Bob Jones III apologizes for "if homosexuals were stoned" statement

The original quote was “Standing Without Apology for the Old-Time Religion”. To some it became “Standing Without Apology for Anything”.

Again, I’m thankful for the desire to set things right.

[Larry Nelson]

John 8 (ESV): 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Um, wouldn’t everyone here at SI stipulate that this is a spurious passage?

[Donn R Arms]

Larry Nelson wrote:

John 8 (ESV): 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Um, wouldn’t everyone here at SI stipulate that this is a spurious passage?

Romans 3:23 (ESV): “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”

Romans 6:23 (ESV): “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

Not being under the O.T. Law, I’m grateful for God’s Grace & patience toward me in sending Jesus to die in my place.

Before I/we start calling for others to die for their particular sin(s), I would submit we need to take a long look in a mirror.

…and we are not He. In His eyes, everyone on Earth are all merely co-defendants.

If the disposition of our individual cases was based upon our own merits, we would have no defense to make. Our individual cases hinge solely upon our personal relationship with His Son.

First off, I will say I’m glad for this apology. As an alumnus I’m glad to see BJU’s continued growth towards demonstrating grace and humility. This is good to see.

That said, why did it take Thirty-Five years for this to happen?? 35 YEARS?!

Surely this apology has nothing to do with the GRACE report, BJIII himself being called out, declining enrollment, or BJU trying to re-establish their brand. Surely this apology came out of BJIII’s personal daily devotions for the last 35 years.

Right???

Regarding Joel Tetreau’s comment above, “Not many of us will live with the crucible leadership burden that these men have had to live with.” That is absolutely correct. However, the kind of crucible BJU and BJIII has had to live with is a crucible of their own making. When they proclaimed themselves to be the world’s most unusual university, when they and many of their alumni are/were well known for demonstrating less than kind and graceful attitudes towards many, many people for decades, and BJIII would regularly say things like he has in public to the media, don’t come crying that you live in a tough leadership crucible. Boo-hoo!

As I get older and grow in my career and leadership skills (I have so much to learn), one of THE biggest personal attitudes I see that is so vital to being a truly good leader and a great organization is humility. BJU’s characterization of not having humility caught up with them and now they are trying to turn their ship around before it is too late.

I hope BJU does turn their ship around and I think Pettit is the right man to do it. I am thankful for this apology, just wish it had been decades ago and not tied to the GRACE report and BJU’s rebranding process.

Yesterday, I read the news about Dr. Bob’s apology. I thought that he was sincere, humbled, and honest.

This morning, I knelt in prayer with him before Bible Conference at BJU. (my wife and I are able to enjoy the Conference thanks to our dear church family back in Montrose, CO). I listened as Dr. Bob poured out his heart before our Lord. Sincere, humble, and honest.

I continue to thank God for the training I got at BJU back in the day (71-75). They were not perfect then (I did not agree with their racial policies) and they are not perfect today; but they have been used of the Lord to train Christian servants. I hope that God will continue to use them in the future. Thanks for your post Joel T.!

[Since I see that the “spurious passage” comment has acquired two “likes,” I’ll make a more detailed case here for why I believe it is not.]

In the passage, a sinner (the woman caught in adultery) was brought before Jesus (God in the flesh), and her accusers stated that her sin (under the Law) was punishable by death (via stoning). Jesus, who had every right (as God in the flesh) to demand that the punishment of the Law be carried out, instead showed Grace. He said to her accusers (in essence), “Anybody here not also a sinner? If that’s you, go ahead and throw the first stone.”

Bear in mind that today we are no longer even under the O.T. Law. When BJ III advocated stoning homosexuals, he fit the mold of the woman’s accusers, whom Jesus rebuked. BJ III had (temporarily) forgotten that we (himself included) are all sinners, and deserving of death for our sins. (Do I have to make that case from Romans again?) Christ himself in this passage said (again in essence), “Hey, you’re all likewise sinners, so keep your stones to yourself.” Who more than Christ would have had every right to declare, “Stone the sinner!” He did not; what possible right could anyone today have to make such a statement?

What the commentator meant is that the “woman caught in adultery” account is not found in the earliest manuscripts and is widely considered by critical text guys to be a non-Biblical textual variant. Many men would not even preach the passage. In most Bibles based on the critical text, this account will be marked off by brackets and an explanatory footnote to that effect.

[TylerR]

What the commentator meant is that the “woman caught in adultery” account is not found in the earliest manuscripts and is widely considered by critical text guys to be a non-Biblical textual variant. Many men would not even preach the passage.

So his quibble/argument is that it’s not necessarily authentic or authoritative. Nevertheless, it’s in my KJV and my ESV, among other translations. Who here automatically discounts the Johannine Comma so quickly & easily? I’ve heard that preached authoritatively numerous times by numerous men in years past.

Is this passage such a bitter pill for us to swallow? It illustrates Grace, which I know is a difficult concept for us at times.

––––––––––––––—

Pro and Con:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

It is my understanding that the “adultery” passage, while probably inserted into that position, is by “consensus of scholars” a legitimate incident from Jesus life and ministry. I just reread as a review this morning MacArthur’s take on it.

Anyway, how many Bible verses do we put into brackets, italics, etc, and yet tell the “people in the pew” to trust their Bible?

There is NOTHING to run from in John 8. Preach it.

My 2 cents (which I probably can’t give away)

When I got to that passage last year in John, I preached it.

[mmartin]

I hope BJU does turn their ship around and I think Pettit is the right man to do it. I am thankful for this apology, just wish it had been decades ago and not tied to the GRACE report and BJU’s rebranding process.

Question: Would rebranding BJU with a new name help the process?

[Larry Nelson]

TylerR wrote:

What the commentator meant is that the “woman caught in adultery” account is not found in the earliest manuscripts and is widely considered by critical text guys to be a non-Biblical textual variant. Many men would not even preach the passage.

So his quibble/argument is that it’s not necessarily authentic or authoritative. Nevertheless, it’s in my KJV and my ESV, among other translations. Who here automatically discounts the Johannine Comma so quickly & easily? I’ve heard that preached authoritatively numerous times by numerous men in years past.

Is this passage such a bitter pill for us to swallow? It illustrates Grace, which I know is a difficult concept for us at times.

––––––––––––––—

Pro and Con:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

Larry,

Regarding the Johannine Comma I would remind you that Erasmus himself regarded it as spurious. It occurs in only a few later date Greek Manuscripts and citations from the Latin Fathers(IIRC). So yes, I do discount the Comma. I recognize it as a true statement of the Trinity! But I don’t believe that it was originally written by John in his epistle under Divine Inspiration. John 5 reads better without the Comma anyway.

Regarding the woman caught in Adultery, there are enough witnesses that I regard it as an authentic event, but simply not an original part of John’s Gospel.

Were I a pastor, I would absolutely deal with these issues in my sermons and teachings on these passages because I would want my congregation to be aware of these issues in preparation for when an unbeliever will bring it up to them.

Kjvonly.org has some good articles on these two(and other) issues from a Bible-believing standpoint.

I would like to see a separate thread regarding the Johannine Comma, John 8, and the end of Mark. Are these authentic scripture, or are they later addendums?

[Jim Barnes]

[mmartin]

I hope BJU does turn their ship around and I think Pettit is the right man to do it. I am thankful for this apology, just wish it had been decades ago and not tied to the GRACE report and BJU’s rebranding process.

Question: Would rebranding BJU with a new name help the process?

Good question! Yes, I think that would be a good idea to consider. I think they need to consider all options on the table. I don’t see a name change happening anytime soon though especially with BJIII and the family still being involved as they are with the school.