M
mark_a
Guest
When Jesus defended the adultress against the elders, what was he writing in the sand?
- Status
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I have seen several suggestions. I like Scott Hahn’s footnote in the RSV-CE. He suggests that Jesus is writing the names of the Pharisees in fulfillment of Jeremiah 17:13
If I remember correctly the hope of Israel may be a title for the Messiah. That is just my speculation.
Note that this is from the Douay Bible. Some of the newer versions have reworded this verse and lost the reference.
If I remember correctly the hope of Israel may be a title for the Messiah. That is just my speculation.
S
Steven_Merten
Guest
Hello Mark a,
Was it just a coincidence that the Pharisees knew just where to find an adulteress when they needed a situation to try to trip Jesus up with?
My personal thought is that Jesus was listing the Pharisees sins in the sand. Most likely the names of those Pharisees who themselves had sinned with the woman.
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
Was it just a coincidence that the Pharisees knew just where to find an adulteress when they needed a situation to try to trip Jesus up with?
My personal thought is that Jesus was listing the Pharisees sins in the sand. Most likely the names of those Pharisees who themselves had sinned with the woman.
Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
D
Darrel
Guest
mark a:
-D
I always had the feeling that he was more interested in not answering them right off and was taking his time and not reacting to there attempt. For this reason I think it may be possible that he was just sort of doodling in the sand writing nothing in particular. But who knows.
-D
B
BibleReader
Guest
mark a:
6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write (1) on the ground (2) with his finger. 7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he bent down and wrote (1) on the ground.
In the Bible, the Dust Type, comprised of analogs like “dust,” “ground,” “dirt,” etc., = “sin.” So, Jesus was writing His opponents’ SINS on the ground.
Next, note how the text takes the trouble to tell us that He was writing “with His finger.”
Well, look at what else whas written with a “finger”:
18 When the LORD had finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the commandments, the stone tablets inscribed by God’s own finger. Exodus 31:18.
So, Christ was writing on the ground with His “finger” the “commandments” broken by His opponents.
That’s WHY they walked away. He was making their hypocrisy clear to them.
Two things give us the answer…
6 They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write (1) on the ground (2) with his finger. 7 But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he bent down and wrote (1) on the ground.
In the Bible, the Dust Type, comprised of analogs like “dust,” “ground,” “dirt,” etc., = “sin.” So, Jesus was writing His opponents’ SINS on the ground.
Next, note how the text takes the trouble to tell us that He was writing “with His finger.”
Well, look at what else whas written with a “finger”:
18 When the LORD had finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the commandments, the stone tablets inscribed by God’s own finger. Exodus 31:18.
So, Christ was writing on the ground with His “finger” the “commandments” broken by His opponents.
That’s WHY they walked away. He was making their hypocrisy clear to them.
A
Annunciata
Guest
…That is something I’ve not yet considered… I have always thought what OPs have said about writing the sins of the Pharisees… good reflection.
M
mark_a
Guest
Thanks folks.
BibleReader:
I hope my terminology is good enough to get my request across.
I find this sort of thing (such as Mary is the Ark of the new covenant) intriguing, but am only able to pick up bits and pieces here and there. Can someone suggest an easy read concerning types and how the new testament is prefigured in the old testament?
I hope my terminology is good enough to get my request across.
B
BibleReader
Guest
mark a:
When the Editor Father Stravinskas was pushed out because OSV regarded him as “too boring,” I went with him. Father Stravinskas’ new magazine, The Catholic Response, just carried the first typology article in the March/April issue. God-willing, there will be many more.
The Catholic Response, 3050 Gap Knob Road, New Hope, Kentucky 40052. $30.00 per year.
I did a series of articles on Bible typology for The Catholic Answer Magazine of the Our Sunday Visitor organization.
When the Editor Father Stravinskas was pushed out because OSV regarded him as “too boring,” I went with him. Father Stravinskas’ new magazine, The Catholic Response, just carried the first typology article in the March/April issue. God-willing, there will be many more.
The Catholic Response, 3050 Gap Knob Road, New Hope, Kentucky 40052. $30.00 per year.
R
Robert_in_SD
Guest
This is the best answer I’ve heard to this question, and I’ve often wondered about it. Thanks BibleReader.
Peace and Charity,
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
This is one of those items where it is best to use your imagination
Sort of like radio dramas
I don’t know what He wrote on the ground but it certainly had an impact
If you were omniscient and had the opportunity to take some stuffed shirts down a peg or three what would YOU write
Sort of like radio dramas
I don’t know what He wrote on the ground but it certainly had an impact
If you were omniscient and had the opportunity to take some stuffed shirts down a peg or three what would YOU write
B
BayCityRickL
Guest
Yes, the thoughts expressed above are plausible and interesting. How merciful of our Lord to merely write their sins and/or their names in sand.
S
SPOKENWORD
Guest
I believe Jesus wrote down the law that they broke.He drew a line and they had crossed it. For those that saw The Passion that line was amplified in the movie. Which law did they break? Where was the Adulterer? God Bless
God Bless
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
I have a couple of problems with the standard interpretations of this passage. (It is really difficult, and I am only giving a theory here).
The opponents of Jesus would not have backed down unless Jesus held an argument which was irrefutable. E.G. they had to be totally trapped. A sin written on the ground would not have been sufficient to stop the attackers. Consider, there was no requirement in the Mosaic law that the people stoning the woman need to be sinless.
To draw this point out a little more, they could have simply accused Jesus of changing the Mosaic law to fit his need.
They did not accuse Jesus of this, so their sin had to be of such a nature as to be a PRESENT THREAT at the site of the stoning and it had to involve all who would stone the woman.
Jesus crossed the kidron valley on his way to the temple precincts…
This is the only clue about the passage. A little knowledge of the temple (Herods / 2nd temple). The temple is layered a bit like an onion. The outer layers were where the common people came (Gentiles), the next porch closer to the center was for women, then came men, and the priestly housing quarters (precints), and finally the NAOS or inner temple which housed the Tables, incense altar, and ARK. (Only levites/and temple ministers entered there).
The outer part of the temple (the Gentile porch), was open to all, but an attempt to defile (e.g. have a Greek enter the priestly/mens porch) of the temple, would lead immediately to death of the transgressor. ( There was a sign saying so too, even though the death sentence was unenforcable under Roman Law BUT The mere accusation of St. Paul leading a Greek into that area led to riots and attempts on his life).
The suggestion is that the placement of a NAKED ADULTUROUS WOMEN, in this portion of the temple would be a defilement in and of itself. Let alone the stoning.
Another note, the floor of the temple was made of stone, not sand.
Although there could be sand/dirt on the floor, this would not be likely inside the temple in sufficient quantity to write on. I.E. I would expect the temple to be somwhat clean. By writing on stone with his finger (dust or no), Jesus was reminding them who wrote the law.
It would have been perceived as an arrogant taunt.
I wonder if he actually WROTE on the stone with his finger.
( Also, as an aside, there is the finger(s), e.g. Babylonian idiom, writing on the wall. But that is different (no stone involved)…
)
hopefully, this will spur someone more knowlegable than I to fill in some gaps.
The opponents of Jesus would not have backed down unless Jesus held an argument which was irrefutable. E.G. they had to be totally trapped. A sin written on the ground would not have been sufficient to stop the attackers. Consider, there was no requirement in the Mosaic law that the people stoning the woman need to be sinless.
To draw this point out a little more, they could have simply accused Jesus of changing the Mosaic law to fit his need.
They did not accuse Jesus of this, so their sin had to be of such a nature as to be a PRESENT THREAT at the site of the stoning and it had to involve all who would stone the woman.
Jesus crossed the kidron valley on his way to the temple precincts…
This is the only clue about the passage. A little knowledge of the temple (Herods / 2nd temple). The temple is layered a bit like an onion. The outer layers were where the common people came (Gentiles), the next porch closer to the center was for women, then came men, and the priestly housing quarters (precints), and finally the NAOS or inner temple which housed the Tables, incense altar, and ARK. (Only levites/and temple ministers entered there).
The outer part of the temple (the Gentile porch), was open to all, but an attempt to defile (e.g. have a Greek enter the priestly/mens porch) of the temple, would lead immediately to death of the transgressor. ( There was a sign saying so too, even though the death sentence was unenforcable under Roman Law BUT The mere accusation of St. Paul leading a Greek into that area led to riots and attempts on his life).
The suggestion is that the placement of a NAKED ADULTUROUS WOMEN, in this portion of the temple would be a defilement in and of itself. Let alone the stoning.
Another note, the floor of the temple was made of stone, not sand.
Although there could be sand/dirt on the floor, this would not be likely inside the temple in sufficient quantity to write on. I.E. I would expect the temple to be somwhat clean. By writing on stone with his finger (dust or no), Jesus was reminding them who wrote the law.
It would have been perceived as an arrogant taunt.
I wonder if he actually WROTE on the stone with his finger.
( Also, as an aside, there is the finger(s), e.g. Babylonian idiom, writing on the wall. But that is different (no stone involved)…
)
hopefully, this will spur someone more knowlegable than I to fill in some gaps.
A
asaxon
Guest
Steve Andersen:
There is little more powerful then the statement “I see all of who you are and love you anyway”.
I does not sound like Jesus to “put down” anyone. Judgement was not his game, forgiveness was. He may have written in the sand a reflection of who they were so that they would know themselves and be forgiven as well.This is one of those items where it is best to use your imagination
Sort of like radio dramas
I don’t know what He wrote on the ground but it certainly had an impact
If you were omniscient and had the opportunity to take some stuffed shirts down a peg or three what would YOU write
There is little more powerful then the statement “I see all of who you are and love you anyway”.
D
deb1
Guest
I always thought that it was strange that they didn’t bring the man that she had committed adultery along. Wasn’t he supposed to get stoned also?
H
haole
Guest
Remember the “trap” they had set for Him. Let her be stoned to death, and the romans would seize Him for violating their law. Or, to let her go free, and lose face with the people for not going along with the Law of Moses.
This “trap” Jesus turned around against them. He asked them, " whoever has no sin…cast the first stone…". There might have actually been someone there without sin, but they also realized they would violate the Roman law. Notice in the wording, “first with the eldest…then to the youngest… they left.” The older, wiser, and those with the most to “lose” ( in terms of position,etc.realized what would happen to them ), you can almost picture the look of defeat and disgust on their faces when they realized what Jesus had jus done to them.
Also, the other facet was these were mostly Pharisees, who by their actions, demeanor, and proclamations, lived “above” everyone else, and let people know they were without “sin”. So now they were faced with publically leaving and therefore admitting some “sin”-or tacitly admitting that their position meant more to them than carrying out the Mosaic law.
Also, notice the word Jesus used at the end, woman, where are your accusers?..neither do I condemn you… go and sin no more…"
Jesus did not say “forgive” as most want to read this, but the harsher " condemn " which means to die and, thence go to Hell in that state of sin. What he demands of her : " go and sin no more " is something our OSAS friends should take stern notice of.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
haole - Re There might have actually been someone there without sin, but they also realized they would violate the Roman law. The Pharisees professed to be without sin, and thus superior to the hoi polloi. [Note the prayer of the Pharisee in the Pharisee and the Publican.] Jesus forced them to either act on that claim and throw a stone or walk away and deny it.
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Yes, that’s good, the Roman law was a threat. But notice, when St. Paul was even suspected of defiling the temple (by supposedly putting a Gentile up to entering the precincts) the Jews DID try to kill him. Not only that, there were some who made a pact not to eat until St. Paul was dead.
Roman law didn’t stop mobs.
Secondly, Jesus’ entrappers would have been happy if they could only discredit Jesus. It was not necessary to actually kill the woman.
The logical step, if it was only Roman law involved, would have been to take Jesus to task over his interpretation of the Law.
No one has convicted you of sin, Master, will you not carry out your own judgement?
They could have saved face over some such comment, but they didn’t make it. Why?
Roman law didn’t stop mobs.
Secondly, Jesus’ entrappers would have been happy if they could only discredit Jesus. It was not necessary to actually kill the woman.
The logical step, if it was only Roman law involved, would have been to take Jesus to task over his interpretation of the Law.
No one has convicted you of sin, Master, will you not carry out your own judgement?
They could have saved face over some such comment, but they didn’t make it. Why?
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Deb1,
Yes the man should be stoned too. That opens up a possibility, for nonbiblical sources tell us that this law was applied in a biased way.
Moses indicated that they should both be stoned, but often only the woman took the punishment. For this same bias, Moses permitted divorce – eg, Moses saw that it was better the woman should suffer divorce than she should be killed or abused violently which was often the case. Divorce led to great suffering of women too.
The law required at least two witnesses to put someone to death.
If this women was caught by leading her into adultury by one of the accusers, that would certainly come out in the testimony. At that point, the accuser would become liable to death. However, there is no certanty that this was the case.
It is certain that Jesus excuses the woman on the basis of the law. e.g. no witnesses, no stoning.
errata: I remembered the argument about the fingers on the wall incorrectly. The difference there is that the plural (fingers) referrs to a specific way of writing which was Babylonian, not Hebrew. It is possible a rock was involved in that passage. It still is different than the writting of the commandments which is single fingered.
my apology.
Yes the man should be stoned too. That opens up a possibility, for nonbiblical sources tell us that this law was applied in a biased way.
Moses indicated that they should both be stoned, but often only the woman took the punishment. For this same bias, Moses permitted divorce – eg, Moses saw that it was better the woman should suffer divorce than she should be killed or abused violently which was often the case. Divorce led to great suffering of women too.
The law required at least two witnesses to put someone to death.
If this women was caught by leading her into adultury by one of the accusers, that would certainly come out in the testimony. At that point, the accuser would become liable to death. However, there is no certanty that this was the case.
It is certain that Jesus excuses the woman on the basis of the law. e.g. no witnesses, no stoning.
errata: I remembered the argument about the fingers on the wall incorrectly. The difference there is that the plural (fingers) referrs to a specific way of writing which was Babylonian, not Hebrew. It is possible a rock was involved in that passage. It still is different than the writting of the commandments which is single fingered.
my apology.
R
robert_ambrose
Guest
mark a:
He was doodling, and at the same time he would be thinking ,“when am i going to get through to these guys.”
- Status