Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I may get you wrong, but I will react to what I believe you say here.
If really Jesus went around declaring a new or hidden teaching, that would in my view contain an enormous problem as to his credibility. Especially given the setting of Matthew 19:3-12, where it is the pharisees desiring to hear his view on marriage based on the law of Moses.
Ok that was quite a long post you made, so I will answer in 2 separate posts.
First, concerning Hermas. Are you referring to this quote:
""I charge you," said he, "to guard your chastity, and let no thought enter your heart of another man's wife, or of fornication, or of similar iniquities; for by doing this you commit a great sin. But if you always remember your own wife, you will never sin. For if this thought enter your heart, then you will sin; and if, in like manner,you think other wicked thoughts, you commit sin. For this thought is great sin in a servant of God. But if any one commit this wicked deed, he works death for himself. Attend, therefore, and refrain from this thought; for where purity dwells, there iniquity ought not to enter the heart of a righteous man." I said to him, "Sir, permit me to ask you a few questions.""Say on," said he. And I said to him, "Sir, if any one has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and if he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?" And he said to me, "As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her fornication, and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery." And I said to him, "What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?" And he said, "The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery." And I said to him, "What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?" And he said to me, "Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented...In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.–The Shepherd 4:1-10. (I copied it from this paper https://marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf)
Now, nolidad, it is your stated interpretation that remarriage is only not permitted because it blocks repentance. I will put forward something different.
What I see in this passage is something that we never hear about today. What if the wife persists in sex outside marriage? The husband is still one flesh with her, and therefore one body. So he is partaking in her sin - and he has to separate from her as long as she commits this sin. So far does the one flesh principle go. I believe this is a reiteration of the passage 1 Cor 6:16, where Paul talks about being joined to an harlot. I believe that 1 Cor 6:16 talks about being married to an harlot, but I have until now not met many folks who agree with me on that. And the reason for my interpretation is exactly that I read stuff like Hermas. You do know that at one time Shepherd of Hermas was part of the Bible?
So in my interpretation, this just goes to show how seriously the early Church took the principle of one-flesh.
Yes, the pharisees asked Jesus about "if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause", which is a question with clear reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but Jesus uses the opportunity to start with Genesis and give the full picture in 19:5-6.It was not Jesus view on marriage or divorce that is the issue, but it is the issue of divorce and remarriage that is the issue.
Post Scripture to support your opinion, and I will be willing to continue the dialogue.1. This is not the passage I was referring to.
2. I agree marriage is a sacred covenannt.
3. It should not be dissolved with ease.
4. But immorality, death and leaving for the faith are allowances for remarriage.
The issue is not divorce, but remarriage!
Death always allowed remarriage, Jesus added it fro immorality and Paul under the influence of ther Holy spirit added if an unbelieving spouse leaves due to the faith.
What greek lexicon are you using? I use this version of Strongs: https://www.amazon.com/Strongs-Expanded-Exhaustive-Concordance-Supersaver/dp/1418542377
"epi, a primary preposition properly meaning superimposition (of time, place, order etc) i.e. over, upon, With the dative case this preposition has meanings like "on" etc. And I believe that "porneia" which is a feminine noun is either nominative or dative case, likely dative.
To cut a long story short, this lexicon lists both "because of" and "over" as possible translations, so that in itself is not so decisive.
However, if really Jesus intended an exception pure and simple, why not just use "parektos" as in Matthew 5:32. Why this more elaborate structure of words?
I would be curious to know those linguistic studies and stuff, if it has relevance to this topic.Strongs is a good primer, but I use blue letter bible, bible hub, Esword and several linguistic on line studies that go beyind the base definition of a word and gfo into its construct which is the critical issue in greek. For example, a verb can have up to 580 endings which all nuance or radically change the base strongs definition. So we need to know how th everb is constructed in the passage to get a better understanding of what exactly and not just generally being said.
Post Scripture to support your opinion, and I will be willing to continue the dialogue.
The exception for immorality is only in the Old Testament, and regards a virgin betrothed, if she proves to be no virgin - Deuteronomy 22:13-21.
I have proven sufficiently in this thread that Matthew 19:9 can not be taken as an argument for an exception for immorality.
I would be curious to know those linguistic studies and stuff, if it has relevance to this topic.
Yes, the pharisees asked Jesus about "if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause", which is a question with clear reference to Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but Jesus uses the opportunity to start with Genesis and give the full picture in 19:5-6.
…..Greek is now, and for 2000+ years has been, the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church. Who, better than the native Greek speaking* scholars who translated the “literal” Greek Eastern Orthodox Bible [EOB], know the correct meaning of Greek words,(1) to be precise, the clause in Matthew 19:9 is "mey epi porneia", where the "epi" means "over" rather than "for".
(2) you bring forward a very interesting point about Matthew 5:32. If Jesus had intended an "except" also in Matthew 19:9, why not simply use "parektos" which explicitly means "except"?
(3) since then we do have an "except" in Matthew 5:32, how is this verse then to be understood.
"but I say to you, that whosoever divorces his wife except for porneia, causes her to commit adultery"
My personal belief is that "causes" in that sentence is a legal term, which means that God will hold that man responsible for the adultery of his wife except if he divorces her on the ground of porneia.
Again in the context of the verse, two bible passages are in play, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21, or to say it like that, such is my interpretation. When Jesus says, "you have heard" he is referring to a ruling in rabbinic teaching, and when Jesus says "but I say to you" he is pointing back to the correct interpretation of the Bible. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Jesus pretty much discredits the rabbinic understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but actually this verse retains some of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:4, namely that "he has caused her to defile herself", so this "caused" seems to be found and validated in the new testament.
(4) thanks for your kind words. I also enjoy the discussion
To clarify, my version translates epi as "for," so I went with that wording.(1) to be precise, the clause in Matthew 19:9 is "mey epi porneia", where the "epi" means "over" rather than "for".
The Greek phrase in Matthew 19:9 is ei me. It appears that "if not" and "except" are interchangeable, having the same meaning. Notice that ei me means "if not, except, but" and that "if not" and "except" are both listed as definition I. (They aren't considered two separate definitions, in other words.)(2) you bring forward a very interesting point about Matthew 5:32. If Jesus had intended an "except" also in Matthew 19:9, why not simply use "parektos" which explicitly means "except"?
I'm not sure that Matthew 5:32 is stating the correct interpretation of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Rather, it appears to be separate teaching similar to Matthew 19:9. After all, under Mosaic law, you wouldn't divorce your wife for fornication; you'd execute her (Deuteronomy 22:13-24), making a fornication exception for divorce unnecessary.(3) since then we do have an "except" in Matthew 5:32, how is this verse then to be understood.
"but I say to you, that whosoever divorces his wife except for porneia, causes her to commit adultery"
My personal belief is that "causes" in that sentence is a legal term, which means that God will hold that man responsible for the adultery of his wife except if he divorces her on the ground of porneia.
Again in the context of the verse, two bible passages are in play, namely Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21, or to say it like that, such is my interpretation. When Jesus says, "you have heard" he is referring to a ruling in rabbinic teaching, and when Jesus says "but I say to you" he is pointing back to the correct interpretation of the Bible. We know from Matthew 19:8 that Jesus pretty much discredits the rabbinic understanding of Deuteronomy 24:1-4, but actually this verse retains some of the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:4, namely that "he has caused her to defile herself", so this "caused" seems to be found and validated in the new testament.
And thank you for your kind words.(4) thanks for your kind words. I also enjoy the discussion
This whole thread has been about that Matthew 19:9 is NOT an "exception". So why do you keep on insisting?Sorry but Matthew 19:9 is a clear text that remarriage after divorce is allowed for immorality.
Adultery doesn't break the matrimonial bond. If it did then divorce wouldn't create adulterers. God renews the bond even after His bride played the harlot. God has mercy on her and renews their bond as it was in her youth. Paul say's he wants to present the bride spotless and wrinkle free. Unless there is an obstacle that can't be removed, aren't Christian husbands called to Christ like love?
…..Previously posted this thread. And OBTW this has never been refuted. Scholars giving a different interpretation does not disprove this post.This whole thread has been about that Matthew 19:9 is NOT an "exception". So why do you keep on insisting?
In my view, we have to take it from SCRIPTURE, not traditions of men. Even if all the translations translated it wrongly, which not all do, then when the greek says "mey epi porneia" rather than "ei mey epi porneia", then we do NOT have an exception.
"ei mey epi" can be translated "except", and the same would go for "ean mey epi", but to state it simply, that is not what the greek text says. The greek text says "mey epi porneia".
Here is some research from a friend into the meaning of "mey epi". My friend is a scholar, a PhD, so at least some scholarship is to be expected
A search result : Search Results for “reasons me epi” – Learning from God's Word
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Adultery doesn't break the matrimonial bond. If it did then divorce wouldn't create adulterers. God renews the bond even after His bride played the harlot. God has mercy on her and renews their bond as it was in her youth. Paul say's he wants to present the bride spotless and wrinkle free. Unless there is an obstacle that can't be removed, aren't Christian husbands called to Christ like love?
This whole thread has been about that Matthew 19:9 is NOT an "exception". So why do you keep on insisting?
In my view, we have to take it from SCRIPTURE, not traditions of men. Even if all the translations translated it wrongly, which not all do, then when the greek says "mey epi porneia" rather than "ei mey epi porneia", then we do NOT have an exception.
"ei mey epi" can be translated "except", and the same would go for "ean mey epi", but to state it simply, that is not what the greek text says. The greek text says "mey epi porneia".
Here is some research from a friend into the meaning of "mey epi". My friend is a scholar, a PhD, so at least some scholarship is to be expected
A search result : Search Results for “reasons me epi” – Learning from God's Word
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
What Does “Except” Mean in Mt. 19:9?
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
Well there you have it in one sentence of yours. We want this to make sense, and we need to add a word to the text to do so! I think, with all intellectual honesty, you can see how that will not work.Translating this negative prepostion to english requires two ways to do so, the addition of a but "but not for fornication" or turning it to a positive by saying except for fornication!
Again the question of relevance in communication. You have posted this "the greek speaking people must be the authority" I think at least 3 times now, and I think it is such a loose argument that I did not bother to answer it. Sorry, that may sound arrogant, but with a lot already going on in the thread, one has to pick his focus.For any doubts/questions about the EOB version please read the 200 page preface which documents the extensive Greek scholarship supporting this translation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?