The Writing In The Sand

[archistrage]

Then each went to his own house,
while Jesus went to the Mount of Olives.
But early in the morning he arrived again in the temple area, and all the people started coming to him, and he sat down and taught them.
Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery.
Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”
They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.
But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
Again he bent down and wrote on the ground.
And in response, they went away one by one, beginning with the elders. So he was left alone with the woman before him.
Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

John 8:1-11

This is one of my favorite passages in the Gospel. In all the times the Pharisees and scribes tested Jesus, this has to be one of the most tense moments. All the other times they tested him, it was merely arguments and debate. But here the Pharisees present Jesus a question with a pretty obvious answer. The law on these matters is quite clear. Will Jesus, who tells them to love their neighbors and forgive their enemies, break the law, or contradict his own teachings?

I am particularly interested in what it is that Jesus writes in the sand. Whatever it is obviously scared the daylights out of them, as not only did they run away, they didn’t even mentioned it during the Passion when Jesus was on trial!

The common theories are that Jesus wrote the sins of each of them in the sand, or wrote all their names according their ages, starting with the oldest, and ending with the youngest. I don’t place much faith in the latter, but the former piques my curiosity, and in my experience is the one most people believe to be true as well.

Personally I believe that while Jesus did write their sins, he did not write all of them: only the ones that were, shall we say, appropriate for the situation.

If you all permit, I would like to tell the rest as a story.

 

[archistrage]

The scribes and the Pharisees were tired of him. Who was he to teach the people instead of them? Who was he to get all of their love and respect? Why couldn’t he just go home. Why couldn’t he just be quiet!?

“What can we do? Each time we argue with him, he uses our own words against us?”

“And each time we ask him if we should follow the law, he makes us look like fools who don’t even know what the law is!”

Then one of the Elders spoke up.
“Maybe we are looking at this the wrong way. Maybe we aren’t using the right law.”

The others all fell silent and turned to him.
“Go on.”

“He says that ‘Love’ fulfills the law. Let us ask him whether we need Love or a Stone to fulfill the law for an adulterer.”

 

[archistrage]

The next day they found Jesus teaching the people in the temple. The Pharisees and scribes surrounded him and threw a woman in front of him.

The Elder stepped forward.

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women.”

He threw a stone in front of Jesus.
“So what do you say?”

Jesus looked at the Elder, then down at the women before him. He knelt down as if it to pick up the rock…

The Elder smiled.

…and instead started writing in the sand.

The smile disappeared and he grew angry.

“We do not have time for this. Your words will not help you now. Tell us, should we obey Moses or not?”

The other men began to say “Tell us rabbi, what should we do?”

Jesus stopped writing and picked up the rock and offered it to the Elder.

“Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

The Elder smiled again and reached out to take the rock. He could be broken. He would fall in line with the rest of them…

He froze. The words on the ground. Dread filled him as he read them. He looked back at Jesus, who stood there holding the rock, quietly watching him, waiting for him to make his move.

The Elder turned around and walked back to the other Elders and they talked quietly amongst themselves. They all turned around and walked away.

Jesus knelt back down and continued writing in the sand.

The rest of the men watched the Elders walk away.

They turned back to Jesus and looked at what he was writing.

Fear filled them one by one, word by word. And one by one each of them went away.

 

[archistrage]

The woman was crying. She knew what it meant to be accused of adultery: she knew what the punishment was.

She looked up and saw they had brought her before Jesus of Nazareth. She had heard him teach, had seen him heal. He was good man, a just man of God. There was no way out. The law was clear on these matters.

Then one of the men who had tricked her threw a stone in front of Jesus and asked him what to do. She saw Jesus kneel down to pick up the stone. She closed here eyes, waiting for the rock to hit.

But it never came. Then the man behind her told Jesus to stop wasting their time and make up his mind.

She opened her eyes and looked at Jesus. He was standing and holding the rock and he said “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

She knew he was talking about himself. He was trying to teach the people that only the good may judge the wicked: only the just may stone the unjust. She bowed her head and again, waited for the stone…

…then she saw the writing, and read the words. No, not a word, a name and a number. It was the name of the man who accused her, and the price he had paid her.

She saw Jesus kneel back down and put the rock aside, and continued writing more names and more prices. The names of all the men around her who had used her and how much they had paid her.

“How could he know?” she thought.

She watched as he wrote the names and the prices in the dirt between the two of them. With each line the distance between them grew.

Jesus finished his writing and stood back up and looked around.

“Woman where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

She looked up from the writing and then around them. They were all gone, likely fled in fear of being judged alongside her. Only she remainded to face his judgment.

She bowed her head. “No one, sir.”

He started walking towards her, and stopped in front of her.

“Neither do I condemn you.”

He reached down and raised her to her feet.

“Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

He walked away.

She looked down at the writing, at her list of sins, but the writing was gone, only his footprints remained.

 

[patrick457]

Just a little food for thought. Moses received the tablets of stone on which the Ten Words were written by the finger of God. Jesus writes with His finger on the sand. A couple of mites in addition: IMHO it may not be what was written which we should be focusing on, but the gesture itself. “I wrote the Law. How could I break it?”

 

[steve53]

He wasn’t writing anything. He didn’t know letters.

He was making symbols.

 

[bogeydogg]

I don’t think WHAT He wrote is of importance, in fact I think that John does not tell this information is intentional to draw us away from the very thing we focus on; the writing. I think Jesus was ignoring them.

They did not drop their stones because of what He wrote they dropped their stones because of His question. Our question is why.

I think the answer is that they were uninterested in defending the Torah concerning this woman’s sin (remember they caught her in the act and Moses demanded both parties be stoned not one) and instead were only interested in drawing jesus out to catch Him in a dilemma. If He says to execute her then they will say He has overthrown Caesar by ruling in place of the procurator. If He says do not execute her then they will say He has set aside Moses and therefore is not a prophet much less THE Prophet of Mosaic expectation.

I think He ignores them though because He realizes that by them bringing this woman to Him they have already tacitly admitted that His authority is greater both than Moses, or Rome’s. After all they sat on the seat of Moses and were perfectly capable of judging the case (as they did when Jesus was brought before them) but they set aside their own judgement in favor of His and thus recognized His authority as greater then theirs. They also did not bring her to Pilate to be executed (as they did when Jesus was brought before them) even though this was in Jerusalem and in so doing admitted His authority was greater than Pilate’s and therefore also Rome’s.

So when Jesus hears them He rules on the case, “Let him without sin cast the first stone.” As we know from Jesus trial they knew perfectly well that the only person in that room without sin was Jesus himself (remember they could find no case against Him). In saying this He is challenging them to admit out loud what they have tacitly already admitted. He is saying, “I am Messiah, admit that I am who I say and call on me to cast the first stone.”

But they can’t do that because then all of their complaints against Him would crumble into the dust, and so they drop their stones and walk away. I think oldest to youngest because the aged know that the very fact they have only brought this woman and not the man they caught her with displays the One before whom they have placed the case for judgement is worthy to judge it. It is the hot headedness of youth (remember this also appears in John when Jesus chastises them for wanting to call down fire from Heaven on the Samaritans) that is slow to drop the case and follow the lead of the older and shrewder men.

The story makes another point however.

Those who are in positions of legitimate religious authority have the right to pass judgement and God will honor that judgement, even in the Old Covenant. Remember Jesus frees her from His judgement when her accusers leave off of the charge and do not condemn her. I think this is a not at all subtle indication of God’s honoring of the judgement of the priesthood in forgiving of sins and in their binding as well.

God Bless

 

[aragonjohn1]

no one knows now unless God lets them.

tho there is speculation that it has to do something with “in the beginning was the word” or “the word was made flesh”

me personally believe that it was something about Beauty.

Shalom
God Bless you on you’re journey

 

[Joe_Kelley]

He wasn’t writing anything. He didn’t know letters.

He was making symbols.

16* And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and he went to the synagogue, as his custom was, on the sabbath day. And he stood up to read; 17 and there was given to him the book of the prophet Isaiah. He opened the book and found the place where it was written, 18* “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.” 20 And he closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant, and sat down; and the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed on him.

Luke 4:16-20 I suppose He didn’t need to read it since He gave it to Isaiah initially.

 

[patrick457]

Luke 4:16-20 I suppose He didn’t need to read it since He gave it to Isaiah initially.

Be careful; there are those who take this particular pericope in Luke to be ahistorical. Besides, even if one could read (something I think is not impossible for Jesus) it was not an automatic guarantee that one could write. The ancient world works in a different way than ours does: I mean, you read scrolls (and later codices), aloud.

 

[Fragile]

Where did the ideas ever come that Jesus couldn’t write?

 

[patrick457]

Where did the ideas ever come that Jesus couldn’t write?

The idea that most people in the ancient world were illiterate, apparently.

 

[Fragile]

Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, he constantly asked the pharisees “have you not read?”, stands to reason He was not illiterate.

 

[patrick457]

Jesus was a rabbi, a teacher, he constantly asked the pharisees “have you not read?”, stands to reason He was not illiterate.

First off, the difficulty is that rabbi back then did not mean what it does today: a title applied to officially-‘ordained’ (or rather authorized) lay theologians. Rabbi (‘my great one’) was really a simple honorific usually given for anyone wise enough to be able to teach.

Now I do have my own problems with the assumption that the low literacy rate in the Greco-Roman world also automatically holds true in Jewish areas, but more on this later.

 

[thistle]

This is one of my favorite passages in the Gospel. In all the times the Pharisees and scribes tested Jesus, this has to be one of the most tense moments. All the other times they tested him, it was merely arguments and debate. But here the Pharisees present Jesus a question with a pretty obvious answer. The law on these matters is quite clear. Will Jesus, who tells them to love their neighbors and forgive their enemies, break the law, or contradict his own teachings?

I am particularly interested in what it is that Jesus writes in the sand. Whatever it is obviously scared the daylights out of them, as not only did they run away, they didn’t even mentioned it during the Passion when Jesus was on trial!

The common theories are that Jesus wrote the sins of each of them in the sand, or wrote all their names according their ages, starting with the oldest, and ending with the youngest. I don’t place much faith in the latter, but the former piques my curiosity, and in my experience is the one most people believe to be true as well.

Personally I believe that while Jesus did write their sins, he did not write all of them: only the ones that were, shall we say, appropriate for the situation.

If you all permit, I would like to tell the rest as a story.

First of all nobody has any clue what Jesus wrote in the sand so there is little point in speculating.
Secondly, where on earth do you get the idea that everyone ran away scared because of what Jesus wrote.
Scripture does not say they ran away. It says they went away one by one.
Scripture does not say they went away scared.
Scripture does not say they went away because of what Jesus wrote in the sand.
You are trying to rewrite Scripture.

They went away because of what Jesus SAID (spoken words)!

7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and *said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest: and Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.

 

[archistrage]

First of all nobody has any clue what Jesus wrote in the sand so there is little point in speculating.
Secondly, where on earth do you get the idea that everyone ran away scared because of what Jesus wrote.
Scripture does not say they ran away. It says they went away one by one.
Scripture does not say they went away scared.
Scripture does not say they went away because of what Jesus wrote in the sand.
You are trying to rewrite Scripture.

They went away because of what Jesus SAID (spoken words)!

7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and *said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning from the eldest: and Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst.

1. At no point did I claim what I wrote was fact. Your accusation that I was trying to “rewrite Scripture” is completely absurd and insulting.
2. Apparently there is a difference in translations. The NAB says that “And in response, they went away one by one.” There seems to be some ambiguity there.
3. What I wrote is MY THEORY. I apologize, I probably should have clarified that in my original post. My goal was not to change scripture, but to fill in some of the blanks. The gospels are a record of events that actually took place, but they do not provide
   every.
   single.
   detail.
   of each event.
4. My belief that they went away scared was an attempt to figure out why they went away in the first place.

These are people who hated Jesus. They did not respect him. They did not recognize his authority. They wanted him dead, gone, out of the way.
So what do they do. They go in a group to him. They outnumber him. They;re likely armed with stones in preparation for stoning the woman. They present him with a decision that lawfully has only one answer.

So why would they run?

Did they grow bored because he was writing in the sand? Did they simply decide they could deal with him another day. But again, they’re in force. They’re armed. They give him a decision with an obvious answer. Everything’s going they’re way.

You say he went away because of what Jesus said. Why? What did he say that would make them leave? That only those “without sin may cast the first stone”? Why would that make them leave? Jewish theology clearly stated that everyone was capable of sinning: Kings, priests, common people. Their entire history sinful people had stoned sinful people. Why would that make them leave? They wanted Jesus dead.
They were their to stone a woman. They had probably stoned people before. You expect me to believe they suddenly felt bad because of what he said and just left!?!?

Some theologians think Jesus wrote down all their sins. So? What, would he just write down the 10 Commanments? Doesn’t prove anything. Did he write theirs names, and their sins? Interesting, but again, doesn’t prove anything. It would just be one man accusing another of a crime, and in this case, it would be a Carpenter accusing a highly respected member of the Synagogue of a crime. Yeah, that would work.

The only logical answer I see is that whatever Jesus wrote, it had to do with the decision they set before him. Remember, at the end he asks the Woman “Has no one condemned you?” Not, “has no one remained to carry out your sentence?”

As several of you have pointed out, in the case of adultery, they were supposed to bring the man AND the woman in for judgment. But they didn’t. Jesus wasn’t looking for them to stone the woman, he was waiting for them to say that legally, she was guilty.

But they didn’t. Despite the fact that everyone, including Jesus, knew what she had done, they didn’t.

This tells me that whatever he wrote implicated them in the crime. That if they wanted to accuse her, they had to accuse themselves, or someone they knew. Yes, he could outright accuse them of the crime, but where was his proof. They could deny it.

But, what if all of a sudden, they saw Jesus write down their name, and the amount of money they paid the prostitute. Put yourselves in their place, and tell me you wouldn’t be afraid at the prospect of being stoned as well. Tell me you wouldn’t walk away.

Because that wasn’t what they wanted; they came to stone the woman and hopefully Jesus. They weren’t prepared to risk their own lives, so they left.

Once again, this is MY THEORY. I do not consider it to be the absolute and final word on what took place that day. But I do think it makes an interesting story, and seeing as how God it the Author of Salvation History, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was in the general ballpark.

Peace,
Jacob

 

[patrick457]

I think the answer is that they were uninterested in defending the Torah concerning this woman’s sin (remember they caught her in the act and Moses demanded both parties be stoned not one) and instead were only interested in drawing jesus out to catch Him in a dilemma. If He says to execute her then they will say He has overthrown Caesar by ruling in place of the procurator. If He says do not execute her then they will say He has set aside Moses and therefore is not a prophet much less THE Prophet of Mosaic expectation.

There is an irony in this pericope: the mob who are seeking to stone the woman are probably themselves committing an illegal act. The Romans mainly reserved the right of capital punishment to themselves and seldom granted it to their subjects, and with good reason - it could be used by the local courts to deal with local sympathizers. That is not to say, however, that provincial citizens did not take matters into their own hands time and again and illegally executed natives on criminal charges (which the governing officials would have turned a blind eye to).

That being said, there are also some holes in their purported witnesses: how in the world could these religious teachers have caught a woman in the act of adultery? They brought the woman before Jesus, but where is the man? The Law dictates that both should be stoned (Leviticus 20:10)! Why didn’t they lay hold of them both?

 

[patrick457]

Just a little food for thought. Moses received the tablets of stone on which the Ten Words were written by the finger of God. Jesus writes with His finger on the sand. A couple of mites in addition: IMHO it may not be what was written which we should be focusing on, but the gesture itself. “I wrote the Law. How could I break it?”

Case in point. In Exodus 31:18 and 32:15-16 (Septuagint) we read:

And he gave Moyses, when he stopped speaking to him on the mountain, Sina, the two tablets of witness, stone tablets written by the finger of God. …] And Moyses turned and went down from the mountain, and the two tablets of witness were in his hands, stone tablets written (katagegrammenai) on both their sides; on this side and that side they were written (ēsan gegrammenai). And the tablets were God’s work, and the writing, God’s writing, was engraved in the tablets.

Compare it with the passage:

And Jesus, having stooped down, with the finger he was writing (kategraphen) on the earth, and when they continued asking him, having bent himself back, he said to them, “The sinless of you—let him first throw at her the stone.” And again having stooped down, he was writing (egraphen) on the earth.

In both instances, the verbs katagraphō and graphō are curiously used in parallel. Now the argument is not so much that Jesus wrote the Decalogue on the sand, but that the author of this pericope (the Pericope Adulterae, as it is known, has a rather colorful and complicated history before it ended up where we find it today, in the gospel of John) purposefully parallels Jesus’ writing with God’s authorship of the Ten Words by employing similar vocabulary.

 

[Fragile]

So many of the things I see discussed/argued over on Catholic sites are just so bizarre!

 

[patrick457]

So many of the things I see discussed/argued over on Catholic sites are just so bizarre!

This ain’t really a Catholic-only thing: biblical studies is literally founded upon arguments by scholars mainly over things which we laymen would just see as trivial or bizzare. I like to use this example as an illustration to show how ‘weird’ things can get, but there are people out there debating whether Paul meant ‘testicle’ when he said ‘covering’ in 1 Corinthians 11:15 (as one guy claims) or not.