John 8:6

8:6 It is impossible to know what Jesus . . . wrote in the dust. It has been suggested that he wrote the sins of the accusers.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.—δέ, 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.—κάτω κύψας, τῷ δακτύλῳ ἔγραφεν εἰς τὴν γῆν, 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 Belshazzar’s feast] “came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaster of the wall of the kind’s 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, μὴ προσποιούμενος, signifying that this business does not belong to Him;” instead of which more modern copies have καὶ προσποιούμενος); 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.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_8:6. Πειράζοντες αὐτόν] 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 Matthew 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 πειράζειν(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 κατῃγορεῖν, 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 ἵνα ἔχ. κατηγ. αὐτ. 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 à 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: γινώσκοντες γὰρ αὐτὸν ἐλεήμονα κ. συμπαθῆ, προσεδόκων, ὅτι φείσεται αὐτῆς, καὶ λοιπὸν ἕξουσι κατηγορίαν κατʼ αὐτὸν, ὡς παρανόμως φειδομένου τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου λιθαζομένης, Euthymius Zigabenus. But this explanation also must be rejected, partly even on à 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 ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ 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. Lücke, De Wette, Brückner, Baur,[5] and many other expositors renounce the attempt to give any satisfactory solution of the difficulty.

τῷ δακτύλῳ ἔγραφεν εἰς τ. γῆν] as a sign that He was not considering their question, ὅπερ εἰώθασι πολλάκις ποιεῖν οἱ μὴ θέλοντες ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας ἄκαιρα καὶ ἀνάξια. Γνοὺς γὰρ αὐτῶν τὴν μηχανὴν, προσεποιεῖτο γράφειν εἰς τ. γῆν, καὶ μὴ προσέχειν οἷς ἔλεγον, 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, ed. 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, Matthew 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 ἔγραφεν the descriptive imperfect. The reader sees Him writing with His finger. The additions in some Codd. καὶ τροσποιούμενος, and (more strongly attested) μὴ προσποιούμ., are glosses of different kinds, meaning though He only pretended (simulans) to write; and, without troubling Himself about them (dissimulans, Ev. 32 adds αὐτούς). See Matthaei, ed. min, in loc.

[3] Observe also, in reference to this, the οὖν 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 Langes 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 ones 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 Langes 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.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh 8:6 . τοῦτο δὲ … αὐτοῦ . “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. προσεδόκων ὅτι φείσεται αὐτῆς , καὶ λοιπὸν ἕξουσι κατηγορίαν κατʼ αὐτοῦ ὡς παρανόμως φειδομένου τῆς ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου λιθαζομένης , 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 ), κάτω κύψας … γῆν , “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. [ ὅπερ εἰώθασι πολλάκις ποιεῖν οἱ μὴ θέλοντες ἀποκρίνεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας ἄκαιρα καὶ ἀνάξια , Euthymius.] Interesting passages are cited by Wetstein and Kypke, in one of which Euripides is cited as saying: τὴν σιωπὴν τοῖς σοφοῖς ἀπόκρισιν εἶναι .

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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 possible—no 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.”

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

stooped down--It will be observed He was sitting when they came to Him.

with his finger wrote on the ground--The words of our translators in italics ("as though He heard them not") have hardly improved the sense, for it is scarcely probable He could wish that to be thought. Rather He wished to show them His aversion to enter on the subject. But as this did not suit them, they "continue asking Him," pressing for an answer. At last, raising Himself He said.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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, (Exodus 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; and therefore delays of this sort, which do nothing but hinder the progress of the Gospel, are wisely disregarded.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(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 ground”—or, more exactly, was writing on the ground. It is the imperfect of the continued action, and it points to the narrator’s 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

So when they continued asking him,.... For observing that he put himself in such a posture, they concluded that they had puzzled and perplexed him, and that he knew not what to say; and therefore they were more urgent for a speedy answer, hoping they should get an advantage of him; and that they should be able to expose him, and that his confusion would appear to all the people:

he lift up himself and said unto them; having raised up himself, he looked wistly at them, and returned them this wise answer to, their confusion:

he that is without sin among you; meaning, not that was entirely free from sin, in heart, in lip, and life; for there is no such person; the most holy man in life is not, in such sense, free from sin; but that was without any notorious sin, or was not guilty of some scandalous sin, and particularly this of adultery; which was in this age a prevailing sin, and even among their doctors; hence our Lord calls that generation an adulterous one, Mat 12:39; and which was literally true of them; with this compare Rom 2:22. Adultery increased to such a degree in this age, that they were obliged to leave off the trial of suspected wives, because their husbands were generally guilty this way; and the waters would have no effect, if the husband was criminal also: so the Jews say (q),

"when adulterers increased, the bitter waters ceased; and Rabban Jochanan ben Zaccai (who was now living) caused them to cease.''

In vindication of which, he cited the passage in Hos 4:14; and this agrees with their own account of the times of the Messiah, and the signs thereof, among which stands this (r);

"in the age in which the son of David comes, the house of assembly (the gloss interprets it the place where the disciples of the wise men meet to learn the law) shall become, "a brothel house".''

And that this sin so greatly prevailed, our Lord well knew; and perhaps none of those Scribes and Pharisees were free from it, in one shape or another; and therefore bids him that was,

let him first cast a stone at her; alluding to the law in Deu 17:7, which required the hands of the witnesses to be upon a person first, to put him to death; and as Dr. Lightfoot thinks, referring to their own sense and opinion, in trying a wife suspected of adultery; that if the husband was guilty the same way, the waters would have no effect: by this answer of our Lord, he at once wrought himself out of the dilemma, they thought to distress him with; for though he passed no sentence upon the woman, and so took not upon him the judiciary power, with which they could accuse him to the Roman governor, yet he manifestly appeared to agree with Moses, that such an one deserved to be stoned; wherefore they could not charge him with being contrary to Moses; and by putting him that was without sin, to cast the first stone at her, he showed himself merciful to the woman, and to them, to be the searcher of hearts.

(q) Misn. Sota, c. 9. sect. 9. (r) Misn. ib c. 9. sect. 15. T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 97. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

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.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

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.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Wrote with his finger, as one that was musing about something else. (Witham)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

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.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

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.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But this they said tempting him, that they might have (whereof) to accuse him. They sought a ground of formal accusation against Jesus. This implies some court before which the charge they desired to formulate it might be brought. The precise accusation is difficult to determine, and sundry distinguished scholars, Lucke, De Wette, and Alford, declare the problem or question insoluble. Augustine has been followed by a great body of expositors, who have supposed that an affirmative reply would have been inconsistent with the gentleness and mildness of our Lord"s treatment of sinners, while a negative reply would at once have given them a charge to bring before the Sanhedrin of such a relaxation of the Law as would endanger his position as a Rabbi, still more as the Prophet like unto Moses. Almost all critics agree as to the use to which Christ"s enemies were ready to put a negative reply, and therefore they coincide with Augustine in this part of his explanation. But the interpretation put upon the affirmative reply would not furnish the ground of any accusation before any court. An apparent inconsistency would be no civil charge, and would have no weight before any legal tribunal. The condemnation of adulterers to death by stoning would have been Christ"s allowance of the letter of the Law to stand. The Romans could take no umbrage at this until the act had been carried into execution. It may probably have been known that, let the Sanhedrin record what verdict and punishment they pleased, the Roman magistrates would not have carried it into capital execution. How, then, could the scribes and Pharisees have carried an accusation or information before a Roman tribunal? The solution was suggested by Baumgarten-Crusius and Luthardt, and adopted by Moulton, that Christ was asked to say "Aye" or "No" to an instant, tumultuous act of vengeance upon the adulteress. Let him say "No," they would accuse him of deliberately ignoring and repudiating the authority of the Law of Moses; let him say "Yes," they were ready to stone the woman there and then, and subsequently to throw the responsibility of such violation of Roman jurisdiction upon the Lord Jesus as its instigator. Meyer"s objection, that no question at all had been put to Christ on this supposition, is not clear. It was this. Clearly apprehending that adultery is a capital offence, and that there was a case before them upon which no doubt could be thrown, they ask him, with the stones in their hands, "Shall we kill this damsel or not?" If he says "No," then they were prepared to denounce the Prophet for his dogmatic trifling with the Law; if "Yes," they are ready to do the deed, and fasten upon Jesus all the shame and guilt of the proceeding before the Roman governor. It was a very analogous problem to that concerning the tribute money recorded in Mt 22. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger was writing on the ground (eiv thn , into the earth). Some manuscripts, E, G, and about ninety cursives, add, mh prospoioumenov , "not troubling himself with them though he beard them not" (Authorized Version). This act is unparalleled in Scripture, even if the custom is still occasionally practised in the East. Mr. O"Neil, in his instructive volume, "Palestine Explored," records a curious instance of a youth, who, after playing some practical joke upon an old man, feigned utter ignorance of the surprise and cry of the old man by instantaneously assuming the position of one entirely abstracted from all sublunary thought, in fact, by sitting on the ground and scribbling with his finger in the dust, "as though he heard and saw nothing of what had happened." Such an intention can only be attributed to our Lord on the understanding that it was a current method of indicating an indisposition to have anything to say to the intruders. He was seated; he turned aside from the excited crowd, and by a significant symbol expressed his displeasure at their proceedings, and his perception of their craftiness. Conjecture has been busy, but vainly, with the inquiry as to what our Lord wrote on the ground, and some have urged (Godet) that he wrote the memorable sentence which follows, as a judge might write the verdict upon the case submitted to him. This is not probable, and it would detract from the symbolism of the act.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

That they might have to accuse him - Either of usurping the office of a judge, if he condemned her, or of being an enemy to the law, if he acquitted her. Jesus stooping down, wrote with his finger on the ground - God wrote once in the Old Testament; Christ once in the New: perhaps the words which he afterward spoke, when they continued asking him. By this silent action, he, 1, fixed their wandering, hurrying thoughts, in order to awaken their consciences: and, 2, signified that he was not then come to condemn but to save the world.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

6. Jesus stooped down, and … wrote. As though to say he understood their purposes and would pay no attention to them. This is the only time in the New Testament that our Lord is described as writing.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

6. πειράζοντες. This verb is frequent in the Synoptists of trying to place Christ in a difficulty; never so used by S. John, who, however, uses it once of Christ ‘proving’ Philip (Joh 6:6).

ἵνα ἔχ. κατ. 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.

κάτω κύψας κ.τ.λ. 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.’ Κατέγραφεν means ‘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 except the Bishops’ Bible), ‘as though He heard them not.’ The Greek is μὴ προσποιούμενος, which Stephens admitted into his editions of 1546 and 1549, but not into that of 1550, which became the Textus Receptus. 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.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. κατέγ. εἰς τ. γῆν] ὅπερ εἰώθασι πολλάκις ποιεῖν οἱ μὴ θέλοντες ἀνακρίνεσθαι πρὸς τοὺς ἐρωτῶντας ἄκαιρα καὶ ἀνάξια. γνοὺς γὰρ αὐτῶν τὴν μηχανὴν προσεποιεῖτο γράφειν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ μὴ προσέχειν οἷς ἔλεγον προσεποιεῖτο γράφειν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ μὴ προσέχειν οἷς ἔλεγον. Euthym. The habit was a usual one to signify pre-occupation of mind, or intentional inattention: see instances in Wetstein and Lücke. The one ordinarily cited from Ælian is irrelevant: see Lücke, ii. 269 note. The additions προσποιούμενος or μὴ προσπ. are glosses.

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.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. From τοῦτο δέ to κατηγ. αὐτοῦ is om. by DM, the clause appearing in the rec. supported by SUL fam. 13 (in the form κατηγορίαν κατʼ αὐτοῦ). Such laying of traps for Jesus is often mentioned in the Synoptists, e.g. Mar 8:11, Luk 11:16.

κατά is seldom used by Jn., but cf. κατηγορίαν κατά followed by a genitive, at 18:29.

κάτω κύψας is read here, but κατακύψας at v. 8, “having stooped down.” κατακύπτειν occurs again in the Greek Bible only at 4 Kings 9:32, in the sense of “peeping out”; see, for παρακύπτειν, on 20:5. For κατακύπτειν, “to stoop,” Milligan cites Aristeas ix. I.

κατέγραφεν. So DEGHMS, but KUΓΛ fam. 13 have ἔγραφεν. καταγράφειν does not occur again in N.T., but appears several times in LXX, often meaning “to register,” a sense also found in papyri. It indicates a record or register of something blameworthy in Job 13:26, Job 13:1 Esdr. 2:16, Ecclus. 48:10; and this meaning is accepted in some ancient comments, both here and at v. 8.

In a short recension of the story found in an Armenian MS. of the Gospels of A.D. 989, we have: “He Himself, bowing His head, was writing with His finger on the earth, to declare their sins; and they were seeing their several sins on the stones.”1 And again, after εἰς τὴν γῆν in v. 8, U and some cursives add ἕνος ἐκάστου αὐτῶν τᾶς ἁμαρτίας, as if Jesus was writing down the names and sins of the several accusers. Jerome has the same tradition: “Jesus inclinans digito scribebat in terra, eorum, uidelicet qui accusabant et omnium peccata mortalium, secundum quod scriptum est in propheta Relinquentes autem te in terra scribentur” (adv. Pelagium ii. 17, citing Jer 17:13).

There is, however, no evidence that Jesus was writing anything by way of record. That He was able to write may be assumed, although in no other place in the N.T. is He said to have written anything. But it is probable that on this occasion He was only scribbling with His finger on the ground, a mechanical action which would suggest only an unwillingness to speak on the subject brought before Him, and preoccupation with His own thoughts.2

If, however, the meaning of register for κατέγραφεν is to be pressed, the emphasis must be placed on εἰς τὴν γῆν: “He began to register the accusation in the dust,” as if He would have no permanent record.

After γῆν the rec. adds, with EGHK, the gloss μὴ προσποιούμενος, “affecting that it was not so,” sc. “as though He heard them not.” This is a classical use of προσποιεῖσθαι with a neg. (cf. Thucyd. iii. 47); the verb occurs again in the N.T. only at Luk 24:28 (cf. 1Sa 21:13, προσεποιήσατο, “feigned himself,” sc. to be mad).

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.