(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 Leviticus 20:10, and quoted here in the margin, but that of Deuteronomy 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 Israelitae, 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 (Matthew 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" (Matthew 12:39. Comp. James 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. John 18:31; John 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 John 19:12; John 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.
Verse 5. - Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned (or, to stone such); but what sayest thou? The Law (Deuteronomy 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 (Leviticus 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. Exodus 31:14 for the punishment of unspecified death for sabbath violation (repeated Exodus 35:2), interpreted of "stoning" in the special illustrative case, Numbers 15:32-36). This is Moses' Law - "what 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.
8:1-11 Christ neither found fault with the law, nor excused the prisoner's guilt; nor did he countenance the pretended zeal of the Pharisees. Those are self-condemned who judge others, and yet do the same thing. All who are any way called to blame the faults of others, are especially concerned to look to themselves, and keep themselves pure. In this matter Christ attended to the great work about which he came into the world, that was, to bring sinners to repentance; not to destroy, but to save. He aimed to bring, not only the accused to repentance, by showing her his mercy, but the prosecutors also, by showing them their sins; they thought to insnare him, he sought to convince and convert them. He declined to meddle with the magistrate's office. Many crimes merit far more severe punishment than they meet with; but we should not leave our own work, to take that upon ourselves to which we are not called. When Christ sent her away, it was with this caution, Go, and sin no more. Those who help to save the life of a criminal, should help to save the soul with the same caution. Those are truly happy, whom Christ does not condemn. Christ's favour to us in the forgiveness of past sins should prevail with us, Go then, and sin no more.
Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should, be stoned,.... Not in Leviticus 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, Deuteronomy 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 Ezekiel 16.40. (k) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 51. 2.((l) Apud Castell. Lex. Polyglott, col. 2180.
But what sayest thou?--The question is, like that about the tribute money (Matthew 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" (Matthew 12:39. Comp. James 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. John 18:31; John 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 John 19:12; John 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 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 Ezekiel 16.40. (k) T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 51. 2.((l) Apud Castell. Lex. Polyglott, col. 2180.