Matt 19:9

CEP7 at aol.com CEP7 at aol.com
Sun Oct 3 02:16:41 EDT 1999



In a message dated 10/2/99 10:51:32 AM, dixonps at juno.com writes:

<< MH by itself (no accompanying particle, like EI or EAN) occurs over 
500 times in the GNT.  Nowhere else is it translated, "except."  Only
when
it is accompanied by EI or EAN is it rendered so.

Since neither particle exists in MT 19:9, in order to get the exception
idea some have posited an ellipsis of either EI or EAN.

If we assume an ellipsis, however, we still make a huge leap of
blind faith if we conclude the negation, that is, if a man divorces
his wife and she committed PORNEIA, and he subsequently
remarries, then he does not commit adultery himself in so doing.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever shown that such a construction
as found in Mt 19:9 calls for this kind of conclusion.  We are better
off going with the conclusion of the early church fathers (e.g.,
Augustine)
and see this as simply a preterition where the case of the wife
who committed PORNEIA is being excluded from discussion at
the point.  Why so, one might ask.  If for no other reason than the
fact the Christ has just discussed this case in the immediately preceding
verses.
 >>

I might as well put my two denarii in here too.

Zerwick,  Biblical Greek Illustrated by Examples, §442 has some helpful 
comments: 
"Can MH mean «except»? The question has a certain importance in connection 
with the «divorce clauses»; for it is obviously likely that the two 
expressions (Mt 5.32 and 19.9) have the same meaning i. e. that MH EPI 
PORNEIAi means the same thing as the previous PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS. The 
meaning would of course be the same if MH could mean «except», but this is 
with good reason denied by many scholars. In this passage, however, MH not 
only may but should mean «except», not that MH = «except» is of itself 
admissible, but because MH is here dependent upon the introductory hOS AN 
which is equivalent to EAN TIS («whoever = if anyone dismiss his wifeMH EPI 
PORNEIAi
») and thus we have (EAN) MH= «unless», i. e. «except». Both 
expressions therefore, lay down the same true exception
" 

This raises the question of the syntax of MH EPI PORNEIAi. If MH EPI PORNEIAi 
is an abbreviation for EAN TIS APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU MH EPI PORNEIAi/, 
then what is the apodosis. There are four possibilities: (1) the apodosis is 
hOS AN  APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU;  (2) ) the apodosis is hOS AN  APOLUSHi 
THN GUNAIKA AUTOU KAI GAMHSHi ALLHN;   (3) MOICATAI is the apodosis; and (4) 
the entire indefinite relative clause through MOICATAI is the apodosis. The 
overarching rule for complex noncoordinating protases is that the 
protasis-apodosis construction must make sense and form a complete thought 
independently of other protases, apodoses, or modifiers. With respect to 
option (1), the understanding would: "if anyone does not divorce his wife 
because of immorality, he divorces his wife." This does not make sense. It is 
an incomplete thought. The same is true of option (2): "if anyone does not 
divorce his wife because of immorality, he divorces his wife and remarries 
another." Option (3) would see MH EPI PORNEIAi in an equal adversative 
relation with APOLUSHi and GAMHSHi ALLHN with an asyndeton of the conjunction 
and the ellipsis of a second APOLUSHi. The three conditions are individually 
necessary and jointly sufficient, although one is adversative to the other 
two. The sense would be: "if anyone divorces his wife, although/but/and he 
does not divorce her for immorality, and marries another commits adultery. 
The implication of this option is that all three protases must be present in 
order for the apodosis to be true. If any of the protases are not fulfilled, 
then adultery does not occur.  This is possible and is similar, in sense to 
option (4). The reasoning behind option (4) is thatMH EPI PORNEIAi stands 
closest to APOLUSHi because EAN TIS APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU are all 
implied in the clause. The other verbs of the protasis and the apodosis are 
not implied. A man divorces because of immorality, he does not remarry 
because of it. A rearrangement of the clauses might make the syntax clearer 
and retain the same sense: if anyone (whoever) divorces his wife and marries 
another, he commits adultery, if he does not divorce her because of 
immorality.  With this arrangement, the syntax is clearer; the exception 
clause modifies the entire statement. If this is the sense of the syntax, 
then it seems that it does invite the inference "if he divorces because of 
immorality, and marries another, he does not commit adultery.  There seems to 
be no reason for Matthew to add the exception clause unless he wanted to 
invite this inference. Also, the logical equivalent would seem to be: if he 
does not commit adultery, then he divorced his wife because of immorality, if 
he divorced his wife and married another. A choice between the (3) AND (4) is 
difficult. The syntax of both is a bit awkward, but they yield good sense, 
unlike options (1) and (2). Option (3) should probably be slightly favored, 
although there is little difference in sense from option (4). 

Any comments on Zerwick's suggestion would be most appreciated.

Charles Powell
DTS



More information about the B-Greek mailing list