V
valentino
Guest
when the Pharisees asked Jesus about her Jesus knelt down and started writing on the ground.Why did He do?Why write on the ground?
- Status
F
Fidelis
Guest
The text doesn’t say explicitly, so it’s impossible to give a definitive answer.
One commentary I’ve read points out that the word used is not writing but “tracing”. The commentator says that Jesus probably wasn’t actually writing anything. Showing that he is not concerned with their attempts to entrap him. he is just doodling to pass the time while everybody is arguing. That explanation seems kind of weak to me.
My preferred explanation is that Jesus was fulfilling what it said in Jeremiah “I [God] shall write their sins in the dust.” He was writing down the sins of those who were calling for the woman’s punishment. Thus, those to whom Jesus addressed the words, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone at her,” knew that Jesus knew their sins, and guiltily slunk away.
V
valentino
Guest
that’s the best explaination Ive heard,however you go on to say"they knew that Jesus knew their sins".Are you implying that they knew Jesus was writing their sins in the dust?IF that were indeed the case then they too would have had to known Jeremiah.Is this truelly plausible?
T
thistle
Guest
Scripture does not say if Jesus was writing or drawing so anything anybody here says is unfounded speculation which is a waste of time.
V
valentino
Guest
Wouldn’t you think there was some reason for it though?Do you think anyone knows?
T
TimothyH
Guest
Given the quote from Jerimiah, I don’t think Fidelis’ post is unfounded at all.
All scripture is usefull … for training in righteousness.
Hardly a waste of time either.
Anyway, I find it very interesting.
-Tim-
F
Fidelis
Guest
It’s entirely plausible, since the woman was brought to Jesus by scribes and Pharisees, who knew the Law and the Prophets inside and out:
P
Petergee
Guest
Certainly, and the Scribes and Pharisees wpould have been aware of all of the other prophecies about the Messiah, which He fulfilled; and they would have been aware of Him fulfilling most of them.
To know intellectually is one thing, to believe is another. There are none so blind as they who will not see.
T
thistle
Guest
We don’t know if Jesus was writing, drawing or whatever so anyone saying what it might be is UNFOUNDED speculation.
B
bauerice
Guest
Whatever it was or wasn’t it made a big impact.
W
Wildrover
Guest
With respect, it is not a waste of time when it draws us to think more deeply about Jesus.
Indeed the Holy Father has used the story to do just that:
*When Jesus wrote in the dust with his finger, the Pope observed, he reminded the crowd (and reminds the reader of the Gospel) of how God wrote the Law on the stone tablets. “Thus Jesus is the Lawmaker; He is justice personified,” the Pope said. His sentence, asking that the one without sin should throw the first stone is “full of the disarming power of truth, which breaks down the wall of hypocrisy and opens people’s minds to a greater justice, that of love.” *
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=5792
B
Benadam
Guest
It’s important to note this is the finger of God writing on the ground inside the Temple. I think Jesus’ action here is an opportunity for any of them to stop what they were doing.
It’s perhaps not important what he wrote but the whole scene in which he wrote is a microcosm of salvation history.
Old covenant to the Incarnation, ending with the new covenant and the forgiveness of the woman?
Perhaps an opportunity to examine their own consciences. Where Jesus’ finger was also writing. That they didn’t take advantage of the opportunity is indicated in how the next line begins.
I see Jesus imitating the pattern of sacred scripture. He bows down and writes. When that doesn’t work He lifts Himself up and speaks. This seems to have an effect. Then he stoops down again and writes on the Temple floor.
It’s perhaps not important what he wrote but the whole scene in which he wrote is a microcosm of salvation history.
Old covenant to the Incarnation, ending with the new covenant and the forgiveness of the woman?
P
patrick457
Guest
As others have pointed out, we don’t know, since we weren’t there and John’s account is a little too vague to make a specific answer. Who knows? Perhaps Jesus was simply doodling, or perhaps He was writing something deeper.
That being said, some have noticed that in the way John writes, perhaps Jesus writing on the sand “with His finger” is an allusion to the fact that the Law was written by God’s finger (Exodus 31:18, 32:15-16; Deuteronomy 9:10), as every person who has watched DeMille’s The Ten Commandments would know.
If this is so, then is not so much about WHAT He wrote, but the fact THAT He wrote: one could infer that this act of writing is itself a pronouncement, a Messianic claim. In effect, Jesus may be saying, “How could I go against the Law? I wrote the Law.”
That being said, some have noticed that in the way John writes, perhaps Jesus writing on the sand “with His finger” is an allusion to the fact that the Law was written by God’s finger (Exodus 31:18, 32:15-16; Deuteronomy 9:10), as every person who has watched DeMille’s The Ten Commandments would know.
If this is so, then is not so much about WHAT He wrote, but the fact THAT He wrote: one could infer that this act of writing is itself a pronouncement, a Messianic claim. In effect, Jesus may be saying, “How could I go against the Law? I wrote the Law.”
B
bmonk
Guest
We cannot tell from the text was was written; until we come to be able to ask Jesus himself, I suspect we will never know.
However, the text does give us other details to consider:
If the woman was truly taken “in the very act” of adultery, why was only the woman brought? What happened to her partner, since this sin is one that, by definition, cannot be committed alone?
If they allowed one sinner to escape, and dragged another off publicly for punishment and shame, is that not being unjust?
If they want to change their story, are they not guilty of lying–or, in this context, perjury, since they are asking Jesus to act as judge?
However, the text does give us other details to consider:
If the woman was truly taken “in the very act” of adultery, why was only the woman brought? What happened to her partner, since this sin is one that, by definition, cannot be committed alone?
If they allowed one sinner to escape, and dragged another off publicly for punishment and shame, is that not being unjust?
If they want to change their story, are they not guilty of lying–or, in this context, perjury, since they are asking Jesus to act as judge?
P
PizzatheHut
Guest
Why would Jesus be doodling on the ground when he is intervening between a woman who is about to be stoned and a angry mob. Doesnt make sense for him to be drawing on the ground while this is going on. Or ever for that matter the gospel writers wouldnt waste paper and ink giving that detail. Its obvious he was writing to adress the crowd.
K
kkoleon
Guest
It begs the question. How did the Jews know she was in the act unless they had set her up as to trap Jesus. People don’t just carry a sign for the world to know. It may be that in some way the pharisees and scribes had implicated themselves.Hence Jesus answer to them.
P
patrick457
Guest
There’s also another whole level here.
There have been a whole debate between scholars as to whether Jews could actually exercise the death penalty or not at the time of Jesus. Some hold that the Sanhedrin could sentence people to death, but only in the traditionally allowed ways, namely stoning, beheading, burning, and strangling. Others, meanwhile, believe that as in most Roman-occupied areas, only the governor (in this case, the prefect of Judaea) held that power. They could pronounce death sentences - which would then be ratified and carried out - and make recommendations, but the Jews did not actually have the right to put people to death. The reason why Rome was hesitant to grant the power of capital jurisdiction to provincial courts is because it could be easily used by the local courts to deal with local Roman sympathizers. That being said, that’s not to say that there were not vigilante acts occurring every now and then: after all the Romans were not after all patrolling Judaea on a day-to-day basis. Unlike in those Jesus movies where you see soldiers marching the streets, bullying the common populace and looting and pillaging, the reality was that the Romans actually mostly left government in the hands of local magistrates. The prefect, for instance, resided in the capital of Caesarea Maritima with other gentiles for most of the year; he only went to Jerusalem during pilgrimage seasons (such as Passover) to keep an eye for potential unrest.
If we take the latter case as true here, and that only the prefect could actually legally sentence people to death, it could be possible that the “scribes and Pharisees” who brought the woman to Jesus were acting in a vigilante fashion. In any case, it seems that they wanted not so much to stone the woman but rather to test Jesus. This would still be contrary to Jewish law, which accepted the principle that the law of the land is the final authority. So they were not only challenging Jesus concerning Jewish law, they were also challenging Him to commit a violation of Roman law!
P
promethius
Guest
I disagree with this first one. Doodling to pass the time assumes boredom, and boredom presumes want of something, and thus engaging in something frivolous. I tend to reject the notion that anything Christ did was frivolous.
I kind of like that one too, and while I know it’s not authoritative (for those negative nancies out there), I think it makes a reasonable amount of sense.
It would also make sense in terms of the sacramental bond of confession… what He wrote in the sand, if it was peoples’ actual sins, was not recorded because of the secrecy of people’s guilt.
I also heard a good explanation on this whole chapter by a messianic jewish girl, but unfortunately she’s out of my life since she is… er… not good for my spiritual wellbeing. Any Messianic types on here that could clarify the Jewish perspective on this?
J
John7
Guest
this is wierd, Wikipedia on **P66 **written about 200 AD
In common with both the other surviving early papyri of John’s Gospel; P45 (apparently), P75, and most New Testament uncials, Papyrus 66 does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53-8:11)2]; demonstrating the absence of this passage in all the surviving early witnesses of the Gospel of John. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P66
but here is more of the story:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
also, Clementine (and Nova) Vulgate has the pericope.
In common with both the other surviving early papyri of John’s Gospel; P45 (apparently), P75, and most New Testament uncials, Papyrus 66 does not include the pericope of the adulteress (7:53-8:11)2]; demonstrating the absence of this passage in all the surviving early witnesses of the Gospel of John. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P66
but here is more of the story:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery
also, Clementine (and Nova) Vulgate has the pericope.
P
patrick457
Guest
Ah, the whole textual issue of the Pericope Adulterae. For more complete information, see here.
- Status