Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:6
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though] he [heard] [them not.]
6. tempting him ] The Greek word for ‘tempting’ is frequent in the Synoptists of trying to place Christ in a difficulty; never so used in S. John, who, however, uses it once of Christ ‘proving’ Philip (Joh 6:6).
that they might have to accuse him ] This clause must be borne in mind in determining what the difficulty was in which they wished to place Him. It seems to exclude the supposition that they hoped to undermine His popularity, in case He should decide for the extreme rigour of the law; the people having become accustomed to a lax morality (Mat 12:39; Mar 8:38). Probably the case is somewhat parallel to the question about tribute, and they hoped to bring Him into collision either with the Law and Sanhedrin or with the Roman Government. If He said she was not to be stoned, He contradicted Jewish Law; if He said she was to be stoned, He ran counter to Roman Law, for the Romans had deprived the Jews of the right to inflict capital punishment (Joh 18:31). The Sanhedrin might of course pronounce sentence of death (Mat 26:66; Mar 14:64; comp. Joh 19:7), but it rested with the Roman governor whether he would allow the sentence to be carried out or not (Joh 19:16): see on Joh 18:31 and Joh 19:6.
stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground ] It is said that this gesture was a recognised sign of unwillingness to attend to what was being said; a call for a change of subject. McClellan quotes Plut. ii. 532: ‘Without uttering a syllable, by merely raising the eyebrows, or stooping down, or fixing the eyes upon the ground, you may baffle unreasonable importunities.’ ‘Wrote’ should perhaps be ‘kept writing’ (comp. Joh 7:40-41), or ‘ began to write, made as though He would write’ (comp. Luk 1:59). Either rendering would agree with this interpretation, which our translators have insisted on as certain by inserting the gloss (not found in any earlier English Version), ‘as though He heard them not.’ But it is just possible that by writing on the stone pavement of the Temple He wished to remind them of the ‘tables of stone, written with the finger of God’ (Exo 31:18; Deu 9:10). They were hoping that He would explain away the seventh commandment, in order that they themselves might break the sixth.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Tempting him – Trying him, or laying a plan that they might have occasion to accuse him. If he decided the case, they expected to be able to bring an accusation against him; for if he decided that she ought to die, they might accuse him of claiming power which belonged to the Romans – the power of life and death. They might allege that it was not the giving an opinion about an abstract case, but that she was formally before him, that he decided her case judicially, and that without authority or form of trial. If he decided otherwise, they would have alleged that he denied the authority of the law, and that it was his intention to abrogate it. They had had a controversy with him about the authority of the Sabbath, and they perhaps supposed that he would decide this case as he did that – against them. It may be further added that they knew that Jesus admitted publicans and sinners to eat with him; that one of their charges was that he was friendly to sinners (see Luk 15:2); and they wished, doubtless, to make it appear that he was gluttonous, and a winebibber, and a friend of sinners, and disposed to relax all the laws of morality, even in the case of adultery. Seldom was there a plan more artfully laid, and never was more wisdom and knowledge of human nature displayed than in the manner in which it was met.
Wrote on the ground – This took place in the temple. The ground, here, means the pavement, or the dust on the pavement. By this Jesus showed them clearly that he was not solicitous to pronounce an opinion in the case, and that it was not his wish or intention to intermeddle with the civil affairs of the nation.
As though he heard them not – This is added by the translators. It is not in the original, and should not have been added. There is no intimation in the original, as it seems to be implied by this addition, that the object was to convey the impression that he did not hear them. What was his object is unknown, and conjecture is useless. The most probable reason seems to be that he did not wish to intermeddle; that he designed to show no solicitude to decide the case; and that he did not mean to decide it unless he was constrained to.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. That they might have to accuse him.] Had our Lord condemned the woman to death, they might have accused him to Pilate, as arrogating to himself the power of life and death, which the Romans had taken away from the Jews; besides, the Roman laws did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death. On the other hand, if he had said she should not be put to death, they might have represented him to the people as one who decided contrary to the law, and favoured the crime of which the woman was accused.
With his finger wrote] Several MSS. add their sins who accused her, and the sins of all men. There are many idle conjectures concerning what our Lord wrote on the ground, several of which may be seen in Calmet.
We never find that Christ wrote any thing before or after this; and what he wrote at this time we know not. On this the pious Quesnel makes the following reflections:-
“1. Since Jesus Christ never wrote but once that we hear of in his whole life; 2. since he did it only in the dust; 3. since it was only to avoid condemning a sinner; and, 4. since he would not have that which he wrote so much as known; let men learn from hence never to write but when it is necessary or useful; to do it with humility and modesty; and to do it on a principle of charity. How widely does Christ differ from men! He writes his Divine thoughts in the dust: they wish to have theirs cut in marble, and engraved on brass.” Schools for children are frequently held under trees in Bengal, and the children who are beginning to learn write the letters of the alphabet in the dust. This saves pen, ink, and paper. WARD.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
Their design was from his answer to take some colourable pretence to accuse, and either to discredit him with the people, or to expose him to the displeasure of the superior powers. If he had directed to send her to be punished by the Roman governors, who administered justice in capital causes, the people would be fired with indignation; for they looked upon them as invaders of the rights of government that belonged to the Israelites. If he had advised them to put her to death by their own power, they would have accused him of sedition, as an enemy of the Roman authority. If he had dismissed her as not worthy of death, they would have accused him to the sanhedrim, as an infringer of the law of Moses, as a favourer of dissoluteness, an enemy to civil society, and worthy of universal hatred. This malicious design, so craftily concerted, our Saviour easily discovered and defeated; whereas they thought it would require his most attentive consideration to extricate himself from the snare. He seemed not at all to attend to what they said, but, stooping down, wrote on the ground: what he wrote, or how he could write upon the floor of the temple, (which was of stone), are very idle questions; the first not possible to be resolved, the second impertinent; for it is not said, that he made any impression upon the ground, though it be said, he wrote upon it. It appeareth plainly to have been but a divertive action, by which our Saviour signified that he gave no ear to them.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. stooped downIt will beobserved He was sitting when they came to Him.
with his finger wrote on thegroundThe words of our translators in italics (“as thoughHe heard them not”) have hardly improved the sense, for it isscarcely probable He could wish that to be thought. Rather He wishedto show them His aversion to enter on the subject. But as this didnot suit them, they “continue asking Him,” pressing for ananswer. At last, raising Himself He said.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
This they said, tempting him,…. For they brought this woman, and exposed her in this manner, not because of their abhorrence and detestation of the sin; nor did they put the above question to Christ, out of their great respect to the law of Moses; which in many instances, and so in this, they in a great measure made void, by their traditions; for they say, that for such an offence as adultery, they did not put to death, nor beat, unless there was a previous admonition; the use of which was, to distinguish between presumptuous sins, and wilful ones m; but if there was no admonition, and the woman, even a married woman, if she confessed the crime, all her punishment was to have her dowry taken from her, or to go away without it n: now these masters say nothing about the admonition, nor do they put the question, whether this woman was to be dealt with according to their traditions, or according to the law of Moses? but what was the sense of Christ, whether Moses’s law was to be attended to, or whether he would propose another rule to go by? and their view in this was,
that they might have to accuse him; that should he agree with Moses, then they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for taking upon him to condemn a person to death, which belonged to him to do; or they would charge him with severity, and acting inconsistently with himself, who received such sort of sinners, and ate with them; and had declared, that publicans and harlots would enter into the kingdom of heaven, when the Scribes and Pharisees would not; and if he should disagree with Moses, then they would traduce him among the people, as an enemy to Moses and his law, and as a patron of the most scandalous enormities:
but Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground; some think o he wrote in legible characters the sins of the woman’s accusers; and the learned Wagenseil p makes mention of an ancient Greek manuscript he had seen, in which were the following words, “the sins of everyone of them”: Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that this action of Christ tallies with, and has some reference to, the action of the priest at the trial of the suspected wife; who took of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, and infused it in the bitter waters for her to drink; but it is most likely, that Christ on purpose put himself into this posture, as if he was busy about something else, and did not attend to what they said; and hereby cast some contempt upon them, as if they and their question were unworthy of his notice: and this sense is confirmed by what follows,
[as though he heard them not]; though this clause is not in many copies, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions, but is in five of Beza’s copies, and in the Complutensian edition.
(See Jer 17:13, “they that depart from me shall be wriiten in the earth”. It could be that Christ was writing their names in the earth, thus fulfulling this prophecy in Jeremiah. They knew the Old Testament and this passage, and were convicted in their hearts. Editor.)
m Maimon. ib. sect. 3. n Misn. Sota, c. 1. sect. 5. o Hieron. adv. Pelagianos, l. 2. fol. 96. H. Tom. II. p In Misn. Sota, c. 1. sect. 5.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Tempting him ( ). Evil sense of this present active participle of , as so often (Mark 8:11; Mark 10:2, etc.).
That they might have whereof to accuse him ( ). Purpose clause with and present active subjunctive of . This laying of traps for Jesus was a common practice of his enemies (Lu 11:16, etc.). Note present active infinitive of (see Mt 12:10 for the verb) to go on accusing (with genitive ). It was now a habit with these rabbis.
Stooped down ( ). First aorist active participle of , old verb to bow the head, to bend forward, in N.T. only here and verse John 8:8; Mark 1:7. The use of (down) gives a vivid touch to the picture.
With his finger ( ). Instrumental case of for which see Mt 23:4.
Wrote on the ground ( ). Imperfect active of , old compound, here only in N.T., to draw, to delineate, to write down, apparently inchoative, began to write on the sand as every one has done sometimes. The only mention of writing by Jesus and the use of leaves it uncertain whether he was writing words or drawing pictures or making signs. If we only knew what he wrote! Certainly Jesus knew how to write. And yet more books have been written about this one who wrote nothing that is preserved than any other person or subject in human history. There is a tradition that Jesus wrote down the names and sins of these accusers. That is not likely. They were written on their hearts. Jesus alone on this occasion showed embarrassment over this woman’s sin.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “This they said, tempting him,” (touto de elegon peirazontes auton) ”Yet this they said tempting him,” or seeking to entrap Him, with murderous intent and design, as they so often did, as in Mat 16:1; Luk 10:25; Luk 20:23. They likely hoped that His pity would lead Him openly to exonerate the woman, defend her, or justify her before them.
2) “That they might have to accuse him.” (hina echosin kaegorein autou) “in order that they might have (a cause) to accuse him,” for He would, they thought, approve putting the woman to death, which they were not permitted (as Jews) to do under Roman law, or to let her go, and break their Jewish law, Joh 18:31.
3) “But Jesus stooped down,” (ho de lesous kato kupas) “Then Jesus upon stooping down,” or “when he had stooped,” bowed near the ground. Unwilling to enter a controversy over their malicious questions.
4) “And with his finger wrote,” (to daktulo kategraphen) “He wrote with his finger,” in the dust or dirt, an act of disdain for the belligerent spirit in which they had dragged this woman into the temple-court area, where He was teaching, Joh 8:2-3.
5) “On the ground as though he heard them not.” (eis ten gen) “In the ground,” or dust of the earth, ”eis” a Gk. term here used means into the dust, upon the ground, words that could be visibly seen. The latter phrase is an italicized interpolation of King James translation. Some manuscripts add, “not troubling himself with them,” or as if he heard them not.”
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. And Jesus stooping down. By this attitude he intended to show that he despised them. Those who conjecture that he wrote this or the other thing, in my opinion, do not understand his meaning. Nor do I approve of the ingenuity of Augustine, who thinks that in this manner the distinction between the Law and the Gospel is pointed out, because Christ did not write on tables of stone, (Exo 31:18,) but on man, who is dust and earth. For Christ rather intended, by doing nothing, to show how unworthy they were of being heard; just as if any person, while another was speaking to him, were to draw lines on the wall, or to turn his back, or to show, by any other sign, that he was not attending to what was said. Thus in the present day, when Satan attempts, by various methods, to draw us aside from the right way of teaching, we ought disdainfully to pass by many things which he holds out to us. The Papists teaze us, to the utmost of their power, by many trifling cavils, as if they were throwing clouds into the air. If godly teachers be laboriously employed in examining each of those cavils, they will begin to weave Penelope’s web; (208) and therefore delays of this sort, which do nothing but hinder the progress of the Gospel, are wisely disregarded.
(208) “ Ce sera toujours a recommencer;” — “they will always have to begin anew.” Dropping the classical allusion, our Author has thus conveyed the meaning to his countrymen in plain terms. All who have read Homer’s Odyssey will remember Penelope, the wife of Ulysses, and especially that part of her history to which Calvin refers, that what she wove during the day she unravelled during the night, and thus accomplished her resolution that she should be daily employed in weaving, and yet that her web should not be finished till after her husband’s return. Penelopes telam texere , to weave Penelope ’ s web, was a proverbial expression, which the Romans borrowed from the Greeks. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) On the text, see Note on Joh. 8:4. The last words, in italics, which are an explanatory gloss, should also be omitted. The verse will then read, But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the groundor, more exactly, was writing on the ground. It is the imperfect of the continued action, and it points to the narrators vivid remembrance of the scene. What precise meaning we are to attach to this action is, and must remain, uncertain. Any inquiry as to what He wrote is excluded by the fact that the narrative would certainly have recorded it had it been known; and though writing on sand was practised in the Rabbinic schools, this writing was on the pavement of the Temple (Joh. 8:2). We have to seek the meaning, then, in the symbolism of the action, remembering that the teaching by action and gesture, common everywhere, has always been specially common in the East; and of the many interpretations which may be given, that which seems upon the whole least liable to objection is, that He deprecated the office of judge which they wished to impose on Him, and chose this method of intimating that He took no interest in what they were saying. The commentators tell us that this was a common method of signifying intentional disregard.
An alternative interpretation may be suggested. They had quoted the Law, and asked for His opinion. They were themselves the interpreters of the Law. He claimed no such office. (Comp. Luk. 12:14.) He stoops down and writes, and the action intimates that the Law of God was written on tables of stone, and its decrees were immutable. They, by their technical interpretation and tradition, were making it of none effect. He came to fulfil it. The majesty of duty is sinned against by these refinements of casuistry. They are now daring to violate the sacredness of law by making it the subject of a question by which they hope to encompass His death. The solemn silence, as He stooped down in that Temple and wrote upon its pavement, must have spoken in a power greater than that of words.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Tempting him Putting him to the test. Endeavouring to subject him to a dilemma. The dilemma was this: If he decided the case, he rebelled against the Roman government by taking law into his own hands; if he declined it, he abdicated his claim as Messiah. And still more: if he decided that the Mosaic law should be fulfilled, he would, contrary to Roman decree, inflict capital punishment; if he disregarded Moses, he submitted to Rome, and degraded his Messiahship with all earnest Jews.
Stooped down From his sitting posture.
Wrote on the ground On the hard pavement of the temple court. The written character, if any, would be in the slight layer of dust. This writing was a sign of purposed inattention to their address. It declared that this was a case with which he had nothing to do. With singular tact it declared this in act, which it would not do to declare in words. What did Jesus write? This question, though discussed by commentators, is very much like asking what did the seven thunders (Rev 10:4) utter? And yet, when Jesus resumed his writing, in Joh 8:8, there seems a solemn significance about it. To the culprit accusers themselves it doubtless seemed that that finger could write their own deeds of darkness, recalled by conscience to their present recollection.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 8:6. This they said, tempting him, &c. The reason upon which they grounded their insidious intention was, that had he declared against stoning the adulterers, they certainly would have represented him to the people, as contradicting Moses, and favouringadultery; hoping by that means to have lessened his authority with them. On the other hand, had he ordered her to be stoned, it would have afforded a plausible pretence for accusing him to the governor, as a person who stirred up the people to rebellion; the Romans, who had now taken the determination of life and death into their own hands, having new-modelled the laws of Judea according to their own jurisprudence; and, in particular, not exercising such severity of punishment upon the women who were guilty of adultery. We may observe further, that the Jewish sanhedrim sat by licence from the Roman governor; and though they had a right to try capital causes, it was necessary that the sentence which they passed should be recognized and allowed by the Roman governor, before it could be carried into execution. See Ch. Joh 19:10 and Mat 27:2. For Christ, therefore, to have undertaken the decision of this case, would have rendered him immediately obnoxious to the Romans, as well as to the sanhedrim; and, had he condemned her, a new occasion of offence must have arisen to Pilate in consequence of that, if execution had been ordered without application to him; and to the Jews, if Christ had directed such an application to be made; so that the snare here was much the same with that afterwards laid for him, in the question about the lawfulness of paying the tribute, Mat 22:17; Mat 22:46. Jesus fully knew their craft and wickedness, and regulated his conduct toward these depraved hypocrites accordingly; for he made them no answer. He also now, as on other occasions, declined assuming the character and office of a civil magistrate. Besides, the persons who demanded his opinion, were by no means the judges to whom the execution of the law was committed; but Pharisees who at bottom were gross hypocrites, notwithstanding they expressed the greatest concern for the honour of the divine law. But whatever was the reason, Jesus did not encourage this prosecution, but stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he heard, or regarded, them not. There was most probably a language in the action itself, either to intimate that thesehypocritical Pharisees should be themselves, as the prophet expresses it, Jer 17:13 written in the earth, or that they were to attend to what is written. But we do not pretend to determine any thing on this point; saying only with a great critic on these words, Nescire velle quae magister optimus nescire nos vult, erudite inscitia est: “To be willing to continue ignorant of what our great Master has thought fit to conceal, is no inconsiderable part of Christian learning.”
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Joh 8:6 . ] denoting, not a good-natured questioning (Olshausen), but, agreeably to the standing synoptical representation of the relation of those men to Jesus, and in keeping with what immediately follows, malicious tempting . The insidious feature of the plan consisted in this: “If He decides with Moses for the stoning, He will be accused before the Roman authorities; for, according to the Roman criminal law, adultery was not punishable with death, and stoning in particular was generally repudiated by the Romans (see Staeudlin and Hug). But if He decides against Moses and against stoning, He will then be prosecuted before the Sanhedrim as an opposer of the law.” That they expected and wished for the former result, is shown, by the prejudicial way in which they introduce the question, by quoting the express punishment prescribed by Moses. [3] Their plan here is similar in design to that of the question touching the tribute money in Mat 22 . It is objected that the Romans in the provinces did not administer justice strictly in accordance with their own laws; but amid the general immorality of the times they certainly did not conform to the rigour of the Mosaic punishment for adultery; and how easy would it have been before the Roman magistrates to give a revolutionary aspect to the hoped-for decision of Jesus in favour of Moses, even if He had in some way reserved the competency of the Roman authorities! If it be said that Jesus needed only to declare Himself in favour of execution, and not exactly for stoning , it is overlooked that here was the very case for which stoning was expressly appointed. If it be urged, lastly, that when Jesus was required to assume the position of a judge, He needed only to refer His questioners to the Sanhedrim , and to tell them to take the woman thither (Ebrard), that would have amounted to a declining to answer, which would, indeed, have been the surest way of escape from the dilemma, but inappropriate enough to the intellectual temperament of Jesus in such cases. Other explanations of (1) They would either have accused him to the Romans imminutae majestatis , because they then possessed the jus vitae et necis, or to the Jews imminutae libertatis (Grotius), and as a false Messiah (Godet). But that prerogative of the Romans was not infringed by the pronouncing of a sentence of condemnation; it was still reserved to them through their having to confirm and carry out the sentence. Accordingly, B. Crusius gives this turn to the question: “Would Jesus decide for the popular execution of the law or would He peradventure even take upon Himself to pass such a judgment” (so, substantially, Hitzig also, on Joh. Markus , p. 205 ff., and Luthardt), where (with Wetstein and Schulthess) the law of the Zealots is called in by way of help? But in that case the interrogators, who intended to make use of a negative answer against Him as an overturning of the law, and an affirmative reply as an interference with the functions of the authorities, would then have put no question at all relating to the thing which they really wanted ( i.e. the execution , and that immediate and tumultuous). (2) As the punishment of death for adultery had at that time already fallen into disuse, the drift of their question was simply, whether or not legal proceedings should be instituted at all (Ebrard, following Michaelis). The words themselves, and the design expressed in the , which could not take place before the people , but before the competent judges, as in Mat 12:10 , are quite opposed to this explanation. (3) Dieck, in the Stud. u. Krit . 1832, p. 791, says: As the punishment of death for adultery presupposes liberty of divorcement , and as Jesus had Himself repudiated divorce, He would, by pronouncing in favour of that punishment, have contradicted Himself; while, by pronouncing against it, He would have appeared as a despiser of the law. But apart from the improbability of any such logical calculation on the part of His questioners as to the first alternative, a calculation which is indicated by nothing in the text, the . . . is decisive against this explanation; for a want of logical consistency would have furnished no ground for accusation . [4] (4) The same argument tells against Augustine, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Aretius, Jansen, Cornelius Lapide, Baumgarten, and many other expositors: according to whom an affirmative reply would have been inconsistent with the general mildness of His teaching; a negative answer would have been a decision against Moses. (5) Euthymius Zigabenus, Bengel, and many others, Neander also, Tholuck, Baeumlein, Hengstenberg (who sees here an unhistorical mingling of law and gospel), are nearer the mark in regarding the plan of attack as based upon the assumption, which they regarded as certain, that in accordance with His usual gentleness He would give a negative answer: . , , , , , Euthymius Zigabenus. But this explanation also must be rejected, partly even on priori grounds, because an ensnaring casuistic question may naturally be supposed to involve a dilemma; partly and mainly because in this case the introduction of the question by would have been a very unwise method of preparing the way for a negative answer. This latter argument tells against Ewald, who holds that Christ, by the acquittal which they deemed it probable He would pronounce, would have offended against the Mosaic law; while by condemning, He would have violated as well the milder practice then in vogue as His own more gentle principles. Lcke, De Wette, Brckner, Baur, [5] and many other expositors renounce the attempt to give any satisfactory solution of the difficulty.
. ] as a sign that He was not considering their question, . , . , , Euthymius Zigabenus. For instances of behaviour like this on the part of one who turns away from those around him, and becomes absorbed in himself, giving himself up to his own thoughts or imaginings, from Greek writers (Aristoph. Acharn . 31, and Schol. Diog. Laert. 2. 127) and from the Rabbins, see in Wetstein. Isa 17:13 does not here serve for elucidation. What Jesus wrote is not a subject even of inquiry; nor are we to ask whether, by the act, He was symbolizing any, and if so what, answer (Michaelis: the answer “ as it is written ”). There is much marvellous conjecture among the older expositors. See Wolf and Lampe, also Fabricius, Cod. Apocr . p. 315, who thinks that Jesus wrote the answer given in Joh 8:7 (after Bede; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr . p. 480, Exo 3 , and Godet). Suffice it to say, the strange manner in which Jesus silently declines to give a decisive reply (acting, no doubt, according to His principle of not interfering with the sphere of the magistracy (here a matter of criminal law, Mat 22 ; Luk 12:13-14 ), [6] bears the stamp of genuineness and not of invention, though Hengstenberg deems this procedure unworthy of Jesus; the tempters deserved the contempt which this implied, Joh 8:9 .
Observe in the descriptive imperfect. The reader sees Him writing with His finger. The additions in some Codd. , and (more strongly attested) ., are glosses of different kinds, meaning “ though He only pretended ( simulans ) to write;” and, “ without troubling Himself about them ” ( dissimulans , Ev. 32 adds ). See Matthaei, ed. min, in loc.
[3] Observe also, in reference to this, the in ver. 5, which logically paves the way for an answer in agreement with Moses.
[4] What they really wished was to accuse Him, on the ground of the answer He would give. Hilgenfeld therefore is in error when he thinks they sought to force Him to give a decisive utterance as the obligation of the Mosaic law . By an affirmative reply (he says) Christ would have recognised this obligation, and by His non-observance of the law (Joh 5:18 , Joh 7:23 ) He would have been self-condemned; by a negative answer He would have been guilty of an express rejection of the law. Viewing the matter thus, they could not, indeed, have accused Him on account of His answer if affirmative; they could only have charged Him with logical inconsistency. This tells substantially also against Lange’s view, viz. that they wished to see whether He would venture, in the strength of His Messianic authority, to set up a new law. If in this case He had decided in favour of Moses, they could not have accused Him (to the Sanhedrim).
[5] According to Baur (p. 170 sq.), there is nothing historical whatever in the story; it has a purely ideal import. The main idea he holds to be the consciousness of one’s own sinfulness breaking the power of every sin, in opposition to the accusation brought against Jesus by the Pharisees, that He associated with sinners, and thus was so ready to forgive.
[6] According to Luthardt, to show that the malice of the question did not deserve an answer . But the numerous testing questions proposed to Him, according to the Synoptics, by His opponents, were all of them malicious; yet Jesus did not refuse to reply to them. According to Lange’s fancy, Jesus assumed the gesture of a calm majesty , which, in its playful ease , refused to be disturbed by any street scandal . Melancthon well says: “Initio, cum accusatur mulier, nihil respondit Christus, tanquam in aliam rem intentus, videlicet prorsus a sese rejiciens hanc quaestionem pertinentem ad cognitionem magistratus politici. Postea, cum urgetur, respondet non de muliere, sed de ipsorum peccatis, qui ipsam accusabant.”
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not .
Ver. 6. And with his finger wrote on the ground ] That he wrote downward (as the Syrians then did, and as the Chinese now do, and so their lines at the top do begin again) is very probable. a But what he wrote (whether those words, Jer 22:29 , or those Mat 7:3 ) nothing certain can be determined; the Scripture is silent; and where the Scripture hath not a tongue, we need not have ears; write he did (like himself we may be sure, as Quintilian saith of Julius Caesar, illum eodem animo scripsisse, quo bellavit, that he wrote with the same spirit he sought,) and perhaps he thus wrote on the ground to show that sin, which is written before God, Isa 65:6 , and graven as it were with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond, Jer 17:1 , is pardoned and blotted out by Christ as easily as a writing slightly made in the dust.
a Maslus in Gram. Syr.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6. . . ] . , , . Euthym [121] The habit was a usual one to signify pre-occupation of mind, or intentional inattention: see instances in Wetstein and Lcke. The one ordinarily cited from lian is irrelevant: see Lcke, ii. 269 note. The additions or . are glosses.
[121] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
It does not follow that any thing was actually written. Stier refers to Jer 17:13 , but perhaps without reason.
This minute circumstance speaks strongly for the authenticity of the narration.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 8:6 . . “And this they said tempting Him,” hoping that His habitual pity would lead Him to exonerate the woman. [“Si Legi subscriberet, videri poterat sibi quodammodo dissimilis,” Calvin. , , Euthymius.] The dilemma supposed by Meyer is not to be thought of. See Holtzmann. Their plot was unsuccessful; Jesus as He sat (Joh 8:2 ), , “bent down and began to write with His finger on the ground,” intimating that their question would not be answered; perhaps also some measure of that embarrassment on account of “shame of the deed itself and the brazen hardness of the prosecutors” which is overstated in Ecce Homo , p. 104. The scraping or drawing figures on the ground with a stick or the finger has been in many countries a common expression of deliberate silence or embarrassment. [ , Euthymius.] Interesting passages are cited by Wetstein and Kypke, in one of which Euripides is cited as saying: .
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
tempting = testing. The temptation was in the word “such”, and of two cases they mention the punishment without defining what it was: for the one in Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24 (a virgin) the death was stoning; but in the case of a “wife” the punishment was not stoning, but required a special procedure (Num 5:11-31, which left the punishment with God.
that = in order that. Greek. hina.
on, &o. = into (Greek eis. App-104.) [the dust of] the earth (App-129.).
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6. . . ] . , , . Euthym[121] The habit was a usual one to signify pre-occupation of mind, or intentional inattention: see instances in Wetstein and Lcke. The one ordinarily cited from lian is irrelevant: see Lcke, ii. 269 note. The additions or . are glosses.
[121] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
It does not follow that any thing was actually written. Stier refers to Jer 17:13, but perhaps without reason.
This minute circumstance speaks strongly for the authenticity of the narration.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:6. To accuse) of having violated the law. They were aware of the leniency of Jesus towards the guilty, as being one who had not come into the world for the sake of executing judgment.-, but) Men at leisure, when immersed in thought, are wont at times to employ various gestures, which also resemble those of persons writing; and omit these gestures, when anything serious occurs. Very different is the gesture which the Saviour uses here, upon the case having been now submitted to Him by the Scribes and Pharisees; and this He does more than once.- , , stooping downwards, He began writing with His finger on the earth) Once only God wrote in the Old Testament, namely, the Decalogue; once too, in the New Testament, Christ wrote: moreover He wrote with His finger; for He who was Wisdom itself did not use a pen [stilus]: also He wrote on the earth, not in the air, not in a tablet; He wrote, in other words, drew, either the forms of letters composing words, perhaps the very words which are mentioned at Joh 8:7, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her; or else lines and strokes, not having a distinct signification; the characters in either case, when His finger rested, either remaining or disappearing, Comp. Dan 5:5, [At Belshazzars feast] came forth fingers of a mans hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the kinds palace. Writing is wont to be used with a view to future remembrance. Therefore this action seems evidently to require to be interpreted from the words that follow, that the Lord may signify this: Moses wrote the law: I also can write; nay, the law of Moses was My writing. Ye, Scribes, write judgments against others; I also can write against you, Joh 8:26, I have many things to say and to judge of you. Your sins have been written in your heart; and your names in the earth: Jer 17:1; Jer 17:13, The sin of Judah is written with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond; it is graven upon the table of their heart;-they that depart from Me, shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord. (What suppose that He wrote the names of the accusers?) This writing of Mine ye do not now understand; but hereafter it will be made evident to the whole world what I have written, when the books shall be opened, and your foul acts shall all be disclosed. Therefore Jesus, first, by means of this silent action fixed the wandering, hasty, and careless thoughts of His adversaries, and awakened their conscience; second, He intimated, that He at that time had not come to deliver forensic judgments; and that He preferred to do that, which would seem to the unseasonable accusers an idle act, to devoting His attention to a case of that kind (it is to this that the ancient Gloss refers, He wrote on the earth, , signifying that this business does not belong to Him; instead of which more modern copies have ); that the time when He Himself shall act as Judge, as well with respect to this case, and to these the actors in it, as also with respect to all men, the unjust and just, and that, concerning all things, is not now, but shall be hereafter; that in the meantime all things are recorded in the books; that hereafter the earth will not cover the foul deeds of hypocrites. Isa 26:21, Behold, the Lord cometh out of His place to punish the inhabitants of the earth for their iniquity; the earth also shall disclose her blood, and shall no more cover her slain: Job 16:18, O earth, cover not thou my blood. For writing is wont to be employed for the sake of remembrance against the time to come: Exo 17:14, Write this for a memorial in a book; Psa 102:18, This shall be written for the generation to come. Evidently this action of Jesus Christ has a certain degree of likeness to that ceremony, which was wont to be employed in the case of an adulterous woman: Num 5:13; Num 5:17; Num 5:23, etc. [the trial of jealousy by holy water with dust in it from the floor of the sanctuary]: And the priest shall write these curses in a book, and shall blot them out with bitter water: but there is also a dissimilarity; for the law refers to the case of a woman suspected, but this passage, to that of a woman caught in the act; and in the law, the woman drinks the letters written by the priest in a book, and washed out with water, together with the [bitter] water and dust from the ground; but the letters which Jesus wrote on the earth itself, the woman was not able to drink with water, much less without water. Hence it may readily be seen, that, in this action of Jesus, as far as concerns the accused, there is something as it were broken of and left in suspense, in order that He may appear to intimate, that He is indeed the Judge, but that His judgment shall be accomplished not now (for which reason He dismisses the accusers only wounded [not destroyed] for the present), but hereafter; and that then also this adulterous woman shall have her share either of punishment or of complete acquittal.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:6
Joh 8:6
And this they said, trying him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.-Jesus was not quick to answer. He allowed them to press the point and fully commit themselves. He knew they all had been guilty of the same sin at some time in their lives. [The dilemma they wished to get him in was somewhat like that of the tribute money. To affirm the binding validity and force of the law of Moses would be to advise a course of action contrary to the Roman law. On the other hand, if he set aside this law it would make him liable to the charge of breaking this law which would be an aid in killing his influence with the Jews. In one case they would accuse him to the Romans and place him under civil authority; in the other they could denounce him as setting aside the law of Moses. This is the only recorded instance where Jesus ever wrote a line. What he wrote at this time no one knows for the reason it is not recorded.]
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
tempting: Num 14:22, Mat 19:3, Luk 10:25, Luk 11:53, Luk 11:54, Luk 20:20-23, 1Co 10:9
But: Joh 8:2, Gen 49:9, Jer 17:13, Dan 5:5
as though: Psa 38:12-14, Psa 39:1, Pro 26:17, Ecc 3:7, Amo 5:10, Amo 5:13, Mat 10:16, Mat 15:23, Mat 26:63
Reciprocal: Num 5:17 – of the dust Psa 38:14 – that heareth Mat 12:10 – that Mat 16:1 – tempting Mat 22:18 – Why Mar 10:2 – tempting Joh 5:45 – in Joh 8:37 – but Joh 8:59 – took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
The inspired writer tells us these Jews said this to Jesus to tempt him. He knew all of that, and delayed giving them any answer at all. As though he heard them not. No one of these words is in the Greek text, but have been added by the King James translators as their comment on the action of Jesus in writing with his finger and saying nothing. He certainly did not pretend not to hear the accusers, for that would have been unreasonable for One who had been able even to read the minds of men before they said anything. My comment on the circumstance is that Jesus thereby showed his distaste for the whole thing. Another thing that was accomplished by ignoring them, was to force them to repeat their cowardly remarks, which would render their humiliation all the more evident when the time came. He finally stood before them and made a statement that must have surprised them. He did not advise releasing the woman (as they desired), neither did he give direct instruction to slay her. Another thing, even had Jesus directed that the woman should be stoned, they did not stop to think that they would have to be the executioners, having forgotten the stipulations in Deu 17:7. He that is without sin. This could not mean one who was absolutely sinless in every respect, for that requirement would have made it impossible for anyone to be punished, seeing their own Scriptures declare there is no man who “doeth good, and sinneth not” (Ecc 7:20). The only conclusion possible is that Jesus meant the one who casts the stone must be innocent of the sin for which he wished the woman to be slain. That doubtless put them out of the right to act, for Jesus hal called that generation of Jews an “adulterous” one (Mat 16:4).
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
[Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground.] Feigning as though he heard them not; had of old crept into some books: and it is plain enough that it did creep in. For when Christ had given proof enough that he took cognizance of the matter propounded to him by those words, “He that is without sin among you,” etc., yet did he stoop down again, and write upon the earth.
Many have offered their conjectures why he used this unusual gesture at this time; and, with the reader’s leave, let me also offer mine.
I. The matter in hand was, judging a woman taken in adultery: and therefore our Saviour in this matter applies himself conformably to the rule made and provided for the trial of an adulteress by the bitter water, Numbers 5.
II. Among the Jews, this obtained in the trial of a wife suspected: “If any man shall unlawfully lie with another woman, the bitter water shall not try his wife: for it is said, If the husband be guiltless from iniquity; then shall the woman bear her iniquity.”
“When the woman hath drunk the bitter water, if she be guilty, her looks turn pale, her eyes swell up, etc. So they turn her out of the Court of the Women; and first her belly swells, then her thigh rots, and she dies. The same hour that she dies, the adulterer also, upon whose account she drank the water, dies too, wherever he is, being equally seized with a swelling in his belly, rottenness in his thigh, or his pudenda. But this is done only upon condition that the husband hath been guiltless himself: for if he have lain with any unlawfully himself, then this water will not try his wife.
“If you follow whoring yourselves, the bitter waters will not try your wives.”
You may see by these passages how directly our Saviour levels at the equity of this sentence, willing to bring these accusers of the woman to a just trial first. You may imagine you hear him thus speaking to them: “Ye have brought this adulterous woman to be adjudged by me: I will therefore govern myself according to the rule of trying such by the bitter waters. You say and you believe, according to the common opinion of your nation, that the woman upon whom a jealousy is brought, though she be indeed guilty, yet if the husband that accuseth her be faulty that way himself, she cannot be affected by those waters, nor contract any hurt or danger by them. If the divine judgment proceeded in that method, so will I at this time. Are you that accuse this woman wholly guiltless in the like kind of sin? Whosoever is so, ‘let him cast the first stone,’ etc. But if you yourselves stand chargeable with the same crimes, then your own applauded tradition, the opinion of your nation, the procedure of divine judgment in the trial of such, may determine in this case, and acquit me from all blame, if I condemn not this woman, when her accusers themselves are to be condemned.”
III. It was the office of the priest, when he tried a suspected wife, to stoop down and gather the dust off the floor of the sanctuary; which when he had infused into the water, he was to give the woman to drink: he was to write also in a book the curses or adjurations that were to be pronounced upon her, Num 5:17; Num 5:23. In like manner our Saviour stoops down; and making the floor itself his book, he writes something in the dust, doubtless against these accusers whom he was resolved to try, in analogy to those curses and adjurations written in a book by the priest, against the woman that was to be tried.
IV. The priest after he had written these curses in a book blots them out with the bitter water, Num 5:23. For the matter transacted was doubtful. They do not make the suspected woman drink, unless in a doubtful case.
The question is, Whether the woman was guilty or not? If guilty, behold the curses writ against her: if not guilty, then behold they are blotted out. But Christ was assured, that those whom he was trying were not innocent: so he does not write and blot out, but writes and writes again.
V. He imitates the gesture of the priest, if it be true what the Jews report concerning it, and it is not unlikely, viz. that he first pronounced the curses; then made the woman drink; and after she had drunk, pronounced the same curses again. So Christ first stoops down and writes; then makes them as it were drink, in that searching reflection of his, “He that is without sin among you”; and then stoops down again and writes upon the earth.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 8:6. But this they said tempting him, that they might have whereof to accuse him. In what, it may be asked, did the tempting lie? The common answer is that, if Jesus pronounced for the sparing of the woman, His enemies would raise an outcry against Him as contradicting Moses; that if, on the contrary, He pronounced her worthy of death, they would accuse Him to the Roman Government as usurping powers which belonged to it alone. The explanation thus given is no doubt to a large extent correct. But the supposition is also possible that these scribes and Pharisees were not thinking of a calm judicial sentence which, if it suited their purpose, they might report to the Romans. They may have thought of a sentence to be executed at the moment. There before them was the guilty one; the crowd was round about her,was even pressing upon her in all the excitement which the circumstances could not fail to awaken. Will Jesus reply to their question, No? They will instantly rouse the multitude against Him as contradicting Moses. Will He reply. Yes? They will stone the woman on the spot. Then the Roman Government will itself interpose, and Jesus will be seized as the instigator of the deed of blood.
But Jesus stooped down, and with his linger wrote on the ground. Jesus will not heed them at the first: it will lend more weight to His reply if it be not too quickly given. We are not to imagine that what He wrote was a sentence to be pronounced. He was not thus to assume the office of a judge. What He wrote was probably some text or precept of Divine truth which, had He not been interrupted, He would have proceeded to explain to the people. Such writing on the ground is still to be met with on the part of teachers in the East
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Ver. 6. In what did the snare consist? Some, Augustine, Erasmus, Luther and Calvin think that they desired to lead Jesus to pronounce a sentence whose severity would place it in contradiction to His ordinary compassion. Others, Euthymius, Bengel, Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Weiss and Keil suppose that the adversaries expected a decision in the line of clemency, which would have put Jesus in contradiction to the Mosaic statute. But, in both of these cases, there would have been no snare properly so called, no danger existing for Jesus except in case of an affirmative answer in the first explanation and of a negative answer in the second. Hug and Meyer suppose the snare more skillfully laid, that is to say, threatening Jesus on both sides. If He replies negatively, He contradicts Moses; if He replies in conformity with Moses, He enters into conflict with the Roman law which did not punish adultery with death. This appears to me to approach the truth. Only the Roman law has nothing to do here; for the Romans did not impose on the provinces their own legislation, and the conflict resultant from a simple contradiction between the two codes would have had nothing striking enough in the eyes of the people to seriously injure Jesus.
The solution seems to me to be simple: If Jesus answered: Moses is right; stone her! they would have gone to Pilate and accused Jesus of infringing upon the rights of the Roman authority, which had reserved to itself the jus gladiihere, as in all conquered countries. If He answered: Do not stone her! they would have decried Him before the people and would even have accused Him before the Sanhedrim as a false Messiah; for the Messiah must maintain or restore the sovereignty of the law. It is exactly the same combination as when the question was proposed to Him of paying tribute to Caesar (Luke 20 and parallels). Luthardt and Reuss also adopt this explanation. Weiss objects, it is true, that they could not reasonably expect from Jesus that He would give the order to stone her; and that, in any case, He could still reserve the confirmation of the penalty for the Roman authority. But in the case of a sentence of condemnation it would have been in vain for Jesus to place all the limitations upon this answer that were possibleno account would have been taken of this before the Roman governor. He had been accused indeed of forbidding to pay tribute to Caesar, though He had answered in precisely the opposite way.
The act of Jesus in the face of the question which is proposed to Him is not simply, as it is frequently understood from certain examples derived either from the Greek authors or from the Rabbis, a way of isolating Himself and expressing His indifference with regard to the subject proposed. In the first place, it could not be an indifferent question for Jesus in such a situation. Then, notwithstanding all that Weiss says, it seems to me that Hengstenbergis in the true line of thought when he sees in this act, thus understood, a sort of trick imcompatible with the moral dignity of Jesus. If He gave Himself the appearance of doing a thing, it was because He was really doing it. He wrote, and that which He wrote must quite naturally, as it seems to me, be the words which He utters at this same moment (Joh 8:7). He writes the first part of it while He is stooping down the first time (Joh 8:6), and the second part when, after having raised Himself, He resumes the same attitude (Joh 8:8). Thereby Jesus takes the position of a divine judge both of the woman who is brought to Him and of the very persons themselves who present her to Him. A sentence is not only pronounced: it is written. This act has a meaning analogous to that of the saying of Jeremiah (Joh 17:13): Those who turn aside from Me shall be written in the earth.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
There have been several suggestions about what Jesus may have written in the dust, all of which are guesses. Perhaps He wrote the words of Jer 17:13 b: "Those who turn away on earth will be written down, because they have forsaken the fountain of living water, even the Lord." Perhaps He wrote Exo 23:1 b: "Do not join your hand with a wicked man to be a malicious witness." [Note: Derrett, p. 187.] Perhaps he wrote the sins of the woman’s accusers. Jesus may have written the same words that He proceeded to speak giving a visual as well as an audible decision. Incidentally, this is the only record of Jesus writing that we have in the Bible.
If the account of this incident is complete, the writer must have felt that what Jesus wrote was secondary to His act of writing since he did not identify what He wrote. Perhaps Jesus was reminding the scribes and Pharisees that God had originally written the Ten Commandments with His finger (Exo 31:18). Jesus’ act reminds the reader of this and so suggests that Jesus is God. As God gave the Old Covenant by writing with His finger, so God (Jesus) was giving the New Covenant by writing with His finger. Perhaps Jesus also wrote on the ground to delay answering His critics. This would have had the double effect of heightening their anticipation of His reply and giving them time to repent. The mention of this act here anticipates His doing the same thing again later (Joh 8:8).