The Pulpit Commentary — John — Volume 1 — Section 476

be answered, lower his prestige. According ironical, crafty. The entire oudience !mow to vor. 10 (omitted in Codex B), these soribos the.t this law ho.d never been accepted or and PhRrisoes were, if not the "witnesses" applied literally: tho.t the Scmhedrin hnd of Rdultery, the "Rconsers" rea.dy to take not enforced it; nnd thnt, if they had en- the case before the highest court. Consider- de,1voured to do so, the Romnn power hnd ing the long desuetude of the Le.w, and the taken from the nation the jtl,8 gladii. Tile \m~~ibility of even the Se.n~edrin legally question, therefore, becmne one of oo.suistry infhoting the penalty of stonmg, even if it inflamed by a concrete case, o.nd ho.ving o.s were so disposed, the whole question looks its ally n seoret sympathy with the offenders. like a subtle but ill-considered plot to en- It was not uncommon for the rabbis to dis- tangle the Lord in his judgments, and to cuss the incidence of obaolete l&ws. Many induee him to sacrifiee his influence with the of the glosses upon the o.ncient law, ond people. The e.bsenoe of the guilty man is laborious trifling with specific regulations of not.eworthy (Lev. xx. 10 ; Deut. xx.ii. 22). t.he sc-ce.lled oral lo.w, turn upon customs Ver. 4.-Master-Teacher-this woman the.t were absolutely impracticable under the has been taken oommitting adultery, in the new conditions of the Jewish life. This, very act. 'E1ra.u-ro,pr{,prp originally meant however, was no mere quibble of words in ipo furto, "in the very theft; " 11.fter- a.bout possible duties. The query was put we.rde more generally in the commission with drama.tic force and in concrete form. of this pe.rticulo.r sin. The burning shame The shame and life of a fellow-creature and bestial bluntness of the cha.rge me.kc were the materials which this eager o.nd no excuse or palliation possible. bloodthirsty group were utilizing for their Ver. 5.-Now Moses in the Le.wcomm&nded vile purpose. us, that suoh should be stoned ( or, to stone Ver. 6.-But this they s&id tempting him, sudi): but what eayest thou!' The Law that they might have (whereof) to &Couse (Deut. Dill. 23, etc.) prescribed stoning for him. They sought o. ground of formal e.ccu- both pa.rties when the woman is the betrothed a&tion ago.inst J eeus. This implies some bride of another man, e.nd if she make no court before which the charge they desired sufficient attempt to foil the purpose of her to formulate it might be brought. The pre- seducer. For ordinary adultery the death- cise accusation is difficult to determine, and penalty is left indefinite (Lev. x.x. 10). It is sundry distinguished scholars, Liicke, De no proof the.t strangulatiou was the method of Wette, ond Alford, declare the problem or punishment in the de.ys of our Lord bece.use question insoluble. Augustine has been the Tnlmud e.nd Maimonides thus express followed by a. great body of expositors, who it. 2 Meyer concludes that the woman was have supposed that an affirmative reply a betrothed bride. This offence is, broadly wonld !lave been inconsistent with the speaking. "adultery•• of an aggravated gentleness ond mildness of our Lord's treat- kind. The reference to the method of the ment of sinners, while o. negative reply punishment is not demonstrable proof of would nt once ho.ve given them o. charge to this, because it would be easily feasible to bring before the Sanhedrin of such o rele.xe.- transfer the method of the death from the tion of the Low as would endanger his extreme caae to the ordinary ce.ee of n n ptial position as o. Rabbi, still more a.a the Prophet infidelity (cf. Exod. xxxi. 14 for the punish- like unto Moses. Almost all critics agree ment of unspecified death for se.bbath-viole.- os to the use to which Christ's enemies were tion (repeat.ed Exod. xx.xv. 2), interpret.ed of ready to put e. negatifle reply, and therefore "stoning" in the 11pecial illustrative case, they coincide with Augustine in tbis po.rt Nn.mb. xv. 32-36). This is Moses' Law- of his explanation. But the interpretation " what sayct;t thou 1" This query involves put upon the affirmative reply would not an 11£cription to Jesus of the right of authori- furnish the ground of o.ny accusation beforo tatively interpreting the Law, thns attribut- e.ny court. An apparent inconsistency would ing to him the functions of a new legislator. be no civil charge, and would have no weight Some have objected to the bare possibility before any legal tribunal. The condemna- of such an appeal being made to Jesus by tion of adulterers to death by stoning would any species of Jewish authority. The whole have been Christ's e.llow&nce of the leLter of context shows that the process was malicious, the Law to stand. The Romo.us could take no umbrage e.t this until the act had been 1 D here reads, M"'o-ijs 5, iv .,-tj 116µ"' l,d- carried into execution. It may probe.bly AEut1EJ1 ,,.as 'TOJ.a.VTQ,,S NBa.(E'ut- (TV ~E vUv ,,., have been known that, let the Sanhedrin >..l,ym; T.R., 'E., 5, .,-,; ,,&,,_,, M"'uijs 11µiv record what verdict ond punishment they .,,.... lJ,a'TO 'Tl&S 'TOIAU'ra.S J-...8o{Jo>..iiu6<U" 0"11 olii, pleased, the Rome.n magistrates would not 'Ti AP'(Etr; have carried it into ce.pite.l execution. How. • " Filla. Isre.elitm, si adnltere. cum nupta, then, could the scribes e.nd Pharisees he.ve ■trangule.nda, cum desponse.ta tantum, lapi- carried e.n aoo1111&tion or information before dawia " (' Banh.,' fol. 61, 2). a Rowan tribunal? The 11olution we.a liUS• oa. vm. 1-69.) THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST, JOHN. 849