8.2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 8.3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 8.4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 8.5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?" 8.6 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. 8.7 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." 8.8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 8.9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 8.10 Jesus looked up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 8.11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again."
I found it interesting to go back and read in the Injil (Gospels) after I had taken this class at the university about the Injil and the studies of the scholars attempting to find what may be historically attributable to Jesus' saying and life or not. Some scholars do not believe that there is enough evidence in the Gospels to attribute this passage to Jesus because it is only found in one Gospel (John) and that many scholars believe came later than the other Gospels, although they do not rule out that it could be that John had an additional source that may have been even older than the sources the other Gospels used to gather information about Jesus.
But in any case, whether it was or not, we might never truly know.
But my point is not whether it came from Jesus or not, but instead, my point is to show that this story may show us something true about the prophethood of Jesus and something that may show that this story is plausible within his historical context as well. It is also a positive message even if that is not the case after all.
Now that I have learned a little bit about how scholars analyze these biblical stories, I feel like I have an improved, more open-minded perspective on scriptural study, whatever book I may be studying.
Here we have this unnamed woman, there are many "unnamed individuals" in the Gospel by the way, and most are usually the "good guys" in a sense, which may have a symbolic message within itself, but once again I digress. Anyway, this woman had been caught red-handed essentially in the act of adultery. The elders were ready to give her the punishment and tested Jesus by asking him what he thinks they should do with this women who had been witnessed as adultering. They knew if he answered "kill her," he would have a problem. If he answered, "let her go," then he would also be saying something controversial. While one answer would be in accordance with the Torah laws, the other might be against Roman law as Rome was the colonial power at the time, and he could get into trouble with them. This is one example of something we would not have understood or picked up on had we not understood the historical context. But instead of answering their questions, he bent down and drew in the ground. And the passage shows that he spent time writing, more time than it would take just to write one word or make a doodle.
That is interesting in itself, but that only leads in to the point I want to make. The other day, I heard a message given by Mr. Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim teacher and scholar. He analyzed this same story from the Gospel of John. He made an interpretation and educated guess as to what Jesus may have been drawing in the sand that clicked than any other I had ever heard even from any Christian scholar or pastor or preacher or from anyone for that matter. It had a big impact on me to hear this interpretation. I had often asked myself, as many people might as they read this passage from John, what might Jesus have been writing in the ground? I have heard many interesting symbolic answers to this but none like that of Mr. Deedat.
He supported this interpretation by putting this story within the framework of the historical context of when and where this event could have happened. He reminded the listeners that in this time in Jewish tradition, it was completely normal and orthodox to have discussions and healthy debates over interpretation of Torah law. It was a healthy way for Jews to study religion in that time and even into today. Jesus practiced this and we find it many places in the Gospels, although many pastors explain this possibly erroneously as Jesus making outlandish arguments with the Jews or being at odds with Judaism.
If it is so that Jews often interacted this way within their community, then it might be expected that these Pharisees and scribes present, watching Jesus drawing in the sand ignoring their questions, would feel inquisitive about Jesus' actions and be compelled to ask him what he was writing. They might also find it strange that he was not engaging in their debate about the woman. It is not like Jesus would shy away from a testing question, there are many similar instances in the gospels where Jesus addresses similar types of questions.
Naturally, the eldest elder would be the one to approach Jesus first, just as it is stated in this passage. What Deedat proposed is that Jesus, being a prophet and knowing privileged information, may have been revealed about the sins of these elders, and their names. So it is plausible that he may have been writing each of their names and the sin they most recently commited, and since we are all imperfect, all of them had something to seek forgiveness for. As the first elder approached, he may have seen his own name staring him in the face in the dirt, with his sin written next to it. He may have been astonished and immediately convicted in his heart, and would naturally have taken off, hopefully to repent himself or to reflect on what he had witnessed. As the other elders saw this, possibly one by one approached Jesus, saw his respective name written and dropped his stone and walked away from judging that woman. What a powerful image.
What is even more astonishing is that this theory came from not a Christian or even a Jewish, but in fact from a Muslim scholar! The first time I hear such a powerful analysis of this passage and it was someone that was not even Christian. Needless to say this story always left me thinking. Many of the gospel stories are written in a way to make you think and reflect. There is a reason the writer of this story had Jesus doing something that was unexpected whether the story actually happened this way or not. This was done possibly for the very purpose of making this passage memorable or to elicit an active mental response and wake us up to reflecting on the message.
At any rate, I always say whenever reading scripture, it is important to reflect for oneself. We must use the brain God gave us to think as we read, to read actively in a sense and not passively as though you are reading a novel where each and every detail and message is explained for you and the conclusion is given clearly. This is not necessarily the case in scriptures. We must read and reflect. We must ask ourselves the hard questions we must question what we read and give it thought, not just read it through carelessly or superficially, or take what others have said and just accept it as fact, but at the same time learning what scholars have deduced is also helpful in expanding our perspectives and understanding.
But in any case, whether it was or not, we might never truly know.
But my point is not whether it came from Jesus or not, but instead, my point is to show that this story may show us something true about the prophethood of Jesus and something that may show that this story is plausible within his historical context as well. It is also a positive message even if that is not the case after all.
Now that I have learned a little bit about how scholars analyze these biblical stories, I feel like I have an improved, more open-minded perspective on scriptural study, whatever book I may be studying.
Here we have this unnamed woman, there are many "unnamed individuals" in the Gospel by the way, and most are usually the "good guys" in a sense, which may have a symbolic message within itself, but once again I digress. Anyway, this woman had been caught red-handed essentially in the act of adultery. The elders were ready to give her the punishment and tested Jesus by asking him what he thinks they should do with this women who had been witnessed as adultering. They knew if he answered "kill her," he would have a problem. If he answered, "let her go," then he would also be saying something controversial. While one answer would be in accordance with the Torah laws, the other might be against Roman law as Rome was the colonial power at the time, and he could get into trouble with them. This is one example of something we would not have understood or picked up on had we not understood the historical context. But instead of answering their questions, he bent down and drew in the ground. And the passage shows that he spent time writing, more time than it would take just to write one word or make a doodle.
That is interesting in itself, but that only leads in to the point I want to make. The other day, I heard a message given by Mr. Ahmed Deedat, a Muslim teacher and scholar. He analyzed this same story from the Gospel of John. He made an interpretation and educated guess as to what Jesus may have been drawing in the sand that clicked than any other I had ever heard even from any Christian scholar or pastor or preacher or from anyone for that matter. It had a big impact on me to hear this interpretation. I had often asked myself, as many people might as they read this passage from John, what might Jesus have been writing in the ground? I have heard many interesting symbolic answers to this but none like that of Mr. Deedat.
He supported this interpretation by putting this story within the framework of the historical context of when and where this event could have happened. He reminded the listeners that in this time in Jewish tradition, it was completely normal and orthodox to have discussions and healthy debates over interpretation of Torah law. It was a healthy way for Jews to study religion in that time and even into today. Jesus practiced this and we find it many places in the Gospels, although many pastors explain this possibly erroneously as Jesus making outlandish arguments with the Jews or being at odds with Judaism.
If it is so that Jews often interacted this way within their community, then it might be expected that these Pharisees and scribes present, watching Jesus drawing in the sand ignoring their questions, would feel inquisitive about Jesus' actions and be compelled to ask him what he was writing. They might also find it strange that he was not engaging in their debate about the woman. It is not like Jesus would shy away from a testing question, there are many similar instances in the gospels where Jesus addresses similar types of questions.
Naturally, the eldest elder would be the one to approach Jesus first, just as it is stated in this passage. What Deedat proposed is that Jesus, being a prophet and knowing privileged information, may have been revealed about the sins of these elders, and their names. So it is plausible that he may have been writing each of their names and the sin they most recently commited, and since we are all imperfect, all of them had something to seek forgiveness for. As the first elder approached, he may have seen his own name staring him in the face in the dirt, with his sin written next to it. He may have been astonished and immediately convicted in his heart, and would naturally have taken off, hopefully to repent himself or to reflect on what he had witnessed. As the other elders saw this, possibly one by one approached Jesus, saw his respective name written and dropped his stone and walked away from judging that woman. What a powerful image.
What is even more astonishing is that this theory came from not a Christian or even a Jewish, but in fact from a Muslim scholar! The first time I hear such a powerful analysis of this passage and it was someone that was not even Christian. Needless to say this story always left me thinking. Many of the gospel stories are written in a way to make you think and reflect. There is a reason the writer of this story had Jesus doing something that was unexpected whether the story actually happened this way or not. This was done possibly for the very purpose of making this passage memorable or to elicit an active mental response and wake us up to reflecting on the message.
At any rate, I always say whenever reading scripture, it is important to reflect for oneself. We must use the brain God gave us to think as we read, to read actively in a sense and not passively as though you are reading a novel where each and every detail and message is explained for you and the conclusion is given clearly. This is not necessarily the case in scriptures. We must read and reflect. We must ask ourselves the hard questions we must question what we read and give it thought, not just read it through carelessly or superficially, or take what others have said and just accept it as fact, but at the same time learning what scholars have deduced is also helpful in expanding our perspectives and understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment