i'm really just wondering what the evidence for/against is. i know that most English translations either bracket it or at least put a footnote saying that it's not found in some manuscripts, and if i remember right, i think i've read that the prose doesn't exactly match John's writing style ((??))
what i find puzzling about the account is mainly a question of on what grounds Christ commuted the sentence the Law required. there seems to have been no question about whether there were sufficient witnesses, but the text says they brought her to Him intending to 'trap' Him. what was the 'trap' ? what were they expecting Him to do, directly abrogate the Law by forgiving her? they'd seen Him openly prove that He had authority to forgive sin already ((the paralytic lowered through the roof, e.g.)); was this just to establish what He'd already said and shown with miracles, so they could have Him on record teaching against the commandment that she be stoned? because that was what they expected Him to do? with their 'traps' they thought ahead, ok, He will either answer this way or that, and either way we'll have Him -- what was the alternative they expected Him to do? what's the opposite of say 'no one should stone her' and how would that have been a justification to accuse Him of something? maybe i just haven't figured it out.
the other thing is that there's nothing in the account suggesting this woman had faith at all, nothing to indicate she was innocent ((if that's how some interpret it)) -- we have her saying "no one, lord" when He asks who is left to accuse her; that's kind of flimsy evidence to say she believed He is the Son of God - though it might actually be, it just doesn't seem to match other accounts of people saying they believe. it looks theologically almost like universal salvation - a clearly guilty woman, with no clear indication of faith, belief or repentance, forgiven without pre-requisite. before the Cross.
it's kind of weird.
not saying i reject it -- just that it's not entirely clear to me what is going on here, what is implied by what happened.
accepting it, it would be one of the strongest indications that He has authority above the Law, to change or disregard it. i don't disagree with that premise: He is the Author and the "pen" belongs to Him. John's gospel is written with the singular purpose of proving that Jesus is the Divine Messiah: authority to abrogate the Law would certainly be in keeping with his theme.
so i'm just wondering just how strong the case is that it shouldn't be in John's book. how puzzled do i need to be, lol
what i find puzzling about the account is mainly a question of on what grounds Christ commuted the sentence the Law required. there seems to have been no question about whether there were sufficient witnesses, but the text says they brought her to Him intending to 'trap' Him. what was the 'trap' ? what were they expecting Him to do, directly abrogate the Law by forgiving her? they'd seen Him openly prove that He had authority to forgive sin already ((the paralytic lowered through the roof, e.g.)); was this just to establish what He'd already said and shown with miracles, so they could have Him on record teaching against the commandment that she be stoned? because that was what they expected Him to do? with their 'traps' they thought ahead, ok, He will either answer this way or that, and either way we'll have Him -- what was the alternative they expected Him to do? what's the opposite of say 'no one should stone her' and how would that have been a justification to accuse Him of something? maybe i just haven't figured it out.
the other thing is that there's nothing in the account suggesting this woman had faith at all, nothing to indicate she was innocent ((if that's how some interpret it)) -- we have her saying "no one, lord" when He asks who is left to accuse her; that's kind of flimsy evidence to say she believed He is the Son of God - though it might actually be, it just doesn't seem to match other accounts of people saying they believe. it looks theologically almost like universal salvation - a clearly guilty woman, with no clear indication of faith, belief or repentance, forgiven without pre-requisite. before the Cross.
it's kind of weird.
not saying i reject it -- just that it's not entirely clear to me what is going on here, what is implied by what happened.
accepting it, it would be one of the strongest indications that He has authority above the Law, to change or disregard it. i don't disagree with that premise: He is the Author and the "pen" belongs to Him. John's gospel is written with the singular purpose of proving that Jesus is the Divine Messiah: authority to abrogate the Law would certainly be in keeping with his theme.
so i'm just wondering just how strong the case is that it shouldn't be in John's book. how puzzled do i need to be, lol
-
1
- Show all
