12-18-2004, 02:32 PM
|
| Puritanboard Librarian | | Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: N/A
Posts: 24,012
Thanks: 2,636
Thanked 3,523 Times in 2,014 Posts
| |
Quote: Originally posted by fredtgreco
Quote: Originally posted by paul manata
Quote: |
How do theonomists interpret John 8? Christ gives the adulterous woman a religious forgiveness, but it never says that he pursued her case any further, i.e. finding her husband to accuse her so that she could be stoned according the law of Moses.
| First off, this passage in John 8 is disputed to have not even been included in the original mauscripts. Even if it is, it is evidence for theonomy.
(1) There is no proof that she committed adultary. Also, where was the man? If she was 'caught in the act' then the man would also have been there. The law teachers were trying to trap Jesus, then.
(2) Jesus knows everything. He knew she didn't commit adultary. So, he told then to cast the first stone. The law says that the accusers were to cast the first stone. But, it also gives the same penalty to a false accuser that the accused would have sufferd. He who is without sin should cast it (i.e., he who is telling the truth in this case should cast it).
(3) If Jesus did violate the law then he would have violated his own holy nature as well as keeping *all* the law for us. So, he couldn't have just said: "let's not obey the law in this instance."
(4) Some may say, "well Jesus knew everything so if she did commit adulatry (which is disputed) he should've stoned her." But, Jesus was not a witness and did not have the testimony of 2 or more witnesses according to the law. So, jesus upheld it, even if she did.
| First off, denial of John 8 is not even an option. I really don't care what a bunch of "scholars" think about ripping a section of the Bible out. They can have the fruit of that (Rev. 22).
Second, this section, neither proves nor disproves theonomy. How could it? Jesus lived under the "body politic, {to whom God} gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the State of that people; not obliging under any now, further than the general equity thereof may require." So even if we can show that Jesus' actions were in line with Theonomic principles, that proves nothing.
| 
__________________
Andrew
|