John 8:4

8:4 The form of the Greek sentence emphasizes the legal claim against the woman. She had been caught while committing the sin of adultery. The law required two witnesses and carefully outlined what evidence was needed.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Joh 8:4. Διδάσκαλε, teacher [Master]) The reason [is implied in the title by which they address Him], why they require Him to give His decision.—ἐπαυτοφώρῳ, in the very act) Such scandalous acts are frequently perpetrated about the time of feasts. Comp. ch. Joh 7:37. What follows also confirms the truth of this history, as at Joh 8:12, the mention of the darkness, “He that followeth Me, shall not walk in darkness,” when this verse is compared with it, inasmuch as treating of adultery, a work of darkness; and at Joh 8:15, concerning judgment, “Ye judge after the flesh, I judge no man,” comparing with it Joh 8:11, “Neither do I condemn thee.”

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Joh_8:4-5. Observe especially here and in Joh_8:5-6 the thoroughly synoptical diffuseness of the account.

κατειλήφθη] with the augment of εἴληφα, see Winer, p. 60 [E. T. p. 84]. On the expression, comp. κατείληπτο μοιχός, Arrian. Epict. 2. 4.

ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ] in the very act. Herod. 6. 72, 137; Plato, Pol. 2, p. 359 C; Xen. Symp. 3. 13; Dem. 378. 12; Soph. Ant. 51; Eur. Ion. 1214. Comp. Philo, p. 785 A: μοιχεῖαι αὐτόφωροι. On λαμβάνειν ἐπί, of taking in adultery, see Toup. Opp. Crit. I. p. 101.

The adulterer, who in like manner was liable to death (Lev_20:10; Deu_22:24), may have fled.

λιθοβολεῖσθαι] This word cannot be called un-Johannean (in Joh_10:31 ff. λιθάζειν is used) because of its being taken from Deut. l.c. According to Deu_22:23-24 the law expressly appoints stoning for the particular case, when a betrothed maiden allows herself to be seduced by a man in the city, where she could have summoned help. The woman here taken must therefore necessarily be regarded as such an one, because the λιθοβολεῖσθαι is expressly referred to a command contained in the Mosaic law. From Deut. l.c., where the betrothed, in reference to the seducer, is termed אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ, it is clear that the crime in question was regarded as a modified form of adultery, as it is also called εἶδος μοιχεῖας by Philo, de legg. special. ii. p. 311. The rarity of such a case as this made it all the more a fit topic for a tempting question in casuistry. Accordingly, τὰς τοιαύτας is to be understood as denoting the class of adulteresses of this particular kind, to whom refers that law of Moses appointing the punishment of stoning: adulteresses of this kind. That Moses, in Deut. l.c., does not use the expression נאף (Lückes objection) is immaterial, because he has not this word at all in the connection, nor even in the other cases, but designates the thing in another way. Usually the woman is regarded as a married woman; and as in Lev_20:10 and Deu_22:22, not stoning specifically, but death generally is the punishment adjudged to adulteresses of this class, some either infer the internal falsehood of the whole story (Wetstein, Semler, Morus, Paulus, Lücke, De Wette, Baur, and many others; comp. also Hengstenberg and Godet), or assume that the punishment of death, which is not more precisely defined by the law (to die the death), must mean stoning (Michaelis, Mos. R. § 262; Tholuck, B. Crusius, Ebrard, Keil, Archæol. § 153, 1; Ewald, Brückner hesitatingly, Luthardt, Baeumlein). As to the last view, judging from the text in Deut. l.c., and also according to Rabbinical tradition, it is certainly an unsafe assumption; comp. Saalschütz, Mos. R. p. 571. Here, however, where the λιθοβολεῖσθαι is distinctly cited as a positive provision of the law, we have neither reason nor right to assume a reference to any other precept save that in which stoning is expressly named as the punishment, viz. Deu_22:24 (LXX.: λιθοβολήσονται ἐν λίθοις), with which also the Talmud agrees, Sanhedr. f. 51, 2 : Filia Israelitae, si adultera, cum nupta, strangulanda,[2] cum desponsata, lapidanda. The supposition of Grotius, that the severer punishment of stoning for adultery was introduced after the time of Ezekiel, cannot be proved by Eze_16:38; Eze_16:40; Sus. 45; the Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο, moreover, is decidedly against all such suppositions.

[2] According to the Talmudic rule: Omnis mors, cujus et mentio in lege simpliciter, non alia est quam strangulatio, Sanhedr. l.c. The incorrectness of this rule (Michaelis, l.c.) is a matter of no consequence, so far as the present passage is concerned.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

woman . . . in adultery . . . Moses . . . commanded . . . should be stoned--simply put to death (Deu 22:22), but in aggravated cases, at least in later times, this was probably by stoning (Eze 16:40).

but what sayest thou--hoping, whatever He might answer, to put Him in the wrong:--if He said, Stone her, that would seem a stepping out of His province; if He forbade it, that would hold Him up as a relaxer of the public morals. But these cunning hypocrites were overmatched.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

(4) The Cambridge MS. reads, “the priests say unto Him, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him,” adding the word “priests,” and placing here the first words of the sixth verse of the Received text.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should, be stoned,.... Not in Lev 20:10; for though according to the law there, an adulteress, one that was a married woman, and so an adulterer, that was a married man, were to be put to death; yet the death was not stoning, but strangling; for it is a rule with the Jews (g), that where death is simply mentioned (without restraining it to any particular kind) strangling is intended, and which rule they apply to this law: and accordingly in their Misna, or oral law, one that lies with another man's wife, is reckoned among those that are to be strangled (h): Kimchi indeed says (i), that adulteresses, according to the law, are to be stoned with stones; but then this must be understood of such as are betrothed, but not married; and such a person, Moses has commanded in the law, to be stoned, Deu 22:23. And with this agree the traditions of the Jews (k);

"a daughter of Israel must be stoned, who is , "betrothed, but not married".''

And such an one we must believe this woman was; she was betrothed to a man, but not married to him, and therefore to be stoned: the Jews (l) have also a saying, that

"if all adulterers were punished with stoning, according to the law, the stones would be consumed; but they would not be consumed;''

adultery was so common with that people:

but what sayest thou? dost thou agree with Moses, or not?

(g) Maimon. Hilchot Issure Bia, c. 1. sect. 6. (h) Misn. Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 1. (i) In Ezek. xvi. 40. (k) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 51. 2. (l) Apud Castell. Lex. Polyglott, col. 2180.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Ver. 4. In the very act] Gr. in the very theft; perhaps to intimate the great theft that is in adultery, whiles the child of a stranger carries away the goods or lands of the family; which therefore the adulteress is bound in conscience to confess, επ’ ψυτοφωρω. St Paul gives charge, that no man go beyond and defraud his brother in the matter; that is, in the matter of the marriage bed; but that every one possess his vessel, that is, his wife, the weaker vessel in sanctification and honour, as some interpret it. {a}

{a} Defraud, i.e. in re Venerea, in adulterio. Sic intelligunt Jerome, Chrysost., Heinsius.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They bring to our Saviour a woman taken in the act of adultery, and set her before him.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Master Teacherthis woman has been taken committing adultery, in the very act. Epautofwrw originally meant in ipso furto, "in the very theft;" afterwards more generally in the commission of this particular sin. The burning shame and bestial bluntness of the charge make no excuse or palliation possible.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

General Information:

While some texts have Joh 7:53 - 8:11, the best and earliest texts do not include them. (See: Textual Variants)

such people

"people like that" or "people who do that"

what do you say about her?

"So you tell us. What should we do about her?"

to trap him

This means to use a trick question.

so that they might have something to accuse him about

What they would accuse him of can be made explicit. AT: "so that they could accuse him of saying something wrong" or "so that they could accuse him of not obeying the law of Moses or the Roman law" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

translationWords

teacher

law

Moses

stone

command

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

4. κατείληπται for κατελήφθη.

4. κατείληπται. Hath been taken. The vividness of this, and still more of ἐπαυτοφώρῳ (literally, ‘in the very act of theft’), is another piece of brutal indelicacy.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4.] The λέγουσιν αὐτῷ ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτόν savours much more of the synoptic Gospels than of John: see Mat 16:1; Mat 19:3; Mat 22:18, Mat 22:35: Mar 8:11; Mar 10:2; Mar 12:15, &c. Obviously our ch. 6:6 is no example to the contrary. (So Luthardt.) The difficulty is even greater than the last, to say, in what sense this was a temptation, to lead to His accusation. The principal solutions of it have been, (1) that the command of the law had fallen into disuse from the frequency of the crime, and to re-assert it would be contrary to the known mildness of Jesus (Michaelis (first part), , ). But what reason had any of His sayings,—who came to fulfil the Law, not to destroy it,—given them to expect such mildness in this case? And suppose He had re-asserted the law,—how could they have accused Him? (2) That some political snare was hereby laid for Him, whereby the Roman power might have been brought to bear against Him (Grotius and others). But this does not in any way appear; for (α) the Romans certainly allowed to the Jews (by connivance) the power of putting to death according to their law,—as they did in the case of Stephen: (β) our Lord’s answer need not have been so worded as to trench upon this matter: and (γ) the accusers would have been more deeply involved than Himself, if such had been the case, being by the law the prominent persons in the execution.

So that I leave the difficulty unsolved. Lücke (whose discussion on it see, ii. 261 ff.) observes: “Since Jesus seems to avoid every kind of decision on the question put to Him, it follows that He found in it no reference to the great subjects of His teaching, but treated it as a purely civil or political matter, with which in His ministry He had no concern. Some kind of civil or political collision the question certainly was calculated to provoke: but from the brevity of the narration, and our want of more accurate knowledge of criminal proceedings at the time, it is impossible to lay down definitely, wherein the collision would have consisted.” p. 267.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

4. After αὐτῳ, D adds ἐκπειράζοντες αὐτόν, and EGHK 1071 πειράζοντες only. The phrase with ἐκπειράζειν is Lucan; cf. Luk 10:25.

For διδάσκαλε, see on 1:38.

For κατείληπται (D 1071), MSΛ and fam. 13 have εἰληπται, while EGHKΓΠ give κατειλήφθη.

ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ, “in the act.” The phrase does not occur again in the Greek Bible, but is thoroughly classical. Cf. Philo, de spec. leg. iii. 10, μοιχείας δὲ τάς μὲν αὐτοφώρους … ἀπέφηνεν ὁ νόμος. Milligan illustrates from a second-century papyrus τοὺς λημφθέντας ἐπʼ αὐτοφώρῳ κακούργους.

μοιχεύειν does not occur in Jn., but several times in the Synoptists.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.