John 8:1-11 '... with His finger wrote on the ground'

[Complete]

John 8:3-11

'And the scribes and Pharisees
brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery;
and when they had set her in the midst,
They say unto Him, "Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. ​

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned:
but what sayest thou?" ​

This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.'
​

​

Hello there

I have always been intrigued by the way the Lord dealt with this incident, and it is only within recent years that I have understood it.
The question seemed straight forward enough, requiring only a yes or no answer. So why should it be used as a means of temptation? How could the Lord fail to answer the question correctly, according to the law? I did not know how this could be called a trick question, one which could trip Him up sufficiently to give the Scribes and Pharisees something by which they could accuse Him.

The answer lies in their words, 'Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned', for this 'law' referred only to a 'betrothed damsel' (Deut. 22:23-24); ...

'If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband,
and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city,
and ye shall stone them with stones that they die;
the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;
and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife:
so thou shalt put away evil from among you.'

... and to show that the Lord knew their thoughts, and knew also that this was another man's 'wife'. He complied with the law prescribed in 'such' a case, (Numbers 5:11-31), and stooped down and wrote the curses (as required in v.23) on the ground. ...

'And the priest shall write these curses in a book,
and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:'
(Num 5:23)

... The temptation was in the word, 'such', and of two cases they mention the punishment without defining what it was: for the one in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (re., 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.

'But Jesus stooped down,
and with His finger wrote on the ground,
as though He heard them not.'
(John 8:6b)

So by writing on the ground the Lord was in fact indicating that He knew the truth concerning this woman, not only in regard to her state as, 'a betrothed damsel', and not 'a wife', but also knew the procedure required in such a case, which was to leave the punishment with God.

So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them,
He that is without sin among you, let Him first cast a stone at her.
And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one,
beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman,
He said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"
She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."'
(John 8:7-11)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Ref:- 'The Companion Bible' marginal notes.

 

[Rockson]

I have always been intrigued by the way the Lord dealt with this incident, and it is only within recent years that I have understood it.

I've often thought it was an interesting passage as well.

The question seemed straight forward enough, requiring only a yes or no answer. So why should it be used as a means of temptation? How could the Lord fail to answer the question correctly, according to the law?

You want to know why? Of course this is my opinion can't prove it but consider this. If he answered the question according to the law he would have to say YES. However, however the truth of the matter is God wasn't dealing with Israel really now as a theocracy under him, not really. There's only one thing he basically preserved and that's the High Priest and the sacrifices of animals given until Christ would fulfill that. Israel had really lost their nation.

They politically speaking and in all other aspects were under Roman governance or oppression. While adultery was of course wrong the penalties in order to keep Israel pure if I can say it this way were put aside. And not that men/woman didn't need to repent of such things but as far as the nation goes he was not seeking to make Israel great again (kind of like the Make America Great again idea) Yes he would appeal for them to repent but in real terms that nation was gone and knowing it's total take away even as a form of a nation was going to be taken away in a few short years. And consider why were they even bringing this woman to him anyway.....legally they couldn't implement the death penalty.....the Romans only had that right. (other things I could say too)

 

[Soyeong]

​

​

Hello there

I have always been intrigued by the way the Lord dealt with this incident, and it is only within recent years that I have understood it.
The question seemed straight forward enough, requiring only a yes or no answer. So why should it be used as a means of temptation? How could the Lord fail to answer the question correctly, according to the law? I did not know how this could be called a trick question, one which could trip Him up sufficiently to give the Scribes and Pharisees something by which they could accuse Him.

The answer lies in their words, 'Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned', for this 'law' referred only to a 'betrothed damsel' (Deut. 22:23-24); ...

'If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband,
and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city,
and ye shall stone them with stones that they die;
the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city;
and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife:
so thou shalt put away evil from among you.'

... and to show that the Lord knew their thoughts, and knew also that this was another man's 'wife'. He complied with the law prescribed in 'such' a case, (Numbers 5:11-31), and stooped down and wrote the curses (as required in v.23) on the ground. ...

'And the priest shall write these curses in a book,
and he shall blot them out with the bitter water:'
(Num 5:23)

... The temptation was in the word, 'such', and of two cases they mention the punishment without defining what it was: for the one in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 (re., 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.

'But Jesus stooped down,
and with His finger wrote on the ground,
as though He heard them not.'
(John 8:6b)

So by writing on the ground the Lord was in fact indicating that He knew the truth concerning this woman, not only in regard to her state as, 'a betrothed damsel', and not 'a wife', but also knew the procedure required in such a case, which was to leave the punishment with God.

So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them,
He that is without sin among you, let Him first cast a stone at her.
And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one,
beginning at the eldest, even unto the last:
and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman,
He said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?"
She said, "No man, Lord." And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more."'
(John 8:7-11)

Thank you
In Christ Jesus
Chris

Ref:- 'The Companion Bible' marginal notes.

God's law requires that both the man and the woman be brought before a judge to do a thorough investigation, that the witnesses are to throw the first stone, and that no one is to be put to death without at least two or three witness, so if Jesus had stonned her, then he would have been sinning. It is possible that what Jesus was writing was a reference to this verse:

Jeremiah 17:13 O Lord, the hope of Israel, all who forsake you shall be put to shame; those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living water.

 

[Complete]

@Rockson
@Soyeong

Hello both,

Thank you for your input. It is appreciated.

Within the love of Christ our Saviour,
our Lord and Head.
Chris

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
In the eighth chapter of John's gospel, Jesus was teaching in the Temple courtyard
when some of his opponents showed up with a woman caught red-handed in
adultery. They presented her to Jesus to see if he agreed with Moses in regard to
executing adulterers (Lev 20:10) Exactly why they brought the woman I don't know
because they could've just raised their hand and asked him without all the drama.

Anyway, long story short, Jesus persuaded the woman's accusers to disqualify
themselves and then told her, in so many words, that he himself had no intention
of condemning her.

The thing is: Had Jesus problems with "mommy issues" that incident would've been
a golden opportunity to take them out on someone, but instead he was a perfect
gentleman with that woman: a fallen woman no less.

NOTE: There are working girls on the street corners of every major city like Los
Angeles, San Diego, and Seattle. Granted their way of life is unbecoming, and
Christ doesn't condone it, but he harbors no ill will towards any of them (cf. Luke
7:36-50) In point of fact; God was thinking of them the same as all the rest of us
when Jesus went to the cross for the sins of the world.
_

 

[Olde Tymer]

~
Jesus was left alone in this next scene as his men had gone into town in search
of food.

● John 4:3-9 . . He left Judea and went back once more to Galilee.

. . . Now he had to go through Samaria. So he came to a town in Samaria called
Sychar, near the plot of ground Jacob had given to his son Joseph. Jacob's well was
there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well.

NOTE: Sychar (a.k.a. Shechem) wasn't located in a foreign country. It was actually
situated in Israel within the territory assigned to Joseph's son Ephraim. (Josh
21:21)

. . . It was about the sixth hour when a Samaritan woman came to draw water.
(That would've been +/- mid day per the Jews' time as their civil day began half
way between midnight and high noon per Roman time whether the sun was up
or not.)

. . . Jesus said to her: Will you give me a drink? The Samaritan woman said to him:
You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?"
(For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.)

That scene was an excellent means for testing Jesus' prejudices which, if he was
motivated by any; didn't factor into this meeting at all. In point of fact, he
discussed with this woman-- ordinarily a religious and cultural outsider --some very
important facts of life relative to everyone desiring to associate with God no matter
what their age, race, gender, economic level, and/or ethnic distinctions.

* Jesus counseled a very receptive audience as this woman not only knew about
Messiah's coming but was watching for it. (John 4:25) In other words: she trusted
in the reality of such a man; and Jesus said of her: "I have food to eat that you
know nothing about. My food-- said Jesus --is to do the will of him who sent me
and to finish his work" (John 4:32-34) viz: the meeting with that woman wasn't
happenstance; she was on Jesus' itinerary for that very day's activities.
_