Comments on: A Teeny, Tiny Review: Julie M. Smith, Search, Ponder, and Pray

By: Gdub

Gdub — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 22:08:22 +0000

The phrase Luke uses to describe her as a, “woman in the city” seems to infer that her fame preceded her, thus Simon’s assumption that Christ could not be a prophet, for not only did he not foresee it as God would, but he didn’t even pick up on the common knowledge of everyone in town. Now, the nature of the sin is not stated, so it’s just as likely she was a tax collecter or shepherdess as a prostitute. Basically, Simon was saying, “everybody knows what sort of person she is!”

Ironically, the Pharisee’s attitude is the same we seem to adopt. “Well, everyone knows she was a prostitute, duh!” I find it tremendously fascinating how we seem to self-identify with the righteous int he scriptures, but more often we’re really like the people being condemned. I think that’s an important aspect of “likening” the scriptures unto ourselves. Yes, we can put our names in for peter or the woman, but we can also replace Simon the Pharisee with “Me the Pharisee”.

If we put ourselves in the right shoes here we can begin to see that the Savior was teaching how far from useful our classifications of people are. He’s showing that they’re a distraction from the true need, and that is of faith and forgiveness.

By: SilverRain

SilverRain — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 20:12:36 +0000

This reminds me a little of a time when I was helping to teach a member on my mission. My companion began a long diatribe about how wicked Enos had been, much to my shock.

Although I have never met the Savior myself, from the accounts of those in scripture who have, I suspect that meeting Him with a Spiritual testimony of who He is brings with it a very real and acute understanding of sin (as in JSH 1:28, or Alma 36, as well as the scriptures cited in your original post.)

It is not beyond reason that Peter’s declaration of sin, as well whatever moved this woman to the actions she took towards Jesus, was brought about by a sudden awareness of things previously not considered. As Bookslinger points out, her sins could have been anything, possibly even a ritual uncleanness similar to that of the woman who touched the hem of Jesus (which would explain the contagion aspect). After all, she was in this Pharisee’s house to begin with, possibly part of his household.

We mortals like to speculate about relative degree of sin. I find it interesting that Jesus never disputes that this woman had grievously sinned. But most especially, I find it poignant that it doesn’t matter how much sin she has, it was all forgiven by Him.

And that Christ used this very evocative and personal moment to testify to the Pharisees of His own divinity.

By: Ardis E. Parshall

Ardis E. Parshall — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:27:28 +0000

All you shoppers in the market for Julie's book: the book's title in the very first line of this post is a link to the Amazon page for Search, Ponder, & Pray

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:02:33 +0000

I need to get a copy of Julie Smith’s book!

By: David B

David B — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 04:55:06 +0000

Actually, i don’t know of any speculations on Peter’s sinfulness in published works (though i have a couple of likely places i’d look, if my religion library wasn’t mostly packed away in hopes of moving to a place with more shelf space later this year)—my exposure to mainstream Xian thoughts on that subject comes mostly from years misspent on USENET alt.religion.* newsgroups back in the nineties and naughties.

By: Maurine Ward

Maurine Ward — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:58:33 +0000

I definitely will print out this post, and the comments, and put with my file on Gospel Doctrine Class, NT, in case I get asked to teach GD again. I want to get a copy of Julie Smith’s book too.

By: Alison

Alison — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 20:36:01 +0000

Thanks for this, Ardis, we had this lesson today and the teacher quoted the McConkie theory of the woman’s prior baptism, which had me puzzled and going through the verses in question trying to find any foundation for that (there was, as you point out, none whatsoever; I’m glad it’s not just me then!). I’ll certainly try and get hold of a copy of Julie Smith’s book.

By: reed russell

reed russell — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:39:54 +0000

p.s. Thanks for offering these insights and comments, Ardis. They provided good fodder for an important discussion.

By: reed russell

reed russell — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 18:35:10 +0000

I taught this lesson today and shared your insights. Comments were made that if she was “known” as a sinner, then some type of sexual sin would have been the number one candidate. Another comment was made that being a “tomcat” was de rigueur for the life of a fisherman. (I know. Lame.)

A couple of the sisters in the class were a bit emotional over the fact that the true hero of the story – the courageous one – would be identified as a pariah.

By: Bookslinger

Bookslinger — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 11:13:09 +0000

The comparison of this woman and Peter is along the lines of the (should be) obvious question where the woman caught in adultery was to be stoned: Why weren’t they stoning her partner too? Didn’t the law apply to him as well?

I don’t know where I got it, but at some point over the years, I picked up the idea that “sinner” in NT times could have meant anyone who didn’t follow all the minutiae of the Mosaic law, such as the dietary code, but also including the many rabbinical restrictions added thereto, such has how many steps one could travel on the sabbath.

In other words “sinner” doesn’t necessary mean someone who is breaking one of the 10 commandments.