you can donate to LCI and buy The Protestant Libertarian Podcast Merch! Also, please consider giving me a star rating and leaving me a review, it really helps expand the show's profile! Thanks!

Is your vote a tool for change or simply participation in a corrupt system? Do you feel a tension between engaging with a broken world and protecting your faith from its influence? This episode of Found (the second in the "Faith in Politics" series) grapples with these very questions as hosts Linda Tokar and Brandon Bathauer explore the idea of "separation as faithfulness." Discover why a growing number of Christians are choosing to disengage from the political sphere, citing reasons like distrust in candidates, a sense of powerlessness, and concern about the world's corrupting influence. Through insightful analysis of recent studies and statistics, the hosts unpack the motivations behind this perspective and what it means to live faithfully in a world that often feels at odds with Christian values.Journey through the history of Christianity and discover how groups like the Essenes, monastic movements, and Anabaptists embraced separation as a means of preserving their faith. Explore the writings of influential thinkers like Menno Simons, John Howard Yoder, Rod Dreher, and C. Kavin Rowe, and see how their ideas have shaped the modern understanding of this approach. The hosts examine key biblical passages that both support and challenge the idea of separation, sparking a thought-provoking discussion about the role of Christians in the public square. Is withdrawing from the world the best way to protect one's faith and live according to Christ's teachings, or is there a path to engage meaningfully without being corrupted?Suggested Resources for further study:Menno Simons: A good starting point is The Complete Writings of Menno Simons translated by Leonard Verduin.John Howard Yoder: His most famous work is The Politics of Jesus, which explores pacifism and Christian engagement in the world.Rod Dreher: His book The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation advocates for building resilient Christian communities in response to a perceived decline in Western culture.C. Kavin Rowe: The World Upside Down: Reading Acts in the Graeco-Roman Age examines the early Church's response to Roman power and provides a framework for understanding Christian witness in a challenging world.For updates on important events, visit https://saddleback.com/found and join the Found community! For any questions, email us at formation@saddleback.com .

What does it mean to be more like Jesus? Ultimately, that is the goal of following him, so what does it look like? In his book “The Politics of Jesus”, John Howard Yoder used the term “cruciformity” to describe a life of following Jesus. Cruciformity means a cross-shaped life; that the things we do, the words we say, the decisions we make are informed by, and conformed to, the cross of Christ. We are to live a cross shaped life. Study Questions Watch Full Service

Simon, Tim, Matt, Jim, and Paul discuss how narrative theology or what is known as the Yale School or postliberalism defines Christianity as a community of practice, which can serve as entry into understanding religion in general. Following the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, narrative theologians such as George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas, James McClendon and John Howard Yoder recognized doctrine and practice must be conjoined. Become a Patron! If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work.

"Christians should not be talking about politics!" is what I heard when I was a young Christian. Is that true? How can Christians be engaged in politics in a biblically faithful way? What does it mean to be a political disciple? Should we as Christians stay out of politics? These are questions that we all must wrestle with if we are to have an effective witness in the world. Join Travis and Dr. Vincent Bacote as they discuss what it means to be a political disciple in a polarized world. Dr. Vincent Bacote is a Professor of Theology and the Director of the Center for Applied Christian Ethics at Wheaton College in Wheaton, IL.He is the author of Reckoning with Race and Performing the Good News: In Search of a Better Evangelical Theology (2020), The Political Disciple: A Theology of Public Life (2015), The Spirit in Public Theology: Appropriating the Legacy of Abraham Kuyper (2005), and has contributed to books including On Kuyper (2013), Aliens in the Promised Land (2013), Keep Your Head Up (2012) and Prophetic Evangelicals (2012).He is a regular columnist for Comment Magazine and contributes to other magazines, including Books and Culture, Christianity Today, Think Christian and re:generation quarterly, and journals such as Christian Scholars Review, Urban Mission and the Journal for Christian Theological Research. He is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Society of Christian Ethics.He resides in the Chicago area with his family. Travis and Vincent discuss what it means to be political, why the church needs to have a robust political theology (how God wants us to go about politics that is biblically faithful), common grace, and how our political theology has changed over time, as well as the very purpose of government. Vincent also discusses some other theologians and how they have shaped how we see politics today, names like Abraham Kuyper, John Howard Yoder, and Stanley Hauerwas. While they may be unfamiliar, they have affected how we view and even engage the political process today. Vincent also gives Travis some lessons on Jazz. Learn more about Vincent.Get Vincent's book The Political Disciple. One of the books referred...

Deel 3 van de serie over het eerste artikel in het boek "Vermaningen" dat ik publiceerde in 2005.De conclusie die ik hier uit trok in 2005 was dat het nodig was om weer terug te gaan naar de klassieke bronnen van het doopsgezinde denken. Wat betekenden nu precies termen als de beteringe des levens en de ommekeer, de navolging van Christus, de wedergeboorte, het berouw en de boete, woorden die in een twintigste eeuwse context nogal moraliserend klinken. Ik dacht dat bij Menno dit juist aanduidingen waren van het goddelijke werk aan de mens. Immers, de grondslag en eerste oorzaak van het christelijke leven lag in Christus zelf. De menselijke component daarin was secundair, was daarin opgesloten. Keerzijde van een en dezelfde gebeurtenis dus, de mens was immers als zondaar door god gerechtvaardigd, maar ook een heilige in gods kracht. Rechtvaardiging en heiliging waren keerzijde van een en dezelfde transformatie van het menselijk leven. Menno zou het verwijt maken aan Luther, maar ook aan Calvijn, dat zij alle ethiek concentreerden op het werk van Christus in de mens. Daarmee zou het door god opgeroepen en mogelijk gemaakte menselijke antwoord op de genade uiteindelijk geheel en al verdwijnen in het soevereine handelen van god. Het formele standpunt van de doopsgezinden, het formele standpunt in de ethiek, kan het beste worden omschreven met de term possibilisme. De messias is gekomen, heeft zijn geest uitgestort in ons en dat maakt concrete gehoorzaamheid aan het gebod van Christus mogelijk. Calvijn had gezegd dat de wet een functie heeft voor degenen die wedergeboren zijn, wat in het Latijn dan heet Oesus in Renátis. Aan de wet kunnen we immers aflezen hoe het door god gewilde leven er uitziet. Voor Kalfijn, evenals voor de menísten, is een christen werkelijk een dienaar van god. Dat roept natuurlijk de vraag op, hoe zit dat nou met die zogenaamde uiterlijkheid van de wet? Is dit dan een oproep tot casuïstiek? Het lijkt juist alle casuïstiek uit te sluiten. Er is een mooie brief van Pilgram Marpek uit 1531. Die brief kreeg de titel mee “oordeel en beslissing.” Daarin zegt Marpek dat Christus, ik citeer, zonder gebod of verbod tegenover de zijnen, de gelovigen staat. Dat lijkt een extreem antinomistisch standpunt te zijn, dat bij de spiritualistische en extreme zijde van de wederdopers wel voorkwam. De nadruk bij Marpek ligt schijnbaar exclusief op de bevrijding, dat wil zeggen op de bevrijding van de eisen van de wet. Dat valt makkelijk aan te vullen. De wet kan alleen veroordelen, de genade in Christus vergeeft en maakt vrij. De mens is geroepen tot een vrij antwoord van liefde op de liefhebbende god. Maar Marpek vervolgt met deze woorden, ik citeer: “deze liefde in god is de werkelijke vrijheid. Zonder enige dwang vervult de liefde waarachtig alle geboden en verboden die behoren bij het welbehagen van god. Dat is de ware vrijheid in Christus Jezus. Wie hij ook maar vrij maakt is waarachtig vrij en wie in zijn woorden blijft is zijn waarachtige discipel.” Einde citaat.Dit possibilisme moet goed worden onderscheiden van het perfectionisme. Het perfectionisme is de opvatting dat een christen in staat is zich te ontworstelen aan de macht van de zonde. Dat is dus de overtuiging dat een christen volmaakt voor god kan leven. Dat vinden we bij iemand als John Wesley. Ik citeer: “Ik geloof dat de geest van god, een christelijke volmaaktheid kan uitwerken in ware christenen.”En datzelfde vinden we bij graaf von Zinzendorf, die zegt dat Christus onze enige volmaaktheid is.Als Wesley zegt dat de geest van god in de gelovigen daadwerkelijk hun heiliging tot stand brengt dan is dat meer een proces van vervolmaking dan dat het een resultaat bedoelt aan te geven. Het resultaat is echter de overtuiging dat de mens tot perfectie is geroepen en deze perfectie ook bewerken kan – zij het dan theologisch gezien alleen maar “in de kracht van de Geest van God.”Vrijheid en wet, genade en gehoorzaamheid, geloof en goede werken, dat is eigenlijk goed begrepen, één grondhouding, één geroepen zijn van de mens waarin deze beide aspecten tot hun recht kunnen komen. Er is een god die roept en transformeert en er is een mens die antwoordt en veranderd wordt in zijn innerlijke leven, maar ook in zijn uiterlijk gedrag. Gehoorzaamheid is de naar buiten gerichte kant van het geloof en het geloof is de naar binnen gerichte kant van de gehoorzaamheid. Dat is de klassieke menonitische dialectiek van de verhouding tussen de mens en god in het geloof. Wie geroepen wordt tot de navolging van Jezus, die wordt het ook mogelijk gemaakt om deze Jezus na te volgen. De effectiviteit van het geloof dat volgens Paulus door liefde werkzaam is, berust dus niet op een autonome, morele prestatie van de mens. Het is echter wel een uitoefening van vrijheid in Christus die door Jezus wordt geëist omdat ze ook door hem wordt mogelijk gemaakt. Uiteindelijk vraagt God niets anders dan wat hij zelf in ons tot stand heeft gebracht. Daarom noemen we het een possibilisme, in onderscheid van het perfectionisme. Dat moeten we in verband brengen met een andere nadruk die sterk aanwezig was in de mennonitische beweging en dat is de gedachte dat de christelijke ethiek wezenlijk een sociale ethiek is. Net zoals in het jodendom staat de enkeling onder het gebod in de context van een verbondsgemeenschap en binnen die gemeenschap maakt God de gehoorzaamheid mogelijk. Het possibilisme is dus een sociaal gedreven en sociaal gemotiveerde ethiek. Uiteindelijk is een enkeling gebonden aan zogenaamde ethische directieven die voor een enkeling vanwege die gemeenschap van kracht zijn. John Howard Yoder heeft in 1967 deze kenmerken van de gelovigen als kenmerken van de kerk als geheel onder woorden gebracht. Bijvoorbeeld heilig leven. De gelovige kerk is een veronderstelling van alle bijbelse ethiek. De gemeenschap is verondersteld. De morele non-conformiteit van christenen is een voorwaarde van hun zichtbaarheid en die zichtbaarheid wordt in de bergereden ook geëist van de christelijke gemeente. Bijvoorbeeld ook deze broederlijke liefde. Bij het sacrament gaat het niet om iets anders dan de juiste bediening. En die juiste bediening veronderstelt een solidariteit in de gemeenschap, met name bij het avondmaal. De vrijwilligheid van de gemeenschap der discipline maakt het wezenlijke verschil. Dat kenmerkt dus die sociale gemeenschap van de kerk. Vermaning, ban, mijding, tucht zijn daden van liefde en laten de naar binnen gerichte dimensie van de zending zien. Een derde element, getuigen. De bereidheid zonder compromis het evangelie te verkondigen aan een vijandige wereld. Eventueel ook onder lijden en tot de dood. Een gevestigde volkskerk kan niet getuigen, want getuigen is in strijd met de sociologische en politieke inbedding van zo'n kerk in de samenleving. In een theocratische opvatting worden kerk en staat als aparte instituties naast elkaar gesteld en zijn het verschillende manieren waarop God regeert. Menno wilde de boodschap van het evangelie niet laten aantasten door wat mensen over het algemeen willen en kunnen horen, dat een degelijk compromis nu juist de basis is van de zogenaamde volkskerk. Ten slotte het kruis dragen. De ware kerk wordt gekenmerkt door lijden. In het spiritualisme wordt dat lijden een innerlijke ervaring. In een theocratische benadering wordt de zin van het lijden gereduceerd tot een tragisch lijden zoals een ongeneeslijke ziekte. Een dergelijk lijden is geen gevolg van een morele beslissing. Het lijden van Christus dat wij moeten volgen volgens de eerste brief van Petrus is een lijden dat voortkomt uit de trouw aan Christus en uit de non-conformiteit met de wereld. Dat is het specifieke christelijke deelnemen aan het lijden van Christus als enkeling en als gemeenschap. Lijden is wezenlijk de bereidheid om de vorm van de gehoorzaamheid van de gemeente te laten bepalen door Christus alleen. Want het enige en daarom absolute criterium van de ethiek in de Menniste traditie is uiteindelijk toch de trouw aan Christus. Zo dacht ik erover in 2005.

Dr. Elizabeth Phillips (Ph.D. Cambridge) is Director of Education and Engagement at the Woolf Institute, an interfaith institute in Cambridge, England. She teaches political theology and conflict transformation. Her latest book is Apocalyptic Theopolitics: Essays and Sermons on Eschatology, Ethics, and Politics, and her earlier book, Political Theology: A Guide for the Perplexed, is an introduction to political theology and serves as the backdrop of our podcast conversation. Support Theology in the Raw through Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theologyintheraw

We take a look at where purpose comes from and whether or not we can create it.  Spotify Playlist: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4VSvC0SJYwku2U0awRaNAu?si=3ad0b2fbed2e4864 A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ Purposer --(purpose)--> Instrument --(action)--> GoalGod's Equation: Purposer (God) ----> Instrument (Humanity) ---> Goal (Glorifying God in Loving Community)​Self-Purposing Equation:  Purposer (Humanity) ---> Instrument (Whatever We Choose) ---> Goal (Self-fulfillment and Pleasure) The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus My Written Article: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/the-impossibility-of-creating-self-purpose Other Thoughts on Purpose: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/meaningpurpose Sickness Unto Death: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY2rNGBHgDQ  Thanks to our monthly supporters Laverne Miller Jesse Killion ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Brian, Matt, Jonathan, David, Austin, Jim, and Paul discuss John Howard Yoder's and David Bentley Hart's depiction of Constantinianism and the fusion of Church and State and the disappearance of the church. The only visible Christian is one armored by the gospel, resistant to and not armored by the state.  Become a Patron! If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work.

Next up on The Open Door (May 10th), we discuss a theology of disability and its philosophical commitments. How is it that we can best see and serve disabled persons? What lessons can they, in turn, teach us? Our welcome guest is Dr. Marc Tumeinski of Anna Maria College and Holy Apostles College and Seminary. His doctoral research brought together in ecumenical dialogue the writings of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and John Howard Yoder. Among the questions we will ask are the following. 1. Dr. Tumeinski, Marc, if we may, could you please tell us a bit about Anna Maria College and its mission?2. How did you come to your special focus on disabilities?3. You collaborate closely with your wife, Jo Massarelli. Do her interests and skills complement your own?4. Can you explain “Social Role Valorization”? And would you introduce us to the SRV Journal?5. What connections do you see between peacemaking, the Church, and Christians with impairments?6. You have put forward an ethical analysis of the use of physical and mechanical restraints in care of disabled people. Could you describe current practices in the use of restraints and the reforms you propose?7. Drawing on St. John of Damascus, St. Thomas Aquinas explains our being made in God's image with reference to our capacities for reason and free choice. What does his account mean in case of people with severe disabilities?8. The theologian Pia Matthews contends that Patristic resources emphasize the discerning, rather than the defining, of persons. What do you think of this emphasis?9. A significant number of homeless people suffer from both severe mental illness and long term drug addiction. What guidelines would you propose for responding to homeless persons with this “dual diagnosis”?10. How can the Church serve, to use Joseph Ratzinger's phrase, as a creative minority?

You've probably seen headlines recently about Christian nationalism, especially since December's Jericho March in Washington, DC, and since a mob of Trump supporters—many sporting Christian signs, slogans, or symbols—rioted and stormed the US Capitol building on January 6. What is Christian nationalism, and how is it different from Christianity? How is it different from patriotism? How should Christians think about nations, especially about the United States? If nationalism is bad, should we reject nationality and national loyalty altogether? Some helpful tools: 1. Unchristian America: Living With Faith in a Nation That Was Never Under God by Michael A. Babcock 2. Politics of the Cross, The: The Theology and Social Ethics of John Howard Yoder. 3. The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power Is Destroying the Church by Greg Boyd - Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals By Shane Claiborne & Chris Haw. 4. Living on Hope While Living in Babylon: The Christian Anarchists of the Twentieth Century by Tripp York 5. After Christendom?: How the Church Is to Behave If Freedom, Justice, and a Christian Nation Are Bad Ideas by Stanley Hauerwas

Toxic Secrets: Confidentiality and John Howard Yoder—Called to be Bad “I think we would do well as Christians to develop other norms and practices around things like confidentiality, privacy, secrecy...”  *Content Warning: sexual misconduct/abuse/assault by a religious leader/person in powerDisclaimer: The topic of John Howard Yoder's abuse is complicated. Yoder's abuse involved power dynamics, institutional coverup, reputations, theology, sexism, interpersonal relationships—and more. Talking about it hurts people. Not talking about it hurts people. The goal of sharing this episode is to zero in on the way secrets and confidentiality played a role in perpetuating harm by protecting those in power. It is not to be an exhaustive dissection of the abuse and its aftermath. For more information, see Rachel Waltner Goossen's essay linked below. Resources Mentioned: “‘Defanging the Beast' Mennonite Responses to John Howard Yoder's Sexual Abuse” by Rachel Waltner Goossen: https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news5/2015_01_Goossen_Defanging_the_Beast.pdfFollow us for more ✨bad✨ content: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/calledtobebad_podcast/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/calledtobebadWebsite: https://calledtobebad.buzzsprout.com/Sponsor of this episode: https://www.arthumorsoul.com/Want to become part of the ✨baddie✨ community? Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/calledtobebadHave a ✨bad✨ topic you want to talk about on the show? Get in touch with host, Mariah Martin at: calledtobebad@gmail.com #ctbb #podcast #podcastersoffacebook #progressivechristianity #progressiveclergy #pastor #churchSupport the show

“Barth's attacks on the liberal theologians and what he regarded as their high humanism has led many to label him as anti-humanistic. Barth, however, never abandoned his presumption that to be a Christian is to be a creature on the way to being a human being. To be sure that way is one determined by Christ. “God is God and we are not” remains central to Barth but for Barth the God that is the other is the One that makes us capable of being human.”Our friend, mentor, and muse, Stanley Hauerwas, returns to the podcast to discuss his latest book, Fully Alive, which is a collection of essays on the apocalyptic humanism of Karl Barth. Along the way, we talk about English mysteries, nihilism, and parting forever with friends like John Howard Yoder and Jean Vanier whose work had been so central to his own.

Today, our guest is Dr. Paul Martens, associate professor of ethics in the department of religion and director of interdisciplinary studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. Dr. Martens holds a Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame and has published widely on John Howard Yoder and Soren Kierkegaard. Dr. Martens has been director of the Baylor ethics initiative, where he serves as Global Ethics Research Convener. We are delighted to have Dr. Martens on the show to discuss what is right and wrong about disciplines in the academy and why interdisciplinarity matters for researchers and students.

Throughout this season we have arrived at the idea that the Church is not in itself the Reign of God, but the Reign of God is both its starting point and its goal. So that leads us to the question, how does the Church (as God's idea) address the ‘crackedness' of the cosmos (the problem of evil we explored at the beginning of the season)?  How does it ‘dramatize' and manifest grace, love, justice, and the dream of God? Join us this week in our final content episode of the season (paired with a Bar-Talk episode) as we examine the call of the Christian Community as a Counter Force and an active participant through actionable grace in the narrative of The Pathetic God.Hendrik Berkhof, Christ and the Powers. Translated by John Howard Yoder, Harrisonburg, Virginia: Herald Press, 1977 (ISBN: 978-0-8361-1820-9).David P. Gushee & Glenn H. Stassen, Kingdom Ethics: Following Jesus in Contemporary Context. Second Edition, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2016 (ISBN: 978-0-8028-7421-4).Stephen Charles Mott, Biblical Ethics and Social Change. Second Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 (ISBN: 978-0199739370).Readings: ‘The Church and the Powers', Berkhof, Chapter 5‘Salt, Light, Deeds' and ‘Thy Kingdom Come', Gushee & Stassen, Chapters 10 & 17'The Church as Counter-Community', Mott, Chapter 7**Also Check out our BONUS EPISODE! BAR Talk: The conversation after class and on-tap. Reflecting on the season... and what comes next!**Contact Us!Twitter: @PodLmdFacebook: facebook.com/LMDPodWeb: lmdpod.buzzsprout.comEmail: lmdpod@gmail.com

In this postgame, Martin and Greg reflect on the Season 2, Episode 2 interview with Wilbert Shenk. They discuss the use of thinkers whose major moral failings have come to light (such as John Howard Yoder's sexual abuse of students), the importance of Shenk's Anabaptist contributions to missional ecclesiology, and the meaning of his hope for mission to get a serious hearing in the theological education institution. Sadly, Dr. Shenk passed away on July 13, 2021, shortly after this episode was recorded. Your Host Martin Rodriguez is an assistant professor in the Department of Practical Theology at Azusa Pacific University. He holds a PhD in intercultural studies from Fuller Theological. His dissertation focuses on missiology at the intersection of postcolonial hybridity theory and late-modern leadership theory. Since 2011, he has served as Family Life Minister at the Hollywood Church of Christ (Hollywood, CA, USA). Before this, he served for five years as a missionary in China where he mentored emerging leaders and partnered with Chinese leaders to plant three churches. Martin also holds an MDiv from Fuller Theological Seminary and a degree in Religion and International Studies from Pepperdine University (Malibu, CA, USA). He is also a content editor of Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis and a member of the missiology.com team. Your Producer Greg McKinzie is a PhD candidate in theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, writing on missional hermeneutics at the intersection of constructive theology, theological interpretation of Scripture, and missiology. He is also an adjunct professor of Bible and ministry at Lipscomb University (Nashville, TN), the executive editor of Missio Dei: A Journal of Missional Theology and Praxis, and the lead administrator of missiology.com. From 2008 to 2015, he served in Arequipa, Peru, as a partner in holistic evangelism with Team Arequipa and The Christian Urban Development Association. Greg holds an MDiv from Harding School of Theology (Memphis, TN, USA) and a BA in missions from Harding University (Searcy, AR, USA). He should probably be working on his dissertation right now.

Ravi Zacharias and John Howard Yoder were considered influential Christian leaders. Tragically, they both serially sexually abused women. These are just two of many that were heroes that dreadfully failed leaving many victims. Dr. Amy Laura Hall and Dr. Tommy Givens help us reckon with some of this and how to process it. Amy Laura is Assoc. Prof. of Christian Ethics at Duke Divinity School. Tommy is Assoc. Prof. of New Testament Studies at Fuller Seminary with his ThD in Theological Ethics from Duke.

Ravi Zacharias and John Howard Yoder were considered influential Christian leaders. Tragically, they both serially sexually abused women. These are just two of many that were heroes that dreadfully failed leaving many victims. Dr. Amy Laura Hall and Dr. Tommy Givens help us reckon with some of this and how to process it. Amy Laura is Assoc. Prof. of Christian Ethics at Duke Divinity School. Tommy is Assoc. Prof. of New Testament Studies at Fuller Seminary with his ThD in Theological Ethics from Duke.

A huge thanks to Seth White for the awesome music! Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abusive Behavior Chart: https://lifering.co/abusive-behavior?fbclid=IwAR3V79rbQXGVH0V24rInI5TiiHYDDfSgvDG0ZjBfpzCWTzyI_I7TMoIL4RUJesus, Meekness, and Nonviolence in Gender Theology: An Introduction: https://kingdomoutpost.org/jesus-meekness-and-nonresistance-in-gender-theology-an-introduction/?fbclid=IwAR3X940gsOkPENDt-gTazR-m0etZOgtybmfqWi-8ZUxMlgd7YJb_N0czd3I  Chris Moles and the Peace Works Podcast: http://www.chrismoles.org/podcast?fbclid=IwAR3Qzg0Fumotqh3pMRxKVRpZax3JDzJZCSyIJMjHa-m6WkAgsgNMtwkeTaY Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs: https://www.theduluthmodel.org/wheels/?fbclid=IwAR1N_985pIlwP42LNUfeo0Jh6OBmU8iz8lAu3ouunxthW2eskQT6dkuqfCA Domestic Abuse Resources: http://www.chrismoles.org/?fbclid=IwAR3iu9tXjjnN1-ZK7j4p0HxUFdbSHXLv1qKL90dtR4K77_YSa8ZkeLSRWU4 The Sexually Healthy Man: https://andrewjbauman.com/?fbclid=IwAR17b9CQ1KsNQcPKYXv1PH_tG48ye40nMnAf-rx3x6eeaj-HRZQItsM7Y1M Divorce in the Old Testament: https://nakedbiblepodcast.com/podcast/naked-bible-316-divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-old-testament/ The Cross and the Lynching Tree (how the black has modeled the true church, and shows us Jesus through their suffering): https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Lynching-Tree-James-Cone-ebook/dp/B005M1ZIGI/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=cross+and+the+lynching+tree&qid=1619574688&sr=8-1  Prophetic Lament: https://www.amazon.com/Prophetic-Lament-Justice-Troubled-Times/dp/0830836942/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=prophetic+lament&qid=1619620205&sr=8-1 Learning to Lament with the Psalms: https://sojo.net/articles/troubling-texts-domestic-violence-bible/learning-lament-psalms?fbclid=IwAR02NqCsEfixuSS6c1O7Va5DcRyR4gzr3pYCCpwdoqR_IAZY4n0okkOIDa8 Icons of Christ (the best book I think you'll find pushing back against complementarianism): https://www.amazon.com/Icons-Christ-Biblical-Systematic-Ordination/dp/1481313193/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=icons+of+christ&qid=1619617959&sr=8-1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Foundational Questions & Defining Terms:  What does biblical submission mean? Ought we to distinguish submission from obedience? Is there a distinction between the types of submissions referenced in Peter? Do citizens have a deeper call to submission than slaves to masters or wives to husbands (spouse to spouse)? If citizens should biblically submit to a tyrannical and abusive government, and slaves to abusive masters, why shouldn't one spouse submit to another abusive one? Cultural/Hermeneutical Questions:  Do you think there are cultural considerations here? For example, slavery is illegal in the United States, so if someone took you as a slave, my guess is you wouldn't say we have a biblical obligation to submit to our slave masters. Do you think the call to submission in marriage is cultural, like slavery may be, or do you think the call is free of cultural considerations? From what I've read of the early church on divorce, a big part of why they don't like divorce at all is because they view it as a cutting off of the opportunity for restoration and forgiveness. It's one of the main reasons we advocate nonviolence, as killing cuts off opportunity for restoration. Is it possible to think that we shouldn't ever kill even to protect our family, yet divorce to protect our family is fine - or are those two positions logically connected? Practical Questions:  Submission in bad situations is hard. What do you think the church could/should do to make biblical submission easier to walk through, especially submission of a spouse in a bad marriage? How would you counsel a woman in an abusive situation in regard to staying with her husband? Would that change if she has children? [Origen quote about husbands not divorcing wife even if she tries to poison him or kills their child]. Do you agree with Origen here? Do you think if there was more stuff like this holding men's feet to the fire for accountability, that this conversation would be a lot easier and not feel like this is just a tool for women's oppression?  .“Our Savior does not at all permit the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than fornication alone, when detected in the wife….But someone might ask if He allows a man to put away a wife for any other reasons besides her being caught in fornication. For example, what about poisoning [her husband]?Or what if, during the absence of her husband from the home, she destroys an infant born to them? Or what about any form of murder whatever?...Sins of such heinousness seem to be worse than adultery or fornication. To endure them would appear to be irrational. However, on the other hand, to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Savior, everyone would acknowledge to be impious.” Questions About Sensitivities and Considerations: This isn't directly related to the topic, but I was speaking with Rebekah about using John Howard Yoder as a resource , despite his sexual assaults. How do you feel about using Yoder's work, or the works of those who have committed sexual assault? Would you say the same thing about someone who committed other heinous crimes? If all truth is God's truth, and if Yoder taught some things that are right, and taught them insightfully and maybe taught stuff that others didn't grasp, do you think it's possible to glean truth out of the chaff of evil action? If you'd use Yoder, what caveats or guidelines would you give? ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Joined with me this week is my pastor, Nate and an intern at the church Trent answering the question, Can war ever be justified? What is the Just-War Tradition? How have Christians thought about war historically? Can a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ, be a soldier with a clear conscious? Why has the just war tradition been lost on so many Christians in the last 100 years? There are many questions to be asked on the topic of war for Christians! We answer all of these and hit on even more things about this precious ethical tradition throughout church history. Learn about the line of thinking that great thinkers like Augustine, Martin Luther, and many others have taken throughout church history. John Howard Yoder is the pacifist that is quoted many times in this book. The book we reviewed is found here -> https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Christianity-Questions-Perspective/dp/1433513838/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=peace+war+and+christianity&qid=1619618311&sr=8-2 Any inquiries can be sent to forthekingpodcast@gmail.com --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/rocky-ramsey/support

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Kingdom Outpost: https://kingdomoutpost.org/?fbclid=IwAR1KL57kqq5u7krqY37PKZ3weazk1yELVXGYwLC9asL01QjrjFvyFrjXoZU The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus Hauerwas Responds to Yoder's Sexual Assault: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzvVZ2duVGk ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus Strength to Love by MLK: https://www.amazon.com/Strength-Love-Martin-Luther-King-ebook/dp/B07MYL8MDS/ref=sr_1_4?crid=1JM3AS2JCBQT9&dchild=1&keywords=martin+luther+king+jr+books&qid=1589657344&sprefix=martin+luther+king+jr%2Caps%2C190&sr=8-4 Black man converts over 200 KKK members:  https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinced-200-ku-klux-klan-members-to-give-up-their-robes Bonhoeffer the Assassin: https://www.amazon.com/Bonhoeffer-Assassin-Challenging-Recovering-Peacemaking-ebook/dp/B00FOWLXVY/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=bonhoeffer+the+assassin&qid=1589657127&sr=8-1 God and Nonviolence: Creedal Theology and Christian Ethics: https://www.academia.edu/5671308/God_and_Nonviolence_Creedal_Theology_and_Christian_Ethics Irenaeus Quote: https://carm.org/irenaeus-heresies5-1-18 Oliphant's "Covenental Apologetics:" https://www.amazon.com/Covenantal-Apologetics-Principles-Practice-Defense-ebook/dp/B00DOG44SQ/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=oliphant+covenantal+apologetics&qid=1589657099&sr=8-1 Adolfo Esquivel: https://mettacenter.org/definitions/gloss-concepts/principled-nonviolence/ ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ Purposer --(purpose)--> Instrument --(action)--> GoalGod's Equation: Purposer (God) ----> Instrument (Humanity) ---> Goal (Glorifying God in Loving Community)​Self-Purposing Equation:  Purposer (Humanity) ---> Instrument (Whatever We Choose) ---> Goal (Self-fulfillment and Pleasure) The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus My Written Article: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/the-impossibility-of-creating-self-purpose Other Thoughts on Purpose: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/meaningpurpose ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus Jesus for President: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-President-Politics-Ordinary-Radicals/dp/0310278422/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=jesus+for+president&qid=1608117426&sr=8-1 The Upside Down Kingdom: https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Down-Distinguished-Professor-Emeritus-Kraybill/dp/1513802496/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+upside+down+kingdom&qid=1608117461&sr=8-1 ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus Jesus for President: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-President-Politics-Ordinary-Radicals/dp/0310278422/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=jesus+for+president&qid=1608117426&sr=8-1 The Upside Down Kingdom: https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Down-Distinguished-Professor-Emeritus-Kraybill/dp/1513802496/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+upside+down+kingdom&qid=1608117461&sr=8-1 ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/thewayfourth/?modal=admin_todo_tour Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/theway4th/  The Historic Faith Courses: https://thehistoricfaith.com/ The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_3?dchild=1&keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1589237437&sr=8-3 My Summary of "The Politics of Jesus": https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/category/politics-of-jesus Jesus for President: https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-President-Politics-Ordinary-Radicals/dp/0310278422/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=jesus+for+president&qid=1608117426&sr=8-1 The Upside Down Kingdom: https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Down-Distinguished-Professor-Emeritus-Kraybill/dp/1513802496/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+upside+down+kingdom&qid=1608117461&sr=8-1 ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Recorded on Sunday, December 13, 2020. Other scripture cited: Isaiah 42:1-9; Romans 13:8-12.Support the show (https://www.eservicepayments.com/cgi-bin/Vanco_ver3.vps?appver3=wWsk24ZWJSTZKsGd1RMKlg0BDvsSG3VIWQCPJNNxD8upkiY7JlDavDsozUE7KG0nFx2NSo8LdUKGuGuF396vbSw-R2mhrvfe_HJOXvFcrh-XHubq5Z7ap5JVmPErc4ZeYHCKCZhESjGNQmZ5B-6dx0MW8b85t8s_s5fNKictIkY=&ver=3)

To learn more about Diapers, etc. which provides diapers and feminine products to families, please visit https://www.owenwood.org/diapers. Justin's new book The Business of War is available to our listeners at a 40% discount through his publisher Wipf and Stock until October 31: https://wipfandstock.com/the-business-of-war.htmlUse the coupon code: TENT2020You can find out more info about Justin at: http://www.rogueminister.org/Have you found this podcast series to be good, useful or fruitful? We need YOU to keep Tent Theology sustainable. Become a Fellow Traveller on our Patreon page HERE.

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  The Sacrifices of War and the Sacrifice of Christ: https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-sacrifices-of-war-and-the-sacrifice-of-christ/10098368 Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRbnPA3fd5U&t=376s Killing From the Inside Out: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Inside-Out-Moral-Injury-ebook/dp/B00NVN93EM/ref=sr_1_1?crid=R9KWYOKIFBHB&keywords=killing+from+the+inside+out+moral+injury+and+just+war&qid=1579144348&sprefix=killing+from%2Caps%2C189&sr=8-1 War and Moral Injury: https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Injury-Robert-Emmet-Meagher-ebook/dp/B07CFW2S3G/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3ML8UZ5LHM913&keywords=war+and+moral+injury&qid=1579144321&sprefix=war+and+moral+inju%2Caps%2C211&sr=8-1 On Killing: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society-ebook/dp/B00J90F8W2/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2RHR2TOPIB06N&keywords=on+killing+by+dave+grossman&qid=1579144334&sprefix=on+killin%2Caps%2C370&sr=8-1 While the following quote was pieced together from soldier testimony to make the famous speech from the movie "Patton," it is widely attributed to General Patton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCA6uxQE-bw&t=200s  No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country.John Howard Yoder from "Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution:" A crusade does not have to be winnable. Those who died in a crusade go straight to heaven. In the Middle Ages, dying in a crusade was the only way to get straight to heaven. In a crusade, death is not considered a necessary sacrifice so as to win war. Death is righteous in itself, because it is in a righteous cause. This view carries on in the West despite theories to the contrary. An element of martyrdom is present in our culture's recognition of the moral dignity of the war dead. There is a close juxtaposition, theologically in need of debate between such “martyrdom” and the sacrifice of Christ. “No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends” (John 15:13): Jesus said that about himself. Many Western war monuments to the dead have that verse on them, as though what a dead soldier went out to do was to lay down his life for his friends. That is not what he went out to do. He went out to kill, and he hoped to come home. He went out to lay down somebody else's life. The use of Jesus's cross language is a dramatic pointer to the persistence of the crusade mentality in our culture. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it’s going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I’ll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We’re in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn’t start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn’t have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that’s when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven’t done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today’s episode – episode #78 – I split today’s show into two parts so it wouldn’t be too long. In today’s reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what’s going on here, and was this story original to John’s Gospel, or was it a later edition?             The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.             Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament.        Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage             7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.             8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.             8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn’t answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don’t know how much time passed after Jesus’ challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.             8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine             This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It’s a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.             The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger  points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus,        p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,                         “No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from     what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae’s special            characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences      and even incidences.”[5]                         Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John’s gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.             The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]             There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn’t found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.             While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which “prove” its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions “de”, “oun”, “kai”, and “asyndeton” in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]             Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase “early morning” are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.             While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.             Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine             Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.             The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.             The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.             Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,                         “In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”[14]             This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome’s statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.             Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it’s removal from some manuscripts,                         “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity  in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said  ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” [16]             While Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine’s – that the passage is a stumbling block.             The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the “disruption” of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17, NIV)             The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, “Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?” (John 7:26, NIV)             While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of “de”, “touto” and “legein” [18]             My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase “meketi amartane” (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. “ina ecosin” (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. “Kai palin” (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase “eis ten gen” (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn’t add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to “prove” that this Pericope is non-Johannine.             A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, “It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form.”[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome’s quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.             Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, “has all the earmarks of historical veracity”[21], and Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.”[22]             If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, “come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages.”[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24]  In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn’t contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus’ ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus’ teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.             In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don’t – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.             The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also “trapped”) The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.             This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John’s Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems.  In this particular instance, if Jesus were to “rule” that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.             The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader’s hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah’s words, “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown’s proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.             By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It’s very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the “prosecution’s” case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by “without sin” in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren’t correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]             It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.             The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application             If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn’t explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.             The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn’t even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.             I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion                         An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.                 [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.             [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220                 [4] Brown, Raymond E.  John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29.  Garden City:   Doubleday, 1982, 335                 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption           and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50                 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix                 [7] Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144                 [8] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 142             [9] Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329                 [10] Poythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions” (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362             [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)             [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [13] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 323                 [14] As quoted in “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [15] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [16] As quoted in  “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 331                 [17] Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144             [18] Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96                 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical                 Commentary.  (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)                 [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335                 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220                 [22] John 1-11, p. 335                 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts  (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99                 [24] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” pages 146-148                 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary                 [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary                  [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334             [28] James, Stephen A. “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” Pages 45-46

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it’s going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I’ll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We’re in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn’t start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn’t have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that’s when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven’t done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today’s episode – episode #78 – I split today’s show into two parts so it wouldn’t be too long. In today’s reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what’s going on here, and was this story original to John’s Gospel, or was it a later edition?             The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.             Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament.        Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage             7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.             8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.             8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn’t answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don’t know how much time passed after Jesus’ challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.             8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine             This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It’s a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.             The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger  points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus,        p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,                         “No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from     what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae’s special            characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences      and even incidences.”[5]                         Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John’s gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.             The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]             There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn’t found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.             While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which “prove” its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions “de”, “oun”, “kai”, and “asyndeton” in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]             Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase “early morning” are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.             While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.             Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine             Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.             The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.             The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.             Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,                         “In the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.”[14]             This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome’s statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.             Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it’s removal from some manuscripts,                         “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity  in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said  ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” [16]             While Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine’s – that the passage is a stumbling block.             The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the “disruption” of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17, NIV)             The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, “Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?” (John 7:26, NIV)             While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of “de”, “touto” and “legein” [18]             My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase “meketi amartane” (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. “ina ecosin” (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. “Kai palin” (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase “eis ten gen” (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn’t add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to “prove” that this Pericope is non-Johannine.             A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, “It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form.”[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome’s quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.             Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, “has all the earmarks of historical veracity”[21], and Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.”[22]             If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, “come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages.”[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24]  In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn’t contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus’ ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus’ teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.             In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don’t – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.             The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also “trapped”) The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.             This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John’s Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems.  In this particular instance, if Jesus were to “rule” that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.             The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader’s hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah’s words, “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown’s proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.             By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It’s very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the “prosecution’s” case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by “without sin” in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren’t correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]             It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.             The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application             If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn’t explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.             The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn’t even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.             I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion                         An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.                 [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.             [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220                 [4] Brown, Raymond E.  John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29.  Garden City:   Doubleday, 1982, 335                 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption           and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50                 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix                 [7] Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144                 [8] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 142             [9] Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329                 [10] Poythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions” (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362             [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)             [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [13] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 323                 [14] As quoted in “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [15] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [16] As quoted in  “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 331                 [17] Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144             [18] Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96                 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical                 Commentary.  (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)                 [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335                 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220                 [22] John 1-11, p. 335                 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts  (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99                 [24] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” pages 146-148                 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary                 [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary                  [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334             [28] James, Stephen A. “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” Pages 45-46

I strongly recommend checking out the "City of Refuge" podcast. I think the story encompasses all I've talked about so far. You can see how Christians justify killing Christians, how the teachings of Christ compel over force, how God's hand orchestrates miraculous salvation through seemingly pointless suffering and death of those who implement faithful obedience, how evil so often stems from consequentialist ethics, etc. It really all comes out in this story. If you want to just have a list of all the episode titles at hand, then sit down and listen to the podcast and check off how you see each of the items explored in the series. It's fantastic. https://wagingnonviolence.org/podcast/ FOR A LIST OF RECOMMENDED RESOURCES AND A BEGINNER/ADVANCED READING SCHEDULE, CLICK THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1M23vhScNcr7ncXWLTg24Ik6byKO67InK  A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ STARTERS:  The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+politics+of+Jesus&qid=1566062176&s=gateway&sr=8-2 Derek's summary of the “Politics of Jesus”: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/the-politics-of-jesus The Upside Down Kingdom: https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Down-Kingdom-Updated-Donald-Kraybill/dp/0836195132/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=The+Upside+Down+Kingdom&qid=1566062209&s=gateway&sr=8-3 Fight: https://www.amazon.com/Fight-Author-Sprinkle-Preston-August/dp/B00L71VT9W/ref=sr_1_2?crid=2K8UTOIHVLPR7&keywords=fight+preston+sprinkle&qid=1569095270&s=digital-text&sprefix=fight+preston%2Cdigital-text%2C244&sr=1-2-catcorr Cross Vision: https://www.amazon.com/Cross-Vision-Crucifixion-Testament-Violence-ebook/dp/B074GJSPNZ/ref=sr_1_1?crid=Z0B2FA7OLWQC&keywords=cross+vision+greg+boyd&qid=1569095342&s=digital-text&sprefix=cross+vision+greg%2Cdigital-text%2C245&sr=1-1 The Early Church on Killing: https://www.amazon.com/Early-Church-Killing-Comprehensive-Sourcebook-ebook/dp/B008846P1I/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+Early+Church+on+Killing&qid=1569095383&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 Is Nonviolence Naive (Answering Questions Against Nonviolence): https://sojo.net/magazine/july-2018/nonviolence-naive The Old Testament Case for Nonviolence: https://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-Case-Nonviolence-ebook/dp/B078RWXDS9/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=matthew+fleischer&qid=1576092540&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 The Day of the Lord (podcast episode): https://thebibleproject.simplecast.com/episodes/903c95d5-903c95d5 Unbelievable (podcast): https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Just-War-vs-Pacifism-Nigel-Biggar-Stanley-Hauerwas Christian Humanist (podcast): http://www.christianhumanist.org/2018/01/christian-humanist-podcast-episode-229-non-violence-and-pacifism/ ADVANCED:  Crucifixion of the Warrior God: https://www.amazon.com/Crucifixion-Warrior-God-Volumes-ebook/dp/B06XRL77G1/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=crucifixion+of+the+warrior+god&qid=1569095706&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 Stanley Hauerwas: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=stanley+hauerwas&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss_2 The Anatomy of a Hybrid: https://www.gospeltruth.net/verduin/hybrid.htm Why Civil Resistance Works: https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/9780231156820 Gene Sharp: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Gene+Sharp&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss_2 VIDEOS:  Pablo Yoder's testimony of personal nonviolence in Central America: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOdGENdH1fo Just War Debate at Harvard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4xQaDDKY7k Dean Taylor Series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrfSqfH65dM Preston Sprinkle on the Kingdom and Nonviolence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sITAH1d1Yk0 Hauerwas on War and the American Tradition: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFfGfQprjE Related to the Military:  War is a Racket: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O24Y6PU/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o04?ie=UTF8&psc=1 War and Moral Injury: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07CFW2S3G/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 On Killing: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psychological-Cost-Learning-Society-ebook/dp/B00J90F8W2/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=on+killing&qid=1576092799&sr=8-1 Killing from the Inside Out: https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Inside-Out-Moral-Injury-ebook/dp/B00NVN93EM/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=killing+from+the+inside+out&qid=1568229887&s=gateway&sr=8-1  Moral Injury: https://www.amazon.com/s?k=moral+injury&i=digital-text&ref=nb_sb_noss_1  EXTRAS:  Discord Discussion Group: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  The Plough Site and Magazine: https://www.plough.com/en Waging Nonviolence News: https://wagingnonviolence.org/ City of Refuge Podcast: https://wagingnonviolence.org/podcast/ Followers of the Way: https://www.facebook.com/FollowersoftheWayBoston/ Early Church Writings Biographies of the Nonviolent Issues Related to Kingdom Living and Justice (but not nonviolence specifically):  The Irresistible Revolution: https://www.amazon.com/Irresistible-Revolution-Updated-Expanded-Ordinary-ebook/dp/B00UF72BAK/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+irresistible+revolution&qid=1576092742&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 Rich Christians in the Age of Hunger: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00PWOH5TS/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 What I'm reading now but can't yet recommend:  Original Revolution (Yoder):  https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/083611812X/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Christian Attitudes to War, Peace, and Revolution (Yoder): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587432315/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o07_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 War of the Lamb: The Ethics of Nonviolence and Peacemaking (Yoder): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587432609/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o08_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Nonviolent Action: What Christian Ethics Demands but Most Christians Have Never Really Tried (Ronald Sider): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1587433664/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Victories Without Violence (Ruth Fry): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0943734061/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o04_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Is There No Other Way? (Michael Nagler): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1893163164/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o05_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1 The Nonviolent Handbook: A Guide for Practical Action (Michael Nagler): https://www.amazon.com/dp/1626561451/?coliid=IP97AYMGHIA3W&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it The Violence of Scripture: Overcoming the Old Testament's Troubling Legacy (Eric Seibert): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00APJRLRG/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o01?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Disarming the Church (Eric Seibert): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07C8BRJ25/?coliid=I2E59UZNCR8171&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it War is a Racket II (Robert Boland): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07TJK4QP4/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_d_asin_title_o02?ie=UTF8&psc=1 Stable Peace (Kenneth Boulding): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00R1PWRY4/?coliid=I3KEA57WVJRRJ&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Three Faces of Power (Kenneth Boulding): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FJ1DFI8/?coliid=I3IZU5AHEOOOIU&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Bonhoeffer the Assassin? Challenging the Myth, Recovering His Call to Peacemaking (Mark Nation et. al.): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00FOWLXVY/?coliid=I2A74WD1TTWY7L&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Caesar and the Lamb: Early Christian Attitudes on War and Military Service (George Kalantzis): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B009YW6Q4O/?coliid=I3UWGZRXADSD2K&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Jesus and Nonviolence: A Third Way (Walter Wink): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00APJRWTI/?coliid=I2TPUHQJUSXJTU&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it The Powers That Be (Walter Wink): https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0036S4BUI/?coliid=I3RMGZ7VT3COM7&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=0&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it What Have We Done: The Moral Injury of Our Longest Wars (David Wood): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316264156/?coliid=I3MGOVMFT42YHS&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it Blood Sacrifice and the Nation: Totem Rituals and the American Flag (Carolyn Marvin et. al.): https://www.amazon.com/dp/0521626099/?coliid=I27A24THO78SZH&colid=1GE870E3JWHKW&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

What should be done with the theology of theologians who have failed morally? John Howard Yoder, Dr. King, Paul Tillich, Karl Barth, etc. Dave and Mike outline the common responses and try to construct a way forward. By mainly focusing on the case of John Howard Yoder they propose a nuanced response that includes critical reading, intertextual evaluation, and dialogue between the church and the academy. A lot of sources were quoted in this podcast. You will need to Google search the keywords below. Ruth Krall, "The Elephants in God’s Living Room: The Mennonite Church and John Howard Yoder" Rachel Gooseen, “Defanging the Beast”: Mennonite Responses to John Howard Yoder’s Sexual Abuse Karen Guth, "Doing Justice to the Complex Legacy of John Howard Yoder" Stanely Hauerwas, "Minding the Web: Making Theological Connections" Steven Long, "Augustinian and Ecclesial Christian Ethics: On Loving Enemies"

A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+politics+of+Jesus&qid=1566062176&s=gateway&sr=8-2 Derek's summary of the “Politics of Jesus”: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/the-politics-of-jesus The Upside Down Kingdom: https://www.amazon.com/Upside-Down-Kingdom-Updated-Donald-Kraybill/dp/0836195132/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=The+Upside+Down+Kingdom&qid=1566062209&s=gateway&sr=8-3 ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Episode Links: Discord Discussion Boardbr A huge thanks to Joseph McDade for his generous permission to use his music: https://josephmcdade.com/ Thanks to Palmtoptiger17 for the beautiful logo: https://www.instagram.com/palmtoptiger17/ Discord Discussion Board: https://disboard.org/server/474580298630430751  My Book (Free): https://drive.google.com/open?id=1524xtT4iKmqr7pATaKnXTMZlwk_aONXG My Book (Kindle): https://www.amazon.com/80-Conservative-Evangelicals-Prove-Relativists-ebook/dp/B07RDPW2NZ/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=j.+g.+elliot&qid=1564647522&s=gateway&sr=8-1 Pacifism Debate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4xQaDDKY7k Followers of the Way: https://www.facebook.com/FollowersoftheWayBoston/?ref=br_rs Integrity Quote: https://learninginlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/13102829_1201726893232348_849045333103669078_n-770x770.jpg The Politics of Jesus by John Howard Yoder: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=the+politics+of+jesus&qid=1564647725&s=gateway&sr=8-2 My Summary of the Politics of Jesus: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/the-politics-of-jesus MASH conundrum clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=rvBS0VqJPXs Evangelism: Doing Justice and Preaching Grace by Harvie Conn: https://www.amazon.com/Evangelism-Doing-Justice-Preaching-Grace/dp/0875522068/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=harvie+conn&qid=1564647790&s=gateway&sr=8-3 My website on Pacifism: https://www.dckreider.com/blog-theological-musings/arguments-for-christian-pacifism American National Idolatry: https://www.facebook.com/ILovePortage/photos/a.396450011127660/511348556304471/ ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This episode is an overview given to all team members and exploratory groups that visit or serve with GO Ministries. It is an account of the theological center of our Seminary as well as the overall DNA of GO Ministries work on the island of Hispaniola. We are hosting this recording here because this theology is the lens through which the Scriptures are interpretted at our Sunday gathering of the Gringlish Fellowship. We thought that this podcast would be a fitting home for it for our gathering as well as for those who would like to revisit the material at home.This presentation rests on the shoulders of several key theologians and thinkers that have influenced our work at the GO Seminary of the Americas. What is provided here is a synthesis of some of those thinkers, contextualized specifically for the Church in the Dominican Republic and Haiti. If you have interest in exploring some of the work that has informed this presentation these thinkers are worth exploring: Alan Hirsch, Michael Frost, Hugh Halter, John Howard Yoder, Stanley Hauerwas, Tim Keller, N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, David Fitch, Wendell Berry, and Carolyn Custis James.If you wish to support the podcast and our work on the island you may do so at www.gomin.org/rogersGrace & PeaceSupport the show (https://gomin.org/rogers/)

Paul Axton continues his examination of the life and theology of John Howard Yoder. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Music: Bensound

Paul Axton talks about  John Howard Yoder, one of the premier theological thinkers of the 20th century who suffered from a sexual perversion. Since he consciously developed his theology to include the fullness of personality the test here is to work out how this failure is reflected in the theology of John Howard Yoder. If you enjoyed this podcast, please consider donating to support our work. Music: Bensound

The guys have returned from a summer off for a third year of the Every Thought Captive podcast. In this episode, they briefly catch up on their doctoral studies and then launch into a discussion about the revelation of Bill Hybels' infidelities, and what that means for the material he has produced. Do you have to get rid of all his books? Is there a difference between his books and those of John Howard Yoder, who had similar issues while a professor of ethics? The Every Thought Captive podcast is brought to you by Ozark Christian College. Your mission is out there. Training starts here. Go to occ.edu for more information.

The guys have returned from a summer off for a third year of the Every Thought Captive podcast. In this episode, they briefly catch up on their doctoral studies and then launch into a discussion about the revelation of Bill Hybels' infidelities, and what that means for the material he has produced. Do you have to get rid of all his books? Is there a difference between his books and those of John Howard Yoder, who had similar issues while a professor of ethics? The Every Thought Captive podcast is brought to you by Ozark Christian College. Your mission is out there. Training starts here. Go to occ.edu for more information.

Theologian Stanley Hauerwas explains how he approaches John Howard Yoder's sexual assault of many of his female Mennonite students.

The face of white supremacy is a manifestation of evil that Christians and leftists should categorically oppose without qualifications. That might seem like an obvious point, but Christians seemed to have trouble responding in a timely way to the Charlottesville tragedy, taken in by the liberal temptation to condemn violence "on all sides." That temptation creates a false equivalence between the systemic violence expressing itself through white supremacy, whether they throw blows or not, and the liberating actions of resistance, and it relies on a kind of moral posturing that assumes it's above the fray precisely because it misunderstands the fray in the first place. In the episode, we try to think through problems of violence and nonviolence, making an appeal for a more differentiated understanding of violence that we think helps parse out some of these problems. To help us out, Amaryah Armstrong offered some thoughts to get us going, and we interact with Dr. Cornel West's reflections on the presence of antifa and anarchists at the event. If you're still not convinced, we try to throw pacifists a bone by considering how John Howard Yoder, the arch-pacifist Mennonite theologian, looked at revolutionary theologies form his own perspective. At the end, we suggest Christians need to be more creative in their responses to white supremacy, whether pacifist or not--if nothing else, the Charlottesville rally should be a wake up call for a church that can't seem to make sense of the unadulterated and obvious oppressive form of violence that is white supremacy.★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Greg discusses the troubling case of professor John Howard Yoder and considers whether we should use such a person's writing in our own thinking.   Send Questions To: Dan: @thatdankentTwitter: @reKnewOrg Email: askgregboyd@gmail.com Links: Greg's book:"Crucifixion of the Warrior God" Website: ReKnew.org 

This week, we feature a conversation with author, religious scholar and PhD candidate Greg Coates. We discuss his evangelical youth, his time in China, his book, and of course, Donald Trump. Follow Exvangelical on Twitter @exvangelicalpod. Like us on Facebook facebook.com/exvangelicalpod. Follow Blake on Twitter @brchastain. Show Notes: Greg's book, Politics Strangely Warmed: Political Theology in the Wesleyan Spirit https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Strangely-Warmed-Political-Theology/dp/1498201563 Bookmark Greg's blog: http://gregcoates.blogspot.com/ Follow Greg on Twitter: @GregoryRCoates. John Howard Yoder's book, The Politics of Jesus: https://www.amazon.com/Politics-Jesus-John-Howard-Yoder/dp/0802807348 Wikipedia entry on Stanley Hauerwas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Hauerwas Pew Research Study on white evangelical support of Trump: http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/ Randall Ballmer's article, "The Real Origins of the Religious Right:" http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 Randall Ballmer's book, The Making of Evangelicalism: https://www.amazon.com/Making-Evangelicalism-Revivalism-Politics-Beyond/dp/1602582432/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1470671642&sr=1-5 Intro Music: "The Fleecing" by Pedro the Lion https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/the-fleecing/id572010959?i=572010962 Outro Music: "Hard to Be" by David Bazan https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/hard-to-be/id718735084?i=718735089

I detta avsnitt ringer vi upp Staterna och samtalar med Rachel Halder om sexuellt våld i kyrkan, vikten av att berätta sin historia, eventuella risker med att anabaptistisk fredsteologi passiviserar och John Howard Yoders övergrepp. Rachel Halder är mennonit i utkanten, teologistudent och grundare av OurStoriesUntold.com (och hon har ett superhjältealias).In English:In this episode we talk to Rachel Halder, all the way from the States, about sexual violence in the Church, the importance of telling your story, wether mennonite peace-theology tends to passivity and the abuses of John Howard Yoder. Rachel Halder is a fringe mennonite, a theology student and the founder of OurStoriesUntold.com (and she also has a superhero alias).We will speak in swedish before and after the interview, if you just want to listen to the interview, go to 13:37.Gilla oss på Facebook,följ oss på Twitter,eller skriv till oss på atenochjerusalem@gmail.com. #ajpodd

This lecture and others seek to build upon a growing interest in the history of biblical interpretation. Leading Christian scholars explored several chapters in Matthew’s Gospel that have often been viewed as the very heart of Jesus’ teaching. A wide range of example figures as an occasion for ethical reflection and moral formation are used. These lectures were co-sponsored by C.A.C.E. and the Wheaton College Bible Theology Department in 2005.