A Believer's Commentary on John 8:1-11

Nazaroo · Oct 7, 2007

J. B. Jordan's commentary on the verses is striking for its sweeping and unified vision of this incident in the context of Temple and Prophetic typology.

Jordan seems to have found so much that appears uplifting and stable while pursuing this line of approach, that one naturally feels there must indeed be something to it.

All the more reason then, to examine its strengths and weaknesses carefully and thoughtfully.

The Finger of God

Jordan: "The clue lies in the statement that He wrote with His finger, which points to the previous two times God so wrote. The Ten Words were written with the finger of God, as was the phrase "mene mene tekel upharsin" at Belshazzar's feast (Ex. 31:18; Dan. 5:5)."

An awful lot seems to hang upon a convincing connection to Daniel, and in particular the famous "writing on the wall" by the hand of God.

This connection is initially made via a single short phrase in the text:

"But Jesus bent down and wrote with the finger (Greek: τω δακτυλω ) on the ground." (Jn 8:6b).

(The expression also occurs in some MSS in verse 8:8, but the support is weak: von Soden's Ia group.)

It should be understood that the Jesus' writing on the ground is not in dispute textually as part of the verses: But the phrase of critical importance to Jordan IS in dispute in verse 8:8.

Without the phrase appearing at least once in the passage, the connection to Daniel's vision of a hand with FINGERS writing on the wall becomes much weaker.

Then the differences between Daniel and John 8:1-11 become more significant, perhaps more significant than any surface similarities.

The other place that Jordan mentions, the writing by God directly upon the Tablets of Moses, is even less easily linked to our text.

The original story in Exodus (Exod. 20:1-24:7) does not mention God actually writing, but rather God speaking the instructions, with Moses writing them down (Exod. 20:1, 24:4).

Jordan is referring to the later version found in Exodus 32:15-19, 34:1-28, and recounted in Deuteronomy 9:8-10:5.

In particular, this story differs in some details from that presented in Deuteronomy (For instance, Moses himself writes on the 2nd set of tablets: Exod. 34:27-28. Compare this with Deut. 10:1-4!).

Although God Himself writes on the 1st set of tablets (both versions) in OT both books, The actual expression "finger of God" is only found in the Deuteronomy text (Deut. 9:10).

The Daniel text does not explicitly mention the "finger of God", but rather the "fingers of a man's hand", and the Babylonian king Belshazzar saw "the part of the hand that wrote". (Dan. 5:5).

Thus the "connection" at the O.T. end is as fuzzy as the "connection" at the Jn 8:6,8 end of things. The connection to Daniel is not the "finger of God" exactly, but rather simply "the finger".

Nazaroo · Oct 7, 2007

Jordan:

"For one thing, Jesus compared Himself to Moses as lawgiver (7:16-19), and some of those in the multitude recognized Him as the promised Second Moses (7:40). Thus, for Jesus to write with His own finger in the ground (= stone floor) carries forward the theme that He is not only a Second Moses, but Yahweh Incarnate."

As we noted in the previous footnote, Daniel doesn't say God wrote with His own finger, but rather with the fingers of part of a man's hand (Dan. 5:5), and the fingers were rather "sent by God" (Dan. 5:24).

Even if it were the case that God wrote with His own hand, (it would apply better to the Ten Commandments instance, Deut. 9:10) the simple act of writing by Jesus on the ground can hardly by itself "carry forward the theme that He (Jesus) is Yahweh."

Jordan fails to develop this claim convincingly. Its not enough to point to Jesus writing on the ground, apparently ignoring a group of legalists pestering Him, and say that this is "evidence that Jesus is God Incarnate".

Whether or not Jesus is God Incarnate, Jordan will have to do a lot better than this, to convince others that this passage is legitimate support for this particular Christian doctrine.

This appears to be another typical case of "preaching to the choir". Ordinary Christians may nod their head in agreement with Jordan, but honest inquirers are going to think both Jordan and his supporters are seeing elephants in clouds here, based on 'evidence' like this.

It often happens in Christian apologetics that defenders of the faith fail to even convincingly expound the faith using Holy Scripture, let alone defend the faith to fair-minded agnostics or God seeking students.

Nazaroo · Oct 8, 2007

"The Pharisees plotted to judge Jesus without Biblical due process, but Jesus used due process to judge them."

This is a grand theme, deserving a cogent defence and bolstered by a full arsenal of evidence. Unfortunately, Jordan does nothing to develop this theme, particularly the specific claim concerning Jesus using "due process".

Here of all places the circumstance demands a full and proper treatment of the Torah, and all of the pressing legal questions swirling around this incident.

Nazaroo · Oct 8, 2007

Jordan:

"On that occasion ( Exodus 32), an inspection of jealousy was conducted, as the people were forced to drink water in which were mixed the calf and the law of God (compare Numbers 5). On that occasion, then, the people were condemned in the courts of the Temple for committing spiritual adultery."

This is an incredible and exciting claim - that literally, or even typologically a "Test for Adultery" under The Jealousy Law of Numbers 5 was actually conducted in the time of Moses for the whole people, over the Calf Incident.

The Jealousy Law referred to (Numbers 5), was however only normally enacted in the case of jealous and suspicious husband, who had no witnesses at all to an alleged adultery committed by his wife.

Under this law, the husband presented the accused wife to the (high) priest in the temple, to undergo an 'ordeal', a ritual test probably designed to frighten the woman into a confession, or else poison her.

The Jealousy Law is not really a proper match to the situation of the Golden Calf, where there were plenty of witnesses, and no real dispute concerning what had basically transpired.

Also, there the main crime was Idolatry. Although later prophets allegorized and typologized Idolatry as a kind of "adultery", personifying Israel as a harlot etc. and Yahweh as her 'husband', this remains firmly in the realm of metaphor. Many aspects of the Yahweh/Israel relationship do NOT correspond to the husband/wife case (e.g., Jeremiah 3:1 !) either spiritually or LEGALLY.

The actual date of the enactment of this law is unknown, but it may be prior to the 1st Temple Period, since it mentions (only) the Tabernacle (Heb. משכן "Mishkan"), and the priest ('cohen') 12 times. This means the law would not have existed, at least in the form it now has, until just after the time of Moses (the pre-temple period).

Chronologically however, the Calf Incident was understood to have occurred before this section of Numbers was even written.

Perhaps most fatal of all to Jordan's thesis here concerning the Calf Incident is the fact that Moses immediately orders the Levites to attack the crowd with swords, and 3,000 Israelites are slain in one day (Exod. 32:26-29)

This is done without any trial, any testimony of witnesses, or even an inquiry, and certainly without anything resembling a "Guilt Ritual" or some enactment of the "Jealousy Law"...

Nazaroo · Oct 8, 2007

Jordan:

"The Pharisees wanted Jesus to condemn the sinful woman in the courts of the Temple, but instead Jesus condemned them for adultery. Jesus said, "Let him who is without sin among you be first to throw a stone at her"; after which they all departed one by one.

We might assume that Jesus was accusing them all of actual sexual infidelity, and that each of them was guilty of it. If any of the men had actually been sexually chaste, he might have cast a stone. This interpretation does not do justice to the passage, however. "

Jordan boldly asserts that Jesus condemned the woman's accusers of adultery. He is certainly right that Jesus' pronouncement and its peculiar phraseology does far more than simply insist on the legal requirement for witnesses.

And Jordan rightly warns of taking this statement too literally.

But even with these insights, Jordan falls very short of adequately explaining Jesus' speech here, both its legal basis, and even its intended meaning.

The 1st pronouncement of Jesus (John 8:7b) remains as much an enigma as does His writing in the earth.

Nazaroo · Oct 9, 2007

Jordan:

Temple Court versus Civil Court

Remember that the setting is the Temple. If this had been a civil law court setting, in the "gates of the city," then it would have been conducted as a civil proceeding. In that case, Jesus would have replied, "Man, who made Me a judge over you?" as He did in another case (Lk. 12:14). Jesus would simply have refused to act as a civil judge.

In the Temple, however, Jesus was a teacher and in that sense a judge.

But since this was a religious rather than a civil context, Jesus rightly pointed to the fact that only God can pass a true judgment in the Temple, because only God is without sin. Any sin – any sin at all – disqualifies us from passing ultimate judgments, Temple judgments as it were.

Jesus reminded the Pharisees of this, and each of them, one at a time, became aware that he was not sinless and perfect, and therefore unworthy to remain.

They all left, but Jesus did not leave! Jesus remained behind, because he was indeed without sin. Jesus was able to pass judgment, and He did so. Jesus is the Man who is entitled to sit in the Temple (8:2).

To sum up this point: John 8:1-11 does not comment on judgments that must be administered by human civil courts. Rather, the locus of the discussion is the ultimate judgments that come from God's Temple.

"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" does not apply in civil society, but it does apply to the Last Judgment.

Here now Jordan departs from historical analysis and engages in some unsupported speculation which might most kindly be classed as "wishful thinking".

"Civil" versus "Religious"?

His idea here of "civil" versus "religious" is attractive, and here is being applied as an apologetic tool to help "explain" the problem of why Jesus in other settings declined to act as a "judge", while here in John 8:1-11 He appears to have reluctantly accepted the role.

"...only God can pass a true judgment in the Temple, because only God is without sin." ( - Jordan)

But Jordan's thesis here flies in the face of the historical facts. The Israelites DID pass judgements of this nature in the Temple, and their judges had full authority to judge cases of adultery and punish them.

The accusers here were obviously utterly convinced they had the God-given authority to arrest, try, and punish this adulteress, at least initially.

The true distinction here doesn't really appear to be "civil" versus "religious" at all, but rather, "civil" versus "criminal" might be a more appropriate division of categories.

If Jordan had pulled out some judgements, rulings, or religious opinions from the Jewish Talmud in support of his idea here, it might have gained the needed credibility to sustain his purpose in preventing the suggestion that Jesus has either ignored or altered the Law of Moses here.

As it stands, other scholars such as Gail O'Day would simply point out that Jordan's open agenda of "anti-antinomianism" has been artificially brought into the text, the same way Calvin did so 400 years earlier.

Fear of Antinomianism

Neither Calvin nor Jordan are here really commenting on John 8:1-11, but rather are expounding a doctrine "characterized by a fear of antinomianism":

Gail O'Day:

'Calvin's commentary on this text clearly reveals what is at stake in this misreading:

"It is not related that Christ simply absolved the woman, but that he let her go free. And this is not surprising, for He did not wish to undertake anything that did not belong to his office. Those who deduce from this that adultery should not be punished by death must, on the same reasoning, admit that inheritances should not be divided, since Christ refused to arbitrate between two brothers. Indeed every crime will be exempt from penalties of law if the punishment of adultery is remitted, for the door will then be thrown open to every kind of treachery..." ( - Calvin)
Calvin then reinforces why adultery should be punished, including the threat that property will be passed to an illegitimate child, and the "chief evil is that the woman disgraces the husband..."

Calvin precludes finding grace in this text:
"Yet the Popish theology is that in this passage Christ has brought in the law of grace, by which adulterers may be freed from punishment...Why is this, but that they may pollute with unbridled lust nearly every marriage bed with impunity? This is the result of that diabolical celibacy..."
Calvin concludes that "although Christ remits men's sins, He does not subvert the social order or abolish legal sentences and punishments."

I have quoted Calvin at length because he provides an excellent example of the power of vested interests to reshape a text.

What actually occurs in John 7:53-8:11 is secondary to what Calvin will allow to take place.
...

The possibility that in John 7:53-8:11 Jesus subverts the social status quo, particularly with regard to a woman's sexuality, is too dangerous for these interpreters. The need to depict Jesus as the maintainer of the social order (and it seems, to protect Jesus from himself) results in interpretation that reshapes the text. "

- Gail O'Day, John 7:53-8:11: A Study in Misreading, JBL 111/4 (1992) pp. 631-640

O'Day would obviously dismiss expositors like Jordan as panicky and fearful patriarchical men who

"serve...a need to rescue Jesus from himself." The explanation is simple: "If one can discover a biblical precedent or external rationale for what Jesus does...then Jesus' actions become less dangerous and objectionable." (- O'Day, ibid

Some Differences

In passing, we should note that while Calvin assumes Jesus has "skipped" judgement on the woman, Jordan assumes Jesus has actually "judged" her, according to "Religious" (Judgement Day) standards.

Both however make a case that Jesus here does NOT attempt to nullify or change civil law. In Calvin's day and location, adulteresses were still occasionally executed (he himself had an opponent burnt at the stake for heresy!).

Which Status Quo is it?

Presumably, then Jordan also would desire us to uphold civil laws (in every nation?) concerning adultery, because Jesus did not intend to cancel or modify them. This makes Jordan also an "anti- antinomianist".

The main objection to this convenient assumption concerning Jesus' intent is this: Civil Law concerning adultery is different in every country and culture today. However, God is not the author of confusion. It cannot be equally right to stone adulterers in Afganistan, or imprison them in Africa, while granting them a divorce in North America.

Whether or not Jesus intended to change the Law, it is plain He would have intended everyone to have ONE fair and just Law for all. What that law might be should be determined by Jesus' handling of this precedent-setting case. To miss this, seems to miss the whole point of John 8:1-11.

Conclusion

On this count, we have to agree with O'Day. Jordan has not provided any evidence or even a plausible account of the Torah and/or the legal issues surrounding this text, and his effort in this direction is clearly designed to serve his concern regarding the text's potential for "antinomianism".

Like Calvin, he has brought his own agenda to the table, and for the moment has stopped interpreting and commenting upon John 8:1-11 in order to sell the reader an "anti-antinomianism" package in line with his theological beliefs.

No real investigation of O.T. Law or Jewish legal procedures has taken place, and no explanation of this passage in historical terms has been presented.

Nazaroo · Oct 9, 2007

Jordan:

"The Temple location also points us back to Daniel 5. Belshazzar's feast took place in the Temple.

This is clear from both the larger and the immediate contexts."

Again "saying it don't make it so." If Jordan wants to link John 8:1-11 strongly to the text of Daniel, he is the one who must do so.

A vague reference to the location of Jesus in the Temple and an even vaguer link to the Temple Minorah (The festival of Booths/Lights?) just isn't enough.

On that basis, every time Jesus is in the Temple speaking, we should interpret the passage in the 'light' of Daniel. But this naive approach would often neglect other more potent and relevant Holy Scripture that could shed real light on various incidents in the Temple.

The critical question is, has Jordan got the right O.T. passage, that will convincingly and powerfully expound John 8:1-11?

And so far, his answer seems to be meandering away entirely from what actually is taking place in this incident.

Nazaroo · Oct 9, 2007

Jordan describes the Temple Lampstand (Menorah) as a "symbolic watcher (almond) tree".

That it is symbolic seems intrinsic to it. That it has "almond buds" carved on it, and has the schematic construction of a "tree" is undeniable. The idea of "Watcher" or "Watchman" however (found in various KJV O.T. verses), is not so obviously connected to the Menorah.

Normally, the word and expression "Watcher/Watchman" has no apparent connection at all to the Temple Menorah, but always seems to refer to a literal person, either the guard or observer on the wall of a fortified city, or metaphorically to a prophet, or herald who is supposed to warn the people of danger.

This is the kind of connection that really requires some historical documentation, and convincing illustration from the O.T.
In particular, the text in Daniel seems to focus on the HAND, not the "Lampstand", which seems to be just an incidental prop.

If the Lampstand was in fact lit up, there might have been a "shadow" cast by the disembodied hand, if it was a solid object.
But all this seems highly speculative, since Daniel gives no obvious indication of the importance of the Lampstand or its shadow, or its function.

This speculation borders on superstition and seems to stretch the texts in an unnatural way.

"Now, in John 8:1-11, the Lampstand is not mentioned, but it is mentioned immediately in verse 12: "

Again Jordan seems bent on stretching things. The Lampstand is not mentioned in verse 12 either! Jesus is certainly the Light of the World, and presumably, the Menorah is somewhere in the Inner Temple.

But Jesus is probably not physically near it, preaching in the Court of the Women or the Treasury.

And the time of day is morning. The broad daylight of the Sun is the Dominating Light in this setting, burning and bleaching the whole roofless Temple Area. This the Middle East after all. The background then is not the Menorah, but the Sun. The connection to the Menorah is an obscure and easily overlooked connection, inherently weak next to the "Greater Light to rule the Day" overhead (Genesis 1:16)

"1. As Lampstand, Jesus judges the wicked but forgives sinners"

Again, how and why? Is this the function of the Lampstand? Here Jordan loses us entirely. What scriptural basis can be found for such a teaching? We seem to be floating in a theological world where anything goes.

Nazaroo · Oct 9, 2007

Like most expositors, Jordan doesn't resist at least hazarding a guess as to what Jesus wrote. But the basis for his choice seems weak, although not entirely implausible.

Jordan should still consider other equally attractive possibilities however, like:

"Should we treat our sister as a common harlot?!" (Genesis 34:31!)

'And at dawn she fell down dead at the entrance, where her Lord was.' (Judges 19:26)

'For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt:
I am darkened; outrage has taken hold of me.' (Jeremiah 8:21)

These are just a few of the hair-raising pearls of Holy Scripture that might compete for the prize of an honourable placement alongside John 8:1-11.

Nazaroo · Oct 9, 2007

We have converted the review of Jordan on John 8:1-11 into an html page, which you can view here:

Jordan on John 8:1-11 (review) <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo · Oct 20, 2007

We have created a new webpage which links to dual-language versions of John 8:1-11.

Multi-Language Page: Jn 8:1-11 <-- Click Here!

We would like to expand this section even further, with the following languages for instance:

(edit: French, Spanish are now done, but could be checked and edited if necessary), Mandarin, Cantonese, Russian, German, etc.

Anyone interested in helping to provide and/or proofread the texts should contact us on the website, or PM me here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo · Oct 30, 2007

We have added a Swahili Text for John 8:1-11 from the BFBS/ Bible Soc. Of Kenya (1971):

Swahili Text for John 8:1-11 <-- Click here!

Anyone with translating skills for Swahili or other languages can email us. We appreciate any volunteer work for translation and commentary that people are willing to give.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo · Dec 11, 2007

Perhaps one of the oldest stories about alleged adultery is that found among the Egyptian papyri of the 19th dynasty (1225 B.C.!).

This story has remarkable similarities to both the story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, and also some other stories in the Bible.

The manuscript is perhaps one of the oldest copies of an adultery story ever found.

The Tale of Two Brothers <-- Click Here.

Peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo · Dec 22, 2007

William Kelly, a prolific and strong Christian scholar of the 19th century wrote an excellent and concise textual commentary on John 8:1-11 in 1888. Although quite familiar with the textual critical opinions of his day, he refused to go along with them, but instead unwaveringly defended the passage as genuine inspired Holy Scripture.

William Kelly is better known for his many Christian hymns, found in popular hymnbooks today among all denominations.

W. Kelly on John 8:1-11 <-- Click Here!

Peace,
Nazaroo

Nazaroo · Mar 4, 2008

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ, fellow Christians and God fearing seekers and researchers:

Many of our links, pictures, files, charts, photos, graphs, and articles have been stored on servers, web providers who have graciously given us free webspace and free use of storage to make available these often rare items.

We can no longer guarantee the future provision for said space, nor will it be easy to relocate many of the links and files and provide them again.

We will try to maintain independant copies of our websites and documents etc., but in case service is not continued,

Please download and store all photos, charts, diagrams, manuscripts, articles, and webpages that you can. Many of the items appearing in these threads are actually links to files stored elsewhere on other servers and websites, and they may not be repairable if services are cut off in the near future.

Again, if you want this information, please download and freely copy it, and store it on permanent media such as a dvd or a cd rom, or a removable hard drive etc.

Thank you for your patience and your support and blessings.

We have been warned that on at least one website/server storage provider, that this service may be ending within 2 months.

Peace,
Nazaroo
March 4th 2008

Nazaroo · Nov 12, 2008

The story of the Woman Taken in Adultery is as current and relevant as ever, - sadly.

Here is a horrible and frightening story regarding current interpretations and applications of Shariah Law, which would actually bring back stoning in NON-Muslim countries if given power and credence.

A 14 year old girl is raped, and reports the crime, only to be accused and convicted of "adultery", and actually stoned to death.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=80733

This is why it is important to diligently protect the teaching of Jesus on this subject, and not allow fools to delete this passage from the Gospel of John.

LittleLambofJesus · Nov 12, 2008

Nazaroo said:
The story of the Woman Taken in Adultery is as current and relevant as ever, - sadly.....

...This is why it is important to diligently protect the teaching of Jesus on this subject, and not allow fools to delete this passage from the Gospel of John.

Greetings. I myself believe it is inspired and belongs and I believe it may be referring to Daniel 5. But then again, that is only my humble view :wave:

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=4724863&page=6
John 8 and Jesus writing in the Dirt

A Believer's Commentary on John 8:1-11

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Joseph is still alive! (Gen 45.26)

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!

Similar threads