Charles Ellicott Commentary John 8

It is an instructive example of how the artificial division into chapters often disrupts the sense: one verse of this section is found at the end of the previous chapter, and the rest in this one.

Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.—The Mount of Olives is nowhere mentioned by St. John. In John 18:1 he describes the locality, but without this name (see Note there). His habit, moreover, in giving topographical details of Palestine is to explain them for his Greek readers. (See Note on John 4:5.)

And early in the morning he came again into the temple.—This agrees with His custom during the week preceding the Crucifixion. (Compare to Luke 21:37-38.) The words, and He sat down and taught them, are not found in the Cambridge manuscript, which is the oldest authority for the section.

And the scribes and Pharisees . . .—This is the common phrase of the earlier Gospels, but “the scribes” are never named by Saint John. His word to denote the hierarchy in their opposition to Christ is “the Jews.” (See Note on John 1:19.)

The Cambridge manuscript reads, “the priests say to Him, tempting Him, so that they might have grounds to accuse Him,” adding the word “priests,” and placing here the first words of the sixth verse of the Received text.

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. In the Talmudic distinction in cases of this kind, stoning and strangulation are named as the respective punishments: “Filia Israelitæ, 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 hoped to trap Him, whatever answer He gave.

If He answered that she should be stoned, this would arouse opposition from the crowd, because 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. Although the Jews were less infected by it than others, the court of the Herods had introduced its worst forms.

Christ Himself speaks of them as “an evil and adulterous generation” (Matthew 12:39).

To have advocated for a severe law against common forms of sin would have been to undermine popular support, and this alone was what the rulers feared.

Furthermore, to have advocated for capital punishment would have brought Him into conflict with the Roman government, which reserved for itself the power of life and death (John 19:7).

Had He uttered a word detracting from the majesty of the Roman Empire, the charge of treason—in which case to be accused was practically to be condemned—would immediately have been brought against Him (compare to Notes on John 19:12; John 19:15).

It is clearly the more severe view that the form of the question was intended to elicit: “Moses said, in express words...; what do you say? You surely will not differ from Moses?”

But if He had taken the more lenient 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, because the true Messiah was to establish the Law.