|
|
 | | From: | admin | | Subject: | The Appendix A- Which Version #4 | | Date: | Tue, 23 Nov 2004 00:09:07 GMT |
|
|
 | This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Appendix A, pages 121-141
Which Version is the Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.
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.
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. 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." 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?
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." 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."
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. For ever, O LORD, thy wordis settled in heaven.
Psalm 119:89
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to
fail.
Luke 16:17
|
|
| | From: | admin | | Subject: | Re: The Appendix A- Which Version #2A | | Date: | Tue, 30 Nov 2004 06:11:36 GMT |
|
|
| #2A
This a continuing post from the Book "Which Version is the
Bible" by Floyd Nolen Jones. Appendix A, pages 121-141 Which Version is the
Bible?
Copyright 1995 · Floyd Jones Ministries, Inc.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.
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.
>
>
|
|
|
