{"id":4087,"date":"2012-08-29T11:46:58","date_gmt":"2012-08-29T10:46:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/?page_id=4087"},"modified":"2017-04-29T17:21:44","modified_gmt":"2017-04-29T16:21:44","slug":"the-woman-in-adultery","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/the-woman-in-adultery\/","title":{"rendered":"THE WOMAN IN ADULTERY"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Guercino<\/a>
Guercino (1591\u20131666) La donna adultera – The Woman in Adultery<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

By Stephen Green<\/p>\n

First Published in Christian Voice<\/em> November 2003<\/p>\n

In many modern versions of the Bible, John 7:53 to John 8:11 is written in italics, with a foot-note to the effect that this passage is omitted from “some ancient manuscripts.”\u00a0 Why should that be?\u00a0 Why should a passage of God’s word which is there in the Greek ‘Textus Receptus,’ authenticated by Erasmus and relied upon exclusively by Bishop Andrewes and his team of translators for the King James version, be absent from other sources?<\/p>\n

We need to remember that just because a manuscript of the Bible is ancient is not to say it is accurate.\u00a0 Manuscripts were often altered to bolster a heretical view.\u00a0 The letters of the Apostles reveal that there were heresies around in the earliest days of the church.\u00a0 The Gnostic heresy, which demoted the material world to be beneath the concern of God, was the most prevalent, and to the Apostle John, the most dangerous.\u00a0 (1 John 4:3)\u00a0 There will have been manuscripts of the Bible emerging in the first few centuries which had a Gnostic frame of mind.\u00a0 Subtle changes will have been made, to slant the New Testament message into the spiritual realm alone.<\/p>\n

HEAVENLY ARMIES<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The same sort of thing happens today.\u00a0 In Psalm 24:10, and on fourteen other occasions in the Psalms, the Hebrew word “tsava’ah” is translated as “hosts” in the KJV, in expressions such as “The Lord of hosts.”\u00a0 The word indeed means a host, an army, a great number.\u00a0 One modern bible version persistently renders the expression into “Lord of the heavenly armies”.\u00a0 The word for “heavenly” isn’t there in the Hebrew – these translators had a problem with God being in charge of earthly armies, so they relegated Him to the spiritual sphere alone, and they did it by adding to the word of God.<\/p>\n

Is it for a similar reason that the account of the woman taken in adultery was omitted by some ancient, heretical, manuscripts?\u00a0 Had the scribes, despite their training to be faithful reproducers of documents, spotted something they just didn’t like?\u00a0 Did the account oppose the Gnostic view?\u00a0 Or did it possibly oppose Antinomianism, the view that Jesus did away with the law of God?<\/p>\n

One would hardly think the latter, given the stance of many recent and contemporary commentators.\u00a0 Thanks to their efforts, the popular view today is that the passage shows Jesus abolishing either the death penalty for adultery in particular, or the death penalty in general.\u00a0 For example, the following was written by a prominent reformed churchman:\u00a0 “Christ himself refused to allow the stoning of the adulterous woman.”\u00a0 The proposition being made is that at some point in the passage in question, Jesus said something like, “I will not allow you to stone her,” or “I say do not stone someone caught in adultery” or gave the impression that the death penalty is no longer valid.<\/p>\n

TAKEN IN THE VERY ACT<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Let us see if that is true.\u00a0 The passage is John 8:1-11. \u00a0It is the account of our Lord Jesus and the matter of the woman taken in adultery.\u00a0 The Scribes and the Pharisees were hypocrites only to bring the woman, of course.\u00a0 The woman was “taken in the very act”.\u00a0 That means a man was there as a partner to the act.\u00a0 He seems to have been allowed to leave, even though the law says: the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.<\/em>\u00a0 (Lev 20:10)\u00a0 Those who just brought the woman were not quite so hot on the law as they pretended.<\/p>\n

The Lord did not point out their hypocrisy, as he did on other occasions. \u00a0But events in any case were moving swiftly.\u00a0 He was immediately, as it appears, in a\u00a0cleft stick. \u00a0He would have to oppose the Roman occupation if he wished to support the Law of God given by Moses.\u00a0 It was a similar challenge to that of Caesar’s coin.\u00a0 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?<\/em>\u00a0 (John 8:5)\u00a0 The scribes were challenging this upstart young Rabbi to accept the role of judge, and pronounce.<\/p>\n

Now, the Romans would not allow the Jews to carry out a death sentence of stoning. \u00a0Of course that would not stop them later stoning Stephen to death for blasphemy.\u00a0 So if Jesus were openly to support the stoning of the woman, he could be denounced for sedition to Pilate.\u00a0 And what if he refused to allow her stoning, as our friend suggests he actually did? \u00a0Then he would be revoking, changing, or “destroying” the law.<\/p>\n

AT THE FEAST OF TABERNACLES<\/strong><\/h3>\n

We must remember that this is he who said, back in Galilee: Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.<\/em> (Matt 5:17)\u00a0 More recently Jesus had just been teaching in the temple in the very middle of the feast of Tabernacles.\u00a0 (John 7:14) \u00a0This would\u00a0\u00a0be\u00a0fresh in the mind of these Jerusalem Scribes and Pharisees. \u00a0‘Did not Moses give you the law,’ he asked, ‘and yet none of you keepeth the law?’ \u00a0(John 7:19)\u00a0 Keeping the law was for him and for them an important matter.\u00a0 To be accused of not keeping the law was a serious charge.<\/p>\n

It would be an especially serious charge to lay at the door of a teacher of the law.\u00a0 Teaching about the law, especially during the feast of Tabernacles, was the solemn duty of the Levites.\u00a0 (Lev 10:11, Deut 33:10; Neh 8:2,3,13,18)\u00a0 Incidentally, the Greek word used for ‘law’ in all its facets in the New Testament is ‘nomos’ which means ‘a law’.\u00a0 We get words from it such as ‘antinomian’ (against the law) ‘theonomy’ (God-law) and ‘autonomy’ (self-law).<\/p>\n

The word ‘nomos’ does not quite capture the full import of the Hebrew word ‘Torah’ with its overlay of teaching, or instruction, as well as what is allowed and what is forbidden.\u00a0 Both the Lord Jesus and His interlocutors would have in mind the word ‘Torah’ or its Aramaic equivalent.\u00a0 Of course, as the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, Jesus is the author of the Torah, and its very embodiment.\u00a0 Anyway, by adopting the function of the Levites on that day, the Lord Jesus shamed the religious establishment in Jerusalem.\u00a0 Then he went even further.<\/p>\n

COME UNTO ME AND DRINK<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The seventh, great day of the feast (John 7:37) was known as “Hoshana Rabbah”, which means “great (or many) hosannas”.\u00a0 It was a great day of praise.\u00a0 There was also a ritual on that day of taking willow branches from the river banks, and praying for rain and rejuvenation.\u00a0 It is possible that what is known as ‘sympathetic magic’ had been added: when the willow trees are shaken or beaten, the leaves fall in simulation of the coming rainfall.<\/p>\n

Hence Jesus’ cry on that day: If any man thirst, let him come unto me and drink!\u00a0 He that believeth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.<\/em>\u00a0 Living (running) water is a Hebrew symbol of salvation, and Jesus’ Hebrew name, Yeshua, means “He saves”.\u00a0 (see also: Isa 12:3; Jer 2:13; John 4:10-11)\u00a0 Doing what he did on that day was enough for some to acclaim Jesus as the Messiah (John 7:41). \u00a0Of course others got stuck on the Galilee question.<\/p>\n

Matters became heated enough for Jesus’s followers to be denounced as “this people who knoweth not the law.” (vs 49) Poor Nicodemus, who was only trying to uphold the law was rubbished as a Galilean.\u00a0 “Out of Galilee ariseth no prophet,” they said (vs 52).\u00a0 In fact they were wrong on the last count. \u00a0Nicodemus could have pointed out that both Jonah and Nahum came out of Galilee. \u00a0Jonah was from from Gath-hepher, two miles from Nazareth. \u00a0Nahum was from Capernaum, from Kaphar-Nahum. \u00a0But that would have only made matters worse. \u00a0Both men were sent to prophesy to Gentiles. \u00a0The very idea!<\/p>\n

HANDS OF THE WITNESSES<\/strong><\/h3>\n

There was clearly a lot at stake for both Jesus and the men who challenged him with the woman in adultery.\u00a0 On another occasion the Lord Jesus refused to judge between a man and his brother (Luke 12:14) in order to make a point about greed and possessions.\u00a0 But here, after the curious episode of writing on the ground, he accepted the role of judge and made a ruling, as we shall see, based totally on the law.<\/p>\n

A basic principle of God’s judicial law is that people must be properly convicted, which means at the mouth of two or three witnesses. (Numb 35:30)\u00a0 The Humanist version, ‘Beyond reasonable doubt’ just will not do before the Throne of Grace.\u00a0 And we have to remember that human agents are carrying out divine will, for the judgment is God’s.\u00a0 (Deut 1:17) \u00a0A matter must\u00a0be established in the mouth of two or three witnesses. \u00a0That principle is strongly upheld in the New Testament (eg: Matt 18:16; John 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1).<\/p>\n

In addition to testifying, the hands of the witnesses had to be the first against the convicted person.\u00a0 (Deut 17:6-7)\u00a0 It is a terrible and solemn duty to testify against someone. \u00a0Biblically that is reinforced by requiring the witnesses to put their stones, as it were, where their mouths were.\u00a0 After that, all the community were to join in to execute judgment.<\/p>\n

COME WITH CLEAN HANDS<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"We<\/a>
We shall never know what the Lord Jesus wrote on the ground.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Can anyone imagine the horror of such an event?\u00a0 The Bible says:\u00a0 The people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.<\/em> (Deut 17:13)\u00a0 There would surely be an immediate\u00a0decrease in crime in that community.\u00a0 It is difficult for us today to understand living in a society which takes adultery so seriously – the generation in which Jesus lived was not like that, being similar to our own, but more of that later.<\/p>\n

A false witness in the Biblical system was in a dreadful predicament.\u00a0 Not only had he helped a person to be wrongfully convicted, but he had thrown the first stone.\u00a0 That was something so appalling that the only remedy for a false witness was for him to suffer the same fate as would the man or woman he had given false testimony against.\u00a0 (Deut 19:15-19)\u00a0 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.<\/em> (Exod 20:16).\u00a0 It is reasonable to assume that there would be fewer false witnesses today if they had to cast a physical first stone.<\/p>\n

A further principle of God’s law is that witnesses must be totally impartial.\u00a0 This was well understood by the Scribes and Pharisees, even if they had forgotten it in their rush to try to catch Jesus out.\u00a0 Witnesses and judges must not be related to the accused.\u00a0 They must not be moved by hatred or love towards the accused.\u00a0 They must not have taken a bribe either for or against the accused.\u00a0 (Deut 16:19)\u00a0 Lastly, they must not be implicated in a similar crime themselves. (Hos 4:14) They must come with clean hands, a Godly principle of law which survives to a limited extent even today.<\/p>\n

\n

WOMAN IN ADULTERY PASSAGE NOW MAKES SENSE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

All of this allows Jesus’ eventual ruling to be much more penetrative than a simple “Yes” or “No” would have been.\u00a0 When he said: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her,<\/em> (John 8:7) he gave support to all these parts of the law, and put the onus back on the accusers.\u00a0 Some have attempted to say that “without sin” means perfect. \u00a0Well, if perfect people were the only ones allowed to testify or convict, justice would be impossible.\u00a0 Where would we find them?\u00a0 The Lord’s statement would be ridiculous.\u00a0 Thankfully, the Greek word here translated “without sin” is “anamartetos”.\u00a0 It does not mean perfect, for that is “teleios”.\u00a0 It means not absolutely without sin, but only in a particular case, the one under discussion.<\/p>\n

Knowing that, the passage suddenly makes sense.\u00a0 Jesus was calling for the witnesses who presumed to condemn the woman to carry out the sentence, whilst reminding them of their legal obligation to come with clean hands.\u00a0 They did not have to be perfect, they just had to be without sin in this one offence.<\/p>\n

But these men could not even manage that.\u00a0 Jesus did not maintain eye contact with them, but stooped down and wrote on the ground again.\u00a0 It was an “adulterous and sinful generation” (Mark 8:38) and he knew already that no-one would be prepared or able in terms of the law to be the first witness.\u00a0 So we read: And they which heard, being convicted by conscience, went out one by one beginning at the eldest, unto the last, and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst,<\/em> (v9)<\/p>\n

PROSECUTION WITHDRAW THEIR CASE<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"We<\/a>
We aren’t allowed to take pictures in UK court rooms, so here’s a US one!<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Imagine the situation today. We have everyone in court. \u00a0There is the judge and the prosecution and defence lawyers, their witnesses at the ready. \u00a0A\u00a0full public gallery is watching all the court officials and the prisoner in the dock.\u00a0 The\u00a0judge reminds the lawyers\u00a0of their legal duties to maintain a fair trial. \u00a0Hearing that, the prosecution witnesses melt away. \u00a0The prosecuting barrister and instructing solicitor collect up their papers, bow to the judge and leave the room without a word. \u00a0Actually, in practice today they would say, ‘I am sorry, your Honour, but the prosecution has no case to offer’.<\/p>\n

What does the judge do in a Court of Law when the witnesses absent themselves and no-one is left to accuse the defendant?\u00a0 He can hardly condemn.\u00a0 He is obliged to acquit the defendant.\u00a0 That is precisely what the Lord did, but with that sting in the tail, “Go and sin no more.”\u00a0 (v11)\u00a0 There is no earthly judge who would say that to someone just acquitted.\u00a0 Only a prophet, or the Son of God, can do that.<\/p>\n

This is much truer compassion from our gracious Lord than abolishing the death penalty would have been.\u00a0 The latter would have shown no compassion to the victim.\u00a0 The Son of God demonstrates his compassion by warning a sinner to repent and escape the wrath of God.\u00a0 As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live.<\/em>\u00a0 (Ezek 33:11)<\/p>\n

LAW OF GOD UPHELD<\/strong><\/h3>\n

So the Lord Jesus Christ, in this defining moment, upheld the law of God by Moses to the very letter whilst convicting his challengers of sin and setting the adulterous woman free with a warning.\u00a0 This is greater than the wisdom of Solomon.\u00a0 It is all so obvious that it beggars belief that anyone could seriously maintain that the passage shows Jesus changing the law, or refusing to allow the woman to be stoned, which was the claim quoted at the start.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the very endorsement which Jesus gives here to the Mosaic law is the reason for the passage’s omission from some of the early manuscripts. \u00a0Maybe\u00a0certain scribes who wanted to separate Christianity from its Hebrew roots had understood what was going on in the passage only too well.\u00a0 Perhaps they were Gnostics, who wanted to separate the kingdom of God from any earthly expression of it.\u00a0 Possibly they wanted to spiritualise everything of God, and send Him away to inspect His ‘heavenly armies’.\u00a0 Or perhaps they felt that man would make better laws than God.<\/p>\n

IS GOD BARBARIC?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

When the laws of God are discussed in critical terms, the laws about stoning, and especially stoning for adultery, are always wheeled out as a prime example of God’s alleged barbarism.\u00a0 Even Christian people seem to single out stoning for adultery as that law of God they particularly do not like.\u00a0 “You don’t believe in the law of God, do you?\u00a0 You’ll be stoning people for adultery next!”\u00a0 Despite the fact the God does not change, it is very tempting for us to say, “Oh, that’s just the Old Testament.”\u00a0 But with Christ’s own endorsement of the law in general, and this law in particular, that dispensationalist option seems closed.<\/p>\n

I am personally appalled by the idea of stoning, but I cannot say the Lord opposed it.\u00a0 It is little comfort to realise that in our own sinful generation, we should probably have no greater success at finding witnesses with clean hands than did the Lord Jesus.\u00a0 But it is in any case not the function of this article to recommend stoning as a penalty.\u00a0 Instead, I want to discern the mind of God and look at its\u00a0‘general equity’, to use the term in the Westminster Confession.\u00a0 Why does the righteous law of God include such a provision?\u00a0 What is its purpose?\u00a0 What is God saying, through it, to us in our day?<\/p>\n

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Perhaps we should first look at the element of public involvement, with the casting by the witnesses of the first stone, and also the deterrent effect so well expressed in Deut 17:13 and Eccl 8:11.<\/p>\n

In Britain today, only our jury system involves the public in the judicial process, and long may it do so.\u00a0 We have no modern-day equivalent of the Biblical community involvement in carrying out penalties.\u00a0 Even though God instituted the death penalty for murder in His covenant with Noah for all mankind for ever, we abolished it in 1965, in our wisdom.\u00a0 Of course our current record for wrongful convictions overturned on appeal years afterwards argues against re-introducing it without major reform.<\/p>\n

Even when the death penalty was in force, it was carried out for almost 100 years behind closed doors in the depths of a prison.\u00a0 The public baying for blood at Tyburn Hill (1) and Newgate was horrible and unbiblical, but tucking execution away from view is bad from another point of view.\u00a0 It says that something unrighteous is being done.\u00a0 The truth is that capital punishment is God’s will, and righteous.\u00a0 It is not a dark deed to be done in a corner.<\/p>\n

As to stoning itself, the method of execution is less important than the principle of public involvement of both witnesses and people.\u00a0 Interestingly, after public execution was abolished in 1868, the yearly number of homicides increased (2).\u00a0 Nor do we give witnesses the solemn duty of casting any first stone, metaphorical or not.\u00a0 They testify and then they go home, taking their conscience with them.<\/p>\n

ADULTERY IS FASHIONABLE TODAY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Perhaps, however, people today approve of adultery just as much as they disapprove of stoning.\u00a0 Adultery is a complete betrayal of another’s trust, but today it is almost fashionable.\u00a0 Folk may ‘tut-tut’ at the revelations of adultery in the news, but, just like the woman’s accusers, their hearts are full of sin.\u00a0 Not only is there no death penalty against adulterers in Britain today, we have allowed our politicians to put no penalty at all.\u00a0 Indeed, in the divorce courts, a wife’s adultery is usually rewarded with residence of the children on the grounds that the court can see a ‘new father figure’ for them.<\/p>\n

Is such a lack of justice something of which us British should be proud?\u00a0 What would the Lord Jesus, King of kings, say to us?\u00a0 Rather than casting stones at God’s law, should we not be slinking away in shame at the covenant-breaking and breach of promise which our law now firmly encourages?\u00a0 We may even find those things to convict us in our own hearts.<\/p>\n

“From this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death us do part, according to God’s holy ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.”\u00a0 Even in the modern versions, the couple give their solemn word, in public.\u00a0 But our law allows either one of them to break his or her word and ruin another’s life without consequences.\u00a0 And they say God’s law is barbaric?<\/p>\n

AN ACT OF BETRAYAL<\/strong><\/h3>\n

If we look at what God says about adultery, then firstly we see that God regards it as a great evil.\u00a0 That is because adultery is an act of betrayal and because it strikes at the very root of the family in which a Godly seed is to be raised (Mal 2:15).\u00a0 God even likens the idolatry of Israel to adultery, to emphasise the seriousness of ‘whoring after other gods.’ (Judg 2:7)<\/p>\n

Secondly, God regards adultery not just as an individual sin, but as a capital offence.\u00a0 That is because His judicial law is based on the principle of restitution, and in common with murder and rape, nothing can restore what has been taken by the act of adultery.\u00a0 At the same time, the death penalty for adultery is a maximum, and the guilty parties are able to make a limited form of restitution financially, presumably if the innocent parties are willing and forgiving, and not beset by what Jesus described as ‘hardness of heart’.\u00a0 (Matt 19:8, cf Deut 24:1)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

We infer the principle of financial recompense from Numbers 35:31, where it is written: take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer, which is guilty of death<\/em> (Numb 35:31).\u00a0 The word translated here as ‘satisfaction’ is ‘kopher’ which means a ransom, or sum of money.\u00a0 For this verse to be given implies that ransoms were being paid for all capital offences, including for murder.\u00a0 This was actually the case in Anglo-Saxon England.\u00a0 Money would settle anything.\u00a0 But the Bible says that in the case of murder – and only murder – a ransom may not be paid: but he shall surely be put to death.<\/em>\u00a0 (3)<\/p>\n

And we also draw it out of Deut 24:1ff where a divorced party may remarry. \u00a0I suggest money could change hands here as well.<\/p>\n

JUSTICE AND MERCY<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In looking to be compassionate, us Christians need first to hate sin (Ps 97:10a), love the things which God loves (Ps 119:97), and stop finding fault in what He says (Ps 5:4).\u00a0 Nobody wants anyone to die, least of all God, so there is an element of mercy available for adulterer and adulteress, but only with the primary principle of justice in place.\u00a0 We start from the wrong end, trying to be nice and merciful first.\u00a0 Then we wonder why there is no justice.\u00a0 (Isa 59:14)\u00a0 Justice comes before mercy in the Bible (Ps 89:14).\u00a0 God’s way is that justice can be tempered with mercy, but not mercy with justice.<\/p>\n

Even some Christians lose sight of the fact that God gave His law for our good, and not because He is a spoil-sport.\u00a0 But talking of God spoiling our sport, is adultery really so much fun?\u00a0 And even if it is, is it really worth living in a society where the extended family is now an intricate network of step-parents, live-in boyfriends and all their exes?\u00a0 Where half a generation of children have lost their fathers? \u00a0A society where crime increases as all sense of self-respect declines?\u00a0 Where a public promise can be broken on the whim of one of the parties?\u00a0 Have we gone completely mad? \u00a0Or into societal self-destruct mode?<\/p>\n

NEED FOR REPENTANCE<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Spiritually, neither an individual nor a nation ever stands still.\u00a0 We are either going towards God or moving away from Him.\u00a0 (Matt 7:13)\u00a0 At the moment, Britain is travelling fast on the road to destruction.\u00a0 For great is the wrath of the Lord that is poured out upon us, because our fathers have not kept the word of the Lord, to do after all that is written in this book. (2Chr 34:21)<\/em>\u00a0 God hates divorce, and the breaking of promises, and He also hates injustice.\u00a0 People are fallible, and miss the mark. \u00a0Some are plain lawless, and it is an injustice for them to get away with the misery they cause.<\/p>\n

If by God’s grace our nation repents, then bringing some justice back into family law and upholding the Godly solemnity of the marriage vows will be one of the things it will do first.\u00a0 \u00a0Would it not be a wonderful thing to see our leaders searching the law of God for its wisdom, knowing that we are a nation under Christ, and that Christ upholds His law?<\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/h3>\n

(1) 10,000 people used to turn up for the Monday executions at Tyburn: see www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk\/LONtyburn.htm<\/a><\/p>\n

(2) They increased from an average of 339 offences of homicide per year known to the police over the ten years prior to 1868 to 383 offences per year for the ten years after and continued rising to a peak of 428 in 1886.\u00a0 Thereafter, there was a decline in the early years of the 20th century.\u00a0 A more substantial rise in homicides occured after the abolition of the death penalty in 1965.<\/p>\n

(3) Murder is the only capital offence which may not be ransomed. The next verse, Numb 35:32, also forbids a ransom for manslaughter, but manslaughter, which the Bible defines as accidental homicide, is not a capital offence.<\/p>\n

Please take a look at how you can join Christian Voice and uphold the righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ by clicking here (the link does not commit you to joining):<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Stephen Green First Published in Christian Voice November 2003 In many modern versions of the Bible, John 7:53 to John 8:11 is written in italics, with a foot-note to the effect that this passage is omitted from “some ancient manuscripts.”\u00a0 Why should that be?\u00a0 Why should a passage of God’s word which is there […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":66,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","template":"template-onecolumn.php","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4087","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Stephen","author_link":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/author\/stephen\/"},"rttpg_comment":14,"rttpg_category":null,"rttpg_excerpt":"By Stephen Green First Published in Christian Voice November 2003 In many modern versions of the Bible, John 7:53 to John 8:11 is written in italics, with a foot-note to the effect that this passage is omitted from “some ancient manuscripts.”\u00a0 Why should that be?\u00a0 Why should a passage of God’s word which is there…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4087","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4087"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4087\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.christianvoice.org.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4087"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}