The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - "I did not come to destroy the law or the prophets"

JohnV · #19 (**permalink**) 12-18-2004, 12:55 PM

Christopher:
I'm not really sure what you mean by inadequate interpretations of the Matt. 5 verses. But I am supposing that there must be a heavy Dispensational influence in the things you struggled against. I think you are right in your assessment of the basis for Theonomy, but that's not universally agree upon.

As to John 8, the first thirteen verses or so have been questioned as to being authoritative. But I think we are limited in our choices in either direction. If the text is Scriptural, then it needs to intepreted by the ordinary rules, namely that the text must be taken in its plain reading, and within the context and consistency of the whole of Scripture. We cannot go supposing what we want to suppose. So the implications that we must take from it are to be natural implications. But if this section is not Scriptural, then it is akin to being apocryphal, and we must follow the rules concerning such writings.

Numerous passages have been attacked in the last few decades, calling things into question that the church have taken for granted; passages like Gen. 1-3, like 1 Cor. 11, 1 Tim. 2, etc. In effect, other "possible" interpretations have been raised which are technically within the bounds of the Confessions, or perhaps not, so as to provide an alternative rendition which conforms more to the present trains of thought; i.e., different views on creation, the dress and place of women in church, and allowing women into the offices of the church, respectively.

We could do the same thing with John 8. And we might think ourselves more free to do so, since it may or may not be Scripture. But I would suggest that we need to think through some things first. If this passage has been added it is more serious than just putting this text in brackets or italics, or in the footnotes. Someone has added to Scripture, and that is a serious offence. And that is part and parcel of the consideration first and foremost, regardless of what interpretation we put onto it. If we think that adding the text to the footnotes instead of in the text of Scripture settles anything we are gravely mistaken. We are talking about a serious thing here. And we need to handle it with respect. Perhaps we may call the use of this Scripture in regard to doctrine into question, but we may not then liberally use it to our own advantage. We certainly may not make of it what we will.

Now we may also call certain things about this passage into question without calling its inscriptruation into question. But again, this is not a licence to fill in the blanks we create with things that suit us. We have to abide by the plain meaning of the text. Calling that into question is only calling that into question, and can be no more. We can't add our own "what if's". Jesus said "Neither do I condemn you; go, and sin no more." That leaves us with very few options as to the reading of the entire text. The text, like so many others, is short on some detail, but long on doctrinal significance. Whether or not we call this passage or its details into question cannot effect that doctrinal significance within the context and consistency of the whole of Scripture.

What I am trying to say is that calling the text itself or its meaning into question limits us even further; it does not open the doors to other interpretations, but closes them even tighter. If we take this dilemma seriously, then that is the only route we can go.

So this text has two parts, namely how Jesus deals with the accusers and His attackers, and how Jesus deals with a woman for whom there is no plea but and admission of guilt. She could as easily have been found pregnant as with another man, or with the "proofs" of broken virginity. At any rate, she is on trial as much as Jesus, in the eyes of the accusers. And this seems to be the context.