Problems in the New Testament

“Why did Christ write on the ground in the episode with the woman taken in adultery?”

Because the pericope adulterea is forged and Christ was writing “this pericope is forged; don’t buy this feminist tripe.” Perhaps he was writing the footnote the NIV now has on this passage.

It’s not forged, just in the wrong place (it fits better in Luke, where it appears in some manuscripts)

But, point by point:

1. 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 agowriting in the sand 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)

4. The kind of marriage required for exaltation—eternal in duration and godlike in quality—does not contemplate divorce. In the temples of the Lord, couples are married for all eternity. But some marriages do not progress toward that ideal. Because “of the hardness of [our] hearts,” the Lord does not currently enforce the consequences of the celestial standard. He permits divorced persons to marry again without the stain of immorality specified in the higher law. Unless a divorced member has committed serious transgressions, he or she can become eligible for a temple recommend under the same worthiness standards that apply to other members.

-Dallin H. Oaks, “Divorce” – April 2007 Conference

3. The shepherd most likely did not leave the sheep unguarded. No one in Jesus’ audience would have thought the did.

“One hundred was an average size for a flock. Shepherds and other herders did leave their flocks to search for missing animals; often they left them with other shepherds or herders working with them in the same vicinity”

Zondervan,. Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible.

2. There’s nothing “wrong” with that, but as Pres. Oaks said:

“Jesus taught this principle in the home of Martha. While she was “cumbered about much serving” (Luke 10:40), her sister, Mary, “sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word” (v. 39). When Martha complained that her sister had left her to serve alone, Jesus commended Martha for what she was doing (v. 41) but taught her that “one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her” (v. 42). It was praiseworthy for Martha to be “careful and troubled about many things” (v. 41), but learning the gospel from the Master Teacher was more “needful.” The scriptures contain other teachings that some things are more blessed than others (see Acts 20:35; Alma 32:14–15).”

Dallin H. Oaks, “Good. Better. Best.” Oct. 2007 Conference

“Next was going to be Problems in the New Testament. Not really for discussion”

Hope triumphs over experience.

The Prodigal Son is one that I have pondered for a long time. I was happy to see the Prodigal reunited, presumably with a future inheritance of some kind, and I was happy to see the Elder Son promised his full inheritance. But it bothered me that on a literal logical that those were inconsistent. What is going on?

What it is, is that this parable was directed squarely at the Pharasee’s. We often think of Pharasee’s as awful hypocrites, and most truly were. But their actual goals were good – which was to push back on the apostate hellenization in their culture. Had we lived then, I expect many of us would have been Pharasees, albeit ones that listened to the Savior.

So, in this case we have some Pharasee’s that sincerely didn’t understand mercy, while they had legitimately kept the commandments. So in this parable he teaches them mercy, while also not discounting what they had done.

3. Then I suppose my problem is the context I have unconsciously imported from discussing this parable. Nearly everyone I have talked to about it in and out of the Church text it as heretical if I suggest that that the shepherd’s first duty is to guard the flock in front of him. They see this parable as squarely condemning that point of view

Also high quality comments from all, especially Ivan wolf. Thank you.

“The prodigal son – was it really fair that the faithful son never got a feast—seems odd?”
Just because a feast for the faithful son is not mentioned doesn’t mean he didn’t get one–perhaps a wedding, or a completion of some kind of training, or other achievement. There were probably many lesser family or holiday feasts all the time. But nothing to honor him on the scale that the prodigal received. I identify with that faithful son a lot, in two ways. First, I’ve never, ever been “inactive” and therefore nobody rejoices over me when I come to church and fulfill callings and serve and do all the things that active members do. There is usually lots of rejoicing when someone comes back into full activity. Second, I got little to no recognition for being a “stay-at-home” mom and raising children. Women in the church who pursue high powered or “important” careers get all kinds of kudos for their worldly achievements, but I’ve yet to see any woman honored for raising a family of 10 or more children without working outside the home. We just seem to be anonymous worker bees. I wouldn’t trade my life as wife, mother and homemaker for any other career, it’s just that sometimes I feel invisible, while the sisters who agonize or struggle over the decision and “give up” a great career for domestic drudgery get all the fame.
I’m hoping there is a different measure of value in the next life.

* Why did Christ write on the ground in the episode with the woman taken in adultery?

– Don’t know. Sure am curious, though.

* Martha, Martha (and the lilies in the field, and giving and given in marriage) – what’s wrong with being practical and going about daily life?

– Generally, nothing. But put God first. Do what he says. And when Jesus is visiting your house, drop everything to listen to him.

* Lost sheep—why was it OK to leave the other sheep unguarded? The prodigal son – was it really fair that the faithful son never got a feast—seems odd?

– Lost sheep? Don’t know. Faithful son? I think that there is something here about trusting in the the father’s good intentions towards the faithful, even while rejoicing over the repentant. Also about recognizing that everyone has to repent. Turning toward God, from wherever we are, is a good thing. Being satisfied in current righteousness is a good way to lose out on blessings.

* “Whoso putteth away a wife …?” How to reconcile Christ’s blanket condemnation of divorce (with a possible exception for adultery) with our much more permissive standards in the modern Church for divorce?

– I found Pres. Oaks’s talk (the whole thing, not just some very quotable fragments) to be really, really useful and wonderful. After I read the talk, and as I was thinking about it, something that felt like the Spirit jogged in my mined and asked: What does fornication mean? Could it mean being unfaithful to covenants, not just by satisfying sexual passions outside of the covenant, but in putting anything above the covenant? This remains a high bar, but allows, for example, for a marriage to be justly cancelled if one spouse has thoroughly abandoned the other. And repentance and forgiveness also must (must!) apply here as it does in other circumstances.

I have lost the source, but I read once of a tradition that said Christ wrote on the ground the sins of the woman’s accusers.

“Before Abraham was, I am.”

The footnote on this verse says, “The term I Am used here in the Greek is identical with the Septuagint usage in Ex. 3:14 which identifies Jehovah.” So Jesus is telling the Jews He is Jehovah, which is why they then tried to stone Him.

But then there’s the previous verse: “Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham?”

In the Netherlands, when somebody turns 50 there’s a tradition of putting an effigy of that person on a chair outside their home with a sign that says, “[birthday person] has seen Abraham.” (or “has seen Sarah” for women). Often the effigy is adorned with balloons, streamers, and other paraphernalia associated with birthday parties.

They also like to say that when someone turns 50 they “know where Abraham (or Sarah) has carried the mustard.” When I asked people what the mustard represented, they couldn’t say; just that it represented a kind of wisdom that older people have.

Leo,
According to one recording of the story, Christ said, “he that is without *this* sin…”.

The thing I see in the prodigal son is that his inheritance was gone and his brother’s inheritance was not going to be taken away from him to give to the prodigal. The father tells the faithful son, “All that I have is yours.”
If Moses’ laws holds in the story the inheritance will revert back to the prodigal sons’ kids when he dies. But he is going to be living the life of a servant and laborer (paycheck to paycheck), and dependent on the mercy of his father and brother.
Sometimes when we mess up real blessing are lost forever, or at least in this life. But repentance is still worthwhile because we will be welcomed back with open arms and joy.

I completely agree that ministering to the sheep you have in front of you is the best priority. But consider what Jesus said: better to find the one lost sheep than the ninety-nine _who need no repentance._ So who’s in that group? No one. Except those who THINK they need no repentance and whom he therefore can’t minister to…not until they realize they are lost!! So I don’t think the 99 sheep are those of us who are “good”. They’re the ones who Jesus wants to help but is waiting on their agency, waiting until they ask Him to save them. The “lost sheep” is anyone who knows he’s lost, knows he needs Jesus, and wants to be saved. That’s where Jesus spends his time and effort. That’s my interpretation, anyway!

Excellent gloss, Marylin