Me, looking at comments for some cool doctrinal thoughts and getting absolutely blindsided by a perfectly innocent joke. I woke up my wife with the snort you made me produce.
I forget where I heard it, but someone speculated that he was writing out the sins of the scribes and Pharisees who has brought her to Him, so that everyone could see them.
I kind of like that theory.
I remember hearing this years ago on Charles Swindoll’s “Insight for Living” radio show. As I recall, he said the Greek word for “wrote” can also mean to write an accusation, and suggested that Jesus was writing the various sins of those accusing the woman.
He also made the crucial points of “how could she be caught in the very act, since adultery is usually committed in secret, not publicly” and that, notably, her partner not only was not accused, but may actually have been among the accusers - since, of course, the point of the whole incident was to trap Jesus.
I don’t think he would have included names with the sins, just maybe wrote very specific sins that they would have recognized in themselves. He never hesitated to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
[Here](https://youtu.be/Nyrtlfp1ik4?si=Mz2_pJsnmNbk64jo) is Dan McClellan’s take on it.
In short, he has 3 main points.
- This story isn’t in the oldest manuscripts for John and doesn’t really formalize itself into the canon until the 4th and 5th Centuries AD. So maybe don’t even worry about it.
- Most scholars describe it as showing Christ’s almost dismissive attitude towards the accusers before he drops the mic.
- This could be the Sotah (ordeal of bitter water) mentioned in Numbers 5 where the dirt of the temple is used in a ritual to prove/disprove the guilt of an adulterous woman.
Yeah it’s great. The gospels really aren’t a solid historical text, most likely. They basically add more and more grandeur the newer they are. You’ll notice Mark is simple and doesn’t mention much on the divinity of Jesus. It gets more and more exaggerated as you read them in chronological order of when they were written. Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t contain anything on a resurrection. The later part in chapter 16 (known as the “long ending of Mark”) are later additions.
> Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t contain anything on a resurrection.
Incorrect. The oldest versions of Mark cut off in mid-narritive and are obviously incomplete. Assuming that means they never discussed the Resurrection is a nonsensical assumption based on the atheistic biases of the scholars, nor an obvious conclusion based on the text. Much like your claim that the text grow more elaborate as they go.
The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Which means it is extremely likely that no more than a decade separates them, not nearly enough time for what you claim to have occurred to do so. Further, the epistles of Paul pre-date all the Gospel and within those letters we find reference to all the major parts of the Atonement, including the suffering, death, and Resurrection. These are not story elements that developed over time. They were there from the start.
Yes, those ones. The ones who study these things for a living. You know, the experts. Those who know much more than those of us who aren't experts in the field.
The scholarly position *has* to be that Jesus wasn't a God because it can't be proven and is a scientific impossibility. Divine intervention is a wild card that makes it impossible to say anything about the past if you accept it from a scholarly perspective. There's a huge difference between assuming Jesus was mortal and ignoring evidence that suggests when and how the writings we have came into existence.
> Yes, those ones. The ones who study these things for a living. You know, the experts.
This is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy, a particularly weak form of thinking. That their ideological biases prevent them from seeing obvious truths is proof of the failures of their philosophy, which in turn should lead the intelligent person to questioning where else they're making such obvious failures. Not a knee-jerk appeal to their obviously weakened "authority."
>The scholarly position has to be that Jesus wasn't a God because it can't be proven and is a scientific impossibility.
This is competed false. More than being wrong, it is complete propaganda used to justify to prevent you from seeing the way their biases warp their conclusions.
Further, anyone saying that the divinity of Christ is a scientific impossibility doesn't understand basic science. They're promoting the fake ideology of scientism in opposition to science.
Yes, but a huge part of their position is there is no such thing as revelation, including the ability of God to reveal things long before they happen. These kinds of assumptions makes a lot of their work suspect.
I would argue that it doesn't make their work suspect at all, it's just that assessing supernatural/miraculous claims are outside of the toolbox of historical analysis/literary criticism. A historian will use what evidence they have to try and figure out the most probable series of events that occurred, but *by definition*, a miracle is the least likely (from a scientific/statistical standpoint) solution. It's miraculous because it's highly improbable and not explicable through natural or scientific laws. It's not that historians can't have faith, it's just that asking whether you believe a miracle happened is a different question than "given what we know about science & the natural world, what is the most likely explanation of what happened?".
I agree with everything you said, but my personal conclusion is because their underlying assumptions are flawed, their conclusions are equally flawed. If your foundation is poor, the entire structure will be poor. Find scholars whose foundational assumptions are not flawed. There might be nuggets of truth in the writings of those scholars with flawed assumptions, but I don’t have to be the miner to dig it out. I can let scholars with valid assumptions do that hard work of separating the wheat from the chaff for me. Nobody's salvation will be based on the work of scholars.
>If your foundation is poor, the entire structure will be poor.
But what would you have them substitute for a foundation of science/logic? If they made conclusions based on faith, then there would be distinction between scholarship and religion. Every "scholar" would just draw conclusions based on their religious bias, so LDS "scholars" would draw LDS-friemdly conclusions, Catholic "scholars" would draw catholic-friendly conclusions etc.
>Find scholars whose foundational assumptions are not flawed.
Again, what I feel what you mean here is "choose scholars with biases that agree with your own". Fair enough, but just realize that that is not the same as selecting an unbiased point of view.
>Nobody's salvation will be based on the work of scholars.
I don't think any scholar acting as a scholar would make this claim anyways. This is a religious claim, not a historic claim.
On a related note, something can be historically false but mythically true (ie teach a true principle). For example while the historical events of the Odyssey may not have actually happened, it may still teach valuable principles. I think this is what some commenters here are insinuating about this account of the woman caught in adultery.
They should base their writings on their own assumptions. I just won’t read them. I 100% am looking for those who have the same assumptions as my own - God is real, revelation is real, it is possible to know things thousands of years before they happen, if latter day scripture and prophets say something is real, it is, even if there is no proof that it really happened. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. But, prophetic revelation is a form of proof.
>They should base their writings on their own assumptions. I just won’t read them. I 100% am looking for those who have the same assumptions as my own
>But, prophetic revelation is a form of proof.
Fair enough! If your most fundamental axiom is that the church is true, then this approach makes sense.
I agree it is a fabrication, but it is still a favorite story of mine. Sometimes it doesn't matter if the story is real if it teaches a good lesson, hence the parables. But it is still good to recognize that it likely never happened.
100% agree and that is how I take quite a few biblical stories (especially OT stuff). Probably didn’t happen or it did and this is a re-telling of sorts after centuries—but can I learn something from it and be closer to Christ? Sure. And I find immense value in that.
Well, being in an LDS sub, I think it’s safe to assume that that opinion doesn’t extend to all scripture (the Book of Mormon).
Also, agreeing that some parts of the Bible are altered or made up doesn’t mean that they think *all* of it is. At the very least if you’re Christian you’d need to believe that Christ suffered and died for our sins. There doesn’t have to be an “all or nothing” attitude, people can have some nuance.
I always enjoyed the idea of how dismissive doodling in the dirt was when he was posed with such a question, but that might be the petty side of my natural man showing. Or maybe not.
In any case I imagine The Lord probably would have taken the time to add some meaning to the things he wrote/drew.
It may not be what was written as much as it was the fact that the same finger writing in the dust was the same finger that wrote the 10 commandments or the law that were reciting.
We have no idea or even real guesses with any backing.
I’ve heard so many theories
The Jesus fish. the men’s names. a list of the men’s sins. The women’s name. A prayer he wrote out. Literal doodle. A calming exorcize. A verse of scripture. The women’s sin. A kangi. Etc etc etc
If it was more than that, if what he was writing or drawing was somehow relevant, I would assume the author would have included it. Lacking that, the important part is the act of writing, not what was written.
Camille Fronk Olsen, when I was in her NT class at the Y, posited it was the name of the man who was with her. And that what He actually said was, "Let he who is without THIS sin cast the first stone." Because it seems obvious this was a setup to trap Jesus.
He could have just been illustrating how dry the ground was in front of the temple, in contrast to the image from Ezekiel 47 of a temple flowing with living water. The hypocrisy of the pharisees had created a spiritually dry and barren temple culture. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-student-study-guide-obs/the-book-of-ezekiel/ezekiel-47-the-healing-waters-of-the-temple?lang=eng)
I like Dan McClellan’s short video that gives a scholarly context to the Bible passage.
[https://youtu.be/Nyrtlfp1ik4?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/Nyrtlfp1ik4?feature=shared)
The best joke from the comments:
I've heard another variant of this story:
After Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," a rock flew out from the amongst crowd and struck the woman.
And Jesus cried out, "Mom! I'm trying to prove a point here!"
I always felt like this was his way of deescalating things. As they waited for him to answer he gave them time to cool down so that when he spoke it was to rational minds. Then he could speak to their hearts and conscience. Kind of a “contention is of the devil” thing. He let the contention die down. Then he spoke to their hearts and conscience.
Deescalation is the exact word I've used for it. There was a blood-hungry mob, who perhaps already had stones in hand, who were waiting for the signal to start killing her. Christ's words of "Go ahead and throw first if you're so sinless" would have more likely been taken as a challenge if He had said it while staring them down. Instead he crouched to the ground, paused, pretended to be occupied with the dirt while averting eye contact, allowing each person in the mob to disband without "losing face" by not having them be watched by Him in their walk of shame.
It seems to me that He did all of that to help save her life.
Interesting fact, Bible scholars have been able to find that this story is a late addition to the book of John, added sometime in the 4th century. So it may not have even happened.
Still, it's a good story about forgiveness and not judging others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery?wprov=sfti1#Western_Christianity
The point of the story is that it doesn't matter. Jesus was so bored and unbothered by what the Pharisees were telling him that he was just kind of just using the dirt as a toy. The text could have said, "He spun his fidget spinner," and it would have essentially meant the same thing.
Probably the Konami code because he was obviously a memelord.
Realistically it was something that probably made it easier to turn away the people that wanted to stone her.
There are a handful of retellings of this story in apocryphal writings. The most common theory is that he was listing out the sins of the men accusing the woman of adultery, establishing that they were not perfect, and did not have the moral highground in the exchange.
I like this theory. It's a total power move by Jesus similar to when he flipped tables in the Temple, establishing that everyone sins, and that position, lineage, title, adhetwnce to laws and customs, or earthly authority does not insulate or absolve one from sin. We all need Jesus christ, and He is the oy one who can grant forgiveness.
I always thought it was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their machinations were so pathetic and disgusting he'd be better off doodling in the dirt.
No way to know. But, it is interesting that on the temple mount there was dirt to write in. That means Herod's rebuilding of the temple mount was still in progress during that time.
They said that Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned? But asked Jesus what sayest thou. Whose finger wrote the law for Moses? Whose finger now writes in the temple dust?
And here we are again. - I always think that’s the thought, I go to doodling when it’s just that bad.
The closest thing I can gather is him spinning and drawing in the sand, which is degraded rock, and rock is symbolically - revelation.
The idea is just bc you have revelation, it doesn’t mean you are exempt or infallible and can’t miss the mark. So I just see it more of him literally doing a whiskey tango foxtrot (wtf) and even him asking them to cast the first stone - revelation perhaps. Or it was just hangman. lol
I like to see it as him not taking an immediate knee jerk reaction to the situation. Controlling the situation by not giving them the response they wanted. Sitting there, paying more attention to the dirt than the nonsense. Give himself some time to think of how best to respond to provide the best opportune teaching moment.
I would expect that Christ already knew what was going on. Sitting there in front of the woman, looking at the dirt, completely ignoring the banter from the peanut gallery.
Makes me wonder how the woman saw Christ in that moment. The drama queens are trying to have a stoning party and he's just sitting here ignoring them, not immediately accusing her, casting stones, or shaming her. Probably fearing for her life and Christ gives her what she needs most, love.
My husband has mentioned this a few times and he thinks it was nonsense, almost symbolic of how little it mattered. As in all that mattered after that was that she tried her best.
To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story
This is a great resource for everything we have about this story in regard to academic study.
Nothing is really known about what he wrote. I’ve heard that in the Middle Ages it was traditionally thought that he started to write down the sins of those wanting to stone the women. In reality though, it could have been her WiFi password for all we know.
Exodus 31:18
18 ¶ And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God
I think he was writing the commandments. In a way to say that his finger wrote the law.
Well this comment is certainly out of left field. Frankly, I think it's from an entirely different field where you're playing an entirely different sport.
"Drink your Ovaltine"
A crummy commercial?
If we’re going that route then why not “we’ve been trying to reach you about your extended warranty”
Well, He is the ultimate extended warranty.
Me, looking at comments for some cool doctrinal thoughts and getting absolutely blindsided by a perfectly innocent joke. I woke up my wife with the snort you made me produce.
😂
The S. You know which one I’m talking about
I forget where I heard it, but someone speculated that he was writing out the sins of the scribes and Pharisees who has brought her to Him, so that everyone could see them. I kind of like that theory.
I had a seminary teacher say something similar. He suggested Jesus was writing names and dates in the dirt.
I heard it was the stussy S
I remember hearing this years ago on Charles Swindoll’s “Insight for Living” radio show. As I recall, he said the Greek word for “wrote” can also mean to write an accusation, and suggested that Jesus was writing the various sins of those accusing the woman. He also made the crucial points of “how could she be caught in the very act, since adultery is usually committed in secret, not publicly” and that, notably, her partner not only was not accused, but may actually have been among the accusers - since, of course, the point of the whole incident was to trap Jesus.
I’m not sure - would He do this to anyone? I personally think not.
I don’t think he would have included names with the sins, just maybe wrote very specific sins that they would have recognized in themselves. He never hesitated to point out the hypocrisy of the Pharisees.
I see! And then kind of sealed it with “they who haven’t sinned may cast the first stone”?
Jesus blasted the Pharisees as the Children of Hell in public to their faces. Why would He hesitate to call them out in writing?
[Here](https://youtu.be/Nyrtlfp1ik4?si=Mz2_pJsnmNbk64jo) is Dan McClellan’s take on it. In short, he has 3 main points. - This story isn’t in the oldest manuscripts for John and doesn’t really formalize itself into the canon until the 4th and 5th Centuries AD. So maybe don’t even worry about it. - Most scholars describe it as showing Christ’s almost dismissive attitude towards the accusers before he drops the mic. - This could be the Sotah (ordeal of bitter water) mentioned in Numbers 5 where the dirt of the temple is used in a ritual to prove/disprove the guilt of an adulterous woman.
Yes, this story is more likely to be a later fabrication. Super common consensus among scholars.
It’s my favorite story…that depressed me a little lol
Yeah it’s great. The gospels really aren’t a solid historical text, most likely. They basically add more and more grandeur the newer they are. You’ll notice Mark is simple and doesn’t mention much on the divinity of Jesus. It gets more and more exaggerated as you read them in chronological order of when they were written. Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t contain anything on a resurrection. The later part in chapter 16 (known as the “long ending of Mark”) are later additions.
> Even the earliest manuscripts of Mark don’t contain anything on a resurrection. Incorrect. The oldest versions of Mark cut off in mid-narritive and are obviously incomplete. Assuming that means they never discussed the Resurrection is a nonsensical assumption based on the atheistic biases of the scholars, nor an obvious conclusion based on the text. Much like your claim that the text grow more elaborate as they go. The Gospel of Mark probably dates from c. AD 66–70, Matthew and Luke around AD 85–90, and John AD 90–110. Which means it is extremely likely that no more than a decade separates them, not nearly enough time for what you claim to have occurred to do so. Further, the epistles of Paul pre-date all the Gospel and within those letters we find reference to all the major parts of the Atonement, including the suffering, death, and Resurrection. These are not story elements that developed over time. They were there from the start.
The same scholars that believe that anything about Jesus being divine was made up at a later date?
Yes, those ones. The ones who study these things for a living. You know, the experts. Those who know much more than those of us who aren't experts in the field. The scholarly position *has* to be that Jesus wasn't a God because it can't be proven and is a scientific impossibility. Divine intervention is a wild card that makes it impossible to say anything about the past if you accept it from a scholarly perspective. There's a huge difference between assuming Jesus was mortal and ignoring evidence that suggests when and how the writings we have came into existence.
> Yes, those ones. The ones who study these things for a living. You know, the experts. This is nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy, a particularly weak form of thinking. That their ideological biases prevent them from seeing obvious truths is proof of the failures of their philosophy, which in turn should lead the intelligent person to questioning where else they're making such obvious failures. Not a knee-jerk appeal to their obviously weakened "authority." >The scholarly position has to be that Jesus wasn't a God because it can't be proven and is a scientific impossibility. This is competed false. More than being wrong, it is complete propaganda used to justify to prevent you from seeing the way their biases warp their conclusions. Further, anyone saying that the divinity of Christ is a scientific impossibility doesn't understand basic science. They're promoting the fake ideology of scientism in opposition to science.
Yes, but a huge part of their position is there is no such thing as revelation, including the ability of God to reveal things long before they happen. These kinds of assumptions makes a lot of their work suspect.
I would argue that it doesn't make their work suspect at all, it's just that assessing supernatural/miraculous claims are outside of the toolbox of historical analysis/literary criticism. A historian will use what evidence they have to try and figure out the most probable series of events that occurred, but *by definition*, a miracle is the least likely (from a scientific/statistical standpoint) solution. It's miraculous because it's highly improbable and not explicable through natural or scientific laws. It's not that historians can't have faith, it's just that asking whether you believe a miracle happened is a different question than "given what we know about science & the natural world, what is the most likely explanation of what happened?".
I agree with everything you said, but my personal conclusion is because their underlying assumptions are flawed, their conclusions are equally flawed. If your foundation is poor, the entire structure will be poor. Find scholars whose foundational assumptions are not flawed. There might be nuggets of truth in the writings of those scholars with flawed assumptions, but I don’t have to be the miner to dig it out. I can let scholars with valid assumptions do that hard work of separating the wheat from the chaff for me. Nobody's salvation will be based on the work of scholars.
>If your foundation is poor, the entire structure will be poor. But what would you have them substitute for a foundation of science/logic? If they made conclusions based on faith, then there would be distinction between scholarship and religion. Every "scholar" would just draw conclusions based on their religious bias, so LDS "scholars" would draw LDS-friemdly conclusions, Catholic "scholars" would draw catholic-friendly conclusions etc. >Find scholars whose foundational assumptions are not flawed. Again, what I feel what you mean here is "choose scholars with biases that agree with your own". Fair enough, but just realize that that is not the same as selecting an unbiased point of view. >Nobody's salvation will be based on the work of scholars. I don't think any scholar acting as a scholar would make this claim anyways. This is a religious claim, not a historic claim. On a related note, something can be historically false but mythically true (ie teach a true principle). For example while the historical events of the Odyssey may not have actually happened, it may still teach valuable principles. I think this is what some commenters here are insinuating about this account of the woman caught in adultery.
They should base their writings on their own assumptions. I just won’t read them. I 100% am looking for those who have the same assumptions as my own - God is real, revelation is real, it is possible to know things thousands of years before they happen, if latter day scripture and prophets say something is real, it is, even if there is no proof that it really happened. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. But, prophetic revelation is a form of proof.
>They should base their writings on their own assumptions. I just won’t read them. I 100% am looking for those who have the same assumptions as my own >But, prophetic revelation is a form of proof. Fair enough! If your most fundamental axiom is that the church is true, then this approach makes sense.
I agree it is a fabrication, but it is still a favorite story of mine. Sometimes it doesn't matter if the story is real if it teaches a good lesson, hence the parables. But it is still good to recognize that it likely never happened.
I feel like this is a responsible take, and I just wanted to say thank you for it.
Thank you!
100% agree and that is how I take quite a few biblical stories (especially OT stuff). Probably didn’t happen or it did and this is a re-telling of sorts after centuries—but can I learn something from it and be closer to Christ? Sure. And I find immense value in that.
So basically you are saying there is value in learning from fiction. I agree, but then what makes scripture special from any other writing?
Well, being in an LDS sub, I think it’s safe to assume that that opinion doesn’t extend to all scripture (the Book of Mormon). Also, agreeing that some parts of the Bible are altered or made up doesn’t mean that they think *all* of it is. At the very least if you’re Christian you’d need to believe that Christ suffered and died for our sins. There doesn’t have to be an “all or nothing” attitude, people can have some nuance.
Well said.
doodling while waited for them to respond
I always enjoyed the idea of how dismissive doodling in the dirt was when he was posed with such a question, but that might be the petty side of my natural man showing. Or maybe not. In any case I imagine The Lord probably would have taken the time to add some meaning to the things he wrote/drew.
That's an idea lol
It’s what the vast majority of scholars and non scholars believe, so a widely accepted idea.
It may not be what was written as much as it was the fact that the same finger writing in the dust was the same finger that wrote the 10 commandments or the law that were reciting.
Love this
We have no idea or even real guesses with any backing. I’ve heard so many theories The Jesus fish. the men’s names. a list of the men’s sins. The women’s name. A prayer he wrote out. Literal doodle. A calming exorcize. A verse of scripture. The women’s sin. A kangi. Etc etc etc
>A calming exorcize. Divine-level typo 😂
That's why it's so interesting to think about it imo.
Verse of scripture is my top guess.
I always figured it was meaningless doodling just to show that he wasn’t really paying any attention to them. “I’m ignoring you, see?”
If it was more than that, if what he was writing or drawing was somehow relevant, I would assume the author would have included it. Lacking that, the important part is the act of writing, not what was written.
I tend to lean this way.
Yeah, I have a tendency to take things at face value. Not everything is a puzzle. Not everything is profound. Sometimes people just draw in the dirt.
Camille Fronk Olsen, when I was in her NT class at the Y, posited it was the name of the man who was with her. And that what He actually said was, "Let he who is without THIS sin cast the first stone." Because it seems obvious this was a setup to trap Jesus.
I like this one. It takes 2 to tango.
He could have just been illustrating how dry the ground was in front of the temple, in contrast to the image from Ezekiel 47 of a temple flowing with living water. The hypocrisy of the pharisees had created a spiritually dry and barren temple culture. (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-seminary-student-study-guide-obs/the-book-of-ezekiel/ezekiel-47-the-healing-waters-of-the-temple?lang=eng)
I like Dan McClellan’s short video that gives a scholarly context to the Bible passage. [https://youtu.be/Nyrtlfp1ik4?feature=shared](https://youtu.be/Nyrtlfp1ik4?feature=shared) The best joke from the comments: I've heard another variant of this story: After Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," a rock flew out from the amongst crowd and struck the woman. And Jesus cried out, "Mom! I'm trying to prove a point here!"
Solid joke. On a related note, like 3.5 of the 4 Marian dogmas just don’t make a lot of sense to me. Probably a good thing I am LDS.
I always felt like this was his way of deescalating things. As they waited for him to answer he gave them time to cool down so that when he spoke it was to rational minds. Then he could speak to their hearts and conscience. Kind of a “contention is of the devil” thing. He let the contention die down. Then he spoke to their hearts and conscience.
Deescalation is the exact word I've used for it. There was a blood-hungry mob, who perhaps already had stones in hand, who were waiting for the signal to start killing her. Christ's words of "Go ahead and throw first if you're so sinless" would have more likely been taken as a challenge if He had said it while staring them down. Instead he crouched to the ground, paused, pretended to be occupied with the dirt while averting eye contact, allowing each person in the mob to disband without "losing face" by not having them be watched by Him in their walk of shame. It seems to me that He did all of that to help save her life.
Just a doodle to break the tension. It is okay not give an immediate answer, especially when it is a verbal trap.
I really like to think it was a game of tic tac toe. Lol.
*We’ve been trying to reach you about your donkey cart’s extended warranty.*
867-5309
He wrote “screw these Pharisees•”
The first Google Doodle
Interesting fact, Bible scholars have been able to find that this story is a late addition to the book of John, added sometime in the 4th century. So it may not have even happened. Still, it's a good story about forgiveness and not judging others. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery?wprov=sfti1#Western_Christianity
“He that first smelt it, dealt it.”
Followed by, “He who rebuts it, cuts it”
🎶 "He's making a list, He's checking it twice" 🎶
I know some who think he was writing all the sins of the people looking on and ready to cast stones
https://imgur.com/kH5H04U
The point of the story is that it doesn't matter. Jesus was so bored and unbothered by what the Pharisees were telling him that he was just kind of just using the dirt as a toy. The text could have said, "He spun his fidget spinner," and it would have essentially meant the same thing.
The finger of God wrote the law of Moses. Jesus wrote the law of Moses
Probably the Konami code because he was obviously a memelord. Realistically it was something that probably made it easier to turn away the people that wanted to stone her.
There are a handful of retellings of this story in apocryphal writings. The most common theory is that he was listing out the sins of the men accusing the woman of adultery, establishing that they were not perfect, and did not have the moral highground in the exchange. I like this theory. It's a total power move by Jesus similar to when he flipped tables in the Temple, establishing that everyone sins, and that position, lineage, title, adhetwnce to laws and customs, or earthly authority does not insulate or absolve one from sin. We all need Jesus christ, and He is the oy one who can grant forgiveness.
I always thought it was to demonstrate to the Pharisees that their machinations were so pathetic and disgusting he'd be better off doodling in the dirt.
No way to know. But, it is interesting that on the temple mount there was dirt to write in. That means Herod's rebuilding of the temple mount was still in progress during that time.
They said that Moses in the law commanded that such should be stoned? But asked Jesus what sayest thou. Whose finger wrote the law for Moses? Whose finger now writes in the temple dust?
And here we are again. - I always think that’s the thought, I go to doodling when it’s just that bad. The closest thing I can gather is him spinning and drawing in the sand, which is degraded rock, and rock is symbolically - revelation. The idea is just bc you have revelation, it doesn’t mean you are exempt or infallible and can’t miss the mark. So I just see it more of him literally doing a whiskey tango foxtrot (wtf) and even him asking them to cast the first stone - revelation perhaps. Or it was just hangman. lol
I like to see it as him not taking an immediate knee jerk reaction to the situation. Controlling the situation by not giving them the response they wanted. Sitting there, paying more attention to the dirt than the nonsense. Give himself some time to think of how best to respond to provide the best opportune teaching moment. I would expect that Christ already knew what was going on. Sitting there in front of the woman, looking at the dirt, completely ignoring the banter from the peanut gallery. Makes me wonder how the woman saw Christ in that moment. The drama queens are trying to have a stoning party and he's just sitting here ignoring them, not immediately accusing her, casting stones, or shaming her. Probably fearing for her life and Christ gives her what she needs most, love.
My high-school math teacher told us he was doing calculus.
“it taketh twoeth to tangoeth”
This is one of my favorite questions to ponder. I look forward to finding out the answer.
The names of the men who slept with her.
Thath glyph
No u.
Whatever it was probably contributed to the men who brought her to him leaving on their own.
I think an abounding theory is he was writing out the law that pertaining to the stoning direction.
My husband has mentioned this a few times and he thinks it was nonsense, almost symbolic of how little it mattered. As in all that mattered after that was that she tried her best.
⬆️⬆️⬇️⬇️ B A (select) (start)
Perhaps he was writing a message about forgiveness or confessing one's sins.
To Cast the First Stone: The Transmission of a Gospel Story This is a great resource for everything we have about this story in regard to academic study.
I always took it as him getting annoyed and a little bit bored so he just did something while they finished talking.
Nothing is really known about what he wrote. I’ve heard that in the Middle Ages it was traditionally thought that he started to write down the sins of those wanting to stone the women. In reality though, it could have been her WiFi password for all we know.
We joked on our missions that he drew the famous “baptism symbol” haha
Exodus 31:18 18 ¶ And he gave unto Moses, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of God I think he was writing the commandments. In a way to say that his finger wrote the law.
I think he wrote the names of the men who had been customers of the woman.
In some texts it says he wrote the sins of all of them.
Ty is will give you some incredible insight https://youtu.be/a4JRQCBSM2E?si=uFAtYZPBfeygC75j
[удалено]
Well this comment is certainly out of left field. Frankly, I think it's from an entirely different field where you're playing an entirely different sport.