Posted on 04/08/2014 9:59:32 AM PDT by Clintons-B-Gone
In today’s society, whenever someone dares to criticize ANY type of action or behavior, it isn’t uncommon for a person to say that “you shouldn’t cast stones.”
It has long been my experience that people generally don’t like being told that something they are doing is wrong.
It starts as children. But many of them eventually grow out of it and start to behave like moral and responsible adults.
(Excerpt) Read more at clashdaily.com ...
That’s actually a good point that I haven’t considered before. Thanks.
Yeah...You have to wonder what Jesus was “writing in the dust” as the accusers were gathered ‘round!
I mean when you look at what preceded it, before the two passed into eternity, the evil is so obvious. How heartless can one get, or needy can another get. He had scads of gold to spare, but it was like withholding it from that “lousy beggar” was the thing that gladdened the rich man’s heart. The brimstone already burned in his heart, and now in eternity it became visible.
Big puzzle, but whatever it was, they shied off when they saw it. More than one possible set of circumstances could apply; maybe what they were is deliberately unimportant. What is known is that no accusers were left for a guilty sinner who was pardoned and warned from future sin.
[verse 1]
The angry men stood there
With stones held in their hands,
The adulteress said a prayer
As soon before God she’d stand,
When Jesus walked right up
And scribbled on the ground,
Forgiveness was in His cup
And new life in Him she found!
[chorus]
Rude grace!
Rude grace!
Oh you slick and arrogant Pharisees,
Her guilt is gone without a trace!
Your refinement never counted on this
As your pride distorted your face,
Rude grace!
Rude grace!
[verse 2]
The sheepish men filed off
As they saw their deadly sin,
With not a sneeze or a cough
Dared they affront this holy Man.
“Does anyone now accuse?”
Jesus asked the trembling lass.
“Let Me tell you the good news.
Your sin is forever past!”
[chorus]
Rude grace!
Rude grace!
Oh you slick and arrogant Pharisees,
Her guilt is gone without a trace!
Your refinement never counted on this
As your pride distorted your face,
Rude grace!
Rude grace!
[verse 3]
Are we Pharisees today
Who want to snare folks with the law?
“Aha! Got you! What will you say?”
As we wield that lion’s paw?
Well remember a holy God
Will only forgive as we do, too;
If we’d escape His holy rod
Then we won’t harm what He makes new!
[chorus — note changed word]
Rude grace!
Rude grace!
Oh you slick and arrogant Pharisees,
Our guilt is gone without a trace!
Your refinement never counted on this
As your pride distorted your face,
Rude grace!
Rude grace!
Additionally, it is often forgotten that God is an entirely different order of being than is man. The terms that apply to man, such as "Love," "Hate" etc. do not necessarily mean the same when applied to the Lord. To get around this problem some theologians use the concept of analogy. Analogy is a weak form of "reason" if it is "reason" at all?
There are people out there that are not merely thoughtless, selfish, or even uncaring about other people. There are those who do actually rejoice in causing misfortune to other people.
I have unfortunately had an encounter with one such person, and once was enough.
Jesus, being the fulfillment of the law bodily, did adjudicate the law in this case...but not after the order of Aaron and the levites but after the order of Melchizidek. The priestly order of Aaron would break the bruised reeds and quench the faint embers as was its function but Melchizidek doesn’t ignore the law, but rather allows for restoration under grace for those who are repenting. Jesus was of the priestly order of Melchizidek and could judge with righteous judgment, and not ‘as a man sees’.
As God, Christ had the authority to cast the first stone, and as Revelation points out he will do so as the coming “Faithful and True”! Yet, for the prostitute, he was simply her Redeemer and Restorer!
Aren’t parables higher forms of analogy?....did not even Aesop communicate truth by the use of analogous fables? How should the 7 year old child understand the dangers of flattery unless he was told of the timeless tale of the Fox and the Crow?
The Love of God towards mankind is analogous to a man's Love for his neighbor in that they share a common feature albeit in different depth, duration, quality, substance etc.
That is the best I can do.
That would be a fit symbolism if it happened.
It would need to have been credible to those present, however. The mood of that crowd wouldn’t have been receptive to what they’d see as Melchizadek mumbo jumbo. Jest my own private guess, it was a list of their illicit mistresses and/or some other juicy data that showed HE HAD THE GOODS ON THEM and knew who’d witness to that, too!
mdmathis6, I tend to believe that Jesus might have written the name of the man who was taken in adultery with the woman. In addition, he might have written the names of others in the crowd who’d been with her in the past.
Yeah, my gut goes with that notion as well.
My comment was on his authority to act or not act as he did, given that he is literally God. Since the account makes the point that Christ was writing in the dust, you gotta figure Christ was writing out all the faults of all the accusers there as well as the pertinent points of the Law all were in violation there-of.
In the end, there was just God in Flesh and sinner, and God in flesh forgave her when he rightfully could have sent her to hell. That is what Paul was referring to in the book of Hebrews when he described Jesus as being of the priestly order of Melchizidek. So much for mumbo jumbo!
The hungry Fox seeing a crow holding a small cluster of grapes in its beak, and seeing that his entreaties to the crow to share some her bounty with him were ignored, tried a different approach.
“Oh beautiful crow, how your feathers shimmer in the sun. How often have I enjoyed your song; could I not hear your lovely song now, to help ease my loneliness and the sorrow of my hunger?” thus spoke the fox in crooning tones.
The vain crow, pleased at the thought of being considered a comely creature, and puffed up with the thought of having the voice of angels..opened her beak and cried ‘CAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!’ In the process, the cluster of grapes dropped from her beak and were quickly consumed by the cunning fox who then ran laughing and away, calling out with a snear... “oh crow...your song has indeed soothed my hunger, and while your feathers may shimmer, may they now shiver at the ugliness of your folly!”
Aesop’s lesson: Avoid the flatterer who dupes thru one’s puffed up pride.
from Proverbs 29:5
A man who flatters his neighbor Is spreading a net for his steps.
Synthesis: Having a realistic knowledge of ones faults and strengths before the King of Grace, can help one ward off and resist the flattering entreaties of those who would do one harm.
My point in all this was to illustrate thru a story what a dry static statement “Avoid the flatterer” could not. Analogies are built thru the heart of allegory, lesson fables and parables and are communicated in a deeper heart and intellectual sense much more effectively then simple dry admonitions could ever be.
PS: I did expand a little on the original fable...I admit before the King of Grace to a bit of creative vanity!
I’m not calling it mumbo jumbo from the thoughtful bible observer’s perspective, but the angry men’s. They wouldn’t know Melchizadek from a hole in the wall (if they did, then they wouldn’t have treated Christ that way in the first place).
Anyhow qua God he had absolute right to pardon.
And Proverbs are not wooden premises; they are statements that are true often enough to be worthy of consideration. Using them woodenly can arise from misunderstanding, but a good dollop of self righteousness (because they can be expounded to sound so moral and judgmental) goes a ways towards that kind of misstep.
I.e. you can pretty much validly preface any proverb with “There is a time when.” That would get pretty wearisome after a while, and so that part is left off and it’s called a proverb.
I had an issue with “Paulus” calling the use of analogy as being “weak” in the engagement of rational argument(rationality in the classical sense not in the 21st century psychobabble sense), when I know that great truths can often only be communicated verbally thru analogy, allegory, or parables. Proverbs uses quite true and descriptive analogy in describing the evil effects of sin on one’s self or sin directed at one’s fellow man. The proverb “The Fool says in his heart ‘there is no God’ “...is the start of a inward directed dialectic that(the first question...why does that make him a fool?) trips a lot of dominoes that ends with a ‘aha moment’...if a man knew the God I knew, who put the worlds in motion, he could no longer deny His existence. Yet the fool “SAYS IN HIS HEART...and therefore has already PREDETIRMINED NOT TO KNOW HIM or at least NOT TO KNOW OF HIM....and that is what makes such a fool in fact, A FOOL! Now to explain all that in the many words I used, is cumbersome...yet the skilled use of Proverbial analogies and parables short circuits the ‘wordy process’ and allows those with open hearts and minds to God to have the Holy Spirit fill in the dialectic pieces in a flash.
“I’m not calling it mumbo jumbo from the thoughtful”
I had a feeling you weren’t and yes I do agree that “hepped” up angry men, who were really attempting to trap Jesus, wouldn’t have gone in for the Melchizidek stuff!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.