Interestingly, here Colin Kruse has noted the following:

Kruse may not have noted the other remarkable connection between John's use of 'Dawn' and Jeremiah, but his observations are wholly consistent with ours.

The problem of Jesus writing in the sand is indeed mysterious and enigmatic to a modern reader. However this remarkable feature is common to many other parts of John that are not in question from a textual critical point of view.* That is, it is indeed a possible identifying mark of John's style, whether it confounds us or not.

This is the Ending note for an infamous story: Here, a local Edomite ruler takes (and fornicates with) Jacob's daughter while she is visiting the village. The brothers (fathers of the 12 tribes of Israel) slay every male in the city. Even Jacob is taken aback by the force with which his sons avenge their sister, and is afraid that the whole land may rise up against them. But the brothers are firm in their judgment and the value they place upon their sister.

This short saying is easily written in big letters in the dust of the temple floor, and would have made the hair stand on end of every Israelite who could plainly read it.

Nor is this connection inappropriate: the parallel is striking. The text seems to indicate that what happened was not a violent rape, but rather unbridled lust/love, at least on the Edomite's son's part. It seems they perceived no real wrong, but assumed a kind of 'you like, you buy' philosophy. The Edomites viewed women as property.

But the strong reaction of the brothers indicates things were amiss in some significant sense: Perhaps Dinah was under-age (even by Israelite standards - men were 14 & up). Perhaps the issue wasn't age at all, but simply the very likely fact that Dinah was wholly inexperienced, naive, and grossly taken advantage of. Perhaps it was also that she was under the authority of her father and the men, and any such 'desires' or 'contracts' had to be ratified by family in any case. Likely there was some of all of this behind the anger of the men of Israel. Even Jacob waited till he had assembled all his sons to tell them. They all agreed she had been 'shamed'.

This is just the sort of jab that would stop the men of Israel in Jesus' time dead in their tracks, and which would leave the Pharisees on their own with zero crowd support. We often wonder why someone in that crowd didn't just grab a stone and start throwing. It seems almost implausible at first that some less perceptive or unspiritual or even bloodthirsty brutes wouldn't have stepped up to the plate and taken up stones. This scripture is just the kind of thing that could explain the actual paralysis of the crowd here.

Note that this still was not enough to deflect the Pharisees however, who persisted after the first writing.

The right to punish or forgive was originally God's alone. When the Lord set up the nation Israel, He gave Moses' government the honour and priviledge of helping to enforce God's Law. the purpose of this was so that the people of Israel would learn more about God and His ways. (Gal. 3:24)

But men were given a limited authority only, limited by the Law itself:

(1) The man must be a believer (an upright member of the congregation of Israel). Only by faithfulness can a person be worthy to judge others. (Gen 15:6)

(2) He must know and keep the Law himself, not only the letter, but the Spirit of the Law (2nd Cor 3:6)

(1) No court has authority to change God's Law, subtract from it or add to it: only the Lord can. (Deut. 12:32)

(2) No court had authority to accuse or condemn anyone for any crime unless there were at least two innocent eye-witnesses to the crime itself. (Deut. 19:15)

Crimes without witnesses were completely out of the jurisdiction of the courts. In the case of no witnesses, men have no authority: but the Lord reserved the right to judge these cases for Himself alone.

Adultery was punishable by the death penalty, provided there are two innocent eye-witnesses.

The woman, however, is given the benefit of the doubt, even if she is caught in the act. It must be proved that the woman was not tricked or forced (ie. raped, coerced, gagged, tricked, or taken advantage of), and this requires two eye-witnesses as to how the act began and proceeded.

So simply catching a woman in the act is NOT ENOUGH to have her put to death. Finally,

Alleged marital unfaithfulness is the only crime where God's Law allows an exception to the Rule of Two Witnesses.

Where the authority of the courts ended, the authority of the Priesthood began:

If a husband suspected his wife of unfaithfulness, but there were NO witnesses:

After the ceremony was fulfilled, the Lord Himself would show by a sign whether the woman is to be considered guilty or innocent of the accusation. If the woman is to be considered guilty, she becomes ill, and suffers public shame (there is still no death penalty, since there are no eye-witnesses.) But if the woman is innocent of the accusation, she conceives and brings forth a child!

Now this is the very opposite of how the secular world thinks, and how unbelievers would interpret such a sign. A modern husband for instance might consider a child 'proof ' of adultery.

In a world that refuses to acknowledge the necessity of God's power and participation in the act of procreation, we can understand the 'logic'. (The natural man cannot understand spiritual truths.)

The world thinks it can make children by the mere act of sex alone, but believers know that only God can create a child. Sex does not create a child; It takes something more, the hand of the Lord. Many couples who have dearly wished for children will confirm this.

Not even Satan himself can forge such evidence in a trial of adultery under God's Rule. Although there are many absurd movies today about 'children of satan', this is one power that Satan does NOT have. The only 'sons of satan' around are sons of men who have fallen prey to their own fallen nature, and have corrupted themselves away from the innocence of their youth. In order for Satan to create a child, especially in this case, he would have to have the power to break the scripture which says:

But because the "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), Satan can only cast doubt upon it, and perpetuate myth and superstition among those who reject the word of the LORD. A man can be possessed by demons, but not created by Satan. For we know that rather,

It is a simple fact that a woman cannot become pregnant through her own adultery. Regardless of what a jealous or unbelieving husband may think, the teaching of the LORD God of Israel, Creator of Heavens and Earth, and all that is in them, is plain.

Believers knew this simple fact throughout history. Even Judah, the father of the tribe by that name, acknowledged the fact when confronted with the evidence; an 'adultery' had been committed, between him and his daughter-in-law, and she was pregnant, by her own admitted trickery. But it was necessitated by his own refusal to carry out God's Law in the first place!

Although he himself was guilty, he admitted that,

Another great example of an adultery in which the woman was innocent, but the man was notoriously guilty, is the infamous case of David and Bathsheba. I will leave it to the reader to explore, since it is not so relevant here, except that God later took the child, since it is impossible for the royal line of the Messiah to continue through an act of adultery and murder. Nor could Jesus be an heir to the same throne through an act of adultery by Mary.

Although he was kind and fair-minded, he was ignorant of God's Law, at that time, "not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God!" (Matt.22:29) For if he had been more knowledgeable, he would have recognized the meaning of her pregnancy as proof of her own innocence.

God's Law excludes the the possibility of Mary being guilty of adultery, which only leaves either rape, or a virgin birth. God's revelation excludes rape, and confirms virgin birth.

We have now spent a bit of time on this Law (Num. 5:11-31), and here is the reason: the real purpose of the Law is to reveal Jesus the Christ the true Messiah, the Holy One of Israel.

And we are about to find out exactly what that means.

Of the Law especially,

And this is what we will show here; for it is impossible for the Law of God to testify to the wrong Messiah. And if therefore the Law of God testifies that Jesus is the Christ, then obviously it is so.

Of course one could not just set up an appointment with the High Priest at the temple. His duties precluded such access, and it might take months to get a case heard under such frivolous and weak conditions. Meantime a man would have plenty of time to relent of accusations, and a pregnant woman might indeed appear quite so.

This law then, sat on the shelf unused and virtually forgotten for a thousand or more years before that day at the Festival of Lights when Jesus strode into the Temple at Dawn to teach.

Now the Law is not ambiguous by any means. A due process and a series of steps are required, of which some awareness at least by the Pharisees and their audience was required and can be assumed. This was of course maintained by practice and tradition.

Lynching of any kind is expressly forbidden (Exod. 23:1,2). The Pharisees protected themselves from this charge by publicly acknowledging Jesus as a Teacher of the Law, calling him 'Didaskaleh' (Rabbi) (Isa 29:13), and appealing for a Special Judgement under Deuteronomy 17:8-13.

This meant that they had to abide by Jesus' decision under penalty of death: and this was also in itself an admission that they lacked the necessary witnesses for a straightforward trial: For otherwise they could not stray to the right or left of the Law (Num. 20:17, 22:26, Deut.2:27, 5:32, 17:11-20, 28:14).

This move by the Pharisees brought everyone present under Deuteronomy 19:18-19, which commanded Jesus as Judge to make a full inquiry and punish false witnesses with the sentence intended for their victim, in this case the death penalty.

This concession was necessary for the Pharisees' plan, and yet it was the very move which locked together a series of steps in the justice system of the Mosaic Law, which in the end would accomplish not their plan, but the Lord's plan.

The Pharisees, by appealing to Jesus, admitted that they lacked the necessary witnesses as to how the act began, and that the case was too difficult for them to judge.

But without two witnesses, the woman's case must pass out of the jurisdiction of the courts, and now comes under the authority of the priesthood. This means that the woman can only be judged under Numbers 5:11-31!

This Law says the woman must be presented by the High Priest before the LORD God of Israel in the temple. But the priests have presented the woman before Jesus the Christ in the temple! The Pharisees have inadvertantly testified that Jesus is the Lord God of Israel publicly, before the entire crowd.

The only other way of interpreting the Pharisees' actions was to assume that they were acting on behalf of the woman's husband, who was to first present the woman before the High Priest in the temple. In which case they had inadvertantly testified that Jesus was the High Priest in front of the crowd.

Because the Pharisees were acting out the role of 'husband', they were also unwittingly testifying to their own adultery. But for the Pharisees to show no sign, because of their temporary blindness, cast Jesus in the role of High Priest and Lord God simultaneously.

This Law also states that the woman's innocence or guilt is to be revealed by a sign from the Lord. Thus by invoking Numbers 5:11-31, the Pharisees fulfill a NT prophecy concerning them:

Thus not only do the prophecies testify of Jesus Christ, but also the Law itself testifies, fulfilling Paul's words,

The Pharisees still haven't taken the hint, but continue pressing Jesus for a Judgement. Jesus then takes His stand and does not stray to the right or left of the Holy Law of the Lord:

The real authority of the Lord Jesus is now becoming clear: Jesus Himself, knowing all things (John 16:30), IS one righteous witness: But to fulfill His own Law He requires one more innocent witness. The requirements under O.T. dispensation are not impossible to fulfill:

Not a single man comes forward from the party of the Pharisees, proving another prophecy has come to pass:

The fact that all the people had gone astray meant that if Jesus truly was a prophet come from God, He must release the woman according to the scripture in Hosea:

We have passed through the first prophetic climax, and the first legal climax. Now we have reached perhaps the first intellectual climax and puzzle: What did Jesus write in the sand the second time?

They must have done something, or else the accusation would have had no effect on their conscience. Jesus had shown that He knew their involvement, and if they wished, He could expose them. They had not expected this, and could not defend themselves once accused. It was all they could do now, to leave quietly, dropping the charges. What did Jesus write?

On many occasions they had failed to trap Jesus, but were not convicted by conscience then! The answer lies in their own confession: they had already stated that they had caught the woman in the act, but now none of them could come forward alone, being free of the crime. The longer they hesitated, the more obvious their guilt.

Slowly the true horror of the crime dawns upon us: Not just one man, but a gang of men raping and abusing one woman, then casting her off to die; betraying her at the last to be stoned to death, leaving no witnesses to their crime: Each man providing an alibi for the others. And to whom could she turn? Who would believe her word against the united testimony of the religious leaders of Israel?

Only her Lord Jesus, who knows all things, and searches all hearts.
So then what scripture did Jesus write in the sand, in which the Pharisees recognized their own crime?

This crime was the worst in all Israel since they came out of Egypt. (Jud.19:30) As a result of it, one whole tribe of Israel was nearly wiped off the face of the earth. The men of Gibeah of the Southern tribe of Benjamin were responsible. Hosea prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem because of this happening over again:

The Pharisees had left, convicted and defeated: the woman - one more lost sheep returning. (Matt 18:10-14)

But the trial was not over yet: there must have been a pause, as the crowd of the people of Israel looked to Jesus. The religious leaders, who were supposed to make intercession to God for the sins of the people had left, convicted of sin themselves, and not worthy to make offerings even on their own behalf. They had just handed the High Priesthood and judgement over to Jesus while attempting to do the opposite.

We can suppose that everyone looked in fear and awe at Him; and in the judgement of this woman each one saw himself. If Jesus now condemned the woman, where stood every member of that crowd? Indeed the fate of Israel hung in the balance. Here was the Messiah, Lord of Israel in the flesh; the tension must have been desperate for some:

Notice that Jesus in His infinite wisdom does not grant immediate forgiveness, nor request a publicly humiliating repentance: He knows the anguish in her heart at the injustice of the Pharisees, first abusing her, betraying her, attempting to destroy her, and finally abandoning her to a mob.

Instead, acting as Judge, and in view of the circumstances, Jesus grants an indefinite postponement of the entire trial, releasing the woman on her honour. For if the woman did not first understand who Jesus was, what meaning would His forgiveness hold for her? Later, we can assume that the time Jesus grants the woman is just right:

See how the fate of the woman taken in adultery fulfills the prophecy and promise of the Lord Jesus the Messiah:

The Woman as a Typology of Israel

This is another reason why the incident needed to unfold as it did. The people were divided, yet Jesus held back judgement, to maximize the opportunities and the number of people to be saved. As Jesus Himself had expounded, "He who is forgiven much, loves much." and true loyalty, devotion and love is won this way.

Now we naturally turn to the prophecies concerning Israel herself, and find there the most incredible parallels we could expect:

Our Lord Jesus was grieved in His Spirit at the atrocities of the Pharisees; As in the ancient days, it would eventually mean the near destruction of yet another whole tribe of Israel, this time the tribe of Judah, and Jerusalem itself.

Few would argue that one of the most powerful and entertaining exchanges between Jesus and the Pharisees, is the one that occurred over the question of TAXES. Everybody hates them, everybody knows they are abused once given, and few are able to escape them even temporarily without a revolution.

The Pharisees pull a coin out of their pocket, and lo and behold, the Roman Emperor's head is stamped on it! The Pharisees have been accepting and keeping Roman money, when they wouldn't even allow visiting Israelites to bring it into the temple precincts, but forced them to exchange Roman coin for 'temple shekels', while making a handsome profit on the exchange! Jesus returns the dilemma back into their court in the shortest and cleverest way possible:

Again, it was all the Pharisees could do, just to leave quietly without getting lynched by the newly enlightened crowd.

But now, here in John 8:1-11, we see the very same Jesus, silencing and vanquishing his very same opponents again, with the coy, but incredibly loaded terse statement:

Again, we are confronted with the wholly unexpected, but brilliantly clever twist upon the words and meaning of the Old Testament Law in Deuteronomy 17:7. Because Jesus' ambiguous innovation on the Torah here cannot be overlooked or simply explained away. It is neither hyperbole, nor an 'innocent' turn of phrase, but a deliberate double-image, meant to arrest the thought of everyone present.

Yet here in John the case is amplified, for this is no simple mundane question of 'taxes', or some hypothetical question about who's wife somebody who dies and remarries will be. There is a life and death struggle right on the floor of the temple, and a symbolism extending to the entire nation and its salvation, and the very identity of its Saviour.

This is Jesus taken upward and launched a whole order of magnitude closer to the throne of God itself.

Yet we are still just scratching the surface, and turning over clues here and there like forensic police. We don't even know what we have yet, and its bigger than the robbery of the Hope Diamond, or the Enron Scandal, or 9/11. And we get the feeling that if we were to question Jesus further, it would never end. There might be no limit to His greatness or genius. He is simply toying with us as a man might playfully place a crumb in front of an ant.

At least we can understand why the more intelligent textual critics don't dare suggest that John 8:1-11 is some kind of crude forgery, but rather an ancient and authentic piece of perhaps 'oral' tradition.

But who would have access to such a powerful and valuable jewel, if not an Apostle or very eye-witness to Jesus in His lifetime? After explaining this problem, the act of mounting this jewel in such a fitting setting as John, and making it the virtual centre-piece seems a trivial problem.

How are we to explain that Luke or Mark or Matthew of all people would leave out such a fantastic treasure if they knew anything about it, while taking special care to preserve the lower exchange concerning taxes?

We are forced to agree with the textual critics when they confess that this is surely a genuine piece of authentic tradition concerning Jesus. But like them, we have no explanation for how all four gospels could be ignorant of such an incredible occurance, and why most of history would be silent about a story such as this.

Nor can we explain how it could magically 'appear' in all the main streams of transmission in the 2nd or 3rd century, and be JUST AS SILENTLY embraced by all of Christendom for the next thousand years...

...Unless we abandon the critics and their Alexandrian 2nd century texts at this point, and admit rather that it was always there in John's Gospel, but it was so offensive to the Alexandrian Jews, and dangerous for Christian martyrs, that it was passed over silently in public Lectionary reading in the early Church.

...Just as the Reverend Dean John Burgon so eloquently put it in the case he made for its authenticity over 100 years ago:

The word for 'dawn' - ορθρου ("orthrou") appears in John only here, although its familiar enough from Luke, who uses the expression similarly twice (Luke 24:1, Acts 5:21). ¹

But this is an old idiom, having stood in the LXX for nearly 400 years by John's time. So it is again not really a Lukan word at all.

It is also found at least twice in the popular Greek psalter (Ps 57:8, 108:2 LXX), the translation familiar to Greek speaking Jews of the Diaspora for hundreds of years before Christ, and for at least 200 years afterward.

Even so, the word appears to be an early archaism, and not a normal choice for a Greek writer, even one as heavily Semitic as John. As a matter of fact, under other circumstances, John seems to prefer expressions like πρωι / πρωιας, 'early','morn', 'first of the day' (Jn 18:28, 20:1, 21:4)

Remarkably however, the phrase appears six times in Jeremiah (Jer 7:25, 25:4, 26:5, 32:33, 35:14, 44:4 LXX), while it remains almost non-existant in most other books.

Whether this can be traced to Jeremiah's phraseology rather than the Greek translator is moot, since in any case the Greek Jeremiah was a very popular book. These passages focus particularly upon the warnings to the Jews prior to the fall of the Kingdom of Judah and the Babylonian Exile.

Striking, and typical, is Jeremiah 32:33 (LXX):

Six times Jeremiah uses the phrase like a gong to announce the woes against Judah and the Temple. These well-worn passages had been pondered and lamented over constantly since the Exile. By the time of Christ, 'dawn' (ορθρου) would simply be a painfully humbling reminder of Jeremiah's prophecies every time the Greek Psalter was sung.

The strongest and most convincing explanation for dawn (ορθρου) in both John and Luke/Acts is simply to recall the Greek Jeremiah. ²

Without always using explicit or long quotations, John constantly points us to Old Testament stories and types through the LXX. The use here of the archaic word for dawn (ορθρου) is just one more example of an all too common Johannine procedure.