Who Am I?

I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.

He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.

My mother died at an early age from cancer.

Although my father deserted me and my mother raised me, I later wrote a book idolizing my father not my mother.

Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

My birth records were sketchy.

No one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity, as it was widely accepted in my new country, but I practiced non-traditional beliefs and didn’t follow Christianity, except in the public eye under scrutiny.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.

It was clear to those who read my memoirs, that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30’s then, with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40’s.

They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.

I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization.

Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me, as
jthough I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.

This bolstered my ego.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country’s foreign policy…

I was very critical of my country in the last war, and seized every opportunity to bash my country.

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country’s economy.

I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better, and every poor person would be fed and housed for free .

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.

It was the free market, banks and corporations .

I decided to start making citizens hate them and, if they became envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.

I called mine “A People’s Campaign.”

That sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support.

I knew that, if I merely offered the people ‘hope’, together we could change our country and the world..

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include “persecuted minorities”.

My true views were not widely known and I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation’s leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. I’m glad they didn’t.

Then I became the most powerful man in the world.

And then the world learned the truth.

Who am I?






If you were thinking of SOMEONE ELSE, you should be scared, very scared!

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/hello_my_name_is.html for a similar perspective in more detail.
http://www.barrysoetoro.net for more about an enemy of the United States becoming president.

Mother Teresa’s Final Interview

This is an excerpt of one of the last interviews with Mother Teresa conducted by Edward W. Desmond in 1989 for Time magazine. Excerpts from the interview appeared in Time magazine and the full text of the interview appeared in The National Catholic Register.

Time: What did you do this morning?

Mother Teresa: Pray.

Time: When did you start?

Mother Teresa: Half-past four

Time: And after prayer

Mother Teresa: We try to pray through our work by doing it with Jesus, for Jesus, to Jesus. That helps us to put our whole heart and soul into doing it. The dying, the cripple, the mental, the unwanted, the unloved they are Jesus in disguise.

Time: People know you as a sort of religious social worker. Do they understand the spiritual basis of your work?

Mother Teresa: I don’t know. But I give them a chance to come and touch the poor. Everybody has to experience that. So many young people give up everything to do just that. This is something so completely unbelievable in the world, no? And yet it is wonderful. Our volunteers go back different people.

Time: Does the fact that you are a woman make your message more understandable?

Mother Teresa: I never think like that.

Time: But don’t you think the world responds better to a mother?

Mother Teresa: People are responding not because of me, but because of what we’re doing. Before, people were speaking much about the poor, but now more and more people are speaking to the poor. That’s the great difference. The work has created this. The presence of the poor is known now, especially the poorest of the poor, the unwanted, the loved, the uncared-for. Before, nobody bothered about the people in the street. We have picked up from the streets of Calcutta 54,000 people, and 23,000 something have died in that one room [at Kalighat].

Time: Why have you been so successful?

Mother Teresa: Jesus made Himself the bread of life to give us life. That’s where we begin the day, with Mass. And we end the day with Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament. I don’t think that I could do this work for even one week if I didn’t have four hours of prayer every day.

Time: Humble as you are, it must be an extraordinary thing to be a vehicle of God’s grace in the world.

Mother Teresa: But it is His work. I think God wants to show His greatness by using nothingness.

Time: You are nothingness?

Mother Teresa: I’m very sure of that.

Time: You feel you have no special qualities?

Mother Teresa: I don’t think so. I don’t claim anything of the work. It’s His work. I’m like a little pencil in His hand. That’s all. He does the thinking. He does the writing. The pencil has nothing to do it. The pencil has only to be allowed to be used. In human terms, the success of our work should not have happened, no? That is a sign that it’s His work, and that He is using others as instruments – all our Sisters. None of us could produce this. Yet see what He has done.

Time: What is God’s greatest gift to you?

Mother Teresa: The poor people.

Time: How are they a gift?

Mother Teresa: I have an opportunity to be with Jesus 24 hours a day.

Time: Here in Calcutta, have you created a real change?

Mother Teresa: I think so. People are aware of the presence and also many, many, many Hindu people share with us. They come and feed the people and they serve the people. Now we never see a person lying there in the street dying. It has created a worldwide awareness of the poor.

Time: Beyond showing the poor to the world, have you conveyed any message about how to work with the poor?

Mother Teresa: You must make them feel loved and wanted. They are Jesus for me. I believe in that much more than doing big things for them.

Time: What’s your greatest hope here in India?

Mother Teresa: To give Jesus to all.

Time: But you do not evangelize in the conventional sense of the term.

Mother Teresa: I’m evangelizing by my works of love.

Time: Is that the best way?

Mother Teresa: For us, yes. For somebody else, something else. I’m evangelizing the way God wants me to. Jesus said go and preach to all the nations. We are now in so many nations preaching the Gospel by our works of love. “By the love that you have for one another will they know you are my disciples.” That’s the preaching that we are doing, and I think that is more real.

Time: Friends of yours say that you are disappointed that your work has not brought more conversions in this great Hindu nation.

Mother Teresa: Missionaries don’t think of that. They only want to proclaim the Word of God. Numbers have nothing to do with it. But the people are putting prayer into action by coming and serving the people. Continually people are coming to feed and serve, so many, you go and see. Everywhere people are helping. We don’t know the future. But the door is already open to Christ. There may not be a big conversion like that, but we don’t know what is happening in the soul.

Time: What do you think of Hinduism?

Mother Teresa: I love all religions, but I am in love with my own. No discussion. That’s what we have to prove to them. Seeing what I do, they realize that I am in love with Jesus.

Time: And they should love Jesus too?

Mother Teresa: Naturally, if they want peace, if they want joy, let them find Jesus. If people become better Hindus, better Moslems, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer and closer to God. When they come closer, they have to choose.

Time: You and John Paul II, among other Church leaders, have spoken out against certain lifestyles in the West, against materialism and abortion. How alarmed are you?

Mother Teresa: I always say one thing: If a mother can kill her own child, then what is left of the West to be destroyed? It is difficult to explain , but it is just that.

Time: When you spoke at Harvard University a few years ago, you said abortion was a great evil and people booed. What did you think when people booed you?

Mother Teresa: I offered it to our Lord. It’s all for Him, no? I let Him say what He wants.

Time: But these people who booed you would say that they also only want the best for women?

Mother Teresa: That may be. But we must tell the truth.

Time: And that is?

Mother Teresa: We have no right to kill. Thou shalt not kill, a commandment of God. And still should we kill the helpless one, the little one? You see we get so excited because people are throwing bombs and so many are being killed. For the grown ups, there is so much excitement in the world. But that little one in the womb, not even a sound? He cannot even escape. That child is the poorest of the poor.

Time: Is materialism in the West an equally serious problem?

Mother Teresa: I don’t know. I have so many things to think about. I pray lots about that, but I am not occupied by that. Take our congregation for example, we have very little, so we have nothing to be preoccupied with. The more you have, the more you are occupied, the less you give. But the less you have the more free you are. Poverty for us is a freedom. It is not a mortification, a penance. It is joyful freedom. There is no television here, no this, no that. This is the only fan in the whole house. It doesn’t matter how hot it is, and it is for the guests. But we are perfectly happy.

Time: How do you find rich people then?

Mother Teresa: I find the rich much poorer. Sometimes they are more lonely inside. They are never satisfied. They always need something more. I don’t say all of them are like that. Everybody is not the same. I find that poverty hard to remove. The hunger for love is much more difficult to remove than the hunger for bread.

Time: What is the saddest place you’ve ever visited?

Mother Teresa: I don’t know. I can’t remember. It’s a sad thing to see people suffer., especially the broken family, unloved, uncared for. It’s a big sadness; it’s always the children who suffer most when there is no love in the family. That’s a terrible suffering. Very difficult because you can do nothing. That is the great poverty. You feel helpless. But if you pick up a person dying of hunger, you give him food and it is finished.

Time: Why has your order grown so quickly?

Mother Teresa: When I as young people why they want to join us, they say they want the life of prayer, the life of poverty and the life of service to the poorest of the poor. One very rich girl wrote to me and said for a very long time she had been longing to become a nun. When she met us, she said I won’t have to give up anything even if I give up everything. You see, that is the mentality of the young today. We have many vocations.

Time: There’s been some criticism of the very severe regimen under which you and your Sisters live.

Mother Teresa: We chose that. That is the difference between us and the poor. Because what will bring us closer to our poor people? How can we be truthful to them if we lead a different life? If we have everything possible that money can give, that the world can give, then what is our connection to the poor? What language will I speak to them? Now if the people tell me it is so hot, I can say you come and see my room.

Time: Just as hot?

Mother Teresa: Much hotter even, because there is a kitchen underneath. A man came and stayed here as a cook at the children’s home. He was rich before and became very poor. Lost everything. He came and said, “Mother Teresa, I cannot eat that food.” I said, “I am eating it every day.” He looked at me and said, “You eat it too? All right, I will eat it also.” And he left perfectly happy. Now if I could not tell him the truth, that man would have remained bitter. He would never have accepted his poverty. He would never have accepted to have that food when he was used to other kinds of food. That helped him to forgive, to forget.

Time: What’s the most joyful place that you have ever visited?

Mother Teresa: Kalighat. When the people die in peace, in the love of God, it is a wonderful thing. To see our poor people happy together with their families, these are beautiful things. The real poor know what is joy.

Time: There are people who would say that it’s an illusion to think of the poor as joyous, that they must be given housing, raised up.

Mother Teresa: The material is not the only thing that gives joy. Something greater than that, the deep sense of peace in the heart. They are content. That is the great difference between rich and poor.

Time: But what about those people who are oppressed? Who are taken advantage of?

Mother Teresa: There will always be people like that. That is why we must come and share the joy of loving with them.

Time: Should the Church’s role be just to make the poor as joyous in Christ as they can be made?

Mother Teresa: You and I, we are the Church, no? We have to share with our people. Suffering today is because people are hoarding, not giving, not sharing. Jesus made it very clear. Whatever you do to the least of my brethren, you do it to me. Give a glass of water, you give it to me. Receive a little child, you receive me. Clear.

Time: If you speak to a political leader who could do more for his people, do you tell him that he must do better?

Mother Teresa: I don’t say it like that. I say share the joy of loving with your people. Because a politician maybe cannot do the feeding as I do. But he should be clear in his mind to give proper rules and proper regulations to help his people.

Time: It is my job to keep politicians honest, and your job to share joy with the poor.

Mother Teresa: Exactly. And it is to be for the good of the people and the glory of God. This will be really fruitful. Like a man says to me that you are spoiling the people by giving them fish to eat. You have to give them a rod to catch the fish. And I said my people cannot even stand, still less hold a rod. But I will give them the fish to eat, and when they are strong enough, I will hand them over to you. And you give them the rod to catch the fish. That is a beautiful combination, no?

Time: Feminist Catholic nuns sometimes say that you should pour your energy into getting the Vatican to ordain women.

Mother Teresa: That does not touch me.

Time: What do you think of the feminist movement among nuns in the West?

Mother Teresa: I think we should be more busy with our Lord than with all that, more busy with Jesus and proclaiming His Word. What a woman can give, no man can give. That is why God has created them separately. Nuns, women, any woman. Woman is created to be the heart of the family, the heart of love. If we miss that, we miss everything. They give that love in the family or they give it in service, that is what their creation is for.

Time: The world wants to know more about you.

Mother Teresa: No, no. Let them come to know the poor. I want them to love the poor. I want them to try to find the poor in their own families first, to bring peace and joy and love in the family first.

Time: Malcolm Muggeridge once said that if you had not become a Sister and not found Christ’s love, you would be a very hard woman. Do you think that is true?

Mother Teresa: I don’t know. I have no time to think about these things.

Time: People who work with you say that you are unstoppable. You always get what you want.

Mother Teresa: That’s right. All for Jesus.

Time: And if they have a problem with that?

Mother Teresa: For example, I went to a person recently who would not give me what I needed. I said God bless you, and I went on. He called me back and said what would you say if I give you that thing. I said I will give you a “God bless you” and a big smile. That is all. So he said then come, I will give it to you. We must live the simplicity of the Gospel.

Time: You once met Haile Mariam Mengistu, the much feared communist leader of Ethiopia and an avowed atheist. You asked him if he said his prayers. Why did you risk that?

Mother Teresa: He is one more child of God. When I went to China, one of the top officials asked me, “What is a communist to you?” I said, “A child of God.” Then the next morning the newspapers reported that Mother Teresa said communists are children of God. I was happy because after a long, long time the name God was printed in the papers in China. Beautiful.

Time: Are you ever been afraid?

Mother Teresa: No, I am only afraid of offending God. We are all human beings, that is our weakness, no? The devil would do anything to destroy us, to take us away from Jesus.

Time: Where do you see the devil at work?

Mother Teresa: Everywhere. When a person is longing to come closer to God he puts temptation in the way to destroy the desire. Sin comes everywhere, in the best of places.

Time: What is your greatest fear?

Mother Teresa: I have Jesus, I have no fear.

Time: What is your greatest disappointment?

Mother Teresa: I do the will of God, no? In doing the will of God there is no disappointment.

Time: Do your work and spiritual life become easier with time?

Mother Teresa: Yes, the closer we come to Jesus, the more we become the work. Because you know to whom you are doing it, with whom you are doing it and for whom you are doing it. That is very clear. That is why we need a clean heart to see God.

Time: What are your plans for the future?

Mother Teresa: I just take one day. Yesterday is gone. Tomorrow has not come. We have only today to love Jesus.

Time: And the future of the order?

Mother Teresa: It is His concern.

Edward W. Desmond in 1989 for Time magazine

The Woman In Adultery

By Stephen Green

First Published in Christian Voice November 2003

In many modern versions of the Bible, John 7:53 to John 8:11 is written in italics, with a foot-note to the effect that this passage is omitted from “some ancient manuscripts.” Why should that be? Why should a passage of God’s word which is there in the Greek ‘Textus Receptus,’ authenticated by Erasmus and relied upon exclusively by Bishop Andrewes and his team of translators for the King James version, be absent from other sources?

We need to remember that just because a manuscript of the Bible is ancient is not to say it is accurate. Manuscripts were often altered to bolster a heretical view. The letters of the Apostles reveal that there were heresies around in the earliest days of the church. The Gnostic heresy, which demoted the material world to be beneath the concern of God, was the most prevalent, and to the Apostle John, the most dangerous. (1 John 4:3) There will have been manuscripts of the Bible emerging in the first few centuries which had a Gnostic frame of mind. Subtle changes will have been made, to slant the New Testament message into the spiritual realm alone.

The same sort of thing happens today. In Psalm 24:10, and on fourteen other occasions in the Psalms, the Hebrew word “tsava’ah” is translated as “hosts” in the KJV, in expressions such as “The Lord of hosts.” The word indeed means a host, an army, a great number. One modern bible version persistently renders the expression into “Lord of the heavenly armies”. The word for “heavenly” isn’t there in the Hebrew – these translators had a problem with God being in charge of earthly armies, so they relegated Him to the spiritual sphere alone, and they did it by adding to the word of God.

Is it for a similar reason that the account of the woman taken in adultery was omitted by some ancient, heretical, manuscripts? Had the scribes, despite their training to be faithful reproducers of documents, spotted something they just didn’t like? Did the account oppose the Gnostic view? Or did it possibly oppose Antinomianism, the view that Jesus did away with the law of God?

One would hardly think the latter, given the stance of many recent and contemporary commentators. Thanks to their efforts, the popular view today is that the passage shows Jesus abolishing either the death penalty for adultery in particular, or the death penalty in general. For example, the following was written by a prominent reformed churchman: “Christ himself refused to allow the stoning of the adulterous woman.” The proposition being made is that at some point in the passage in question, Jesus said something like, “I will not allow you to stone her,” or “I say do not stone someone caught in adultery” or gave the impression that the death penalty is no longer valid.


Let us see if that is true. The passage is John 8:1-11, the account of our Lord Jesus and the matter of the woman taken in adultery. The Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites only to bring the woman, of course. The woman was “taken in the very act”. That means a man was there as a partner to the act. He seems to have been allowed to leave, even though the law says: the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev 20:10) Those who just brought the woman were not quite so hot on the law as they pretended.

The Lord did not point out their hypocrisy, as he did on other occasions, but events in any case were moving swiftly. He was immediately, as it appears, in the cleft stick of having to oppose the Roman occupation if he wished to support the Law of God given by Moses. It was a similar challenge to that of Caesar’s coin. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? (John 8:5) They were challenging this upstart young rabbi to accept the role of judge, and pronounce. Now, the Romans would not allow the Jews to carry out a death sentence of stoning, although that would not stop them later stoning Stephen to death for blasphemy. So if Jesus were openly to support the stoning of the woman, he could be denounced for sedition to Pilate. And if he refused to allow her stoning, as our friend suggests he actually did, then he would be revoking, changing, or “destroying” the law.


We must remember that this is he who said, back in Galilee: Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Matt 5:17) More recently, and more fresh in the mind to these Jerusalem Scribes and Pharisees, Jesus had just been teaching in the temple in the very middle of the feast of Tabernacles. (John 7:14) “Did not Moses give you the law,” he asked, “and yet none of you keepeth the law?” (John 7:19) Keeping the law was for him and for them an important matter. To be accused of not keeping the law was a serious charge.

It would be an especially serious charge to lay at the door of a teacher of the law. Teaching about the law, especially during the feast of Tabernacles, was the solemn duty of the Levites. (Lev 10:11, Deut 33:10; Neh 8:2,3,13,18) Incidentally, the Greek word used for ‘law’ in all its facets in the New Testament is ‘nomos’ which means ‘a law’. We get words from it such as ‘antinomian’ (against the law) ‘theonomy’ (God-law) and ‘autonomy’ (self-law).

The word ‘nomos’ does not quite capture the full import of the Hebrew word ‘Torah’ with its overlay of teaching, or instruction, as well as what is allowed and what is forbidden. Both the Lord Jesus and His interlocutors would have in mind the word ‘Torah’ or its Aramaic equivalent. Of course, as the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, Jesus is the author of the Torah, and its embodiment. Anyway, by adopting the function of the Levites on that day, the Lord Jesus was shaming the religious establishment in Jerusalem. Then he went even further.


The seventh, great day of the feast (John 7:37) was known as “Hoshana Rabbah”, which means “great (or many) hosannas”. It was a great day of praise. There was also a ritual on that day of taking willow branches from the river banks, and praying for rain and rejuvenation. It is possible that what is known as ‘sympathetic magic’ had been added: when the willow trees are shaken or beaten, the leaves fall in simulation of the coming rainfall.

Hence Jesus’ cry on that day: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink! He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. Living (running) water is a Hebrew symbol of salvation, and Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua, means “He saves”. (see also: Isa 12:3; Jer 2:13; John 4:10-11) Doing what he did on that day was enough for some to acclaim Jesus as the Messiah (John 7:41), whilst others got stuck on the Galilee question.

Matters became heated enough for Jesus’s followers to be denounced as “this people who knoweth not the law,” (vs 49) and to poor Nicodemus, who was only trying to uphold the law, to be rubbished as a Galilean. “out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,” they said (vs 52). In fact they were wrong on the last count, but for Nicodemus to have pointed out that both Jonah and Nahum came out of Galilee (Jonah from Gath-hepher, two miles from Nazareth, Nahum from Capernaum – Kaphar-Nahum) would have only made matters worse – both men were sent to prophesy to Gentiles.


There was clearly a lot at stake for both Jesus and the men who challenged him with the case of the woman taken in adultery. On another occasion the Lord Jesus refused to judge between a man and his brother (Luke 12:14) in order to make a point about greed and possessions. But here, after the curious episode of writing on the ground, he accepted the role of judge and made a ruling, as we shall see, based totally on the law.

A basic principle of God’s judicial law is that people must be properly convicted, which means at the mouth of two or three witnesses. (Numb 35:30) The Humanist version, ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ just will not do before the Throne of Grace. And we have to remember that human agents are carrying out divine will, for the judgment is God’s. (Deut 1:17) The necessity for a matter to be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses is strongly upheld in the New Testament (eg: Matt 18:16; John 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1).

In addition to testifying, the hands of the witnesses had to be the first against the convicted person. (Deut 17:6-7) It is a terrible and solemn duty to testify against someone, and biblically that is reinforced by requiring the witnesses to put their stones, as it were, where their mouths were. After that, all the community were to join in to execute judgment.

Can anyone imagine the horror of such an event? The Bible says: The people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously. (Deut 17:13) There would surely be an immediate decrease in crime in that community. It is difficult for us today to understand living in a society which takes adultery so seriously – the generation in which Jesus lived was not like that, being similar to our own, but more of that later.


A false witness in the Biblical system was in a dreadful predicament. Not only had he helped a person to be wrongfully convicted, but he had thrown the first stone. That was something so appalling that the only remedy was for him to suffer the same fate as would the man or woman he had given false testimony against. (Deut 19:15-19) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. (Exod 20:16). It is reasonable to assume that there would be fewer false witnesses if they had to cast a physical first stone.

A further principle of God’s law is that witnesses must be totally impartial. This was well understood by the Scribes and Pharisees, even if they had forgotten it in their rush to try to catch Jesus out. Witnesses and judges must not be related to the accused. They must not be moved by hatred or love towards the accused. They must not have taken a bribe either for or against the accused. (Deut 16:19) Lastly, they must not be implicated in a similar crime themselves. (Hos 4:14) They must come with clean hands, a Godly principle of law which survives to a limited extent even today.

All of this allows Jesus’ eventual ruling to be much more penetrative than a simple “Yes” or “No” would have been. When he said: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her, (John 8:7) he gave support to all these parts of the law, and put the onus back on the accusers. Some have attempted to say that “without sin” means perfect, but in that case, if perfect people were the only ones allowed to testify or convict, justice would be impossible. Where would we find them? The Lord’s statement would be ridiculous. Thankfully, the Greek word here translated “without sin” is “anamartetos”. It does not mean perfect, for that is “teleios”. It means not absolutely without sin, but only in a particular case.


Knowing that, the passage suddenly makes sense. Jesus was calling for the witnesses who presumed to condemn the woman to carry out the sentence, whilst reminding them of their legal obligation to come with clean hands. They did not have to be perfect, they just had to be without sin in this one offence.

But these men could not even manage that. Jesus did not maintain eye contact with them, but stooped down and wrote on the ground again. It was an “adulterous and sinful generation” (Mark 8:38) and he knew already that no-one would be prepared – or able in terms of the law – to be the first witness. So we read: And they which heard, being convicted by conscience, went out one by one beginning at the eldest, unto the last, and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst, (v9)

Imagine the situation today. We have everyone in court, the judge, the prosecution lawyers, the prosecution witnesses, a full public gallery, all the court officials and the prisoner in the dock. The judge reminds the prosecution team and their witnesses of their legal duties to maintain a fair trial. Then quietly, the prosecution witnesses melt away and the prosecuting barrister and the CPS instructing solicitor collect up their papers, bow to the judge and leave the room withour a word. In practice today they would say, ‘I am sorry, your honour, but the prosecution has no case to offer. Beg to be excused’.

What does the judge do in a Court of Law when the witnesses absent themselves and no-one is left to accuse the defendant? He can hardly condemn. He is obliged to acquit the defendant. That is precisely what the Lord did, but with that sting in the tail, “Go and sin no more.” (v11) There is no earthly judge who would say that to someone just acquitted. Only a prophet, or the Son of God, can do that.

This is much truer compassion from our gracious Lord than abolishing the death penalty (as some contend the Lord did) would have been. The latter would have shown no compassion to the victim. The Son of God demonstrates his compassion by warning a sinner to repent and escape the wrath of God. As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. (Ezek 33:11)


So the Lord Jesus Christ, in this defining moment, upheld the law of God by Moses to the very letter whilst convicting his challengers of sin and setting the adulterous woman free with a warning. This is greater than the wisdom of Solomon. It is all so obvious that it beggars belief that anyone could seriously maintain that the passage shows Jesus changing the law, or refusing to allow the woman to be stoned, which was the claim quoted at the start.

Perhaps the very endorsement which Jesus gives here to the Mosaic law is the reason for the passage’s omission from some of the early manuscripts. Perhaps certain scribes who wanted to separate Christianity from its Hebrew roots had understood what was going on in the passage only too well. Perhaps they were Gnostics, who wanted to separate the kingdom of God from any earthly expression of it. Perhaps they wanted to spiritualise everything of God, and send Him away to inspect His ‘heavenly armies’. Or perhaps they felt that man would make better laws than God.


When the laws of God are discussed in critical terms, the laws about stoning, and especially stoning for adultery, are always wheeled out as a prime example of God’s alleged barbarism. Despite the fact the God does not change, it is very tempting for us to say, “Oh, that’s just the Old Testament.” But with Christ’s own endorsement of the law in general, and this law in particular, that dispensationalist option seems closed. Even Christian people seem to single out stoning for adultery as that law of God they particularly do not like. “You don’t believe in the law of God, do you? You’ll be stoning people for adultery next!”

I am personally appalled by the idea of stoning. It is little comfort to realise that in our own sinful generation, we should probably have no greater success at finding witnesses with clean hands than did the Lord Jesus. But it is in any case not the function of this article to recommend inclusion of stoning as a penalty in party manifestos. Instead, I want to discern the mind of God and look at the ‘general equity’ of the penalty, to use the term in the Westminster Confession. Why does the righteous law of God include such a provision? What is its purpose? What is God saying, through it, to us in our day?


Perhaps we should first look at the element of public involvement, with the casting by the witnesses of the first stone, and also the deterrent effect so well expressed in Deut 17:13 and Eccl 8:11.

In Britain today, only our jury system involves the public in the judicial process, and long may it do so. We have no modern-day equivalent of the Biblical community involvement in carrying out penalties. Even though God instituted the death penalty for murder in His covenant with Noah for all mankind for ever, we abolished it in 1965, in our wisdom. Of course our current record for wrongful convictions overturned on appeal years afterwards argues against re-introducing it without major reform.

Even when the death penalty was in force, it was carried out for almost 100 years behind closed doors in the depths of a prison. The public baying for blood at Tyburn Hill (1) and Newgate was horrible and unbiblical, but tucking execution away from view is bad from another point of view. It says that something unrighteous is being done. The truth is that capital punishment is God’s will, and righteous. It is not a dark deed to be done in a corner.

As to stoning itself, the method of execution is less important than the principle of public involvement of both witnesses and people. Interestingly, after public execution was abolished in 1868 (2), the yearly number of executions for murder began to increase quite sharply (3). Nor do we give witnesses the solemn duty of casting any first stone, metaphorical or not. They testify and then they go home, taking their conscience with them.


Perhaps, however, people today approve of adultery just as much as they disapprove of stoning. Adultery is a complete betrayal of another’s trust, but today it is almost fashionable. Folk may ‘tut-tut’ at the revelations of adultery in the news, but, just like the woman’s accusers, their hearts are full of sin. Not only is there no death penalty against adulterers in Britain today, we have allowed our politicians to put no penalty at all. Indeed, in the divorce courts, a wife’s adultery is usually rewarded with residence of the children on the grounds that the court can see a ‘new father figure’ for them.

Is such a lack of justice something of which us British should be proud? What would the Lord Jesus, King of kings, say to us? Rather than casting stones at God’s law, should we not be slinking away in shame at the covenant-breaking and breach of promise which our law now firmly encourages? We may even find those things to convict us in our own hearts.

“From this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.” Even in the modern versions, the couple give their solemn word, in public. But our law allows either one of them to break his or her word and ruin another’s life without consequences. And they say God’s law is barbaric!


If we look at what God says about adultery, then firstly we see that God regards it as a great evil. That is because adultery is an act of betrayal and because it strikes at the very root of the family in which a Godly seed is to be raised (Mal 2:15). God even likens the idolatry of Israel to adultery, to emphasise the seriousness of ‘whoring after other gods.’ (Judg 2:7)

Secondly, God regards adultery not just as an individual sin, but as a capital offence. That is because His judicial law is based on the principle of restitution, and in common with murder and rape, nothing can restore what has been taken by the act of adultery. At the same time, the death penalty for adultery is a maximum, and the guilty parties are able to make a limited form of restitution financially, presumably if the innocent parties are willing and forgiving, and not beset by what Jesus described as ‘hardness of heart’. (Matt 19:8, cf Deut 24:1)

We infer the principle of financial recompense from Numbers 35:31, where it is written: take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death (Numb 35:31). The word translated here as ‘satisfaction’ is ‘kopher’ which means a ransom, or sum of money. For this verse to be given implies that ransoms were being paid for all capital offences, including for murder. This was actually the case in Anglo-Saxon England. Money would settle anything. But the Bible says that in the case of murder – and only murder – a ransom may not be paid: but he shall surely be put to death. (4)


In looking to be compassionate, us Christians need first to hate sin (Ps 97:10a), love the things which God loves (Ps 119:97), and stop finding fault in what He says (Ps 5:4). Nobody wants anyone to die, least of all God, so there is an element of mercy available for adulterer and adulteress, but only with the primary principle of justice in place. We start from the wrong end, trying to be nice and merciful first. Then we wonder why there is no justice. (Isa 59:14) Justice comes before mercy in the Bible (Ps 89:14). God’s way is that justice can be tempered with mercy, but not mercy with justice.

Even some Christians lose sight of the fact that God gave His law for our good, and not because He is a spoil-sport. But talking of God spoiling our sport, is adultery really so much fun? And even if it is, is it really worth living in a society where the extended family is now an intricate network of step-parents, live-in boyfriends and all their exes? Where half a generation of children have lost their fathers? Where crime increases as all sense of self-respect declines? Where a public promise can be broken on the whim of one of the parties? Have we gone completely mad?

Spiritually, neither an individual nor a nation ever stands still. We are either going towards God or moving away from Him. (Matt 7:13) At the moment, Britain is travelling fast on the road to destruction. For great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. (2Chr 34:21) God hates divorce, and the breaking of promises, and He also hates injustice. People are fallible, and miss the mark. Some are plain lawless, and it is an injustice for them to get away with the misery they cause. If by God’s grace our nation repents, then bringing some justice back into family law and upholding the Godly solemnity of the marriage vows will be one of the things it will do first. Would it not be a wonderful thing to see our leaders searching the law of God for its wisdom, knowing that we are a nation under Christ, and that Christ upholds His law?


(1) 10,000 people used to turn up for the Monday executions at Tyburn: see www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LONtyburn.htm

(2) www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/LONnewgate.htm

(3) Sorry, link broken – we are trying to find the statistics again.

(4) Murder is the only capital offence which may not be ransomed. The next verse, Numb 35:32, also forbids a ransom for manslaughter, but manslaughter, which the Bible defines as accidental homicide, is not a capital offence.

Where’s the “protest” in Protestantism gone? » Kent Hodge (May 2010)

Have we lost the “protest” in Protestantism? Current Western Christianity seems little more than an experience for me and “love” is seen more in terms of being “nice” than fulfilling our duties of faith. Kent Hodge briefly examines the basis for godly living and how as that is played out it fulfills the dutiful requirement of an outward focus on mission.

How good doctrine and godly living lead to Christian mission.

Some of things that have been going through my mind as I have been praying in Jos over the past week…

We all live in an incredibly self orientated world which makes it hard for to see and respond to kingdom of God issues. I guess this is what Paul meant by the spirit of this world. We all know that it’s all around us. The thing is that it must be combated through the gospel of Jesus Christ – which stands in direct juxtaposition.

Continue reading “Where’s the “protest” in Protestantism gone? » Kent Hodge (May 2010)”

The world is deathly ill » Corrie Ten Boom (1974)

I read in a letter from 1974 from Corrie Ten Boom, author of “The Hiding Place”, about surviving the Holocaust, that there were over 200,000 people martyred for their faith in Africa that year. Christian persecution has enveloped this world, yet Western Christians are largely oblivious to it.

“Perhaps only when human effort had done its best and failed, would God’s power alone be free to work.”
-Corrie ten Boom, The Hiding Place

Corrie Ten Boom(The following is from a letter Corrie wrote in 1974)

“The world is deathly ill. It is dying. The Great Physician has already signed the death certificate. Yet there is still a great work for Christians to do. They are to be streams of living water, channels of mercy to those who are still in the world. It is possible for them to do this because they are overcomers.

Christians are ambassadors for Christ. They are representatives from Heaven to this dying world. And because of our presence here, things will change.

Continue reading “The world is deathly ill » Corrie Ten Boom (1974)”

Elim Bible Institute prophecy » Stanley Frodsham (1965)

A prophecy given at Elim Bible Institute, by Stanley Frodsham (1882-1969), an early Pentecostal leader, known as “God’s Prophet with a Pen” who edited and published Assemblies of God publications for years. Highly relevant for today, it repeats New Testament warnings to seek His righteousness and avoid being deceived by false teaching, but to seek, know and hold fast to truth which is confirmed in Scripture & by the Holy Spirit.

It is written: “Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15 KJV) & test all things through the word of God as described in Acts 17:11. We are also to ensure that we do not turn from what God has to say to us… “Believe in the Lord your God, so shall ye be established – believe His prophets, so shall ye prosper” (II Chronicles 20:20 KJV) and this is repeated in the New Testament… “Despise not prophesying. Prove all things, hold fast that which is good” (I Thessalonians 5:20,21 KJV). The following are excerpts from prophetic words given to one who was under a heavy anointing. I believe all who read these solemn prophetic warnings should take diligent heed to them.


A prophecy from Stanley Frodsham in 1965 at Elim Bible Institute, Lima, New York, USA:

“With great judgments will I plead with the population of this country.

Continue reading “Elim Bible Institute prophecy » Stanley Frodsham (1965)”