Aorist vs. present infinitive in Matt 5:32
Jeff Smelser
jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
Sat Oct 19 12:10:25 EDT 2002
First to William Boyd who wrote:
> Will the language allow for the possibility that the husband, putting away
> a faithful wife, adulterates her by placing her into the position of one
> who has committed adultery? That is, being divorced without adultery
> she is placed into the same situation as a woman who was divorced
> because of adultery. The passive verb seems to place the woman as
> the victim here. If I am straying too far from the Greek you may reply off
> list.
>
> William Boyd
> Little Rock
I don't have Lenski, but I understand he advocated more or less that
interpretation. John Murray quotes Lenski as saying she is "stigmatised as
adulterous." It seems to me that might be a more viable interpretation if
the text had said POIEI AUTHN ENAI MOICALIS or POIEI AUTHN GENESQAI
MOICALIS. Still, one would have to conjecture an implicit "in others' eyes,"
and I see no basis for such a conjecture.
Furthermore, if the idea is that Jesus was just commenting on what society
would think of the woman, given the prevalance of divorce in that society I
have difficulty understanding how it could be said she would viewed as an
adulteress.
Second to Ward Powers who wrote:
>But Jesus says that she IS made an adulteress
Actually, no, the text does not say POIEI AUTHN ENAI MOICALIS, but POIEI
AUTHN MOICEUQHNAI.
> - he expressly says that
> his comment applies to everyone who is divorced by her husband in such
> circumstances.
Ward, I think you are overlooking the prominent place in this context of the
writing of divorcement, the purpose of which was to provide for remarriage.
No, Jesus is not saying "everyone who is divorced by her husband" is an
adulteress. He is condemning the husband's action and is particularly
commenting on the anticipated remarriage that is presupposed in the writing
of divorcement which the husband wrote. He is not condemning every woman who
is put away, he is contrasting the supposed effect and reputed righteousness
of the husband's action with the actual effect, assuming the wife does what
the document was intended to enable her to do.
Your further comments about divorce being forgiven and so on get into
doctrinal/theological matters that are beyond the scope of this list, so
I'll refrain from going down that road. But it seems apparent to me that
your point is based on your doctrinal comments, not on what the grammar of
Mt. 5:32 requires. Furthermore, it seems to me that you have a particular
doctrinal viewpoint in mind which you oppose. I would only ask that you not
assume I believe one cannot be forgiven of divorce or any other sin.
Jeff Smelser
jeffsmelser at ntgreek.net
www.ntgreek.net
www.centrevillechurchofchrist.org
More information about the B-Greek
mailing list