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

Harold Holmyard hholmyard3 at earthlink.net
Fri Feb 20 11:47:07 EST 2009


rhutchin at aol.com wrote:
>  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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>  
>
> ---
> B-Greek home page: http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek
> B-Greek mailing list
> B-Greek at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-greek
>
>   




More information about the B-Greek mailing list