Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 8:5
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
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.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
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.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
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.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should, be stoned,…. Not in Le 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,
De 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.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Commanded (). First aorist middle indicative of , old verb to enjoin (Mt 4:6).
To stone such ( ). Present active infinitive of (from ), from Aristotle on. Stoning was specified for the case of a betrothed woman guilty of adultery (De 22:23f.) and for a priest’s daughter if guilty. In other cases just death was commanded (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). The Talmud prescribes strangulation. This case may have strictly come within the regulation as a betrothed virgin.
What then sayest thou of her? ( ;). “Thou then, what dost thou say?” This was the whole point, to catch Jesus, not to punish the woman.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “Now Moses in the law commanded us,” (en de to nomo humin Mouses eneteilato) “Now in the law (he gave to us) Moses enjoined,” Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22. Yet, they did not state that both the adulterer and the adulteress were to be put to death, according to the law.
2) “That such should be stoned:” (tas toiautas lithazein) “That such ones should be or were to be stoned,” repeatedly, until they died, unless the woman made a protest against a man who attacked her, Deu 22:23-25. Such stoning was the capital punishment also inflicted on the sabbath breaker, Num 15:32-36.
3) “But what sayest thou?” (su oun ti legeis;) “What therefore do you say about the matter?” They thought they would entrap Him in a dilemma (a two horned) argument. If He had said, ”kill her,” they would have charged Him with brutality and no compassion and if He said “let her go” they apparently meant to further charge Him with teaching people to disregard Moses’ law, in addition to their charge that He was a sabbath breaker, Joh 5:9-10; Joh 5:16; Joh 5:18. But He knowing what was in man, knowing the entrapment motives of their inquiry, (Joh 2:24-25), did not verbally respond as they thought, Isa 55:8-9; Joh 18:31.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
(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 Israelit, 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 treasonin which case to be accused was practically to be condemnedwould 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.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
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.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Joh 8:5. Now Moses in the law commanded The law, Lev 20:10. Deu 22:22 required in the general, that adultery should be punished with death, but did not determine the kind of it: only because it is ordered, Deu 22:23-24 that the betrothed damsel guilty of adultery should be stoned, it is supposed that in process of time this kind of death was appropriated to such offenders; and that the punishment of the married adulteress, Lev 20:10 was interpreted to mean strangling: agreeably to these suppositions, it has been conjectured, that the woman now before Jesus was only betrothed; but the distinction has no foundation; for it is evident from Ezekiel 16 that the proper punishment of all kinds of adultery was stoning, Joh 8:38. I will judge thee as women that break wedlock are judged; and Joh 8:40. They shall stone thee with stones. Besides 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.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
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.)
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
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 ; Exo 35:2 , with Num 15:35-36 , 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. (Lcke, 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 22:23-24 , an inference was drawn what kind of a death was intended in Deu 22:22 , the crime being regarded as the same; “ he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife .” We have similar indefiniteness in ib. Joh 8:25 , where evidently the same punishment is meant: see the whole matter discussed in Lcke, ii. 257 ff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Joh 8:5 . . 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 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. ; “What then sayest Thou?” as if it were possible He might give a decision differing from that of the law.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Moses. See note on Joh 1:17.
commanded . . . stoned. This law referred only to a “betrothed damsel “(Deu 22:24); and to show that the Lord knew their thoughts, and knew also that this was another man’s “wife”. He complied with the law prescribed in “such” a case (Num 5:11-31), and stooped down and wrote the curses (as required in Joh 8:23) on the ground.
but = therefore.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
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 Lords 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; Exo 35:2, with Num 15:35-36, 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. (Lcke, 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 22:23-24, an inference was drawn what kind of a death was intended in Deu 22:22, the crime being regarded as the same; he hath humbled his neighbours wife. We have similar indefiniteness in ib. Joh 8:25, where evidently the same punishment is meant: see the whole matter discussed in Lcke, ii. 257 ff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 8:5. , to stone) [D and the best versions read , instead of ]. 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.-, therefore) This particle exhibits their question as more framed to entrap Him, than if they had openly said, but.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 8:5
Joh 8:5
Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?-The law of Moses required that one guilty of adultery should be stoned to death. (Deu 22:23). The law had fallen into disuse at this time. The Roman government forbade the Jews inflicting capital punishment without the sanction of the Roman ruler. The Romans did not hold adultery a ground for capital punishment, and would not sanction the death of one for this offense. Then the character and temper of Jesus made it certain that he would not have ordered her executed if he had the power. So they imagined they could force him to set aside the law of Moses and give ground for accusing and condemning him before the people.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Moses: Lev 20:10, Deu 22:21-24, Eze 16:38-40, Eze 23:47
but: Mat 5:17, Mat 19:6-8, Mat 22:16-18
Reciprocal: Deu 22:22 – General Jdg 19:3 – speak Eze 16:40 – shall also Mat 1:19 – a public Joh 5:45 – there Joh 8:59 – took
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
5
The Pharisees made the correct interpretation of the law in the case, but their use of the word such condemned them, for that applied to both the man and woman. What sagest thou? This direct question was said in the tone of a challenge, thinking Jesus would say, “it would be harsh to stone a woman, so turn her loose.” Such a statement would have furnished the Pharisees a pretext for accusations.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
[That such should be stoned.] Such. Who? what, all adulteresses? or all taken in adultery, in the very act? There is a third qualification still: for the condition of the adulteress is to be considered, whether she was a married woman, or betrothed only.
God punisheth adultery by death, Lev 20:10. But the masters of traditions say, that “wherever death is simply mentioned in the law,” [that is, where the kind of death is not expressly prescribed,] “there it is to be supposed no other than strangling.” Only they except; “a daughter of an Israelite, if she commit adultery after she is married, must be strangled; if only betrothed, she must be stoned. A priest’s daughter, if she commit adultery when married, must be stoned; if only betrothed, she must be burnt.”
Hence we may conjecture what the condition of this adulteress was: either she was an Israelitess not yet married, but betrothed only; or else she was a priest’s daughter, married: rather the former, because they say, “Moses in the law hath commanded us that such should be stoned.” See Deu 22:21. But as to the latter, there is no such command given by Moses.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Joh 8:5. Now in the law Moses commanded to stone such: what therefore sayest thou concerning her? The words concerning her,which do not occur in the Authorised Version, but which the best authorities lead us to accept,throw light upon the scene. It is not a mere abstract contrast between Moses and a new Lawgiver that is before us: it is a special case. By the way in which Jesus deals with this woman shall the end of His enemies be gained. The law of Moses expressly decreed death by stoning only to a betrothed virgin who proved faithless, and to her seducer (Deu 22:23-24). It has been inferred, therefore, that this woman was only betrothed, not married. The supposition is unnecessary. It is enough to remember that adultery (in the ordinary sense of the word) was punishable with death; and that, in a case of violation of the Sabbath, the Divine command to punish the transgressor with death was interpreted to mean putting him to death by stoning (Num 15:35). We need thus have no hesitation in believing that the same mode of punishment would be applied to all sins similar in character to that which alone has the penalty of stoning expressly attached to it.
It is hardly possible to pass by without notice the singular italicised clause of the present Authorised Version at the end of Joh 8:6, as though he heard them not. The clause is intended for a translation of certain words of the Complutensian text which Stephens adopted in his editions of A.D. 1546 and 1549, but not in that of 1550, which became the Textus Receptus. The words are not found in any early English Version, neither in Wycliffe nor Tyndale, nor Coverdale, nor the Great Bible, nor the two Gene van Versions. They are also absent from the Rheims Version of A.D. 1582. They first occur in the Bishops Bible. In the Version of A.D. 1611 they are not printed in italics. Dr. Scrivener says that they were not italicised earlier than A.D. 1769.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
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 womans 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.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
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.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Jesus’ critics were correct in their interpretation of the Mosaic Law (cf. Lev 20:10; Deu 22:22-24). However the Jews of Jesus’ day apparently did not enforce this law often, especially in urban areas. [Note: Ibid., p. 335.] The writer said the authorities wanted to trap Jesus into saying something they could use against Him (cf. Mat 22:15-22; Mar 12:13-17; Luk 20:20-26). They appear to have wanted Jesus’ execution more than the woman’s.
If Jesus advocated not executing the woman, the lawyers and Pharisees could charge Him with teaching the people to violate the law. If He recommended executing her, He would contradict His own reputation for being gracious and forgiving (cf. Luk 5:20; Luk 7:47). Moreover He would alienate Himself from the Jews. That decision might have gotten Him in trouble with the Roman authorities too (cf. Joh 18:31).