6<\/strong>. tempting him<\/em> ] 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<\/span>).<\/p>\n that they might have to accuse him<\/em> ] 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<\/span>; Mar 8:38<\/span>). 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<\/em> to be stoned, He contradicted Jewish Law; if He said she was<\/em> 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<\/span>). The Sanhedrin might of course pronounce sentence of death (Mat 26:66<\/span>; Mar 14:64<\/span>; comp. Joh 19:7<\/span>), but it rested with the Roman governor whether he would allow the sentence to be carried out or not (Joh 19:16<\/span>): see on Joh 18:31<\/span> and Joh 19:6<\/span>.<\/p>\n stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground<\/em> ] 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<\/em>, or fixing the eyes upon the ground<\/em>, you may baffle unreasonable importunities.’ ‘Wrote’ should perhaps be ‘kept writing’ (comp. Joh 7:40-41<\/span>), or ‘ began to write<\/em>, made as though He would write’ (comp. Luk 1:59<\/span>). 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<\/span>; Deu 9:10<\/span>). They were hoping that He would explain away the seventh commandment, in order that they themselves might break the sixth.<\/p>\n Tempting him – <\/B>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<\/span>); 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.<\/P> Wrote on the ground – <\/B>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.<\/P> As though he heard them not – <\/B>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.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 6<\/span>. That they might have to accuse him.<\/B><\/I>] 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.<\/P> <\/P> With<\/B><\/I> his <\/B>finger wrote<\/B><\/I>] Several MSS. add their sins who accused<\/I> her, and the sins of all men<\/I>. There are many idle conjectures concerning what<\/I> our Lord wrote on the ground, several of which may be seen in Calmet.<\/P> <\/P> 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:-<\/P> <\/P> “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<\/I> the letters<\/I> of the alphabet<\/I> in the dust<\/I>. This saves pen, ink, and paper. WARD.<\/P> <\/p>\n 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. <\/P> <\/p>\n 6. stooped down<\/B>It will beobserved He was sitting<\/I> when they came to Him. <\/P> with his finger wrote on theground<\/B>The 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.<\/P><\/p>\n This they said, tempting him<\/strong>,…. 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,<\/p>\n that they might have to accuse him<\/strong>; 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:<\/p>\n but Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground<\/strong>; 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,<\/p>\n [as though he heard them not]<\/strong>; 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.<\/p>\n (See Jer 17:13<\/span>, “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.)<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Tempting him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Evil sense of this present active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, as so often (Mark 8:11<\/span>; Mark 10:2<\/span>, etc.).<\/P> That they might have whereof to accuse him <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Purpose clause with <\/SPAN><\/span> and present active subjunctive of <\/SPAN><\/span>. This laying of traps for Jesus was a common practice of his enemies (Lu 11:16<\/span>, etc.). Note present active infinitive of <\/SPAN><\/span> (see Mt 12:10<\/span> for the verb) to go on accusing (with genitive <\/SPAN><\/span>). It was now a habit with these rabbis.<\/P> Stooped down <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). First aorist active participle of <\/SPAN><\/span>, old verb to bow the head, to bend forward, in N.T. only here and verse John 8:8<\/span>; Mark 1:7<\/span>. The use of <\/SPAN><\/span> (down) gives a vivid touch to the picture.<\/P> With his finger <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Instrumental case of <\/SPAN><\/span> for which see Mt 23:4<\/span>.<\/P> Wrote on the ground <\/B> ( <\/SPAN><\/span>). Imperfect active of <\/SPAN><\/span>, 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 <\/SPAN><\/span> 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. <\/P> <\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n 1) “This they said, tempting him,”<\/strong> (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<\/span>; Luk 10:25<\/span>; Luk 20:23<\/span>. They likely hoped that His pity would lead Him openly to exonerate the woman, defend her, or justify her before them.<\/p>\n 2) “That they might have to accuse him.”<\/strong> (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<\/span>.<\/p>\n 3) “But Jesus stooped down,” <\/strong>(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.<\/p>\n 4) “And with his finger wrote,”<\/strong> (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<\/span>.<\/p>\n 5) “On the ground as though he heard them not.”<\/strong> (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.”<\/p>\n 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<\/span>,) 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. <\/p>\n (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. <\/p>\n (6) On the text, see Note on Joh. 8:4<\/span>. 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.<\/em> 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<\/span>). 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.<\/p>\n 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<\/span>.) 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.<\/p>\n 6<\/strong>. <\/strong> Tempting him<\/em> 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. <\/p>\n Stooped down<\/em> From his sitting posture. <\/p>\n Wrote on the ground<\/em> On the hard pavement of the temple court. The written character, if any, would be in the slight layer of dust. This writing <\/em> 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, <\/em> which it would not do to declare in words. <\/em> What did Jesus write? This question, though discussed by commentators, is very much like asking what did the seven thunders (Rev 10:4<\/span>) utter? And yet, when Jesus resumed his writing, in Joh 8:8<\/span>, there seems a solemn significance about it. To the culprit accusers themselves it doubtless seemed that that finger <\/em> could write <\/em> their own deeds of darkness, recalled by conscience to their present recollection.<\/p>\n Joh 8:6<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>This they said, tempting him, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> 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<\/span> and Mat 27:2<\/span>. 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<\/span>; Mat 22:46<\/span>. 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 <\/em>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, <\/em>and with his finger wrote on the ground as though he heard, <\/em>or regarded, them not. <\/em>There was most probably a language in the action itself, either to intimate that thesehypocritical Pharisees should be themselves, <\/em>as the prophet expresses it, Jer 17:13<\/span> written in the earth, <\/em>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: <\/em>“To be willing to continue ignorant of what our great Master has thought fit to conceal, is no inconsiderable part of Christian learning.” <\/p>\n Joh 8:6<\/span> . ] denoting, not a good-natured questioning (Olshausen), but, agreeably to the standing synoptical<\/em> representation of the relation of those men to Jesus, and in keeping with what immediately follows, malicious tempting<\/em> . The insidious<\/em> feature of the plan consisted in this: “If He decides with<\/em> Moses for<\/em> 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<\/em> Moses and against<\/em> stoning, He will then be prosecuted before the Sanhedrim as an opposer of the law.” That they expected and wished for the former<\/em> result, is shown, by the prejudicial<\/em> 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<\/span> . 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<\/em> , it is overlooked that here was the very<\/em> case for which stoning<\/em> 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<\/em> His questioners to the Sanhedrim<\/em> , and to tell them to take the woman thither<\/em> (Ebrard), that would have amounted to a declining<\/em> 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<\/em> of (1) They would either have accused him to the Romans imminutae majestatis<\/em> , because they then possessed the jus vitae et necis, or to the Jews imminutae libertatis<\/em> (Grotius), and as a false Messiah (Godet). But that prerogative of the Romans was not infringed by the pronouncing of a sentence of condemnation;<\/em> 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<\/em> of the law or would He peradventure even take upon Himself to pass such a judgment” (so, substantially, Hitzig also, on Joh. Markus<\/em> , 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<\/em> relating to the thing which they really wanted ( i.e. the execution<\/em> , 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<\/em> (Ebrard, following Michaelis). The words themselves, and the design expressed in the , which could not take place before the people<\/em> , but before the competent judges, as in Mat 12:10<\/span> , are quite opposed to this explanation. (3) Dieck, in the Stud. u. Krit<\/em> . 1832, p. 791, says: As the punishment of death for adultery presupposes liberty of divorcement<\/em> , and as Jesus had Himself repudiated<\/em> divorce, He would, by pronouncing in favour of<\/em> that punishment, have contradicted Himself; while, by pronouncing against<\/em> 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<\/em> . [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<\/em> reply would have been inconsistent with the general mildness<\/em> of His teaching; a negative<\/em> 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<\/em> answer: . , , , , , Euthymius Zigabenus. But this explanation also must be rejected, partly even on priori<\/em> grounds, because an ensnaring casuistic question may naturally be supposed to involve a dilemma;<\/em> 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<\/em> 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<\/em> the attempt to give any satisfactory solution of the difficulty.<\/p>\n . ] 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<\/em> . 31, and Schol. Diog. Laert. 2. 127) and from the Rabbins, see in Wetstein. Isa 17:13<\/span> does not here serve for elucidation. What<\/em> 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<\/em> (Michaelis: the answer “ as it is written<\/em> ”). There is much marvellous conjecture among the older expositors. See Wolf and Lampe, also Fabricius, Cod. Apocr<\/em> . p. 315, who thinks that Jesus wrote the answer given in Joh 8:7<\/span> (after Bede; comp. also Ewald, Gesch. Chr<\/em> . p. 480, Exo 3<\/span> , 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<\/span> ; Luk 12:13-14<\/span> ), [6] bears the stamp of genuineness and not of invention, though Hengstenberg deems this procedure unworthy of Jesus; the tempters deserved<\/em> the contempt<\/em> which this implied, Joh 8:9<\/span> .<\/p>\n Observe in the descriptive imperfect. The reader sees<\/em> Him writing with His finger. The additions in some Codd. , and (more strongly attested) ., are glosses of different kinds, meaning “ though He only pretended<\/em> ( simulans<\/em> ) to write;” and, “ without troubling Himself about them<\/em> ” ( dissimulans<\/em> , Ev. 32 adds ). See Matthaei, ed. min, in loc.<\/p>\n <\/em><\/p>\n [3] <\/em> Observe also, in reference to this, the in ver. 5, which logically paves the way for an answer in agreement with Moses.<\/p>\n [4] What they really wished was to accuse<\/em> 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<\/em> . By an affirmative reply (he says) Christ would have recognised this obligation, and by His non-observance of the law (Joh 5:18<\/span> , Joh 7:23<\/span> ) 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<\/em> 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<\/em> Moses, they could not have accused<\/em> Him (to the Sanhedrim).<\/p>\n [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.<\/p>\n [6] According to Luthardt, to show that the malice of the question did not deserve an answer<\/em> . 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<\/em> , which, in its playful ease<\/em> , refused to be disturbed by any street scandal<\/em> . 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.<\/em> Postea, cum urgetur, respondet non de muliere, sed de ipsorum peccatis, qui ipsam accusabant.”<\/p>\n 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his<\/em> finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not<\/em> . <\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/strong><\/p>\n Ver. 6. And with his finger wrote on the ground<\/strong> ] 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<\/em> But what he wrote (whether those words, Jer 22:29<\/span> , 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, <\/em> 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<\/span> , and graven as it were with a pen of iron, and with the point of a diamond, Jer 17:1<\/span> , is pardoned and blotted out by Christ as easily as a writing slightly made in the dust.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> Maslus in Gram. Syr. <\/p>\n 6. <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> . <\/strong> <\/strong> ] . <\/strong> , <\/strong> , . 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.<\/p>\n [121] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116<\/p>\n It does not follow that any thing was actually written. Stier refers to Jer 17:13<\/span> , but perhaps without reason.<\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n