Up to this point, the Pharisees had no opportunity to accuse Yeshua of breaking the Law of Moses, because He kept
every jot and tittle of it perfectly. This event is their only attempt to get Him to verbally contradict that law. If they
could achieve that, it would render His claim of keeping the law perfectly null and void. They chose to bring up the
situation while Yeshua was teaching in the Temple (Jn. 7:53-8:2) to discredit Him publicly , especially over an issue
for which the punishment was not debatable, the issue of adultery. That is the presumed case here:
And the scribes and Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him,
Teacher, this woman has been taken in adultery, in the very act. (Jn. 8:3-4). To assure Yeshua that the woman had been
caught in the very act of adultery and was undoubtedly guilty, they implied eyewitnesses were involved.
The Law of Moses was very clear: A man and a woman caught in the act of adultery were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10;
Deut. 22:22) So, the concern of the scribes and Pharisees was the Mosaic Law: Now in the law Mosheh commanded us to
stone such: what then do you say of her? (Jn. 8:5). The religious leaders wanted Yeshua to contradict this law. The Greek is
more emphatic: "Now Moses said to stone such, but you, what do you say?" However, to be caught in the act of adultery
requires that two people be brought before the judges. So, where was the male counterpart to this relationship?
Initially, Yeshua simply refused to answer, but instead performed a specific act: He stooped down, and with his finger wrote
on the ground (Jn. 8:6b). When the Pharisees pressed Him for an answer, Yeshua finally gave them one: And again he stooped
down, and with his finger wrote on the ground (Jn. 8:8). Amazingly, many commentaries try to determine what Yeshua wrote
on the ground, as if after two thousand years something would be left in the dust to decipher. However, in the Greek text, the
emphasis is not on the writing, but on the finger. In the Greek language , the same thing can be said in different ways, but the
point the author wants to emphasize is usually placed at the start of the sentence; this is called the "emphatic position" or the
"emphatic state."
The finger, not the writing, is in the emphatic position in this verse: and with his finger wrote on the ground. Why would the
emphasis be on the finger? Of the 613 commandments God gave to Moses, 603 were written on parchment with the pen of
a man. The other ten were inscribed onto tablets of stone, and one of the ten was the law against adultery. Furthermore, the
ten inscribed with the very finger of God (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 9:10). Again the emphasis is on the finger, showing that Yeshua, as
the author of the commandment, knew exactly all that the Mosaic Law said about this sin and its punishment.
The specific answer Yeshua gave them was, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her (Jn. 8:7). This often
pulled out of context to mean something not intended: that one should not judge others. However, the Bible requires believers
to pass judgment at times. Confronting a brother who has sinned is a matter of judgment. Church discipline leading to
excommunication is a matter of judgment. Furthermore, if He were saying, "Only if you are without sin yourself should you cast
the first stone," He would be contradicting the Law of Moses, which did not require the sinlessness of a witness before the accused could be executed as a criminal. Under these conditions, no one could be executed under the law, and yest the law required execution for certain sins, one of which was the sin of adultery. Therefore, if Yeshua said they should cast the first stone only if they were sinless, He would have broken the Mosaic Law, and they would have had a basis for accusing Him.
Yeshua, was making the point that if this woman is judged on the basis of the Mosaic Law, they would have to judge her on all that Moses said about this sin and punishment. Yes Moses said anyone guilty of adultery must be stoned to death, but that was not all. Moses also said that no one could be stoned to death except at the testimony of two or three witnesses. This much they had, since she was caught in the very act. Moses also said that the two or three witnesses whose testimony condemned the guilty one to death must be the ones to cast the first stone. Furthermore, they had to be faithful and true (Deut. 13:9; 17:2-7), which indicated to some that the two or three witnesses whose testimony condemned an adulteress to death and who were responsible for casting the first stone must NOT be guilty of the same sin as the accused. Therefore, in the context of their own theology, Yeshua said that if the two or three witnesses were innocent of the same sin, they should cast the first stone, just as Moses commanded. However, one by one, the men walked away, implying that, at least among the accusers, not one person was innocent of this sin. Perhaps the one with whom she had been caught in the very act was standing among the accusers.
The Law of Moses required a legal condemnation, but because of the two or three witnesses were unwilling to cast the first stone, there were no legal ground to condemn her. It is worth repeating that this was the Pharisees only attempt to get Yeshua to contradict a point of the Mosaic Law, and it failed miserably. They never tried this ploy again but continued to accuse the Messiah of violating the Mishnaic-Pharisaic Law.
Shalom Aleichem
every jot and tittle of it perfectly. This event is their only attempt to get Him to verbally contradict that law. If they
could achieve that, it would render His claim of keeping the law perfectly null and void. They chose to bring up the
situation while Yeshua was teaching in the Temple (Jn. 7:53-8:2) to discredit Him publicly , especially over an issue
for which the punishment was not debatable, the issue of adultery. That is the presumed case here:
And the scribes and Pharisees bring a woman taken in adultery; and having set her in the midst, they say unto him,
Teacher, this woman has been taken in adultery, in the very act. (Jn. 8:3-4). To assure Yeshua that the woman had been
caught in the very act of adultery and was undoubtedly guilty, they implied eyewitnesses were involved.
The Law of Moses was very clear: A man and a woman caught in the act of adultery were to be put to death (Lev. 20:10;
Deut. 22:22) So, the concern of the scribes and Pharisees was the Mosaic Law: Now in the law Mosheh commanded us to
stone such: what then do you say of her? (Jn. 8:5). The religious leaders wanted Yeshua to contradict this law. The Greek is
more emphatic: "Now Moses said to stone such, but you, what do you say?" However, to be caught in the act of adultery
requires that two people be brought before the judges. So, where was the male counterpart to this relationship?
Initially, Yeshua simply refused to answer, but instead performed a specific act: He stooped down, and with his finger wrote
on the ground (Jn. 8:6b). When the Pharisees pressed Him for an answer, Yeshua finally gave them one: And again he stooped
down, and with his finger wrote on the ground (Jn. 8:8). Amazingly, many commentaries try to determine what Yeshua wrote
on the ground, as if after two thousand years something would be left in the dust to decipher. However, in the Greek text, the
emphasis is not on the writing, but on the finger. In the Greek language , the same thing can be said in different ways, but the
point the author wants to emphasize is usually placed at the start of the sentence; this is called the "emphatic position" or the
"emphatic state."
The finger, not the writing, is in the emphatic position in this verse: and with his finger wrote on the ground. Why would the
emphasis be on the finger? Of the 613 commandments God gave to Moses, 603 were written on parchment with the pen of
a man. The other ten were inscribed onto tablets of stone, and one of the ten was the law against adultery. Furthermore, the
ten inscribed with the very finger of God (Ex. 31:18; Deut. 9:10). Again the emphasis is on the finger, showing that Yeshua, as
the author of the commandment, knew exactly all that the Mosaic Law said about this sin and its punishment.
The specific answer Yeshua gave them was, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her (Jn. 8:7). This often
pulled out of context to mean something not intended: that one should not judge others. However, the Bible requires believers
to pass judgment at times. Confronting a brother who has sinned is a matter of judgment. Church discipline leading to
excommunication is a matter of judgment. Furthermore, if He were saying, "Only if you are without sin yourself should you cast
the first stone," He would be contradicting the Law of Moses, which did not require the sinlessness of a witness before the accused could be executed as a criminal. Under these conditions, no one could be executed under the law, and yest the law required execution for certain sins, one of which was the sin of adultery. Therefore, if Yeshua said they should cast the first stone only if they were sinless, He would have broken the Mosaic Law, and they would have had a basis for accusing Him.
Yeshua, was making the point that if this woman is judged on the basis of the Mosaic Law, they would have to judge her on all that Moses said about this sin and punishment. Yes Moses said anyone guilty of adultery must be stoned to death, but that was not all. Moses also said that no one could be stoned to death except at the testimony of two or three witnesses. This much they had, since she was caught in the very act. Moses also said that the two or three witnesses whose testimony condemned the guilty one to death must be the ones to cast the first stone. Furthermore, they had to be faithful and true (Deut. 13:9; 17:2-7), which indicated to some that the two or three witnesses whose testimony condemned an adulteress to death and who were responsible for casting the first stone must NOT be guilty of the same sin as the accused. Therefore, in the context of their own theology, Yeshua said that if the two or three witnesses were innocent of the same sin, they should cast the first stone, just as Moses commanded. However, one by one, the men walked away, implying that, at least among the accusers, not one person was innocent of this sin. Perhaps the one with whom she had been caught in the very act was standing among the accusers.
The Law of Moses required a legal condemnation, but because of the two or three witnesses were unwilling to cast the first stone, there were no legal ground to condemn her. It is worth repeating that this was the Pharisees only attempt to get Yeshua to contradict a point of the Mosaic Law, and it failed miserably. They never tried this ploy again but continued to accuse the Messiah of violating the Mishnaic-Pharisaic Law.
Shalom Aleichem
