Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadHeinrich Meyer Commentary - John 8:7 - 8:7
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Joh_8:7. Ἀναμάρτητος ] faultless, here only in the N. T., very often in the Classics. Whether it means freedom from the possibility of fault (of error or sin), as in Plato, Pol. I. p. 339 B, or freedom from actual sin (comp. γυνὴ ἀναμάρτητος , Herod. v. 39),—whether, again, it is to be understood generally (2Ma_8:4), or with reference to any definite category or species of ἁμαρτία (2Ma_12:42; Deu_29:19), is a matter which can be decided by the context alone. Here it must signify actual freedom from the sin, not indeed of adultery specially, for Jesus could not presuppose this of the hierarchy as a whole, even with all its corruption of morals, but probably of unchastity, simply because a woman who was a sinner of this category was here in question, and stood before the eyes of them all as the living opposite of ἀναμάρτητος . Comp. ἁμαρτωλός , Luk_7:37; ἁμαρτάνειν , Jacobs, ad Anthol. x. p. 111; in chap. Joh_5:14, also, a special kind of sinning is intended by μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε ; and the same command, in Joh_8:11, addressed to the adulteress, authenticates the sense in which ἀναμάρτητος is used. The men tempting Him knew how to avoid, in outward appearance rather than in reality, the unchastity which they condemned. Taking the words to mean freedom from sin generally (Baur, who draws from the passage an erroneous doctrinal meaning, Luthardt, Ewald, Hengstenberg, Godet, following early expositors), we make Jesus propose an impracticable condition in the given case, quite unfitted to disarm His opponents as convicted by their own consciences; for it would have been a purelyideal condition, a standard impossible to man. If we take ἀναμάρτητος , however, in the concrete sense above explained, the condition named becomes quite appropriate to baffle the purpose of the tempting questioners; for the prescription of the Mosaic law is, on the one hand, fully recognised;[7] while, on the other, its fulfilment is made dependent on a condition which would effectually banish from the mind of His questioners, into whose consciences Jesus was looking, all thought of making His answer a ground of accusation to the authorities.
Observe, further, how the general moral maxim to be deduced from the text condemns generally in the Christian community, viewed as it ought to exist conformably to its ideal, the personal condemnation of the sins of others (comp. Mat_7:1; Gal_6:5), and puts in its place brotherly admonition, conciliation, forgiveness—in a word, love, as the πλήρωσις of the law.
τὸν λίθον ] the stone which He would cast at her in obedience to the law.
ἐπʼ αὐτῇ ] upon her. See Bernhardy, p. 249; Ellendt, Lex Soph. i. p. 467.
βαλέτω ] not mere permission, but command, and therefore all the more telling. The place of stoning must be conceived as lying outside the city (Lev_24:14; Act_7:56). We must further observe that Jesus does not say the first stone, but let the first (i.e. of you, ὑμῶν ) cast the stone, which does not exclude that casting of the first, which was obligatory on the witnesses (Deu_17:7; Act_7:58).
[7] The section cannot therefore be used, as Mittermayer uses it (d. Todesstr. 1862), as a testimony of Jesus against capital punishment.