Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research

Fervent · Jul 7, 2021

Reading through this thread I am getting a distinct feeling of missing the forest for the trees. It strikes me as pedantic rather than meticulous, with the highlighting of the "error" being driven not by an attempt to render something that was unclear clear but in order to bolster a pet interpretation.

Saint Steven · Jul 7, 2021

robert424 said:
Yes. I believe your analysis resolves so many of the present-day problems with the issue of Divorce.

And with your permission, I'd like to add a few of my observations to your analysis - I don't mean to hijack your excellent analysis:

And Deut. goes on to say, that after the husband is found guilty of his crime against his wife by slandering her - when she was, indeed, a virgin - he is punished (v.19), yet, his crime against her does not dissolve his marriage to her, because verse 20 says, "and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days."

In my understanding, these verses also dovetail nicely with the teaching that Jesus is - figuratively speaking - the husband of all of us. But consider that even if we sin only once, we have - figuratively speaking - been fornicating with Satan, so Jesus is married to all us fornicators and we all deserve to die for it, yet, our 'marriage' with Jesus is not dissolved by our sins, and, in fact, Jesus, pays the punishment we deserve, so he can continue on with his 'marriage' to us fornicators. This flys in the face of those who claim that sin 'terminates a marriage'.

Also, 1Cor 7:13. "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."
In my understanding, those who say that a marriage can be terminated by the sin of one of the spouses, have not fully considered the implications of this verse. That 'unbelieving husband' - especially in Corinth - would have been a heathen - not an non-religious man. Almost all the residents of that city were worshipers of Aphrodite, and the history books tell us that the worship of Aphrodite involves large amounts of fornication. That 'unbelieving' husband mentioned in 1Cor 7:13, was, undoubtedly, going to the temple and fornicating with every woman in town, yet, the wife is told not to even leave him! Amazing! That kinds of contradicts the idea that fornication on the part of one of the spouses 'dissolves the marriage'.

In my current understanding, nothing dissolves a marriage - ever - not even death - in the same way that nothing can dissolve the 'parent-child' relationship. Now, if we can only stamp out all the polygamy.

But, my ruminations aside, I think your analysis would solve so many of our current problems over the Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage after a divorce. Our Current Doctrine has so many problems and inconsistencies, and this issue over the added 'ei', is but a minor issue in the bigger scheme of things. Divorce has a lot more problems than the added 'ei'.

Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful response.
As well as your expanded thoughts on what Jesus was implying about his relationship with his church.

My analysis was spurred by the word choices in the KJV. Because fornication and adultery are two different things, in relation to the marital status of the individual. And the KJV preserves these two different NT Greek words in the translation. Whereas the distinction is completely lost in the NIV translation. (see below) Which, if my analysis is correct, completely misses the meaning. And worse than that, presents a Jesus that approves of divorce on the grounds of sexual immorality. (whatever that might mean)

Matthew 19:9 NIV
I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

Saint Steven said: ↑
@robert424 My understanding of this verse is that it has to do the charge of a bride being provided that is not a virgin. In their culture the father owned the women in his family. (his property) Therefore a daughter given in marriage was like a product being sold with the guarantee of virginity. If the buyer (new husband) found that she was not a virgin, he could divorce her on the charge of fornication. Which happened prior to the marriage. This is not about what happens after the marriage except if the charge of fornication (a lack of virginity) is false. Then marrying another woman would be adultery for him. (the husband)

Matthew 19:9 KJV
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Compare:

Deuteronomy 22:13-18 NIV
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

Clare73 · Jul 7, 2021

Saint Steven said:
@robert424 My understanding of this verse is that it has to do the charge of
a bride being provided that is not a virgin.

That works. It could be two things: incestuous marriage and non-virgin, both requiring divorce.

In their culture the father owned the women in his family. (his property) Therefore a daughter given in marriage was like a product being sold with the guarantee of virginity. If the buyer (new husband) found that she was not a virgin, he could divorce her on the charge of fornication. Which happened prior to the marriage. This is not about what happens after the marriage except if the charge of fornication (a lack of virginity) is false. Then marrying another woman would be adultery for him. (the husband)

Matthew 19:9 KJV
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Compare:

Deuteronomy 22:13-18 NIV
If a man takes a wife and, after sleeping with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, “I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity,” 15 then the young woman’s father and mother shall bring to the town elders at the gate proof that she was a virgin. 16 Her father will say to the elders, “I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’ But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.” Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

Clare73 · Jul 7, 2021

robert424 said:
Yes. I believe your analysis resolves so many of the present-day problems with the issue of Divorce.
And with your permission, I'd like to add a few of my observations to your analysis - I don't mean to hijack your excellent analysis:
And Deut. goes on to say, that after the husband is found guilty of his crime against his wife by slandering her - when she was, indeed, a virgin - he is punished (v.19), yet, his crime against her does not dissolve his marriage to her, because verse 20 says, "and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days."

In my understanding, these verses also dovetail nicely with the teaching that Jesus is - figuratively speaking - the husband of all of us. But consider that even if we sin only once, we have - figuratively speaking - been fornicating with Satan, so Jesus is married to all us fornicators and we all deserve to die for it, yet, our 'marriage' with Jesus is not dissolved by our sins,

That is contra-Biblical.

Jesus married no one whose sins, through faith in him, were not forgiven, and him declared by God as righteous, sanctified (justification) through that faith.
The holy Son of God, Jesus Christ, is joined to none who are fornicators with Satan. Anathema!

and, in fact, Jesus, pays the punishment we deserve, so he can continue on with his 'marriage' to us fornicators. This flys in the face of those who claim that sin 'terminates a marriage'.

Also, 1Cor 7:13. "And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him."
In my understanding, those who say that a marriage can be terminated by the sin of one of the spouses, have not fully considered the implications of this verse. That 'unbelieving husband' - especially in Corinth - would have been a heathen - not an non-religious man. Almost all the residents of that city were worshipers of Aphrodite, and the history books tell us that the worship of Aphrodite involves large amounts of fornication. That 'unbelieving' husband mentioned in 1Cor 7:13, was, undoubtedly, going to the temple and fornicating with every woman in town, yet, the wife is told not to even leave him! Amazing! That kinds of contradicts the idea that fornication on the part of one of the spouses 'dissolves the marriage'.

In my current understanding, nothing dissolves a marriage - ever - not even death - in the same way that nothing can dissolve the 'parent-child' relationship. Now, if we can only stamp out all the polygamy.

But, my ruminations aside, I think your analysis would solve so many of our current problems over the Doctrine of Divorce and Remarriage after a divorce. Our Current Doctrine has so many problems and inconsistencies, and this issue over the added 'ei', is but a minor issue in the bigger scheme of things. Divorce has a lot more problems than the added 'ei'.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 8, 2021

Clare73 said:
That works. It could be two things: incestuous marriage and non-virgin, both requiring divorce.

I agree that an incestous marriage should require divorce, but being a virgin is not a requirement under the New Covenant because Jesus gave us New Covenant Laws that supercede the Old Covenant ones.

What am I talking about? Well, recently I have to come to accept Matthew 19:9 in what it plainly says. This was difficult for me because I did not like the exception clause that Jesus gave in this verse. I did not like the idea of remarriage unless the spouse was dead (See: Romans 7:1-3). The exception clause given to us by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 19:9 is that a person can divorce and remarry only if their partner of the opposite sex had cheated on them (i.e. had sex) with another physical person. Granted, I believe the Lord would want us to reconcile with the other partner if we can, but if it looks like the other partner (of the opposite sex) will not repent, then divorce and even remarriage is allowed.

Matthew 19:9 says:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9).

In other words, it would like Jesus saying, Unless a one's wife was unfaithful by sleeping around, whoever shall divorce his wife, and shall remarry another wife commits adultery, and whoever marries her who has been divorced because she cheated on her husband commits adultery.

For the words, except it be fornication (unfaithfulness) is a clause of an exception for both divorce and remarriage. Only the guilty party (the unfaithful person) cannot divorce or remarry; And neither can the guilty party who was divorced (because of their unfaithfulness) marry again.

What this clause of exception shows is that God is into new beginnings and He is into protecting the innocent.

Anyways, my point is that if the Lord Jesus allows for a person to divorce and remarry only the grounds that the other partner was unfaithful, then that means a person does not have to be a virgin to marry. But surely you believe a spouse can remarry after the other spouse is dead according to Romans 7:1-3. If that is the case, then you must believe that a person does not have to be a virgin to marry. Even Rahab the harlot was in the line of Christ.

Clare73 · Jul 8, 2021

Bible Highlighter said:
I agree that an incestous marriage should require divorce, but being a virgin is not a requirement under the New Covenant because Jesus gave us New Covenant Laws that supercede the Old Covenant ones.

What am I talking about? Well, I have to come to recently accept Matthew 19:9 in what it plainly says. This was difficult for me because I did not like the exception clause that Jesus gave in this verse. I did not like the idea of remarriage unless the spouse was dead (See: Romans 7:1-3). The exception clause given to us by our Lord Jesus in Matthew 19:9 is that a person can divorce and remarry only if their partner of the opposite sex had cheated on them (i.e. had sex) with another physical person. Granted, I believe the Lord would want us to reconcile with the other partner if we can, but if it looks like the other partner (of the opposite sex) will not repent, then divorce and even remarriage is allowed.

Matthew 19:9 says:

“And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” (Matthew 19:9).

Christendom was centuries and centuries in not accepting divorce for anything but incestuous marriage.

That was for a reason, and I'm not yet ready to discount it.

In other words, it would like Jesus saying, Unless a one's wife was unfaithful by sleeping around, whoever shall divorce his wife, and shall remarry another wife commits adultery, and whoever marries her who has been divorced because she cheated on her husband commits adultery.

For the words, except it be fornication (unfaithfulness) is a clause of an exception for both divorce and remarriage. Only the guilty party (the unfaithful person) cannot divorce or remarry; And neither can the guilty party who was divorced (because of their unfaithfulness) marry again.

What this clause of exception shows is that God is into new beginnings and He is into protecting the innocent.

Anyways, my point is that if the Lord Jesus allows for a person to divorce and remarry only the grounds that the other partner was unfaithful, then that means a person does not have to be a virgin to marry. But surely you believe a spouse can remarry after the other spouse is dead according to Romans 7:1-3. If that is the case, then you must believe that a person does not have to be a virgin to marry. Even Rahab the harlot was in the line of Christ.

Bible Highlighter · Jul 8, 2021

Clare73 said:
Christendom was centuries and centuries in not accepting divorce for anything but incestuous marriage.

That was for a reason, and I'm not yet ready to discount it.

I think incest as we know it is condemned by God. This is not a normal relationship anymore than a person marrying a tree or an animal, or other marriages that the world accepts that is not in line with the Holy Bible. Such marriages today do not exist in God's eyes even if they may exist on paper, but a divorce on paper would help to give that person the proper start with God in turning their life around in living for Him (According to His Word). It would be correcting previous wrongs in their past.

So I don't see incest or other sinful marriages these days as being regarded as a true marriage in God's eyes as the topic of conversation in Matthew 19:9. Jesus is only referring to a marriage between a man and a woman (non-incestous). For that is the biblical definition of a true marriage. No marriages to trees, animals, next of kin, etc.

Yes, I believe Abram married his half sister (Sarai), but this was during a time when the world was still being populated in trying to fulfill the command to be fruitful and to multiply upon the Earth. Once that command fulfilled it's purpose, then God started to make changes; Especially when man's genetics could no longer handle such things due to the corruption of sin, as well. For men started to live less and less in their age, etc.

Der Alte · Jul 10, 2021

Some of the ECF were aware of the exception in Matthew

Theophilus [a.d. 115-168-181.]to Autolycus. Book III.Chap. XIII
And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: “Whosoever looketh on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Mat_5:28) “And he that marrieth,” says [the Gospel], “her that is divorced from her husband, committeth adultery; and whosoever putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32)

Tertullian [a.d. 145-220] II. The Five Books Against Marcion. Book IV.
Chap. XXX.For in the Gospel of Matthew he says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery.” (Mat_5:32) He also is deemed equally guilty of adultery, who marries a woman put away by her husband. The Creator, however, except on account of adultery, does not put asunder what He Himself joined together, the same Moses in another passage enacting that he who had married after violence to a damsel, should thenceforth not have it in his power to put away his wife.

BeyondET · Jul 10, 2021

Minister Monardo said:
I wonder if the issue would be more or less controversial with a better understanding
of the terminology used. There is much more involved with the idea of "putting away" a wife
than a common divorce, and has nothing to do with the bill of divorcement described in Deut. 24.
Dealing Treacherously With Your Covenant

That is in Jeremiah also, the differences between put away and bill

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Mr. M · Jul 11, 2021

BeyondET said:
That is in Jeremiah also, the differences between put away and bill

Jeremiah 3:8
And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Malachi 2:
13 And this have ye done again, covering the altar of the Lord with tears, with weeping,
and with crying out, insomuch that he regards not the offering any more, or receives it
with good will at your hand.
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife
of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion,
and the wife of thy covenant.
15 And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one?
That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal
treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16 For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that He hates putting away: for one covers
violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit,
that ye deal not treacherously.

When the wealthy and influential ruling class among the citizens of Jerusalem asked Jesus
"is it lawful for a man to "put away" his wife for any reason, they were referring to the timeless
practice of men taking a younger second wife. This treachery the Lord hates, and their question
flew in the face of this word of Malachi. Modern translations wall paper over this truth by using
divorce, where the literal is "putting away", not the bill of divorcement of Deuteronomy 24.
Blessed Abraham remained faithful to Sarah until her death. Then he took another wife who
bore him children we hear of later in the nations around Israel. Genesis 25

robert424 · Jul 11, 2021

Clare73 said:
That is contra-Biblical.

Jesus married no one whose sins, through faith in him, were not forgiven, and him declared by God as righteous, sanctified (justification) through that faith.
The holy Son of God, Jesus Christ, is joined to none who are fornicators with Satan. Anathema!

Your point is well-taken: the pure-white robe of God covers our sins with his 'righteousness', but under that cover, the fact remains that we had sinned - forgiven or not. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of forgiveness; just pointing out God preserves our relationship to him dispite our sins. For example, through God's forgiveness Abraham was deemed to be 'faithful', yet, he committed quite a few 'faithless' acts such as not believing God when he promised that he and Sarah would have a son. He allowed Sarah to go into 'marriage' with two other guys, and God had to intervene to get her back. How 'faithless' was Abraham in those situations? Forgiveness is wonderful, but that does not change the facts about the faithless deeds of Abraham.
The same applies to us: Jesus is 'married' to us, and when we repent, he can preserve our relationship with forgiveness, but that forgiveness still does not change the fact that we had sinned. Even after our sins, Jesus is still 'married' (figuratively speaking) to someone who had sinned.
The point I was trying to make was that our 'sin' does not destroy the fact that we are God's creation, and we still belong to Him, even though we sin. Even Satan is a 'son of God', even though he will not repent.
And, as an aside, it is my belief that God's righteousness is so large that he could forgive even Satan, if he were to repent.
So, in conclusion: God remained 'married' to that faithless Abraham, Hosea remained 'married' to that adultress Gomer, King David remained 'married' to that bigamist Michael, and God remains 'married' to us fornicator repentant sinners - all through that wonderful invention, repentance and Forgiveness. And, yes, I agree with you that repentance and faith is a requirement. Perhaps we disagree on what to call those who have sinned, and then repent and are forgiven. In my eyes, they are 'ones who had sinned', and that still remains a fact, even after forgiveness. And I think that would be a good thing, because it will motivate us not to sin again.
I don't think heaven will be a place where people prance around pretending to be pure. I imagine it more like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting: "Hi. my name is Robert, and dispite this pure white robe, I'm a dirty, vile fornicator and I repent - and am forgiven." XD

robert424 · Jul 11, 2021

hedrick said:
I just looked at the UBS5 and apparatus. As the OP says, it doesn't contain "ei". Yet the passage is still translated "except", because that's what "me" means in this context. So the OP seems to be about a non-issue.

There's a lot of variation in manuscripts of this verse. But not in the corresponding part of Mat 5:32.

I should note that the commentaries I would trust think that this exception was added by Matthew, because that's how his church interpreted it. One reason is that the parallels in Mark and Luke don't have the exception. However even though we don't think Jesus actually made the exception, we agree with Matthew that it's a reasonable exception given Jesus' normal approach to applying Scripture.

hedrick said:
I just looked at the UBS5 and apparatus. As the OP says, it doesn't contain "ei". Yet the passage is still translated "except", because that's what "me" means in this context. So the OP seems to be about a non-issue.

The main topic of my article is that the 'ei' is an error, but, your (and others') points are valid - even though they are bringing up a secondary issue.

Ok, I've been doing some more research on this issue. First, just to clarify the issue: Paraphrasing yours and others' helpful observations:

'It doesn't matter that 'ei' is a mistake, because that still leaves μή (mē), and μή (mē) means 'except', and is translated as such in many sources, including the UBS5.

Summarizing this even further to a question/proposition:

Should μὴ can be translated as 'except' in Matthew 19:9

Regarding the assertion that: in Matthew 19:9, μὴ can be translated as 'except'.

After doing some research on this, I have found that this assertion is not supported by the Greek Dictionaries - it is not a fact - but, I did discover that 'except' is a legitimate definition for another, related compount-conditional word ἐὰν μή so, perhaps they were reading under the wrong entry in their Greek Dictionary - [I know that sounds improbable since we are speaking of Researchers of large status.]

Let me explain:

[Directions to a website since I can't post a link]:

Goto blueletter bible (dot) org, then type in 'Matthew 19:9) in the search box > click on the Bold 'Mat 19:9 > and the detailed verse will open up in an expanded view > scroll down to μὴ

and you can see that the Strong's Number = G3361

> hover your mouse over that number, and then click on it to go to the dictionary

The Greek Dictionary tells us that:

[data from the above website page]:

the Greek word μή (mē) in Matthew 19:9 is assigned Strong's number G3361

"KJV translation count: total 673x

not 486

no 44

that not 21

god forbid 15

lest 14

neither 7

but 3

none 3

not translated 51

misc 23

"

[Pleae note that 'except' is not even listed as a possible definition of μή.]

Now, if you scroll down on that same page to the sub-heading 'Strong's Definitions', at the end of that paragraph, you will see "See also G3362 ..."

Hover your mouse over that G3362, and then click on it.

Now you are on the Greek Dictionary page for ἐὰν μή (Strong's G3362).

This is a different word.

[Note that this word ἐὰν μή (ean mē) is translated as 'except' about 50% of the time out of a total of 60 occurances in the KJV.]

Additional fact: the two-word idiom ἐὰν μή is not in any of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts.

[Aside]: Another curious fact: if you scroll to the bottom of that page, under the sub-heading, 'Concordance Results Shown Using the KJV', it states: "Strong's Number G3362 matches the Greek ἐὰν μή (ean mē), which occurs 0 times in 0 verses in the TR Greek." This means that in the Concordance of the Textus Receptus, there are no entries for the two-word compound conditional ἐι μή (G3362). This fact is rather strange seeing that there are 60 occurances in the KJV. I'll have to do some research on this odd situation to see if there is any occurances of G3362 in the TR. Surely, this does not mean that there are no occurances of G3362 in the Textus Receptus, but there are 60 in the KJV? This will be a separate line of research.
[end aside]

So, this assertion is the same 'mistake' Erasmus made when he put ἐι μή in his edition of the Greek New Testament and it turned out that the ἐι is only in 20 (1%) of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts - ἐὰν μή is in none of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts. In the wild, ἐι μή is translated as 'except' 2% of the time, and ἐὰν μή is translated as 'except' 50% of the time, but μή is, apparently, never translated as 'except'.

So, In conclusion: the assertion that in Matthew 19:9, μὴ can be translated as 'except' is false because of the following facts:

1. In the Greek Dictionary, ἐὰν μή (Strong's G3362) means 'except' 50% of the time,

2. μή by itself, (Strong's G3361) does not even have 'except' listed as a possible definition,

3. No Greek New Testament Manuscripts contains the two-word compound-conditional ἐὰν μή in Matthew 19:9.
4. When they translate μὴ as 'except', they are saying that the word 'not' is 'conditional', yet the Greek Dictionaries do not state that μὴ, by itself, is a conditional - other words must be associated with it to make a multi-word-compound-conditional, such as: ἐὰν μή or ἐι μή.
5. In the wild, ἐι μή is translated as 'except' 2% of the time, and ἐὰν μή is translated as 'except' 50% of the time, but μή, by itself is apparently, never translated as 'except'.

The consequences of this analysis is that the UBS5 and many other sources are in error to translate the Greek Word μὴ as 'except'. [Please note that my article finds that the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament is also in error because they have always left out the last phrase of Matthew 19:9, even though it is in 93% of the Greek New Testament Manuscripts, so the UBS5 is not alone.]

Are my missing something here? I have noticed that quite a few Theological Journal Articles and other Books quote the 'exception clause' of Matthew 19:9 as μη επι πορνεια without the 'ei' - not just the UBS5, and some of the researchers are quite famous. So why does the Greek Dictionary not list 'except' as a possible definition of μη? In English, the word 'not' merely means the 'negative', but the word 'except' implies something more: 'that something else is permitted'. But is that extra implication supplied by using 'except' justified? What is that evidence that supports such an interpretation? The fact that the Greek Dictionaries do not support such a definition is 'troubling' to say the least and the lack of evidence does not inspire confidence that 'except' is the best and 'true' definition. There are a lot of sources making assertions, but almost none of them back up their assertions with facts. Where are all the examples of μη being translated as 'except' in the wild?

robert424

Sources:
1. blueletterbible (dot) org
2. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert (eds.) A Greek-English Lexicon. 7th ed. Harper & Brothers: New York, 1883. p.957, p. 958, section B:2 (μη in a conditional phrase).

Clare73 · Jul 12, 2021

robert424 said:
Your point is well-taken:

Thanks.

the pure-white robe of God covers our sins with his 'righteousness', but under that cover, the fact remains that we had sinned - forgiven or not. I'm not questioning the legitimacy of forgiveness; just pointing out God preserves our relationship to him dispite our sins. For example, through God's forgiveness Abraham was deemed to be 'faithful', yet, he committed quite a few 'faithless' acts such as not believing God when he promised that he and Sarah would have a son. He allowed Sarah to go into 'marriage' with two other guys, and God had to intervene to get her back. How 'faithless' was Abraham in those situations? Forgiveness is wonderful, but that does not change the facts about the faithless deeds of Abraham.

The same applies to us: Jesus is 'married' to us, and when we repent, he can preserve our relationship with forgiveness, but that forgiveness still does not change the fact that we had sinned. Even after our sins, Jesus is still 'married' (figuratively speaking) to someone who had sinned.

As long as we agree that Jesus is not married to unbelievers.

However, the focus in the believer is justifiction, not sin.
This is treating justification as though it were a fiction.

There is no sin "problem" with those in Christ, it has all been taken care of--they are declared by God to be righteous (sin-debt free) with the justification/righteousness of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:18-19).
That is the reality of the present, just as when I pay off the mortgage on my house, my debt is cancelled, and I am debt free, it mattering not to anything when it is cancelled that I once had a debt to pay. The reality is I am debt free.
My"credit" with God is excellent because any new "debt" is now paid simultaneously with its occurrence, it never even goes on the books.

The point I was trying to make was that our 'sin' does not destroy the fact that we are God's creation,

And those who reject Jesus Christ are "God's creation" prepared for destruction. . .how does being "God's creation" help them there?

and we still belong to Him, even though we sin. Even Satan is a 'son of God', even though he will not repent.

Those "prepared for destruction" are likewise God's creation.
Our security does not lie in being God's creation, it lies in being God's new creation, made righteous with the righteousness of Jesus Christ by justification through faith apart from works (Romans 4:3-5, Romans 5:18-19).

And, as an aside, it is my belief that God's righteousness is so large that he could forgive even Satan, if he were to repent.
So, in conclusion: God remained 'married' to that faithless Abraham, Hosea remained 'married' to that adultress Gomer, King David remained 'married' to that bigamist Michael, and God remains 'married' to us fornicator repentant sinners - all through that wonderful invention, repentance and Forgiveness. And, yes, I agree with you that repentance and faith is a requirement. Perhaps we disagree on what to call those who have sinned, and then repent and are forgiven. In my eyes, they are 'ones who had sinned', and that still remains a fact, even after forgiveness. And I think that would be a good thing, because it will motivate us not to sin again.
I don't think heaven will be a place where people prance around pretending to be pure. I imagine it more like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting: "Hi. my name is Robert, and dispite this pure white robe, I'm a dirty, vile fornicator and I repent - and am forgiven." XD

My point is this too much treats justification as if it were a fiction, the reality of the new creation being overlooked.

The focus in the believer is justification, not sin.

Der Alte · Jul 12, 2021

Liddell is primarily a classical Greek lexicon and may or may not be relevant to Koine Greek. According to Bauer, Danker, Arndt, Gingrich, one of, if not the most highly accredited Greek lexicons currently available here is a portion of the definition of μή. The complete definition is 5 pages long so I can't post it. I have provided the major subheadings. The 1957 edition of this lexicon can be reviewed at this link.
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker

μή (Hom.+) negative particle, ‘not’: ‘μή is the negative of will, wish, doubt. If οὐ denies the fact, μή denies the idea’ (Rob. 1167). For the Koine of the NT the usage is simplified to such a degree that οὐ is generally the neg. used w. the indicative, and μή is used w. the other moods (B-D-F §426; Rob. 1167).
① marker of negation, not
ⓐ in negative clauses
ⓑ w. various moods
α. w. inf. (B-D-F §399, 3; 400, 4; 5; Mlt-Turner 285f)
א . after verbs expressing a negative concept, usu. omitted in translation ἀντιλέγοντες ἀνάστασιν μὴ εἶναι Lk 20:27 (v.l. λέγοντες).
ⓒ in a prohibitive sense in independent clauses, to express a negative wish or a warning
α. w. subjunctive let us not, we should not: pres. subj. μὴ γινώμεθα κενόδοξοι Gal 5:26. μὴ ἐγκακῶμεν 6:9. μὴ καθεύδωμεν 1 Th 5:6; cp. 1 Cor 5:8. W. aor. subj. μὴ σχίσωμεν αὐτόν J 19:24.
② marker of conjunction
ⓐ after verbs of fearing, etc. that…(not), lest B-D-F §370.
ⓑ taking the place of a purpose clause=so that…not: w. aor. subj. Mk 13:36; Ac 27:42; 2 Cor 12:6.
③ marker of expectation of a negative answer to a question (B-D-F §427, 2; 4; 440; Rob. 1168; 1175; Mlt-Turner 283).
ⓐ in direct questions (X. Eph. 398, 26 H.; Job 1:9; 8:11; TestAbr A 2 p. 79, 9f [Stone p. 6]; B 6 p. 110, 6 [Stone p. 68]; TestJob 15, 6; 27, 1; ApcSed 7:2; ApcMos 8:27) somewhat along the lines ‘it isn’t so, is it, that …?’,
ⓑ in indirect questions whether…not Lk 11:35 (cp. Epict. 4, 5, 18a; Arrian, Anab. 4, 20, 2 μή τι βίαιον ξυνέβη=whether anything violent has happened [hopefully not]; Jos., Ant. 6, 115).
④ marker of reinforced negation, in combination w. οὐ, μή has the effect of strengthening the negation (
ⓐ w. the subj.
α. w. aor. subj. (TestAbr A 17 p. 99, 7 οὐ μὴ δυνηθῇς θεάσασθαι; JosAs 20:3; ParJer 2:5; 8:5; ApcSed 12:5; 13:6; Just., D. 141, 2; Ael. Aristid. 50, 107 K.=26 p. 533 D.: οὐ μὴ ἡμῶν καταφρονήσωσι; Diogenes, Ep. 38, 5; UPZ 62, 34; 79, 19) never, certainly not, etc.
ⓑ w. fut. ind. (En 98:12; 99:10; TestAbr A 8 p. 85, 11 [Stone p. 20] οὐ μή σοι ἀκολουθήσω; GrBar 1:7 οὐ μὴ προσθήσω; ApcEsdr 2:7 οὐ μὴ παύσομαι) οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο Mt 16:22.—Hm 9:5; Hs 1:5; 4:7

[1] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., pp. 644–646). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Der Alte · Jul 14, 2021

Looks like the old dude touched a nerve with this. My presence will be intermittent for a period. Totaled my car 3 weeks ago 3 cracked ribs thank God for air bags.

Clare73 · Jul 14, 2021

Der Alte said:
Looks like the old dude touched a nerve with this. My presence will be intermittent for a period. Totaled my car 3 weeks ago 3 cracked ribs thank God for air bags.

We'll miss you. . .hurry back!

Bible Highlighter · Jul 15, 2021

robert424 said:
I don't think heaven will be a place where people prance around pretending to be pure. I imagine it more like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting: "Hi. my name is Robert, and dispite this pure white robe, I'm a dirty, vile fornicator and I repent - and am forgiven." XD

“...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Bible Highlighter · Jul 15, 2021

Der Alte said:
Looks like the old dude touched a nerve with this. My presence will be intermittent for a period. Totaled my car 3 weeks ago 3 cracked ribs thank God for air bags.

Sorry to hear about your accident. While we do not agree often, I hope you have a speedy recovery. May God's good ways be upon you.

robert424 · Jul 17, 2021

Oompa Loompa said:
Here is a copy and paste from the UBS5 for those Greek scholars who want to geek out on this.

Thank you for posting this. Where I am, I've had difficulty accessing this reference.

robert424 · Jul 17, 2021

Just a note: I just rechecked P25 - which appears to be the oldest manuscript containing Matthew 19:9 - and it is pretty clear that the last phrase is present, although the first half of the verse is too damaged to read, unfortunately.
So, of the three earliest manuscripts: P25, 01, & 03, only 01 does not have the last phrase καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶται. But it is still worrying that even one of the three does not have it, especially since they are the earliest group. The case to include it is stronger, but only slightly. We'll need new discoveries to resolve this point, I fear.

Major Mistakes in the Bible - Matthew 19:9 - Latest Research

Well-Known Member

You can call me Steve

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Blood-bought

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Earth Treasures

Well-Known Member

Member

Member

Blood-bought

This is me about 1 yr. old.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Blood-bought

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Member

Member

Attachments

Similar threads