What We Can Learn from the Story of the Woman Caught in Adultery
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 มี.ค. 2021
- Prof. Curtis Mitch, co-author of The Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, gives a powerful and thoughtful reflection on the readings for mass on March 22, 2021.
Dn 13:1-9, 15-17, 19-30, 33-62 or 13:41c-62
Ps 23:1-3a, 3b-4, 5, 6
Jn 8:1-11
Learn more about Curtis Mitch and the St. Paul Center by visiting bit.ly/2JXEf18
A well explained and thought provoking interpretation of the scripture text... self-righteousness, putting God to the test, mercy and a challenge to live a renewed life.
Thank you Professor.
The gentle mercy of God help us to respond to His mercy.
Todays reading reminds me of Psalms 37:7-8 concerning the trap the Pharisees lay for Jesus, and Psalm 40:2 concerning the woman caught in adultery (RSVCE), thanks Prof. Mitch
Thank you 🙏 very helpful
God bless ✨
What a good sermon professor Mitch...keep up my brother.
Thank you for the insightful explanation on the gospel reading for today.
Thank you very much Prof.Mitch for this awesome explanation 🙏🙏🙏
Thank you for this reflection it was so helpful
Thanks for the fruitful message
Thanks a lot Prof. ❤️
thank you, Professor, it's so important to remind ourselves to slow down our condemnation of our brothers!
The Roman Catholic Church
The Church is one
The Church is holy
The Church is apostolic
The Church is dynastic
The Church is Hierarchical
The Church is messy
The Church is Mystery
The Church is teacher
The Church is Mother
The Church is universal
The Church is sacramental
The Church is authoritative
The Church is visible
The Church is unchangeable
The Church is missionary
The Church is the Kingdom of God
The Church is TRUTH
The Church is the bride of Christ.
The Church is the mystical body of Christ
The Church is in the world not of the world.
so blessed thankyou
Thank you!
Thank you. Chockful of great points and challenges!
Thank you Sir. God bless
Thank you! ❤️
The Pharisees and scribes at least kept the Sabbath back then, which cannot be said about Hamas today.
I've always wondered why only the woman was "caught". What about the man who was with her??
same question. My guess is that is why Jesus said to them, "He without sin..." That's another way of saying, "why condemn the woman alone? Where is the man? You probably didn't present the man here because you guys won't have the guts to stone him." That's my take on why the man wasn't presented.
Men are faster runners:p
What type of sin is it to teach a FABLE (written in the 6th century A.D. by one of the Essene) as the Word of God?
I have always wondered, what happened to the partner of the adulteress. Why didn't they also "arrest" the man also? Why only the woman?
Can you visit our group of men association and talk Jesus...this is kenya.
Just wondering if it is me that's wrong. Why is everyone changing the order of the commandments?Though shall not comment adultery is the 7th commandment not the 6th.
Exodus 20:1} And the Lord spoke all these words:
{20:2} I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
{20:3} Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.
{20:4} Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.
{20:5} Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:
{20:6} And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.
{20:7} Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.
{20:8} Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.
{20:9} Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works.
{20:10} But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.
{20:11} For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.
{20:12} Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayst be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.
{20:13} Thou shalt not kill.
{20:14} Thou shalt not commit adultery.
{20:15} Thou shalt not steal.
{20:16} Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
{20:17} Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.
Protestants and Catholics divide up the commandments differently.
Catholics consider the ones pertaining directly to God to be three on the first tablet, and the ones in relation to others to be seven on the second tablet.
Catholics consider the prohibition against making images to worship to be part of the first commandment, and split the prohibition against coveting a neighbor's wife as separate from the rest of his goods.
Interesting
@@tony1685 so Tony ... now that you are a “real Christian” how do you square with John 6 ? My guess is ,you never knew the True Faith you were blessed to be born into ... and fell to the babble of the Protestant’s
@@tony1685 Dude ... I saw you are a Cultist now ... save it.
@@JJoseph Marriage belongs to God, and not to man, since the oath is made in his house and under his sight. The gift is also his, if we admit that the conception of a child has little to do with our own understanding. We plant the seed, but he is the one that makes it grow.
So, it only comes by reason that coveting the property of a man should be made distinct from those which threaten what belong to God, since it is also written: what God has bound together, let no man separate. If God is the one that binds, both in spirit and in flesh, by invisible and visible unions, how can we consider it the property of man?
The laws don't have numbers, and who made the paragraphs? But consider the first two, as you see them. If you fail to love the Lord above all things, and place something in your heart before Him, how is it any different from having broken the second? Protestants may believe that idols only exist in physical form, but that's not what the scriptures say: (Ezekiel 14:3) So, now. We have clear evidence that man can harbor idols within himself, and not necessarily require them to be external objects. When a man sets up an idol, be it wealth, fame, pleasure, or power, has it not become a stumbling block, an obstacle, in between himself and God?
This is why The Church combines the first two, since they are really indistinguishable from each other, and separates those of property which belong to men, from that which belongs to God, and it has been like this since St. Augustine.
but they stoned Stephen?
On the contrary, you completely missed the more weighty meaning of the passage in John 8. Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and that is what this passage is all about. The first thing Jesus answered the Pharisees with disarmed them, they dropped their rocks and left. Then Jesus referred back to the Law of Moses when He asked about her accusers. She said they all were gone.
You see, the Law of Moses given him by God was very precise about Capital Punishment (the death penalty). The Torah (law) REQUIRES that BEFORE you may execute the death penalty you must have at least two witnesses who agree on every point BEFORE you can execute someone for violating the law. But since Jesus had already disarmed her accusers and they had all left, the Death Penalty could NOT be invoked because the required two witnesses were no longer accusing her. Jesus asking the woman "where are those accusers of yours" is hearkening back to the Law, making it ILLEGAL for anyone to condemn her to death BECAUSE the Law requirements of that law were not satisfied now. So Jesus, by disarming the witnesses against also delivered her from Death. See how He fulfilled the Law of Moses, by the Letter and by the Holy Spirit too!
What is important even more so is that this is exactly HOW Jesus saves us too! He has paid the debt for sin of all the world, thereby satisfying the Law as a substitution for all of us, therefore Satan is JUDGED for murdering the ONLY Righteous man on earth. So Jesus while fulfilling the Law has disarmed all the accusations against US, making them legally harmless lies, because Jesus the Truth has set us free from that death penalty, swallowing it up in the sacrifice He made for us. Then He gives us Life! Eternal Life!
Furthermore; Jesus said He came not to abolish the Law, but fulfill it, and in this story He did fill full the Law by saving the accused from death by disarming her accusers; the Pharisee witnesses against her according to the Letter and Spirit of the Law. No witnesses? No capital punishment. That's the LAW.
Michael A
Are the gospels legends?
Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone else who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature like the Fourth Gospel. There is nothing, even in modern literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.
C.S. Lewis, "What Are We to Make of Jesus Christ?" (1950)
We can learn that this story did not appear in John until the 9th century. In other words, it shouldn't be in the Bible.