Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:4
They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
They bring to our Saviour a woman taken in the act of adultery, and set her before him.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
4, 5. woman . . . in adultery . . .Moses . . . commanded . . . should be stonedsimply put todeath (De 22:22), but inaggravated cases, at least in later times, this was probably bystoning (Eze 16:40).
but what sayest thouhoping,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 Heforbade it, that would hold Him up as a relaxer of the public morals.But these cunning hypocrites were overmatched.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
They say unto him, Master,…. They applied to him in a handsome and respectful manner, the better to cover their ill design:
this woman was taken in adultery; by two persons at least, who could be witnesses of it; otherwise the accusation was not legal; see
De 19:15; though in the case of a wife suspected of adultery, they admitted a single witness as valid f:
in the very act; or “in the theft itself”, for adultery is a theft; it is an unlawful use of another’s property; see this word used in the same sense, in Heliodor, l. 1. sect. 11.
f Maimon. Hilchot Eduth, c. 5. sect. 2.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Hath been taken (). Perfect passive indicative of (see verse 3), caught and still guilty.
In adultery (). Present passive participle of , “herself suffering adultery” (Mt 5:32). Used of married people. Not in John.
In the very act (‘ ). Old adjective (, , self, and , thief) caught in the act of theft, then extended to any crime in which one is caught. Old idiom, but not elsewhere in the Greek Bible. One example in a Berlin papyrus.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “They say unto him,” (legousin auto) “They say to him,” directly, openly, purporting to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, a thing they were incapable of doing, in their unregenerate religious delusion, for He soon gave them their true (IDs) as children of the devil, liars and hypocrites, Joh 8:44.
2) “Master, this woman was taken in adultery,” (didaskale haute he gune kateileptai moicheuomene) “Teacher, this woman has been caught committing adultery,” an unethical and immoral act, in breach of Moses’ law, Exo 20:14; Mat 5:27; Mar 10:19; Rom 13:9.
3) “In the very act.” (ep, autophoro) “In the act,” of adultery itself, a thing for which Moses’ law prescribed the death penalty, that both the man and woman “shall surely be put to death,” Lev 20:10.
The vilest of sinners are often the greatest accusers. These scribes and Pharisees thought they had a “double whammy” for Jesus, for if He said put her to death, they would accuse Him of brutality without passion, and if He said let her go, He would disregard Moses’ law.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
Joh 8:4-5 . Observe especially here and in Joh 8:5-6 the thoroughly synoptical diffuseness of the account.
] with the augment of , see Winer, p. 60 [E. T. p. 84]. On the expression, comp. , Arrian. Epict. 2. 4.
] 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: . On , 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 .
] This word cannot be called un-Johannean (in Joh 10:31 ff. 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 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 , it is clear that the crime in question was regarded as a modified form of adultery, as it is also called 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, 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 (Lcke’s 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, Lcke, 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, Archol. 153, 1; Ewald, Brckner 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. Saalschtz, Mos. R. p. 571. Here, however, where the 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.: ), 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 , 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.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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, ’ . 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
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
4. ] The 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. Joh 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), Aug [119] , Euthym [120] ). 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 ( ) 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: ( ) our Lord’s answer need not have been so worded as to trench upon this matter: and ( ) 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.
[119] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo , 395 430
[120] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
So that I leave the difficulty unsolved. Lcke (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.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Master =
Teacher. App-98. Joh 8:1.
in the very act. Greek. ep’ (App-104.) autophoro. Autophoros means self-detected.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
4.] The 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. Joh 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), Aug[119], Euthym[120]). 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 () 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: () our Lords answer need not have been so worded as to trench upon this matter: and () 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.
[119] Augustine, Bp. of Hippo, 395-430
[120] Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116
So that I leave the difficulty unsolved. Lcke (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.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:4. , teacher [Master]) The reason [is implied in the title by which they address Him], why they require Him to give His decision.-, 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.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:4
Joh 8:4
they say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken in adultery, in the very act.-The case was brought before Jesus by his enemies in the effort to find ground for accusing him.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Reciprocal: Lev 20:10 – the adulterer Deu 22:22 – General Jdg 19:3 – speak Mat 1:19 – a public
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
Since the woman was taken in the act of adultery, they had the same chance of bringing the guilty man as they did the woman. The fact they did not is proof they were not concerned about the law of Moses. Lev 20:10 and Deu 22:22 is the law referred to, and it required that both the man and woman should be stoned. But they brought only the woman, because they thought the natural leniency of a man for the feminine sex would cause Jesus to set the law aside unconditionally.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 8:4. They say unto him, Teacher, this woman hath been taken committing adultery, in the very act. Not only was the sin grievous: the point is that there was no possibility of denying it. No process of proof was necessary: there was no need to summon witnesses. We may even well believe that the very countenance of the woman would betray her own consciousness of her shame.