Thank you so much, Dave. I am truly humbled by your praise.
To God belongs the glory!
Bo — You said, Do you have any historical or scriptural reason to “think that several of the first believers…chose to meet on the first day of the week, because Messiah was resurrected on the first day of the week”? ————————————– I respond, And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7″ “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. 1 Cor. 16:2”
———————————- You said, Have you found the scripture that shows that there were many reasons for divorce in the the Torah? I am still waiting. ————————————- I respond,
“7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt. 19:7-8”
Notice Mosheh/Moses permitted divorce for different reasons.
Travis,
You do not seem to understand…Moses gave only one reason for divorce…uncleanness/nakedness. Deuteronomy 24 is the text. The Pharisees taught that you could divorce for just about anything…not Moses…Messiah agreed with Moses exactly.
Shalom
Tom,
If you read that article, you will find that there is not as much evidence as you suppose for the passage in John to be not really scripture. The author shows how early it is alluded to in history and explains some remarkable things that liberal scholarship purposely ignores. I think the man that wrote it was a multiple phd, and with varied scientific background. He knows how to research.
Please read it…it may be a bit Eye opening.
Shalom
Tom,
Sorry for not getting to the 304 post yet. It is very difficult to answer so many people at once on so many points. It is not so hard to answer as you suppose. I will try to get to it tomorrow.
Shalom
Travis,
I’m still not sure you are getting the point. Do you see that the Pharisees were quoting from Deut.24? Where do you get that there were many reasons given by Moses?
Shalom
Tom,
For your convenience, here is the portion of the article that discusses the cannonicity of the story of the woman caught in adultery.
JOHN 8:1-11 The story of the woman taken in the act of adultery.
Most New Versions: The story is omitted or footnoted.
Comment: If the woman were caught in the very act, where was the man? God required that both should be stoned (Lev.20:10; Deu.22:22-24). Jesus knew the entire matter was a set up for the purpose of placing Him on the horns of a dilemma. If He said stone her according to the Law of the O.T., He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities. If He said to release her from the demand of the Law, the people would reject His claims as Messiah for Messiah would never go against the Word of God.
One reason that so many religious leaders and laymen oppose the inclusion of these verses, called the pericope de adultera in theological-scholastic circles (“pericope” is a short selection from a book), is due to their lack of understanding it and thus an inability to properly exegete the story. The forgiveness which Christ bestowed upon the adulteress is contrary to the conviction of many that the punishment for adultery should be very severe. [1] For most, the solution is to merely conclude that Jesus’ coming to earth has somehow nullified the Laws of God; that God no longer punishes sin but has now “become” a God of mercy, love and compassion. The story seems to offer too many inexplicable contradictory problems for most, and since they cannot understand the verses – they raise their vote to exclude them from the Scriptures. It requires great humility to admit lack of insight. Such men rarely will humble their intellect before God, constantly labeling paradoxes contained within the covers of the Bible as “unfortunate scribal errors” simply because their wisdom has failed to unravel the paradox.
Far better to confess lack of scholarship, understanding or lack of revelation than to insist, as most do, that the short-coming must be with the Scriptures themselves (Man’s pride and ego must be served at all cost!). Many of us are self deceived, imagining that we “believe” the Word of God. The Lord has deliberately written as He has to bring us to the point of honesty. When we are confronted with seemingly contradictory places in Scripture, what is our response? The response reveals the actual condition of the heart and ego. Do we now still believe or do we place our intellects above the Word, deciding that because we could not solve the apparent discrepancy – the Scripture must contain error.
Although not claiming inerrant insight into all such matters, we do not allow any errors within the Holy Writ – scribal or otherwise. We confess ignorance, even hardness of heart, in areas that result in our lack of revelation from above. We cannot explain all paradoxical parts of Scripture, but in calm assurance we rest in faith that the solutions are present within the pages of Scripture itself. No outside information need be brought to bear on the problem to “add light” to the Word. How does one add light to blinding revelation?…”
To be continued below.
Continued from above.
BACK TO THE PROBLEM
“Why then was the story deleted or footnoted? Again, no name was given for the man but had he not been influential (even a scribe or Pharisee) he would have been brought out with the woman. Perhaps a certain religious Gnostic (Origen) who walked about castrated and barefoot while trying to work his way into the Kingdom of God might be offended by a story which, as originally written, exposed a religious leader as having committed adultery. Of this we are not certain, but as to the interpretation of the story given above, that we proclaim to the glory of God.
Tragically, most naturalistic scholars today feel so certain that the pericope is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matter as unprofitable. [3] Their arguments against the authenticity of the section are largely arguments from silence and the most telling of these silences is generally thought to be that of the Greek Church “Fathers”. [4] Bruce Metzger (1964) affirms that no Greek Father refers to the pericope until the first part of the 12th century. [5] For the critic, this frail external evidence is conclusive. However, Constantine von Tischendorf lists nine manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the verses under discussion and also one which may be of the 8th century. [6] Yet not one Father commented upon these verses from the 9th until the 12th century, demonstrating that silence is not a trustworthy measure upon which to place one’s confidence. The entire matter of this silence is of no force whatsoever as we shall demonstrate.
First, we remind the reader that many of the Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the pericope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it. [7] Augustine wrote that these verses were being left out by some “lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning.” [8] Hills adds that a 10th century Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of removing the account because “it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things”. [9]
Burgon mentions another most relevant reason why these early Fathers did not comment on this section. [10] Their comments were connected to the subject matter they preached and the “pericope de adultera” was omitted from the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church. Burgon concludes that this is why Chrysostom (345-407) and Cyril (376-444), two early church Fathers, “in publicly commenting on John’s Gospel, pass straight from ch. 7:52 to ch. 8:12. Of course they do. Why should they – indeed, how could they – comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation?” [11]
Hills continues: “At a very early date it had become customary throughout the Greek Church to read John 7:37-8:12 on the day of Pentecost. This lesson began with 7:37-39, verses that are very appropriate to the Pentecostal feast day in which the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is commemorated: ‘In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink … But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.’ Then the lesson continued through John 7:52, omitting 7:53-8:11, and concluded with John 8:12 – ‘Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.'” [12]
To be continued below.
Continued from above.
GREEKS BEARING ANSWERS
Why then was the story of the Adulteress omitted from the Pentecostal lesson? Obviously because it was inappropriate to the central idea of Pentecost. [13] However, the critics insist that it was not read because it was not part of the Gospel of John at the time the Pentecostal lesson was selected – that it was added to the original reading hundreds of years later. Yet by so insisting they shoot themselves in the foot. As Hills has asked: “Why would a scribe introduce this story about an adulteress into the midst of the ancient lesson for Pentecost? How would it ever occur to anyone to do this?” [14] Besides, such a well known section could not be altered without the Church’s awareness of the change and, tradition bound as people are, an outcry of major proportion would have been forthcoming from clergy and laity alike. Also, such a momentous change would have aroused much written protest and debate. Where is the historical evidence of such – but forgive us – we now argue from silence!
Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the “pericope de adultera” the Church was not silent. John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia’s day, October 8th. [15] John Burgon first pointed out the significance of this historical circumstance: “The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach – and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing – the Eastern Church has selected nine of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8.” [16] As Burgon remarked, this is not opinion – but a fact.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The internal evidence for the verses is compelling. Looking back at John 7:37-52, we note that two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (vv.40-42). Some were for laying violent hands upon Jesus (vs.44). At the same time, the Sanhedrin disputed among themselves privately in closed chambers. Some were reproaching their servants for not having taken Jesus prisoner (vv.45-52).
How then could John have proceeded “Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world”? What are we supposed to imagine that John meant if he had penned such words immediately following the angry council scene? [17]
Hills rightly observes that the rejection of the pericope leaves a strange connection between the seventh and eighth chapters: “the reader is snatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of the Sanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of explanation.” [18] If the pericope is left between these two events, it accounts for the rage of the leaders having been temporarily diffused through the encounter over the woman such that the narrative beginning at 8:12 could transpire without being so out of place. Though their hatred for Jesus remained, the pericope incident brought its intensity down until the following confrontation.
To this we add Jerome’s testimony (c.415) “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” [19]
We ask the reader’s indulgence over the space allotted to this explanation, but the author deemed it necessary to so do in order that you may better judge whether this story be Scripture. The 1611 translators may or may not have understood the account; regardless, they faithfully penned it without detraction.”
Bo — Matthew 10:8 shows Messiah’s response, He said Mosheh/Moses permitted divorce for wrong reasons, because of the hardness of the hearts that they had.
“7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” 8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt. 19:7-8″
Notice Mosheh/Moses permitted divorce for different reasons.
Meant Matt. 19:8
Bo — I believe the Messiah more than I do you.
Also I have heard the story about the posts of scr. the woman that committed adultery before.
Travis,
Moses has only one passage about this. It says the exact same thing as Messiah said. That it was said because of the hardness of our hearts does not mean that there were many reasons. Divorce (No matter the reason) is for the hardness of our hearts. The only “reason” that Moses and Messiah gave for the people being able to remarry is if the divorce was for uncleanness/nakedness/fornication. They are the same thing.
Deuteronomy 24 1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The word in verse 1 for uncleanness is the same as is used in Torah for uncovering nakedness. We call that fornication. The only reason, then and now, that remarriage is allowed is for this one reason.
Divorce is still for the hardness of our hearts. Remarriage can only be accepted if the hardhearted divorce happened because of the woman’s defilement. And it is still hardness of heart to divorce her. But this certificate of divorce at least allows her to remarry someone that will love her.
And just so it is plain…the only time a divorce can happen is before the marriage is consummated. The divorce has to take place before the two come together. This is why Messiah said “because of fornication” instead of “because of adultery.” Adultery is grounds for stoning…it is not grounds for divorce. So if we read what is actually said, we realize that Messiah is saying that we may only remarry if we divorce our betrothed wife when we find that she has been defiled. He does not say that we can divorce for in the case of adultery. He says fornication. Two different words. Two different meanings. After we are married, sex sin is called adultery. Before we are married, it is called fornication. You will find this to be consistent throughout the scripture.
Do not make up your own definitions for these words. Let the scripture speak for itself. The word for fornication and adultery is listed side by side in the scriptures.
If fornication included adultery, there would be no reason to list adultery. It would be enough to list fornication by itself. Scripture is very accurate and lists both. Close attention is required to understand the implications of scripture. Some examples:
Matthew 15 18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. 19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, (((adulteries))), (((fornications))), thefts, false witness, blasphemies: 20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Mark 7 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, (((adulteries))), (((fornications))), murders, 22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: 23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Galatians 5 19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; (((Adultery))), (((fornication))), uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, 21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6 9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither (((fornicators))), nor idolaters, nor (((adulterers))), nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
This should be enough to allow all but the blind to see. Messiah agreed with Moses. He makes it very clear what Moses meant by “some uncleanness.” There is only one reason that a remarriage can occur according to the scripture…only if the divorce happened because the wife had been defiled before the marriage…and the one that defiled her was not the man doing the divorcing. And it is hardness of heart all the way around. The defiler had a hard heart. The divorcer has a hard heart. The woman may have had a hard heart too…but I suspect that she had been violated when she was young.
Shame on hardhearted men!
Shalom
Bo, Curious if you are in a whellchair or something. It seems with the them you spend ehre, that you have no other vocation?
That would be “wheelchair” not “whelldhair” “time” not “them” and “here” not “ehre”. 🙂
Are you worried about me?
u seam two bee hear quit offen youselv 🙂
Travis Mansfield,
Did you read post 413 above? Can you see that Messiah upheld and did not change the Torah. He simply stated exactly what “some uncleanness” means. The Pharisees had interpreted the passage in the loosest possible way so as to divorce at will for any reason. Messiah simply declared the perfect meaning of the passage.
Shalom
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Paul was not hostile to the Torah, but He was hostile to the wrong understanding of Torah, likewise Messiah was not hostile to the Torah, but He too emphasized, the weighter matters of Torah, those matters are of more importance, that is why they are talked about as weighter matters of Torah which are (mercy, faith(belief, trust), love, justice, & righteous judgement). So there are many matters of Torah that are not as weighty, or important as those weightier matters of Torah. As a matter of fact Yehoshua the Messiah is the weighter matters of Torah, because He is love, as love He emphasizes the most important before the less important, yet also as love He shows the lesser matters can be a blessing if people do them in His way, and time, while some of the lesser matters are no longer Eloheem/God’s will to accomplish. For example, a lesser matter of Torah has been shown when the Yah was angry, with feast days, assemblies, sacrifices, the weighter matters need to be done, they are more important than the lighter matters of Torah.
This presents the truth.
Amos 5:21-22, Eloheem/God condemns their service to Him, saying, “I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.” Why? Because they had neglected the weightier matters of Torah, as He says in verse 12, “For I know your manifold transgressions, and your mighty sins…” They might have said, “But Yah, what do you want?” He continues as though to answer the unspoken question, in verse 24: “But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Travis Mansfield,
Was that your answer about the only reason for divorce and remarriage?
Shalom
Bo,
There is an article on AskDrBrown’s Homepage and also available on VOR page. This is the title:
What is the Difference Between Holiness and Legalism? Filed under The Kingdom of God on March 17th, 2009 by Michael L. Brown
Bo,
I have to tell you. So many of your posts make me laugh out loud and very heartily. I’m not being facetious, either. You can be truly funny. You’re still dogmatic—but, very funny.
Eliyahu Moshiach,
I guess I missed the cut off. If you see this, comment back and I’ll try to give a fuller explanation of my reasoning.
Shalom
Folks, we have closed out the Believers and the Law of Moses discussion on another thread because this has been discussed over and again with thousands of comments, and we’re not trying to import this to other threads now. So, to everyone involved in this important discussion, give it a rest! Thanks!
Thank you so much, Dave. I am truly humbled by your praise.
To God belongs the glory!
Bo — You said, Do you have any historical or scriptural reason to “think that several of the first believers…chose to meet on the first day of the week, because Messiah was resurrected on the first day of the week”?
————————————–
I respond,
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight. Acts 20:7″
“Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. 1 Cor. 16:2”
———————————-
You said,
Have you found the scripture that shows that there were many reasons for divorce in the the Torah? I am still waiting.
————————————-
I respond,
“7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt. 19:7-8”
Notice Mosheh/Moses permitted divorce for different reasons.
Travis,
You do not seem to understand…Moses gave only one reason for divorce…uncleanness/nakedness. Deuteronomy 24 is the text. The Pharisees taught that you could divorce for just about anything…not Moses…Messiah agreed with Moses exactly.
Shalom
Tom,
If you read that article, you will find that there is not as much evidence as you suppose for the passage in John to be not really scripture. The author shows how early it is alluded to in history and explains some remarkable things that liberal scholarship purposely ignores. I think the man that wrote it was a multiple phd, and with varied scientific background. He knows how to research.
Please read it…it may be a bit Eye opening.
Shalom
Tom,
Sorry for not getting to the 304 post yet. It is very difficult to answer so many people at once on so many points. It is not so hard to answer as you suppose. I will try to get to it tomorrow.
Shalom
Travis,
I’m still not sure you are getting the point. Do you see that the Pharisees were quoting from Deut.24? Where do you get that there were many reasons given by Moses?
Shalom
Tom,
For your convenience, here is the portion of the article that discusses the cannonicity of the story of the woman caught in adultery.
“The Pericope de Adultera
by Floyd Nolan Jones
The following is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Frank Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition, Appendix A. All Rights Reserved
JOHN 8:1-11 The story of the woman taken in the act of adultery.
Most New Versions: The story is omitted or footnoted.
Comment: If the woman were caught in the very act, where was the man? God required that both should be stoned (Lev.20:10; Deu.22:22-24). Jesus knew the entire matter was a set up for the purpose of placing Him on the horns of a dilemma. If He said stone her according to the Law of the O.T., He would be in trouble with the Roman authorities. If He said to release her from the demand of the Law, the people would reject His claims as Messiah for Messiah would never go against the Word of God.
One reason that so many religious leaders and laymen oppose the inclusion of these verses, called the pericope de adultera in theological-scholastic circles (“pericope” is a short selection from a book), is due to their lack of understanding it and thus an inability to properly exegete the story. The forgiveness which Christ bestowed upon the adulteress is contrary to the conviction of many that the punishment for adultery should be very severe. [1] For most, the solution is to merely conclude that Jesus’ coming to earth has somehow nullified the Laws of God; that God no longer punishes sin but has now “become” a God of mercy, love and compassion. The story seems to offer too many inexplicable contradictory problems for most, and since they cannot understand the verses – they raise their vote to exclude them from the Scriptures. It requires great humility to admit lack of insight. Such men rarely will humble their intellect before God, constantly labeling paradoxes contained within the covers of the Bible as “unfortunate scribal errors” simply because their wisdom has failed to unravel the paradox.
Far better to confess lack of scholarship, understanding or lack of revelation than to insist, as most do, that the short-coming must be with the Scriptures themselves (Man’s pride and ego must be served at all cost!). Many of us are self deceived, imagining that we “believe” the Word of God. The Lord has deliberately written as He has to bring us to the point of honesty. When we are confronted with seemingly contradictory places in Scripture, what is our response? The response reveals the actual condition of the heart and ego. Do we now still believe or do we place our intellects above the Word, deciding that because we could not solve the apparent discrepancy – the Scripture must contain error.
Although not claiming inerrant insight into all such matters, we do not allow any errors within the Holy Writ – scribal or otherwise. We confess ignorance, even hardness of heart, in areas that result in our lack of revelation from above. We cannot explain all paradoxical parts of Scripture, but in calm assurance we rest in faith that the solutions are present within the pages of Scripture itself. No outside information need be brought to bear on the problem to “add light” to the Word. How does one add light to blinding revelation?…”
To be continued below.
Continued from above.
BACK TO THE PROBLEM
“Why then was the story deleted or footnoted? Again, no name was given for the man but had he not been influential (even a scribe or Pharisee) he would have been brought out with the woman. Perhaps a certain religious Gnostic (Origen) who walked about castrated and barefoot while trying to work his way into the Kingdom of God might be offended by a story which, as originally written, exposed a religious leader as having committed adultery. Of this we are not certain, but as to the interpretation of the story given above, that we proclaim to the glory of God.
Tragically, most naturalistic scholars today feel so certain that the pericope is not genuine that they regard further discussion of the matter as unprofitable. [3] Their arguments against the authenticity of the section are largely arguments from silence and the most telling of these silences is generally thought to be that of the Greek Church “Fathers”. [4] Bruce Metzger (1964) affirms that no Greek Father refers to the pericope until the first part of the 12th century. [5] For the critic, this frail external evidence is conclusive. However, Constantine von Tischendorf lists nine manuscripts of the 9th century which contain the verses under discussion and also one which may be of the 8th century. [6] Yet not one Father commented upon these verses from the 9th until the 12th century, demonstrating that silence is not a trustworthy measure upon which to place one’s confidence. The entire matter of this silence is of no force whatsoever as we shall demonstrate.
First, we remind the reader that many of the Greek Fathers may well have been influenced against the pericope by the moralistic prejudice of which we have spoken; also, some may have been intimidated by the fact that several manuscripts known to them omitted it. [7] Augustine wrote that these verses were being left out by some “lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning.” [8] Hills adds that a 10th century Greek named Nikon accused the Armenians of removing the account because “it was harmful for most persons to listen to such things”. [9]
Burgon mentions another most relevant reason why these early Fathers did not comment on this section. [10] Their comments were connected to the subject matter they preached and the “pericope de adultera” was omitted from the ancient Pentecostal lesson of the Church. Burgon concludes that this is why Chrysostom (345-407) and Cyril (376-444), two early church Fathers, “in publicly commenting on John’s Gospel, pass straight from ch. 7:52 to ch. 8:12. Of course they do. Why should they – indeed, how could they – comment on what was not publicly read before the congregation?” [11]
Hills continues: “At a very early date it had become customary throughout the Greek Church to read John 7:37-8:12 on the day of Pentecost. This lesson began with 7:37-39, verses that are very appropriate to the Pentecostal feast day in which the outpouring of the Holy Spirit is commemorated: ‘In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink … But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive.’ Then the lesson continued through John 7:52, omitting 7:53-8:11, and concluded with John 8:12 – ‘Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.'” [12]
To be continued below.
Continued from above.
GREEKS BEARING ANSWERS
Why then was the story of the Adulteress omitted from the Pentecostal lesson? Obviously because it was inappropriate to the central idea of Pentecost. [13] However, the critics insist that it was not read because it was not part of the Gospel of John at the time the Pentecostal lesson was selected – that it was added to the original reading hundreds of years later. Yet by so insisting they shoot themselves in the foot. As Hills has asked: “Why would a scribe introduce this story about an adulteress into the midst of the ancient lesson for Pentecost? How would it ever occur to anyone to do this?” [14] Besides, such a well known section could not be altered without the Church’s awareness of the change and, tradition bound as people are, an outcry of major proportion would have been forthcoming from clergy and laity alike. Also, such a momentous change would have aroused much written protest and debate. Where is the historical evidence of such – but forgive us – we now argue from silence!
Moreover, although the Greek Fathers were silent about the “pericope de adultera” the Church was not silent. John 8:3-11 was chosen as the lesson to be read publicly each year on St. Pelagia’s day, October 8th. [15] John Burgon first pointed out the significance of this historical circumstance: “The great Eastern Church speaks out on this subject in a voice of thunder. In all her Patriarchates, as far back as the written records of her practice reach – and they reach back to the time of those very Fathers whose silence was felt to be embarrassing – the Eastern Church has selected nine of these twelve verses to be the special lesson for October 8.” [16] As Burgon remarked, this is not opinion – but a fact.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
The internal evidence for the verses is compelling. Looking back at John 7:37-52, we note that two hostile parties crowded the Temple courts (vv.40-42). Some were for laying violent hands upon Jesus (vs.44). At the same time, the Sanhedrin disputed among themselves privately in closed chambers. Some were reproaching their servants for not having taken Jesus prisoner (vv.45-52).
How then could John have proceeded “Again therefore Jesus spake unto them, saying, I am the light of the world”? What are we supposed to imagine that John meant if he had penned such words immediately following the angry council scene? [17]
Hills rightly observes that the rejection of the pericope leaves a strange connection between the seventh and eighth chapters: “the reader is snatched from the midst of a dispute in the council chamber of the Sanhedrin back to Jesus in the Temple without a single word of explanation.” [18] If the pericope is left between these two events, it accounts for the rage of the leaders having been temporarily diffused through the encounter over the woman such that the narrative beginning at 8:12 could transpire without being so out of place. Though their hatred for Jesus remained, the pericope incident brought its intensity down until the following confrontation.
To this we add Jerome’s testimony (c.415) “in the Gospel according to John in many manuscripts, both Greek and Latin, is found the story of the adulterous woman who was accused before the Lord.” [19]
We ask the reader’s indulgence over the space allotted to this explanation, but the author deemed it necessary to so do in order that you may better judge whether this story be Scripture. The 1611 translators may or may not have understood the account; regardless, they faithfully penned it without detraction.”
Here is the link again it has footnotes and such for more research.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html
The discussion of the passage is quite good too.
Shalom
Bo —
Matthew 10:8 shows Messiah’s response, He said Mosheh/Moses permitted divorce for wrong reasons, because of the hardness of the hearts that they had.
“7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?”
8 He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. Matt. 19:7-8″
Notice Mosheh/Moses permitted divorce for different reasons.
Meant Matt. 19:8
Bo — I believe the Messiah more than I do you.
Also I have heard the story about the posts of scr. the woman that committed adultery before.
Travis,
Moses has only one passage about this. It says the exact same thing as Messiah said. That it was said because of the hardness of our hearts does not mean that there were many reasons. Divorce (No matter the reason) is for the hardness of our hearts. The only “reason” that Moses and Messiah gave for the people being able to remarry is if the divorce was for uncleanness/nakedness/fornication. They are the same thing.
Deuteronomy 24
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife.
3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
The word in verse 1 for uncleanness is the same as is used in Torah for uncovering nakedness. We call that fornication. The only reason, then and now, that remarriage is allowed is for this one reason.
Divorce is still for the hardness of our hearts. Remarriage can only be accepted if the hardhearted divorce happened because of the woman’s defilement. And it is still hardness of heart to divorce her. But this certificate of divorce at least allows her to remarry someone that will love her.
And just so it is plain…the only time a divorce can happen is before the marriage is consummated. The divorce has to take place before the two come together. This is why Messiah said “because of fornication” instead of “because of adultery.” Adultery is grounds for stoning…it is not grounds for divorce. So if we read what is actually said, we realize that Messiah is saying that we may only remarry if we divorce our betrothed wife when we find that she has been defiled. He does not say that we can divorce for in the case of adultery. He says fornication. Two different words. Two different meanings. After we are married, sex sin is called adultery. Before we are married, it is called fornication. You will find this to be consistent throughout the scripture.
Do not make up your own definitions for these words. Let the scripture speak for itself. The word for fornication and adultery is listed side by side in the scriptures.
If fornication included adultery, there would be no reason to list adultery. It would be enough to list fornication by itself. Scripture is very accurate and lists both. Close attention is required to understand the implications of scripture. Some examples:
Matthew 15
18 But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man.
19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, (((adulteries))), (((fornications))), thefts, false witness, blasphemies:
20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
Mark 7
21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, (((adulteries))), (((fornications))), murders,
22 Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness:
23 All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Galatians 5
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; (((Adultery))), (((fornication))), uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither (((fornicators))), nor idolaters, nor (((adulterers))), nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
This should be enough to allow all but the blind to see. Messiah agreed with Moses. He makes it very clear what Moses meant by “some uncleanness.” There is only one reason that a remarriage can occur according to the scripture…only if the divorce happened because the wife had been defiled before the marriage…and the one that defiled her was not the man doing the divorcing. And it is hardness of heart all the way around. The defiler had a hard heart. The divorcer has a hard heart. The woman may have had a hard heart too…but I suspect that she had been violated when she was young.
Shame on hardhearted men!
Shalom
Bo, Curious if you are in a whellchair or something. It seems with the them you spend ehre, that you have no other vocation?
That would be “wheelchair” not “whelldhair” “time” not “them” and “here” not “ehre”. 🙂
Are you worried about me?
u seam two bee hear quit offen youselv 🙂
Travis Mansfield,
Did you read post 413 above? Can you see that Messiah upheld and did not change the Torah. He simply stated exactly what “some uncleanness” means. The Pharisees had interpreted the passage in the loosest possible way so as to divorce at will for any reason. Messiah simply declared the perfect meaning of the passage.
Shalom
1 John 3:7 Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous.
Paul was not hostile to the Torah, but He was hostile to the wrong understanding of Torah, likewise Messiah was not hostile to the Torah, but He too emphasized, the weighter matters of Torah, those matters are of more importance, that is why they are talked about as weighter matters of Torah which are (mercy, faith(belief, trust), love, justice, & righteous judgement). So there are many matters of Torah that are not as weighty, or important as those weightier matters of Torah. As a matter of fact Yehoshua the Messiah is the weighter matters of Torah, because He is love, as love He emphasizes the most important before the less important, yet also as love He shows the lesser matters can be a blessing if people do them in His way, and time, while some of the lesser matters are no longer Eloheem/God’s will to accomplish. For example, a lesser matter of Torah has been shown when the Yah was angry, with feast days, assemblies, sacrifices, the weighter matters need to be done, they are more important than the lighter matters of Torah.
This presents the truth.
Amos 5:21-22, Eloheem/God condemns their service to Him, saying, “I hate, I despise your feast days, and I do not savor your sacred assemblies. Though you offer Me burnt offerings and your grain offerings, I will not accept them, Nor will I regard your fattened peace offerings.” Why? Because they had neglected the weightier matters of Torah, as He says in verse 12, “For I know your manifold transgressions, and your mighty sins…” They might have said, “But Yah, what do you want?” He continues as though to answer the unspoken question, in verse 24: “But let justice run down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Travis Mansfield,
Was that your answer about the only reason for divorce and remarriage?
Shalom
Bo,
There is an article on AskDrBrown’s Homepage and also available on VOR page. This is the title:
What is the Difference Between Holiness and Legalism?
Filed under The Kingdom of God on March 17th, 2009 by Michael L. Brown
Bo,
I have to tell you. So many of your posts make me laugh out loud and very heartily. I’m not being facetious, either. You can be truly funny. You’re still dogmatic—but, very funny.
Eliyahu Moshiach,
I guess I missed the cut off. If you see this, comment back and I’ll try to give a fuller explanation of my reasoning.
Shalom
Folks, we have closed out the Believers and the Law of Moses discussion on another thread because this has been discussed over and again with thousands of comments, and we’re not trying to import this to other threads now. So, to everyone involved in this important discussion, give it a rest! Thanks!