Re: Matthew 5:31-32 (Divorce)

From: Jason Hare (parousia_occ@yahoo.com)
Date: Wed Feb 23 2000 - 17:18:21 EST


Look at my second post that I put after the intro post to this line of
questions. It has something to say. Also, look at the replies to it.

How could Jesus, talking about morals, imply that if I don‚t like my wife I
can divorce her and SHE be guilty of adultery??? Wouldn't it be more
likely that the passive word «MOICEUQHNAI» is to show that she is
victimized by his decision? It is like: He divorces her and she is
„adulteratedš by him. Doesn‚t that make more sense??

Jason Hare
Ozark Christian College
parousia_occ@yahoo.com

On 02/23/00, "dixonps@juno.com" wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2000 15:50:20 "Jason Hare" <parousia_occ@yahoo.com>
> writes:
> > «{31} ERREQH DE: hOS AN APOLUSHi THN GUNAIKA AUTOU, DOTW AUTHi
> > APOSTASION.
> > {32} EGW DE LEGW hUMIN hOTI PAS hO APOLUWN THN GUNAIKA AUTOU
> > PAREKTOS LOGOU
> > PORNEIAS POIEI AUTHN MOICEUQHNAI, KAI hOS EAN APOLELUMENHN GAMHSHi,
> > MOICATAI.»
> >
> > Can someone give help on the meaning of PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS?
>
> The safest way to take this is simply to view it as saying,
> excepting the cause of fornication for which nothing is being said.
> It parallels the idea in Mt 19:9 where MH EPI is often erroneously
> taken to mean or to imply more than it says, to wit, that the
> negation of the conditional idea is being implied: if she commits
> fornication, and her husband puts her away and he remarries,
> then he does not commit adultery.
>
> The only place in the NT where interpreters translate MH
> as "except" is in Mt 19:9. Furthermore, if such a translation
> suggests the negation, then it should be avoided. Perhaps
> it could better be paraphrased as "not for (excluding the
> case of) immorality (for which nothing is here said)."
> >
> > PAREKTOS = except, besides (from what I can tell)
> >
> > Does this mean that the divorcee has been noted as commiting
> > adultery or the one divorcing her/him?
>
> It would make no sense to refer the clause to the
> man doing the divorcing. It has to refer to the woman
> being divorced.
>
> >Does it mean that if a man commits
> > adultery, he
> > has the right to divorce his wife (for her sake) or that if she
> > commits
> > adultery, he is free to divorce her.
>
> It means only that the man who divorces his wife for any
> reason, other than her immorality (for which nothing is said,
> or implied), then he causes her to commit adultery and
> whoever subsequently marries her commits adultery.
> In other words, if your wife does not commit adultery but
> you divorce her, then you cause her to commit adultery,
> and the guy who later marries her commits adultery.
>
> >
> > It seems that if someone divorces their spouse, it indicates that
> > they
> > cause him/her to commit adultery, but if that divorcee has already
> > commited
> > adultery by their own choice it is no longer the cause of the one
> > putting
> > an end to the marriage.
>
> It is possible, perhaps even likely (but not proveable here), that
> the man who divorces his wife because of her immorality,
> does not subsequently cause her to commit adultery, nor
> that the one who marries her commits adultery.
>
> But, the text does not say, nor necessarily imply it. We have to
> look elsewhere for that.
>
> Paul Dixon

---
B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu]
To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:58 EDT