John 8:5

Joh 8:5-6. Now Moses commanded that such should be stoned — If they spoke accurately, this must have been a woman who, having been betrothed to a husband, had been guilty of this crime before the marriage was completed, for such only Moses commanded to be stoned. He commanded, indeed, that other adulteresses should be put to death; but the manner of death was not specified. It may be inferred, however, from Eze 16:38-40, that though the law of Moses did not expressly enjoin it, the Jews considered stoning as being the proper punishment of all kinds of adultery, for there the prophet represents God as saying, concerning Jerusalem, I will judge thee as women that break wedlock are judged; they shall stone thee with stones. Add to this, we find Philo and the ancient Christian fathers using the phrases, “those that were stoned,” and “those that were punished for adultery,” as synonymous terms. This they said, tempting him, that they might accuse him — Either of usurping the office of a judge, if he condemned her, or of being an enemy to the law, if he acquitted her. But Jesus stooped down, and wrote on the ground — Perhaps there were in this woman’s case some circumstances tending to alleviate her guilt, such as her past innocence, known to Jesus, her present repentance, which he could easily discern, and the strength of the temptations by which she had been hurried into sin. There may have been something likewise in her accusers’ characters well known to him, which made it proper for them to desist from the prosecution. Also, Jesus might now, as on other occasions, decline assuming the character and office of a civil magistrate. Lastly, the persons who demanded his opinion were by no means the judges to whom the execution of the law was committed; but Pharisees, who at the bottom were gross hypocrites, notwithstanding they professed the greatest concern for the honour of the divine law. Whatever was the reason, Jesus did not encourage this prosecution; but with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not — Or had not been attending to what they said: for, to write on the ground is the action of one who, being wholly wrapped up in his own thoughts, does not take notice of any thing that passes without.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

8:5 The requirement of the law . . . to stone her indicates that the woman was engaged or married (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:23-24). The law also stated that her lover should be killed with her, but these religious leaders apparently ignored their obligation to that part of the statute. • These men could have dealt with the woman privately and kept her from public shame, but Jesus was their real target as they demanded, What do you say? Would he neglect the law since he had a reputation for mercy? Or would he ignore the woman’s tragedy?

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

Joh 8:5. Λιθάζειν, to stone) [D and the best versions read λιθάζειν, instead of λιθοβολεῖσθαι]. Either this woman was betrothed, or else the expression of the Scribes and Pharisees is abbreviated, with this sense: Moses ordered, that adulteresses should be visited with capital punishment; Deu 22:22, etc., “If a man be found lying with a woman married, then they shall both die;—If a damsel—be betrothed, and a man lie with her, then—ye shall stone them with stones,” etc.; and our ancestors [elders] have defined that punishment to be stoning. See Grot. on this passage.—οὖν, therefore) This particle exhibits their question as more framed to entrap Him, than if they had openly said, but.

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

Joh 8:5 . ἐν δὲ τῷ νομῷ … λιθοβολεῖσθαι . In Lev 20:10 and Deu 22:22 death is fixed as the penalty of adultery; but “stoning” as the form of death is only specified when a betrothed virgin is “violated, Deu 22:23-24 . And the Rabbis held that where death simply was spoken of, strangling was meant [“omnis mors dicta in Lege simpliciter non est nisi strangulatio”]. It is supposed therefore that by τὰς τοιαύτας the accusers refer to the special class to which this woman belonged. The words themselves do not suggest that; and it is better to suppose that these lawyers who had brought the woman understood “stoning” when “death” without further specification was mentioned. See further in Lightfoot and Holtzmann. σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις ; “What then sayest Thou?” as if it were possible He might give a decision differing from that of the law.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 5. That such should be stoned] It is not strictly true that Moses ordered adultery in general to be punished by stoning. The law simply says that the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. Le 20:10; De 22:22. The rabbins say they were strangled. This they affirm was the ordinary mode of punishment, where the species of death was not marked in the law, If the person guilty of an act of this kind had been betrothed, but not married, she was to be stoned: De 22:23. But if she was the daughter of a priest, she was to be burned alive: Le 16:9. It appears, from Eze 16:38, Eze 16:40, that adulteresses in the time of that prophet were stoned, and pierced with a sword.

Selden and Fagius suppose that this woman's case was the same with that mentioned, De 22:23. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall stone them with stones that they die, the damsel because she cried not, and the man because he hath humbled his neighbours wife. As the Pharisees spoke of stoning the woman, it is possible this was her case; and some suppose that the apparent indulgence with which our Lord treated her insinuates that she had suffered some sort of violence, though not entirely innocent. Therefore he said, I do not condemn thee, i.e. to death, because violence had been used. Sin no more. Nevertheless thou art in certain respects guilty; thou mightest have made more resistance.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(5) Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned.—If we interpret the words strictly, the case they contemplate is not that referred to in Lev_20:10, and quoted here in the margin, but that of Deu_22:23-24, which was the only case for which stoning was specified as a punishment. It would be a case of rare occurrence, and perhaps for this very reason, one on which the opinions of later Rabbis were divided. Strangulation was regarded as the punishment intended when no other was specified; and in the Talmudic distinction in cases of this kind, stoning and strangulation are named as the respective punishments:—“Filia Israelitæ, si adultera cum nupta, strangulanda; cum desponsata tantum, lapidanda. Filia Sacerdotis. si adultera cum nupta, lapidanda; cum desponsata tantum, comburenda (Sanhedrin, fol. 51, 2).

But what sayest thou?—The question is, like that about the tribute money (Mat_22:17), a snare in which they hope to take Him whatever answer He gives. If He answers that she should be stoned, this would excite the opposition of the multitude, for a lax state of morality had practically made the laws against unchastity a dead letter. The immorality of Rome had spread through the provinces of the empire, and although the Jews were less infected by it than others, the court of the Herods had introduced its worst forms, and Christ Himself speaks of them as “an evil and adulterous generation” (Mat_12:39. Comp. Jas_4:4). To have pronounced for a severe law against common forms of sin would have been to undermine popular support, and it is this only that the rulers had to fear. To have pronounced for capital punishment would moreover have brought Him into collision with the Roman government, which reserved to itself the power of life and death. (Comp. Joh_18:31; Joh_19:7.) Had He uttered a word in derogation of the majesty of the Roman empire, the charge of treason—in which case to be accused was practically to be condemned—would at once have been brought against Him. (Comp. Notes on Joh_19:12; Joh_19:15.) It is clearly the more severe view that the form of the question is intended to draw forth. “Moses said, in express words, . . .; what dost Thou say? You surely will not differ from Moses?” But if He had taken the laxer view, then this, like the Sabbath question, would have been a charge of breaking the Law. He would have been brought before the Sanhedrin as a false Messiah, for the true Messiah was to establish the Law.

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

5. Moses in the law] Of the two texts given in the margin of our Bible, Lev_20:10 and Deu_22:22, probably neither is correct. It is often assumed that ‘put to death’ in Jewish Law means stoning: such however is not Jewish tradition. The Rabbis taught that it meant strangulation; i.e. the criminal was smothered in mud and then a cord was twisted round his neck. But for the case of a betrothed woman sinning in the city, stoning is specified as the punishment (Deu_22:23-24), and this is probably what is indicated here. Such cases would be rare, and therefore all the better suited for a casuistical question.

but what sayest thou?] Better, What therefore sayest Thou? This is the only place in the whole paragraph where S. John’s favourite particle ‘therefore’ occurs; and that not in the narrative, where S. John makes such frequent use of it, but in the dialogue, where he very rarely employs it. Scarcely anywhere in this Gospel can a dozen verses of narrative be found without a ‘therefore;’ but see Joh_2:1-17, and contrast Joh_4:1-26, Joh_20:1-9.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

This they said, tempting him,.... For they brought this woman, and exposed her in this manner, not because of their abhorrence and detestation of the sin; nor did they put the above question to Christ, out of their great respect to the law of Moses; which in many instances, and so in this, they in a great measure made void, by their traditions; for they say, that for such an offence as adultery, they did not put to death, nor beat, unless there was a previous admonition; the use of which was, to distinguish between presumptuous sins, and wilful ones (m); but if there was no admonition, and the woman, even a married woman, if she confessed the crime, all her punishment was to have her dowry taken from her, or to go away without it (n): now these masters say nothing about the admonition, nor do they put the question, whether this woman was to be dealt with according to their traditions, or according to the law of Moses? but what was the sense of Christ, whether Moses's law was to be attended to, or whether he would propose another rule to go by? and their view in this was,

that they might have to accuse him; that should he agree with Moses, then they would accuse him to the Roman governor, for taking upon him to condemn a person to death, which belonged to him to do; or they would charge him with severity, and acting inconsistently with himself, who received such sort of sinners, and ate with them; and had declared, that publicans and harlots would enter into the kingdom of heaven, when the Scribes and Pharisees would not; and if he should disagree with Moses, then they would traduce him among the people, as an enemy to Moses and his law, and as a patron of the most scandalous enormities:

but Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground; some think (o) he wrote in legible characters the sins of the woman's accusers; and the learned Wagenseil (p) makes mention of an ancient Greek manuscript he had seen, in which were the following words, "the sins of everyone of them": Dr. Lightfoot is of opinion, that this action of Christ tallies with, and has some reference to, the action of the priest at the trial of the suspected wife; who took of the dust of the floor of the tabernacle, and infused it in the bitter waters for her to drink; but it is most likely, that Christ on purpose put himself into this posture, as if he was busy about something else, and did not attend to what they said; and hereby cast some contempt upon them, as if they and their question were unworthy of his notice: and this sense is confirmed by what follows,

as though he heard them not; though this clause is not in many copies, nor in the Vulgate Latin, nor in any of the Oriental versions, but is in five of Beza's copies, and in the Complutensian edition.

(See Jer 17:13, "they that depart from me shall be wriiten in the earth". It could be that Christ was writing their names in the earth, thus fulfulling this prophecy in Jeremiah. They knew the Old Testament and this passage, and were convicted in their hearts. Editor.)

(m) Maimon. ib. sect. 3. (n) Misn. Sota, c. 1. sect. 5. (o) Hieron. adv. Pelagianos, l. 2. fol. 96. H. Tom. II. (p) In Misn. Sota, c. 1. sect. 5.

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

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

Ver. 5. Such should be stoned] Adultery was to be punished with death. Society and the purity of posterity could not otherwise continue among men; which is well observed by divines to be the reason why adultery is named, under it all uncleanness being forbidden, when yet other violations are more heinous, as sodomy and bestiality; nevertheless, other sins do not so directly fight against society, which the law mainly respects. (Huet of Cons.)

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.

Moses in the law ... - The punishment of adultery commanded by Moses was death, Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22. The particular manner of the death was not specified in the law. The Jews had themselves, in the time of Christ, determined that it should be by stoning. See this described in the notes at Mat 21:35, Mat 21:44. The punishment for adultery varied. In some cases it was strangling. In the time of Ezekiel Eze 16:38-40 it was stoning and being thrust through with a sword. If the adulteress was the daughter of a priest, the punishment was being burned to death.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Moses in the law, Lev 20:10, commanded that such malefactors should be put to death; but we read of no law commanding this kind of death. And their rule was, that when the law had set no kind of death for an offence, there the mildest kind of death was to be their punishment, which they counted strangling to be. But they ordinarily entitled Moses to their traditional additions to the law; and death being commanded by the law, as the punishment of such offenders, they took themselves to be at liberty to determine the kind of death, as prudence and reason of state ruled them; so as, probably, they, seeing that that sin grew very frequent amongst them, appointed stoning to be the kind of death such malefactors should be put to. The manner of which we are told was this: The guilty person was to be carried up to some high place, and thrown down from thence headlong by such as witnessed against him; then they threw stones at him till they had killed him, if not killed by the fall; or covered him, if he were dead. This they tell our Saviour Moses commanded, because he had commanded in the general, that such a person should die, and their sanhedrim had determined this particular death to such malefactors. But they would know what our Saviour said to this.

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

5. Stoned—Death was the punishment for adultery under the Mosaic law; stoning was its method in case the female was betrothed. This must have been the case of the present woman, to bring her under their statement.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned (or, to stone such); but what sayest thou? The Law (Deu_22:23, etc.) prescribed stoning for both parties when the woman is the betrothed bride of another man, and if she make no sufficient attempt to foil the purpose of her seducer. For ordinary adultery the death penalty is left indefinite. (Lev_20:10) It is no proof that strangulation was the method of punishment in the days of our Lord because the Talmud and Maimonides thus express it. Meyer concludes that the woman was a betrothed bride. This offence is, broadly speaking. "adultery" of an aggravated kind. The reference to the method of the punishment is not demonstrable proof of this, because it would be easily feasible to transfer the method of the death from the extreme case to the ordinary ease of nuptial infidelity. (cf. Exo_31:14 for the punishment of unspecified death for sabbath violation, (repeated Exo_35:2) interpreted of "stoning" in the special illustrative case, Num_15:32-36) This is Moses" Lawwhat sayest thou?" This query involves an ascription to Jesus of the right of authoritatively interpreting the Law. thus attributing to him the functions of a new legislator. Some have objected to the bare possibility of such an appeal being made to Jesus by any species of Jewish authority. The whole context shows that the process was malicious, ironical, crafty. The entire audience knew that this law had never been accepted or applied literally; that the Sanhedrin had not enforced it; and that, if they had endeavoured to do so, the Roman power had taken from the nation the jus gladii. The question, therefore, became one of casuistry inflamed by a concrete case, and having as its ally a secret sympathy with the offenders. It was not uncommon for the rabbis to discuss the incidence of obsolete laws. Many of the glosses upon the ancient law, and laborious trifling with specific regulations of the so called oral law, turn upon customs that were absolutely impracticable under the new conditions of the Jewish life. This, however, was no mere quibble of words about possible duties. The query was put with dramatic force and in concrete form. The shame and life of a fellow creature were the materials which this eager and bloodthirsty group were utilizing for their vile purpose.

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

Moses hath commanded us to stone such - If they spoke accurately, this must have been a woman, who, having been betrothed to a husband, had been guilty of this crime before the marriage was completed; for such only Moses commanded to be stoned. He commanded indeed that other adulteresses should be put to death; but the manner of death was not specified. Deut. xxii, 23.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

5. Moses … commanded. See Deut. 22:22, and Lev. 20:10.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

5. λιθάζειν for λιθοβολεῖσθαι.

5. ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ. Of the two texts given in the margin of our Bible, Lev 20:10 and Deu 22:22, probably neither is correct. It is often assumed that ‘put to death’ in Jewish Law means stoning: such however is not Jewish tradition. The Rabbis taught that it meant strangulation; i.e. the criminal was smothered in mud and then a cord was twisted round his neck. But, for the case of a betrothed woman sinning in the city, stoning is specified as the punishment (Deu 22:23-24), and this is probably what is indicated here. Such cases would be rare, and therefore all the better suited for a casuistical question.

σὺ οὖν τί λέγεις; What therefore sayest Thou? This is the only place in the whole paragraph where S. John’s favourite particle οὖν occurs; and that not in the narrative, where S. John makes such frequent use of it, but in the dialogue, where he very rarely employs it. Scarcely anywhere in this Gospel are there 12 verses of narrative without an οὖν; but see Joh 2:1-17, and contrast Joh 4:1-26, Joh 20:1-9.

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.

5.] I will just remark that the very fact of their questioning thus, ‘Moses commanded, … but what sayest Thou?’ belongs to the last days of the Lord’s ministry, and cannot well be introduced chronologically where it here stands: nor does John any where introduce these questions between the law of Moses and Jesus; but the synoptic Gospels often do.

The command here mentioned is not to be found, unless ‘putting to death’ generally, is to be interpreted as = stoning: compare Exo 31:14 and 35:2, with Num 15:35, Num 15:36, in which the special order given by God would sanction such a view. But the Rabbis taught “omne mortis supplicium in scriptura absolute positum esse strangulationem.” Tract. Sanhedr. ch. 10. (Lücke, De Wette.) The passage Eze 16:38, Eze 16:40 proves nothing, or proves too much; for it is added, “and thrust thee through with their swords.”

I would rather suppose that from Deu 22:21, Deu 22:23, Deu 22:24, an inference was drawn what kind of a death was intended in ver. 22, the crime being regarded as the same; “he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife.” We have similar indefiniteness in ib. ver. 25, where evidently the same punishment is meant: see the whole matter discussed in Lücke, ii. 257 ff.

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

5. ἐν δὲ τῷ νόμῳ κτλ. In an ordinary case of adultery (e.g. Lev 20:10) the penalty was death for both parties, but the manner of execution is not specified, the Talmud prescribing death by strangulation. But in the exceptional and specially heinous case of a betrothed woman’s unchastity, death was to be by stoning (Deu 22:21). It was an unusual case like this that was put before Jesus.

These severe laws were rarely put in force, but nevertheless the dilemma was neatly framed. If He said that the guilty woman should be stoned, He would have been subject to the Roman law for inciting to murder; and although the Roman authorities were lax on occasion about such acts of violence (as in the case of Stephen, Act 7:58), there would have been a good pretext for handing Him over to them to deal with. If, however, He inclined to more merciful treatment, as was probably expected of Him, He would have been declared by His critics to be a blasphemous person who did not accept the enactments of the sacred law. Cf. Mar 12:14 for the dilemma about the tribute money; and Mar 10:2 for the question about divorce, which, however puzzling, would not involve difficulty with the Roman authorities.

Augustine, however, puts the dilemma in a simpler way: “Si ut iuberet occidi perderet mansuetudinis famam; si autem iuberet dimitti incurreret, tanquam reprehensor legis, calumniam” (Enarr. in Psa_1. § 8). This may be right, but it does not recall the attempts to entrap Jesus recorded by the Synoptists.

For the first clause D has Μωυσῆς δὲ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ ἐκέλευσεν. For λιθάζειν (cf. 10:31), which is read by DMSU 1071 and fam. 13, the rec. has λιθοβολεῖσθαι (the verb used Deu 22:21) with EGHKΠ.

After λέγεις ins. περὶ αὐτῆς MSUΛ fam. 13 c ff.2

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

Ver. 5. Stoning was ordained by Moses only for the case of an unfaithful betrothed virgin (Deu 22:23-24); for the adulterous wife, the kind of death was not determined (Lev 20:10). According to the Talmud, where the penalty is not specified, the law meant, not stoning, but strangling. And Meyer infers from this that this woman was an unfaithful betrothed virgin. This supposition is neither natural nor necessary. The declarations of the Talmud do not form a law for the time of Jesus. Tholuck, Ewald and Keil, as it seems to me, rightly hold, that where the law was silent, it was rather the punishment of stoning which was inflicted. This view is confirmed by Joh 8:2; Joh 8:27 of the chapter cited (Leviticus 20), where the penalty of death, not specified in Joh 8:10, is expressly designated as that by stoning. Comp. also Exo 31:4; Exo 35:2, where the penalty of death is ordained for violators of the Sabbath, with Num. 5:32-34, where this punishment is inflicted, without any new determination having been given, under the form of stoning.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.