> Correct me if I am wrong, but both Ridderbos and Carson hold to a similar > view on the active obedience Of Christ to the >Law so their interpetation > of the passage would be in harmony with their view. Of course, one could say that your denial of active obedience is driving your understanding of "caught in the act" as a verdict, your rejection of "condemn" in its normal usage as a legal sentence in verse 10, and your rejection of "no one condemn" as a vacating of the accusations. More importantly Ridderbos and Carson hold to a similar biblical-theological redemptive-historical hermeneutic that allows the entire context of John as well as the rest of the canon to be brought to bear in the exegesis. Chad Richard Bresson Xenia, OH http://breusswane.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "H Dorrington" <hjdinfl@...> To: <soundofgrace@...> Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 5:13 PM Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] John 8:11 and Condemn > Correct me if I am wrong, but both Ridderbos and Carson hold to a similar > view on the active obedience Of Christ to the Law so their interpetation > of the passage would be in harmony with their view. You quote Carson as > saying that the witnesses of the crime must be the first to throw the > stones but even the Scripture given does not support that claim! "Bring > the one who has cursed outside the camp, and let all who heard him lay > their hands on his head; then let all the congregation stone him." Where > are the witness throwing the first stones? > > What is interesting is that even John Calvin saw the obvious problem in > this passage with the doctrine of active obedience! > > Harry > > Chad Richard Bresson <breusswane@...> wrote: > Herman Ridderbos on verse 11: "Here, as in vs. 10, 'condemn' is used in > the legal sense of 'sentence'." -- Ridderbos, The Gospel of John, p. 291 > > That she had not already been sentenced is implicit to Christ's use of the > word "condemn". Thus, in asking the question, Christ is using the language > of the law in giving relief to the woman that those who had accuse her > were no longer around with their accusations. > > As for my "conjecture" Carson says: "If any one of you is without sin, let > him be the first to throw a stone at her. This is a direct reference to > Deut. 13:9; 17:7 (cf. Lv. 24:14) - the witnesses of the crime must be the > first to throw the stones, and they must not be participants in the crime > itself. Jesus' saying does not mean that the authorities must be paragons > of sinless perfection before the death sentence can properly be meted out, > nor does it mean that one must be free even from lust before one can > legitimately condemn adultery (even though lust and adultery belong to the > same genus, Mt. 5:28). It means, reather, that they must not be guilty of > this particular sin." -- D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, p. > 336 > > Chad Richard Bresson > Xenia, OH > http://breusswane.blogspot.com/ > > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: > soundofgrace-unsubscribe@... > > To view our online archive go to our web page at > http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace > > >