Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger

  • Thread starter Thread starter El_PAso
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Gorgias said:
And, although we’d say that their attempt wasn’t fair, it was according to the Mosaic law, wouldn’t you agree?
Click to expand...
I don’t know. (Lv20:13) If you are gonna execute one, it would seem like nothing but selective prosecution not to stone the other. (which is of course, the point. the pharisees don’t care about justice, just about trapping Jesus).

Jesus calls out the pharisees on a few occasions for not really abiding by the law of Moses. He also calls them out for technically following the law of Moses, while favoring themselves (which is the best-case interpretation of this story; they pardoned the man, and not the woman).

The Daniel and Susanna angle is interesting. And the dual mercy is an interesting thing. He tells the woman, he does not condemn her, and he refrains from condemning the pharisees too. He knows their sins, but does not expose them.

Meditating on these texts though, we could go on forever.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps. Jer17:13 is a frequently cited text to support that position.
 
That would be interesting. If you know of a source for that, that would be very cool to have.
 
I cannot believe that the same Lord who forgives us in the secrecy of Confession would write the names & sins of those in the crowd. That seems a bit out of character.
 
Aspidistraflyer said:
I don’t know. (Lv20:13)
Click to expand...
Umm… we’re talking about adultery here, not homosexual intercourse.
Aspidistraflyer said:
which is the best-case interpretation of this story; they pardoned the man, and not the woman
Click to expand...
There’s nothing in the story to suggest that they’ve “pardoned” the man. Maybe he was quicker than the witnesses and just ran away before they could grab him; his partner wasn’t so lucky. 🤷‍♂️
Aspidistraflyer said:
Meditating on these texts though, we could go on forever.
Click to expand...
👍
 
TheLittleLady said:
I cannot believe that the same Lord who forgives us in the secrecy of Confession would write the names & sins of those in the crowd. That seems a bit out of character.
Click to expand...
Um… you realize that the sacrament of reconciliation, back in the early days of the Church, involved public confession of one’s sin and public penance for it… right?
 
Jeremiah 17:13:

O Lord, the hope of Israel,
all who forsake thee shall be put to shame;
those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth,
for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.

It might be a stretch to say this passage is connected to Jesus writing the names of sinners present.

The curious thing is the prohibition against Jews executing without Roman approval under Roman rule. They went to Pilate for permission to execute Jesus yet here and Stephen they didn’t get approval. Perhaps Rome looked the other way if the person was not well known. If they executed Jesus without Rome’s approval and if his followers caused trouble the Jews knew the Romans might have held it against them.
 
Last edited:
Aspidistraflyer said:
That would be interesting. If you know of a source for that, that would be very cool to have.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, all I know is what the priest said and he just called it one “one of the theories”.

However, in the Fr. Longenecker article two posts above this one, that theory is cited as “favored by St Jerome and by lots of commentator since.” I will note that Fr. Longenecker dismissed it since he saw no reason to write in the dust, but the priest I heard cited that as the custom at the time when someone was accused of a sin: Jesus was exactly mimicking the temple custom for the situation.
 
Last edited:
I’m sure you did not intend to come across as condescending.

Practices have changed in different times.

When this event happened, the Church had not yet been founded.

Scripture does not tell us what was written, we are free to hold various opinions, I gave mine.
 
TheLittleLady said:
I’m sure you did not intend to come across as condescending.
Click to expand...
LOL! I’m sure I didn’t. 😉
TheLittleLady said:
When this event happened, the Church had not yet been founded.

Scripture does not tell us what was written, we are free to hold various opinions, I gave mine.
Click to expand...
Yes, you did. Your opinion was the anachronistic thought that confession was always “in secret”. It wasn’t. That’s a somewhat modern development. It’s not “out of character”, either for Jesus or the Church, to have public confession of sins. But, like you say, you’re free to express your opinion.

(We’re just as free to remind you that it flies in the face of actual historical fact, though, right?) 😉
 
Side Note: This beautiful story of Jesus and the adulterous woman is not in the original Gospel of John. It is not in any of the oldest or best manuscripts of John. Many textual critics do not believe it belongs in the bible.
 
Too bad for the commentators, because the Church, the Body of Christ, did believe it belonged in the Bible.

“My sheep know My voice…”

Given that all our actions, good and bad, will be revealed to all humanity and all angels at the General Judgment, and given that the Pharisees had submitted the case to Jesus to judge, they were pretty much asking for it. Jewish judges had broad powers, and the King had broader ones, and God Himself has power over all.

The good news is that Jesus, the Strict Judge, is also the kindly judge.
 
Last edited:
woops, sorry, i meant verse 10.

No, and there is nothing to indicate they pardoned the man in any judicial sense. That is my point, that is the absolutely best case scenario, and it is still improbable.

But yeah, ultimately there is no knowing.
 
Last edited:
This is not a great issue. I remember reading that John of Chrysostom was aware of this. The chapter is still considered canonical by the Church. That it is an insert from somewhere else is of no great concern.

I knew one Bible Studies professor who believed that it was Lucan, but that was his speculation.
 
Aspidistraflyer said:
This is not a great issue. I remember reading that John of Chrysostom was aware of this. The chapter is still considered canonical by the Church. That it is an insert from somewhere else is of no great concern.

I knew one Bible Studies professor who believed that it was Lucan, but that was his speculation.
Click to expand...
Theologically it may not be a concern. To historians, it most certainly is.
 
This story is in the gospel of St John as compiled in the ancient Vulgate of St. Jerome. That is good enough for the canon of the Church so it is good enough for me.
 
Well, since you said textual critics believe it doesn’t belong in the Bible, I figured that the nature of your concern was canonicity.

But, the way I would answer a historical critic, is that this would not be a surprise to the early or Patristic church (as they knew at the time). This is not a scandal or obstacle to us, something where we were caught unawares.

In other words, the objection only makes sense if we were somehow tricked into its canonicity - which we were not.

But it is a good objection.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top