João 8:5

Comentário de Ellicott sobre toda a Bíblia

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 Levítico 20:10, and quoted here in the margin, but that of Deuteronômio 22:23, 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 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 (Mateus 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” (Mateus 12:39. Comp. Tiago 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. João 18:31; João 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 João 19:12; João 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.

Veja mais explicações de João 8:5

Destaque