Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8:4 - 8:5
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
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 àÅùÑÆú øÅòÅäåÌ , 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 ðàó (Lücke’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, 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.