Publicaciones derivadas de este trabajo en Congresos y Revistas….79

» HISTORICAL NOTE: Pouring water out before the Lord was of ancient origin (1 Sam 7:6). How appropriate were Jesus’ words (v. 3 8) on the last day of the feast! “Two distinctive features of this week-long ceremony in September-October have made an impression on the text. Water was brought daily from the pool of Siloam to the temple, where it was poured over the altar as prayers were recited for the all-important winter rain. And the lights in the women’s court flamed so brightly that the city was lit up by them. Water and light play a fairly important part in these two chapters [chapters 7 and 8].”¹¹ The rabbinic literature says, “They have said: ‘He that never has seen the joy of the Beth ha-She’ubah [drawing of water during the feast] has never in his life seen joy’ ”¹² How much more is so, when the Lord himself, the real Temple, is present among them in the flesh!

“On each of the seven mornings a procession went down to the fountain of Gihon on the southeast side of the temple hill, the fountain which supplied the waters to the pool of Siloam. There a priest filled a golden pitcher with water, as the choir repeated Isa 12:3,

‘With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.’ The procession went up to the Temple through the Water Gate. The accompanying crowds carried the symbols of [the feast of] Tabernacles. . . . They also sang the Hallel Psalms (cxiii-cxviii). Then the priest went up the ramp to the altar to pour the water into a silver funnel whence it flowed into the ground. . . . It was at this solemn moment in the ceremonies on the seventh day that the teacher from Galilee stood up in the Temple court to proclaim solemnly that he was the source of living water. . . . Their prayers for water had been answered in a way they did not expect; the feast that contained within itself the promise of the Messiah had been fulfilled. . . . Now Jesus says that these rivers of living water will flow from his own body, that body which is the new Temple (2:21).”¹³

18. Remember that “living water” can mean either “living” or “running, flowing” water.

What is happening at the very moment Jesus speaks to give a living illustration of his words? (See above note.) How has Jesus referred to living water earlier (Jn 4:10-14)?

19. What does Jesus mean by “living water” in verse 38 (Jn 7:39; CCC 728, 1287, 2561)? What is the sequence of events in the giving of the Spirit (Jn 13:31ff.; Acts 1:4-5;

2:33; CCC 244, 690)? Compare this sequence with verses 38-39. How was this promise fulfilled (Acts 2:1-4; 10:44-47; CCC 730, 729)? How are we appropriating this promised gift in our worship and daily life as Catholics?

» TEXTUAL NOTE: “John 7:38 has always posed difficulties for interpreters. The New International Version makes the believer the one in whom living water is flowing. But the Greek can be punctuated another way: ‘if anyone thirsts, let him come to me; and let him drink, who believes in me.’ This reading is best. It means that Jesus is the source of the eschatological Tabernacles water. Jesus is the source of the Spirit (v. 39). In 19:34 we may even have a symbol of this flowing when Jesus is glorified (v. 39b).”¹⁴

“The marginal rendering is less difficult. If it is followed, the statement of v. 38 applies to Jesus: out of his heart (Gk., ‘belly’) the rivers of living water flow (cf. 19:34), not from the believer, as is otherwise the case. The source of the Scripture reference is unclear.”¹⁵

20. Some in the crowd were saying, “This is really the prophet.” Where is the promise given of a singular “prophet” (Deut 18:15, 18; cf. Acts 3:22)? “The prophet” was a key eschatological sign for the Jews. Who had the Jews earlier thought might be “the prophet” (Jn 1:19-21)? What had Moses given the people that the new “prophet-like-Moses” would also give (1 Cor 10:1-4)?

21. Why would some of the people think Jesus was the Messiah (Jn 7:31)? Where do the Scriptures say that “the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was” (v. 42), and not from Galilee (cf. Ps 89:3-4; Mic 5:1-2; Mt 2:4-6; Lk 2:4ff.)?

Some may suggest that St. John himself did not know that Jesus was born in Bethlehem since he does not mention it here, but this is quite untenable considering the close relationship John had with Jesus and with his Mother, Mary (cf. Jn 19:26-27), and his awareness that Joseph was his foster father (Jn 6:42). Also, the earliest accounts referring to John’s Gospel inform us that John was aware of and gave his approval of the earlier Synoptic Gospels. “The three Gospels already mentioned having come into the hands of all and into [John’s] too, they say that he accepted them and bore witness to their truthfulness.”¹⁶ (See the introduction for more information.) For more on the earthly origins of Jesus, see John 7:27. It is likely that John is merely being ironic regarding Jesus’ origins.

John 7:45-53

Unbelief of Jewish Leaders

22. According to verse 46, why are the court officers afraid to seize Jesus (cf. Mt 26:4-5)? Are the Pharisees concerned with truth or merely with maintaining their positions of

authority? How do the Pharisees put pressure on the officers (vv. 46-49)? What attitude do the Pharisees display toward the common people (v. 49)? What attitude does the Lord display toward the average person (Lk 7:36-50)? Do the “rulers” believe in Jesus (Jn 7:48, 50-52; 19:38-39)? Where did we come across Nicodemus earlier (Jn 3:1ff.)?

» HISTORICAL NOTE: The Pharisees called all the other Jews “people of the land”, which was a term of disparagement; but even more disparaging was the practical attitude they maintained toward their fellow countrymen.

“On this point, too, both Christian and Jewish sources agree. In the Gospel of St. John (7:49), the Pharisees exclaim, ‘But this multitude, that knoweth not the Law are accursed!’ (ἐπάρατοι). The word ‘multitude’ here means the non-Pharisees or ‘people of the land / who are ‘ignorant of the Law’ and completely ‘accursed.’ Jewish documents confirm the ‘curse.’ It is the great Hillel himself who says that ‘no rustic (bur) fears sin, and the people of the land are not pious’ (Pirqe Aboth, II, 5), ‘rustic’ and ‘people of the land’ here being synonymous. A true Pharisee, therefore, was not to have any contact whatever with the ‘people of the land,’ but show himself ‘Pharisee,’ that is, ‘separated’

from them. That is why one rabbi proclaimed: ‘To participate in an assembly of the people of the land brings death’ (ibid., III, 10); the celebrated Judah the Holy cried in remorse, ‘Alas! I have given bread to one of the people of the land!’ (Baba Bathra, 8 a);

and Rabbi Eleazar adjudged, ‘It is lawful to stab one of the people of the land even on a Day of Atonement which falls on the Sabbath’ (Pesahim, 49 b). Many other passages forbid the Pharisees to sell fruit to one of the people of the land, to offer him hospitality or accept any from him, to become his kin through marriage, etc. (Demai, II, 3; etc.).

Needless to say, even a wealthy or aristocratic Jew or a member of the high-priesthood could be in the Pharisees’ eyes a ‘rustic,’ one of the ‘people of the land.’ The standard of judgment was the practice and knowledge of the Law according to Pharisaic principles, and membership in the chosen class of the ‘separated.’

“Only rarely did non-Pharisees answer this class pride with scorn or hostility. The common people, especially in the cities and the women among them particularly, were wholeheartedly on the side of the Pharisees and cherished a boundless respect for them.

It was possible to say that the Pharisees ‘have so much power over the multitude, that even if they say something which is contrary to the king or to the high priest they are immediately believed’ (Antiquities of the Jews, XIII, 2 and 8). Such popular support was the true strength of these aristocrats of dogma.”¹⁷ How does this historical fact explain Jesus’ harsh teaching against the Pharisees and their self-righteousness? How did their interpretation of the Law violate the very intent of the Law: love of God and love of neighbor?

23. Nicodemus refers to the Mosaic Law to defend Jesus; what passages does he allude to in Jesus’ defense (Ex 23:1; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Prov 18:13)? What does Nicodemus’

defense show about his spiritual development (cf. Jn 19:39)? How do the other Pharisees insult him (v. 52)? Do any Pharisees believe in Christ (CCC 595-96)? Why do the Jewish

leaders dislike Jesus so much (Jn 3:19; 1 Jn 3:12)? Why are most of the Pharisees unable to understand and believe (Mt 11:25-30; Lk 10:21-24)? The Pharisees sarcastically ask Nicodemus if he is also from Galilee, which is intended as an insult. The Pharisees fail to realize that although Jesus is from Galilee, he was born in Judea. How does their superficial understanding of Scripture condemn them rather than enlighten them?

24. The chapter ends with the observation that “They went each to his own house.” Was the festival over at this point? What does Jesus do again the next day (Jn 8:2)?

JOHN 8

THE ADULTEROUS WOMAN; MORE DEBATES: WHO IS CHRIST? TRUE

“I AM”

John 8:1-13

The Woman Caught in Adultery

1. Take a look at several different Bible translations, and see how they treat John 7:53-8:11.

» SHOULD THIS STORY BE IN THE BIBLE? Many Bible translations place brackets around the story of the woman taken in adultery (the first eleven verses of chapter eight) with marginal notes explaining that these verses may or may not be part of John’s original text.

Margin notes may say something such as, “The early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.” Since no original writings (autographs) of the apostles are in existence, scholars must reconstruct the original text of the New Testament by comparing the multitude of handwritten copies available from the early centuries.

Even though these initial verses of chapter 8 are not contained in many early Greek manuscripts, they are found in the early Latin texts, including the Vulgate, and are therefore included in the Protestant versions of the New Testament as well as the Catholic. We read nothing of them in the early Greek Fathers, though the story was known in the East and was truly ancient. Papias (ca. 60-130) mentions a story of a woman accused of many sins before the Ford, and he may very well be referring to this story.¹ It is also mentioned in the third-century Didascalia Apostolorum, which shows it was known in second-century Syria.

St. Jerome says the story was found in both Latin and Greek; St. Ambrose says it was always famous in the Church; and St. Augustine expounds the story as well. There is no real question that the story constitutes authentic material from the life of Christ.²

Most scholars agree that 7:53-8:11 was not original to John’s Gospel, though it authentically records a genuine event in Jesus’ life. In some ancient manuscripts, it appears in St. Luke’s Gospel. This passage was accepted by the Council of Trent as canonical, and thus it is received by the Catholic Church as inspired Scripture. It was included in the Vulgate, the Bible of the Byzantine (Eastern) Church, and ultimately in the King James Bible, and so the majority of non-Catholic Christians also accept it. For the Catholic, there is no question of inspiration or canonicity involved, since the Catholic Church has the authority to recognize and determine the canon of Scripture, and the Church has always accepted these verses as canonical and authoritative.

2. John 8:1-13 raises the question of who has the authority to determine which texts belong in the Bible. Can the canon be determined by each individual Christian? How do we know which of the hundreds of early texts claiming apostolic authorship are inspired and which are not? What criterion was employed in determining which writings were inspired and therefore to be included in Scripture (CCC 120, 1117; 1 Tim 3:14-15)?

» HOW WERE NEW TESTAMENT BOOKS DETERMINED? “The books were acknowledged because of their content as witnesses to the apostolic gospel; their formal acceptance as canonical scripture was a matter of discussion and decision by gradual consensus among the communities [Catholic Church] of the late second century and afterwards. But the term ‘canon’ was being used for the standard of authentic teaching given by the baptismal confession of faith well before it came to be used for the list of accepted books. The criterion for admission was not so much that traditions vindicated an apostolic authorship as that the content of the books was in line with the apostolic proclamation received by the second-century churches.”³

3. “St. Augustine said that the reason doubts were raised about the passage was that it showed Jesus to be so merciful that some rigorists thought it would lead to a relaxation of moral rules—and therefore many copyists suppressed it from their manuscripts (cf. De coniugiis adulterinis, 2, 6).”⁴ How might this passage be used to relax moral rules?

How might it be seen as allowing people to sin with little concern or contrition (cf. Rom 3:8; 6:1, 15)?

4. What is the geographical setting of this chapter (Jn 7:3, 10, 14)? What is the great feast that provides the backdrop for this chapter (Jn 7:2)? For several days the people have been living in makeshift “booths”; what do we learn from John 7:53? (A full discussion of the feast is contained in the previous chapter.) Many scribes have teaching tents pitched in the outer courts of the Temple where they teach their students. Why does Jesus teach in the Temple?

5. Why do the Pharisees bring a woman caught in adultery to Jesus (Jn 8:6)? What laws governed the sin of adultery, and what was the legitimate penalty this woman should have suffered (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22ff.)? Does the Mosaic Law apply only to the woman? How might we theorize that she was “caught in adultery”, since adultery takes two people (v. 3)? Why do they not also bring the man who committed adultery with her? Are the Pharisees concerned with justice, or with using a poor woman’s sin to confound and trap Jesus (v. 6; cf. Lk 11:53-54)? The dilemma had two horns on which to impale Jesus—what were the two options the scribes and Pharisees assume Jesus had?

First, what if Jesus commanded her to be stoned (Jn 18:31)? What would the Romans have done? Second, what if Jesus had excused her and thereby failed to follow the mandates of the Mosaic Law? Compare with Luke 20:19-26.

» HISTORICAL NOTE: “Such crimes [as adultery] are often severely punished in the Near

East. It was reported a number of years ago, ‘Two Muslim pilgrims returning from Mecca, were found guilty of adultery on July 11, 1957, [they] were taken to the judge in Mecca and sentenced to death by stoning. The sentence was executed on July 12, the Mufti himself casting the first stone’ (Vatican periodical, Oriente Moderno 37, [1957], p.

593).”⁵

6. Verse 6 mentions Jesus writing on the ground with his finger. What might Jesus have written? What had God written with his finger (Ex 31:18)? This is the only account of Jesus writing anything, and what he wrote is a matter of conjecture. How did Jesus respond to the scribes and Pharisees (v. 7)? How did this present them with a four-horned dilemma—“damned if they do and damned if they don’t”? First, what would the man to throw the first stone be claiming (cf. Rom 2:1-29)? Second, if they all failed to throw stones, what were they all admitting? Third, if they stoned her in broad daylight, what might the Romans have done (Jn 18:31)? And fourth, if they failed to stone her, was it Jesus or they themselves who ignored Moses’ clear command? Were they guilt-free (CCC 588)?

» THEOLOGICAL NOTE: “Since He said He was God, the Law of Moses must have come from Him. If He disobeyed that Law, He was negating His own Divinity. Hence their questions, ‘Moses in his Law prescribed that such persons should be stoned to death;

what of Thee? What is Thy sentence?’ It would be a hard question for a mere man to solve, but, He was God as well as man. He Who had already reconciled justice and mercy in His Incarnation now applied it further as He leaned over and wrote something on the ground—it is the only time in the life of Our Blessed Lord that He ever wrote.

What He wrote, no man knows. The Gospel simply says: Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground (John 8:6).

“They had invoked the Law of Moses. So would He! Whence did the Law of Moses come? Who wrote it? Whose finger? The Book of Exodus answers: Moses turned and went down the mountain with the two tablets of the Tokens in his hands, inscribed on both sides, on the front and on the back they were inscribed. The tablets were the handiwork of God, and the writing was God’s writing, engraved on the tablets (Ex 32:15-17).

“They reminded Him of the Law! He in turn reminded them that He had written the Law! The same finger, in a symbolical sense, that was now writing in the tablets of stone of the temple floor, also wrote on the tablets of stone on Sinai! Had they eyes to see the Giver of the law of Moses standing before them? But they were so bent on ensnaring Him in His speech that they ignored the writing and kept on hurling questions; so sure were they that they had trapped Him.”⁶

7. How many witnesses does it take to condemn someone of breaking the Law (Deut 17:5-7; 19:15)? How many witnesses were left to testify against the woman (vv. 9-11)?

In the end, who followed the Law—Jesus or the Jews? Jesus gave the woman a

command. What was it (vv. 10-11)? How was this similar to the command given to the man healed at the pool of Bethesda (Jn 5:14)? Can one assume that a personal encounter with Jesus is adequate for salvation, in and of itself, without repentance and good works and a subsequent holy fife? To follow Christ, why is it necessary to take up our cross and to sin no more?

8. How is this story a clear picture of the gospel (cf. Rom 8:1-4)? What does the Law pronounce against us (Rom 3:19-20; 4:15; 7:9; CCC 708)? Who accuses us (Rev 12:10)?

How does the Law bring us to Christ (Gal 3:24-26; CCC 1982)? What supercedes the condemnation of the Law (Rom 5:20-21; Jn 1:16-17; CCC 1963-64, 1983-85)? How must we live after being forgiven and released from the Law of condemnation and sin (Heb 12:14)? Think about this story as a “parable of salvation”. How could one use this story inappropriately, especially by ignoring the last sentence of verse 11 (CCC 162)?

John 8:12-30

Jesus Is the Light of the World

9. According to verse 12, how does Jesus’ announcement develop a theme from the

“overture” (Jn 1:4-5; CCC 2466)? Why do these words have such significance during this feast of Booths?

» HISTORICAL NOTE: “It is still the Feast of Tabernacles (cf. Jn 7:2); and it was the custom on the first night to fill the court of the women with the bright light of huge lamps which lit up the sky. This brought to mind the bright cloud of God’s presence which guided the Israelites through the wilderness during the exodus.”⁷

From the rabbinic literature of the Jews, the Mishnah, we read (Sukkah 4, 5): “ ‘The flute playing, sometimes five and sometimes six days’—this is the flute-playing at the Beth ha-She’ubah, which overrides neither a Sabbath nor a Festival-day. They have said:

From the rabbinic literature of the Jews, the Mishnah, we read (Sukkah 4, 5): “ ‘The flute playing, sometimes five and sometimes six days’—this is the flute-playing at the Beth ha-She’ubah, which overrides neither a Sabbath nor a Festival-day. They have said: