|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: I thirst.
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%204:5-42&version=ESV
What does one have to do to get a drink of water around here?
Jesus meets a Samarian woman. He asks her to give him a drink. They have an interesting conversation where he ends up telling her he can give her living water.
But note, once she realizes who Jesus may be she drops her water jug and hurries back to town. She does not give Jesus a drink (4:28)!
Yet, because of her testimony other people drink from this living water too.
There is only one other place in John, where Jesus says "I thirst." That is 19:8. He is on the cross. Instead of water, though, he is given sour wine there.
What else strikes you about the woman at the well story?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ann
Curious
# 94
|
Posted
As this is an upcoming reading, several places have written about it - this one gave me pause for thought.
--------------------
Ann
Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
One of the more interesting things about the story is that several yards away from Jacobs' well is a spring that opened up between the time Jacob dug the well and Jesus met the woman at the well. Moreover, it is mid day when the woman appears at the well. Usually the women would have come to the well or the spring in the morning. It seems the woman wants to avoid having to deal with others at the well.
However, this is where the ordinary certainly becomes extra ordinary.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Moreover, it is mid day when the woman appears at the well. Usually the women would have come to the well or the spring in the morning. It seems the woman wants to avoid having to deal with others at the well.
Considering that "the one you have now is not your husband," she may well have reason to avoid other women (or at least one other woman) at the well!
As for her never actually giving Jesus water, I wonder: she points out that he is a Jew and she a Samaritan; John comments that "Jews have no dealings with Samaritans"--Does it work the other way around as well? As a Samaritan, is it in her culture not to do things for Jews? In other words, it was shocking enough to her that Jesus asked her for water, but (as a Samaritan) she had no intention of ever giving him water.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Well, she certainly seemed to warm to him by the end of the conversation. I think it was simple absentmindedness. And who knows, perhaps she left the rope and jug there when she ran off to call the others, and Jesus managed to help himself?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Who's to say she wasn't giving him the water as the conversation was taking place? Maybe the author just figured we'd figure that out ourselves.
What grabs me abut the story-- celebrated rabbi has deep theological discussion with random female nobody, and takes her contributions seriously!
[ 22. March 2014, 03:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
What grabs me abut the story-- celebrated rabbi has deep theological discussion with random female nobody, and takes her contributions seriously!
With random unclean female nobody. The Jews considered Samaritan women to be perpetually unclean.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Yet, because of her testimony other people drink from this living water too.
There is only one other place in John, where Jesus says "I thirst." That is 19:8. He is on the cross. Instead of water, though, he is given sour wine there.
In that place He really does up giving living water. Just a few verses later when His side is pierced with a lance and out flow the water and the blood.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
One thing I was considering was that John does not have an explicit account of the transfiguration. However, the story of the Samaritan woman is very much like a transfiguration. It happens on a hill, or mountain. A conversation happens. The one that is transformed, though, is not Jesus; but the woman. Note how she began the story wanting to avoid the women folk of the town; but at the end of the story she is compelled to go into town and preach to the town folk.
I like the imagery of Jesus on the cross pouring out the living water (see above).
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
I think that rather than being like the Transfiguration it serves as a counterpoint. One episode happens at a high place (a mountain) and the other happens at a low place (a well). One has the motif of light and the other the motif of water. One occurs with His closest disciples and the other occurs with someone on the fringes or just outside of the People of Israel, etc.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Kelly Alves
One thing I have learned in my studies of Biblical texts is not to assume anything in the text that is not there. You can't argue from silence. There is no indication in the text that water was ever given to Jesus.
Rather living water was given to the woman. In fact, she overflows with so much living water she is compelled to share it with her townsfolk, the very folk she had been avoiding at the beginning of the story.
And it is amazing the townsfolk believed what she was saying. Something had changed in her, she is no longer subject of ridicule, but becomes a rather credible witness to the source of the living water.
Would that we all could be such witnesses.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
I've noticed that the episodes right before and after Jesus and the Samaritan Woman also deal with water. In chapter 3 the disciples of John the Baptist come to him asking about Jesus who has been baptizing in the Jordan. In chapter 5 Jesus heals the invalid by the pool of Bethesda. They sort function as bookends for scene at the well.
I think of the woman at the well as a figure of the Bride and Jesus as the Bridegroom. Indeed in chapter 3 John the Baptist has just referred to Jesus as the Bridegroom. I think it's significant that she's a Samaritan woman with several husbands. It's reminiscent of those among her ancestors in the Northern Kingdom of Israel who turned to other gods. The Bridegroom is ever faithful to his people. He has returned and is ready to receive them.
Yesterday the priest at Mass pointed out that this must have been a woman in constant search of love to have had so many husbands and here in Jesus is where she found true love and this love gave her courage.
[ 24. March 2014, 20:43: Message edited by: Pancho ]
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Interesting take. Thank you, Pancho.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
I think of the woman at the well as a figure of the Bride and Jesus as the Bridegroom. Indeed in chapter 3 John the Baptist has just referred to Jesus as the Bridegroom. I think it's significant that she's a Samaritan woman with several husbands. It's reminiscent of those among her ancestors in the Northern Kingdom of Israel who turned to other gods. The Bridegroom is ever faithful to his people. He has returned and is ready to receive them.
Also reminiscent of the prophet Hosea.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Also reminiscent of the prophet Hosea.
I was thinking of him too.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulBC
Shipmate
# 13712
|
Posted
What I see in the story of Jesus & the Samaritan women is God reaching out to a person who everyone else thinks is worthless. It tells me he cares for everyone
sex , faith or lack thereof not withstanding.
He doesn't ask her do you believe in me she comes to that point on her own, but with other interactions with the "unclean" Jesus
doesn't put preconditions on his healing them, the 10 lepers, blind Bartimeaus & so on.
So I think we as modern believers that we
all can look for God's action in our lives.
blessings ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
"He has told you O mortal,what is good;and what does the Lord require of youbut to do justice and to love kindness ,and to walk humbly with your God."Micah 6:8
Posts: 873 | From: Victoria B.C. Canada | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
I always just assumed that the woman gave him water as they were talking-it makes sense that when the disciples come back they urge him to eat-I am in no doubt that she gave him the water and was probably surprised that he drank it-hence the questions as to how a Jew would ask a Samaritan for water. Of course we can't be sure Gramps but neither does the text say that she DIDN"T give him any water.
I believe that the story of the Samaritan woman teaches that ANYONE can proclaim the gospel to anybody else, this nonsense of women being unfit to preach (yes still the case where I live) is dispelled by this story. I also like the fact that the woman's interaction with Jesus gives her living water and immediately seems to restore her to the other people in the village as well. It appears she is no longer an outcast or she chooses not to be-that's powerful.
The 5 husbands may not be that she was "particularly hungry for love" (interestingly nobody has taken your pastor to task yet for reading something into the text that isn't there). More likely it points out how very vulnerable and powerless this woman was-it sounds as though she had no male protectors-fathers or brothers to protect her and marry her off respectably. Given the perilous social and economic state of woman in that society, she was likely to be reliant on men -even men who treated her badly for food and shelter.
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I read the 5 husbands as being deities to whom that day of the weeks dedicated, much as in the theology of angels, the days are allocated among the 5 Archangels. The first day of course is dedicated to God as Creator, or the chief of your gods if you are neither Jewish or Samaritan; the last is the day of rest.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
If the five husbands are allegorical (why think they are?) then its much more likely that they are the five a scrolls of the Torah.
The Samaritans had the Torah but rejected the Prophets. So they once had those five spritual husbands. But now, from the Jewish point of view, they had drifted into apostasy, so have no true husband.
But its probably better to read the text for what it says and leave the allegory to mediaeval preachers.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Ken, Normally I would agree with your comments about allegory, but the precision of the 5 husbands gnaws at me. There is the obvious, up-front interpretation, of Jesus as the living water, but do other messages lie beneath?
And to pick up on your comments about the Samaritan acceptance of Torah but not the following Prophets, who could be the man, not her husband, with whom the woman now lives?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
I hope you aren't suggesting it is my pastor who said the woman was "looking for love (in all the wrong places)"--as the song goes. All he said is that we do not know why she had had five husbands. She could have been widowed five times for all we know. But we do know that the man she was currently living with was not her husband. That is why she was a scandal to the community.
As I said, do not read into a passage anything that is not there. Do not assume she gave Jesus a cup of water. The passage does not indicate that ever happened. Rather, it says she dropped her bucket and ran back to the village. I think that bucket was empty. Instead, it is Jesus who gives her living water. She becomes the new container brimming over with such enthusiasm. The village people recognize that she is a changed woman--and they believe her testimony.
Here in the United States, I can think of one woman who comes very close to such a woman. Her name is Nadia Bolz-Weber. She was very heavy into the drug scene then she came into contact with a Lutheran guy. She found something through him that turned her around. She is now the pastor of House for all sinners and Saints, a liturgical progressive community in Denver. She is a very deep thinker and speaks throughout the United States. She has tats over all of her body, most notably a tat on her right arm that says saint, and a tat on her left arm that says sinner.
Point is, God still takes such people and uses them to his glory.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
As I said, do not read into a passage anything that is not there. Do not assume she gave Jesus a cup of water. The passage does not indicate that ever happened. Rather, it says she dropped her bucket and ran back to the village. I think that bucket was empty. Instead, it is Jesus who gives her living water. She becomes the new container brimming over with such enthusiasm. The village people recognize that she is a changed woman--and they believe her testimony.
Gramps49
I see nothing in your exegesis that would be significantly changed if some of us decided that water was exchanged in the conversation. In any case, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell us what we can and can not take to be implied in a passage.
This is a discussion forum, and we all have different ways of looking at it. If you do not look at it that way-- fine, tell me how you do.
[ 26. March 2014, 23:28: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evangeline:
The 5 husbands may not be that she was "particularly hungry for love" (interestingly nobody has taken your pastor to task yet for reading something into the text that isn't there). More likely it points out how very vulnerable and powerless this woman was-it sounds as though she had no male protectors-fathers or brothers to protect her and marry her off respectably. Given the perilous social and economic state of woman in that society, she was likely to be reliant on men -even men who treated her badly for food and shelter.
I didn't say it was my pastor (would it be cheeky of me to point out that this is reading something into the text that isn't there? ). It was an assistant priest at a neighboring parish who said this and it's an observation that's true to human nature. Many of us have observed (or have been) people who've gone through many relationships in search for love. At the very least it's not reading into the text anymore than it is to say that she married 5 times and lives with another because she had no male protectors since the text doesn't say so.
There's no reason that a Bible passage can't have more than one reading.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If the five husbands are allegorical (why think they are?)
I'm not saying they didn't exist if that's what you mean. There's no reason for literal and spiritual readings to be mutually exclusive. There was a reason Jesus stopped by the well and there was a reason the evangelist shared that story. We see meaning in Jesus feeding the 5000 beyond people having bread and fish for lunch. There's no reason there can't be any meaning in a Samaritan woman with five husbands just like most people find meaning in the fact that it was a Samaritan who was the hero of one of Jesus' parables.
quote:
then its much more likely that they are the five a scrolls of the Torah.
The Samaritans had the Torah but rejected the Prophets. So they once had those five spritual husbands. But now, from the Jewish point of view, they had drifted into apostasy, so have no true husband.
Even with allegory I think it's best to start with something more straightforward. If the woman had remained married to all 5 of the husbands I might see it as a connection with the Torah but she presumably divorced them. Given the background of the Samaritans, and that Jesus and the woman immediately talk about true worship once her number of husbands are revealed and that St. John the Baptist had just referred to Jesus as the Bridegroom and both the Jews and the Samaritans shared the Torah so that it wasn't a point of contention then I think mine is the the better allegorical reading.
quote:
But its probably better to read the text for what it says and leave the allegory to mediaeval preachers.
The diferent senses of scripture are cited in the Catechism so they're still current in my church:
"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."..."
Personally I find the different senses are handy for finding meaning in Scripture. I think my allegorical reading above arose out of literal sense as it should.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Even with allegory I think it's best to start with something more straightforward. If the woman had remained married to all 5 of the husbands I might see it as a connection with the Torah but she presumably divorced them. Given the background of the Samaritans, and that Jesus and the woman immediately talk about true worship once her number of husbands are revealed and that St. John the Baptist had just referred to Jesus as the Bridegroom and both the Jews and the Samaritans shared the Torah so that it wasn't a point of contention then I think mine is the the better allegorical reading.
The Jews and Samaritans shared the Torah. If we stick with the allegory for a moment, we could say that for both Jews and Samaritans the Torah is the husband. I strongly suspect that the Jews would have claimed that although the Samaritans and Torah are "wed" the Samaritans have been unfaithful, and persist in that unfaithfulness by "living with" additional teaching to which they are not "wed" (eg: where they worship).
BTW, I think allegory is sometimes useful in making somethings clearer it almost always breaks down if you start to push it. I think it is profitable to consider the Samaritan woman as representing all Samaritans; that Samaritans are not "married to" (know) God, whereas Jews are "married to" (know) God; even for the Jews the marriage isn't working very well; Jesus as the Bridegroom offers a new way for Jews and Samaritsan (and Gentiles) to "marry" (know) God.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho
Many of us have observed (or have been) people who've gone through many relationships in search for love. At the very least it's not reading into the text anymore than it is to say that she married 5 times and lives with another because she had no male protectors since the text doesn't say so.
I'm not sure that anyone in that culture married because they were in search of love. That is a modern idea.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Even with allegory I think it's best to start with something more straightforward.
Of course. But the example I was replying to was making an allegory of tutelary deities of days of the week. Which seems a lot less straightforward, as well as not being in the text...
(And why 5? Why not 6 ot 7?)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm not sure that anyone in that culture married because they were in search of love. That is a modern idea.
There are fictional writings from the period with love stories in them. And some of them end up in marriage. So someone certainly had the idea, even if maybe most people thought it was impracticable.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
ken
I am fully aware that this is a discussion forum. If you insist on an argument from silence, it is your right, but I can say as an exegetical student (I cannot claim to be an expert) such arguments have major problems. Maybe not in this passage in your mind. But in my mind it adds a lot to consider who is actually in the state of thirst in the passage. While Jesus wanted a drink of H20, the woman was was in need of something only Jesus could offer. It is an example of something lesser giving way to something greater. Jesus used the request to lead to a discussion that satisfied the woman's deeper thirst. There is nothing in the passage that indicates Jesus ever got the H2O. I prefer leaving it that way.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
Even with allegory I think it's best to start with something more straightforward. If the woman had remained married to all 5 of the husbands I might see it as a connection with the Torah but she presumably divorced them.
Everything you're basing on the presumption that she divorced five men is false, because divorce was a male perogative. Moreover, Jesus does not call her to repent, which he does later in chapter 8 when he meets the woman caught in adultery.
Those five men variously divorced her or died.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is nothing in the passage that indicates Jesus ever got the H2O.
We are also never told in the Bible that Jesus peed.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Ruth--we are not discussing Jesus' loo habits.
We are told in this story that he asked for water.
We are not told in this story that he ever got the water.
This is a valid point of discussion in this story.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
You may not be discussing Jesus' loo habits, but I am.
If you're going to say that Jesus didn't get a drink of water from the woman at the well because the text doesn't say he did, you must also presume that he only ate when the text tells us that he did and never, ever urinated or defecated.
The method of reading that you're trying to employ works great for fictional texts. It doesn't work to make up more events and more conversation in trying to work out an interpretation for Moby Dick or The Dispossessed. But Jesus was a living, breathing human being, and he had a real encounter with another person. Many other things may have happened when he met the woman at the well. There might have been a lot more conversation. The text tells us what the people who handed down the story decided what was important about the episode, but it doesn't tell us everything that happened. It doesn't even tell us everything else that happened that day!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm not sure that anyone in that culture married because they were in search of love. That is a modern idea.
Moo
But she married five times and was now living with a man outside of marriage. I could see the first and maybe second marriages being arranged ones but I think after the first or second marriage other reasons came into play. Not modern ideas of romantic love but some ideas of love appropriate to that time and place could have been involved in order for a man in that day and age to marry a twice or thrice divorced woman.
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I'm not sure that anyone in that culture married because they were in search of love. That is a modern idea.
Moo
But she married five times and was now living with a man outside of marriage. I could see the first and maybe second marriages being arranged ones but I think after the first or second marriage other reasons came into play. Not modern ideas of romantic love but some ideas of love appropriate to that time and place could have been involved in order for a man in that day and age to marry a twice or thrice divorced woman.
On what basis do you think this? Something in the text? Knowledge of the culture and period? Why do you go with love instead of Levirate marriage as an explanation?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is nothing in the passage that indicates Jesus ever got the H2O.
And, nothing to say he didn't. Your assertion that the woman didn't give him the water he'd asked for is as much an argument from silence as saying that he did have a drink.
Though, given she came to the well in the middle of the day and would have wanted to get back to town and out if the sun, it would only seem reasonable that at least during the first part of the conversation she was pulling water from the well and filling her jar - and, giving some water to Jesus from that first bucketful would be the action of any normal human being.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hedgehog
Ship's Shortstop
# 14125
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is nothing in the passage that indicates Jesus ever got the H2O.
And, nothing to say he didn't. Your assertion that the woman didn't give him the water he'd asked for is as much an argument from silence as saying that he did have a drink.
At risk of being accused of beating an already dead horse, you are, of course, both right. We cannot say with certainty that Jesus got the drink of water. We cannot say with certainty that he did not get the drink. The text neither states that he did nor that he didn't.
At this point, dragging up a comment I have made before on these boards, we have to recognize that, when deciding what "really happened" in history (any point in history, not just Biblical history) we are dealing with a probability matrix. Lacking direct evidence, we have to consider what seems "most probable." By definition, that is not a certainty and should not be presented as such. But what most probably happened is also, by definition, what most likely happened. For the reasons articulate by Alan, I agree that, most probably, Jesus did get his drink of water.
On the other hand, we have better reason to think that he didn't have anything to eat, because we are told that his disciples tried to give him some food and he declined it. Actually, let me pull back a bit on that. We are NOT told he declined it. We are told that they urged him to eat and he said he had food they did not know about, and they wondered if anybody else gave him food. And then he went off on a metaphorical tangent on them. For all we know, after he finished that inspiring speech, he then said "Hand me that pastrami on rye!"
Well, probably not pastrami. Or rye.
--------------------
"We must regain the conviction that we need one another, that we have a shared responsibility for others and the world, and that being good and decent are worth it."--Pope Francis, Laudato Si'
Posts: 2740 | From: Delaware, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
There is nothing in the passage that indicates Jesus ever got the H2O.
And, nothing to say he didn't. Your assertion that the woman didn't give him the water he'd asked for is as much an argument from silence as saying that he did have a drink.
I can live with that. For whatever reason, the author did not deem it important to tie up that detail. That happens frequently in Scripture. We never found out what Jesus scribbled in the ground, either.
[ 28. March 2014, 00:33: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
ken
I am fully aware that this is a discussion forum. If you insist on an argument from silence, it is your right, but I can say as an exegetical student (I cannot claim to be an expert) such arguments have major problems. Maybe not in this passage in your mind. But in my mind it adds a lot to consider who is actually in the state of thirst in the passage. While Jesus wanted a drink of H20, the woman was was in need of something only Jesus could offer. It is an example of something lesser giving way to something greater. Jesus used the request to lead to a discussion that satisfied the woman's deeper thirst. There is nothing in the passage that indicates Jesus ever got the H2O. I prefer leaving it that way.
And btw, my name is Kelly.
And thank you for rightly pointing out that is my right to argue in any way that makes sense to me. Seems I am not alonein my reasoning, anyway.
(Abusing editing priveleges) and I still don't see how deciding Jesus got his corporeal drink effects your insight about her spiritual thirst at all . It still works fine.
[ 28. March 2014, 00:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
My apologies, Kelly. I thought it was Ken who was reminding me this was a discussion forum.
But, if you want to talk about what Jesus scribbled on the ground when confronted by a group of angry town folk regarding the adulterous woman, many scholars will say most likely he wrote the passage they had quoted to him when they asked him what his opinion was
Basically the passage says: The woman caught in adultery shall be stoned (which the men of the village quoted) and the man with her (which Jesus likely wrote).
This fits in with the story, especially when Jesus looks up and says "Let him who without sin cast the first stone." It says all of the sudden the men disappeared (because they likely all had slept with her), leaving Jesus and the woman.
Jesus was without sin and could technically have thrown that stone, but he does not condemn her and telling her to sin no more.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
many scholars will say ...
Which scholars? And, what do they base their views on. Of course, the particular answer to which scholars and what they say isn't relevant to discussing the Samaritan woman at the well
quote:
the men disappeared (because they likely all had slept with her)
And, is your assertion that the men of the town, presumably all of them as they all leave, had slept with the woman based on anything? It seems as well founded, ie: without foundation, as an assertion that the woman at the well was drawing water for her jar yet failed to give any to the man she was talking to who had specifically asked for water.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
But, if you want to talk about what Jesus scribbled on the ground when confronted by a group of angry town folk regarding the adulterous woman, many scholars will say most likely he wrote the passage they had quoted to him when they asked him what his opinion was
Basically the passage says: The woman caught in adultery shall be stoned (which the men of the village quoted) and the man with her (which Jesus likely wrote).
I've never heard that one. What I have heard scholars say is that this incident tends to lend credence to the idea that this is an actual event recounted from memory-- the witness never reported what was scribbled in the ground, because they never saw it themselves. Has the solid, ringing sound of truth to me.
And I apply the same idea to the woman's story-- the water transaction simply wasn't as important as the conversational transaction-- not by miles-- so the author let that bit go.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
If you never heard of that possibility, then I suggest you might want to dig a little deeper.
The verse the scribes and Pharisees were quoting from is:
Deuteronomy 22: 22ff
Moreover the Greek word for what Jesus was doing is
κατέγραφεν
which is translated "wrote" not scribbled.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that Jesus was writing the second part the of Deuteronomy passage in response to their Pharisee's challenge.
Now, maybe not all the men had slept with this woman; but, given how they all melted away, I would bet a number of them did.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Actually, since you are the one presenting the argument, you are unquestionably better placed to "dig deeper" and provide citations of those many scholars you keep referring to. I am sure I do not have to dig at all to presume that the opinion on your interpretation is not unanimous, and in any case I am not inclined to do anything anyone tells me to do in a less than respectful tone.
[ 30. March 2014, 04:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Working from a premise that what's been recorded was more significant for the writer than what wasn't recorded (seems reasonable) can be instructive. In the case of the woman caught in adultery the significant thing was that Jesus wrote something, what He wrote is not significant otherwise it would be recorded.
I think it was Mike Yaconelli who I heard describe the situation that this leads us to, and a story that is very much like the Jesus I see in the Gospels - so for me has a ring of truth to it.
This woman is dragged before Jesus having been caught in the act of adultery (which of course needs there to have been a man who is mysteriously absent from the story), one can assume that she may have been partially dressed. There are the Pharisees pushing her forward "Look at this woman. See what she has done. Look at her, judge her", the focus is on this poor woman, desperate to maintain her modesty, the centre of attention when all she wanted was to disappear. What does Jesus do? He starts writing in the dirt. The impact is immediate, the reaction of the people is natural - "what is he writing?" Attention shifts immediately from the woman to the dirt at Jesus' feet, people straining to look over the shoulders of the people in front of them to see what has been written. What a great way to get that woman out of the embarrassing centre of the attention of the crowd, give her time to straighten her clothing, maybe let some of the decent people there (presumably including the disciples, and probably some of the women who travelled with him) to get her a robe or other clothing.
I know Yaconneli wasn't a scholar in any traditional sense. But it's a telling of the story that makes sense and is true to the man Jesus was. And, IMO, is a much more productive approach to the story than speculation about what was written as though the only reason to write something was the words left in the dirt.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Not to further derail the thread, but my take was that Jesus was attempting to calm down before he gave an anger-based reaction.
Someone somewhere said "the Bible is the only book that reads you." Open-ended stories like this one lend themselves to allowing you to read yourself via Scripture. Which naturally means there will be variety in content.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
(Should add) Thus, some of us might need to reflect on what Jesus might have chosen to write at that moment, whereas some of us might simply need a graceful example of how to respond to confrontation.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
