What was Jesus writing?

Hi, Vz!
…don’t be surprised if He tells you something to the effect of: ‘…doodling, man; just doodling! Got their goat, didn’t it?’

Maran atha!


Where can we find evidence of this crudity? I have read both the LXX Greek, and the Hebrew, and I have done comparisons. I can’t find a single thing but a clear reference to legal precedent. If there is any crudity, it’s incidental and not primary. I tend to think it’s more in the imagination of 20th century scholars who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Needless to say, King Rehobo′am was consulting a group of young male friends his own age and they were not talking about anything on his hands. They were encouraging Rehobo’am to claim, er… “proof of having superior masculinity” than Solomon.

Obviously, they are more than just young males. They are specifically men who grew up with the king. Therefore, they are the princes of the people. Half brothers, concubine offspring, cousins, etc. are mostly in that group.
To be honest, I have no idea what “superior masculinity” means to you…

Besides, isn’t masculinity irrelevant when it comes to levying taxes? Taxes are the “yoke” the men are talking about. What does being “male” have to do with this decision?

I’m thinking that Genitalia were considered sacred more often than “Crude.” I think genitals being crude is more of a perspective that comes from European culture, violence, and puritanical culture in the middle ages and beyond.

Hands and genitals DO go together in the bible, and it has nothing to do with perverted sexual acts of “jacking” or whatever.

In Israel, the loins generally imply the holy offspring of the father (or those who entered a covenant oath). Loins are spoken about, but only to remind people they are subject to an oath, king, etc. they figuratively have their “HAND” under the ruler’s thigh. It’s NOT a sexual activity, or a homosexual rape, etc. It’s an honorable rite.

Genesis 24:2-9.
usccb.org/bible/genesis/24 “place your hand under my…”

Even Jews remark on this passage agreeably, today. They talk about the hand, the loins and the oath being made. They don’t consider it “euphamistic” in the slightest.


To understand my perspective, look at the new testament. Consider the taxes(tithes) mentioned in the book of Hebrews. How did the tithe become binding on Abraham’s children?

The tithe is binding on all Abraham’s offspring because of his sons being related to his “loins”.

Hebrews 7:9-10

One might even say that Levi* himself, who receives tithes, was tithed through Abraham,
because he was still in his father’s loins when Melchizedek met him.

The author of Hebrew’s isn’t suggesting that Abraham did anything Lewd to Melchizadech. Yes, Abraham’s hand was “raised” in the actual account in Genesis while Levi was in his “loins”. But it’s not lewd. The loins are mentioned for the purpose of a tax.

We can even find a very clean reference to a “yoke” and the “finger” of a ruler in other places. The metaphor exists all the way into new testament times. It’s explicit in Matthew 23:4

“The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.
They tie up heavy burdens* [hard to carry] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them.

A solitary finger does not have the power to physically lift heavy objects.
Obviously, Jesus is condemning the rulers for something EASY to do. He’s not demanding they do a miracle. A solitary finger can write a decree, or make signals (like pointing), but rulers do not lift boulders or sacks of grain with a small solitary finger.
Eg: Jesus is saying, how hard is it to lift a finger in comparison to tying up heavy burdens?

So, when I say that 1Kings 12 is referring to the small finger of the king, I am merely accepting what translators and scholars have seen for over a thousand years.

The greek has " ἡ μικρό-τ-ης μου"

The small *] of me, is larger than my father’s loins.

The Hebrew is similar. I’m grasping at straws … trying to understand you. Now, if King Rheboam were saying his genitals were greater than his father’s … wouldn’t he avoid using the adjective “small?” Nor would the Greek writers record his saying with the FEMALE Greek ending to describe what he has. There’s no point in doing that… everyone would LAUGH at him and the Greek translators.

The Greek for a man’s genital is “Pe-os” (πέ-ος) It ends in -os, which is male.
The more general word for “loins” also uses the male ending: (ὀσφύ-ος)

But the word King Rheboam used is STRICTLY feminine. It something that is one of a group, or it is actually female. (Eg: a finger is one of many and can be male/female but a penis… well…)

So, you seem to be suggesting that King Rheboam was told by his friends to say his female part was larger than his father’s male part. Hmmmm… Explain the passage to me… What is "my little *** " a Euphamism for?

Not really. The passage in Jeremiah is very pertinent to the discussion, but neither John 8 nor Jeremiah 17:13 actually say dust. They both refer to the ground and imply the netherworld. In Hebrew theology, Hades/hell, was popularly understood to be under the temple floor. There is also a “living water” which would flow from under the altar in the temple. Re-read Jerimiah 17:13 with that in mind, and look at another translation, eg: the Catholic NAB: usccb.org/bible/jeremiah/17
“The rebels shall be enrolled in the netherworld;”

When you say “dust” you are automatically assuming that the INSIDE of a purified temple is extremely dirty. That’s not a good idea, for it violates the ritual law of Moses. The Pharisees and scribes thought ritual purity was far more important than actual cleanliness of heart. The passage tells us that Jesus was INSIDE the temple (see John 8:2 ; Greek `ieron = priestly place). Therefore, we know that the gospel writers are referring to the priestly area of the building at this particular time. Jesus is in a ritually “clean” environment (sacrifice might even be possible.)

John also has a strong theme of Jesus being the living water and water in general…


I have also heard that Jesus was acting as a Temple priest, writing down the law that had been broken, and that the people who brought the woman before him had also broken the law

How Ironic … they also denied his priesthood. But yes, that’s an awesome insight.
The accusers really DID break the law in a way requiring the death penalty. First of all, they brought an unclean woman into the temple. That ITSELF is illegal, unless her innocence was in question.

If they were unsure if she was guilty, they COULD bring her to a priest to undergo a ritual test. The priest would write conditional curses. etc. ( Jesus is doing something OHHHH so similiar, don’t you think?) eg: See number 5:12-end. usccb.org/bible/numbers/5

But Jesus is not a priest from the tribe of Levi, yet he does mime what a levitical priest ought to do if her guilt is in question. Now, notice the accusers DON’T later take the woman to the high priest, but they all walk away.

A partial key to understanding them all walk away is found in John 8:4 … “She was caught in the very act of adultery…”
There is no “question” of her guilt, hence they had no right to bring her into the temple. She was unclean.

, as both the woman and the man were to be brought to court together with witnesses in order to make a case against them, and in their hypocrisy they failed to uphold this, but I don’t have good historical references on that, so take it with a grain of salt.

Actually, look at the verses which follow the incident: John 8:17-18 and also Hebrews 10:28.
This is also a reason that Jesus does not put her to death, for even though he witnesses against her by saying “sin no more.” He doesn’t try to stone her.

The law required two or three witnesses to decide any case where a man was to be put to death (or a woman.) Only two witnesses were needed if they both agreed, but three were required if they did not agree. So, if no one defended the woman… she could be put to death on the word of two witnesses. If testimony was partially contradictory, then it would take three witnesses.


If anyone is curious, I can go into more detail. But Jesus was essentially not allowed to stone her by Moses’ law… eg: Only one person witnessed against her, and that man was probably thinking to himself “There is NO way I am going to admit to being the one who brought her into the temple.” :slight_smile:

Sorry I put the link to Hebrews 10 so far away from the verse number reference.
It’s verse 28.

  1. Anyone who rejects the law of Moses* is put to death without pity on the testimony of two or three witnesses.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.