Yes at that point in time He was required to release her. Prior to that point, while the witnesses were there she could have been stoned legally since she was caught in the very act. Harry Chad Richard Bresson <breusswane@...> wrote: >The witnesses were dismissed based upon the demand for them to be without >sin to cast the first stone. That's not what Adams says. "In the context under discussion, the persons being challenged are the witnesses in their function as witnesses. In effect, Jesus is asking the witnesses if they are truly eligible before the law to testify in the immediate case. The certainty of their having sinned at some time or other is not in mind. It is unfortunate that the term in question is translated "?without sin,?" thus bringing to mind the general sinfulness of men. It would have been better translated, in context, as "?competent to testify.?" The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. March 1979. p. 48. >He was required by law to release her." At that point that is true, the >executioners had left. Then my point is made (even though this is not what Adams says... he says he was required by law to release her because the charges were dismissed, not because the executioners left). Christ didn't suspend the law. He complied with the law. Chad Richard Bresson Xenia, OH http://breusswane.blogspot.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "H Dorrington" To: Sent: Sunday, August 28, 2005 5:28 PM Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] Stephen Adams on John 8:10,11 > Most of what is said here I have already said. Christ could not condemn > her as He was not a witness to the act. The witnesses were dismissed based upon the demand for them to be without sin to cast the first stone. If their only requirement had been as the one given in Lev 24:14 I am sure they would have laid hands upon her before stoning her. > > "Given the circumstances, Jesus could not have condemned the woman even if > he had wanted to do so. He was required by law to release her." At that > point that is true, the executioners had left. > > Harry > > Chad Richard Bresson wrote: > Stephen A. Adams, in an article on the story of the adulteress brought > before Christ for the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, > wrote: > > > > "The person who comes closest to the truth in interpreting this passage is > R. D. Mawdsley, who does not develop his point but writes as follows: > > > > Christ clearly indicated in ?Matthew 5:17? that He had not come "?to > destroy the law,?" and His treatment of the woman taken in adultery in > ?John 8:1-11? demonstrated His consistent respect for the law. Even though > Christ could look into the woman?'s heart and perceive that she was an > adulteress (?John 8:11?), He did not condemn her to death by stoning since > the witnesses against her had vanished (?John 8:10?). An analogous > situation today would be the dismissal of the prosecution?'s case with > prejudice for want of prosecution.? > > > > ".We cannot know exactly how the witnesses received Jesus?' challenge or > which reasons they found to disqualify themselves from offering testimony. > All we know is that each one of them, beginning with the older ones, found > himself disqualified by his own conscience from acting as a prosecuting > witness against the woman. They left (?John 8:9?). > > > > The remainder of the pericope (vv ?10-11?) narrates the dialogue between > Jesus and the adulteress upon which some base their view that Jesus > forgave the woman. The actual narrative indicates only that when Jesus > learned that the witnesses had failed to "?condemn her?" neither did he > condemn her, but he admonished her to go her way and sin no more. > > > > The word used for condemn is a specifically legal term, as one would > expect from the context. The failure of the witnesses to condemn the woman > was not because of insufficient or inaccurate evidence but because the > lack of integrity of the witnesses disqualified them from presenting their > damning testimony. As noted above by Mawdsley, the case against the woman > failed for lack of prosecution. > > > > The failure of Jesus to condemn the woman must also be strictly understood > in the civil and temporal context of the entire passage. Extension of his > statement to the spiritual and eternal is not valid on either > hermeneutical or exegetical grounds.?27? Indeed, it would have been a > gross violation of Biblical law if Jesus had attempted to condemn the > woman. He was not an eyewitness, and he could be only one witness in any > case. Given the circumstances, Jesus could not have condemned the woman > even if he had wanted to do so. He was required by law to release her, and > his parting admonition to "?sin no more?" must be understood for what it > is-excellent advice! [The comments of two excellent exegetes are worth > noting. L. Morris notes: "?It should not be overlooked that He says > nothing about forgiveness. The guilty woman has given no sign of > repentance or of faith?" (John, p. 891). B. F. Westcott writes: "?The > words are not words of forgiveness (Luke ?vii.48?), but simply of one who > gives > no sentence (comp. Luke ?xxi.14?). The condemnation has reference to the > outward punishment and not to the moral guilt?" (John, p. 127).] > > > > In brief, from a legal perspective the words and actions of Jesus recorded > in the pericope of the adulteress are in strict conformity to the letter > and spirit of the Mosaic law, which sought to exact justice within the > limits of procedures designed to protect the individual from the innocent > errors or malevolent perjury of others. Jesus did not here set aside or > modify the Mosaic law. > > > > In the pericope the words and actions of Jesus exhibited a strict > compliance with the letter and spirit of the Mosaic law (1) by testing the > integrity of the witnesses and, in the absence of credible witnesses, (2) > by dismissing the charges against the woman. Thus Jesus affirmed the > authority of the Mosaic law. -- Stephen A. James, The Adulteress and the > Death Penalty, JETS, March 1979, p. 47-48, 52-53 > > > > While I agree with James' understanding of Christ's compliance, it does > not follow from Christ's compliance that "Jesus affirmed the authority of > the Mosaic law." That would be ignoring the implications of Christ's words > to the woman. The words "Neither do I condemn you; go, and sin no more" > place Christ in a position of authority that no man, not even Moses could > lay claim to. This story fits in John's over-all premise that Christ is > the new Torah, Grace and Truth. So even as He is complying, he is setting > a new order in which He becomes the new standard by which men are measured > against God's holiness and to whom men must comply. > > > > 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 > > > -- 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 --------------------------------- Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page -- 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