Ecolampadius thinks the Pharisees were especially sore and irritated because our Lord had said that " publicans and harlots '* would enter the kingdom of God before Pharisees. (Matt. xxi. 31.)
6. — [ This they said, tempting... accuse Mm.~\ la what did this temp- tation cousist ? How did the Jews hope to find ground for an accusation? The answer seems easy. — If our Lord replied that the woman ought not to be stoned, they would have denounced Him to the people as one that poured contempt on the law. — If our Lord, on the contrary, replied that the woman ought to be stoned, they would have accused Him to the Romans as one who usurped the prerogative of putting criminals to death. See John xviii. 31 : "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." Moreover, they would have published everywhere our Lord's in- consistency in offering salvation to publicans and harlots, and yet condemning to death an adulteress for one transgression.
Let it be noticed that subtle ensnaring questions like these, putting the person questioned into an apparent dilemma or diffi- culty, whatever answer he might give, seem to have been favourite weapons of the Jews. The Pharisees' question about " tribute-money," the lawyer's question about " the great com- mandment of the law," and the Sadducees' question about "the resurrection," are parallel cases. The question before us is therefore quite in keeping with other places in the Gospels.
Augustine remarks, "Tjhey said in themselves, 'Let us put before Him a woman caught in adultery ; let us ask what is ordered in the law concerning her; if He shall bid stone her, He will not have the repute of gentleness : if He give sentence to let her go, He will not keep righteousness.' " Euthymius says the same.
[But Jesus stooped down, etc., etc.'} Our Lord's intention in this remarkable sentence can hardly admit of doubt. He declined to answer the subtle question put to Hira, partly be- cause he knew the malicious motive of the questioners, partly because He had always announced that He did not come to be " a judge and divider" among men, or to interfere in the slightest degree with the administration of the law. His silence was equivalent to a refusal to answer.
But the peculiar action that our Lord employed, in " writing with his finger on the ground," is undeniably a difficulty. St. John gives no explanation of the action, and we are left to con- jecture both why our Lord wrote and what He wrote.
(1) Some think, asBede, Rupertus, and Lampe, that our Lord wrote on the ground the texts of Scripture which settled the question brought before Him, as the seventh commandment, and Lev. xx. 10, and Deut. xxii. 22. The action would then imply, "Why do you ask me? What is written in the law, that law which God wrote with His own finger as I am writing now? "