Jesus Stooped Down And Wrote In The Dust . . .

[ViaCrucis]

Obviously nobody can ever know.

But one theory that I kind of like is that when Jesus stooped to write in the dirt, He exposed the sins of those who had gathered to condemn the woman; thus "he who is without sin cast the first stone". So in this speculative theory by writing in the dirt He demonstrates that the accusers of the woman were themselves guilty and had no just cause to have her killed.

Of course, the only One there who truly had the right to condemn her said "Neither do I condemn you"; and offers her benediction, "Go and sin no more", that is to say, Go and be free, devote yourself to righteousness and holiness. For whomever the Son sets free is free indeed.

-CryptoLtheran

 

[eleos1954]

Does anyone have any interesting ideas as to what Jesus may have written?

John 8:6 NLT - "They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger."

All ideas are welcome, bickering and fighting is not.

Thanks!

The bible is not specific about what He wrote. He did say He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Sin ... by definition is transgression of the law .... we are made known about our sins through the written word and/or through the Holy Spirit.

Like I said ... we don't know ... but to me it seems like He could have written down laws that He knew they had broken and then the conviction of the Holy Spirit brought their sin to mind. I say this ... because there were other people there and I do not believe Jesus would have pointed out (written in the sand) each of their specific sins. If He wrote law then there would be no problem with others seeing that.

Just a thought

 

[ralliann]

Bible Gateway passage: Numbers 5:11-31 - New International Version

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife - Then the LORD said to Moses, “Speak to the Israelites and say to them: ‘If a man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him so that another man has sexual relations with her, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no...

www.biblegateway.com

The NIV is the one of the few that mention a miscarriage. Others say her thigh will rot or her uterus will drop.

On, I did not know that. I thought it might mean not able to have kids ever. What somewhat puzzles me is that ince the law is carried out on her, the husband i9s not guilty? But i did read rabbinic opinion on that, being his conscience not burdened with her if she passed as clean. I also thought he was not accusing her either way, but just needed to know.

 

[BPPLEE]

On, I did not know that. I thought it might mean not able to have kids ever. What somewhat puzzles me is that ince the law is carried out on her, the husband i9s not guilty? But i did read rabbinic opinion on that, being his conscience not burdened with her if she passed as clean. I also thought he was not accusing her either way, but just needed to know.

Not able to have kids is a possible interpretation as well.

 

[Lost4words]

Does anyone have any interesting ideas as to what Jesus may have written?

John 8:6 NLT - "They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger."

All ideas are welcome, bickering and fighting is not.

Thanks!

He wrote:

"The earth is NOT flat!"

 

[ralliann]

Obviously nobody can ever know.

But one theory that I kind of like is that when Jesus stooped to write in the dirt, He exposed the sins of those who had gathered to condemn the woman; thus "he who is without sin cast the first stone". So in this speculative theory by writing in the dirt He demonstrates that the accusers of the woman were themselves guilty and had no just cause to have her killed.

True we each have our opinions on it. LOL, But..I do not see the story as one of coming together to accuse her. But to tempt and accuse Jesus.
Joh 8:6 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.
They also had already found her guilty to stoning. The only way they could have done that was by witnesses. But as we see in the end none were willing to stand by any such testimony. I doubt they even had any to begin with.

Of course, the only One there who truly had the right to condemn her said "Neither do I condemn you"; and offers her benediction, "Go and sin no more", that is to say, Go and be free, devote yourself to righteousness and holiness. For whomever the Son sets free is free indeed.

-CryptoLtheran

I do believe they were attempting to make his authority to forgive sin in question. The Pharisees did have oral Torah to get around the law. The Sadducees were unpopular because they were considered too harsh. they did not like Jesus healing people with "your sin is forgiven you", astonishing the people as one with authority and not as the scribes.
The Pharisees in getting around the law were very popular as they were considered the more merciful sect. But their popularity waned for a while, because Of John the baptist.


Mr 11:32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

 

[Oneofhope]

Obviously nobody can ever know.

But one theory that I kind of like is that when Jesus stooped to write in the dirt, He exposed the sins of those who had gathered to condemn the woman; thus "he who is without sin cast the first stone". So in this speculative theory by writing in the dirt He demonstrates that the accusers of the woman were themselves guilty and had no just cause to have her killed.

Of course, the only One there who truly had the right to condemn her said "Neither do I condemn you"; and offers her benediction, "Go and sin no more", that is to say, Go and be free, devote yourself to righteousness and holiness. For whomever the Son sets free is free indeed.

-CryptoLtheran

Thanks for jumping in!

It seems clear that what you are offering takes the most votes. And honestly, it seems to make the most sense. I appreciate all ideas given, though. All excellent contributions.

 

[Oneofhope]

The bible is not specific about what He wrote. He did say He who is without sin cast the first stone.

Sin ... by definition is transgression of the law .... we are made known about our sins through the written word and/or through the Holy Spirit.

Like I said ... we don't know ... but to me it seems like He could have written down laws that He knew they had broken and then the conviction of the Holy Spirit brought their sin to mind. I say this ... because there were other people there and I do not believe Jesus would have pointed out (written in the sand) each of their specific sins. If He wrote law then there would be no problem with others seeing that.

Just a thought

Very interesting! I would tend to agree that it might not be the practice of God to reveal a person's sins in front of others. I must say, this is rather significant. I like your, "thought."

 

[Oneofhope]

True we each have our opinions on it. LOL, But..I do not see the story as one of coming together to accuse her. But to tempt and accuse Jesus.
Joh 8:6 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.
They also had already found her guilty to stoning. The only way they could have done that was by witnesses. But as we see in the end none were willing to stand by any such testimony. I doubt they even had any to begin with.


I do believe they were attempting to make his authority to forgive sin in question. The Pharisees did have oral Torah to get around the law. The Sadducees were unpopular because they were considered too harsh. they did not like Jesus healing people with "your sin is forgiven you", astonishing the people as one with authority and not as the scribes.
The Pharisees in getting around the law were very popular as they were considered the more merciful sect. But their popularity waned for a while, because Of John the baptist.


Mr 11:32 But if we shall say, Of men; they feared the people: for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.

I love how you found that little caveat from the NKJV: ". . . as though he heard them not."

The following are the footnotes from the NKJV: "NU-Text and M-Text omit as though He did not hear."

Even though not all translations carry this final phrase, this is EXACTLY why I prefer to use as many translations as possible. I trust those who translate Scripture more than I trust simple commentators, including myself.

Ralliann, this last post of your sealed the deal for me. I wasn't expecting that we would conclusively have an answer, but I'm going with John 8:6 and the NKJV translation.

Nice work!

 

[ralliann]

I love how you found that little caveat from the NKJV: ". . . as though he heard them not."

The following are the footnotes from the NKJV: "NU-Text and M-Text omit as though He did not hear."

Even though not all translations carry this final phrase, this is EXACTLY why I prefer to use as many translations as possible. I trust those who translate Scripture more than I trust simple commentators, including myself.

Ralliann, this last post of your sealed the deal for me. I wasn't expecting that we would conclusively have an answer, but I'm going with John 8:6 and the NKJV translation.

Nice work!

Thanks! But it is just an opinion none the less. And I as well have been looking at the verses surrounding this incident. The word "Hear" is not even in the text, mine is the Greek Byzantine text. As well as I question the Idea of the word used for "pretend" there as well. It seems it has implications of taking a "role" upon oneself. So he took not that "position" or "role" would be more what I think I am seeing in the text. I do not know if it Means he would not take on the role of AN ACCUSER, NOR A WITNESS? lol, COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT ALL TOGETHER. And "taken in adultery", catching her in the very act? Nah, I don't know if that is accurate either. But one thing is for sure, it was all said to "tempt, and accuse Jesus". And there were "no valid witnesses in the end".

 

[jacks]

 

[Sabertooth]

He could have been reiterating the Ten Commandments to take their hyperfocus off of just the adultery.

 

[Oneofhope]

Thanks! But it is just an opinion none the less. And I as well have been looking at the verses surrounding this incident. The word "Hear" is not even in the text, mine is the Greek Byzantine text. As well as I question the Idea of the word used for "pretend" there as well. It seems it has implications of taking a "role" upon oneself. So he took not that "position" or "role" would be more what I think I am seeing in the text. I do not know if it Means he would not take on the role of AN ACCUSER, NOR A WITNESS? lol, COULD BE WRONG ABOUT THAT ALL TOGETHER. And "taken in adultery", catching her in the very act? Nah, I don't know if that is accurate either. But one thing is for sure, it was all said to "tempt, and accuse Jesus". And there were "no valid witnesses in the end".

I love all that you have offered above. I have really enjoyed considering all of the ideas that we have pulled together. Great job, everyone, of discussing God's Holy Word . . . and doing it without fighting and arguing.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Jeremiah 17:13
Lord, you are the hope of Israel;
all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
because they have forsaken the Lord,
the spring of living water.

The law called for BOTH caught in the act to be stoned. Where was the dude?

 

[Oneofhope]

Jeremiah 17:13
Lord, you are the hope of Israel;
all who forsake you will be put to shame.
Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust
because they have forsaken the Lord,
the spring of living water.

The law called for BOTH caught in the act to be stoned. Where was the dude?

The fact that they only brought the woman could further indict them for their hypocrisy.

 

[ralliann]

The fact that they only brought the woman could further indict them for their hypocrisy.

Discovering more information.
1.) Jews under Roman rule had no authority to carry out the death penalty on their own.
They brought him to the judgement hall to Pilate.

John 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

2.) I have also looked at adultery, and the death penalty under Roman rule as well. What they came up with..... In the absence of death penalty.
Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
In lieu of the death penalty therefore a writing of divorcement a man was freed of his adulterous wife.

For EVERY cause........Even adultery... Divorce left the woman's betrothal contract rights and benefits null and void...

As Joseph was going to do with Mary.
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

So, let us go back to Matthew......keeping in mind, Jew's had lost their authority to sentence or penalize with the death penalty.....

3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Just thought I would bring these things up for consideration in the text......
Were the Pharisees allowing men to divorce wives for the simplest reasons? Causing their wives adultery according to Jesus doctrine?
Was the writing, as a writing of divorcement?

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

 

[Oneofhope]

Discovering more information.
1.) Jews under Roman rule had no authority to carry out the death penalty on their own.
They brought him to the judgement hall to Pilate.

John 28 Then led they Jesus from Caiaphas unto the hall of judgment: and it was early; and they themselves went not into the judgment hall, lest they should be defiled; but that they might eat the passover.
29 Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?
30 They answered and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not have delivered him up unto thee.
31 Then said Pilate unto them, Take ye him, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said unto him, It is not lawful for us to put any man to death:

2.) I have also looked at adultery, and the death penalty under Roman rule as well. What they came up with..... In the absence of death penalty.
Mt 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
In lieu of the death penalty therefore a writing of divorcement a man was freed of his adulterous wife.

For EVERY cause........Even adultery... Divorce left the woman's betrothal contract rights and benefits null and void...

As Joseph was going to do with Mary.
Mt 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

So, let us go back to Matthew......keeping in mind, Jew's had lost their authority to sentence or penalize with the death penalty.....

3 ¶ The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Just thought I would bring these things up for consideration in the text......
Were the Pharisees allowing men to divorce wives for the simplest reasons? Causing their wives adultery according to Jesus doctrine?
Was the writing, as a writing of divorcement?

Jer 3:8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Wonderfully thought out and written . . . easy to follow. Thank you so much for these extra-ordinary efforts. Wow, over the top!

 

[Diamond72]

But one theory that I kind of like is that when Jesus stooped to write in the dirt, He exposed the sins of those who had gathered to condemn the woman; thus "he who is without sin cast the first stone". So in this speculative theory by writing in the dirt He demonstrates that the accusers of the woman were themselves guilty and had no just cause to have her killed.

I think this is close. Jesus often said: It is written. In this case the lesson seems to be that the law was written for us to be the person God wants us to be. Not to judge others but to judge ourselves. We see that all the time on boards like this. People wanting to use the Bible to judge others when the Bible was given to judge ourselves so we can become the people God ordained us to be.

The written law is good and just and we need to learn how to apply God's law to our lives. So we can be the people He created us to be.

 

[AlexB23]

Does anyone have any interesting ideas as to what Jesus may have written?

John 8:6 NLT - "They were trying to trap him into saying something they could use against him, but Jesus stooped down and wrote in the dust with his finger."

All ideas are welcome, bickering and fighting is not.

Thanks!

It is best not to speculate what Jesus wrote in the sand, as the exact written object is not in the Bible. But, maybe Jesus drew a cross or the last digit of pi (that's a joke, cos pi is infinite). We will know the sandy message once we reach heaven in the future.

 

[Valletta]

It is best not to speculate what Jesus wrote in the sand, as the exact written object is not in the Bible. But, maybe Jesus drew a cross or the last digit of pi (that's a joke, cos pi is infinite). We will know the sandy message once we reach heaven in the future.

That would be the Jewish tradition. We need to use the Jewish tradition, understand the Jewish idioms, etc. in order to understand the Bible.