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 Unfortunately this subject appears to be getting out of hand. At no time did I state that sexual relations were 'common' during the betrothal period, only that they 'regularly occurred', and that the general consensus was that they were permissible. It is all a matter of language. For something to regularly occur among say a million people over many years, does not mean that they were common (depending on what you mean by common), only that they fairly often happened. The question is not whether sexual relations within the betrothal period were approved of by Jewish society as a whole, but whether Jesus' parents would have been deeply frowned on for having had such sexual relations. My first statement was, 'in Jewish eyes Jesus would not have been seen as born of fonication'. This is in fact stated in the Halakah where it is emphasised that the child of a pre-marital union where the marriage is consummated is not to be seen as a mamzer (illegitimate child). In Israel betrothal was at the very basis of a marriage. It was at betrothal that the contracts were drawn up, payments made, and everything was settled. Apart from a blessing we know of no ritual that took place at the actual wedding. That had taken place at the betrothal. The betrothal was totally binding. The actual wedding was rather a time for feasting and the official consummation of the marriage. All the preliminaries (including the signing) had taken place at betrothal. Once betrothed the pair were looked on as husband and wife (Gen 29.21; Deut 22.23-24; 28.30; Judges 14.2, 8; Joel 1.8; Matthew 1.18-20). The only way out was through divorce. They did not, however, live together. But as the betrothed girl was expected to work in the countryside unsupervised (Deut 22.25) they would have ample opportunity to meet, and if they desired engage in love-making. (Consider the Song of Solomon). It is noteworthy that nothing is ever said against such practises in the Old Testament. There is never any suggestion that a betrothed pair be punished in any way if they engaged in such activity, even though the question of sexual relations is dealt with in a detailed way. Indeed in the Mishnah it is stated that one way by which betrothal takes place is by sexual relations. 'Said Rabbi Joseph, a girl is betrothed by sexual intercourse' (M Nid 5.4). In the section headed 'Betrothal' (quiddushim) it says, A woman is acquired as a wife in one of three ways, by money, by contract, or by sexual intercourse' (1.1). In neither instance is there any hint of disapproval. This is in fact backed up in Scripture in that if a man entices a virgin he must pay her dowry (thus bcoming betrothed) and take her as his wife (Exod. 22.16; compare Deut 22.28-29). Once again there is no punishment unless you see having to be married as a punishment. The couple would not be frowned on later, except by high sticklers, who would no doubt see it as a sign of 'common people'. My own comments were based on what I have learned from scholarly commentaries, but as I cannot offhand remember which ones, and no longer have access to such commenaries, I have provided details above which would support their case. Best wishes |