Killing Jesus—the Movie

Killing Jesus—the Movie

I recently saw the movie version of Killing Jesus. I also read Bill’s book Killing Jesus and wrote a review of it, which you can read here: : http://marfotic.blogspot.com/2013/12/killing-jesusa-review.html. If you don’t have time to read the full review, you can read my Amazon review here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PXMBB3RXPCQE?ref_=pe_620760_65501210.

I saw a lot of problems in the movie, but since I like to be positive, I will start with things that were good.

The costumes were very good. Very authentic. And the scenery was very authentic too. I had heard the film was made in Morocco, and obviously the area there is similar to Israel.

The acting was also very good. The story is believable, and the actors do a good job of communicating the account of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth.

When the wise men came to worship Jesus, it is clear that Jesus was not an infant in the manger. That is true. The Bible makes clear that the wise men “entered the house where the child and his mother, Mary, were” (Matt. 2:11). This was not the stable or cave where Jesus was born.

Herod had the male babies killed. That is correct. No female babies were murdered. Matthew 2:16 says it was the boys only who were killed.

In several scenes, Jesus is seen talking to his mother and one of his brothers, James. James does not believe in Jesus as the Messiah. That is true. None of his family (apart from Joseph and Mary) believed in him during his life.

When Herod the Great dies, his son Antipas watches it happen and does nothing to help. This is probably true. Herod was an evil man and had many of his family killed.

Now onto problems with the movie. There are not a few.

The wise men come to Herod the Great. They understand him and are understood by him. But they were from the east, so it seems logical that they wouldn’t have spoken the same language as Herod. So why don’t they speak through interpreters?

Why are there three wise men? I know that’s the commonly assumed number, but we don’t actually know how many there really were.

Herod told one of the wise men he wanted visit the child to “venerate him” (Jesus). No, he said he wanted to worship him. Matthew 2:8 says “worship.” The Greek word is a word that always means to worship. Venerate can be part of worship, but it is by itself less than worship.

When the wise men come to give gifts to Jesus, the Bible says they brought “gold, frankincense, and myrrh” (Matt. 2:11, NLT).It seems that they bring some gold jewelry, but we do not see frankincense and myrrh.

The movie did not show that the wise men were told to go home a different way. Matthew 2:12 says that God had warned them in a dream to go home a different way and not speak to Herod. So we are left with not really knowing why Herod had the male babies killed.

Joseph tells Mary that they must go to Egypt because of the adulation of the wise men. There’s no evidence in Scripture that he said any such thing. In fact, the Bible makes it clear that they went to Egypt because God told Joseph in a dream that they were to go. (Matt. 2:13)

After Joseph takes Mary and the baby Jesus to Egypt, they are still there after 10 years. Matt. 2:19-20 say that after Herod died, God told Joseph in another dream to go back to Israel. So it’s very unlikely that they were there for 10 years. But in the movie, the boy Jesus doesn’t look 10 or 11 at all. He looks much younger. In fact, on IMDB it identifies the boy who played Jesus at the age of 8 (Zoubir Abou Alfadel). We don’t know how long they were in Egypt, but the numbers in the movie don’t add up.

There is nothing said about Jesus going to the Temple at age 12. I realize that you can’t show every detail in the movie, but there were things that were shown that have no biblical basis. So why not cut one of those scenes and put in his visit to the Temple?

The man who takes Herod the Great’s place after Herod dies is identified as Herod Antipas. But that’s not true. It was Herod Archelaus (Matt. 2:22), the brother of Herod Antipas. He ruled from 4 b.c. to a.d. 6. Archelaus was ethnarch of Samaria, Judea, and Idumea. But Antipas is seen throughout the movie. Antipas ruled from a.d. 6 to a.d. 39, so he came after Archelaus. The movie never mentions Archelaus.

Elizabeth is introduced as a cousin to Mary. The Greek word isn’t that specific (Luke 1:36). It simply means someone related by blood. We don’t know how she was related to Mary.

There is an interesting story about Pilate’s wife. She is very angry and claims that some Jews attacked and disrespected her, showing a garment stained with blood. No evidence of that in the Bible. Why make this up? It would be better to delete scenes like this and put in things that did happen. Like Jesus going to the Temple at age 12 (Luke 2:42-49).

John the Baptist mentions the new birth when he baptizes people. John never talked about a new birth. Jesus talked about being born again (John 3:3), and James and Peter talked about a new birth (Jas. 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:3, HCSB; 1 Pet. 1:23, The Message).

When Jesus is talking with John the Baptist, he does not know how John knows about him. He says, “How could you know me?” He seems clueless. That is just absurd. Jesus knew all because he was God incarnate. The Bible makes clear that Jesus knew what was in humans (John 2:25).

At Jesus baptism, the dove (the Holy Spirit) is absent. The Bible says that the Spirit descended like a dove and lit on Jesus (Matt. 3:16). Again, I know you can’t put everything in the movie, but why not take our some of the fluff and put what actually happened?

Jesus first miracle appears to be causing Peter to gather a giant net full of fish. But Jesus seems to attribute it to an answer to prayer. He says, “Thank the Lord” and “We prayed.” But Peter tells James and John that it was Jesus who caused the miracle. The fact is that Jesus’ first miracle was changing the water into wine. John 2:11 says that this miracle at Cana was the beginning of his miracles.

Jesus is sometimes shown almost shirtless. He appears much too skinny to be a carpenter.

Jesus casts out a demon from a boy, but the way he does it is quite strange. He never says, “Be gone” or anything like that. He just strokes the boy’s head, and the demon seems to leave him, but the boy appears to be dead. Peter comes out and tells the people gathered that the boy is dead. But Jesus prays and he seems to come back to life. This is nothing like the purging of demons in the New Testament.

When the sick are cured, Jesus says it’s by the hand of God. He takes no credit for any miracles. That’s not the Jesus of the New Testament.

Jesus at one point says, “Destroy this Temple” as a command. John 2:19 does say, “‘Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up’” (NLT). It is clear from the Greek that the word “destroy” is an aorist active imperative. But the language is clear that Jesus wasn’t telling them to destroy the Temple. It was more like he was saying, “If you destroy this Temple, I will raise it up in three days.”

When Judas comes to follow Jesus, he volunteers. No, Jesus picked all twelve of his disciples. Matthew 10:14; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:13 indicate that Jesus picked all twelve himself.

When Jesus was presumably curing a leper, he appeared to be cleaning the leprous wounds. That is absurd. Jesus healed the leper, and he healed many lepers (Luke 17:12-17).

In one scene, Jesus is preaching the Sermon on the Mount before a crowd. No, he preached this to his disciples. Matthew 5:1-2 make this clear. In that Sermon, he prays the Lord’s Prayer, but he gets it wrong. He says, “Deliver us from evil.” But the Greek (and all modern versions) say, “Deliver us from the Evil One.”

Herodias (wife of Herod Antipas) suggested to her husband that when her daughter Salome was going to dance before him, he should give her whatever she wanted. But this isn’t what the Bible says. The Bible says it was Antipas’s birthday, and she danced. When she was finished, “he promised with an oath to give her whatever she asked. Prompted by her mother, she said, ‘Give me here on a platter the head of John the Baptist.’ The king was distressed, but because of his oaths and his dinner guests, he ordered that her request be granted” (Matt. 14:7-9).

Salome also didn’t whisper her request to Antipas. That’s the whole reason he gave her what she requested. Because everyone heard what he had said to her and ostensibly what she said to him.

John the Baptist’s head was to be brought out on a platter (Matt 14:11). Didn’t happen in the movie. And why does Salome (daughter of Herodias) show such shock and dismay at seeing the head of John the Baptist? I’m quite sure she enjoyed seeing it. She as was as evil as Antipas and her mother.

When Jesus asks his disciples who they think he was, Peter says that he is the “Anointed One, the Son of the living God.” But on a recent O’Reilly Factor, Bill said they never used the word “Christ” because that term came later. Not true. And “Anointed One” means “Christ.”

There is a scene where the Jewish leaders want to put a woman to death who was caught in the act of adultery. This is from John 7:53 to 8:11. But if this is a history as Bill is fond of saying, that shouldn’t be in the movie. John didn’t write those verses, and there is good evidence to support this.

Also, in that same scene, why does Jesus not write on the ground, which he did twice? (John 8:6, 8)

Why is Pilate shown with a beard? Romans were typically clean-shaven, especially those of higher rank.

There is a scene of Herod and his wife in a bath. I’m sure that happened, but why focus on it? Instead, put in a scene that actually happened (like the dove at Jesus’ baptism).

Jesus says that in the kingdom of God, there are no thrones or crowns or rule of nations. Not true. Revelation 4:4 and 10 make it clear that there are thrones and crowns in heaven.

In one scene, Jesus appears to be in the Garden of Gethsemane with Mary Magdalene. He says he came there “to control my anger and frustration.” Couldn’t be. If one has to control one’s anger, that means it’s out of control and in sin. But Jesus never sinned. Hebrews 4:15 and 9:28 both say he was “without sin.”

When Jesus threw the moneychangers out of the Temple, it appears that Judas Iscariot says, “Behold, the King of the Jews!” I highly doubt that.

Also, why does IMDB list his name as “Judas Isacriot”? The name is Iscariot.

When Jesus is arrested, one of his disciples cuts off an ear from one of the men. That is true. Peter did that (John 18:10). But Jesus did not heal the man in the movie, though he did in fact restore his ear (Luke 22:51).

When two disciples are bringing the donkey for Jesus to ride into Jerusalem, they tell Judas about some of the prophecies of the Messiah. One says that he will be beaten, spat upon, and killed. The disciples did nothing of the sort. They always showed shock when Jesus told them that this would happen to him.

As Jesus is being taken away, he says, “Saves yourselves—for me! You must live!” Not true. Jesus never said anything of the sort, nor would he.

When Peter denies Jesus, a woman challenges him. The same woman comes back later and challenges him again. I doubt that. I think there were three different individuals who challenged Peter.

When Judas is feeling remorse, he is in the country. A young man with some goats comes along. He buys the man’s rope (which was tied to a goat) for 30 pieces of silver. But the Bible says he tried to give the money back to the chief priests and elders, (Matt. 27:3) He ended up casting them down in the Temple (v. 5), and they took the money and bought a field to bury strangers in (v. 7).

After the third time that Peter has denied Jesus, the Bible says he “wept bitterly” (Matt. 26:75; Luke 22:62). Luke Didn’t happen in the movie.

When Jesus is before Antipas, he says that he’s giving him a “purple robe of royal office.” But the robe is clearly red.

Pilate’s wife never gives him a message to warn Pilate not to have anything to do with Jesus, “Leave that innocent man alone, because I had a terrible nightmare about him last night” (Matt. 27:19, NLT).

When Jesus is carrying his cross, where is the man who carried it for him? (Luke 23:26).

The sign above Jesus reads, “INRI.” Not true. INRI is an abbreviation for a Latin phrase that means, “Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.” But the Bible says this phrase was in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, and it was not abbreviated (John 19:19-20).

At the crucifixion, the other criminals are too far away to speak to him. And there is no communication there. But they did talk to Jesus and unlike the movie, the Bible says that they were on either side of Jesus (John 19:18).

When Jesus is placed on the shroud before being buried, he actually doesn’t look too bad. But the truth is that he was very bloody.

When the chief priest comes to Pilate asking for a guard for the tomb, Pilate mocks him. As he is talking to his wife about what they wanted, he says it would be “a waste of Roman soldiers’ efforts” to guard the tomb. So he apparently doesn’t have it guarded. Wow.

Jesus’ mother is shown at the tomb after Jesus rose from the dead. The Bible names the women who were at the tomb, and Mary the mother of Jesus isn’t among them. Mary Magdalene (John 20:1), the other Mary (Matt. 28:1, but it is very doubtful that this was Jesus’ mother, for Luke 24:10 says it was the mother of James) Joanna (Luke 24:10), and Salome (Mark 16:1, but certainly not the daughter of Herodias).

At the end of the movie, the narrator talks about what happened to the disciples. He says that “according to tradition, John was exiled.” It is not tradition. Revelation 1:9 makes it clear that he was exiled to Patmos.

The narrator also says that scholar’s debate John’s authorship of the Gospel of John. No real scholar doubts this.

On a recent O’Reilly Factor, Martha McCallum said in talking about miracles, there was the miracle of the loaves and fishes. That was not in the movie at all.

It appears that Haaz Sleiman, who played Jesus, was hired because he was Middle Eastern and looked the part. But Mr. Sleiman is a Muslim (although he admits he is a Muslim in name only). No good Muslim would ever play Jesus. Muslims do not believe Jesus is the Son of God, nor do they believe he was crucified.

Perhaps the worst part of this movie is at the end. Some disciples go to the tomb and find it empty. But we never see Jesus. Why do we not see the resurrected Jesus? That’s the whole message of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:4)!

The really sad thing is that it appears that whoever wrote the script feels the same way Bill does about the Bible. They don’t believe it’s the Word of God, so it’s not a big deal if we don’t accurately record what it says. That is a shame. This could have been a very good movie. In the end, the movie is just as bad as the book, if not worse, but for different reasons.

Do You Believe?

Do You Believe?

A review by John Haynes

Today I saw the movie Do You Believe? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4056738/?ref_=nv_sr_1 This was a fantastic movie. Perhaps the best I have ever seen. It takes place in New York City. At least I assume it’s NYC; they mention a city of 10 million people, and I think New York is the only one that fits that bill. It involves the lives of twelve different people will will end up connecting at some point. These people are from all walks of life: a street preacher, a homeless mother and her child, a doctor, a nurse, an EMT, a pastor and his wife, a pregnant homeless woman, a couple street thugs, a retired man and his wife, a church janitor, a combat veteran, a woman whose father won’t have her, and a lawyer. I realize that’s more than twelve, but the movie said there were twelve, and obviously there were more than twelve actors in the movie. So take your pick.

Their names (in order above) are Malachi (Delroy Lindo), Samantha (Mira Sorvino), Lily (Makenzie Moss), Dr. Farell (Sean Astin), Elena (Valerie Domínguez), Bobby (Liam Matthews), Matthew (Ted McGinley), Grace (Tracy Melchior), Maggie (Madison Pettis), Kriminal (Senyo Amoaku), Pretty Boy (Shwayze), retired man (Lee Majors), his wife (Cybill Shepherd), Joe (Brian Bosworth), Carlos (Joseph Julian Soria), Lacey (Alexa PenaVega), and Andrea (Andrea Logan White).

The movie begins with a pastor who is driving home at night. He sees a street preacher who is carrying a life-sized cross. The man asks the pastor if he believes in the cross of Christ. The pastor replies that yes, he does. What are you going to do about it? is the follow-up question.

The pastor drives away from that encounter and sees a young woman on the street. He stops to ask if he can help her, and sees that she is pregnant. He drives home with the woman, but his wife says she can’t stay there. So he buys her some food and takes her to a motel.

That Sunday, the pastor has done something very different in church. In every seat is a small cross (about 4 inches high). There is also a big cross at the front of the church. As he preaches, he tells about meeting that street preacher (Malachi). He tells how he was challenged about what he believed. He then challenges his congregation to make a difference in people’s lives. And they do.

Joe, the church janitor, is in the emergency room waiting to be seen. He meets Lily and her mother (Samantha). He gives Lily his place in line. Then he invites them to stay at his place. He tells them that he has a friend he can stay with. But that’s not true. Joe sleeps on a park bench and becomes sicker.

The retired man and his wife (they are not given names in the movie) meet Samantha and Lily at a soup kitchen where they are volunteering. They have a break and ask to eat with them. I was impressed that the man prays for the meal, and he ends his prayer, In Jesus’ name, Amen. That’s not something you hear very often, especially in a movie. This couple has recently lost a daughter to a drunk driving accident, so they are hurting a lot. But they invite Samantha and Lily to stay in their home. They do.

An EMT (Bobby) is trying to save the life of a man trapped under a huge roller. He cannot get the man extricated from it, and that puts his life in serious peril. So he does the only thing he knows how to do. He tells the man about Christ and the sacrifice he made on the cross for him. The man receives Christ, but not before Bobby places the cross he received at church in his hand. His wife comes and finds the cross. She is angry because she thinks the EMT didn’t do his job. He only tried to proselytize. She ends up suing him. More on that later.

Carlos is a combat veteran who has a great deal of trouble getting back in the mainstream of normal life. He is thinking about suicide. He is on a bridge and is thinking about jumping. Across the street, he sees a woman who appears to be thinking the same thing (Lacey). He calls to her, and she answers. Wanna get a cup of coffee? he asks. Sure, she answers. They’re talking, and things seem to be going well. Lacey invites him into her place for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but he says no. He’s too broken; he has to go. Lacey is very sad, but she lets him go. What else can she do?

Earlier in the movie, when the street preacher (Malachi) was talking to the pastor, some thugs are in a van. The preacher talks to the driver, who pulls a gun on him. The preacher says he’s ready to go; Are you? Two of the thugs in that van are brothers. Their mother is a Christian, but they are a long way from God. They go to pull a job and kill a man and take his money. Except that the younger one (Pretty Boy) can’t pull the trigger on the man. But he does take the money.

Later the older brother (Kriminal) asks him about the money. Pretty Boy says he doesn’t have it. He has given it to the pastor (Matthew). Kriminal finds out where the church is and goes to get it back. He pulls a gun on the pastor, but the pastor says he’s ready to meet Jesus. Not again, thinks Kriminal.

Bobby, the EMT is pulled into court and charged with many civil violations. He is going to lose everything just because he won’t surrender and say he was wrong for witnessing to that dying man. His wife is the nurse Elena, whose brother is the combat vet Carlos. Elena isn’t a Christian, but she’s been going to church with Bobby. But she wants him to give in so they don’t lose everything. Bobby stands fast. We don’t see the trial, but the attorney for the plaintiff (Andrea) tells him, See I told you so, at the end of the trial.

Joe ends up back in the hospital. He’s dying. Samantha goes to visit him, and he has just one request. Can you bring Lily back to see me? Of course. But will Joe live to see her? You’ll have to watch the movie to find out.

Some people die in the movie. Some people come to a saving knowledge of Jesus. Not everything is rosy. A little bit like real life. But it’s all good news.

The end of the movie is wonderful too. We hear the song “We Believe” by the Newsboys, and it’s a great song. So how about you? Do You Believe?

Killing Patton

Killing Patton by Bill O’Reilly and Martin Dugard

A review by John Haynes 

This book is not really a lot about Patton. Sometimes when reading, I even forgot that it was supposed to be about Patton. It would better be titled How America Won the War in Europe.

Some good things about the book. I like the references to Patton praying. I’m not sure he was a Christian, but he definitely knew he needed the help of the Almighty.

Problems with the book:

On p. 162, it says that on FDR’s fourth inauguration, “In addition to the veterans and dignitaries, a smattering of black faces can be seen in the crowd, reflecting Roosevelt’s hope for a more racially integrated nation.” Perhaps FDR wanted more black faces, but it’s absolutely not true that he wanted a “more racially integrated nation.” If that were true, why did he discriminate against Japanese Americans during that time in what is known as the internment? That was an awful time, and it was even upheld by the Supreme Court (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 1944). That case was based on the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of citizenship. Interesting that on page 171, Roosevelt is quoted as saying that “[o]ur [C]onstitution of 1787 was not a perfect instrument . . . [b]ut it provided a firm basis upon which all manner of men, of all races and colors and creeds, could build our solid structure of democracy.” All manner it seems except Japanese Americans.

On p. 166, it says that “Roosevelt has lifted America up from the lowest point in U.S. history to make it the most powerful nation on earth.” He did nothing of the sort. It was World War II that lifted America up. Roosevelt was a socialist, and it was his policies that led to the kind of big government we have today.

p. 203 In the footnote, it says that starting with Eisenhower, “every president for the next forty-two years served in World War II.” There’s one problem with that. If it’s 42 years, that puts it at 1995 when it ends. Bill Clinton took office on January 20, 1993, not 1995. He was the first of that era who was not a WWII vet.

On page 240, the authors make some significant errors about the Bible, repeating some of the same mistakes of Killing Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/review/R3PXMBB3RXPCQE?ref_=pe_620760_65501210). Speaking about King David, they say that “[h]e was said to be ‘a man after God’s own heart’ [which is true, (1 Sam. 13:14)], despite the fact that he slept with his best friend’s wife, lied about the act, and then ordered the husband sent to the front lines so that he might be murdered in battle.” Ostensibly this is talking about Uriah, the husband of Bathsheba. But much of this is not true. Uriah was not David’s best friend. He didn’t even know him, and we know that from the fact that he inquired about Bathsheba when he was contemplating sleeping with her (2 Sam. 11:3). If he were Uriah’s best friend, he surely would have already known that Bathsheba was his wife. Also, it is worth noting that nowhere in Scripture does it say that David lied about this act. Maybe he did, but there’s no evidence of this.

Later on that same page (240), the authors get it wrong about David again. In discussing David’s price that he paid for this sin, the authors say that he lost “a son at a very young age and eventually [lost] his entire kingdom.” I don’t know what son they’re talking about, but it would have to be the baby that Bathsheba gave birth to as a result of their sinful encounter. David lost other sons, but no other was at a “very young age.” I don’t know why they can’t be more specific.

Second, David never lost “his entire kingdom.” He was a great king until the day he died. The kingdom split not after David died but after Solomon died.

The ending was a big disappointment. The authors talk about the accident that led to Patton’s death, but you must fill in the blanks or go back and read the Prologue. I think that is poor writing. It’s okay to give a tease at the beginning of the book, but I don’t think the way this was written is very good.

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

By David Instone-Brewer

A review

By John Haynes

p. 14 He says that there are “two valid grounds for divorce, but remarriage is not allowed unless on of the former spouses has died.” About that he says this “is the one given by most established churches.” Really? I don’t think I even know of one church that holds this view. Anecdotal, I know, but still important.

p. 16 He deals with the idea of “no one can separate.” The passage that Jesus said in Matt. 19:6 says, “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (NIV). It does not say, he goes to great lengths to point out, “no one can separate.” But is there a real difference?

He points out that the phrase “let not man separate” is an imperative. He is correct, but he fails to understand what that means. The imperative mood shows a command. Jesus was saying that mankind must not under any circumstances separate. So how is that really different from saying “can separate”? I’m not sure there is a real difference.

p. 20 He talks about God giving us Scripture, which by definition means the Old and New Testaments. He says that Scripture is “full of histories, letters, prophetic messages and praise songs. [But] it contains almost no theology.” What? Has he never read the book of Romans? This is a stupid statement and factually untrue.

p. 35 He discusses three more biblical grounds for divorce (in addition to adultery and desertion). He addresses Exodus 21-10-11:

“If a man who has married a slave wife takes another wife for himself, he must not neglect the rights of the first wife to food, clothing, and sexual intimacy. ¹¹ If he fails in any of these three obligations, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment” (NLT).

He then switches into lawyer mode and says that this passage shows case law in the OT. Even though we don’t practice polygamy or slavery, he says, we still should draw principles from this passage. The problem is that polygamy and slavery are part of the case here. You can’t divorce it (no pun intended) from the passage.

p. 36. Regarding the man who had been gathering sticks on the Sabbath, he says that Moses “decided that he deserved death.” Moses did no such thing. God declared his punishment (Num. 15:35).

p. 40 “A good lawyer might argue that she did not use the magical legal phrase ‘Time is of the essence.’” What? What does that have to do with anything?

p. 71 “Paul’s wife had probably did in childbirth (as happened all too often in the first century).” How in the world can he make a statement like that? He doesn’t know anything about Paul’s past!

p. 72 “The present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). . . . Historians guess that he must have been referring to the famine that was afflicting the region at that time.” Again, another leap.

“In general Paul approved of marriage.” Glad he thinks so. I think Paul approved more than generally.

p. 94 “Origen, the greatest of the church fathers at the start of the third century.” Rather dubious statement. Iranaeus (died in 202) was better in my opinion. There was also Hippolytus and Tertullian, who both rivaled Origen.

pp. 94-95 “A couple should not separate without getting divorced, because Paul specifically says that married couples may not separate (1 Cor. 7:10-11).” Not true. He says that if separated, you must remain unmarried. Read the text, please!

p. 96 “Rather than indicating that Jesus did not accept the validity of divorce for neglect and abuse, his silence about it highlights the fact that he did accept it, like all other Jews at that time.” You cannot argue from silence, and he knows this!

p. 98 “We have concluded that Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:9 (and par.) only exclude divorce for “Any Cause,” but does this mean that Jesus accepted  the grounds given in Exodus 21:10-11? As we saw earlier in this chapter, we can probably assume that he did accept them because if he had not he would have said so.” This is putting words in Jesus’ mouth. Not allowed.

p. 99 “Later in the chapter, when [Paul] suggests that people should postpone their marriage plans because of the famine. . . .” Paul never mentions a famine. You can’t put words in Paul’s mouth, either.

“Although Paul does not specifically say that these three areas of neglect can be grounds for divorce, the fact that he talks about them as obligations implies that he accepted them and agreed with them [Ex. 21:10-11]. . . . If Paul did not accept these grounds for divorce, he would not have used these verses as a basis for his teaching on the obligations within marriage.” But Paul isn’t using them as proofs for divorce. Not at all.

p. 100 “In summary, Paul accepts all four Old Testament grounds for divorce.” No he didn’t. He didn’t prove this at all.

p. 106 Apparently this author has also written a book called Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible. So how is that different from this book?

p. 206 “Jesus is using preacher’s rhetoric when he tells people to gouge out the eyes.” Preacher’s rhetoric? Never heard of that. How about hyperbole?