Re: b-greek-digest V1 #1013 Luke 17:21-entos humwn

From: Lyle Story (
Date: Thu Oct 09 1997 - 07:51:44 EDT

There are two significant problems attached with translating the preposition
entos as "within": 1) Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus speak of the
Kingdom of God as an inner experience; it is a fact of history. Men, women
and children enter it; the Kingdom doesn't enter them. The Kingdom is a
reality that comes upon them, they enter it, or will possess it, but it is
not localized within them. In Luke 10:11, when the disciples are sent out
on their missionary journey, they are to say, "The Kingdom of God has come
upon you," whether received or not. 2) In the context, Jesus addresses the
Pharisees as His critics; it would appear to be inconsistent that Jesus
would affirm that the Kingdom of God is localized within His critics.

At 10:58 AM 10/8/97 EDT, you wrote:
>b-greek-digest Wednesday, 8 October 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1013
>In this issue:
> Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
> Clergy/Laity
> ENTOS in Luke 17:21
> Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
> Re: Clergy/Laity
> Re: Ephesians 4:11?
> Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
> Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
> Re: Acts 2:38
> B-Greek Survey
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:10:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
>I too have been studying the divorce/remarriage issue. I wish I could ge=
>access to Ward Powers=92 doctoral dissertation. But could I get a reply =
>on the
>following (please forgive my Greek):
>1. In Matt 19:1-9, two different words are discussed. APOLUO and
>APOSTASION. I never find Jesus condemning an APOSTASION. Is it possible=
>, in
>the Greek, that Jesus (Matt 19:9) only has a problem if the person only h=
>an APOLUO without the APOSTASION?
>2. Can APOLUO in verse 9 be considered a synonym of APOSTASION of the
>earlier verses?
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:44:02 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Clergy/Laity
>Being limited as a student of the English Bible, I had come to think that
>Clergy/Laity was an artificial distinction that, though traditional, had
>developed outside of the New Testament. Though I now learn that these words
>can be traced back to the Greek KLHROS and LAOS, it still seems to fall short
>of the New Testament. The only place in the N. T. where I found KLHROS is
>referring to a class of persons was in I Peter 3:5, (KJV: heritage) where,
>much to my suprise, it seems to be equlivant to "the flock" (ie: the laity!?)
>...and since "lay" comes from "LOAS," does that mean that a "lay-person" is a
>"people person?" [ : ^}> )
>The Barbarian
>From: John Reece <>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:00:49 -0400
>Subject: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
>With the fear and trembling of a novice on the Internet (I just had a
>modem put in my computer this week), I will try to put briefly in the
>form of e-mail some of the fruit of past exegetical effort.
>Larry Krupper did "not find it [ENTOS] at all in the LXX". I have found
>it in the LXX in 8 verses:
>1 Maccabees 4:48 (NRSV) says "They rebuilt the sanctuary and the
>interior (ENTOS) of the temple."
>Psalm 39:3 (NRSV; 38:4 in LXX) says, "my heart became hot within
>(ENTOS) me."
>Psalm 103:1 (NRSV; 102:1 in LXX) says, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and
>all that is within (ENTOS) me."
>Psalm 109:22 (NRSV; 108:22 in LXX) says, "my heart is pierced within
>(ENTOS) me."
>Song of Solomon 1:10 (NJB) says, "Your cheeks show fair between their
>pendants and your neck within (ENTOS) its necklesses."
>Sirach 19:26 (NRSV) says, "There is the villain bowed down in mourning,
>but inwardly (TA ENTOS) he is full of deceit."
>Isaiah 16:11 (NRSV) says, "...and my inmost being (TA ENTOS)..."
>Daniel 10:16 says, "at the sight of you my inmost being (TA ENTOS) is
>changed in me (EN EMOI)" (my own "literal" translation - JR; none of the
>English versions give a full or "literal" tranlation of the redundany in
>the Greek text).
>Matthew 23:26 says, "First clean the inside (ENTOS) of the cup and the
>dish, and then the outside (EKTOS) also will be clean."
>The consistent biblical sense of ENTOS, as seen in the nine other
>occurances of the word in the Bible, is "within, inside"
>I find it helpful to look at another approach to ascertaining the sense
>of the word in Luke 17:21; that is, to check contexts in which the
>Author of Luke-Acts used Greek words translated by the versions into
>English as "in the midst" or "among", so as to see what word or words
>the author most likely would have used in Luke 17:21, if indeed he had
>meant to express such a meaning. In Acts 2:22, we find this translation:
>"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and
>wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst." The
>final phrase in the quote is EN MESO hUMON. It seems to me that that is
>the phrase that would have been used in Luke 17:21 if the author had in
>mind a sense corresponding to "in the midst" or "among".
>This conclusion is reinforced by a consideration of the context of Luke
>17:21, in which the contrast is between what can be seen by "careful
>observation (NIV) and what cannot be seen by such observation (because
>of being out of sight within).
>A.T Robertson (in Word Studies in the Greek New Testament) adequately
>answers the challenge which says "Surely Jesus would not say to the
>Pharisees that the kingdom of God is in their hearts": In the words of
>Robertson, "What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others,
>are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward
>displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display
>'Here' or 'There".
>John Reece
>From: Jonathan Robie <>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:33:42 -0400
>Subject: Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
>At 06:00 AM 10/8/97 -0400, John Reece wrote:
>Well, as I was writing my own response to Lars, along came this wonderful
>post from John Reece, which is much better than what I was saying. I still
>want to rescue a few things from my now-obsolete post:
>1. The idea of the kingdom being within each of us also occurs in phrases
>like hO ESW ANQRWPOS "the inner person" and hO EN TW KRUPTWi ANQRWPOS "the
>hidden person".
>2. Lars suggested that ENTOS+genitive occurs only once, but both instances
>of ENTOS that I see are accompanied by the genitive.
>3. BAGD has a number of bibliographical references on Luke 17:21 in its
>entry for ENTOS.
>Jonathan Robie
>POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
>From: "John M. Sweigart" <>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:47:49 -0500
>Subject: Re: Clergy/Laity
> wrote:
>> Being limited as a student of the English Bible, I had come to think that
>> Clergy/Laity was an artificial distinction that, though traditional, had
>> developed outside of the New Testament. Though I now learn that these words
>> can be traced back to the Greek KLHROS and LAOS, it still seems to fall short
>> of the New Testament. The only place in the N. T. where I found KLHROS is
>> referring to a class of persons was in I Peter 3:5, (KJV: heritage) where,
>> much to my suprise, it seems to be equlivant to "the flock" (ie: the laity!?)
>> ...and since "lay" comes from "LOAS," does that mean that a "lay-person" is a
>> "people person?" [ : ^}> )
>> The Barbarian
>Hello Banjo;
>The whole word group surrounding KLHROS is fascinating and well worth
>study but I think that it has always something to do with inheritance
>and does not emphasize any unique group in the body of Christ. The LAOS
>accoding to LSJ can mean "foot soldiers or soldiers as a group, the
>crowd at a play, and in the OT the people in distinction from the
>priests and Levites." Of course in the NT the priesthood of the
>believer, one of the pillars of the Reformation, eliminates that
>dichotomy since all believers are capable of offering the various
>bloodless sacrifices commanded in NT writing.
>- --
>Rev. John M. Sweigart
>Box 895
>Dover, Arkansas 72837
>Cumberland Presbyterian Church
>From: "Paul F. Evans" <>
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:08:37 -0400
>Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:11?
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCD3C1.6155E7E0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Just a thought. Even though this is an aorist verb, it does not
>necessarily limit the endowment represented to the past. It may limit the
>act, but does not limit the nature of the endowment. IMHO the tense cannot
>dtermine this. Only the context can really determine whether or not Paul
>intended a permanent endowment or a temporary one.
>Paul F. Evans
>Thunder Swamp Pentecostal Holiness Church
>MT. Olive
>- ----------
>> From: Anton Hein <>
>> To:
>> Subject: Ephesians 4:11?
>> Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:00 AM
>> Hi,
>> I have a question regarding Ephesians 4:11. In the Greek, is the "gave"
>> in this verse a continuing action, or a one-time act.
>> The question behind the question is: can this verse be used to support
>> the idea of a present-day five-fold ministry? Or did the church at one
>> time have apostles and people ministering in the office of apostle, but
>> currently we have evangelists, pastors and teachers?
>> Thanks,
>> Anton
>> --
>> Christian Ministry Report -
>> Promoting Balance in Renewal/Revival Movements.
>> CMR's Renewal Discussion List: email
>> with in the body of your message: info cmr-renewal
>- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCD3C1.6155E7E0
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
>color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">Anton,<br><br>Just a thought. =
>&nbsp;Even though this is an aorist verb, it does not necessarily limit =
>the endowment represented to the past. &nbsp;It may limit the act, but =
>does not limit the nature of the endowment. &nbsp;IMHO the tense cannot =
>dtermine this. Only the context can really determine whether or not Paul =
>intended a permanent endowment or a temporary one.<br><br>Paul F. =
>Evans<br>Pastor<br>Thunder Swamp Pentecostal Holiness Church<br>MT. =
>Olive<br><br>E-mail:<br>Web-page: =
>><br>----------<br>&gt; From: Anton Hein =
>&lt;<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u></u><font =
>color=3D"#000000">&gt;<br>&gt; To: <font =
>color=3D"#0000FF"><u></u><font =
>color=3D"#000000"><br>&gt; Subject: Ephesians 4:11?<br>&gt; Date: =
>Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:00 AM<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Hi,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; =
>I have a question regarding Ephesians 4:11. &nbsp;In the Greek, is the =
>&quot;gave&quot;<br>&gt; in this verse a continuing action, or a =
>one-time act.<br>&gt; <br>&gt; The question behind the question is: can =
>this verse be used to support<br>&gt; the idea of a present-day =
>five-fold ministry? &nbsp;Or did the church at one<br>&gt; time have =
>apostles and people ministering in the office of apostle, but<br>&gt; =
>currently we have evangelists, pastors and teachers?<br>&gt; <br>&gt; =
>Thanks,<br>&gt; <br>&gt; Anton<br>&gt; -- <br>&gt; Christian Ministry =
>Report - <font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>><font =
>color=3D"#000000"><br>&gt; Promoting Balance in Renewal/Revival =
>Movements.<br>&gt; CMR's Renewal Discussion List: email <font =
>color=3D"#0000FF"><u></u><font color=3D"#000000"><br>&gt; with =
>in the body of your message: &nbsp;info cmr-renewal</p>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCD3C1.6155E7E0--
>From: Glen Riddle <>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 07:28:12 -0700
>Subject: Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
>lakr wrote:
>> Dear B-Greekers,
>> I have been researching the use of ENTOS with respect to Luke 17:21.
>> I have read the articles in the 'Journal of Evangelical Theological
>> Society, March 1992' and 'The Westminster Theological Journal 1962,
>> Volume 25'. They take oposing views for the translation of this
>> word.
>> Sincerely,
>> Larry Kruper
>check out the article by H.J. Cadbury (ref. in BAGD) where he showed
>from papyri ENTOS UMWN was idiomatic for "available to you" or "within
>your reach". It's been years since I've looked at the article, but I
>think that's the jist of it.
>From: Ward Powers <>
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 00:25:38 +1000
>Subject: Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
>At 20:09 97/10/05 -0500, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
>>Thanks for your considered thoughts on the background and
>>interpretation of the meaning of PORNEIA in Mt 5:32 and 19:9. I,
>>too, have previously been involved in writing on NT divorce texts
>>(specifically Mk 10:1-12). And what you have said set in contrast
>>with my own views have led me to the following comments and
>Jeffrey's thoughtful questions demand and deserve a thoughtful answer.
>>2. You are quite right to say that respecting the Rabbinic
>>interpretation of Deut 24:1, M. Git records three, not two
>>In fact, here is the text:
>> The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife
>> unless he has found any unchastity in her, for it is
>> written 'Because he has found in her indecency in
>> anything' [Deut. 24:1a]. And the School of Hillel say:
>> (He may divorce her) even if she spoiled a dish for him,
>> for it is written 'Because he has found indecency in
>> anything'. R. Akiba says, Even if he found another fairer
>> than she, for it is written, 'And it shall be if she find
>> no favour in his eyes ...'.
>>But I am a little leery of your claim not only that Akiva lived
>>"just after" the time of Jesus, but also that the view attributed
>>to Akiva flourished during the time of Jesus, and therefore
>>represents the foil against which the Matthean Jesus formulates his
>>teaching on divorce, and against which PORNEIA should be
>>understood. Akiva, according to Strack, flourished between 110-135
>>CE. (And he was known to be ignorant of the Law until he was
>>forty!) So if it the third view originates with him, *as M. Git.
>>clearly states*, it is hardly one that is contemporary with Jesus
>>(or, for that matter, Matthew). If it did *not* originate with him,
>>but earlier (and presumably with someone else), why is this not
>>indicated in M. Git.?
>I myself would consider that it is going beyond the evidence to conclude
>that M. Git. says that the view in question originated with R. Akiba. The
>passage states, "R. Akiba says". It does not assert that he was the first
>one to say this, but only that it was the view that he (a prominent Jewish
>teacher) held and affirmed. Thus it is the view associated with his name.
>It is by no means unheard of that a view already proposed can be put
>forward by a later advocate and become associated with his name. An
>example: the view that Mark was the third of the Synoptic authors to write
>his Gospel, and that he drew upon Matthew and Luke, was put forward by
>Henry Owen in 1764. But after Griesbach made it the basis of his Synopsis
>(1789/90) it became known as "the Griesbach hypothesis", and still is so
>termed to the present time - e.g., in the title of the 1983 book by C.
>Tuckett, "The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis". Why not call it "the
>Henry Owen Hypothesis"? Indeed, William Farmer's school tried to popularize
>the term "the Owen-Griesbach hypothesis". But, since the time of Griesbach,
>his name has been attached to it. So also we have the evidence (see below)
>that the view which the Talmud associates with Akiba was current as early
>as Christ's day; and we can legitimately refer to it as "the Akiba
>position" or the like.
>>My reason for raising this point (and my
>>justification that raising it is within the scope of B-Greek) is to
>>question whether Akiva's view is really the interpretative key to
>>Mt 5:32. It seems to me, based on the evidence of M. Git., that it
>>is far too late to qualify as such. What is your evidence that the
>>view attributed to Akiva co-existed, and did not follow (as M. Git.
>>implies) with those of Shammai and Hillel?
>What is the situation Jesus is discussing in Mt 19:9? It is the situation
>of a man who leaves his wife and marries another woman instead - exactly
>the situation put forward by Rabbi Akiba, who makes no mention of fault on
>the part of the first wife (as in Deut 24:1) - just that the husband has
>found someone else whom he likes better. Contrast this with Shammai and
>Hillel, neither of whom mention the husband preferring another woman and
>both of whom speak of some fault on the part of the wife, differing only in
>how serious that fault needs to be. So Jesus is referring to behaviour in
>line with the Akiba view when he talks of the person who sheds Wife No 1
>when she has not been guilty of "porneia"/"ervath davar", and marries
>instead of her, Wife No 2.
>So also in Mt 5:32: the view, and the behaviour, that Jesus is addressing
>is exactly identical with the Akiba position as set out in the Talmud.
>>3. Even should we admit that the Akivan view of the *grounds* for
>>divorce *was* "flourishing" prior to 30 CE (or before the time of
>>Matthew -- when do you date Matthew, by the way?), this, I think,
>>gains us nothing. My reading of Mt 5:32 is that Jesus is not
>>dealing with the issue of whether certain grounds used in
>>justifying divorce (whether Akiva's or anyone else's) are
>>illegitimate, but whether divorce itself is to be countenanced,
>>*even when the wife has engaged in PORNEIA*. For Jesus'
>>pronouncement, standing as it does as an antithesis (EGW DE LEGW
>>hUMIN hOTI), is in meany in Mt. 5 to undercut the view to which it
>>stands antithetically. And this is not "You have heard it said,
>>`Anyone who divorces his wife may do so if he finds in her some
>>unseemly thing such as spoiling food or getting ugly'". Rather it
>>is, "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her
>>a certificate of divorce.'. Might we not be better off in taking
>>PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS as meaning "the grounds of PORNEIA (however
>>interpreted) not withstanding", and therefore Jesus pronouncement
>>as saying "But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife,
>>even on the otherwise legal ground of unchastity, makes her an
>PAREKTOS only otherwise occurs twice in the GNT: 2 Corinthians 11:28, as an
>adverb; and Acts 26:29, as a preposition (as in Mt 5:32) - its use in this
>verse reads, "except for these chains".
>The authorities I have consulted confirm my own understanding that, both in
>and out of the GNT, as a preposition PAREKTOS means "except" (or a
>synonym). I cannot see any basis for reading PAREKTOS as you propose, as
>"notwithstanding" or "even" - which would give (as we both agree) a
>different meaning to Christ's words. Is there an authority for this meaning
>that I have overlooked?
>If we accept then the recognized meaning of this word, the Greek of Mt 5:32
>says, "Everyone who divorces his wife except on the basis of porneia makes
>her into an adulteress." This comment is not condoning or (to use your
>word) countenancing divorce. It is certainly not providing a ground that
>excuses or allows divorce. Divorce always represents a failure to fulfil
>God's perfect will, and is always a consequence of sin within the marriage.
>Rather, Jesus is here saying, "Everyone who divorces his wife when she is
>not guilty of committing porneia makes her (stigmatizes her as) an
>adulteress - that is, gives her the stigma of a person who has committed
>porneia, when she is not such a one." The case which Jesus excludes is when
>she HAS been guilty of porneia, when of course she brings upon herself the
>stigma of "adulteress".
>>4. If I understand you correctly with regard to the meaning of Mt
>>19:9, you make the claim that, given the appearance of MH at the
>>beginning of the clause containing the term PORNEIA, Jesus'
>>pronouncement contains a "not" and not an "exceptive" clause. But
>>is there functionally any real difference between Jesus saying "...
>>who ever divorces his wife for any grounds other than PORNEIA, and
>>marries another commits adultery" (which I take to be the essence
>>of how you'd translate this verse)
>No, this is certainly NOT what I am saying. (This is one of the eleven
>views about divorce and remarriage which I have found held in the church,
>and which in my book I seek to show to be misguided and erroneous.) Let me
>hasten to clear up this misunderstanding of the interpretation which I
>advocated in my previous post.
>> and "... whoever divorces his
>>wife, except for PORNEIA, and marries another, commits adultery"?
>Jesus has just said (Mt 19:8) that Moses tolerated divorce, though this was
>because of their hardheartedness, and it was not in accord with God's
>intention from the beginning. The basis upon which Moses allowed divorce
>was when the wife had been guilty of "ervath davar" ("porneia"). But the
>Pharisees (Jesus says) have gone into hardheartednesss much further than
>this. They endorse divorce, not on the basis of the wife's porneia (when
>even that concession was an accommodation to hardheartedness), but just so
>that the husband can marry another woman whom he desires more than his wife.
>My understanding is that Jesus is here (Mt 19:9a) describing what some of
>the people were doing, and he then tells them (Mt 19:9b) how this is viewed
>in God's eyes. What they are doing is divorcing a wife, not on the ground
>of her porneia, and then taking another woman as wife. This is turning from
>one's wife to another woman: which is adultery.
>Another of the eleven views of divorce found in the church just cuts off
>the latter part of the precondition, and has it that marrying a second wife
>(after a divorce) is adultery; this view therefore bans the remarriage of a
>divorcee. But in the teaching of Jesus, the person who is committing
>adultery is the person who is doing two things as a package deal (two sides
>of the one coin, as we say): getting rid of Wife No 1 to marry Wife No 2.
>The situation envisaged is where the first wife is discarded because the
>husband is now more attracted to another woman and wants her instead. That
>is, it is the Akiba situation exactly.
>>5. In either case, we end up with a Jesus who seemingly says that
>>there IS at least one circumstance in which divorce is legitimate,
>>namely, when the husband finds ervath devar/PORNEIA in his wife.
>No! No!! A thousand times No!!! (If I were permitted, I would shout a
>little here and say NO!!!! - just for emphasis. But I had better restrain
>myself and confine myself to the quieter tones of scholarly discussion.)
>The command of Christ is clear: What God has joined together let no human
>being split asunder (Mt 19:9/Mk 10:11). Paul cites this command of Christ
>(1 Corinthians 7:10): "To those who have become married, I give this
>command - not I, but the Lord - a wife must not be separated from her
>husband." (All these verses use the same word for what is forbidden:
>CWRIZW, "sunder, sever, separate, split apart".)
>There is no situation, ever, where divorce is "legitimate", in the sense of
>"in accordance with the law of God", i.e., the will of God. It is always an
>evil, the result of sin, a consequence of a marriage breakdown that ought
>not to have occurred and that is due to culpable human failure. It is a bad
>thing when a marriage breakdown occurs: there are no circumstances that can
>make a bad thing into a good thing.
>But lest this should go forth as a partial (and therefore unbalanced)
>presentation of the total biblical teaching, let me hasten to add two extra
>1. A broken marriage is not the worst possible sin. Sometimes the
>sinfulness of how we treat each other in a marriage makes it a foretast of
>hell, so that to get out of that situation is the lesser of two evils. But
>even when something is "the lesser of two evils:, it is to be recognized as
>an evil, not somehow transmogrified into something good.
>2. A broken marriage is not the unforgivable sin. Christ came to bring
>forgiveness, and the whole message of the gospel is a message of repentance
>and forgiveness of sins (Lk 24:47). Repentance, forgiveness, and cleansing
>bring us a fresh start, by God's grace. This can include remarriage, in
>accordance with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.
>>But this leaves us with Jesus teaching something which is in flat
>>contradiction not only to what Jesus is reported as teaching in Mk
>>10:2-12, but also in the remainder of the Matthean story in which
>>Mt 19:9 occurs (Mt 19:3-12). I'm curious to know how you resolve
>>the conflict.
>No question, there is a major point of difference between what Matthew
>records, and what Mark records. Can they be reconciled? Some commentators
>have said the later church added an exception into Mt 19:9 to avoid an
>absolute total blanket prohibition on divorce and provide one basis for
>escaping a marriage. (On this view, the "exceptive clause" does not go back
>to Christ, and thus does not have dominical authority.) Other commentators
>say that what is explicit in Mt is implicit in Mk, and so can be accepted.
>My response is, The reconciliation between what is said in the two Gospels
>comes from seeing the exact nature of the wording (and thus, the meaning)
>of the clause in question in the Greek, and noting the different context in
>Mt and Mk.
>Mt 19:9 is paralleled in Mk 10:11 (cf. also Lk 16:18). How does it happen
>that Mt 19:9 - and Mt 5:32 - have the reference to "porneia", whereas Mk
>10:11 and Lk 16:18 do not? (In what follows I will summarize what requires
>quite a few pages in "Marriage and Divorce".)
>The answer is most clearly seen if we start by comparing Mt 19:9 with Mk
>10:11. The two verses are almost identical in wording. Mk contains EP'
>AUTHN ("with her" or "against her"), which Mt lacks, but the two major
>differences are (a) that Mt contains (and Mk lacks) the MH clause MH EPI
>PORNEIA: and (b) that Mt says he is recording what Jesus said to the
>Pharisees (19:3) who were citing Deut 24:1 to Jesus (Mt 19:7), whereas Mark
>says he is recording part of a subsequent further discussion between Jesus
>and his disciples.
>Now let's look at the other two relevant Gospel verses. Check Lk 16:18: it
>is found in a context of general teaching without reference to Deut 24:1.
>Check Mt 5:31-32: Jesus says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife
>must give her a certificate of divorce.'" This is a PARTIAL quote of Deut
>24:1, omitting the reference to grounds. Jesus attributes this as something
>that "was also said". He is not citing the OT; this is always done by
>saying "it is written" (e.g., Mt 11:10; 21:13; 26:31) or "have you
>not/never read" (e.g., Mt 21:16; 21:42; 22:31), or by giving the name of
>the OT prophet or writer (e.g., Mt 13:14; 15:7; 22:43), or by attributing
>what was said to God (e.g., Mt 15:4; 19:5).
>In contradistinction, when Jesus says "you have heard that it was said" (or
>similar, as occurs several times in Mt 5), he is referring to the oral
>tradition amongst the Jews - he is picking up on those places where Jewish
>tradition was distorting the teaching of the OT by adding something or
>leaving something out, or giving it a slight twist. In Mt 5:31 Jesus is
>citing a current oral use of Deut 24:1 which omits the ground for divorce
>mentioned in that verse. That is, it is the Akiba teaching of divorce,
>which omits "porneia" on the part of the wife.
>In sum, then: What is the feature of the context of Mt 5:32 and 19:9 which
>is not present in Mk 10:11 and Lk 16:18? The two occasions when Jesus
>mentions "porneia" are in the context of current Jewish teaching about Deut
>24:1 which omits reference to "ervath davar"; the two occasions when Jesus
>talks of divorce without reference to porneia are in the context of
>speaking to his disciples (Mk 10:11) or speaking more generally on the
>topic (Lk 16:18), without the Pharisees or the question of current Jewish
>teaching on Deut 24:1 being in view.
>Conclusion: Jesus mentioned "porneia" ("ervath davar") in relation to a
>type of teaching on divorce which, while drawing upon Deut 24:1, was
>omitting the Deuteronomic reference to it.
>>6. Might not the conflict be solved if we understood MH EPI PORNEIA
>>not as "except for PORNEIA" nor "for any grounds other than
>>PORNEIA", but as PORNEIA notwithstanding"? To my mind this fits in
>>better with what precedes Jesus' pronouncement (his appeal in Mt
>>19:4-6 to Gen 3 to show that God's will is that a marriage union
>>should not be sundered) as well as with his answer to the question
>>of his interlocutors about why, if God intended no divorce, Moses
>>allowed it (Mt 19:8; cp. vs. 7), AND with the disciples'
>>proclamation that in the light of Jesus' teaching "... it is not
>>expedient to marry" (Mt 19:10) - a response that seems inexplicable
>>if Jesus HAD conceded that divorce for PORNEIA is legitimate.
>Jeffrey, we are in complete agreement in our reading of the Scriptures that
>God's will is that a marriage union should not be sundered, and that God
>intended no divorce.
>It was no part of the Deuteronomic legislation to "provide for" divorce in
>any sense which means that divorce is to be regarded as acceptable
>behaviour; it provides for divorce only in the same sense in which an
>automobile insurance policy provides for car accidents or a fire
>extinguisher and a first aid kit provide for fires and injuries. Therefore
>it is quite wrong, it seems to me, to say that Moses accorded to divorce
>the status of law, or of divine permission, for it goes quite beyond the
>wording of Deuteronomy to say this. There is not the slightest suggestion
>that Moses approved it or "made it legal". Rather, divorce had a "common
>law" existence in the land and he sought to control and reduce it without
>in any way condoning it or legalizing it - as in our country we might seek
>to control road accidents or forest fires or prostitution without in any
>sense approving of these things.
>>7. I'm also curious to know what you make of the fact that the
>>question which garners Mt 19:9 from Jesus is said by Matthew to be
>>something which subjects Jesus to PEIRASMOS (cf. Mt 19:2; compare
>>Mk 10:2). Is this purely an academic test, a request for
>>information which might be helpful in settling the (as M. Git
>>shows) a vexed question on how ervath devar should be interpreted?
>>Or do you see it as something else?
>Divorce was a topical issue at the time. Asking Jesus a question about it
>could be likened a little bit to asking a political candidate or prominent
>leader today to declare where he stood on abortion or gun control. The
>Pharisees were testing Jesus in the sense of putting him on the spot. If he
>answered that he agreed with the Shammai or the Hillel or the Akiba
>position, he would be put offside with the advocates of the alternative
>schools; if he dodged the issue he could be dismissed as far as the
>relevance of his teaching to real issues was concerned. The Pharisees
>thought that, whatever Jesus answered or did not answer, it would
>strengthen their position in opposition to him.
>What Jesus did by way of answer was to show that divorce had no place at
>all (on ANY grounds) in God's perfect will.
>>Jeffrey Gibson
>For your consideration.
>Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
>10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
>SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email:
>From: "F. Holly Mitchell" <>
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:38:29 -0500 (CDT)
>Subject: Re: Acts 2:38
>> >I am looking for comments on the Greek construction of Acts 2:38.
>> >Specifically the relation between 'repent' and 'be baptised'. Are they two
>> >equal commands?
>> The greek is:
>> I'm not sure just what you are getting at by "equal commands" but METANOHSATE
>> and BAPTISQHTW are both aorist imparatives conjoined by KAI and so would seem
>> to be equal to me.
>> >Also the 'for the remission of sins'. Does this mean that
>> >the baptism remitted the sins?
>> >
>> In my opinion, EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN is to be taken with
>> phrase, from BAPTISQHTW to XRISTOU, I translate together as a unit thus: "be
>> baptized in the name of Jesus Christ). In other words, these two things
>> being done (i.e., I repent and am baptized in the name of Jesus Christ), the
>> result (indicated by EIS...hUMWN) is that my sins are forgiven.
>My text includes a footnoted reference to Acts 3:19,
>Here, it really seems as if the crucial act is turning again to God.
>But now I've got more questions than I started with. (aaargh!!!)
>Is there a subtle distinction between the meanings of METANOEW and
>EPISTREFW that I'm not getting or are the two verbs parallel?
>Also I'm betting that whether the result is AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hMWN or
>EZALEIFQHNAI hUMWN TAS hAMARIAS, it *still* means that my sins are removed
>as far as East is from West.
>What do you learned doctors think?
>God Bless,
>Ginger (assistant to Holly)
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <>
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:38:41 -0500
>Subject: B-Greek Survey
>I apologize for the bandwidth that a re-sending of the survey form
>requires, but although we've had about 60 replies (out of approximately 450
>list-members of both B-Greek and B-Greek Digest) thus far, there are some
>of our most regular posters who have not as yet responded and I'd like to
>make sure they have a chance before I complete the tabulation and publicize
>what has been learned about the list-membership.
>Two points: (1) This really IS voluntary, and if you don't want to reply or
>don't think it's worth the time and effort for you to reply, you need not
>do so. (2) I think that if you use your mailer's reply function on this
>version, there's no danger that it will go anywhere except back to me.
>Thanks very much. I will say at this point only that the replies have
>indeed been interesting, informative, and gratifying regarding the utility
>of our list--but I'll let you know in more detail what I mean by that after
>I'm sure that those who want to respond have done so.
>B-Greek Survey (purely voluntary)
>Welcome to B-Greek. We are very glad you are here, and would like to know a
>little more about you. We know that we have a wide variety of people on the
>list - from self-taught beginners to well-known authorities, from
>computational linguists interested in the formal structure of the language
>to simple believers trying to further their spiritual life. We would like
>to know more about your own background in order to help us make everybody
>welcome here. We are not trying to figure out what most people are like in
>order to establish norms for the list; instead, we are more interested in
>knowing about the range of people who are interested in B-Greek. However, we
>know that some people prefer not to participate in surveys, and there is no
>pressure to do so. Although we think the range of backgrounds discovered by
>this means may be of interest to all, we do not intend to disclose any
>information about individuals, nor have we any intention to release
>information derived from this questionnaire to any publishers or
>Some of the questions may well admit of more than one answer; feel free to
>indicate all that you deem applicable to your own situation.
>1. From what basis of interest did you subscribe to B-Greek (-Digest)?
>(a) lay-person seeking to develop/expand skills in Biblical Greek in order
>to read the Biblical text in the original language
>(b) pastor of a church seeking to develop/expand skills in Biblical Greek
>in order to be a better communicator of the Biblical message in teaching
>and/or preaching
>(c) undergraduate college student learning Biblical Greek
>(d) seminary student learning Biblical Greek
>(e) seminary or university graduate student using Biblical Greek for research
>(f) lay-person interested chiefly in Biblical Greek language/linguistics
>(g) professional teacher of Biblical Greek (e.g., in a university, seminary)
>(h) other? Please explain.
>2. How much and what kind of Greek study have you done?
>(a) very little or none
>(b) self-taught (Explain, if you'd like to)
>(c) one or more years of course work in college or seminary
>(d) several years of reading and study
>(e) other? (e.g., translator of the Bible into vernaculars, in the field)
>Please explain.
>3. What do you find most helpful in B-Greek exchanges? (answer all that apply)
>(a) answers to specific questions about the grammar of Biblical texts
>(b) exegetical insights into the meaning of Biblical texts derived from
>grammatical analysis
>(c) discussion of questions of Biblical Greek language: words, morphology,
>or syntax
>(d) bibliographical information regarding Bible or Greek or related subjects
>(e) pedagogical discussion on learning and teaching of Greek
>(f) other? Please explain.
>4. What, if anything, do you find annoying in B-Greek exchanges?
>(optional, but please answer if you have peeves)
>5. Have you published anything you might like others to know about?
>(optional: your answer will win you no awards nor will it qualify or
>disqualify you)
>6. Do you maintain a web-site with matters pertinent to B-Greek
>subscribers? Would you share the URL with us?
>7. Since e-addresses are often inadequate indicators of where a poster
>resides, would you please tell us where you live?
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics/Washington University
>One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
>Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
> OR
>End of b-greek-digest V1 #1013
>To unsubscribe from this list write
>with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
>automated services write to the above address with the message content
>For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
>You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
Dr. J. Lyle Story
Associate Dean (t)804/579-4402
School of Divinity (f)804/579-4597
Regent University
1000 Regent University Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23464

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:31 EDT