Sunday, April 6, 2008

Bible Study With the Bishops: Another Court Case

Reading Plan Text for April 7: John 7:53 - 8:11

It is pretty clear that this passage about the Woman Taken In Adultery is not original to John. As Burridge points out in the his commentary, it interrupts the flow of the story, and its language is different from the rest of John--more closely resembling Luke. Burridge concludes this introduction to the passage by saying
Perhaps God wants this one in the Bible somewhere, even if we are not sure where! Certainly, the story reflects John's account of Jesus being sent not to condemn the world but to save it; furthermore, it fits John's motif of Jesus being on trial and yet still in control. (p. 110)
While the scribes and the Pharisees are obviously using this woman's situation to try Jesus, they do so by trying to make him the judge in her case. Instead, as has happened before, it is they who stand trial in front of Jesus. Even then, they are put in the position of having to judge themselves.

I sometimes wonder why John makes so much use of trial imagery. Several sources say that the Johannine Community was one in conflict, having been expelled from the local synagogue. Could there have been legal wrangling resulting from the expulsion or separation? There is a temptation to relate apply this train of thought to the court cases going on in several places around the Anglican Communion. However, I don't believe one could make a legitimate connection. And even if you did, I think Jesus would probably say "A plague on both your houses, sell the building and donate the money to the poor."

More likely, John uses the trial settings to provide the Jesus portrayed in this Gospel with opportunities to make logical arguments. "Look at the evidence," John seems to be saying, "and believe. "

Peace,
Jeffri

1 comment:

  1. I am always astounded that the reference to Jesus writing on the ground is repeated twice. Once without knowing what was written would have been curious enough, but twice? I just find this reference very strange.

    ReplyDelete