Why and What Did Jesus Write in the Dust?

Why and What Did Jesus Write in the Dust?

by Ron McRay

To quote a friend of mine, "there is a rock solid reason for every word in the Scripture. None of it is there without a purpose." If there were not good reasons for John revealing that Jesus wrote in the dust, then there is no purpose of it being there, and we can believe that there are "fill-ins" in the bible and they do not mean anything. If we do that, who is to decide what and how many are only "fill-ins"? If we approach the bible with that method of interpretation, we might as well scrap the bible. No, there are no "fill-ins" in the bible. Yes, things like Nicodemus coming to Jesus by night and Jesus writing in the dust have meaning. They were put there to be understood. If we would only study the entire bible more, we can come to understand the metaphors that YHVH used to reveal things for the particular benefit of the first century Israelites.

8:1 But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him. But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground. 9 At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10 Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 "No one, sir," she said. "Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin" [John 8:1-11 NIV].

I looked up the word "arrogance" in the dictionary and I certainly do not want to be accused of such. In all of the various words used to define the word, "overly" seemed to be the dominant word, regardless of what followed. One such was "overly proud." Well, in my 71 years of life, I have exercised myself to much study of the bible. And I am proud of that. However, the more that I study, I find that I think that I have finally found an answer to something at which I had looked for many years, only to have ten questions take its place. I know very little. I am proud of what I have learned, but not "overly proud." I think that my study has found the answer to the question that forms the title of this article. I will get into a study of this question, but first, allow me to lay some groundwork.

As a child, I was taught that the "old testament is the new testament concealed, and the new testament was the old testament revealed." A closer study of both throughout my lifetime has found that to be true.

Another consequent thing that needs to be carefully noted is that all 66 books of the bible are one book, not two. To refer to part as "old covenant scriptures" and another part as "new covenant scriptures" does injustice to the meaning that God intended the scriptures to teach. The "old testament" has things in it about the "new testament." Likewise, the "new testament" has things in it about the "old testament." So, we cannot narrow any part to either. There was a gradual flow and more revelation of the fulfillment of the old covenant as each book was added. Malachi had more than Genesis. Luke had more than Malachi. John had more than Paul’s writings. But, when taken as a whole, it is the last 27 books that simply revealed the fulfillment of the first 39 books (as well as the fulfillment of some of the promises and prophecies of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

Having said that, we can understand why "Moses and the prophets" would have the answers to the questions that we entertain in the last 27 books. In other words, the "old testament" explained the "new testament." The reason that we have so many problems understanding things in the last 27 books is because believers are not students of the "old testament." I would suggest that you spend much time in those first 39 books and then you can see the figures of speech in the "new testament;" the types, shadows, metaphors, hyperboles, allegories, etc.. Types and metaphors are necessary to understand the original question of Jesus writing on the ground or dust.

Lest you have not yet come to understand that all of the books of the bible were written before AD 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem and biblical Judaism, it is necessary to point that out. Of course, I once taught that Revelation and other books were written after that time, but close study conclusively showed that they were all written before Jerusalem fell. Why do I bring that up? Well, the word "eschatology" comes to mind. Eschatos is the Greek word that means "end, final, last;" so eschatology is a study of "last things." All 66 books of the bible are a study of "last things," either in prophecy or fulfillment. They begin with showing the sin in the garden with Adam and Eve to the fulfilling of the regaining of the access to the tree of life in the Revelation. Everything between gradually unfolded more information that pertained to "last things" (eschatology). Our subject is no different. We will look at it first from the "old testament," then what Jesus did on that occasion, then what the real meaning was.

The basis of Jesus’ writing on the ground is in Jeremiah 17:13

O LORD, 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 [NIV]

Today’s English Version says it better.

LORD, you are Israel's hope; all who abandon you will be put to shame. They will disappear like names written in the dust, because they have abandoned you, the LORD, the spring of fresh water.

Whether the translators rendered the word as "dust," "land," "earth" or "ground" makes very little difference. The reason for such observation follows the word "because." They disappeared because they had abandoned … the spring of fresh water. If there was no water, the land, earth or ground was "dust." So the best rendering seems to be "dust."

The prophet concludes his prediction with the expression of his own trust in Yahweh, and confidence that the divine justice will finally be vindicated by the punishment of the wicked. Shall be written in the earth; i.e., their names shall quickly disappear, unlike those graven in the rock forever (Job 19:24). A board covered with sand is used in the East to this day in schools for giving lessons in writing: but writing inscribed on such materials is intended to be immediately obliterated. Equally fleeting is the existence of those who forsake God. "All men are written somewhere, the saints in heaven, but sinners upon earth" (Origen). Verse 15 … shows that this prophecy was written before any very signal fulfillment of Jeremiah's words had taken place, and prior therefore to the capture of Jerusalem at the close of Jehoiakim's life [Barnes' Notes].

I know that the following quote is complex, but I thought that the entire quote was necessary, even though many reading this do not know Hebrew and the associated wording. My intent is to get before you the "departing" and how "swiftly" that it would happen to the first century Israelites.

All who forsake the Lord come to shame. This word the Lord confirms through the mouth of the prophet in the second part of the verse. yªcuwray (OT:5493), according to the Chet., is a substantive from cuwr (OT:5493), formed like yaariyb (OT:7378) from riyb (OT:7379) (cf. Ew. §162, a); the Keri wªcuwreey (OT:5494) is partic. from cuwr (OT:5493) with wª cop.-an uncalled-for conjecture. My departers = those that depart from me, shall be written in the earth, in the loose earth, where writing speedily disappears. 'erets (OT:776), synonymous with `aapaar (OT:6083), cf. Job 14:8, suggesting death. The antithesis to this is not the graving in rock, Job 19:24, but being written in the book of life; cf. Dan 12:1 with Ex 32:32. In this direction the grounding clause points: they have forsaken the fountain of living water (Jer 2:13); for without water one must pine and perish [Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament].

Those that depart from thee (so some read it) shall be written in the earth. They shall soon be blotted out, as that is which is written in the dust. They shall be trampled upon and exposed to contempt. They belong to the earth, and shall be numbered among earthly people, who lay up their treasure on earth and whose names are not written in heaven. And they deserve to be thus written with the fools in Israel, that their folly may be made manifest unto all, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters (that is, spring waters), and that for broken cisterns [Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible].

As per the quotations above, "They will disappear like names written in the dust, because they have abandoned you, the LORD, the spring of fresh water." Expand your thinking on that thought as far as you like, but understand the basic thought, i.e., the unrighteous would "disappear" like dust as soon as the wind blew. Also, understand that the timing is important as a type, for when Jesus wrote in the dust, it was prior to the capture of Jerusalem in AD 70 by the Romans. I think that you are getting the idea now, but we will look more closely into it. Let us go back to the original quotation now.

ASHAMED AND SCARED

The context is telling of a group of people coming to Jesus. It is probable that they had never met nor confronted Jesus before. But, they thought they had him this time. Someone had caught a woman in the very act of adultery. They knew what the law said, "stone her to death." They wanted to trap Jesus. However, first of all, Jesus knew what really was in their mind.

Now while he was in Jerusalem at the Passover Feast, many people saw the miraculous signs he was doing and believed in his name. 24 But Jesus would not entrust himself to them, for he knew all men. 25 He did not need man's testimony about man, for he knew what was in a man [John 2:23-25 NIV].

Jesus knew that they wanted to trap him into making a mistake. He did not contradict the law – he told them to stone her, but let the one without sin be the first judge and cast the first stone. Before and after that statement, he wrote in the sand. Those are the only two instances that we know of that Jesus wrote anything. What did he write and why did he write it? The answer is to be found in Jer. 17:13.

Without exactly saying what Jesus wrote, the context, along with Jer. 17:13 should tell us what he wrote. He wrote the names and ages of each of the persons who were there, and in the exact order of their age, beginning with the oldest, ending with the youngest.

Just think. They knew that they had never met Jesus before. Therefore, he had no way of knowing who they were, much less knowing how old they were. Now, here is Jesus writing each of their names and their ages, in the exact order of their ages, beginning with the oldest one, ending with the last (other translations state it that way), in the dust, with his finger. Now, if I were there, there would be two things that I would do:

1. I would be ashamed [see Jer. 17:13 again] because I would have been a sinner, though maybe not guilty of the same sin as the woman. I would have no business judging her until I rid myself of my sin.

2. I would have been "scared to death." How could this man know my name, especially that I was the oldest? And how could he know the names of all of the others, especially in the exact order of their ages --- unless He was a prophet of YHVH? Man, I’m gone!

And that is exactly what they did. They all "forsook the fountain of living waters," and having done that, they "departed" in rebellion to Jesus and his Father. They did it in the exact order of their ages. "At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there." It is argued that they were ignorant people and could not read. Such, of course, cannot be proven of that particular group, and also it should be noted that at least, most should have been able to read their names as they used them all of their lives. Refresh yourself again on the passage from Jer. 17:13.

He also knew what was in the woman. He knew that she had sinned. The law required two witnesses to put her to death. No one was left. So, Jesus did not condemn (her to death) but told her to quit sinning.

I am not the first to think that there was a definite link between Jesus writing in the dust (earth, ground, land) and the passage in Jer. 17:13, although I must admit that I have thought of it a long time and only yesterday did I run across the following quotation in my preparation for writing this article.

Shall be written in the earth-in the dust, i.e., shall be consigned to oblivion. So Jesus' significant writing "on the ground"-probably the accusers' names (John 8:6). Names written in the dust are obliterated by a very slight wind. Their hopes and celebrity are wholly in the earth, not in the heavenly book of life (Rev 13:8; 20:12,15). The Jews, though boasting that they were the people of God, had no portion in heaven, no status before God and His angels. Contrast "written in heaven," i.e., in the muster-roll of its blessed citizens (Luke 10:20). Also contrast the expression for perpetual remembrance, "written in a book," and "in the rock forever" (Job 19:23-24) [Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary].

What is the fulfillment?

The bible is full of types and antitypes. I see one here.

Before Jerusalem fell in the days of Jeremiah, the departure and lack of remembrance of the rebellious Israelites were foretold in Jer. 17:13. That was the type of the antitype, which was the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and the departure and lack of remembrance of the rebellious Israelites in apostolic days. The finality of both was that at the end they were put to shame and had their final departure from God. They "disappeared" as their names written in dust disappeared when the slightest wind blew. So, eschatology (a study of last things) had everything to do with what Jeremiah wrote in a figure of speech as a type of coming things on the unbelieving Israelites. Jesus was showing them that not a single one would be left. He was showing them the same thing that he was telling them, "not one stone shall be left on another that shall not be thrown down" [Mat. 24:2]. Maybe you can comprehend this concept better by understanding that YHVH referred to the Israelite nation as His "fig tree." Because of Israel’s rebellion, YHVH was going to destroy them 40 years after Jesus lived biologically on planet Earth. Israel, YHVH’s fig tree was to be destroyed, and in all of the "new testament" books, the warning was given as to how suddenly and quickly the end would come. To illustrate that, Jesus cursed a fig tree (figuratively Israel) that had no fruit and it withered up by the roots so swiftly that the apostles marveled [Mat.21:19,20]. The warnings that were spoken were shown physically in both the dust and the fig tree. Maybe dust without water, the wind, and quickly disappearing twice are best summed up by a passage in Jude.

5. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not. … 11. Woe unto them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core. 12. These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear, clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots [Jude 5,11,12].

Jesus was showing the Jews of the first century that he knew them. He knew what was in them. He knew that they would depart. He showed them that he knew those things by writing their names in the dust. He was showing them their end, but they were still unbelievers when they "departed."

Why write twice in the dust? Well, only an opinion here, but one that will go very well with my conclusion thus far. He wrote their names in the dust and while he was talking to them, the wind wiped out all of the writing, indicating how suddenly their destruction would come. So, he wrote them again, and probably while the wind was wiping them away again, they all swiftly departed, one at a time as their names were disappearing from the dust. It is possible that what Jesus wrote in the dust twice was "twice dead."

Hope?

A glorious throne, exalted from the beginning, is the place of our sanctuary. O LORD, the hope of Israel [Jer. 17:12, 13 - NIV].

Hope? Absolutely! The prophet Jeremiah had in verse 12 and the first part of verse 13 declared his trust in YHVH, and explained that YHVH was the hope of Israel. He was proclaimed as their hope throughout the "old testament." Hope and anticipation of the coming kingdom, along with the knowledge of the abolition of biblical Judaism filled the letters that are known as the "new testament." It was all fulfilled by A.D. 70.

The only hope that mankind has had since the beginning (or ever will have) was in YHVH. But, further than that, you can lose your hope, for if YHVH is in you and you are in Him, you have Him as a reality, no longer a hope. Is He in you? Or has your name been written in dust?

Now, can you honestly say that the bible was not inspired of YHVH (God)?