Dr. Brown Discusses Religious Freedom With The Benham Brothers and Takes Your Calls

[Download MP3]

Dr. Brown discusses religious freedom with the Benham brothers, and takes your calls today on all relevant subjects and answers your e-questions, including: Is the concept of the soul found in the Hebrew Scriptures, or is a later, Greek concept? Is it right for a woman to divorce her husband because he comes out as gay, even if he hasn’t committed sexual sin? and discusses religious freedom with the Benham brothers. Listen live here 2-4 pm EST, and call into the show at (866) 348 7884 with your questions and comments.


Hour 1:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: You can’t relate to God by philosophy from a distance as just a theological entity. You’ve got to come to know Him for yourself.

Hour 2:

Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: The reason for so much moral confusion in the society around us is because the Church has failed to be the salt and the light.


This week, Dr. Brown is offering an incredible resource package containing Jonathan Cahn’s The Mystery of the Shemitah book, DVD, and CD interview with Dr. Brown on the Line of Fire radio program. These 3 mega-popular resources will only be packaged together for a limited time for the discounted price of $30, postage paid (US Only)! Order Online Here!

Other Resources:

From the Quran to the Pentagon

The Hezekiah Syndrome; The Slippery Slope; and Is Kirk Cameron an Accomplice to Murder?

Dr. Brown Interviews Mark Mittelberg on Evangelism and Apologetics; and Repent: The First Word of the Gospel

  1. Benjamin,

    You wrote:
    “The word which would better have been used if meant to convey Bo’s idea would be the Greek word “ἀκαθαρσία akatharsia” which is Greek for ‘unclean/uncleanness’.”

    You misrepresent my idea. It is another straw man or failure to read my posts closely. Your above statement is also very ignorant of the what the scholars that translated the Hebrew Torah into Greek did.

    The passage that Messiah is commenting on is:

    De 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.

    The word “uncleanness” above is Strong’s # 6172 in Hebrew.

    6172 ערוה ‘ervah er-vaw’

    from 06168; n

    1) nakedness, nudity, shame, pudenda
    1a) pudenda (implying shameful exposure)
    1b) nakedness of a thing, indecency, improper behaviour
    1c) exposed, undefended (fig.)

    In what ways did the translators of the Septuagint render this word that was being discussed by Messiah?

    By Strong’s #’s:152 aischune, 602 apo kalupsis, 808 aschemosune, 809 aschemon, and 2487 ichnos.

    Please note that Strong’s # 167 akatharsia was never used by those who knew Koine Greek while it was being spoken.

    And in the specific verse being discussed by Messiah it is rendered: Strong’s #808 ασχημοσυνη aschemosune as-kay-mos-oo’-nay

    from 809; ; n

    AV-that which is unseemly 1, shame 1; 2

    1) unseemliness, an unseemly deed
    1a) of a woman’s genitals
    1b) of one’s nakedness, shame

    So the concept in De. 24 is one of sexual shame and defilement. This is what Messiah is saying when He restricts the only kind of uncleanness for a true divorce to porneia. As can be seen from comparing De. 22 to De. 24, it is obviously a statute, like Messiah says, for the hardness of men’s hearts. They could either take the statutes in De. 22 and use them to murder their wife, or they could set her free before consummation as De. 24 says.

    When the man saw that the woman had been defiled previously when they went into the marriage chamber, he could divorce her and she could be another man’s wife. If the divorce was for any other reason or at any other time, he caused her to commit adultery, anyone that married her was committing adultery and the man that divorced her was committing adultery if he remarried.


  2. Bo and readers,

    “There is no need for Paul to use both adultery and fornication in the above passage if fornication means all sexual immorality. It is covered under the term fornication.”

    – I can see that you did not catch that I was using your own logic/reasoning against your position. And oddly enough you phrased and captured my position and points with great clarity a few sentences later when you said,

    “Do you deny that fornication falls into the categaory of uncleanness, but does not define all of what uncleanness is? Do you deny that adultery falls into the category of fornication, but does not define all of what fornication is?”

    That was the point I have been driving at the whole time. And why I brought other scriptures in which portrayed those concepts since I have repeatedly said that fornication and adultery are not the same thing. When Paul speaks of adultery, he also includes fornication since they are different and he wanted to include the whole body and not just married members of the body. Incest is unlawful fornication, unmarried sex is unlawful fornication, adultery is unlawful fornication, beastiality is unlawful fornication. They are all unlawful fornication since they all include unlawful sex (or fornication). That is why sometimes they are all indeed lumped into the one term fornication.

    1 Corinthians 6:18
    18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

    But I really liked the second sentence of the quote I gave above, “Do you deny that adultery falls into the category of fornication, but does not define all of what fornication is?” –amen, and if adultery is included, so is incest, beastiality, etc. All just reasons for divorce according to the scriptures. I also want to show one “flip/flop” Bo has expressed at times. At times, Bo claims that married people cannot fornicate, then at other times claims they can.

    Bo said to me awhile back in another topic, “How can a married woman commit anything except adultery? How can she fornicate?” This he used in defense that fornication doesn’t result in adultery. http://www.lineoffireradio.com/2014/01/07/an-interview-with-a-pastor-who-affirms-same-sex-marriage-thoughts-on-gay-christianity-and-four-hyper-grace-fallacies/#comment-644089

    Then flip-flops and asks me, “Do you deny that adultery falls into the category of fornication”. I’m so confused… Are we debating partners or opponents? (both depending on the topic =)

    “You are importing your narrow concept into the passage” -I would think that if you are saying that I am importing something into the passage you would have said I was importing something broad, not narrow. What you have been defending is much narrower, specially given the meaning of the word.

    “It is also quite obvious in even a cursory reading of the synoptic gospels, that Mark used Matthew as a source and that Luke used them both.”

    – I believe historical evidence is leaning greatly in favor of Mark being the earliest gospel written. I’m sure there is debate but it seems Mark was the first.

    And sure Bo, my western culture is used to thinking of our betrothal period and marriage as distinct, but I recognize that as part of my culture, I don’t import that onto scripture since I know that culture was different, so that is not an influence on my understanding.

    I’m writing this as I read further down in your posts and here comes the crux of one of the problems we are having.

    Bo writes: “Bo says that porneia is used as a translation of what Matthew wrote in Hebrew to the Hebrews regarding specific practices not recognized by gentiles concerning betrothal and marriage.”

    Bo’s claims come from an alleged Hebrew original text of the Gospel of Matthew that we have never seen, do not know to exist, and if existed (which is possible) have not found, so we cannot know what word Matthew penned in Hebrew for when the Lord said ‘fornication’, which every other use was a reference to sexual immorality. There are references to an Aramaic version by some of the Church Fathers but we haven’t found one (we only have Greek), so all of this is purely speculation, and we need to recognize that. Both Hebrew and Greek are very detailed and precise languages, especially Greek. Why use such a broad word if conveying such a narrow meaning? The Greek could have easily narrowed down what was intended if something other than what the Greek says was intended.

    Bo stated, “Nothing could be further from the truth. I was the first one to quote one of them in this conversation and it shows that fornication (porneia) is used side by side with adultery and thus the meanings are different. So Messiah can’t be saying that adultery is grounds for divorce.”

    – This is the continuation of the strawman argument that I believe fornication and adultery represent the same thing. It also ties into why I quoted some of the verses in prior posts that I did when I turned Bo’s logic around on him but he didn’t catch onto it but just fell back into it. I posted verses where unclean and fornication are listed back to back, and according to Bo’s reasoning used against me about back to back terms, then fornication cannot be related to uncleanness. Of course it is unclean, so is adultery and all sin. But Bo claims that since fornication and adultery are back to back that they can have no relationship, which is false.

    We have to go with what the text says, that divorce is not possible except for the one exception of sexual immorality as explained by Jesus. The only way that we could come to a pre-consummated, betrothal limitation would be if a Hebrew or Aramaic text surfaced which said something different from what is said in the Greek, because the Greek is clear.

    Grace and peace,

  3. In closing, being that we have discussed this before in great detail, and as a brother in the Lord I would ask that you step back, evaluate the divorce passages again and see where you come out as I believe (im sure as you do about me) that your position does not allow the proper definitions to define the content. I will give only one more example:

    The claim is that I pit Messiah against YHWH, where as I believe it’s reversed. And here is why:

    Bo, you stated “So Messiah can’t be saying that adultery is grounds for divorce.” -But here is where we see YHWH say that it is:

    Jeremiah 3:8

    8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

    -It does not say that she committed fornication, but adultery. And because Israel committed adultery, YHWH divorced her and gave her a bill of divorcement. SO when Messiah says that we may not divorce except for fornication, it obviously has a causal relationship with adultery.

    I really appreciate your strong marriage stance, which I share, divorce is terrible and the result of sinful humans and not part of the original institution of marriage, but because of sin our Lord has given us an exception.

    Shalom Bo,

  4. After looking at the arguments about marriage here I’ve decided to weigh in on it.

    Bo, in this case it seems to me that you are wrong regarding the adultery issue and here’s why:

    Though, at least in Jesus’ day, it was customary to be betrothed before full consummation of marriage(the question would be if that was really representative of what happened in Deut 24) we don’t have any indication Yeshua is speaking about this period within the marriage covenant nor is that explicit in Deut 24.1-4.

    Concerning God’s will for marriage, His highest goal is for spouses to remain married, two becoming one flesh that God put together. The question is, does God make allowances or regulate mans behavior because of his sinfulness. Yes He has. Was it God’s will that men marry multiple women? No, yet rules were set in place to regulate this practice(Can it be said that “Moses permitted this” based on hardness of hearts? Maybe…) Why couldn’t this be the case with divorce? Also, isn’t having another “wife” considered adultery? How does that work? I’m not sure but all these multiple “marriages” were tolerated and no stoning happened. Did it become legal because people had a “wedding” for the successive wife/wives?

    Deu 24:1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and she departs out of his house,
    Deu 24:2 and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife,
    Deu 24:3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife,
    Deu 24:4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.

    This passage does not seem to indicate that it was the betrothal period. How do I know this? It says that he takes her and marries her(betrothal?, lets see…) then finds “some indecency” in her. Her gives her the “Get” and she DEPARTS FROM HIS HOUSE.

    You recognize in post 46 that during the betrothal period the two do not live together. How is she “departing from his house” if they are still betrothed but not fully married? Did he move her in, then find out just in the nick of time before he “sealed the deal” that there was something wrong? Wouldn’t that be unreasonable to believe, especially since one of the first things done during the wedding ceremony/feast is the consummation of the marriage? Doesn’t make sense in context. In fact the context of the passage appears to really be about if a wife can go back to a previous husband when her newly divorced husband is still alive. So that’s something that may need to be considered as well.

    Since I mentioned post 46 lets go back to 1 Cor 7

    1Co 7:12 To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.
    1Co 7:13 If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him.
    1Co 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
    1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace.

    When it comes to an unequally yoked marriage, a believer is told to not divorce the unbeliever.(Is this a legitimate marriage in God’s eyes?. According to Paul is seems so, as he encourages faithfulness of the believer to the marriage covenant made to the unbelieving spouse). They are clearly married and recognized by Paul as legitimate. However, if the unbeliever leaves, Paul says the believer is not “enslaved” or bound to that covenant/partner. If no longer bound, then they are divorced and free to re-marry as they are not committing adultery. Here is grounds for “breaking” the covenant of marriage and legal remarriage. It gives us no indication in the text that the unbelieving spouse commits adultery but instead leaves the marriage. Seems the marriage issue is more complicated then we may think. I’ll leave this at that.

    Back to Matt 5 and 19. What hasn’t been clarified is why the question of divorce for any reason was asked.
    In Jesus’ day there was contrasting schools of thought, those of Rabbi Shammai and Rabbi Hillel. Hillel said that a wife could be divorced for simply an act that displeased her husband even if she burnt his meal. Shammai said that she could only be divorced based on some type of sexual immorality. These were the top scholars of the day and these views were the Rabbi’s reading of Deut 24. It was not understood as being only during the “betrothal period”.
    As far as adultery is concerned, it was widely accepted to divorce for this reason with Hillel REQUIRING the divorce and Shammai saying it was optional or a concession. This question which was a hot debate of the day, was asked of Jesus to see where he fell on the debate and Jesus essentially sided with Shammai on this issue.

    One other thing that often goes unrecognized is that in Jesus day capital punishment was not allowed by the Romans and therefore a “legally” sanctioned stoning could not take place. Shouldn’t have Jesus rightly called for the stoning of the woman caught in adultery? Not if it could not be legally carried out.

    In Deut 22.13-19 if a man consummates a marriage with a woman, decides he doesn’t like her anymore and accuses her of not being a virgin when she was innocent he is required to remain married with no option of divorce at all. The question then is, Why would this have to be spelled out if the prevailing understanding of Biblical teaching was that divorce is not optional at all for a consummated marriage? The spelling out of “not divorcing her all his days”(vs 19) presumes there are legitimate reasons to divorce.

    All in all Bo, what would be the traditional majority Christian understanding of the divorce exception clause by Yeshua is sound. Yeshua is not speaking against the Law of Moses. YHWH’s ideal for marriage is lifelong, yet He allowed or Moses permitted divorce(Was Jesus saying that it was uninspired? No. He simply pointed out the reality of the situation and YHWH’s perspective on it.) for sexual immorality because the marriage covenant was already broken and trust was already broken by the offending party. Provision was made for the hard hearted/hurt party to dissolve the marriage, since technically the covenant was already broken. Sin and/or behavior was being regulated, just like polygamy, slavery and other situations that may arise. God often worked within the cultural norms of the day as well. Progressive revelation is another factor in some cases.

    There’s my 2 cents.

  5. Benjamin and Dennis,

    I think that some of my statements have been misunderstood. I probably have not been careful enough to distinguish between adultery that is after consummation, which is what we call adultery, and adultery which is after betrothal, which is where the scriptures draw the line. I do think that adultery is cause for divorce after betrothal but before consummation…if it is found out about via pregnancy (like Joseph and Mary’s situation)or via lack of virginity when the couple goes into the marriage chamber. But still, if there are 2 witnesses to the adultery and they testify to it in a court of law, the adulterer and the adulteress are to be stoned to death. Without both parties implicated and executed, there is no death penalty and the wife is still bound to the husband as long as he lives. There is just nothing in scripture that allows for a divorce after consummation. More on this later.

    If a married woman commits adultery, there is also a man involved. It matters not whether the man is single or married. According to scripture, such a man defiles his neighbors wife. If the woman is single, neither he nor she commits adultery…even if he is married. This shows us why there is allowance for multiple wives, but not multiple husbands in scripture. It is not adultery for a man to have more than one wife. It is adultery for a woman to have more than one husband. Neither Messiah, Paul nor Moses ever say that it is adultery for a married man to fornicate with a single woman. None of the above mentioned scripture writers say that a woman can divorce her husband…period. There is no get that a woman can give the man even if he commits fornication or adultery. She is bound to the husband as long as he lives…period. This shows the importance of the death penalty for the freedom of the offended spouse.

    Mt 19:6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    1Co 7:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
    11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

    Paul gives no allowance for the wife to divorce the husband and only allows for her to return to her husband or remain single if she decides to leave. Messiah says that once the man and woman are one flesh, their relationship may not be put asunder by man. Paul says the same. The woman may not put the one flesh relationship asunder, period. The death of one of the spouses is YHWH putting the relationship asunder…whether by natural causes or the death penalty. The only kind of “marriage” that can be put asunder by man is thus one that is not “one flesh” yet…not consummated. It is the only logical option if we take Messiah, Paul and Moses at their word.

    If Messiah allows divorce for proven adultery after consummation with two witnesses testifying, He contradicts YHWH’s instructions concerning the death penalty. If He is allowing for fornication after betrothal but before consummation, He is consistent with YHWH’s instructions, for YHWH’s law says that the woman that is divorced is free to remarry. If Messiah is saying that adultery after consummation is reason for divorce, He is also giving permission for the adulteress to remarry as YHWH’s instructions state, for that is what a divorce certificated does. If He is not saying that the adulteress can remarry after receiving a get, He is speaking against YHWH’s instructions.

    If Messiah is allowing people to get a true scriptural divorce because of adultery after consummation, then He is also allowing both parties to freely remarry and do the same thing over and over again, as long as one of the spouses admits to adultery. So adultery becomes the easy way out of a marriage. This would be exactly not what YHWH and His Son are trying to accomplish. This is exactly what our society does and what the church is also doing.

    As far as De 24 speaking of a consummated marriage, please note the wording carefully. Lets start a few chapters previous.

    Deuteronomy 22
    13 If any man take a wife, and


    and hate her,
    14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
    15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
    16 And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
    17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
    18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
    19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
    20 But if this thing be true,


    for the damsel:
    21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

    If the husband goes in unto his virgin bride and then wants out some time later, he may not put her away. (Vs. 19) If the husband goes in unto a woman that has been a harlot in her father’s house, he can have her stoned to death. (Vs. 21) It does not say that he may divorce her. The man would have to be quite hardhearted to use the woman for his pleasure and then have her killed. I would also be hardhearted to hold the possibility over her head to get his way with her also.

    The woman above lived with her father while she was betrothed to the man. They were considered married from the point of the betrothal. If she was not a virgin on her wedding day, they became one flesh and he may not put her away. He must dissolve the relationship by death. For the hardness of such a man’s heart, Moses wrote the following precept:

    To be continued below:

  6. Continued from above:

    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.

    The man may give the woman a bill of divorcement if he finds “uncleanness” in her when he marries her. The word for “uncleanness” is the word used in Leviticus 18 and 20 for incest. If the man cannot bring himself to accept her (she find no grace/mercy/favor in his sight…he is hard hearted toward her) once her condition is known, he may dissolve the marriage…before it is consummated.

    If the man finds that his bride has been defiled, he may divorce her even if the marriage “ceremony” has taken place, as long as it is before he goes in unto her. The only option he has after he goes in unto her is to have her stoned to death if he wants out. And that would be very hard hearted.

    The woman is sent out of his house, not because she has been living there for a long time, but because she has been examined in private to see if she is a virgin and been found not to be. If this is the case, there will be no tokens of virginity if the husband “go in unto her.” If he wants out after this, he must do the De. 22 thing. The scriptural divorce is for the sake of the woman. It gives her permission to be another man’s wife. She may not be another man’s wife if the two have become one flesh and her previous husband is still alive.

    Ro 7:1 Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?
    2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
    3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

    According to Paul, the woman who leaves her husband must return to her husband or remain single. She is bound to her husband as long as he lives.

    According to Messiah, after the two have become one flesh, their relationship may not be put asunder.

    If YHWH allows a wife to be given a get and be free to remarry after the two are one flesh, he allows the woman to be an adulteress by being married to another man. It becomes obvious that the get must be given before the two are joined together by YHWH lest YHWH be advocating adultery.

    If Messiah is allowing for a get because of fornication after the two are one flesh, He is allowing her to be remarried. If He is not allowing her to be remarried, He is not allowing her a get. If he is allowing a get only before the one flesh relationship begins, then His exception clause is showing the only reason for a get…previous sexual activity of the wife. Therefore He is limiting the meaning of the word “uncleanness” in De. 24 to only fornication and not that she is fat or ugly or all the other things that the Jewish rabbis were teaching.

    Keep in mind that Messiah is answering the question put forth by the Jewish religious leaders. They want Him to say something that will marginalize Him in the peoples eyes. Messiah ultimately defines when and why a get may be given. He teaches exactly what Moses wrote and and What YHWH meant. And it was difficult for even his disciples to stomach.

    Mt 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
    10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

    What case with his wife? That he has put the first away at the wrong time and for the wrong reason and married another. If a man has remarried after divorcing his one flesh wife, he is an adulterer. Anyone that has married a put away one flesh wife is an adulterer. Any remarried woman is an adulteress.

    1Co 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,

    Adulterers do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. How did Messiah respond to the disciples?

    11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
    12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

    Some must live as celibates to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Very few will receive this message. We would rather enjoy the pleasures of sin (false marriages) for a season instead of accepting our responsibility in this very serious matter.

    Heb 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season;

    Will we choose to suffer, or lavish ourselves with more “wives” and “husbands” that are not truly scriptural spouses? The parable of the rich man and Lazarus is about this very topic.

    To be continued below:

  7. Continued from above:

    Luke puts Messiah’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus into the context of His teaching on remarriage.

    Lu 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
    19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
    20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
    21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
    22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
    23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
    24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
    25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
    26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
    27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house:
    28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
    29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
    30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
    31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

    Lazarus means servant of Elohim. This is not a story of actual people, but a parable of the difference between someone that suffers for being a servant of Elohim or of someone that lavishes himself with sumptuous things. It is in the context of remarriage. Lavishing ourselves with second wives instead of suffering for righteousness sake by remaining celibate because of the ramifications of remarriage will not see us in Abraham’s bosom. It will ruin our inheritance in the kingdom.

    Moses and the Prophets say the same thing as Messiah. If we do not accept the one, we do not accept the other. They cannot be at odds with each other. Messiah’s final words on the subject of divorce and remarriage show that He agrees with Moses in De 24. They show that we are wrong to think that Messiah came to change one jot or tittle of the law. It shows that only those that keep all of YHWH’s commandments and teach others to do the same will be great in the kingdom. And that those that despise their birthright and commit remarried adultery will not inherit the kingdom.

    Mt 5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

    Heb 12:16 Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
    17 For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears.

    Will we sell our birthright for a continuing adulterous marriage? Will we end up like the rich man that could not stop lavishing himself? Will we finally hear Moses, Messiah, the prophets and Paul that divorce can only happen before the one flesh relationship begins? Will we find space to repent or will we end up like Esau?

    Jeremiah 3:8

    8 And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

    Re 19:7 Let us rejoice and be exceeding glad, and let us give the glory unto him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
    8 And it was given unto her that she should array herself in fine linen, bright and pure: for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.

    YHWH divorced Israel during the betrothal period. According to John, the wedding feast is still yet to come. The bride will make herself ready by obeying YHWH’s commandments. Even His commandments concerning remarriage.

    Re 14:12 Here is a call for the endurance of the saints, those who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

    Re 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
    12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
    13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
    14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.


  8. Dennis,

    You wrote:
    “One other thing that often goes unrecognized is that in Jesus day capital punishment was not allowed by the Romans and therefore a “legally” sanctioned stoning could not take place. Shouldn’t have Jesus rightly called for the stoning of the woman caught in adultery? Not if it could not be legally carried out.”

    First, just because some government does not allow Israel to carry out capital punishment, does not mean that the woman that is bound to a man as long as he lives can just do a divorce and be free to marry. If the adulterer is not dead, the spouse is not free to remarry.

    Messiah did call for the two witnesses to come forth and testify. No one would because they would also have to testify against the man. It is not allowed to only bring one of the guilty parties to trial.

    Please read the following explanation:

    “The Pericope de Adultera

    by Floyd Nolen Jones

    “Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.” (John 8:1-11)

    The following is an excerpt from Which Version is the Bible?, ©1996 Floyd Nolen Jones, Twelfth edition, Appendix A. All Rights Reserved. This book may be freely reproduced in any form as long as it is not distributed for any material gain or profit; however, this book may not be published without written permission.

    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?


    As to the story before us, we find Jesus conducting a “Bible study” at the Temple area. Suddenly the lesson is interrupted by a commotion as the scribes and Pharisees cast before Jesus and the “Church” a terrified believer, possibly clutching ashamedly at a bed sheet in an attempt to clothe
    herself and hide her humiliation. These religious leaders care nothing for her life or her shame. For them she is but the means, the bait for the trap with which they seek to hopelessly ensnare our Lord. These men are not “seekers of truth” as they pretend. Their motive is to secure the death of their antagonist, and if this woman must die also in securing that end, so be it.

    When Jesus saw that the equally guilty man was not present, He knew their motive. Further, He knew the man must be of some importance, influential in the community or else the man would also now be before Him. Moreover it is quite possible that the man was himself one of the leaders – having deliberately seduced the woman thereby “sacrificing himself” to commit the act as part of a conspiracy for the very purpose of entrapping Jesus. “But what sayest thou?” that they might have something with which to accuse Him, they inquired. Thus, the real issue before us is actually that of “authority” (cp. verse 36!).

    It is most important that the reader realize that Jesus did not set aside the Laws of God or make an exception with this woman as though God had changed His mind or had “softened” from the Old Testament to the New Testament – that God was a God of wrath in the Old but had somehow “evolved” into a God of love, grace, and compassion in the New. God loved and had compassion on the exposed adulterers all throughout the Old Testament. He certainly did not love or feel more compassion for her than any before her. It was always the sin itself that He hated, but His holy nature and justice then as now, called for righteous judgment and punishment. God never changes (Mal.3:6).

    First, this was still the time of the Old Covenant. The New Covenant could not come into effect until the required blood of the Covenant was shed. But the reader must come to see that Jesus perfectly upheld the demand of the Law – Jesus actually told these religious unbelievers to stone her (verse 7)! He told them to obey the Law – but dealt with their consciences, bathed in murder as they were, by the prefacing remark “He that is without sin among you” let him cast the first stone. The idea behind this stipulation was twofold. First, Jesus caught them unawares in that rather than having the “Bible study group” carry out the stoning, Jesus called on the unregenerate scribes and Pharisees to perform the deed. Thus if they so did, it would be they whom the Roman authorities would come against and not Jesus. They would have fallen into the pit that they themselves had dug (Pro.26:27). The Romans had taken the power of life and death away from the conquered Jews (Joh.18:31), and Roman law did not condemn an adulteress to be put to death.

    In the second place, Jesus is challenging them to merely obey the law to which they so devotedly cleave. Jesus is calling on the required two or three eye witnesses (Deu.17:6-7) to now step forward. If they are credible witnesses, they must now identify themselves and also make known the identity of the man. If they will not identify the man they will be disobeying the law and thus will incur guilt. The man having been summoned, the stoning could continue but the first stones must be cast by these same men.

    The qualifying “without sin” in Scriptural context with regard to witnesses, does not mean “moral perfection” as many suppose, thereby creating a problem here that does not exist. The context refers to the witnesses not being guilty of sin with respect to their being false or unrighteous witnesses in the matter at hand (cp. Lev.20:10; Deu.17:6-7; Exo.23:1-2 & 7; Deu.19:15-19 and Pro.6:16-19). This is especially made clear in Exodus 23:1-2, 7. The Deuteronomy 19 passages continue the theme of dealing with false witnesses by God’s charging the judges with the responsibility of having the sentence that would have been applied to the accused meted out to the false witness. The implication from Jesus’ stipulation is that if they obey God, being innocent and without sin regarding this matter, God would doubtless protect them from the Roman authorities. If, however, they are not – well then, they could not expect to be so delivered could they? They would thus incur the same penalty.

    What the Lord wrote upon the ground is not recorded, but whatever it was, it had the effect of convicting each of the accusers in his conscience. As one of the main functions of the Law was to convict of sin (Rom.3:20, 7:7 & 8b; 7:13), we are certain that which He wrote was Scripture and from the Law. Besides, it was the Law upon which they hoped to trap Jesus (vs.5), yet now through a word of wisdom (I Cor.12:8; Heb.2:4) the Lord Jesus had used the very same to ensnare them in their own pit. We do not wish to be dogmatic or presumptuous; nevertheless, we strongly maintain that the narrative’s context makes plain that Jesus included Leviticus 20:10 in what He wrote the first time.

    And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death (Lev.20:10).

    We further affirm, judging from the effect upon these men bent as they were on the destruction of the Lord, the second time Jesus stooped down He wrote from Deuteronomy 19:15-19. These verses have the sobering effect of reminding any “unrighteous” or “false” witnesses that the penalty which they had hoped to inflict upon the accused, would instead be carried out on them! Even though the woman was actually guilty, without two or three of them stepping forward and identifying the man – they would be false and unrighteous with regard to the matter. Moreover, if they now come forward and attempt to only stone the woman, not being willing to also name the man, they will bring upon themselves the selfsame judgment. They filed out from the most honorable to those of the least repute (the probable sense). No one came forward.

    The Lord Jesus did not condone the woman’s adultery but, as merely the “second man” and the “last Adam” (I Cor.15:45,47), He had no authority to overturn the Roman law and have her stoned. What we are saying is that even though Jesus was God come down to earth, the Judge of all flesh – He had not come in that capacity at this time. This He shall do upon His return. As Philippians 2:5-8 and Hebrews 2:5-18 explain, Jesus took upon Himself the form of a servant, humbled Himself to human limitations, entered the arena of human affairs and though He never ceased to be God, He went about defeating the Devil and redeeming the fallen race purely as an unfallen man. In so doing, He demonstrated that the first Adam could have defeated Satan in the contest in Eden – that Satan is so limited that an unfallen man can defeat him and be victorious over temptation and sin by standing on God’s Word, be it written as in Jesus’ case (Mat.4:1-11) or only spoken as in Adam’s case (Gen.2:16-17).

    Thus the Judge had laid aside His Judicial Robe and had voluntarily accepted certain limitations including that of submission to the will of the Father in all matters. Jesus had divested Himself of all authority to act in the capacity as a Judge. Lest the reader doubt this or consider such a declaration offensive or demeaning to the person and Holy character of our Lord, remember that Jesus Himself so taught on another occasion (Luk.12:13-14).

    Now observe what the Master teacher has accomplished. The Lord Jesus would not deal with the woman in the presence of unbelievers (I Cor.6:1 & 6). His tactic emptied the “Bible study” of the lost hypocrites. This freed Him to deal with her among and within the family of God. The unnamed woman was said to be standing “in the midst” (vs.9). Had everyone left, how could she have been “in the midst”? It does not say that all the people whom our Lord had been instructing went out, but only her accusers, having been convicted. The rest (vs.2) continued with their teacher, the adulteress being in their midst. Jesus is “left alone” in the sense that His antagonists, having departed, left Him with only true seekers – those of His own “family”. It cannot mean “alone” in the absolute sense for we know that the woman was there. The “none” of verse 10 is with regard to the accusers who had burst in with her.

    The point being made is that the Lord does not deal with His own concerning their sins in the presence of the wicked. Now that the “courtroom” had been cleared of the infidels, the problem at hand could be handled as a family matter. She is dealt with fully in accord with the principles of the Law, and with “Church” discipline! Jesus had not accepted the testimony of these wicked lost men, men with murder in their hearts, as being credible or valid against a sinning saint. The matter would be handled much as an unconfirmed bad report.

    Now He, according to the exact instructions of the Law, brought the “court” to order – calling for the credible witnesses against her (vs.10)! Reader, see it clearly that Jesus is not abrogating the Law as nearly all teach. He said He had not come to do that (Mat.5:17-19)!

    Two eye witnesses were required by the law to implement its being carried out (Joh.8:17) and the eye witnesses had to cast the first stones. The death penalty could not be meted out as there were none present. To now do so would actually violate the specific instructions so carefully detailed within the Law. As only an earthly human Judge – Jesus cannot now lawfully condemn her to death; there are no witnesses to her deed present! Truly, the Law had been used by Jesus “lawfully” (I Tim.1:8).

    “But how do we know that she was a believer?”, one protests – by the way Jesus handled the matter as explained above. Were she a pagan, the manner with which she was dealt within the “Bible study” would make no sense. Next, though not of itself conclusive, she addressed Jesus as “Lord” (vs.11).

    Decisive, however, was Jesus’ final remark to the woman. Were she unregenerate the Lord’s words “go, and sin no more” would be meaningless and vacuous. In the first place, without the Holy Spirit’s presence and power in her life, she would be helpless to refrain for long without sin again taking dominion over her.

    Secondly and conclusively, she would be no better off with such instructions from Christ as she had been when she had been so unceremoniously brought to Him at the first – for she would still be lost and hell bound even if she never sinned again. The sin she had just committed would doom her apart from a sin substitute – a Savior. Such instructions would only benefit a believer who has fallen into the snare of sin.

    But was not Jesus letting her off too easy for such a flagrant shameful sin? Shouldn’t she have gotten what she deserved? First, we all deserve to be banished to hell forever – we all have dared to sin against a three times Holy God. By His marvelous plan of redemption through faith in Christ Jesus, God has made a way for Him to deal with us in both mercy and justice such that we are disciplined but not condemned. When He deals with our sin in any way that is less than eternal exile to the lake that forever burns with fire, we all get off “easy” – though it may not seem so at the moment.

    Next, we affirm that she did not get off easily. Forever with her would be the humiliation of being caught in the very act of adultery. She had been brought out and terrified with the threat of public execution. What wild fear must have raced through her heart! Consider the shame of being thrust before your own local Bible study half covered – men so bent on the destruction of another would certainly not have allowed time for her to have made herself more “presentable”. Brought low before those who know you and the fact of your hypocrisy laid open for all to see – was this really getting off “easy”?

    But there is more. To be brought, degraded and disheveled, before the Savior face to face after having just failed Him so ignominiously would not be light discipline. Further, the Name of her God had been dishonored for now the scoffers would mock.

    Finally, though forgiven of this sin – and let all observe and mark that Jesus did call adultery “sin”, not an “affair between consenting adults” or “a meaningful relationship” – the woman had lost eternal rewards. Blessings that God desired to heap upon her for all eternity, He now in righteousness could not so shower. Oh reader, to forever lose something that He who loves you and died for you would have given you, is not that just punishment? Yes, for such is the actual discipline that was discharged.

    Moreover, we do not know if further ramifications followed as venereal disease, pregnancy, loss of husband and/or children (if applicable in her case), loss of job, depression, guilt, etc. Having one’s sins forgiven does not mean that the consequences of the sin are obliterated in this life. David was forgiven in the matter of Uriah and Bathsheba, but the consequences that were set in motion by the sin followed David to his grave. It is to David’s credit that he never accused God of dealing too severely with him or whined concerning the matter. For many, stoning would have been the preferred choice over the above. No, her sin was neither condoned nor soft peddled.

    Lest the reader still have the slightest reservation that our major points have been inaccurate or mistaken, we call to his attention that these same points are confirmed, being presented afterward in the same chapter! Jesus asserted that He was not there to judge men (vs.15), not yet (cp. John 5:22; 18:36 – i.e.,” now”)! But if He does judge now (in questions other than civil or criminal matters) in “Family” matters and the like, His judgment will be true (vs.16). In the same verse, Jesus acknowledges that He is not executing this wisdom by His own God power and attributes, but by the power and wisdom of His Father (via the gifts of the Holy Spirit, Heb.2:4 etc.). He then brings up the point from the Law which calls for the necessity of at least the attestation of two witnesses in establishing truth (vs.17), and in verse 36 Jesus makes unmistakably clear that He has final authority.

    Majestically, we have seen the Lord Jesus the Christ in an awesome display of wisdom, mercy, love and compassion employ only several Scriptures from the Law and merely 15 words (only 9 in the Greek) to vanquish the wicked. Then with only 21 words (Greek = 18), He both judged and restored a sinning saint. Truly – He is Worthy!


    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]


    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.


    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.

    [1] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 151.

    [2] The author must bear the full responsibility to the reader and before the Lord for the entire exegesis under this heading.

    [3] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 154. Most of the remainder of this defense of the Pericope has been gleaned from Dr. Hills excellent critique; see his pp. 150-159.

    [4] Ibid., p. 156.

    [5] Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, op. cit., p. 223.

    [6] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 156.

    [7] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 157.

    [8] Ibid., p. 151.

    [9] Ibid.

    [10] Ibid., p. 157.

    [11] Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, op. cit., p. 257.

    [12] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 157.

    [13] Ibid.

    [14] Ibid., p. 158.

    [15] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 158.

    [16] Burgon, The Causes of the Corruption of the Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, op. cit., pp. 259-260.

    [17] Ibid., pp. 237-238.

    [18] Hills, The King James Version Defended, op. cit., p. 159.

    [19] Ibid., p. 151.”


    Please be sure to read the 3 posts before this one as I have dealt with many of your ideas in them.


  9. Bo,

    I’ll need a few days to address your points as I have little time each day and frankly it takes me awhile to post things anyways.

    Regarding the “periscope”, It was good and in general I agree with what was said but I’m actually familiar with the gist of the background of what’s been talked about so it’s not really new to me. I’m not sure why you posted all that but in looking back at my comment I think I may have not been clear on what I was trying to say and I don’t even remember where my train of thought was going with that one. I can see some of what I was thinking but I think I screwed up on part of the statement. I’ll revisit and try to remember why I made all those comments and revise my statement if I can’t remember. I still have a point to make regarding that passage but I might have had some scattered thoughts so a statement may have come out wrong. I’ll get back to it later…

Comments are closed.