Podcasts about sinaiticus

The primary manuscript from which modern bible translations originate (NIV, ESV, HCSB, NEV, LSB, NLT, etc.) is challenged on it's authenticity and dating. 0:00 - Intro 1:00 - What it is 3:45 - Modern bible connection 7:00 - Problems with Vaticanus 11:20 - What it's missing 14:00 - Lie of "Oldest and Best" 18:45 - Why Erasmus and KJV translators rejected it 25:00 - Ending of Mark 16 30:00 - Sinaiticus and Mark 16 41:10 - Dispensationalism and Mark 16 43:00 - The Bomb: Umlauts 51:07 - The Two Options 57:15 - Meeting Announcement

Question: I was very upset by the answer from you about the reason you prefer the KJV.... I need you to please send me several examples of what you consider "serious" errors [in modern translations]. I would also be very appreciative of some reading material that the lay person can understand...or names of some sources....Response: Thank you for your recent letter challenging me regarding my support of the KJV. This question is too complex to deal with in a brief letter, but let me try once again. You asked for sources.The best case against "KJV only" is presented by D. A. Carson in The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. He points out, in "eight key Christological verses (Jn 1:1,18; Acts 20:28; Rom 9:5; 2 Thes 1:12, Tts 2:13; Heb 1:8; 2 Pet 1:1)... the KJV fails to underscore the deity of Christ in four." Most modern translations do as well or better. The NIV scores in seven of the eight. Even Thomas M. Strouse, though strongly criticizing Carson, admits these four KJV failures (Jn 1:18; 2 Thes 1:12; Tts 2:13; 2 Pet 1:1) and explains them as "a textual problem (Jn 1:18) and the other three are translational problems." Even its defenders must admit to some flaws in the KJV.Critics fault the KJV because it comes from a Greek New Testament which was put together by Erasmus in 1516, later improved by Theodore Beza and Robert Stephanus. The latter's fourth edition in 1551 is "substantially the Textus Receptus," according to Jasper James Ray, one of its most fervent defenders. Too late in time, say the critics, and too few manuscripts as its source. Yet this was basically the Greek text that had been accepted by the Greek church in the East for centuries (the Roman Catholic Church in the West used the Latin Vulgate), earlier manuscripts from which the Greek Bible came having been worn out and discarded. Modern translations (some are worse than others, the RSV in particular) come from a Greek text developed by Westcott and Hort (two scholarly heretics) based largely upon Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which, though older, are clearly corrupted.

The canon—not the text—of the Septuagint dates back only to the fourth century, to the area of, you guessed it, Alexandria. The canon—not the text—of the Septuagint comes from sources like Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus, and Vaticanus.The canon—not the text—because the Septuagint text, Fr. Paul explains, was rendered by the original authors (or their followers), who, unlike Philo and Origen, were committed to teaching Scripture, not using it for their own gain. We pretend that political violence is shocking or surprising. However, early Christian leaders, Fr. Paul continues, influenced by Platonic philosophy, behaved exactly like Herod and the Sadducees. Like politicians. They behaved like Netanyahu. But long before Netanyahu, there were others. Men like Emperor Justinian did their genocidal work quickly, by hand. They did not take seven months and did not require advanced technology. Influenced by Platonic thought, these same men loved the idea of a “divine spark” in each person. And why not? If you want to be a god, what better way than to embrace a vast intellectual, literary, religious, and cultural tradition that leads to the undue adulation of human beings and then use that library to undermine the biblical teaching and distort the Christian message?Western values, anyone? Or perhaps an ice cream cone will suffice.(Episode 324) ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Modern forensic techniques like microscopy and spectroscopy could provide empirical data to validate or expose the contested origins of the Codex Sinaiticus.

Session 3 chronicles the 19th century clash between scholars over the Codex Sinaiticus, pitting its defender Tischendorf versus Simonides, who claimed it as his forgery.

Theology is life. A daily dose of Biblical teaching and reflection from Pastor Bryan Wolfmueller of St Paul and Jesus Deaf Lutheran Churches in Austin, TX. Today's question is from Bennie, who asks: Hello, I love your YouTube videos and have a question. Which translation of the bible do you use and why? After research and study, I have come to the conclusion that the received text is the preserved word of God. I know the history of the critical text and find it questionable at best. There is no providence to it, it just mysteriously shows up in the form of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Whereas the Textus Receptus has a preserved history. Besides, that is what Luther translated from. Thank you and I value your opinion. ****** If you have theology questions, send to here: HTTP://www.wolfmueller.co/contact Links: Support Deaf Missions in central Texas: http://www.wolfmueller.co/deaf The bookstore (where almost everything is free): http://www.wolfmueller.co/books/ To sign up for Pastor Wolfmueller's free weekly email of theological awesomeness called "Wednesday What-Not", visit http://www.wolfmueller.co/Wednesday. (Every month we give away a free book to a subscriber!) All the theological awesomeness ends up on the website: http://www.wolfmueller.co --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sunday-drive-home/message

One of the oldest manuscripts of the bible, the Sinaiticus, doesn't title this book of the bible, "The Acts of the Apostles." Instead, it simply titles it "The Acts." Throughout this book of the bible you will see Acts of the Holy Spirit, the Acts of Jesus Christ, and through the power of the Holy Spirit, you will see the Acts of the Apostles. The book of Acts has no formal ending because the story goes on. The Lord isn't done yet!

Episode 118- Scrolls and Sinaiticus, hosted by Mark Vance. Welcome to the Equip Podcast from Cornerstone Church of Ames. This podcast is designed to help you live a faithful and fruitful life where Jesus has called you.For more on the history of the Biblical text, be sure to check out Daniel Wallace and the work of his organization, The Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts at https://www.csntm.org/. Connect with Cornerstone Church Online at cornerstonelife.com. Subscribe to our "Sermon" and "Equip" podcasts on iTunes and Spotify and follow us on Facebook and Instagram.

I have prepared this Every Word podcast to discuss the ending of Mark 16, verses 9-20. Those are the verses that are bracketed in most translations made in the last century. The brackets indicate that the compilers of the Greek text used by the translators did not think those verses are part of the authentic inspired text. I am going to try to convince you today that the verses shouldn't have brackets around them, and that they are authentic Scripture inspired by God. The NLT, has this: Mark 16:8 NLT 8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.[c] c The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. A few include both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.” The majority of manuscripts include the “longer ending” immediately after verse 8. [The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.] [Shorter Ending of Mark] Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen. [Longer Ending of Mark] verses 9-20 I did not read the shorter ending for the podcast. That ending has extremely thin support in ancient manuscripts, and where the words occur, the manuscripts often also have the longer ending, verses 9-20. In my preparation to be a Bible translator, I was given virtually zero preparation about different Greek texts of the NT or the manuscript evidence supporting them. We were expected to simply follow the lead of the main English translations as we translated into the Orya language (an ethnic language of Papua Province) and later in our translation into Indonesia's national language. So the Orya translation and the first editions of our Indonesian translation include the brackets and a footnote. But our 3rd edition Plain Indonesian Translation (TSI) has no brackets for verses 9-20. I want to tell you why I changed my mind, and why the decision is important. Some experts today think that Mark intended to end his Gospel with the words, “they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.” But this defies imagination. I don't think authors started using the type of endings where you leave-the-audience-hanging until centuries later, like perhaps just two centuries ago. Remember that Mark starts with the words, “This is the Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Mark shows a pattern of telling the outcome for every miracle. He is not about to leave his main thesis of his story without its fulfillment. The fulfillment of the starting thesis is found in the next to last verse (16:19), which says, “19 When the Lord Jesus had finished talking with them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down in the place of honor at God's right hand.” Verse 19 also is an important doctrinal statement, since no other Gospel includes those words as part of the story after Jesus' resurrection. And the same verse also very appropriately links the book of Mark with Peter's teaching in 1Pet. 3:22. Please check yourself. Do you believe what Moses and Jesus said?: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Deut. 8:3; Luk. 4:4) If we are to live by ‘every word', do you believe that God would preserve every word for us? I hope you respond, “Why yes, of course.” I believe that God has preserved His Word for us. Therefore it is unacceptable for me to say that the Holy Spirit would leave a whole book of the NT without a clear ending. We have two choices for the ending: One says the ladies didn't tell anyone because they were afraid. The other ends with Jesus at the right hand of God. Which one seems to be the proper ending to you?! The NLT has words in bold italics before Mark 16 verses 9-20 which say, “[The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.]” How many manuscripts are we talking about with the words ‘most ancient manuscripts'? Then the footnote says ‘later manuscripts add' the last 12 verses. What are the real numbers? Two of the very oldest manuscripts plus one other do not have the last 12 verses of Mark. But the manuscripts that include the last 12 verses number more than 1,650! 99.99% of ancient manuscripts contain the longer ending of Mark. The NLT also has a footnote that starts with “The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8.” But this statement is actually false. The two manuscripts they are talking about (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) cannot be said to be ‘reliable'. They are, however, recognized as the very earliest, dated at 325 and around 345. For Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to be considered reliable, one would hope they would be reasonably consistent with one another. Instead they differ from one another in 3,036 places. I believe that early scribes recognized that they were defective, and this offers a plausible explanation for why there are no extant copies made from them. I do not agree with the practice of writing vague footnotes in our Bibles as seen above. Many of the footnotes in your Bible will talk about what ‘some manuscripts' say. It has actually been recommended to translators to keep such footnotes vague. I do not have the time to adequately explain why this has been done. It is time to give people better information. I will explain more about this in another podcast. Many old-school ‘experts' (by that I mean seminary teachers from the mid-20th century) will say that the two oldest manuscripts outweigh all of the 1,650 other ancient manuscripts. But many of today's informed experts will not agree with the people I just called the ‘old-school experts'. Here are some points to consider: Both of the two oldest manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) have an odd blank space at the end of Mark, showing that the scribe realized the manuscript he was copying had something left out. This is called a ‘memorial space'. Such memorial spaces are found in various places in other ancient manuscripts. So even though the two manuscripts do not have the last 12 verses of Mark, the scribes telegraphed to us that they knew such an ending existed. Remember that Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are from the early 4th century. There are quotes of verses from Mark 16:9-20 by church fathers that predate Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Earlier support for the longer ending of Mark include “four second-century witnesses, and 99.9% of the [other ancient] Greek manuscripts, and 99.99% of the [ancient] Latin manuscripts, and 99.5% of the [ancient] Syriac manuscripts, and 40 Roman-era patristic writers.” (Quote from Dr. James Snapp: https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2013/08/robert-stein-and-ending-of-mark.html) Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844. This touched off a lot of excitement, and a revolutionary new text of the NT was published by Westscott and Hort in 1881. Please consider that there are multiple examples in history where excitement over new discoveries resulted in mistaken theories. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution from the same time period is now discredited. Just like you have university teachers still bone-headedly holding on to the theory of evolution, so the theories of Westscott and Hort are no longer upheld by many of today's experts but are still being repeated by seminary teachers. Westscott and Hort's faulty decisions about what verses are not authentic are still seen in today's Bibles. I'm sure that you will hear someone claim that the last 12 verses of Mark use non-Markan vocabulary, but that assertion has been repeatedly disproved. In my January 4 news and information podcast, I mentioned that the GotQuestions web site often included very good answers to questions Bible readers bring up. Generally I believe that is true. But evidently it is NOT true when it comes to textual issues like the long ending of Mark. The GotQuestions article I refer to is entitled Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html But please don't read that one unless you also read Dr. James Snapp's refutation of it linked here: https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2013/07/the-got-questions-website-and-mark-169.html I would be very happy for you to read both articles, as this would show you how untruths are passed on by people who should know better. Please consider supporting the work of James Snapp by buying and reading his 400-page book entitled Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20: 2016 Edition. The Kindle book is only 99 cents. https://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Case-Mark-9-20-2016-ebook/dp/B01EU1OR9O Some of you might be interested in listening to my 2020 podcast entitled EveryWord005 Mark 16. Please follow that last link to find the supplemental PDF for that episode containing an essay on the ending of Mark by Dr. Wilbur Pickering. What I have said about the ending of Mark is important. Let me illustrate: About six years ago, the pastor at our church in Siloam Springs preached an expository series of sermons on the Gospel of Mark. Our pastor does an excellent job of preaching straight through books of Scripture, even through some of the hardest material in the Bible. So I was shocked that on the Sunday when we were all expecting to hear a message about Mark 16, the pastor began by telling us he would not be preaching about that chapter. Before he launched into the totally new topic he had chosen for that Sunday, he rather quietly said this, “I decided that I would not preach on the ending of Mark, because, after all, we don't know whether it is part of inspired Scripture or not.” Our pastor said, “after all, we don't know whether it is part of inspired Scripture or not.” He didn't say “I don't know.” He said ‘we' don't know if it is inspired. What a terrible thing for a pastor to say from the pulpit! If 12 whole verses could disappear and marr the conclusion of a book of Scripture, how many other corruptions might there be in the New Testament? This semester my wife (Gale) is teaching a morning and evening Bible study for women based on the Gospel of Mark. The same pastor (whom I highly respect) very nicely supplied four commentaries to help her. Three of the four do not discuss the last 12 verses of chapter 16. But none of them have a good explanation as to why they do not discuss it. Two of them hold to the idea that Mark intentionally left readers hanging with the words ‘because they were too frightened'. One of the books gushes, “What a perfect ending!” The footnotes and the brackets in our Bibles don't just confuse believers in Christ, but they confuse people who are wondering if the Bible is true. And opponents of Christianity seize on such things to say that the Bible text is not reliable. The answer to this problem is to base our Bible translations on the Majority Text of the New Testament, also called the Byzantine Textform. I will give more information about that later. Until then, the bottom line is that 1650 ancient manuscripts found all over the ancient world, all made by an army scribes each copying the text of an earlier manuscript, could not have the last 12 verses of Mark if the verses had not come from the first papyrus copy written by Mark. Until next time, may the Lord bless you ‘real good'.

I have prepared this Every Word podcast to discuss the ending of Mark 16, verses 9-20. Those are the verses that are bracketed in most translations made in the last century. The brackets indicate that the compilers of the Greek text used by the translators did not think those verses are part of the authentic inspired text. I am going to try to convince you today that the verses shouldn't have brackets around them, and that they are authentic Scripture inspired by God. The NLT, has this: Mark 16:8 NLT 8 The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, and they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.[c] c The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. A few include both the “shorter ending” and the “longer ending.” The majority of manuscripts include the “longer ending” immediately after verse 8. [The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.] [Shorter Ending of Mark] Then they briefly reported all this to Peter and his companions. Afterward Jesus himself sent them out from east to west with the sacred and unfailing message of salvation that gives eternal life. Amen. [Longer Ending of Mark] verses 9-20 I did not read the shorter ending for the podcast. That ending has extremely thin support in ancient manuscripts, and where the words occur, the manuscripts often also have the longer ending, verses 9-20. In my preparation to be a Bible translator, I was given virtually zero preparation about different Greek texts of the NT or the manuscript evidence supporting them. We were expected to simply follow the lead of the main English translations as we translated into the Orya language (an ethnic language of Papua Province) and later in our translation into Indonesia's national language. So the Orya translation and the first editions of our Indonesian translation include the brackets and a footnote. But our 3rd edition Plain Indonesian Translation (TSI) has no brackets for verses 9-20. I want to tell you why I changed my mind, and why the decision is important. Some experts today think that Mark intended to end his Gospel with the words, “they said nothing to anyone because they were too frightened.” But this defies imagination. I don't think authors started using the type of endings where you leave-the-audience-hanging until centuries later, like perhaps just two centuries ago. Remember that Mark starts with the words, “This is the Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.” Mark shows a pattern of telling the outcome for every miracle. He is not about to leave his main thesis of his story without its fulfillment. The fulfillment of the starting thesis is found in the next to last verse (16:19), which says, “19 When the Lord Jesus had finished talking with them, he was taken up into heaven and sat down in the place of honor at God's right hand.” Verse 19 also is an important doctrinal statement, since no other Gospel includes those words as part of the story after Jesus' resurrection. And the same verse also very appropriately links the book of Mark with Peter's teaching in 1Pet. 3:22. Please check yourself. Do you believe what Moses and Jesus said?: “Man shall not live on bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Deut. 8:3; Luk. 4:4) If we are to live by ‘every word', do you believe that God would preserve every word for us? I hope you respond, “Why yes, of course.” I believe that God has preserved His Word for us. Therefore it is unacceptable for me to say that the Holy Spirit would leave a whole book of the NT without a clear ending. We have two choices for the ending: One says the ladies didn't tell anyone because they were afraid. The other ends with Jesus at the right hand of God. Which one seems to be the proper ending to you?! The NLT has words in bold italics before Mark 16 verses 9-20 which say, “[The most ancient manuscripts of Mark conclude with verse 16:8. Later manuscripts add one or both of the following endings.]” How many manuscripts are we talking about with the words ‘most ancient manuscripts'? Then the footnote says ‘later manuscripts add' the last 12 verses. What are the real numbers? Two of the very oldest manuscripts plus one other do not have the last 12 verses of Mark. But the manuscripts that include the last 12 verses number more than 1,650! 99.99% of ancient manuscripts contain the longer ending of Mark. The NLT also has a footnote that starts with “The most reliable early manuscripts of the Gospel of Mark end at verse 8.” But this statement is actually false. The two manuscripts they are talking about (Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) cannot be said to be ‘reliable'. They are, however, recognized as the very earliest, dated at 325 and around 345. For Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to be considered reliable, one would hope they would be reasonably consistent with one another. Instead they differ from one another in 3,036 places. I believe that early scribes recognized that they were defective, and this offers a plausible explanation for why there are no extant copies made from them. I do not agree with the practice of writing vague footnotes in our Bibles as seen above. Many of the footnotes in your Bible will talk about what ‘some manuscripts' say. It has actually been recommended to translators to keep such footnotes vague. I do not have the time to adequately explain why this has been done. It is time to give people better information. I will explain more about this in another podcast. Many old-school ‘experts' (by that I mean seminary teachers from the mid-20th century) will say that the two oldest manuscripts outweigh all of the 1,650 other ancient manuscripts. But many of today's informed experts will not agree with the people I just called the ‘old-school experts'. Here are some points to consider: Both of the two oldest manuscripts (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus) have an odd blank space at the end of Mark, showing that the scribe realized the manuscript he was copying had something left out. This is called a ‘memorial space'. Such memorial spaces are found in various places in other ancient manuscripts. So even though the two manuscripts do not have the last 12 verses of Mark, the scribes telegraphed to us that they knew such an ending existed. Remember that Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are from the early 4th century. There are quotes of verses from Mark 16:9-20 by church fathers that predate Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Earlier support for the longer ending of Mark include “four second-century witnesses, and 99.9% of the [other ancient] Greek manuscripts, and 99.99% of the [ancient] Latin manuscripts, and 99.5% of the [ancient] Syriac manuscripts, and 40 Roman-era patristic writers.” (Quote from Dr. James Snapp: https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2013/08/robert-stein-and-ending-of-mark.html) Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in 1844. This touched off a lot of excitement, and a revolutionary new text of the NT was published by Westscott and Hort in 1881. Please consider that there are multiple examples in history where excitement over new discoveries resulted in mistaken theories. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution from the same time period is now discredited. Just like you have university teachers still bone-headedly holding on to the theory of evolution, so the theories of Westscott and Hort are no longer upheld by many of today's experts but are still being repeated by seminary teachers. Westscott and Hort's faulty decisions about what verses are not authentic are still seen in today's Bibles. I'm sure that you will hear someone claim that the last 12 verses of Mark use non-Markan vocabulary, but that assertion has been repeatedly disproved. In my January 4 news and information podcast, I mentioned that the GotQuestions web site often included very good answers to questions Bible readers bring up. Generally I believe that is true. But evidently it is NOT true when it comes to textual issues like the long ending of Mark. The GotQuestions article I refer to is entitled Should Mark 16:9-20 be in the Bible? https://www.gotquestions.org/Mark-16-9-20.html But please don't read that one unless you also read Dr. James Snapp's refutation of it linked here: https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2013/07/the-got-questions-website-and-mark-169.html I would be very happy for you to read both articles, as this would show you how untruths are passed on by people who should know better. Please consider supporting the work of James Snapp by buying and reading his 400-page book entitled Authentic: The Case for Mark 16:9-20: 2016 Edition. The Kindle book is only 99 cents. https://www.amazon.com/Authentic-Case-Mark-9-20-2016-ebook/dp/B01EU1OR9O Some of you might be interested in listening to my 2020 podcast entitled EveryWord005 Mark 16. Please follow that last link to find the supplemental PDF for that episode containing an essay on the ending of Mark by Dr. Wilbur Pickering. What I have said about the ending of Mark is important. Let me illustrate: About six years ago, the pastor at our church in Siloam Springs preached an expository series of sermons on the Gospel of Mark. Our pastor does an excellent job of preaching straight through books of Scripture, even through some of the hardest material in the Bible. So I was shocked that on the Sunday when we were all expecting to hear a message about Mark 16, the pastor began by telling us he would not be preaching about that chapter. Before he launched into the totally new topic he had chosen for that Sunday, he rather quietly said this, “I decided that I would not preach on the ending of Mark, because, after all, we don't know whether it is part of inspired Scripture or not.” Our pastor said, “after all, we don't know whether it is part of inspired Scripture or not.” He didn't say “I don't know.” He said ‘we' don't know if it is inspired. What a terrible thing for a pastor to say from the pulpit! If 12 whole verses could disappear and marr the conclusion of a book of Scripture, how many other corruptions might there be in the New Testament? This semester my wife (Gale) is teaching a morning and evening Bible study for women based on the Gospel of Mark. The same pastor (whom I highly respect) very nicely supplied four commentaries to help her. Three of the four do not discuss the last 12 verses of chapter 16. But none of them have a good explanation as to why they do not discuss it. Two of them hold to the idea that Mark intentionally left readers hanging with the words ‘because they were too frightened'. One of the books gushes, “What a perfect ending!” The footnotes and the brackets in our Bibles don't just confuse believers in Christ, but they confuse people who are wondering if the Bible is true. And opponents of Christianity seize on such things to say that the Bible text is not reliable. The answer to this problem is to base our Bible translations on the Majority Text of the New Testament, also called the Byzantine Textform. I will give more information about that later. Until then, the bottom line is that 1650 ancient manuscripts found all over the ancient world, all made by an army scribes each copying the text of an earlier manuscript, could not have the last 12 verses of Mark if the verses had not come from the first papyrus copy written by Mark. Until next time, may the Lord bless you ‘real good'.

You may have already received Jesus as Lord of your life, but He has more than that for you. That was the first step. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the next step in your spiritual walk with God. If you are satisfied with the new birth and think that is all God has for you, then you are missing a powerful blessing promised by the Lord to all believers. God has much for you! The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, with the manifestation of speaking in other tongues, is what opens the door to infinite possibilities with God. We will show you what the Bible says about it, and then it will be up to you to receive this glorious experience.  And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues as of fire splitting off (into individual fires); and these sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:3, 4) The apostles and all the people that gathered (120 individuals) had already received the Holy Spirit into their lives and hearts. They had already been regenerated and received Jesus as their Lord before Acts 2:4. Can we prove this? The doors were shut where the disciples were gathered... Jesus came and stood in the middle of them, and said to them, “Peace (shalom) to you!” And after He said that, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw it was the Lord! Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you. As My Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. (John 20:19-22) Notice that they received the Holy Spirit at this time. This was before Jesus ascended visibly into heaven. They received the Spirit of Christ as it says in Romans 8:9-11, and the Holy Spirit came inside them, and they were born of the Spirit. Yet, Jesus explained to them that something else was needed from the Holy Spirit to empower them and propel them into the supernatural things of God. Right before His ascension into heaven He said: I send the promise of My father on you. But stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high. (Luke 24:49)  Jesus was saying that receiving the Holy Spirit inside of them (the new birth) was not all that there was to the promise of the Father. God had more in mind for His people. God wanted more for them than only an internal and personal experience with God. Power would come from on high to rest on His people. It would be a glorious external manifestation worn like a coat or a suit of clothes.  The one believing in me as the Scripture said, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water. But He said this concerning the Spirit that those that believe in Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. (John 7:38, 39) Note that Jesus said that the one that already believed, trusted in, and become faithful to the Lord, was to have something else from the Spirit of God. These verses speak of another experience with the Holy Spirit, one where from your belly flow rivers of living water. The rivers of water speak of this mighty baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said this of the mighty experience with the Holy Spirit they were to receive. When He breathed on them they were birthed from above, but nothing happened externally in their lives until Acts 2:4.  Miraculous power from on High  There was no real show of God's power to the entire world until Acts 2 and beyond. They were good "Christians" but with no evidence to demonstrate to the world about the reality, not just the words, of their God.  ...But you will receive (miraculous) power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. (Acts 1:8) Do you see the reference here to the Holy Spirit coming upon you? This is saying the same thing as Luke 24:49. It is a being clothed upon with the power of the Holy Spirit. What is the purpose of this empowering? The purpose was so we would be witnesses to the world. The word witness means one that comes with clear and irrefutable evidence of what they are saying. Jesus told us what we would be doing with this power, and this is exactly what we see the apostles and disciples doing after the Acts 2:4 experience of receiving this power upon their lives.  And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to everybody. The ones believing, and those being immersed will be saved (delivered or made whole). And the ones that do not believe will be condemned (damned). And these signs (miraculous works of power) will accompany those believing: In My Name (dominion, authority, power) they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.” (Mark 16:15-18) Look at Acts 28:3-5 for an example of a serpent attacking Paul and he was supernaturally protected from its venom! The serpents and drinking deadly things by accident are a part of supernatural protection from harm. Take a look also at Psalms 91, the mighty protection Psalm, and notice how it totally agrees with this part in Mark 16:17 and 18.  The above verses in Mark mean that when Jesus gave authority and power to heal the sick and cast out demons to His the apostles and to 70 other disciples, that it was localized, temporary, and unique to a limited group of his followers before the cross and the resurrection. (Luke 9:1, 10:1, 10; Matthew 10:1). It was not yet available to all His followers. After His resurrection, that power and authority was extended to ALL His followers! That means that you didn't need to be an apostle or prophet, or some especially selected disciple to walk in power to heal, deliver people, and have supernatural protection that can only be attributed to God. All God's people should be clothed with supernatural power. Each believer should speak in new tongues, cast out demons, and heal the sick in His Name.  For those of you that fuss over Mark 16:8-20 because it is not found in two of the most ancient complete manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), I have three words for you, "Get over it"! It is found in all other ancient New Testament manuscripts (hundreds), and it is clearly proven as a Bible truth in the book of Acts, 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14, and by numerous references in the New Testament. So, get over lame excuses for not being baptized in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. That is one of Satan's methods to keep you out of this glorious experience with God. Traditional ignorance, and a theological debate based in unbelief of anything supernatural, has kept many denominational churchgoers from getting in on these glorious truths. God wants to clothe us with power to do signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. He wants us to have not just words but power in demonstration in our lives. He is not only interested in the presentation of the Gospel to the world with words but with miraculous signs that no one can deny! (1 Corinthians 2:4) It starts with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He (Jesus) shall baptize (immerse) you with the Holy Spirit and with fire... (Matthew 3:11) The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is to come with "fire." That is that power that we have been talking about. It comes upon those that receive this gift of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. As the resurrected Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ is the One that personally baptizes you with the Holy Spirit and fire. He does that for all those that will receive this precious and very necessary gift. Did you connect fire here with the "fire" that showed up on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:3? You should! Even Jesus did not begin His earthly ministry without the Holy Spirit empowering Him to do the miraculous. (Matthew 3:16)  No miracles, healings, signs, or wonders were done until after He was empowered by the Holy Spirit for His ministry. Notice how He returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit after being clothed with this power from on High. (Luke 4:14) Then, and only then, did the miracles begin to happen. The Holy Spirit in power released the miraculous in His life. Even though Jesus came as God manifested in the flesh, (John 1:1, 14) without this special empowerment, He did not do even one miracle or healing. If Jesus needed the power of the Holy Spirit in His life, how much more do you and I need it!  God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him. (Acts 10:38) God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power at the Jordan River. That was when the Holy Spirit came upon Him like a dove, and that was when His ministry began. No one should even think about beginning a ministry without the power of the Holy Spirit upon their lives! That is another subject. Why all the Emphasis on Speaking in other Tongues?  The first evidence that was manifest when the Holy Spirit and fire came on the 120 in the house where they were seated was speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4) If this was the only place this happened, then maybe we would have to say that it was something special for them that day, but it was not unique to Acts 2:4. While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the word. And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the (non-Jewish or Gentile) nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.  (Acts 10:44-46) This Baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire is here called a gift. In Luke 24:49 it was called the promise of the Father. It is the desire of the Father to grant this promise and gift to you right now.  Much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him. (Luke 11:13) It is a promise and a gift that is yours for the asking and the receiving. The Father will never turn down any born again believer from receiving. It is His perfect will that you receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with this initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. Why do I say that speaking in another tongue is the initial evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? I just gave you the second scriptural proof of this great truth in Acts 10:44-46. The people that came with Peter knew these people had received the same gift as they had in Acts 2:4 when they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. He (Paul) said to them, “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” And they said to him, “We have not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Then to what were you baptized?” And they said, “To John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in Him that was coming after him, on Jesus Christ. And hearing this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. (Acts 19:2-6) This portion of Scripture makes some correction to traditional theology. Paul's question was pointed. "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" He did not ask if they got the Holy Spirit when they believed, but since they believed. Paul believed that there was another Holy Spirit experience beyond the believing in Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit in the salvation experience. If you have doubts that they were already believers (born from above or born again), notice that when Paul told them about Jesus, they heard the Word, they believed on Him, and were baptized in water. They were born again before Paul laid his hands on them. The Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke with tongues. In this case, they even prophesied. There you have three places that clearly show that tongues were the initial evidence that the Holy Spirit had baptized or immersed them in His power and fire; Acts 2:4, 10:44-46, and 19:1-6. The Supernatural Connected to the Natural Praying in other tongues is supernatural and natural. Tongues come out of the human spirit as given by the Holy Spirit. That is the supernatural side. The words given by the Spirit and coming out of the human spirit must be formed by the tongue, given sound, and spoken by the mouth. That is the physical side. The benefits of speaking and praying in other tongues are clearly taught in Scriptures, and in this audio message and article, we clearly present the facts that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking with tongues is for EVERY believer. The confusion comes in when people don't understand the difference between tongues and interpretation of tongues as a manifestation of the Spirit used for ministering to others as the Lord wills (1st Corinthians 12:7-11, 28-30), and speaking and praying with tongues to edify yourself and to speak in mysteries to God whenever you want to (1st Cor. 14:2, 4, 14-17). Let's study it with some more details. Some have thought that not everybody needs to speak in tongues when they get Spirit baptized because they think that Paul didn't speak in tongues. Wrong! Paul makes this statement:  I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all. (1 Corinthians 14:18)  Paul spoke in tongues frequently and consistently. He also said:  Do not forbid speaking in tongues. (1 Corinthians 14:39) Again, Paul spoke in tongues frequently and consistently. He also commanded that Christians should not forbid speaking in tongues. Yet, most traditional, denominational churches (Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, and many others do exactly that! They forbid anyone from speaking in tongues, and are so traditionally brainwashed as to think that speaking or praying in tongues is of the devil! No, their refusal to believe the Scripture is of the devil! Tongues come from the manifestation of the Holy Spirit. The Power of Praying in Tongues 1. Speaking divine secrets For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit... If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels... (1st Corinthians 14:2, 13:1a NET) You speak divine secrets before God in tongues.  Satan has no way of knowing what is happening or what is being said! You are speaking divine secrets or "divine code" that he cannot decipher. It is speaking to God and not to man. God understands them, though you and no one else around you may understand them. Speaking in tongues can be speaking supernaturally the tongues of men or angels, but spoken in a way that only the Lord understands. 2. The door into the spirit If I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unproductive. 15 What should I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind. I will sing praises with my spirit, but I will also sing praises with my mind. (1st Corinthians 14:14, 15 NET) Notice that praying in tongues means that you are praying in the spirit. You can't pray in the spirit in your understanding. Regardless of the fervency of prayer in the understanding, it is just that, prayer from your mind or understanding. Though you may frame the prayer in spiritual language according to the Scripture, it is still a prayer stated via the understanding. Though there is a spiritual element to prayer when it is according to the Word, it is still not full blown prayer in the spirit. Do you get that? Prayer in the Spirit is ONLY via tongues.  Tongues open the door into the spirit, into the supernatural spiritual realm. Tongues come from the spirit man on the inside and not the mind or intellect. It bypasses intellect completely. That is why your understanding is unfruitful. Your head just doesn't get it or understand it! We are supposed to pray in the spirit (tongues) and in the understanding. The issue is that praying in the understanding is limited to what you know, which is very limited. Praying in the spirit is unlimited because one gets over into divine secrets when one is praying. Praises can be sung in the spirit or in other tongues. Praising in the spirit with singing or in other tongues is also a very rich part of spiritual language.  3. Praying the perfect will of God In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness, for we do not know how we should pray, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with inexpressible groanings. And He who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes on behalf of the saints according to God's will. (Romans 8:26-27 NET) When I do not know what or how to pray for as I should, I can depend on the Holy Spirit to give me words of the spirit that will pray out the perfect will of God for the saints, which are the children of God or the church. I can be praying for myself as a child of God or for others. That is what I do when I pray in tongues. 4. Building up the inner man The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up, but the one who prophesies builds up the church. (1st Corinthians 14:4 NET) Speaking in tongues edifies or builds up the inner man or spirit . We build up ourselves on our most holy faith by praying in the Holy Spirit or in tongues.  But you, beloved, build yourselves up [founded] on your most holy faith [make progress, rise like an edifice higher and higher], praying in the Holy Spirit. (Jude 1:20 Amplified) We make progress as we pray in tongues and rise higher and higher like a building. That is the meaning of the original Greek word used here for "build".  5. Access to wisdom And we are setting these truths forth in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the [Holy] Spirit, combining and interpreting spiritual truths with spiritual language [to those who possess the Holy Spirit]. (1 Corinthians 2:13 Amplified) Human language is limited to the mind. Spiritual language that comes out of your spirit by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is the combination of spiritual truths with spiritual words.  Read the entire portion of Scripture  in 1st Corinthians 2:5-13. We have been granted powerful access to God's wisdom through the practice of praying in other tongues. 6. Spirit to spirit communication God is a Spirit being (John 4:24). Tongues are your human spirit contacting God who is the Father of Spirits in a way that is pleasing to Him (Heb. 12:9; 1st Cor. 14:2). It is spiritual communication. 7. Praying without error, ignorance or unbelief Since tongues bypasses your mind, this means that you can pray without error, ignorance, or unbelief when you pray in the Spirit (1st Cor. 14:14). Thank God! In Acts 2:4; they spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. It is the human spirit receiving unction to speak in an unknown language to the speaker. One Greek commentary says that they spoke as they were infused by the Holy Spirit to speak. Some of these do overlap, but you can see that the Word of God has quite a bit to say about tongues, and that was only a superficial explanation. Look at some words that will help you understand that this is all talking about this glorious experience. The Holy Spirit coming upon you  In Acts 2:4, it was the fire of the Holy Spirit sitting upon them. In Acts 1:8, it is the Holy Spirit coming upon them. In Acts 10:44-46 it was the Holy Spirit poured out on them. In Luke 24:49 it was them being clothed with power. In Acts 10:38, it was being anointed with the Holy Spirit. To "anoint" means to rub on (externally) or pour on. In Matthew 3:11 it is called the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. "Baptism" means "immersion” into something else. For example "water baptism" means to be immersed in water. Sorry all you "sprinkling" folk, but you are mistaken. When you first came to Jesus, you drank from the fountain of life and life got in you. Now you are being immersed in power, fire, and anointing, to carry out the great commission in Mark 16:15-20. The anointing, the fire, the Holy Spirit upon us is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. If you are not in a church that lays hands on people to receive this gift, then you need to go somewhere else! They should at least pray for you so that the Holy Spirit comes on you just like He did in Acts 2, 10, and 19. Get ready to speak in a language that you do not know with your mind the moment they lay hands on you in faith, or pray for you that you receive this gift. Speaking the words given to you by the Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit will come on you and give you words to speak, but you must speak them out of your own mouth. The Spirit gave them the words but they had to do the speaking. Tongues are not the Holy Spirit speaking. The Holy Spirit does not, nor ever will, speak in tongues. He gives you the words so you can speak in tongues. Notice these phrases in Acts:  They... began to speak in other tongues... (Acts 2:4) They heard them speak with tongues... (Acts 10:46) They spoke with tongues... (Acts 19:6) Therefore, the Holy Spirit will not force you to speak with tongues. He will not overpower your tongue and make you speak. It may actually feel like that at times, but it happened so strongly because YOU yielded to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not overpower your tongue and force you to speak if you resist Him. He will give you the ability to speak in tongues, but you must speak them out by faith. They may sound silly, ridiculous, and dumb. Tongues are not mental, so they do not make any sense to your mind. They will not sound necessarily intelligent. Get over that hump. According to 1 Cor. 14: 2 and verse 14, tongues will not make sense to you at all unless God gives you interpretation. From personal experience, I can tell you that many times you will not know what you are saying or for what you are praying. Don't get hung up here. When you begin to speak in other tongues, at first, there may not be many words. Some people do receive what sounds like an entire language with many different words and variations. Others receive a sentence or two. Some may get a few words. It will greatly depend upon you and your receptiveness. If you have a strong yearning in you for this powerful experience with God, then most likely you will get more tongues than others will at first. Then, please don't stop praying in the tongues the Holy Spirit gives you. Pray in tongues every days and as often as you can.  Turning tongues on when YOU will!  Once you receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues, you can turn tongues on and off anytime you want to. There is no need to wait on some special anointing or feeling to pray in tongues. "I will pray in the spirit, (prayer in tongues- 1st Cor. 14:14), and I will pray in the understanding." (1st Corinthians 14:15) Once you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, tongues can be exercised at will just like praying in your own language. Just like you can pray in English, you can also pray in tongues. Don't forget that. After you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in tongues, here is Satan's #1 strategy to get you to stop. The devil may tell you that you made them up. Just rebuke his lies in Jesus' Name and begin to speak in tongues right in his face. He will absolutely hate every moment of it, and get out in one piece while he can! Praying in the spirit- making progress Once you receive, pray in tongues as often as you can, every single day of your life. As I mentioned earlier, the Amplified Bible in Jude 1:20 says that we make progress as we pray in Holy Spirit. That is exciting to know. The more I pray in tongues, the more progress in the Lord and in life I can make! No wonder Paul said he prayed in tongues more than all the Corinthians (1st Cor. 14:18). Now, I am going to pray for you receive this wonderful gift of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. The Father wants to give you this gift, and Jesus wants to baptize you right now in the Holy Spirit and fire! Are you ready to receive right now? Over the years, we have seen many thousands of people receive the Holy Spirit after they followed these simple instructions. You are no exception. When I finish praying, the Holy Spirit of God will come on you, and He will give you words in your mouth, and out of your innermost being will come a flow of unknown words to you. Speak them out by faith and enjoy it! Now say this aloud: “Father you said, “How much more will you give the Holy Spirit to them that ask you.” I ask you for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I receive this gift from you. Jesus said that these signs would follow the believers. He said that in His Name I would speak in tongues. I am a believer and I receive this mighty gift with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. The moment brother Dan prays for me, I will receive from the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit who is the Lord Jesus this power from on high with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.” Now hush the English or any other known language. No more words in any known language for now and let me pray over you.  “I pray for you now in the mighty Name of Jesus. Receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you. Receive the Holy Spirit in Jesus Name! Now begin to worship God in other tongues in Jesus Name!” As soon as you read these words, throw your hands in the air in a receiving mode, open your mouth and speak whatever words the Holy Spirit is giving you right now. That's it. Begin to speak out those words by faith in Jesus' Name. Keep doing it. Relax in Him and in the tongues and let them flow out of you! All who read these words and follow these instructions will receive without exception and without any delay in Jesus Name! The audio podcast strongly compliments the article. Don't miss it!

The Apocryphon of John Collection (The Secret Revelation of John - The Secret Book of John) “I have come to teach you about what is, and what was, and what will be in order for you to understand the invisible world, and the world that is visible, and the immovable race of perfect humanity.” Among the several dozen ancient Gnostic manuscripts rediscovered in modern times, the Secret Book of John is generally agreed to be the most important. It has been called the locus classicus for the Gnostic mythological system – in sum, it is the preeminent “Gnostic Gospel”, a sacred reservoir for the defining essence of Gnostic myth and revelation.  It breathes with the life of vision that vitalized early Christianity, a life suppressed and then largely forgotten in later ages. From a modern reading of this crucially important and recently rediscovered "Gospel", we are granted fundamental insights into the lost foundations of Christian tradition. Apocryphon of John – is the title that appears on the original manuscripts, and by this title the text has been known in scholarly circles over the last fifty years. In Greek, apocryphon literally means “hidden” or “secret”, thus in recent popular literature the title is usually translated as either the Secret Book of John or The Secret Revelation of John.    By its own declaration, the Secret Book of John is a sacred text intended to be shared only with individuals properly prepared to receive its revelation. In second-century Christian communions circulation of the text probably remained restricted.  Amazingly, despite limited circulation and  the effective later efforts by evolving Christian orthodoxy to destroy all such “heretical” scriptures, four separate manuscripts of the Seceret Book of John have survived into our own age. Three of these were found among the Nag Hammadi codices discovered in 1945, while a fourth copy was independently recovered fifty years earlier from another site in Egypt. All four versions date to the fourth century. Three of the four appear to be independently produced Coptic translations of an original text in Greek. To put in context the uniqueness of finding four complete copies of a document of this extreme antiquity, note that we possess only two fairly complete manuscripts of the canonical gospels of equal age (the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).  Only a few fragments of canonical texts with dates of creation earlier than the fourth century have survived. These four manuscripts of the Apocryphon of John represent some of the oldest known surviving books. From the ancient sands of Egypt, they come to our modern age bearing a timeless message. The Secret Book of John is the one Gnostic text every student seeking to understand the roots of ancient Christianity must read.  At first reading it will seem unlike anything encountered in the New Testament – excepting perhaps the Apocalypse of John. Like the Apocalypse, this too is a revelation text, a secret and sacred vision.  It is the story of God, and by reflection, the story of Humankind – a penetrating psychological reflection on the source of consciousness and the existential predicament of an eternal light indwelling life. It is not an intellectual curiosity, nor is it a text to be "surfed", in the perverse sense of modern internet reading.  As Prof. Karen King notes: In antiquity, readers studied the Secret Revelation of John in order to perfect the divine image of their souls; it was composed, translated, and distributed largely to further salvation—or to refute its claims to aid in salvation. In the modern world, however, it has rarely been read with such goals in mind. It usually finds its place either in the theology of orthodox Christianity as a chapter on Gnostic heresy or in disputes about the historical origins and definition of Gnosticism. Within the academy more narrowly its value largely has to do with intellectual production and prestige, including concerns about tenure and promotion—salvati

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it’s going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I’ll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We’re in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn’t start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn’t have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that’s when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven’t done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today’s episode – episode #78 – I split today’s show into two parts so it wouldn’t be too long. In today’s reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what’s going on here, and was this story original to John’s Gospel, or was it a later edition?             The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.             Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament.        Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage             7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.             8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.             8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn’t answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don’t know how much time passed after Jesus’ challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.             8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine             This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It’s a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.             The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger  points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus,        p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,                         “No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from     what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae’s special            characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences      and even incidences.”[5]                         Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John’s gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.             The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]             There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn’t found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.             While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which “prove” its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions “de”, “oun”, “kai”, and “asyndeton” in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]             Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase “early morning” are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.             While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.             Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine             Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.             The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.             The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.             Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,                         “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.”[14]             This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome’s statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.             Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it’s removal from some manuscripts,                         “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity  in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said  ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” [16]             While Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine’s – that the passage is a stumbling block.             The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the “disruption” of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17, NIV)             The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, “Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?” (John 7:26, NIV)             While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of “de”, “touto” and “legein” [18]             My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase “meketi amartane” (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. “ina ecosin” (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. “Kai palin” (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase “eis ten gen” (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn’t add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to “prove” that this Pericope is non-Johannine.             A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, “It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form.”[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome’s quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.             Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, “has all the earmarks of historical veracity”[21], and Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.”[22]             If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, “come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages.”[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24]  In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn’t contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus’ ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus’ teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.             In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don’t – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.             The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also “trapped”) The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.             This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John’s Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems.  In this particular instance, if Jesus were to “rule” that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.             The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader’s hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah’s words, “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown’s proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.             By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It’s very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the “prosecution’s” case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by “without sin” in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren’t correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]             It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.             The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application             If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn’t explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.             The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn’t even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.             I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion                         An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.                 [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.             [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220                 [4] Brown, Raymond E.  John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29.  Garden City:   Doubleday, 1982, 335                 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption           and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50                 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix                 [7] Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144                 [8] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 142             [9] Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329                 [10] Poythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions” (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362             [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)             [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [13] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 323                 [14] As quoted in “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [15] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [16] As quoted in  “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 331                 [17] Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144             [18] Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96                 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical                 Commentary.  (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)                 [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335                 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220                 [22] John 1-11, p. 335                 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts  (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99                 [24] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” pages 146-148                 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary                 [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary                  [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334             [28] James, Stephen A. “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” Pages 45-46

Happy Shelter in Place Day, Friends! I find myself living in the part of Central California right now that has been essentially shut down for the next 22 days, and our Shelter in Place order just went into effect about an hour ago. These are strange, strange times! So – sometimes people ask me how it’s going doing a daily podcast. I can tell you that each episode takes just a little under 3 hours from start to finish, which includes writing the episode, recording it, editing it in Audacity, and entering all of the pertinent information into a WordPress and Libsyn post. Longer episodes take longer, shorter episodes can be around 2 hours of time. Last night was one of the later nights for the show. One of my daughters wanted to watch a show with me, and I’ll take just about any excuse I can to spend time with them, so we watched a show together, which began after midnight. Then I wrote a fairly long pastoral email to the congregation of the church I pastor about the coronavirus pandemic. When I say fairly long, I mean over 1800 words, so about 6 pages worth. We’re in California, and on a virtual lock-down, so hopefully they had a little extra time to read. One of the problems being in a church that is pastored by somebody who fancies himself as a writer is that you can get very long emails from time to time. If you are a leader at the church I pastor, you got a 2100 word email from me AND an 1800 word email from me within the space of 4 days. I should repent in sackcloth and ashes for that, I suppose, but these are trying times we live in right now, filled with dangers like novel viruses, lack of toilet paper, and novel-length emails from pastors. ANYWAY, the point of what I was trying to say earlier before I rambled was that I didn’t start WRITING the podcast until around 3AM. Fortunately, I had some great material from pastor David Platt to use, so I didn’t have to write a ton of original material myself. It was, however, one of the few times since I began this daily podcast in January that I kind of just wanted to go to bed, and not spend 2 hours or so on a podcast. HOWEVER – when I got to the point of recording it, and I got to the part where I was just reading the Scriptures into the microphone, that’s when I noticed something that happens practically every time I do the podcast: THE WORD OF GOD ENCOURAGED ME. It gave me HOPE. It built me up. It elevated my mood. Almost every time I record this show, I come away encouraged. Not because I like recording and editing a podcast – that can get a little tedious…but because the WORD of God is powerful, and supernatural, and it just builds me up in faith, because faith comes by HEARING THE WORD OF GOD. I just wanted to share that with you as a benefit. You can get that same benefit – without the 2-3 hours of writing, recording and editing by simply READING (or listening!) to the WORD OF GOD! If you haven’t done so yet, allow me to encourage you to listen to the other half of today’s episode – episode #78 – I split today’s show into two parts so it wouldn’t be too long. In today’s reading, we encounter the story of the woman caught in adultery, known to scholars as the Pericope Adulterae. Many scholars, including many evangelical ones, consider this passage to be a later edition to the New Testament, and in most modern Bibles, this part of John is set apart to show doubt about the passage. So – what’s going on here, and was this story original to John’s Gospel, or was it a later edition?             The Pericope Adulterae, found in John 7:53-8:11, is surrounded by more controversy and conjecture than any other New Testament Passage with the possible exception of the ending of Mark. The authorship and placement of this pericope has been hotly debated at least since the fifth century, and there are still scholars lined up on opposite sides of the issues surrounding this passage.             Attempting to extract meaning and application from this passage is almost meaningless without first wrestling with the genuineness of the text and the mass of evidence for and against it. The issue is simple to grasp – if this pericope is a genuine and accurate happening in the life of Jesus, then it carries just as much weight as the rest of the New Testament. Conversely, if the passage is a later edition with no basis in fact (i.e. it never happened) then the passage is notable only for its historical value and the question of how it became inserted into many manuscripts of the New Testament.        Though it will be argued that there is no way to be certain of the historicity of this passage, the preponderance of the evidence points to it being a genuine happening in the life of Jesus, and as such it does have application in the modern church and it can inform how we live and interact with each other. Summary of the Passage             7:53-8:2 The Pericope Adulterae begins with a somewhat awkward[1] transition from the previous narrative. The stage is set here; Jesus has spent the night at the Mount of Olives and dawn finds Him mingling with the crowd near the temple courts. His very presence attracts a crowd and notably (for the fourth Gospel)[2] Jesus sits down to teach them.             8:3-8:6a As Jesus is teaching the people, The scribes and Pharisees bring in a woman and stand her in front of the crowd. They explain to Jesus that the woman was caught in the act of committing adultery, and (on the surface) they present her to Jesus for judgment. The question is, should the woman be stoned in accordance with the law of Moses? The text informs us that this question is a trap for Jesus, a classic catch 22, there is no clear way that Jesus can give a verdict here without opening Himself up to some basis for accusation, either in the eyes of the Roman authorities, or the people.             8:6b-8:9 Perplexingly, Jesus doesn’t answer their questions immediately, indeed, He never gives them the verdict. Instead, He leans over and writes on the ground. The accusers persist in their questioning, and Jesus finally responds with His classic retort, challenging any one of the accusers without sin to be the one that casts the first stone. Though we don’t know how much time passed after Jesus’ challenge, one can almost be assured of an awkward silence, punctuated by occasional stones hitting the soft earth as they fall from the hands of the accusers. Beginning with the eldest among them, the scribes and Pharisees melt away into the crowd.             8:10-8:11 Jesus and the accused woman are left as the center of attention. He initiates dialogue her, asking the obvious questions – where is everybody? Is no one left to condemn? Upon her acknowledgment that they have all left, Jesus also refuses to condemn the woman, but warns her to leave behind her life of sin. Controversy and Canonicity: Contra Johannine             This Pericope is a wonderful piece of literature; very moving and dramatic. Jesus cleverly meets the challenge of the scribes and Pharisees without compromising and without falling into a trap, and the woman caught in sin is given a second chance to repent. It’s a powerful story, but is it genuine? Did it really happen? If it did really happen, why is there so much evidence against it being an original part of the gospel of John? A survey of the evidence for and against genuineness is presented below.             The majority of New Testament scholars are fairly adamant that the Pericope Adulterae is non-Johannine in origin. The ancient manuscript evidence is indeed stacked against this Pericope. Bruce Metzger  points out that all major early Greek manuscripts omit the Pericope, including our oldest and most respected early manuscripts, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus,        p66 and p75.[3] Though some Old Latin manuscripts include the Pericope, many omit it as well, and the early Syriac, and Coptic manuscripts do not contain the passage[4]. Codex Bezae is the only major Greek manuscript prior to the 8th century that this pericope appears in, and Bezae is known for its many interpolations. In fact, Metzger states,                         “No other manuscript has so many and such remarkable variations from     what is usually taken to be the New Testament Text. Codex Bezae’s special            characteristic is the free addition (and occasional omission) of words, sentences      and even incidences.”[5]                         Further manuscript evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope is the variety of places it is attached in some of the manuscripts that do contain it. In some manuscripts, it appears after John 7:36, in some after John 7:44, some as an addition at the end of John’s gospel, some after Luke 21:28, and some even after Luke 24:53.[6] Though the number of manuscripts that displace this pericope is not overwhelming, the mere fact of its varied appearance in even a few manuscripts tends to cast doubt on the concreteness of its location after John 7:52.             The final bit of manuscript evidence is the unusually high number of textual variants found in the manuscripts that do contain the pericope. Gary Burge points out that line per line, these twelve verses contain more textual variants across the manuscript tradition than almost any other passage of scripture. [7]             There is also much patristic evidence, especially in the east, stacked against the passage. This pericope is not mentioned by any Greek Father until Euthymius Zigabenus in the 12th century and isn’t found in the writings of the early Fathers in the west either. Thus, it is omitted by Origen, Clement, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyril and Chrysostom,[8] even in writings where it would seem to be an appropriate resource for them to use. While Zane Hodges tries to make the case that the absence of the Pericope in these church fathers constitutes an argument from silence, and thus proves nothing[9], the fact of the matter is that this is more empirical evidence stacked against the pericope, and it adds weight to the non-Johannine argument.             While the manuscript evidence would seem to be the greatest evidence against the Pericope, there are also suspicious grammatical and contextual features of the text. Statistical analysis of the text has claimed to show several features which “prove” its non Johannine nature. Vern Poythress has examined the grammatical use of the conjunctions “de”, “oun”, “kai”, and “asyndeton” in the Gospel of John, and developed some general rules that John appears to follow. Upon examination of the adulteress pericope, it would appear that there are enough variations in its use of conjunctions (compared with the rest of John) to allow Poythress to conclude that this Pericope is not written by John.[10]             Further grammatical evidence focuses on the words that are used in the passage. Bryant and Krause point out that approximately nine percent, or 15 of the words used in this pericope do not occur elsewhere in the gospel, the highest percentage for a passage of this size in John[11]. The Mount of Olives, The scribes, and the phrase “early morning” are not found anywhere else in the gospel of John, but all are somewhat common in the synoptic gospels. In addition, only here in John is Jesus addressed as teacher.             While some of these unique words can be explained by the nature of the story, as well as the semi-technical judicial language employed, there are still a high frequency of unique words and constructs here compared with the rest of John.             Finally, there is contextual evidence that seems to indicate this pericope is out of place. Borchert[12] and many others believe that the text disrupts the flow of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative. Many point out its similarity in time and setting to Luke 21:37-38, and (as mentioned above) some manuscripts place the passage right after verse 38 because it seems to be a better fit. It is also true that the flow of the text from 7:52 to 8:12 is smooth and uninterrupted when this passage is removed, but of course, that could be said of many passages! Controversy and Canonicity: Pro Johannine             Most scholars believe the evidence against the Pericope Adulterae is overwhelming, but there is much positive evidence for the ancientness of this event, and even some evidence that would seem to indicate the text is Johannine and not at all out of place.             The strongest evidence for the veracity and Johannine nature of the Pericope comes from the manuscripts and church fathers of the west. Several Old Latin manuscripts do in fact contain the Pericope. Hodges argues valiantly that the absence of the passage in our earliest and most reliable manuscripts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p66 and p75) is due to those manuscripts being of a proto-Alexandrian origin, and thus likely coming from the same (ancient) exemplar, one which had the passage intentionally excised.[13] He posits that the Pericope was removed from some texts very early (before 200), but that the passage was quite possibly in the original autograph.             The Patristic evidence for the Pericope is surprisingly strong in the west. Several church fathers in the fourth and fifth century mention the text, beginning with Pacian of Barcelona, and including Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Jerome and Augustine. Jerome and Augustine in particular add much to the pro Johannine side of the argument, providing significant ancient evidence and speculation on the passage.             Jerome includes the Pericope Adulterae in his Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures, thus cementing its future acceptance among the Catholic church. In his Dialogue against the Pelagians, Jerome makes a very intriguing reference to this passage,                         “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.”[14]             This comment is very significant in considering the Pericope Adulterae, and would seem to stand as the strongest pro-Johannine evidence available. As Hodges points out[15], Jerome was well traveled, and would have had a wide exposure to both Greek and Latin texts, many of which were older than any that has survived to this day. Jerome’s statement should carry much more weight with modern New Testament textual scholars than it appears it does.             Augustine goes even further than Jerome does in his commentary on the passage, acknowledging the already existing controversy over the passage and offering a reason for it’s removal from some manuscripts,                         “Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity  in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord’s act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if He who said  ‘sin no more’ had granted permission to sin.” [16]             While Augustine’s hermeneutical approach to the passage contains a common mistake (Jesus did not specifically forgive the adulterous woman), his observation is very relevant and offers an intriguing possible explanation for the manuscript problems (and textual variances) associated with this passage. Hodges further quotes Ambrose who makes a similar suggestion to Augustine’s – that the passage is a stumbling block.             The contextual argument against this pericope is perhaps the easiest to answer. While many commentators have pointed out the “disruption” of the Feast of Tabernacles narrative that this pericope seems to effect, Allison Trites convincingly argues the opposite; the entire passage fits into the overall theme of controversy in John 1-12.[17] Other contextual clues could be seen to indicate the proper placement of this passage. For one, it would seem that the story is a great illustration of John 3:17, “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.” (John 3:17, NIV)             The Pericope can also be seen in a literary sense as a response to the question posed in John 7:26, “Here he is, speaking publicly, and they are not saying a word to him. Have the authorities really concluded that he is the Christ?” (John 7:26, NIV)             While much has been made of the grammatical analysis of this pericope, specifically focusing on what is considered non Johannine grammar, there has been some grammatical work on the passage that offers different conclusions. Alan Johnson has used some of the existent grammatical statistical methods on other, non disputed passages of John, and concluded that some of those would be considered non Johannine based on the very same methodology used on the Pericope Adulterae. In addition, he also points out several grammatical features in this passage that are consistent with the rest of John, including the use of “de”, “touto” and “legein” [18]             My own grammatical analysis of the passage has produced some interesting results, further casting doubt on the ability of statistical grammatical analysis to effectively determine canonicity and authorship questions. The phrase “meketi amartane” (no longer sin, or stop sinning) only occurs here in the pericope and in John 5:14, where Jesus likewise instructs the paralytic to stop sinning. “ina ecosin” (that they might) is a phrase found only in verse six, and John 17:13. “Kai palin” (and again) in verse 8 is found six other times in John but only once in Luke. Finally, the phrase “eis ten gen” (in the earth) from verse 6 is found 23 times in the New Testament, 5 are in John, and 12 are in Revelation – so of the 23 times that phrase is used, 17 times it is Johannine. That analysis might be used to impress upon some a level of certainty that John did write this passage, but in fact, in the final analysis it doesn’t add much to the argument one way or the other – except to possibly refute those who use statistical grammatical analysis to “prove” that this Pericope is non-Johannine.             A thorough survey of the evidence reveals one thing quite clearly: the authorship and position of the Pericope Adulterae is not an easy issue to decide. It is perplexing and frustrating to see the certainty that is exhibited by many scholars on both sides of this issue. Bruce Metzger, Phillip Comfort, Kurt Aland, Raymond Brown, George Beasley-Murray, Leon Morris and many others all make absolute statements on the Pericope and point to overwhelming evidence that it is either non-canonical or non Johannine. Beasley-Murray goes so far as to write, “It is universally agreed by textual critics of the Greek NT that this passage was not part of the Fourth Gospel in its original form.”[19] What an outrageous and misleading statement! On the other hand, there are a few scholars (Elmer Towns, some scholars in the King James only camp, and several Dallas Theological Seminary professors) who are equally adamant that this passage is certainly genuine, and right where it belongs in the New Testament. The fact is that the best and most irrefutable evidence against the Johannine nature of the Pericope Adulterae is its lack of attestation in many of our earliest and best surviving manuscripts. When this manuscript evidence is considered in light of Jerome’s quote above on all of the Greek and Old Latin manuscripts he saw that contained the Pericope (and likely were older than most that we have now) we have a clear conundrum, one that cannot be fairly answered without new evidence coming to light.             Thankfully, one thing is agreed upon by most N.T. scholars – this pericope is very old[20] and very likely to be an accurate event in the life of Jesus. Thus Metzger writes that John 7:53-8:11, “has all the earmarks of historical veracity”[21], and Raymond Brown writes, “There is nothing in the story itself, or its language that would forbid us to think of it as an early story concerning Jesus.”[22]             If this Pericope is in fact a genuine event in the ministry of Jesus – how is it that it is absent in so many early Biblical texts? To put the issue another way, Phillip W. Comfort offers a list of suspect passages in the Textus Receptus, including the Pericope Adulterae. He challenges those who would argue for the inclusion of these questionable passages to, “come up with good arguments as to why scribes (in the early centuries) would have purposely excised these passages.”[23] Gary Burge proposes an interesting, though improvable suggestion that answers both questions: the Pericope Adulterae text was excised from some early manuscripts for theological reasons. Burge points to the unbiblical Doctrine of Penance, as articulated by early church fathers like Tertullian, Clement and Cyprian. Sexual sins in the eyes of many of the early church fathers were very grave, and in some cases unforgivable.[24]  In light of that, it is conceivable that this passage was removed, under the impression that it was or too light on a sin, or in fear (As Augustine suggests above) that it would give others license to sin without fear of reprisal. It is also a possibility that the text is a real happening in the life of Jesus that never was put into the gospels because of the fear listed above (or for another reason – as John says, if everything Jesus did was written down, the world couldn’t contain the books!) A Deeper Look at the Text We now turn our attention back to the text itself, and from the perspective that it is a genuine happening, and is placed in the appropriate place in the text. Examining this passage in its literary context, we see that Jesus’ ministry, previously marked by amazing miracles and healings at the time of the adulterous pericope had become quite controversial. Jesus’ teachings were very challenging, and He even lost some disciples because of them.             In the events leading up to the encounter, Jesus brothers urge Him to go the Feast of Tabernacles, and he temporarily declined, only to come later and begin to interact with the people. As He teaches, many people believe in Him, and many don’t – causing arguments and strife. The temple guards are sent to arrest Jesus, but they themselves become arrested by His words and fail to complete their job. The Pharisees and other religious leaders meet in anger, considering what to do and finding no solution. It is directly after this that the incident with the adulterous woman happens.             The Old Testament, in Deuteronomy 22 states, “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.” (Deuteronomy 22:24, NIV) Leviticus 20 states similarly, “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.” (Leviticus 20:10, NIV) These were the laws of Moses referred to in vs. 5 of this passage. Curiously, there is no mention of the man that was with the woman – this has led many to conclude that the situation was a set up from the beginning, (i.e. the woman was also “trapped”) The scribes and Pharisees, therefore, were wanting Jesus to rule on a case that was flawed from the beginning – they were asking Him to incompletely apply the law of Moses to this situation.             This was merely another attempt by the religious leaders to put Jesus in a position where there is no good way out. A similar incident occurs in Matthew 22 (and the other Synoptics): Jesus is asked whether it is right to pay taxes to Caesar, if He answers yes, then the crowds would get angry with Him, if He answers no, then He risks making enemies of the Roman leaders. Also, Jesus uses the same technique against the religious leaders in Matthew 21 when asked who gave Him his authority, His return question, was John’s Baptism from heaven or not, could not be answered in such a way as to not cause the leaders problems.  In this particular instance, if Jesus were to “rule” that the woman should be stoned, He would run afoul of Roman laws against mob violence[25] and if He let the woman off the hook, then He would be countermanding the Law of Moses.             The response of Jesus to this dilemma, certainly knowing the religious leader’s hearts and motives, is very interesting: He merely stoops down and writes on the ground. Much ink has been wasted trying to determine what exactly it was that Jesus wrote in the ground. Beasley-Murray offers a good list of past suggestions: Was He writing out His decision in the case before verbally announcing it? Was he writing out a passage from Exodus that warns against supporting a wicked man as a malicious witness? Was He writing in the dust to remind the scribes of Jeremiah’s words, “Those who turn away from you will be written in the dust, because they have forsaken the Lord, the spring of living water.” (Jeremiah 17:13, NIV).[26] I prefer Raymond Brown’s proposal; that Jesus was merely doodling[27], possibly to consider how to handle the situation wisely, possibly in prayer. The fact is that what Jesus wrote has not been recorded, so it clearly was only an important issue for the exact time the incident took place, if even then.             By suggesting that the one who is without sin cast the first stone, Jesus brilliantly defuses the situation. It’s very possible He could be referring to Deuteronomy 17, which prescribes that nobody should be put to death on the testimony of just one witness, and that the witnesses should be the first one to cast the stone. Is Jesus pointing to the possibility of the corruption of the witnesses here – understanding that the woman, though guilty, was caught in an elaborate set up, and thus invalidating the “prosecution’s” case against her, or is He articulating a more basic principle – if you are sinless you can participate in her stoning? This is a difficult question to answer; Stephen James argues somewhat convincingly that what Jesus means by “without sin” in this context is that their case must be presented without evil motives, and in accordance with the law of Moses (how many witnesses to the act were there, more than one? What of the man?) The religious leaders knew their motives weren’t correct, and therefore left the scene.[28]             It is also important to point out here that in defusing the scene the way He did, Jesus did not abrogate the Law of Moses, nor did He completely uphold it – He chose a third, an option that leaves open the question of whether those laws were still applicable in His mind.             The incident ends with Jesus challenging the woman to go and leave her life of sin. Modern and ancient preachers and commentators alike have written or preached that Jesus actually forgave the woman – this is not the case – Jesus did not explicitly forgive her as recorded in the text, He simply chose not to condemn her, and exhorted her to also stop sinning. Application             If we accept the hypothesis that this Pericope is an accurate and genuine happening, then how does it apply today? Did it abolish the death penalty, as many have argued? Did it usher in an age of more leniency on sin? What sort of standard is Jesus setting for those who would be in a position to judge or pronounce punishment over another? While it is very important to not draw doctrine out of a narrative that doesn’t explicitly indicate doctrinal things, this text can still go beyond being a beautiful story of the mercy and wisdom of Jesus and find application in our modern setting.             The first application to consider is what this story says about the death penalty, if anything. As Stephen James points out, many (including John Howard Yoder, Dwight Erricson, Lewis Smedes, G.H. Clark, Charles H. Milligan etc) have used this passage to argue for the abolishment of the death penalty.[29] A careful reading of the text will clearly show that Jesus does not abolish the death penalty, indeed, He doesn’t even address the issue. Thus, both opponents and proponents of capital punishment will need to look in other places to justify their beliefs.             I believe the real modern application of this passage is found in Jesus’ challenge to the religious leaders, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.” (John 8:7 NIV) There seems to be a profound connection to this principle and the plank-eye principle that Jesus articulates in Luke 6 – in order to help remove the speck from your brother’s eye, you must first remove the plank from your own. The principle is this, that we should judge and purify ourselves, worrying less about the bad things we see in other people – until our own issues are dealt with – then we will see clearly to help others out. The principle is not advocating merely minding your own business – it is advocating personal holiness that can lead to corporate holiness when we help and challenge each other in right heart and attitude. The Pharisees and scribes were not at all interested in the principle behind the Mosaic laws they were urging Jesus to rule on (i.e. purge the evil from among you), they were just interested in accomplishing their own agendas. The church today cries out for those who would walk in holiness and near the heart of God to the point where we can see clearly enough to help our brothers out with the specks in their eyes, and we can pass judgments rightly. Conclusion                         An objective look at the Pericope Adulterae, its context, its grammar and its manuscript history leads one to the conclusion that this passage has been rightly seen as controversial through the ages. There is not the kind of overwhelming evidence that is needed for dogmatic statements regarding the authorship and canonicity of John 7:53-8:11 either for or against. There is substantial evidence, however, to demonstrate that this text represents a genuine and accurate event in the life of Jesus, and as such it can inform the modern believer about the nature of Jesus and the importance of holiness in the realm of judgment.                 [1] Somewhat awkward, but not completely out of place – see below.             [2] Some scholars point out that Jesus sitting and teaching is a common feature of the Synoptic Gospels, and cite it as further proof of the Non-Johannine authorship of the Pericope – see John 6:3, however for another instance of Jesus sitting down among the people. Borchert, Gerald The New American Commentary Volume 25A: John 1-11. (electronic edition) Logos LibrarySystem (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [3] For a full list of the major Greek manuscripts that omit this pericope, see: Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 219-220                 [4] Brown, Raymond E.  John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29.  Garden City:   Doubleday, 1982, 335                 [5] Metzger, Bruce M. The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption           and Restoration, Third Ed. (New York: Oxford, 1992.), 50                 [6] The Text of the New Testament – Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration p. xxix                 [7] Burge, Gary M. “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 27 no.2), 144                 [8] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 142             [9] Hodges, Zane C. “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” (Bibliotheca Sacra 136 no. 544 (October, 1979), 329                 [10] Poythress, Vern S. “Testing for Johannine Authorship by Examining the Use of Conjunctions” (Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 2 Fall 1984), 362             [11] Bryant, Beauford H. and Krause, Mark S. John. The College Press NIV Commentary. (Joplin: College Press, 1998)             [12] Borchert, Gerald – John 1-11 The New American Commentary. (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1996)                 [13] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 323                 [14] As quoted in “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [15] “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 330                 [16] As quoted in  “Problem Passages in the Gospel of John Part 8: The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” 331                 [17] Trites, Allison A. “The Woman Taken in Adultery” (Bibliotheca Sacra 131 no. 522 April, 1974) 138-144             [18] Johnson, Alan F. “A Stylistic Trait of the Fourth Gospel in the Pericope Adulterae” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society (IX Spring, 1966) 91-96                 [19] Beasley-Murray, George R. The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical                 Commentary.  (Dallas: Word Incorporated, 1999.)                 [20] Raymond Brown quotes Eusebius, who in turn quotes Papias writing near the time of the Apostles about a woman who was brought before Jesus accused of many sins. Brown also mentions the 3rd century Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum, which gives clear reference to the events of the Pericope Adulterae which indicates that 2nd century Syria knew of the narrative. John 1-11, p. 335                 [21] Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 220                 [22] John 1-11, p. 335                 [23] Comfort, Phillip W. Encountering the Manuscripts  (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2005) p.99                 [24] “A Specific Problem In The New Testament Text And Canon: The Woman Caught In Adultery (John 7:53-8:11)” pages 146-148                 [25] John 1-11 The New American Commentary                 [26] The Gospel according to John The Word Biblical Commentary                  [27] John 1-11. Anchor Bible 29 p. 334             [28] James, Stephen A. “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” (Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 no. 1 March, 1979) pages 49-50. [29] “The Adulteress And The Death Penalty.” Pages 45-46

The purpose of this podcast is to announce my short paper telling why I support the Byzantine Greek Text (BT) as the most accurate representation of what the apostles wrote. This has been a major decision for me, because it means that my translation team and I will revise our published Indonesian New Testament by they year 2022. Here’s the link. You will not be able to see the footnotes in this text, so I have attached a PDF file as Bonus Content for this podcast. In order to see it, you will probably need to visit dailybiblereading.info and find this episode. I was not interested, and not even open, to considering the Byzantine Greek text over the ET (Eclectic Text//United Bible Societies Text/Nestle-Aland Text) until I went to meet Dr. Timothy Friberg, who also has worked in Indonesia for as long as I have. Dr. Friberg is the genius who compiled the Analytical Greek New Testament (AGNT), first published in 1985. The AGNT provides more helpful and accurate grammatical parsing of the NT Greek text because it is based on careful linguistic analysis, rather than the traditional Latin-derived parsing. It is therefore used by a majority of trained Bible translators and many others. When Friberg talks about anything having to do with Greek grammar, then people really should listen. He is the one who convinced me about the Byzantine Greek text being the best one, and the best one for us to translate for all audiences. But especially for someone working in Indonesia, it is so much better to use the Byzantine Text. Here’s why: Muslims believe that their Al-Koran has been unchanged through the centuries, and that the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) has been fiddled with.  Their belief in the immutability of the Al-Koran is actually incorrect, but they have ample proof that the NT has been fiddled with, because they can point to words taken out of our Bibles in the last 120 years. In contrast, the BT has been stable through the centuries. It includes most of the words that readers familiar with the KJV miss in modern translations, and it can be translated without the need of any footnotes talking about textual variants. I have written a short article (linked here in the episode notes) that outlines how the shift happened to translating the ET rather than a better Greek text. I hope that some of my listeners will be interested in that story. Here are a few teaser facts: About 120 years ago, Christians were told that earlier manuscripts penned on papyrus and preserved in the dry climate of Egypt (especially around the library center in Alexandria) more likely revealed the authentic form of the words penned by the apostles. Subsequent manuscript finds and analysis over the next century did NOT support the claims that manuscripts of the Alexandrian type form a stream that consistently points to the most authentic text of the NT. What research showed is that Alexandrian manuscripts show sloppy and wild variations because Egyptian copyists freely redacted the texts they copied. Wescott and Hort published their Greek NT in 1881. It was based on only two Alexandrian texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Successive editions were published by Eberhard Nestle (beginning in 1898), who was followed by his son, then Kurt Aland (in the 1950s). All these editions prioritized Alexandrian manuscripts. These editions are known by various names, and I will refer to them as the Eclectic Text. Even though many textual discoveries were documented in successive editions, those discoveries were largely relegated to abstruce footnotes, and the main text still very much followed what Wescott and Hort published. The Christian public was not made aware about the wild variations discovered in Alexandrian manuscripts. It has been conclusively shown that Alexandrian copyists shortened the texts they copied. They did the same thing with Homer’s poems. Sometimes more than one variant are found in one or two verses of the Greek text. I was further convinced about the flawed nature of the ET when I found out that it displays 105 verses where the combinations of variants chosen are not represented in any extant manuscript. Or if we widen that to two consecutive verses in the ET, we find a further 210 two-verse combinations that are not found in any extant manuscript. An example in a single verse occurs in John 5:2 where no manuscript has been found anywhere that contains the name spelled ‘Bethzatha’ and the exact form of the Greek translated as ‘at the sheep gate’. To me, the presence of three hundred and fifteen unsupported combinations represents a fatal flaw in the principles used in compiling the ET. By contrast, the Byzantine Text has stayed stable throughout the centuries. Byzantine manuscripts predominately were found in the wide area which received the original letters written by the apostles, places like Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. 95% of the manuscripts containing NT books or fragments or them are of the BT type. This is why the BT is also called the Majority Text. It seems that a majority of ancient copyists believed that this was the text to pass on to following generations, and Alexandrian renderings died out. Some of you will have heard about the Textus Receptus, which is the 1516 Greek text compiled by Erasmus that became the basis of the KJV NT. In my article I show briefly why the BT is far superior to the Textus Receptus. Just as succeeding editions of the ET basically played ‘follow the leader’ since Wescott and Hort’s 1881 publication, so modern translations have played ‘follow the leader’ since the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Translations that followed ASV’s lead include RSV, NASB, GNT, NIV, CEV, NLT, NET, and ESV. The prefaces of all these translations claim that the translators were following the ET, but in reality all of these only followed it around 72% of the time. In doing this, it is clear that the translators took the lazy and safe path, rather than themselves examining the textual evidence. There is no evidence that the ASV translators were super-scholars who made consistently excellent decisions about the Greek text. They (or some of them) played it safe and went with KJV-like readings in some places, but then seemingly by whim they (or others of them) went with poorly-supported textual variants in other places that were sure to anger readers— like leaving out words from the Lord’s Prayer. One after another, succeeding generations of translators of newer translations have simply following the lead of the previous popular translations, all the while keeping up an appearance of scholarship by including misleading footnotes that say, “Some manuscripts add the words …” By not following the their declared Greek text consistently, all the translators of the above listed Bibles have shown that they really did not respect the ET to be faithfully showing the content of the original autographs. If Bible translators don’t follow the ET faithfully, then what justification can be found to claim that it is the best available representation of what the apostles wrote? What Greek text will we, the Christian public, choose to follow? It doesn’t make sense to create a new edition of the Greek text based on what translators have actually translated since 1901! The assertions above are supported by hard evidence in my January 2019 article: Playing ‘Follow the Leader’ in Bible Translation. The Eclectic Text is basically dead. One might compare it to the theory of evolution. Experts from multiple scientific disciplines have repeatedly announced that evolution can no longer be maintained as a viable theory. (And many of the scientists are scratching their heads as to how to replace it, because they absolutely will not entertain returning to believing in the creation of the world.) In a similar way, seminary professors who have long taught the superiority of earlier Alexandrian manuscripts are not even open to looking at articles that might change their view. Someone has observed that just when a popular theory or philosophy has lost logical credibility, that is just when people become more bone headed about it. I hate to say it, but support for the BT will need to come from ordinary conservative Christians who care about God’s Word and His reputation, and who are willing to look at the evidence. In my article, I discuss English translations of the BT. The most available literal translation of the BT is the World English Bible, and I prefer the British Edition. Unfortunately, I find that there is no translation of the BT done in a more meaning-based manner. There is no BT-based version like the NIV or the NLT. My firm belief is that every believer should have access to at least one good literal translation and one good meaning-based translation. When a literal translation leaves the reader wondering if their understanding of a verse is correct, they need to be able to open a meaning-based translation to find their answer. ALL the false cults that have ever sprung up from the year 1600 to the present based their teaching on literal translations where the meaning of their favorite passages was hard to understand and open to multiple interpretations. My particular desire is to allow for meaningful audio recordings of a New Testament translated from the BT. Literal translations from ancient Greek cannot ever express things in a natural and easy-to-understand way in modern English. The two languages are too different. As someone who has made two complete recordings of the whole Bible, I refuse to record a verse in a translation where I know that the listener who is not following the written text will misunderstand it. That’s why my podcast notes give little tweaks I have made to even the GNT and NLT. If there is a group out there currently trying to make a good readable, meaning-based translation of the BT, I want to join them. If no group or organization has started to do this, then I will start and I call on interested parties to join me. So starting next year, I want to make a series of podcasts reading the results. I hope that this modest beginning will lead to more faithful Bible translations for the Christian public in the future. Please pray for this effort.

The purpose of this podcast is to announce my short paper telling why I support the Byzantine Greek Text (BT) as the most accurate representation of what the apostles wrote. This has been a major decision for me, because it means that my translation team and I will revise our published Indonesian New Testament by they year 2022. Here’s the link. The episode notes viewable here do not contain the footnotes and other special formatting. I have attached PDF file with this episode. If your podcast player does not show you the PDF, please look for this episode at dailygntbiblereading.info. I was not interested, and not even open, to considering the Byzantine Greek text over the ET (Eclectic Text//United Bible Societies Text/Nestle-Aland Text) until I went to meet Dr. Timothy Friberg, who also has worked in Indonesia for as long as I have. Dr. Friberg is the genius who compiled the Analytical Greek New Testament (AGNT), first published in 1985. The AGNT provides more helpful and accurate grammatical parsing of the NT Greek text because it is based on careful linguistic analysis, rather than the traditional Latin-derived parsing. It is therefore used by a majority of trained Bible translators and many others. When Friberg talks about anything having to do with Greek grammar, then people really should listen. He is the one who convinced me about the Byzantine Greek text being the best one, and the best one for us to translate for all audiences. But especially for someone working in Indonesia, it is so much better to use the Byzantine Text. Here’s why: Muslims believe that their Al-Koran has been unchanged through the centuries, and that the Christian Bible (particularly the New Testament) has been fiddled with.  Their belief in the immutability of the Al-Koran is actually incorrect, but they have ample proof that the NT has been fiddled with, because they can point to words taken out of our Bibles in the last 120 years. In contrast, the BT has been stable through the centuries. It includes most of the words that readers familiar with the KJV miss in modern translations, and it can be translated without the need of any footnotes talking about textual variants. I have written a short article (linked here in the episode notes) that outlines how the shift happened to translating the ET rather than a better Greek text. I hope that some of my listeners will be interested in that story. Here are a few teaser facts: About 120 years ago, Christians were told that earlier manuscripts penned on papyrus and preserved in the dry climate of Egypt (especially around the library center in Alexandria) more likely revealed the authentic form of the words penned by the apostles. Subsequent manuscript finds and analysis over the next century did NOT support the claims that manuscripts of the Alexandrian type form a stream that consistently points to the most authentic text of the NT. What research showed is that Alexandrian manuscripts show sloppy and wild variations because Egyptian copyists freely redacted the texts they copied. Wescott and Hort published their Greek NT in 1881. It was based on only two Alexandrian texts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Successive editions were published by Eberhard Nestle (beginning in 1898), who was followed by his son, then Kurt Aland (in the 1950s). All these editions prioritized Alexandrian manuscripts. These editions are known by various names, and I will refer to them as the Eclectic Text. Even though many textual discoveries were documented in successive editions, those discoveries were largely relegated to abstruce footnotes, and the main text still very much followed what Wescott and Hort published. The Christian public was not made aware about the wild variations discovered in Alexandrian manuscripts. It has been conclusively shown that Alexandrian copyists shortened the texts they copied. They did the same thing with Homer’s poems. Sometimes more than one variant are found in one or two verses of the Greek text. I was further convinced about the flawed nature of the ET when I found out that it displays 105 verses where the combinations of variants chosen are not represented in any extant manuscript. Or if we widen that to two consecutive verses in the ET, we find a further 210 two-verse combinations that are not found in any extant manuscript. An example in a single verse occurs in John 5:2 where no manuscript has been found anywhere that contains the name spelled ‘Bethzatha’ and the exact form of the Greek translated as ‘at the sheep gate’. To me, the presence of three hundred and fifteen unsupported combinations represents a fatal flaw in the principles used in compiling the ET. By contrast, the Byzantine Text has stayed stable throughout the centuries. Byzantine manuscripts predominately were found in the wide area which received the original letters written by the apostles, places like Antioch, Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, etc. 95% of the manuscripts containing NT books or fragments or them are of the BT type. This is why the BT is also called the Majority Text. It seems that a majority of ancient copyists believed that this was the text to pass on to following generations, and Alexandrian renderings died out. Some of you will have heard about the Textus Receptus, which is the 1516 Greek text compiled by Erasmus that became the basis of the KJV NT. In my article I show briefly why the BT is far superior to the Textus Receptus. Just as succeeding editions of the ET basically played ‘follow the leader’ since Wescott and Hort’s 1881 publication, so modern translations have played ‘follow the leader’ since the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. Translations that followed ASV’s lead include RSV, NASB, GNT, NIV, CEV, NLT, NET, and ESV. The prefaces of all these translations claim that the translators were following the ET, but in reality all of these only followed it around 72% of the time. In doing this, it is clear that the translators took the lazy and safe path, rather than themselves examining the textual evidence. There is no evidence that the ASV translators were super-scholars who made consistently excellent decisions about the Greek text. They (or some of them) played it safe and went with KJV-like readings in some places, but then seemingly by whim they (or others of them) went with poorly-supported textual variants in other places that were sure to anger readers— like leaving out words from the Lord’s Prayer. One after another, succeeding generations of translators of newer translations have simply following the lead of the previous popular translations, all the while keeping up an appearance of scholarship by including misleading footnotes that say, “Some manuscripts add the words …” By not following the their declared Greek text consistently, all the translators of the above listed Bibles have shown that they really did not respect the ET to be faithfully showing the content of the original autographs. If Bible translators don’t follow the ET faithfully, then what justification can be found to claim that it is the best available representation of what the apostles wrote? What Greek text will we, the Christian public, choose to follow? It doesn’t make sense to create a new edition of the Greek text based on what translators have actually translated since 1901! The assertions above are supported by hard evidence in my January 2019 article: Playing ‘Follow the Leader’ in Bible Translation. The Eclectic Text is basically dead. One might compare it to the theory of evolution. Experts from multiple scientific disciplines have repeatedly announced that evolution can no longer be maintained as a viable theory. (And many of the scientists are scratching their heads as to how to replace it, because they absolutely will not entertain returning to believing in the creation of the world.) In a similar way, seminary professors who have long taught the superiority of earlier Alexandrian manuscripts are not even open to looking at articles that might change their view. Someone has observed that just when a popular theory or philosophy has lost logical credibility, that is just when people become more bone headed about it. I hate to say it, but support for the BT will need to come from ordinary conservative Christians who care about God’s Word and His reputation, and who are willing to look at the evidence. In my article, I discuss English translations of the BT. The most available literal translation of the BT is the World English Bible, and I prefer the British Edition. Unfortunately, I find that there is no translation of the BT done in a more meaning-based manner. There is no BT-based version like the NIV or the NLT. My firm belief is that every believer should have access to at least one good literal translation and one good meaning-based translation. When a literal translation leaves the reader wondering if their understanding of a verse is correct, they need to be able to open a meaning-based translation to find their answer. ALL the false cults that have ever sprung up from the year 1600 to the present based their teaching on literal translations where the meaning of their favorite passages was hard to understand and open to multiple interpretations. My particular desire is to allow for meaningful audio recordings of a New Testament translated from the BT. Literal translations from ancient Greek cannot ever express things in a natural and easy-to-understand way in modern English. The two languages are too different. As someone who has made two complete recordings of the whole Bible, I refuse to record a verse in a translation where I know that the listener who is not following the written text will misunderstand it. That’s why my podcast notes give little tweaks I have made to even the GNT and NLT. If there is a group out there currently trying to make a good readable, meaning-based translation of the BT, I want to join them. If no group or organization has started to do this, then I will start and I call on interested parties to join me. So starting next year, I want to make a series of podcasts reading the results. I hope that this modest beginning will lead to more faithful Bible translations for the Christian public in the future. Please pray for this effort.

Message from Jeff Gordon on May 12, 2019

The discovery of the ancient Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in the 19th century revealed that the New Testament circulated in three different textual traditions: the Byzantine, the Alexandrian, and the Western. It became clear that the Textus Receptus was based entirely on Byzantine manuscripts, all written in the high Middle Ages. Modern Protestant and Catholic bibles rely on the much older Alexandrian manuscripts, represented by Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and on modern papyrus discoveries.

You may have already received Jesus as Lord of your life, but He has more than that for you. That was the first step. The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is the next step in your spiritual walk with God. If you are satisfied with the new birth and think that is all God has for you, then you are missing a powerful blessing promised by the Lord to all believers. God has much for you! The Baptism of the Holy Spirit, with the manifestation of speaking in other tongues, is what opens the door to infinite possibilities with God. We will show you what the Bible says about it, and then it will be up to you to receive this glorious experience.  Acts 2:3, 4 And suddenly there came from heaven a sound as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them tongues as of fire splitting off (into individual fires); and these sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. The apostles and all the people that gathered (120 individuals) had already received the Holy Spirit into their lives and hearts. They had already been regenerated and received Jesus as their Lord before Acts 2:4. Can we prove this? John 20:19-22 The doors were shut where the disciples were gathered... Jesus came and stood in the middle of them, and said to them, “Peace (shalom) to you!” And after He said that, He showed them His hands and His side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw it was the Lord! Then Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you. As My Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, Receive the Holy Spirit. Notice that they received the Holy Spirit at this time. This was before Jesus ascended visibly into heaven. They received the Spirit of Christ as it says in Romans 8:9-11, and the Holy Spirit came inside them, and they were born of the Spirit. Yet, Jesus explained to them that something else was needed from the Holy Spirit to empower them and propel them into the supernatural things of God. Right before His ascension into heaven He said: Luke 24:49 I send the promise of My father on you. But stay in the city of Jerusalem until you are clothed with power from on high.   The underlined phrases are essential for your understanding. Jesus was saying that receiving the Holy Spirit inside of them (the new birth) was not all that there was to the promise of the Father. God had more in mind for His people. The second thing here is the fact that it would be like being clothed with power. Therefore, it was power from on high that would be like wearing a cloak or a set of clothes on the outside. God wanted more for them than only an internal and personal experience with God, though that was the beginning. He wanted a mantle of power, a glorious bringing to the outside where you wear power like a coat or a suit of clothes.  John 7:38, 39 The one believing in me as the Scripture said, out of his belly will flow rivers of living water. But He said this concerning the Spirit that those that believe in Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. Note that Jesus is saying that the one that has already believed, trusted in, and become faithful to the Lord, is to have something else from the Spirit of God. These verses speak of another experience with the Holy Spirit, one where from your belly flow rivers of living water. The rivers of water speak of this mighty baptism of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said this of the mighty experience with the Holy Spirit they were to receive. Notice that when He breathed on them they were birthed from above, but nothing happened externally in their lives until Acts 2:4. Miraculous power from on High  There was no real show of God's power to the entire world until Acts 2 and beyond. They were good "Christians" but with no evidence to demonstrate to the world about the reality, not just the words, of their God.  Acts 1:8 ...But you will receive (miraculous) power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Do you see the reference here to the Holy Spirit coming upon you? This is saying the same thing as Luke 24:49. It is a being clothed upon with the power of the Holy Spirit. What is the purpose of this empowering? The purpose was so we would be witnesses to the world. The word witness means one that comes with clear and irrefutable evidence of what they are saying. Jesus told us what we would be doing with this power, and this is exactly what we see the apostles and disciples doing after the Acts 2:4 experience of receiving this power upon their lives.  Mark 16:15-18 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to everybody. The ones believing, and those being immersed will be saved (delivered or made whole). And the ones that do not believe will be condemned (damned). And these signs (miraculous works of power) will accompany those believing: In My Name (dominion, authority, power) they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”[1]  For those of you that fuss over this portion of Scripture because it is not found in two of the most ancient complete manuscripts (the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), I have three words for you, "Get over it"! It is found in all other ancient New Testament manuscripts (hundreds), and it is clearly proven as a Bible truth in the book of Acts, 1 Corinthians chapters 12 through 14, and by numerous references in the New Testament. So, get over lame excuses for not being baptized in the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. That is one of Satan’s methods to keep you out of this glorious experience with God. Traditional ignorance, and a theological debate based in unbelief of anything supernatural, has kept many denominational churchgoers from getting in on these glorious truths. God wants to clothe us with power to do signs and wonders in the Name of Jesus. He wants us to have not just words but power in demonstration in our lives.[2] He is not only interested in the presentation of the Gospel to the world with words but with miraculous signs that no one can deny! He wants you to exercise dominion over demons in His Name, speak with new tongues, have supernatural protection that can only be attributed to God, and bring healing power from God to the people! Notice that these signs are to follow all believers. It starts with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit.  Matthew 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water to repentance. But He who comes after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He (Jesus) shall baptize (to immerse into) you with the Holy Spirit and with fire... The Baptism of the Holy Spirit is to come with "fire." That is that power that we have been talking about. It comes upon those that receive this gift of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit. As the resurrected Lord of Glory, Jesus Christ is the One that personally baptizes you with the Holy Spirit and fire. He does that for all those that will receive this precious and very necessary gift. Did you connect fire here with the "fire" that showed up on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2:3? Even Jesus did not begin His earthly ministry without the Holy Spirit empowering Him to do the miraculous.[3] No miracles, healings, signs, or wonders were done until after He was empowered by the Holy Spirit for His ministry. Notice how He returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit after being clothed with this power from on High.[4] Then, and only then, did the miracles begin to happen. The Holy Spirit in power released the miraculous in His life. Even though Jesus came as God manifested in the flesh,[5] without this special empowerment, He did not do even one miracle or healing. If Jesus needed the power of the Holy Spirit in His life, how much more do you and I need it!  Acts 10:38 ...God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power, and He went about doing good and healing all those oppressed by the devil, because God was with Him.   God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power at the Jordan River. That was when the Holy Spirit came upon Him like a dove, and that was when His ministry began. No one should even think about beginning a ministry without the power of the Holy Spirit upon their lives! That is another subject. Why all the Emphasis on Speaking in other Tongues?  The first evidence that was manifest when the Holy Spirit and fire came on the 120 in the house where they were seated was speaking in tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance. (Acts 2:4) If this was the only place this happened, then maybe we would have to say that it was something special for them that day, but it was not unique to Acts 2:4. Acts 10:44-46 While Peter was still speaking, the Holy Spirit fell on all those hearing the word. And those of the circumcision, who believed (as many as came with Peter), were astonished because the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out on the (non-Jewish or Gentile) nations also. For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.   This Baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire is here called a gift. In Luke 24:49 it was called the promise of the Father. It is the desire of the Father to grant this promise and gift to you right now.  Luke 11:13 Much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those that ask Him… It is a promise and a gift that is yours for the asking and the receiving. The Father will never turn down any born again believer from receiving. It is His perfect will that you receive the Baptism in the Holy Spirit with this initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. Why do I say that speaking in another tongue is the initial evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit? I just gave you the second scriptural proof of this great truth in Acts 10:44-46. The people that came with Peter knew these people had received the same gift as they had in Acts 2:4 when they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Acts 19:2-6 He (Paul) said to them, “Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?” And they said to him, “We have not heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” And he said to them, “Then to what were you baptized?” And they said, “To John's baptism.” And Paul said, “John truly baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe in Him that was coming after him, on Jesus Christ. And hearing this, they were baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus. And as Paul laid his hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. This portion of Scripture makes some correction to traditional theology. Notice that Paul's question was pointed. "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" He did not ask if they got the Holy Spirit when they believed, but since they believed. This clearly tells us that Paul believed that there was another Holy Spirit experience beyond the believing in Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit in the salvation experience. If you have doubts that they were already believers (born from above or born again), notice that when Paul told them about Jesus. They heard the Word, they believed on Him, and were baptized in water. They were born again before Paul laid his hands on them. The Holy Spirit came on them and they spoke with tongues. In this case, they even prophesied. There you have three places that clearly show that tongues were the initial evidence that the Holy Spirit had baptized or immersed them in His power and fire; Acts 2:4, 10:44-46, and 19:1-6. The Supernatural Connected to the Natural Praying in other tongues is supernatural and natural. Tongues come out of the human spirit as given by the Holy Spirit. That is the supernatural side. The words given by the Spirit and coming out of the human spirit must be formed by the tongue, given sound, and spoken by the mouth. That is the physical side. The benefits of speaking and praying in other tongues are clearly taught in Scriptures, and in this audio message and article, we clearly present the facts that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit and speaking with tongues is for EVERY believer. The confusion comes in when people don’t understand the difference between tongues and interpretation of tongues as a manifestation of the Spirit used for ministering to others as the Lord wills (1st Corinthias 12:7-11, 28-30), and speaking and praying with tongues to edify yourself and to speak in mysteries to God whenever you want to (1st Corinthians 14:2, 4, 14-17). Let’s study it with some more details. Some have thought that not everybody needs to speak in tongues when they get Spirit baptized because they think that Paul didn't speak in tongues. Wrong! Paul makes this statement:  1 Corinthians 14:18 I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all. He also said:  1 Corinthians 14:39 Do not forbid speaking in tongues. Paul spoke in tongues frequently and consistently.   Why Tongues should be a Central Part of the Prayer Language of every Christian before God Speaking divine secrets You speak divine secrets before God in tongues. (1st Corinthians 14:2, 13:1) Satan has no way of knowing what is happening or what is being said! You are speaking Divine secrets or "Divine code" that he cannot decipher. It is speaking to God and not to man. God understands them, though you and no one else around you may understand them. Speaking in tongues can be speaking supernaturally the tongues of men or angels, but spoken in a way that only the Lord understands. The door into the spirit Tongues open the door into the spirit, into the supernatural. Tongues come from the spirit man on the inside and not the mind or intellect. It bypasses intellect completely.(1st Corinthians 14:14, 15) We are supposed to pray in the spirit (tongues) and in the understanding. Praying in the understanding is limited to what you know, which is very limited. Praying in the spirit is unlimited because one gets over in Divine secrets when one is praying. Praying the perfect will of God When I do not know what or how to pray for as I should, I can depend on the Holy Spirit to give me words of the spirit that will pray out the perfect will of God for the saints, which are the children of God or the church (Romans 8:26, 27). That is what I do when I pray in tongues. Building up the inner man Speaking in tongues edifies or builds up the inner man (1st Cor. 14:2). We build up ourselves on our most holy faith by praying in the Holy Spirit or in tongues. We make progress as we pray in tongues and rise higher and higher like a building, according to the meaning on the word “build” in Jude 1:20. Access to wisdom We access wisdom mysteries by praying in tongues (1st Cor. 2:7-13). Look at 1 Corinthians 2:13: 1 Corinthians 2:13 Which things also we speak in words which man's wisdom does not teach, but which the (Holy) Spirit teaches; combining spiritual things with spiritual words. Human language is limited to the mind. Spirit language that comes out of your spirit by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is the combination of spiritual things with spiritual words (1st Cor. 2:13, 14:2). This is only possible in other tongues. Spirit to spirit communication God is a Spirit being (John 4:24). Tongues are your human spirit contacting God who is the Father of Spirits in a way that is pleasing to Him (Heb. 12:9; 1st Cor. 14:2). It is spiritual communication. Praying without error, ignorance or unbelief Since tongues bypasses your mind, this means that you can pray without error, ignorance, or unbelief when you pray in the Spirit (1st Cor. 14:14). Thank God! In Acts 2:4; they spoke in tongues as the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. It is the human spirit receiving unction to speak in an unknown language to the speaker. One Greek commentary says that they spoke as they were infused by the Holy Spirit to speak. Some of these do overlap, but you can see that the Word of God has quite a bit to say about tongues, and that was only a superficial explanation. Look at some words that will help you understand that this is all talking about this glorious experience. The Holy Spirit coming upon you  In Acts 2:4, it was the fire of the Holy Spirit sitting upon them. In Acts 1:8, it is the Holy Spirit coming upon them. In Acts 10:44-46 it was the Holy Spirit poured out on them. In Luke 24:49 it was them being clothed with power. In Acts 10:38, it was being anointed with the Holy Spirit. To "anoint" means to rub on (externally) or pour on. In Matthew 3:11 it is called the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire. "Baptism" means "immersion” into something else. For example "water baptism" means to be immersed in water. Sorry all you "sprinkling" folk, but you are mistaken. When you first came to Jesus, you drank from the fountain of life and life got in you. Now you are being immersed in power, fire, and anointing, to carry out the great commission in Mark 16:15-20. The anointing, the fire, the Holy Spirit upon us is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. If you are not in a church that lays hands on people to receive this gift, then you need to go somewhere else! They should at least pray for you so that the Holy Spirit comes on you just like He did in Acts 2, 10, and 19. Get ready to speak in a language that you do not know with your mind the moment they lay hands on you in faith, or pray for you that you receive this gift. Speaking the words given to you by the Holy Spirit The Holy Spirit will come on you and give you words to speak, but you must speak them out of your own mouth. The Spirit gave them the words but they had to do the speaking. Tongues are not the Holy Spirit speaking. The Holy Spirit does not nor ever will speak in tongues. He gives you the words so you can speak in tongues. Notice these phrases in Acts:  Acts 2:4 They... began to speak in other tongues... Acts 10:46 They heard them speak with tongues... Acts 19:6 They spoke with tongues... Therefore, the Holy Spirit will not force you to speak with tongues. He will not overpower your tongue and make you speak. No, He will give you the ability to speak in tongues, but you must speak them out by faith. They may sound silly, ridiculous, and dumb. Tongues are not mental, so they do not make any sense to your mind. They will not sound necessarily intelligent. Get over that hump. According to 1 Cor. 14: 2 and verse 14, tongues will not make sense to you at all unless God gives you interpretation. From personal experience, I can tell you that many times you will not know what you are saying or for what you are praying. Don't get hung up here. When you begin to speak in other tongues, at first, there may not be many words. Some people do receive what sounds like an entire language with many different words and variations. Others receive a sentence or two. Some may get a few words. It will greatly depend upon you and your receptiveness. If you have a strong yearning in you for this powerful experience with God, then most likely you will get more tongues than others will at first. Then, please don't stop praying in the tongues the Holy Spirit gives you. Turning tongues on when YOU will  Once you receive, you can turn tongues on and off anytime you want to. There is no need to wait on some special anointing to pray in tongues. 1Corintians 14:15 "I will pray in the spirit, (pray in tongues- 1st Cor. 14:14), and I will pray in the understanding." Once you are baptized in the Holy Spirit, tongues can be exercised at will just like praying in your own language. Just like you can pray in English, you can also pray in tongues. Don't forget that. After you have been baptized in the Holy Spirit and begin to speak in tongues, here is Satan's #1 strategy to get you to stop. The devil may tell you that you made them up. Just rebuke his lies in Jesus' Name and begin to speak in tongues right in his face. He will absolutely hate every moment of it, and get out in one piece while he can! Praying in the spirit- making progress Once you receive, pray in tongues as often as you can, every single day of your life. The Amplified Bible in Jude 1:20 says that we make progress as we pray in Holy Spirit. That is exciting to know. The more I pray in tongues, the more progress in the Lord and in life I can make! No wonder Paul said he prayed in tongues more than all the Corinthians (1st Cor. 14:18). Now, I am going to pray for you receive this wonderful gift of the baptism in the Holy Spirit and the initial evidence of speaking in other tongues. The Father wants to give you this gift, and Jesus wants to baptize you right now in the Holy Spirit and fire! Are you ready to receive right now? Over the years, we have seen many thousands of people receive the Holy Spirit after they followed these simple instructions. You are no exception. When I finish praying, the Holy Spirit of God will come on you, and He will give you words in your mouth, and out of your innermost being will come a flow of unknown words to you. Speak them out by faith and enjoy it! Now say this aloud: “Father you said, “How much more will you give the Holy Spirit to them that ask you.” I ask you for the baptism of the Holy Spirit. I receive this gift from you. Jesus said that these signs would follow the believers. He said that in His Name I would speak in tongues. I am a believer and I receive this mighty gift with the evidence of speaking in other tongues. The moment brother Dan prays for me, I will receive from the Baptizer in the Holy Spirit who is the Lord Jesus this power from on high with the evidence of speaking in other tongues.” Now hush the English or any other known language. No more words in any known language for now and let me pray over you.  “I pray for you now in the mighty Name of Jesus. Receive the power of the Holy Spirit coming upon you. Receive the Holy Spirit in Jesus Name! Now begin to worship God in other tongues in Jesus Name!” As soon as you read these words, throw your hands in the air in a receiving mode, open your mouth and speak whatever words the Holy Spirit is giving you right now. That's it. Begin to speak out those words by faith in Jesus' Name. Keep doing it. Relax in Him and in the tongues and let them flow out of you! All who read these words and follow these instructions will receive without exception and without any delay in Jesus Name!   NOTES: [1] See Acts 28:3-5 for an example. The serpents and drinking deadly things part is supernatural protection from harm like in the life of Paul and others. [2] 1 Cor. 2:4 [3] Matthew 3:16 [4] Luke 4:14 [5] John 1:1, 14 ______________   The Power of Praying in Tongues- Removing Doubt from the Heart Series #37 is the final short audio message in this series. I skipped a few to get here. I'll publish the others later. Be mightily blessed!

Antioch became an early base of operations for the Apostle Paul. In this lesson, we learn about this important church and the important part it played in the preservation of God's word.

How We Got Our Bible (Pt.9)  In comparing the figures for the amounts and dates of the available manuscripts for classical Greco-Roman authors with that of the New Testament, there is no way that the charge can be levied against the New Testament that we cannot know what originally written whilst at the same time quoting authors of classical antiquity.  This is because New Testament scholars have at their disposal some 5800 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, some dating within decades from the original manuscripts.  In short, if one is to dismiss the Bible as being reliable, then on what basis and authority does that one have to say that he knows anything of ancient secular history, seeing that the standard by which ancient history is derived, namely the manuscript evidence is absolutely eclipsed when held in comparison against the Bible!!  In this teaching we examine the manuscript evidence for the New Testament and ask the question, 'Is the Bible that we have in our hands today what was originally written down?' Download notes (pdf)http://traffic.libsyn.com/bethesdashalom/4b_The_Reliability_of_the_Bible_Pt2.pdf

• Why the BBC Isn't Telling the Whole Truth About Codex Sinaiticus • Brian Huston Twists Psalm 23 • How Your Preaching Might Increase Sin in Your Church • Sermon Review: Thrift Shop - Out Of Control, from LCBC

Episode 96: Pressing forward in our study of how we got the Bible, I examine the scribal activities of early scribes and present information which helps put in perspective the caustic material put out by guys like Bart Erhman. Also, I quickly run through some of the earliest full manuscripts we have (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and others) and discuss the providential story behind them. Listen to the fantastic journey your Bible has made to get to you!

[Greek: Accordance 9] NT MSS Images contains digitized images of five ancient GNT manuscript facsimiles: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Washingtonesis, and 2882. These high-resolution images, produced in partnership with www.csntm.org, include thumbnails that scroll with the text. Images can be enlarged and are clear enough to to read and translate directly. This podcast shows practical examples of how such images can be used to address important text-critical issues.

[Greek: Accordance 8] The comparison of early manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and the identification of textual variants, assist scholars who attempt to reconstruct the original text and trace its development. Accordance offers several searchable apparatus modules which collate the variants. A wealth of manuscripts and eclectic versions of the New Testament also allow the user to compare the texts and the translations. This podcast focuses on the use of textual apparatus modules and the different kinds of variant readings.