[B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9

rhutchin at aol.com rhutchin at aol.com
Fri Feb 20 08:37:58 EST 2009


 Given the choice between 

(1) those who say that the exception clause has the effect of excluding
the one case from discussion here (so that Mark 10 provides instruction
in the case of the exception) and 


(2) those who say that the mere presence of porneia by the wife excludes the man from penalty (which would then carry over to Mark 10), you side with (2).




The issue, then, is whether the grammatical structure of the sentence
actually points to one conclusion (either 1 or 2) or if the grammar is
silent on the issue and the reader is left to figure it out himself
(allowing one to choose between (1) and (2)).



Following your argument above, the exception clause (recognizing the
differences) in 1 Timothy tells us that the mere presence
of the witnesses is sufficient to condemn (although you seemed to allow
that this was not the whole story (i.e., they had to be valid witnesses) and perhaps you might even allow for the accused to offer a defense (perhaps putting into doubt the final outcome) reducing the force of the exception clause as a vehicle to condemn).







As to the question marks, I send through AOL and they just insert themselves somewhere along the way. 

Roger Hutchinson


------------------------------


Message: 4
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:07:54 -0600
From: Harold Holmyard <hholmyard3 at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [B-Greek] MH EPI PORNEIA in Matthew 19:9
To: B-Greek <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Message-ID: <499D83DA.7000104 at earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

Roger,

Your post has question marks after periods in many sentences, even when 
the sentence cannot really be taken as a question.


> The special case, MH EPI PORNEIAi, is not addressed here as it is excluded 
from discussion. 

HH: Despite some naysayers, the obvious intent of Jesus' words in the 
exception clauses of Matt 5:32 and 19:9 is to exclude divorces on the 
basis of "porneia" and subsequent remarriages from the status of 
involving adultery. There have to be both conditions in order for 
adultery to exist, so the exception concerns the entire statement.

HH: So that is why Jesus made the exception for sexual immorality. The 
woman would have been dead on strict observance of the OT law, so the 
man would have been free to remarry. Sexual immorality violated the 
marriage covenant and received a commensurate penalty in the law. Jewish 
practice had apparently softened so that often the guilty partner often 
did not die but was divorced. Yet that did not change the reality that 
the marriage covenant was broken by the sexual immorality, and an 
assumed right to remarry existed, just as it would if the woman had been 
killed for the crime.

HH: Yes, the exception is not subject to the status of adultery. When 
someone divorces his wife because of her sexual immorality and then 
remarries, there is no adultery on his part.

> MH EPI is used in 1 Tim 5:19:
>
> KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU EKTOS EI MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN.
>   
HH: It's slightly different because it is EI MH, but EKTOS with EI MKN 
seems similar to PAREKTOS in Matt 5:32.
> The force of the verse is, KATA PRESBUTEROU KATHGORIAN MH PARADEXOU.?
>  The exception is MH EPI DUO H TRIWN MARTURWN or not without two or three 
witnesses.? This is meant to limit accusations KATA PRESBUTEROU.? However, 
bringing an accusation even with two or three witnesses does not, in itself, 
prove the accusation and condemn the accused.? It merely establishes a basic 
requirement for making an accusation (and then following Matthew 18, that 
accusation would be made in private to the accused and not in public).

HH: This is an accusation that Timothy is to receive, and he was serving 
as pastor. PARADEXOMAI means "receive, accept, acknowledge (as 
correct)." Paul could have meant PARADEXOMAI in that last sense 
("acknowledge as correct") and then would have been assuming that the 
witnesses were valid witnesses. But even if he meant PARADEXOMAI as 
"receive" or "accept," it was conceivably a matter that had gone beyond 
the private stage of Matthew 18 and had been brought to the church. 
Timothy would have represented the church.
>
> The exception in Matthew 19 does not take away from the force of the verse 
which clearly limits the ability of a man to divorce his wife.? As a grammatical 
issue, the presence of the exception (MH EPI) seems to exclude that issue from 
discussion and does not necessarily allow, require or justify a man to divorce 
his wife.? 
>   

HH: Yes, the exception allows the man to divorce his sexually immoral 
wife and marry another woman without incurring the status of being an 
adulterer. And Jesus was speaking of the way God regarded the matter.

Yours,
Harold Holmyard



------------------------------




 




More information about the B-Greek mailing list