New Testament Morality

[DavidSMoore]

In Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus is reported to have said the following:

“For if you forgive others their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you, but if you do not forgive others, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.”
(Matthew 6:14-15, NRSVue)

That’s very clear. The only way to earn the forgiveness of God is by forgiving the sins of other people. Faith is not required, just forgiveness.
Which sins must be forgiven? Jesus answered that question too:

“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
(Matthew 12:30-32, NRSVue)

Every sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to be forgiven. That means murder, rape, incest, sodomy, assault, battery, robbery, fraud, slander, libel--- all those sins and many more must be forgiven.
In the above passage Jesus is talking about the sins that must be forgiven, both in this life and in the afterlife. Maybe he was only talking about the sins that God will forgive. Surely Jesus doesn’t expect his followers to forgive the same sins, does he? Well, yes actually-- he does:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
(Matthew 5:48, NRSVue)

Jesus expects his followers to be as perfect as God. If God forgives all sins but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then so must his followers.
And how many times must a sin be forgiven? That question was answered elsewhere in the book of Matthew:

Then Peter came and said to him, “Lord, if my brother or sister sins against me, how often should I forgive? As many as seven times? Jesus said to him, “Not seven times, but, I tell you, seventy-seven times.”
(Matthew 18:21-23, NRSVue)

Some translations render the last number as seventy times seven, or 490. But whether it’s 77 times or 490 times, that’s a lot of forgiveness! I would argue that Jesus never expected his followers to keep a log of how many times they have forgiven a sin. The number 77, as I see it, was never intended to be understood as an actual number, but should instead be interpreted as “a number that is so huge that no one could ever forgive a sin that many times.” That is, the number 77 is the First Century CE equivalent of “infinity.”
So Jesus expects his followers to forgive every sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and to forgive them infinitely many times. The Lord’s Prayer underscores the importance of forgiveness by asking his followers to think about it every day:

“And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.”
(Matthew 6:12, NRSVue)

Clearly forgiveness is the crux of the morality that Jesus taught.
Or, rather-- that’s the morality of the version of Jesus one finds in the book of Matthew. The Jesus of the book of John never once says that his followers must forgive the sins of other people if they are to earn the forgiveness of God! There is a passage in John 20 in which Jesus says the following:

“If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
(NRSVue, John 20:23)

But Jesus said that specifically to his disciples only, and only after he first breathed the Holy Spirit into them to give them the power to forgive sins.
Christians have sided with the John version of Jesus and have ignored the morality of the Matthew version of Jesus. The Catholic Catechism never once cites or even references Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 12:31-32, or Matthew 18:21-23. Furthermore, the Catechism lists the seven Christian virtues as follows:

The “Theological” virtues: Faith, Hope, and Charity
The “Human” virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, and Temperance

Note that forgiveness is not one of the listed virtues. Matthew 6:14-15 says that you must forgive the sins of others if you wish to be forgiven by God, and yet the Catholic Church doesn’t think that forgiveness is a virtue!
Is forgiveness is simply a form or aspect of charity? No! Here’s the first definition of “forgive” in the Miriam-Webster dictionary:

to cease to feel resentment against (an offender): PARDON

So pardon is a synonym for forgive. Here’s the same dictionary’s definition of pardon:

the excusing of an offense without exacting a penalty

That is, forgiveness implies an intent not to prosecute. And here’s the first definition of “charity” from the same dictionary:

generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering

Forgiveness is extended to someone who has committed a sin; charity is extended to those in need, regardless of whether they have committed an offense. So they are two very different actions.
Earlier we found that Jesus expects his followers to forgive every sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and to forgive each sin infinitely many times. That seems pretty ridiculous. If an armed man forces his way into my house and kills my spouse before my eyes, I would not be willing to simply shrug it off and tell the man “I forgive you.” No! I would want to report his actions to the authorities and have him arrested so that he can stand trial for murder! According to Jesus, not only am I supposed to cease to feel resentment, but if my spouse’s killer were to return to my house I would be obligated to reaffirm my pardon of his actions. I must never seek to have him prosecuted!
Here is a very well known passage from the book of Matthew that shows just how much Jesus expected of his followers:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemies.’ But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the righteous and on the unrighteous.”
(Matthew 6:43-45, NRSVue)

It’s difficult to understand how loving someone like Adolf Hitler, or Kim Jong Un, or Mao Zedong, or Vladamir Putin— or the Roman Emperor Nero-- could improve the world condition. But Jesus wasn’t trying to make the world a better place in which to live. He was only trying to prepare his followers for an eternity in paradise.
The story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 is a wonderful tale of compassion and generosity. The Beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-11show compassion for the downtrodden and oppressed. A story about the last judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 shows that Jesus expects his followers to extend charity to those in need. And the story of the woman accused of adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11 shows that forgiveness, used judiciously, can bring about a renewal of spirit and a corresponding change of behavior.
But universal forgiveness of any and all crimes is simply not practical. That particular aspect of the moral teachings of Jesus is far too idealistic. A society that forgives all crimes will effectively be rewarding criminals. The end result of such a policy will inevitably be an escalation of crime. Jesus may have believed that his followers would be so few in number that the policy of forgiving every sin would never be disruptive to the social order. But in the United States about 65% of the population considers itself to be Christian, so that notion is no longer tenable. The universal forgiveness teaching of Jesus may be revered as an unattainable ideal, but it must never be codified in law or social policy.

 

[Soapy]

In Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus is reported to have said the following:


That’s very clear. The only way to earn the forgiveness of God is by forgiving the sins of other people. Faith is not required, just forgiveness.
Which sins must be forgiven? Jesus answered that question too:


Every sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is to be forgiven. That means murder, rape, incest, sodomy, assault, battery, robbery, fraud, slander, libel--- all those sins and many more must be forgiven.
In the above passage Jesus is talking about the sins that must be forgiven, both in this life and in the afterlife. Maybe he was only talking about the sins that God will forgive. Surely Jesus doesn’t expect his followers to forgive the same sins, does he? Well, yes actually-- he does:



Jesus expects his followers to be as perfect as God. If God forgives all sins but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, then so must his followers.
And how many times must a sin be forgiven? That question was answered elsewhere in the book of Matthew:



Some translations render the last number as seventy times seven, or 490. But whether it’s 77 times or 490 times, that’s a lot of forgiveness! I would argue that Jesus never expected his followers to keep a log of how many times they have forgiven a sin. The number 77, as I see it, was never intended to be understood as an actual number, but should instead be interpreted as “a number that is so huge that no one could ever forgive a sin that many times.” That is, the number 77 is the First Century CE equivalent of “infinity.”
So Jesus expects his followers to forgive every sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and to forgive them infinitely many times. The Lord’s Prayer underscores the importance of forgiveness by asking his followers to think about it every day:



Clearly forgiveness is the crux of the morality that Jesus taught.
Or, rather-- that’s the morality of the version of Jesus one finds in the book of Matthew. The Jesus of the book of John never once says that his followers must forgive the sins of other people if they are to earn the forgiveness of God! There is a passage in John 20 in which Jesus says the following:



But Jesus said that specifically to his disciples only, and only after he first breathed the Holy Spirit into them to give them the power to forgive sins.
Christians have sided with the John version of Jesus and have ignored the morality of the Matthew version of Jesus. The Catholic Catechism never once cites or even references Matthew 5:48, Matthew 6:14-15, Matthew 12:31-32, or Matthew 18:21-23. Furthermore, the Catechism lists the seven Christian virtues as follows:



Note that forgiveness is not one of the listed virtues. Matthew 6:14-15 says that you must forgive the sins of others if you wish to be forgiven by God, and yet the Catholic Church doesn’t think that forgiveness is a virtue!
Is forgiveness is simply a form or aspect of charity? No! Here’s the first definition of “forgive” in the Miriam-Webster dictionary:



So pardon is a synonym for forgive. Here’s the same dictionary’s definition of pardon:



That is, forgiveness implies an intent not to prosecute. And here’s the first definition of “charity” from the same dictionary:



Forgiveness is extended to someone who has committed a sin; charity is extended to those in need, regardless of whether they have committed an offense. So they are two very different actions.
Earlier we found that Jesus expects his followers to forgive every sin except blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, and to forgive each sin infinitely many times. That seems pretty ridiculous. If an armed man forces his way into my house and kills my spouse before my eyes, I would not be willing to simply shrug it off and tell the man “I forgive you.” No! I would want to report his actions to the authorities and have him arrested so that he can stand trial for murder! According to Jesus, not only am I supposed to cease to feel resentment, but if my spouse’s killer were to return to my house I would be obligated to reaffirm my pardon of his actions. I must never seek to have him prosecuted!
Here is a very well known passage from the book of Matthew that shows just how much Jesus expected of his followers:



It’s difficult to understand how loving someone like Adolf Hitler, or Kim Jong Un, or Mao Zedong, or Vladamir Putin— or the Roman Emperor Nero-- could improve the world condition. But Jesus wasn’t trying to make the world a better place in which to live. He was only trying to prepare his followers for an eternity in paradise.
The story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 is a wonderful tale of compassion and generosity. The Beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-11show compassion for the downtrodden and oppressed. A story about the last judgment in Matthew 25:31-46 shows that Jesus expects his followers to extend charity to those in need. And the story of the woman accused of adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11 shows that forgiveness, used judiciously, can bring about a renewal of spirit and a corresponding change of behavior.
But universal forgiveness of any and all crimes is simply not practical. That particular aspect of the moral teachings of Jesus is far too idealistic. A society that forgives all crimes will effectively be rewarding criminals. The end result of such a policy will inevitably be an escalation of crime. Jesus may have believed that his followers would be so few in number that the policy of forgiving every sin would never be disruptive to the social order. But in the United States about 65% of the population considers itself to be Christian, so that notion is no longer tenable. The universal forgiveness teaching of Jesus may be revered as an unattainable ideal, but it must never be codified in law or social policy.

What you have written up to three quarters is fully true … wonderful summary.

But I think the last quarter of what you said is not right. What Jesus meant by ‘Love your enemies’ is not that, in your example, we shouldn’t report the offended for what he did, BUT THAT WE SHOULDNT SEEK REVENGE AGAINST HIM… LET THE LAW takes its course and don’t antagonise nor offend back against him.

You could also seek to speak with the offender so as to let him realise what he has done. Maybe he will recognise his error and, with a good conscience, change his ways. Of course there are pitfalls of pretending to be penitent to get a lighter sentence but that would be [yet another] sin against the Spirit of God (what you call, the Holy Spirit)… ‘Do not grieve the Spirit of God - the Spirit of God is the Spirit of truth therefore if it is grieved then truth is worthless and anarchy will reign!).

True forgiveness does not count offences. So, yes, seventy times seventy is an exaggeration (if Peter had said, ‘forgive …. 50 times?’, Jesus would have replied, ‘Fifty times fifty times fifty times…!’…

 

[DavidSMoore]

What you have written up to three quarters is fully true … wonderful summary.

Thank you for that-- I appreciate it.

You:

What Jesus meant by ‘Love your enemies’ is not that, in your example, we shouldn’t report the offended for what he did, BUT THAT WE SHOULDNT SEEK REVENGE AGAINST HIM… LET THE LAW takes its course and don’t antagonise nor offend back against him.

Just a reminder: Jesus intervened to prevent the law from taking its course in the story of the woman accused of adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11. The law held that she should be stoned to death, but Jesus interfered and managed to dissuade those who were ready to execute her from taking the action that the law required.

 

[Soapy]

Thank you for that-- I appreciate it.

You:


Just a reminder: Jesus intervened to prevent the law from taking its course in the story of the woman accused of adultery in John 7:53 – 8:11. The law held that she should be stoned to death, but Jesus interfered and managed to dissuade those who were ready to execute her from taking the action that the law required.

I think you will find that it wasn’t a ‘Lawful’ law. It was a manmade law which was biased against women (prostitutes).

BUT what I am amazed to have to point out to everyone I’ve ever spoken or written to about the incident, was that Jesus did not let the woman off from her perpetrators… He told her to

• ‘SIN NO MORE!!!!’

Prostitution is a sin but there are several reasons why we should feel sympathy towards those who engage in it including poverty, slavery, and lack of self-worth.

This woman, Jesus told her, was TO STOP DOING the prostitution and seek lawful employment (I’m getting she was actually capable of lawful work but had purposely chosen to do prostitution for some reason).

What that meant was that she WAS GUILTY of prostitution but that she was forgiven THAT INCIDENT as an example ‘Woman, where are thy accusers?’. They brought the woman as a TEST to try to catch Jesus in a contradiction: Jesus’ truth vs The Law.

‘Love the person - Hate the Crime committed!!!’

This applies to Homosexuals and ‘Rent boys’, thieves, robbers, evil doers…. It’s the essence of ‘Love thy neighbour’…. Let God judge their crime (Actually, it’s Jesus who will judge IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER: ‘The Father has granted all judgement to be in the hands of the Son’ - paraphrased)

 

[DavidSMoore]

I think you will find that it wasn’t a ‘Lawful’ law. It was a manmade law which was biased against women (prostitutes).

?? Huh? Here's what Leviticus says:

"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death."
(Leviticus 20:10, NRSVue)

Leviticus 20 begins with the following words:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying, "Say further to the Israelites..."
(Leviticus 20:1-2, NRSVue)

The rest of Leviticus 20 follows that introduction. So the law that says that adulterers must be put to death was given by God directly to Moses. It is therefore every bit as "lawful" as the Ten Commandments. The law was God-given, not man-made.

You:

This woman, Jesus told her, was TO STOP DOING the prostitution and seek lawful employment (I’m getting she was actually capable of lawful work but had purposely chosen to do prostitution for some reason).

Where did you get the idea that the woman was a prostitute? Here's what the story actually says:

Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and began to teach them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and, making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?"
(John 8:2-5, NRSVue)

So she was guilty of adultery, not prostitution. And notice that the Pharisees specifically mention the law of Moses. That would have been understood at the time to be the laws given to Moses by God at Mt. Sinai.

One additional point. The law of Leviticus 20 says that both the man and the woman must be stoned to death. But in the story in the book of John it appears that the scribes and the Pharisees are only interested in stoning the woman. Seems like differential application of the law to me.

 

[Augustus]

And here’s the first definition of “charity” from the same dictionary:

Might be more fruitful and intellectually honest to try your best to work out what the word meant in its original language and context, rather than assuming it really, really must mean exactly the same thing as whatever the historical English translation means in a modern context and saying "gotcha!"

 

[Soapy]

?? Huh? Here's what Leviticus says:


Leviticus 20 begins with the following words:



The rest of Leviticus 20 follows that introduction. So the law that says that adulterers must be put to death was given by God directly to Moses. It is therefore every bit as "lawful" as the Ten Commandments. The law was God-given, not man-made.

Yes, I responded not in full… I meant that you notice that THE MAN was not accused of Adultery… the woman only and yet the Jews were claiming to be following ‘The Law’!!
It’s similar to (anecdotally) Muslim MEN are commands to hide their hair (which ‘hair’) from everyone except certain close family or medical people like women … but such a command is not followed at all!!. So also, BOTH the woman AND the man were supposed to be guilty under the law BUT it seems that ONLY THE WOMAN was accused …

Jesus didn’t comment on this apparently clear discrimination!!!

Where did you get the idea that the woman was a prostitute? Here's what the story actually says:

So she was guilty of adultery, not prostitution. And notice that the Pharisees specifically mention the law of Moses. That would have been understood at the time to be the laws given to Moses by God at Mt. Sinai.

Erm, I think it’s clear from the gist of the story that it was not the first time she had been in adultery…

Jesus told to to ‘STOP’ doing what she was doing…:

• “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Why would Jesus instruct her to stop doing what she was doing if it had been her FIRST TIME. Surely there’s a different between:

1. ‘Do not do what you just did, again’ and…
2. ‘Stop doing what you are doing’…

Was the woman married? Highly unlikely!

Was she in a relationship with a partner (betrothed)? Certainly not!

Did she have children? Possibly… but irrelevant!

Did she have loving family? Seems not!

Was she otherwise gainfully employed? Respectfully, No!!

So how was she living? Jews only looked out for their own and even indirect family were treated as though they were servants or worse, slaves. Either and which way, it seems she had no other valid employment or income…. So what else is a girl supposed to do (!!?) … it’s ‘easy work to get into’ (careful!!, I didn’t say it was easy… just easy to GET INTO as a WAY OUT of poverty)

One additional point. The law of Leviticus 20 says that both the man and the woman must be stoned to death. But in the story in the book of John it appears that the scribes and the Pharisees are only interested in stoning the woman. Seems like differential application of the law to me.

Oops, I saw this late… but I already pointed this out above … Glad we agree that it was a very important aspect of the application of THE LAW which the Jews seemed not to be following… and Jesus did not even comment on (not written that he comment on it, in any case!)

 

[DavidSMoore]

Might be more fruitful and intellectually honest to try your best to work out what the word meant in its original language and context, rather than assuming it really, really must mean exactly the same thing as whatever the historical English translation means in a modern context and saying "gotcha!"

The word "charity" appears only one time in the New Testament-- in the book of Acts-- in the NRSVue. I wasn't talking about the use of the word "charity" in the Bible, I was talking about the identification of charity as one of the 7 Christian virtues by the Catholic Catechism.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Erm, I think it’s clear from the gist of the story that it was not the first time she had been in adultery…

Jesus told to to ‘STOP’ doing what she was doing…:

• “Go now and leave your life of sin.”

Why would Jesus instruct her to stop doing what she was doing if it had been her FIRST TIME. Surely there’s a different between:

1. ‘Do not do what you just did, again’ and…
2. ‘Stop doing what you are doing’…

The law in Leviticus makes no exceptions for first time offenders. You're reading a lot into the story that isn't explicitly there. The whole point of the story is that the Pharisees were sticklers for following the law to the letter, regardless of what might be considered as extenuating circumstances. There's another story in which the Pharisees reproach Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath. They interpreted the act of healing as work and therefore Jesus's act of healing was a violation of the Sabbath law. That shows just how nit-picky they were.

The point of all this is that the Old Testament is about following the law as given to Moses by God. The New Testament is largely-- though not entirely-- about forgiving the sins of others. The two different points of view about morality aren't compatible-- especially not when some people think the law should be strictly followed, without exceptions.

 

[Soapy]

The law in Leviticus makes no exceptions for first time offenders. You're reading a lot into the story that isn't explicitly there. The whole point of the story is that the Pharisees were sticklers for following the law to the letter, regardless of what might be considered as extenuating circumstances. There's another story in which the Pharisees reproach Jesus for healing a man on the Sabbath. They interpreted the act of healing as work and therefore Jesus's act of healing was a violation of the Sabbath law. That shows just how nit-picky they were.

The point of all this is that the Old Testament is about following the law as given to Moses by God. The New Testament is largely-- though not entirely-- about forgiving the sins of others. The two different points of view about morality aren't compatible-- especially not when some people think the law should be strictly followed, without exceptions.

Hi… hi… I’m not disputing what the laws said… you madd that clear - but YOU aren’t sticking to it.

You stated correctly that the Jews appeared NOT TO APPLY THE LAW TO THE MAN ‘caught in adultery’… yet you say they were STICKLERS for the law - which they were, and Jesus called them out for this claiming they made millstones of the laws to hang round their neck!!!

You asked me how I concluded that the woman was a prostitute… and I gave you very good reasoning for it. But you try to claim against fully viable summations???

Are you afraid of the term ‘Prostitute’? What other reason does a woman have sex with a married man? Money, Safety, Low-Worth, Intimidation….

But Jesus told her to “STOP SINNING”… This is referring to a continued wrongness…

I can agree that it’s VERY possible that the Jews SET HER UP so they could accuse her before Jesus. (See the very next verse: ‘So they could accuse him….!!). They would have just picked a KNOWN person who was then INNOCENTLY set up to be the ‘Fall Guy’, the Patsy, for their scheme…. Which was reasonably obvious to Jesus from the way the Jews approached Jesus with only the woman accused…

I actually see how Jesus would not accuse the woman [alone] since it was an accusation of malicious intent!! But Jesus DID NOT LET HER OFF WITHOUT PUNISHMENT and to pay a penance since he told her she must give up her profession (of prostitution?!!) and find LAWFUL EMPLOYMENT.

If you can show me an alternate viable explanation then I will consider it!!

 

[DavidSMoore]

You asked me how I concluded that the woman was a prostitute… and I gave you very good reasoning for it. But you try to claim against fully viable summations???

Are you afraid of the term ‘Prostitute’? What other reason does a woman have sex with a married man? Money, Safety, Low-Worth, Intimidation….

First of all, I don't think the question of whether or not the woman in question was or was not a prostitute is so absolutely critical to the understanding of the New Testament that I would defend it with every ounce of my being. My objection is simply that the word "prostitute" never actually appears in the narrative, but the word "adulteress" does. That means that she was married. Was she also taking money from men other than her husband for sex? On the basis of what the story actually says, I see no evidence for that view. She could have had multiple sexual relations with other men that did not involve an exchange of money, and that could have caused Jesus to demand that she should sin no more. But that could still be characterized as adultery, rather than prostitution. Here's the specific wording in the NRSVue:

Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."
(John 8:10-12, NRSVue)

That doesn't sound like he meant "stop the sinning that you have engaged in repeatedly over the past many years." It could just as easily have applied to a single instance of adultery.

But again, I don't feel strongly enough about this to insist on it. To me, what's important is that Jesus emphasized forgiveness of sins, rather than punishment. The morality of the Old Testament was based on following the law of Moses to the letter and on punishing those who violate the law. That's literally the exact opposite of the message of forgiveness that Jesus repeatedly emphasized.

 

[Eli G]

The offenses that one must forgive are the offenses that affect one personally. Everyone has their own offenders...

No one is authorized to forgive those who commit offenses against other people or against God. We are not one to forgive sins; It is an authority that only corresponds to Jesus Christ, according to his role as rescuer of humans from their offenses against God.

Common humans do not have the role of being judges either... Secular authorities have their own function under a divine arrangement, so human courts are in charge of judging and condemning offenders of their own laws. Human justice reflects to some degree the justice of God.

No person has the authority to judge or forgive sins; and although he can forgive personal offenders, that does not mean that he is obliged to forget the offenses and harms that others have done to him or his loved ones, but rather that he must not take action on his own, and should hope that divine justice will act justly to condemn all evil and abusive people. That is the hope in God of the just ones.

The Bible is full of complaints to God about injustices of evil people. All Christians who have been abused by others have the right to pray to God for justice on their behalf, or to decide whether to forget the harm another has done to them. It must always be kept in mind that the justice that is demanded in one's favor is the same that will be executed in one's own case if we do the same things we condemn in others.

 

[Soapy]

First of all, I don't think the question of whether or not the woman in question was or was not a prostitute is so absolutely critical to the understanding of the New Testament that I would defend it with every ounce of my being. My objection is simply that the word "prostitute" never actually appears in the narrative, but the word "adulteress" does. That means that she was married. Was she also taking money from men other than her husband for sex? On the basis of what the story actually says, I see no evidence for that view. She could have had multiple sexual relations with other men that did not involve an exchange of money, and that could have caused Jesus to demand that she should sin no more. But that could still be characterized as adultery, rather than prostitution. Here's the specific wording in the NRSVue:



That doesn't sound like he meant "stop the sinning that you have engaged in repeatedly over the past many years." It could just as easily have applied to a single instance of adultery.

But again, I don't feel strongly enough about this to insist on it. To me, what's important is that Jesus emphasized forgiveness of sins, rather than punishment. The morality of the Old Testament was based on following the law of Moses to the letter and on punishing those who violate the law. That's literally the exact opposite of the message of forgiveness that Jesus repeatedly emphasized.

Oh boy….!

A Sin is TRULY ‘Forgiven’ only if the person relents from the sin they committed. There is always a sacrifice involved in a forgiveness. In the case of the woman, it was to STOP DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING…. And to find gainful employment INSTEAD!

It is not possible FOR MAN to forgive multiple times UNLESS the sinner shows viable signs of changing/relenting from their sin! But what we must NOT DO is to CONDEMN that person to destruction. We must appeal to the law in such cases even if the law lets them off… we rely on a little talked about thing called ‘Ultimate Justice’. This is where the offender appears to have gotten away with his crime as far as his human life is concerned - but ultimately he will be judged by Jesus Christ at the mercy seat where Jesus will condemn him (or not! ) and that’s the end of it:

• ‘There is Sin that leads to destruction - and there is Sin that does not lead to destruction!’

And you can’t know much about women if you think a woman has sex just cos she likes it…. No, no matter how depraved a woman could possibly be, she has sex FOR A PROFIT in one way or another. Heck, even a MARRIED woman many times offers her husband sex FOR SOMETHING SHE DESIRES (Are you married…!?) And her hormones often drive her to offer sex so she can [try to] get pregnant. WOW, if there was a woman who wanted sex for sex sake!!! Sweet tonato!!! For your interest, YES, there are such women (Nymphomaniacs) but in all honesty, a wise man would avoid them like the plague!!! That kind of sex encounter usually comes from a psychiatric disorder and she can have really low self-esteem (a disorder in itself) and is seeking LOVE …which the man will pay for dearly further down the line especially if she sees him later with a/his wife or girlfriend … !!!

I really think you bit off more than you can chew with this thread!!!

You agree to revert to just the aspect forgiveness… Yes, stick to that aspect, please. Let’s hear what you have to say as I’ve already pointed out a whole heap of stiff already - what are you going to add to it?

 

[DavidSMoore]

The offenses that one must forgive are the offenses that affect one personally. Everyone has their own offenders... No one is authorized to forgive those who commit offenses against other people or against God. We are not one to forgive sins; It is an authority that only corresponds to Jesus Christ, according to his role as rescuer of humans from their offenses against God.

I think you've neglected this passage, from the mouth of Jesus:

“Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”
(Matthew 5:48, NRSVue)

If God can forgive the sins of people who committed sins against other persons but not against God or Jesus specifically, then so must his followers.

You:

Common humans do not have the role of being judges either... Secular authorities have their own function under a divine arrangement, so human courts are in charge of judging and condemning offenders of their own laws. Human justice reflects to some degree the justice of God.

Really? What was the divine arrangement that allowed southern Whites to lynch more than 3,000 African Americans with absolute impunity between the collapse of Reconstruction in 1877 and the 1950s when federal forces were sent back into the south to enforce the Civil Rights Act?

You:

No person has the authority to judge or forgive sins; ...

But Jesus actually said in Matthew 6:14-15 and Matthew 18:21-23 that his followers must forgive sins! You are injecting your own notions of justice into the actual words that have come down to us through the New Testament writings.

 

[DavidSMoore]

A Sin is TRULY ‘Forgiven’ only if the person relents from the sin they committed. There is always a sacrifice involved in a forgiveness. In the case of the woman, it was to STOP DOING WHAT SHE WAS DOING…. And to find gainful employment INSTEAD!
It is not possible FOR MAN to forgive multiple times UNLESS the sinner shows viable signs of changing/relenting from their sin!

Jesus, in Matthew 6:14-15, said that his followers must forgive the sins of others. He made no mention of a need for the person being forgiven to repent of the sin. And in the story of the adulteress, there is no mention of a need for the woman to find gainful employment. You are reading meanings into the actual words of the writings that aren't there explicitly.

You:

And you can’t know much about women if you think a woman has sex just cos she likes it…. No, no matter how depraved a woman could possibly be, she has sex FOR A PROFIT in one way or another. Heck, even a MARRIED woman many times offers her husband sex FOR SOMETHING SHE DESIRES (Are you married…!?) And her hormones often drive her to offer sex so she can [try to] get pregnant. WOW, if there was a woman who wanted sex for sex sake!!! Sweet tonato!!! For your interest, YES, there are such women (Nymphomaniacs) but in all honesty, a wise man would avoid them like the plague!!! That kind of sex encounter usually comes from a psychiatric disorder and she can have really low self-esteem (a disorder in itself) and is seeking LOVE …which the man will pay for dearly further down the line especially if she sees him later with a/his wife or girlfriend … !!!

If you don't know any cases in which a woman has engaged in adultery without an expected exchange of money, then I suspect you don't know much about women. But as I said in my earlier post, the question of whether the adulteress was a prostitute simply isn't important in the larger discussion of what New Testament morality is all about. You're harping on a trivial detail that just isn't that important. Why are you so fixated on it?

 

[Soapy]

Jesus, in Matthew 6:14-15, said that his followers must forgive the sins of others. He made no mention of a need for the person being forgiven to repent of the sin. And in the story of the adulteress, there is no mention of a need for the woman to find gainful employment. You are reading meanings into the actual words of the writings that aren't there explicitly.

I’m glad for your sake that you added the words, ‘explicitly’. It’s the only way your argument holds water.

You:

If you don't know any cases in which a woman has engaged in adultery without an expected exchange of money, then I suspect you don't know much about women. But as I said in my earlier post, the question of whether the adulteress was a prostitute simply isn't important in the larger discussion of what New Testament morality is all about. You're harping on a trivial detail that just isn't that important. Why are you so fixated on it?

You are afraid of detail?

Tell me, what reason would any woman be ‘a serial adulteress’ and do it just for the sex or other non-monetary reason?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus is reported to have said the following: ...

Reported to have said, or said?

It seems that you are claiming that gMt

1. was a relatively early composition in which the author*
2. accurately recorded the words of Jesus.

Yes?

============================================

* the same author who gave us the virgin birth story

 

[jimb]

The offenses that one must forgive are the offenses that affect one personally. Everyone has their own offenders...

No one is authorized to forgive those who commit offenses against other people or against God. We are not one to forgive sins; It is an authority that only corresponds to Jesus Christ, according to his role as rescuer of humans from their offenses against God.

Common humans do not have the role of being judges either... Secular authorities have their own function under a divine arrangement, so human courts are in charge of judging and condemning offenders of their own laws. Human justice reflects to some degree the justice of God.

No person has the authority to judge or forgive sins; and although he can forgive personal offenders, that does not mean that he is obliged to forget the offenses and harms that others have done to him or his loved ones, but rather that he must not take action on his own, and should hope that divine justice will act justly to condemn all evil and abusive people. That is the hope in God of the just ones.

The Bible is full of complaints to God about injustices of evil people. All Christians who have been abused by others have the right to pray to God for justice on their behalf, or to decide whether to forget the harm another has done to them. It must always be kept in mind that the justice that is demanded in one's favor is the same that will be executed in one's own case if we do the same things we condemn in others.

Colossians 3:12-14, "Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others. And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond."

I think that this clearly shows that forgiveness is an essential quality of being a Christian. The sin doesn't have to affect one personally, as that is too restrictive in my opinion.

Regarding judging: 1 Corinthians 6:2, "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to settle trivial suits?"

I think that this shows that Christians are competent to judge others' behavior, considering that we will judge the world. It doesn't have to be a personal affront.

 

[DavidSMoore]

You are afraid of detail?

Tell me, what reason would any woman be ‘a serial adulteress’ and do it just for the sex or other non-monetary reason?

Happy to provide. I'll offer the example of Catherine Howard, the fifth wife of Henry VIII. She was executed after she was found guilty of having committed ADULTERY with her cousin while she was the QUEEN OF ENGLAND and therefore had no need of MONEY or of any other MATERIAL COMPENSATION. (See-- I can do ALL CAPS too! )

In my estimation the motivations of women are as many and as varied as are the motivations of men-- and perhaps even more so.

You said that Jesus said that the adulteress of the story should FIND GAINFUL EMPLOYMENT. He said NO SUCH THING! You MADE THAT UP, and now you're upset that I won't agree to your MADE UP VERSION of the story. Sorry, but I'M NOT PLAYING YOUR GAME.

You said that the adulteress in the story was a PROSTITUTE. The story doesn't specifically say that. You MADE IT UP.

If we can't even agree on what the Bible actually says, there's no point in trying to have a conversation about what it means.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Colossians 3:12-14, "Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else. Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others. And to all these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond."

I think that this clearly shows that forgiveness is an essential quality of being a Christian. The sin doesn't have to affect one personally, as that is too restrictive in my opinion.

Regarding judging: 1 Corinthians 6:2, "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you not competent to settle trivial suits?"

I think that this shows that Christians are competent to judge others' behavior, considering that we will judge the world. It doesn't have to be a personal affront.

Those are fair points. I would just add that the passages you cited from Colossians and from Corinthians are from the writings of Paul. All of the passages I cited in my original posting were from the mouth of Jesus. Especially where morality is concerned, I think we should begin with the explicit words of Jesus.