So in our world of 24-hour news coverage, there's a psychosocial phenomenon which researchers identify and study called moral outrage.
And it's everywhere, especially on social media platforms.
So moral outrage is a venting of anger, a display of anger against a third party on the social media platform for some perceived wrong.
And let me tell you, I mean, you're probably in social media more than I am, but it is usually vicious.
And as I say, it's everywhere.
And so, for instance, when moral outrage spews out against a large clothing manufacturing corporation protesting sweatshop environments in third world country and exploitation of workers,
then it's vehement and appears as if it's motivated by concerns for justice.
But research by social psychologists have shown that in spite of an appearance of justice,
moral outrage is more often than not driven by self-interest.
That's a quite interesting thing, isn't it?
Now, how does that work?
Well, research shows that there's a connection between a person's vending or moral outrage and a sense of guilt.
A person wants to prove that they're a good person in moral outrage, according to the research.
And so it works like this.
When self-image is challenged, then the natural tendency for a person is to act to restore that self-image and point of security.
And then add into that, says the research, since justice is often reduced to a personal feeling of what is right,
moral outrage then becomes a tool by which people alleviate feelings of personal guilt.
And so it works again like that.
A person buys and enjoys the cheap fashion produced by sweatshops in third world countries.
They have a sense of guilt about doing so.
And they alleviate their guilt, according to the research, by spewing forth at the corporations who are perceived to be guilty of producing this stuff.
And the interesting trick of it is that they appear to be concerned for justice without actually addressing their own actions or undoing their own actions.
They can present one way in social media while living quite differently in practice.
Outrage against these cheap, exploitative fashions, but spending much time in the shops buying the things.
Now that same principle appears in a religious context.
And moral outrage in a religious context, I believe, presents as self-righteousness.
The desire of a person to show that they are good by punishing harshly a third party rather than confronting, undoing, or changing their own behaviors and beliefs.
And that's what takes us into these verses this morning.
The self-serving moral outrage of the Jewish religious leaders opens these verses.
Now, if the story had been original to John's record, then I don't think he could have got a better story to fit.
So I actually think it does fit the flow of John's writings, personally.
A crowd has gathered to hear Jesus teach.
And, if you were looking at it as an original thing, just the day before,
the Jewish religious leaders had gone out of their way to try and intimidate the crowd to turn against Jesus.
But here they are, you know, if it was original, the very next day, gathering to hear Jesus.
Then the religious leaders turn up and create a terrible scene.
They drag a poor woman before the crowd and they make her stand there in public.
That of itself, in the culture of the day, was a shameful thing to do.
But it gets worse.
Because, clearly, these leaders were determined to shame, humiliate, and ultimately kill this poor woman.
It's a sordid story.
Now, what do we know?
Well, we know from the story that her guilt was beyond doubt.
She had actually been caught, as it says here, it's very graphic, so forgive me, but the text says it.
She had actually been caught in the very act of sexual intercourse.
Since it was early in the morning, perhaps she had been caught just minutes earlier
and dragged from that bed, disheveled and made to stand publicly in front of this crowd.
With witnesses ever so eager to expose her guilt and see her condemned and see her killed.
And so, from there, the woman's now positioned.
And the leaders attempt to force Jesus to pass the harshest judgment on this woman.
They want Jesus to sanction, stoning her to death.
And they appealed to the law of Moses as the ultimate authority on matters of life and death.
Now, here's the go.
The story thus far.
These guys, in their moral outrage, present as guardians of justice and righteousness and holiness.
But secretly, their moral outrage was directed at Jesus.
We're told there in the text that they wanted to test.
And the word test is a very specific word.
It means tempt or trip up into some criminal action.
Jesus.
And so we see their real heart's intention.
Quite different from the surface presentation.
They wanted to see Jesus shamed and killed.
More so even than they wanted to see this woman shamed and killed.
And they're pretty clever in the way they approached it.
Because, you see, if Jesus refuses to uphold the law of Moses,
then he himself would be publicly shamed and rejected as a lawbreaker.
That's a clever move.
But it's the horns of a dilemma.
Because if he actually insists on the woman being stoned to death,
then most likely, at least this is what they've been betting,
that he would have appeared heartless and ruthless.
And perhaps then lost public support from the crowd for that very heartlessness.
And then even again, there's a third possibility.
Because the Jewish, the Roman authorities under occupation said that only they could sanction
the issuing of a death penalty.
So perhaps there are even the thought that if they could get Jesus to sanction the stoning of this woman,
then they could actually take Jesus to the Roman authorities
and get him into trouble there and possibly get them to deal with Jesus.
The point is that their outrage was so great at Jesus.
Why?
Because he had challenged their theology or their ideology of religion.
They wanted him dead.
And they cared little, whether it was the crowd that lynched him or the Roman authorities.
Now friends, I want to suggest this morning,
and there's going to be a play on this idea of temple abuse,
I want to suggest that this is a case of horrible temple abuse
that we're seeing in the story at this point.
Remember, part of the story, and I think it's a significant part of the story,
verse 2,
He came again to the temple.
All of this has just been playing out in the temple courts.
Now why is that significant?
Well, I think it all has the hallmarks of a setup for a start.
So the law very clearly and specifically said
that the man caught in adultery was equally culpable as the woman.
So the question arises, why was he not dragged before the crowd?
The law was clear that witnesses had to actually see the couple engaging in sexual intercourse.
No good witnesses saying, well, I think she's up to no good.
They actually had to see her in a compromising,
or see the party in a compromising position.
So the question then arises,
well, how did enough witnesses happen to see
this woman and her partner
in the act
so early in the morning
all at the same time?
It smacks of some sort of setup, doesn't it?
But it gets worse.
When you think about the temple
and what the temple represents,
the context in which this is unfolding,
the temple was the place
where God's people came to receive God's grace,
his compassion and mercy,
his forgiveness,
and ultimately restoration of relationship with God
as sinful people.
Then you have the scribes and the Pharisees,
the Sanhedrin,
the Jewish religious leaders.
They are actually the formal enforcers
of God's purposes
among God's covenant people,
especially through the temple.
So their job, as it were,
or part of their job at least,
was to mediate God's grace
to God's sinful people,
bringing the two together
so that forgiveness,
acceptance,
and relationship with God and life
might continue.
But the reality for this woman
is that she was dragged to the temple
for shame,
humiliation,
and ultimately death.
Do you see the contrast,
the jarring that's happening there?
The prospect of a painful,
slow death
in the courts of the temple.
And so I say,
those who dragged her there
were temple abusers
because they actually hated Jesus
more than they hated sin.
So the context of the temple
was just a guise
for their own agenda.
Their moral outrage
was not shaped by God's character,
less was it shaped by God's word.
It was shaped by self-interest.
And this poor woman
was just a means
to their own ends.
And the brutality
and the tragedy of this story
just becomes sickening.
Defending their performance-based religion
against the challenge of Jesus
meant that they had come to lose
any sense of grace,
any sense of mercy,
any sense indeed
of personal holiness before God.
The result was
these men presented
as harsh,
unloving,
graceless men
who in fact,
while they presented
as honouring God,
were actually dishonouring God.
And friends,
I want to suggest to you
this morning,
that's always the way
with self-righteousness.
Self-righteous people.
Because self-righteousness
is in fact
self-salvation.
And so these men,
following on the theme
from John
that we've been looking at
over the last weeks,
these men
have no thirst
or hunger for Jesus.
Why?
Because
they know
their thirst
or hunger
even for God's grace.
Why?
Because
they've already
satisfied their hunger
and thirst
in themselves
through their
religious actions.
And that has been
so satisfying to them
that they'll protect it
at all costs,
even
at point of
orchestrating murder
and exploiting
this poor woman.
Abusing this poor woman.
And so
what you have here
is a picture
of self-righteousness.
And it's still with us
to this day.
And it's still in churches
to this day.
Where you have people
who in the name of Christ
or in the name of God
pursue good things,
holiness
and justice.
But they do it
in a way that's harsh
and unloving
and graceless
and merciless.
good things
gone bad.
Now I want to suggest
in stark contrast
then we see the moral
outrage of Jesus.
And the moral outrage
of Jesus
interestingly
and perhaps even
surprisingly
is directed
entirely
at the Jewish leaders
and not
this poor woman
at all.
So the story goes
that Jesus
in response
to their
pressure
to get them
to pronounce
death sentence
on this woman
Jesus just
puts his head down
writing something
in the dirt
but essentially
silent.
And they're getting
more and more
annoyed
by the minute.
We're not told
how long Jesus
did that
but certainly
we're given
the impression
in the story here
that they were
seriously annoyed.
They were wanting
to get this whole
shabby thing
over with.
When he finally
speaks
it is the
religious leaders
he pronounces
verdict on
not the woman.
He exposes
the self-righteous
to shame
and humiliation.
I think it's not
too much to say
I've pondered this
this week
so if you think
it's over the top
well then forgive me
for this
but I think it's right.
I think it's not
too much to say
that Jesus
through this story
shows himself
to hate the sin
of self-righteousness
in these men
even more than
the sin of adultery
in that woman.
At least
the woman
we get
sense from the story
at least the woman
had a sense
of her sin
and her shame
before God.
She was in touch
with herself.
The Jewish
religious leaders
by contrast
apparently
had no awareness
of their sin
no awareness
of themselves
until Jesus
forces them
to confront
the truth
about themselves
and he does.
They were concerned
primarily
for their own agenda
their own reputation
and they thought
they were doing
something really good.
The problem is
they weren't concerned
for God's honour
at any point in this.
They were supposed
to care for God's people
they were supposed
to point God's people
in their sinfulness
back to truth
and righteousness
but they showed
no concern
or compassion
for the spiritual
plight of this woman
in her shame
and in her misery
and they offered her
no comfort
and no hope.
And when you dig
down into it
then you see
failure at a different level
hypocrisy
at a different level
because these guys
even though they
appealed to the law
of Moses
were only selectively
applying the law
of Moses themselves.
So for instance
the woman
by definition
would have been
declared unclean
because of her adultery.
For them to associate
being in the same area
or touch this woman
would then have
made them unclean.
Either way
neither party
should have been
in the temple.
But that seems
to go unnoticed.
Then again
as I've hinted at it before
the law
demanded death
for murderers
as well as adultery.
If you go back
to Leviticus
and Numbers
and look where
these laws
are spelled out
every time
there's sexual immorality
and murder
intentional sins
they're put together
and death penalty
is suitable
for each
for both.
And yet we have
these guys here
demanding the death
of this woman
while failing
to say
that their own
murderous intentions
towards Jesus
equally deserve death.
And then again
if you dig back
into Leviticus
and Numbers
you will see
that this notion
of accusing
somebody
of a capital crime
and that is a crime
punishable by death
had very very
strict and clear
quality control
standards
in respect
of witnesses.
So the scripture
is very very clear
that the witness
not that they can
ever be perfect
it's not as if
Jesus is saying
you can only
be involved
in this process
if you've never
ever sinned
in any way.
That's not what he's saying.
The clear evidence
of the law
is that the witnesses
must not
in any way
have connived
in the sin
that they're bringing
to the court
for justice.
In other words
there's no possibility
of a set up
a mixed motive
a mixed agenda.
You can't use
a person
for your own ends.
Further
the person
the witness
must have been active
must have been able
to show
the courts
that they had been active
in trying to prevent
the sin
and trying to redirect
the person involved
in the sin
into paths
of righteousness
and truth.
In other words
they can't just
grab somebody
and bring them
before the courts
as a first resort
that should only
be a last resort
due to the intransigence
of a sinner.
And then thirdly
witnesses
had to initiate
the stoning
and the reason
why that is
because
they had to be
convinced in themselves
that there was
no other option
for dealing
with this situation
than to kill
this person.
So whatever
Jesus was writing
in the dirt
and we don't know
what it was
or whether he's
just drawing
cartoon figures
out
we don't know
but when he speaks
his words
bringing all this
to bear
let him who is
without sin
cast the first stone.
That's sweeping
all this stuff up
and they would have
known this.
And so Jesus
exposes
their own shame
because clearly
these men
clearly these men
were not concerned
to obey
the law
of Moses
properly
and Jesus
exposes
them
in their hypocrisy
as ruthlessly
as they
sought to expose
this woman.
And again
as they had
treated this woman
so miserably
Jesus shows
them
no compassion
he offers
them no grace
rather
he forces
them
to leave
in shame
and humiliation
before the crowd.
And again
friends
I want you to see
how Jesus
does that so well
and so repeatedly
in his ministry.
He reverses
the roles.
The one
who comes
in self-righteousness
determined
to inflict shame
and humiliation
on another
is exposed
by Jesus
and retreats
in shame
and humiliation
before Jesus.
Pretty powerful
picture I think.
And so
we ought not
to be surprised
at that
because
an unwillingness
to judge
yourselves
according to the
laws of scripture
actually
reduces
our authority
to judge
others.
And then
perhaps
most surprisingly
of all
Jesus
moves
this woman
from shame
towards
honor
dignity
and life.
The contrast
and the treatment
of this woman
could not be clear.
Verse 9
the words there
say that the
Jewish religious
leaders
they just
went away
the word there
is abandon
they just
abandoned her
they left her
standing in front
of the crowd
in her shame
and humiliation
and misery
they just
walked away
and there she
was just
standing
so awful
when she was
no longer
useful to their
scheme
they just
abandoned her
well
Jesus doesn't
abandon her
such a warm
lovely response
from Jesus
in fact
though she is
guilty as charge
and Jesus
doesn't move away
from that
she is
guilty as charged
and unclean
because of her
sin
and has brought
God's name
into disrepute
of one of God's
special people
though all of that's
true for her
and Jesus knew
all that was
true for her
he speaks to her
with compassion
and offers her
a fresh start
a new hope
for a new life
now it's really
important to
understand how
this works
this is not
a general
acquittal
or a declaration
of not guilty
by Jesus
even though
he alone
was the one
who was without
sin and even
though he
therefore would
have been the
one who either
had the authority
to condemn
or acquit
but I don't think
that's what's
happening here
he does not
condone her
sin
and in fact
pushes her
towards genuine
repentance
and turning
away from
the sin
so I think
it works like
this in summary
Jesus saying
to this woman
I'm extending
you mercy
and grace
and that means
henceforth
responding
to God's
mercy and grace
by living a life
henceforth
to God's glory
mercy from
God
must result
in a life
lived to
God
and for
God
and perhaps
my friends
again
perhaps that's
why these
verses are
here
because
they form
a book
end
with a story
back from
chapter 4
about the
women of
Samaria
similar
sort of
situation
they illustrate
the teaching
about Jesus
being the
bread of
life
the hunger
satisfier
and the
thirst
quencher
she illustrates
that Jesus
will satisfy
these deep
longings
she has been
chasing
in the
so-called
danger
and excitement
of illicit
sex
and we've
got to
understand
at this
point
that she
would have
been a
willing
partner
in that
adultery
so she
was looking
for something
other than
her husband
she was
looking for
as I say
the excitement
or something
satisfying
she was
looking for
and Jesus
is saying
no
I'm
recognizing
your hunger
and your thirst
but you're
looking for it
in all the
wrong places
I'm giving you
a chance
to point you
to me
but once again
you see
that involves
more temple
abuse
so here's
where the
play and the
idea of
temple abuse
comes in
the Old
Testament
law
and temple
if you go
back and read
through
Leviticus
and Numbers
the Old
Testament
law
had no
recourse
for the
intentional sin
of murder
or adultery
there's no
sacrifice offered
to sort
things out
with God
the only
option a
person in
that situation
has
is to
throw
themselves
directly
on God's
mercy and
grace for
forgiveness
and this
is exactly
what Jesus
knows
and exactly
what he
points this
woman to
ultimately the
temple always
pointed God's
people to
God's grace
in forgiveness
and new
relationship
the Pharisees
sadly had come
to see it as a
place of
condemnation
and that's all
they could see it
because of their
position of
self-righteousness
but here's the
play
because Jesus
has already
identified himself
earlier in the
ministry as the
true temple
the new
temple
so the new
reality for this
guilty woman
was that the
true temple
pushed her to
experience and
know new
satisfaction
new grace
but it wasn't
about trying
harder in
real performance
based religion
it was not
about what she
could or would
ever do
it was on the
basis of what he
could and would
do for her in his
death as the true
temple
so ironically as we
unpack this story
I believe that Jesus
knew that someone
would die as a
result of this
incident
the leaders
wanted the woman
to die
but Jesus
knows it will be
him who will die
he knows he will
be condemned to
death for her
sin
while she is
freed into life
and so it works
like this
Jesus is able to
move her towards
life
because he was
actually in
Jerusalem
precisely moving
himself towards
death
what a contrast
with the self
righteous leaders
convincing themselves
that they are good
enough by punishing
others whom they
deem to be wicked
but Jesus is
preparing to be
considered bad
himself to be
considered a
criminal himself
to make guilty
sinners like this
woman look good
in the eyes of
God
his moral outrage
is completely
different
she is a
sinner
but Jesus the
true temple
has not come to
condemn guilty
people like her
he came to
deliver
he came to
save them
he came to
make them
acceptable to
God and
reconnect them
into the life
of God's rich
blessing
the life we
all long for
so ladies
can I have a
special moment
of your time
to make this
application to
you guys this
morning
generic guys
I would suggest
to you this
morning that
Jesus ought to
be the darling
the absolute
darling of the
hashtag me
too community
he's the
truly caring
man that
every woman
hungers and
thirsts for
he understands
this woman's
deep longings
he cares
for women
this woman in
particular
he speaks the
truth to you
in love as
he did to
this woman
he points
you to
true life
and points
you away
from a
life of
false
intimacy
false
satisfaction
false
thirst
quenching
so we
find ourselves
living today
in an epidemic
of domestic
abuse
an epidemic
of adultery
as both men
and women
seek to
satisfy their
thirst and
their hunger
in one another
or in sex
outside of
marriage
but the
real solution
can only be
new relationship
and life
in Jesus
but you know
it's sad isn't
it that our
society would
rather look for
the answer
in legislation
we've got to
have legislation
to stop these
things
or we'll
have the
hashtag
me too
we'll create
a shaming
culture to
deal with
these things
rather than
looking at a
renewing
culture
of honouring
in an
overflow
response of
being renewed
and honoured
by God
this woman
in pursuing
adultery
was looking
for validation
satisfaction
intimacy
fulfilment
happiness
but she
ended up
broken
isolated
scorned
and shamed
in other
words this
woman was
chasing the
life
chasing life
as she
thought it
to be
but she
found death
in the midst
of that
life
the final
reality
as the
story ends
is that
in the
presence of
Jesus
she had
the opportunity
to find
life
in the
midst of
death
let me
pray
lord help us
not to trip
up on some
of the
textual
problems
of this
passage
help us
to see
just the
warmth
and
compassion
of the
lord Jesus
Christ
help us
lord to
find
in
ourselves
those
elements
of
self
righteousness
self
salvation
and root
them out
so we
might truly
be people
who are
shaped by
you and
your character
and your
word
and that we
in turn
lord might be
people of
grace who
can extend
grace
in truth
and love
amen
to
who
stood
out
he
sorry
to
you a
can go
m