Caught in the Act

A Disturbing Story

(Date unknown, probably AD 29)

One of the most intense stories in the Gospels is that of a woman caught in the very act of committing adultery (John 7:53-8:11). She is brought to Jesus by "scribes and Pharisees" who ask him what should be done with the woman. The Law of Moses said she should be stoned to death.

But does this story even belong in the Bible? Overwhelming evidence from the earliest manuscripts show that this story could not have been present in the original release of John's Gospel. When it does appear, it is often found at other locations in the Gospel, such as at the very end, and often set apart with an asterisk or obelisk.

On the other hand, the same scholars who discount its placement in the Bible agree that the story is historically factual, and that it was told in the oral traditions of earliest Christianity. There are early witnesses who say this was a story told by John the Apostle and handed down by those who knew him. It is also found apart from the Bible in other manuscripts from the first and second centuries.

The story as presented in John's Gospel appears to have been written by Luke rather than John. It uses the phrase "scribes and Pharisees," which is not found elsewhere in John's Gospel but appears frequently in Luke's Gospel.

The best explanation of the history of this story is that John the Apostle was an eyewitness to its occurrence, and he retold it many times as he travelled. Luke gathered it from John as part of his research project that resulted in the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles. He did not include it in his original release of the Gospel of Luke, but it does show up in a manuscript of the 13th century right after Luke 21:38.

Why did this event occur?

Some writers have implied that this event was a trial for the accused woman. It should have properly proceeded with at least two witnesses who agreed to the alleged facts, and concluded with her being stoned to death, with the first stones thrown by the two witnesses. This is incorrect. The subtext behind the story shows that the trial has already occurred, with the woman found guilty.

This was brought to Jesus to test him, according to verse 6: "They were saying this, testing him, so that they might have grounds for accusing him." There are two facets to this: conflict with the Law of Moses, and conflict with Roman Law.

If their prime interest was conflict with the Law of Moses, they would be hoping Jesus would disavow the death penalty for divorce. They could then discredit him before conservative Jewish believers in hope of perhaps reducing his following. But Jesus would have committed no violation of Jewish law by offering his opinion. What could they do? Bar him from the temple? That would be a hard sell before the Sanhedrin (the high council of the Jews), which had members with a wide range of opinions.

If their prime interest was conflict with Roman law, they would be hoping Jesus would call for the death penalty to be enforced, and they could charge him with inciting the people to break the Roman law which forbade the Jews from using the death penalty. If their complaint was successful, Jesus could be imprisoned or even possibly be executed.

But there is a third facet. History tells us that about AD 30, the Jewish authorities ruled that the death penalty for adultery could no longer be enforced. No such change could have come about among the Jews except at the end of an extended period of discussion, lasting several years. These years would have overlapped with Jesus' ministry, and perhaps some of the Jews genuinely wanted Jesus' opinion on the subject. Perhaps it was even Jesus' opinion here that turned the tide and resulted in the death penalty being  thrown out!

A Weak Case?

There are potential weaknesses in the "scribes' and Pharisees' " legal case against the woman. There is no mention of the required two witnesses present at this scene, so that the penalty could be properly carried out. Perhaps they had been willing to testify, but were not willing to participate in the stoning.

There is also no mention of the other party involved in the adultery. If they were indeed caught in the act (as required for the death penalty to be carried out) the other party would be known and should be executed along with the woman. Perhaps the other party was beyond their legal reach. He could have been a Roman soldier, upon whom they could not enforce Jewish law. It would not be unlikely that such a soldier would have strayed beyond the available prostitutes and persuaded a betrothed woman to go to bed with him. Or perhaps consent for the adulterous act was lacking.

A weak case would be another possible incentive to throw their dilemma into Jesus' lap. Let Jesus make the decision, so they would not have to take the blame themselves!

Jesus' Response: Who Has Moral Authority?

"Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone." Jesus showed the scribes and Pharisees that they lacked the moral authority to carry out the death penalty, for each of them were guilty of sin, just as the woman was guilty of sin.

The New Testament clearly tells us that the governing authorities have the legal power of the sword to wreak vengeance against evil-doers (Romans 13:1-4). But what if we are the government? Does our part in the governing process allow us to lay aside Jesus' admonition?

Can Christians justify the death penalty for any offense (other than in self-defense) when Jesus appears to set such a penalty aside for those who would follow God?

An Act of Mercy

Jesus in this story exercises an act of mercy. By no means does he excuse the sin that has taken place. He asks the woman, "Did no one condemn you?" She answers, "No one, Lord."

Jesus answers, "I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more."

If we repent of our own misdeeds, we can count on Jesus to not condemn us, just as he did with the woman caught in the act of adultery.

The Kernel of the Story

Picking Grain on the Sabbath

Spring, AD 28

Today we begin looking at what happened in the life of the teenage John, son of Zebedee, in the year AD 28. These are issues that I have dealt with in my second book, JOHN! Episode Two.
(More information about my books is available at rolinbruno.com.)

The kernel of the story is that Jesus and his disciples were walking through a grain field on a Sabbath, and some of the disciples picked grain and ate it (Matthew 12:1-8, Mark 2:23-28, Luke 6:1-5).

This was observed by two or more Pharisees who brought it to Jesus' attention, claiming that his disciples were working on the Sabbath, which is forbidden by the Law of Moses. Since Jesus was considered responsible for the acts of his disciples, Luke reports that they asked Jesus, "Why do you do what is not lawful on the Sabbath?"

Some commenters on this episode say that it was not especially picking of grain that was at issue but that the disciples rubbed the grain in their hands to shred off the chaff before eating, as reported by Luke. Eating on the Sabbath is permitted, so if you pick an apple from a tree to eat it, have you just participated in forbidden "work"?

Were the Pharisees picking at minor details, or did they have a real issue? More importantly, how will Jesus respond to this accusation that he is participating in the sin of his disciples?

As usual, Jesus surprises the Pharisees with his response. At first it seems like he's just messing with them, and changing the subject. Indeed, he is changing the subject, but not in the way they might think. Jesus redirects their attention away from his disciples and toward himself. Let's watch how he did this.

"Haven't you read what David did when he and those with him were hungry? He entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which was reserved by Moses' law to the priests!" (1 Samuel 21:6)

There were no consequences for David's followers; is Jesus saying there are no consequences for his own? Well yes, but the key figure there was David, who had been anointed by the Prophet Samuel to be king of Israel and had not yet come into his kingship. The Pharisees are standing before the anointed King of Creation, and they are unaware of it. Jesus points this out in Matthew's Gospel:

"Haven't you read that the priests in the temple break the Sabbath and are innocent?
I tell you, something greater than the temple is here."

(The Pharisees themselves held that the reaping of first-fruits to be offered in the temple took priority over the Sabbath laws, along with several other temple duties.)

What do these things have to do with us today? Are we concerned more about following the rules than having compassion on the hungry? Jesus accuses the Pharisees of exactly this:

"If you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent."

And what about these Old Testament rules? Do they apply to us as Christians?

The Fathers of the Church struggled with this question, and tried dividing the Old Testament (OT) laws into three parts: ritual laws, dietary laws, and moral laws. They held that Christians were bound only to the moral laws. The problem with that is there is no solid basis in the OT for dividing them up this way. Jews and Judaism know nothing of classifying them in this manner. For Judaism a biblical law can be considered "heavy" or "light." Thus adultery is a "heavy" law, for those that commit this are worthy of death. Other OT laws, such as "coveting," have fewer consequences and might be considered "light."

But it is better to find the solution to this in the Bible itself. Here we can rely on covenant theology, as we are taught in Hebrews 8:7-13. We are the followers of the new covenant expressed in the New Testament and look to it for our direction. While the OT teaches us much about God and his purposes, the fulfillment of the Old Testament is found in the New Testament, which makes the old covenant obsolete (Hebrews 8:13).

The Tax Collector's Kin

Five Disciples of Jesus!

Autumn, AD 27

Is it possible that at least four family relatives of Matthew the tax collector were also disciples of Jesus? Here I will show just how that may be.

Matthew vs. Levi

Matthew the Levite

Beginning at Matthew 5:27 and at Mark 2:14 are two virtually identical stories about Jesus calling a tax collector sitting at his booth to follow him. These stories continue with Jesus reclining at a meal and the Pharisees complaining about Jesus eating with tax collectors.

Except the stories differ in one key facet: The Gospel of Matthew calls this tax collector Matthew while the Gospel of Mark calls him Levi. He is also called Levi in the Gospel of Luke, which identifies the meal as a reception thrown in honor of Jesus, starting at Luke 5:27.

So is he Matthew, or Levi? In all three Gospels, this disciple is identified as Matthew when Jesus chooses his twelve apostles. So Levi must be a nickname, identifying him as coming from the tribe of the Levites.

And here's the rub: Levites are tasked in the Bible with collecting the taxes that support the temple, the priests, and the Levites in their support of worship, sacrifice, and song. But Matthew is collecting taxes for the government (King Herod) instead of for God (the priests). He thus earns his derisive nickname of Matthew the Levite.

The Call of Matthew

Follow Me!

The Sons of Alphaeus

Two sons of Alphaeus are mentioned separately as being among the Twelve apostles. This is not unusual, for Jesus has two other sets of brothers among the Twelve: Peter and Andrew, sons of Jonah, plus James and John, sons of Zebedee

James Son of Alphaeus

The synoptic gospels' listing of the apostles names all identify a second James as one of the twelve (Mt 10:3, Mk 3:18, Lk 6:15). Each of these three "synoptic" gospels identify him as "James son of Alphaeus." In other places this James is identified as "James the Less" (or perhaps "James the younger one" or "James the shorter one"). He does not play a central role as much as James son of Zebedee does.

Matthew Son of Alphaeus

In Mark's story of the call of Matthew, he calls him "Levi son of Alphaeus" (Mark 2:14).  If Matthew is a Levite, so also is his brother James. With Jesus' habit of signing up brothers, there is no reason to doubt that Matthew and James the Less have the same father.

The Grandson of Alphaeus

As Luke names the Twelve, he proceeds from "James son of Alphaeus" to "Simon called the Zealot," and then names "Judas son of James." There are many called James in the Bible.  Could this Judas be the son of James the Less? John's Gospel identifies this Judas as "Judas, not Iscariot" to distinguish him from the betrayer (Jn 14:22).

Judas Thaddeus Son of James

In both Matthew and Mark's lists of the Twelve a second Judas does not appear. Instead they list Thaddeus, (in some manuscripts Lebbaeus). Thaddeus is identified directly after James the Less, without further identification. With the  witness of Luke's list, scholars agree that this person can be identified as Judas Thaddeus son of James. Having two names was not uncommon in Jesus' day.

There are several "James" in the New Testament. The only James that scholars say can be mentioned without clarification is James the Just, brother of Jesus and leader of the Church in Jerusalem for many years after Jesus' death. But Thaddeus is not a brother of Jesus.

 Could Thaddeus' father be the disciple James the Less? The order and closeness of the names of James the Less and Thaddeus suggest this must be the case. This gives us a trio--three members of the same family on the inside group of the Twelve apostles.

The Wife of Alphaeus

At the crucifixion, John 19:25 lists three women named "Mary" who were present. These included his mother, and "his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas." Scholars have identified this as a potential second name for Alphaeus. The third "Mary" at the scene was Mary Magdalene.

Mary the Mother of James and Joses

In place of "wife of Clopas," the Gospels of Matthew and Mark have "Mary the mother of James and Joses/Joseph." (Joses is a diminutive of Joseph.) In any case, we can identify this second Mary as a disciple of Jesus.

Roman doctrine has held in the past that Jesus did not have actual brothers, but that James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude were in fact "cousins." This is highly doubtful, for there is a perfectly good word for "cousin" in Greek which Luke employs when needed. The "brother" relationship of these four men to Jesus is better explained as older step-brothers from father Joseph's first wife, as was understood in the second century. Death of a woman at childbirth was a not uncommon event in the first century.

Joses the Brother of James -- and Matthew

Joses then is another brother of James the Less.  It is possible that the third and oldest brother, Matthew, was a child of a previous wife of Clopas/Alphaeus, which would indicate why this Mary was not listed as Matthew's mother. So in Joses and his mother we have the fourth and fifth members of the Alphaeus family who were disciples of Jesus, although not members of the  Twelve.

Hanging Out with Lepers

Jesus Healed Lepers

Autumn, AD 27

Jesus Heals a Leper

Late in Jesus' first year of ministry, Jesus healed a man with a skin disease.

Leprosy in the Bible can refer to a wide range of skin diseases, from simple eczema to contagious medical leprosy. In any case, visible skin disease led to isolation and rejection in first century Judaism, as Rabbi's attempted to follow strictures laid down in Leviticus, the third Book of Moses. In the view of the rabbis, healing a leper was as difficult as raising someone from the dead.

 A "leper" was compelled to wear torn and shabby clothes to set themselves apart, and was not allowed to enter a walled city. They were "unclean," meaning they were not accepted in the temple. Outdoors, if someone approached them, they were supposed to call out "Unclean! Unclean!" They were allowed in synagogues only if the building had a wall or screen that separated them from the rest of the congregation. If someone were to touch them he or she  would also become unclean, and would have to follow certain rules to be ritually cleansed. If a leper were to recover from his skin disease, only a priest could inspect him to declare him clean again. Once clean, the former leper was to give a sacrificial offering at the temple in thanksgiving.

Matthew, Mark, and Luke all report this first leper-healing of Jesus in their Gospels (Matthew 8:1-4, Mark 1:40-45, Luke 5:12-16). In Matthew, Jesus' action is strongly associated with the crowds following Jesus immediately after the Sermon on the Mount. In Mark, the healing is associated with his first preaching tour of Galilee. In Luke, the healing takes place in "one of the cities."

The three "synoptic" Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) condense Jesus' three-and-a -half-year ministry so that it appears to take place over the course of perhaps a year. John's Gospel makes clear that several years pass during Jesus' ministry, by his citations of the number of annual Jewish holidays that Jesus attends. The synoptic Gospels often gather the stories and statements of Jesus on a topical basis, to enhance the teaching potential of each Gospel. In Matthew especially, it seems unlikely that Jesus would be telling the leper to keep his healing secret while they were still in the midst of the crowd from the Sermon on the Mount.

So where did this actually take place?

Simon the Leper

In the last week of Jesus' ministry, on Wednesday the day before the Last Supper, Matthew and Mark report that Jesus gathered and ate at the house of one "Simon the Leper" in Bethany, two miles from Jerusalem (Matthew 26:6, Mark 14:3). Simon fades into the background of this story, while in the foreground Jesus is anointed by precious oil poured onto his head. (Not on his feet, as occurs at an event earlier in his ministry.)

Simon the Leper's House

I suggest that the leper-healing event took place in Bethany, probably near the house of Martha, Mary, and Lazarus, old friends of Jesus from before the start of his ministry. It was likely on a deserted street, where Jesus charged the leper to not tell anyone about what happened to him, but to go to a priest for inspection of his cleanliness and to make his offering in the nearby temple. This would have happened during a visit to Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths which took place in the week of October 11, AD 27.

Simon the Leper is introduced to the two Gospels with no further explanation or identification. He could not have invited guests into his home unless he had already been declared clean (by a priest) of his uncleanliness. The placement of his name suggests that he was a person well known to the potential readers of these Gospels. As such, it also provides affirmation and testimony to the truth of the Gospel, as it connects the written story with eye-witnesses who were both at the event and known to the readers of the Gospel. Luke in writing his Gospel may not have had access to this particular Passion Week story.

The Kingly Anointing

Jesus Anointed

A key function of this Passion Week story is to call attention to the disciple who betrayed Jesus. Immediately after the dinner at the house of Simon the Leper, Judas of Kerioth (Iscariot) went to the chief priests to find a way to give Jesus over into their hands.