Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | John 8:41 "You are doing the deeds of your father." They said to Him, "We were not born of fornication; we have one Father: God." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | John 8:41 "You are doing the works of your [own] father." They said to Him, "We are not illegitimate children; we have one [spiritual] Father: God." |
Subject: Defending themselves or accusing Jesus? |
Bible Note: Hi Tim, The question that I dealt with originally was not what was to be seen as the ideal, but what was actually countenanced and not seen as an open breach of the Law by the majority of people having the consequence of bringing the couple and the baby into disrepute, (apart, as I constantly stated, in the eyes of the high sticklers). We are all agreed that the Old Testament says nothing against sexual relations between a betrothed couple (who were seen as man and wife). Had it been seen as needing to be legislated against, it would have been mentioned, for it would certainly have occurred. And this is especially so in view of the fact that if it was totally forbidden it would have required the death penalty. Had that been so it would hardly have been overlooked. And this is especially so as in betrothal all the ritual requirements for marriage had been completed, and were binding, and all that was required was consummation of the marriage. This in fact is brought out rather vividly by Deuteronomy 20.7 where the husband is to race home to consummate the betrothal. In Ketuboth 1.5 it says, 'He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without a witness cannot bring a complaint for the cause of non-virginity because he was alone with her.' This suggests that this was a fairly common occurrence as it is being legislated about. And there is no indication of disapproval, only a removal of the right of the husband to protest against his wife not being a virgin. We also note that the concern was not seemingly concerning immorality, but concerning the rights of the couple and the security of the marriage. Indeed that is the Old Testament emphasis. The immorality lay in what its social effects were. You say : The point you made in another post about sexual relations resulting in marriage does not indicate acceptance, but protection of the woman. It is much like in the OT where if a man raped a virgin, he had to marry her. The latter is in fact a point I brought out earlier. But the very fact that it is legislated about without any criticism being made demonstrates that it was accepted as not prejudicing the couple. There is never a hint of criticism. It is treated matter-of-factedly. There would be no reflection on the child. But we should note that the Mishnah, when speaking of a betrothal occurring through sexual relations, does not assume that there had been a rape. The sexual relations could equally have been by agreement in order to bring about betrothal. It is merely being seen as one means of entering a betrothal, without further comment being made. And what is important, as I think we are agreed on, (and was the point at issue), is that no taint attached to the child as long as both parties accepted the child as theirs. With regard to the period of twelve months it would appear that that period was only a suggested period and not rigidly applied. Often betrothal would take place when the couple were young children and the period of betrothal would be a lot longer. On other occasions where the couple were mature the period would be less. Of course this situation does not arise for Christians. Engagement is not betrothal. It is not totally binding. Thus for the Christian pre-marital sex is certainly disapproved of. But that is another question. Best wishes |