Updated: 26th 4:01pm
Introduction to McFall’s Research Paper
Leslie McFall has written an interesting 43-page paper called The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage. In his paper, he discusses an addition that Desiderius Erasmus added to his Greek-Latin New Testament (1516 1st ed) that [he claims] changed the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated.
McFall [offers evidence he says] shows how Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ in Mat 19:9 has lead to the incorrect translation of this verse. What should be translated as an exclusion to divorce, “not even for fornication” (McFall Translation), is seen by most to be a exception to divorce and remarry, “except it be for fornication” (KJV).
While the other scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18, Rom 7:2, 3; 1Cor 7:11, 39) are very clear on divorce and remarriage, many people find that Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9 leaves them puzzled and uncertain as to what the Word of God teaches concerning divorce and remarriage.
The purpose of this article is to introduce you to the concepts that McFall discusses at length in his research paper. I have been in communication with McFall concerning his paper, and have made a number of suggestions to him. He has reviewed this introduction to his paper and has given me a number of suggestions, which I have implemented.
The concepts outlined by McFall clearly show that the so-called ‘exception clause’ in Mat 19:9 is an exclusion to divorce, not an exception to divorce and remarry. This will bring an understanding that Mat 5:32 is an exception to blame, not an exception to divorce and remarry; hence the divorce and remarriage issue fits together like a puzzle, and people can get peace for this difficult question.
History of the Textus Receptus
Many people that hold to the KJV and the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek manuscript are not even aware of the history of the Greek manuscript. They are surprised when you tell them that, for the most part, it was the work of a Roman Catholic priest. Let me give you a short history.
Erasmus (1466-1536) was a Dutch humanist who was ordained to the Catholic priesthood in 1492, and stayed loyal to the Roman Catholic Church until his death. He became very popular in Europe for his satirical writings like “The Praise of Folly” (1509), which poked fun at the church and state. He also wrote many scholarly works, and held a debate with Luther on the freedom of the will.
Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (3rd ed) was the basis for the 1st edition of the Robert Stephens’ 1546 Greek New Testament. Stephens’ 1550 edition (3rd ed) was the well known “Royal” edition. Theodore Beza published a Greek New Testament in 1565 that was basically the same as Stephens’ 4th edition of 1551.
Then, in 1565, Bonaventure Elzevir reproduced the 1st edition of Beza’s Greek Manuscript – which is now known as the Textus Receptus (TR). The 1611 King James version of the Bible was based on this Greek manuscript and other translations from this historical era of manuscripts.
The Greek Manuscripts that Erasmus Used
When Erasmus put together his Greek-Latin New Testament, he used 7 manuscripts. Only 3 of them contained the Gospels. Using the Gregory-Aland numbering system, these manuscripts were MS1 (1200s), MS2 (1200s), and MS69 (1500s).
It is important to note Erasmus’ position on divorce and remarriage. Erasmus published his view of divorce in “Annotationes” (1519), which was that the remarriage of a divorced person was legitimate. He later developed a more elaborate defense of this position, which he published in the 1522 and 1527 editions of “Annotationes”.
Erasmus added the Greek word εἰ (if) before μὴ (not) into Matt 19:9, thus changing the text to read from “not” to “except”. There is no information on why Erasmus added εἰ. None of the manuscripts he used support this addition, and the marginal reading from manuscript MS69 with this reading appears to have been added post-Erasmus.
If you are interested in the Erasmus’ Greek-Latin New Testament is can be purchased for $34.69 or downloaded in PDF (296MB) for free.
Erasmus Changed the Latin Also
Erasmus’ New Testament was a Greek and Latin translation. He not only added this addition to the Greek manuscript, but his Latin translation was different from the Latin Vulgate, in that it included the exception clause and broadened the exception from “fornication” to “disgrace”.
The Latin word in the Vulgate was “fornicationem” and the Latin word Erasmus used in his Latin New Testament was “stuprum”, which is defined in the Oxford Latin Dictionary as “dishonour, disgrace, defilement, unchastity, debauchery, lewdness, and violation”
Vulgate and Erasmus Latin Compared
The following is a comparison of Matthew 19:9 in the Latin Vulgate and in Erasmus’ Latin New Testament (3rd ed). The Latin to English translations are from McFall’s paper.
Mat 19:9 Latin Vulgate: dico autem vobis quia quicumque dimiserit uxorem suam nisi ob fornicationem et aliam duxerit moechatur et qui dimissam duxerit moechatur
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Latin NT in English: And I say to you that whosoever shall repudiate his wife, unless it be for disgrace, and shall marry another, committeth adultery.
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Latin NT: Dico autem uobis quia quicunque repudiauerit uxorem suam, nisi ob stuprum, et aliam duxerit, is comittit adulterium.
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Latin:
Comparing McFall/KVJ and NA27/TR
The following is McFall’s translation of Matthew 19:9 with the Nestles-Aland (NA) Greek, and the KJV translation with the Textus Receptus (TR) Greek. Compare the Greek texts and you will see that εἰ is not in the NA Greek text.
Nestle-Aland’s 27th edition, the most popular Greek manuscript, has rejected Erasmus addition of εἰ to Matthew 19:9. However, translations continue to translate the Greek “except for fornication”, even though they reject the Greek word εἰ that Erasmus inserted.
McFall’s translation is based on the the Majority Greek. He has done a Greek-English Harmony of the four Gospels, but it is currently unpublished. In Appendex B of his paper The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage, he explains his process for translating Mat 19:9.
Mat 19:9 (McFall Simplified): And I say to you that who, say, may put away his wife—not even for fornication—and may marry another commits adultery; and he who did marry her that has been put away commits adultery.
Mat 19:9 (NA27): λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται
Mat 19:9 Alfred Marshall Interlinear Translation:
Mat 19:9 (KJV): And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
Mat 19:9 (TR): λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας μοιχᾶταιμοιχᾶται
Mat 19:9 Erasmus Greek 3rd ed:
Jewish Betrothal Explanation
I have never felt comfortable with explaining the so-called ‘exception clause’ of Matthew 19:9 with the Jewish betrothal explanation, but I had never found anything better. Even though I have done a lot of research on this passage, I had not been aware of the addition of εἰ to Mat 19:9 or of its implications.
I had looked at the position of removing the exception clause completely based on the Vatican manuscript (MS03), but as this is not supported by the majority of Greek texts, I stuck with the Jewish betrothal interpretation until I read McFall’s article.
In my view the Jewish betrothal interpretation has a serious issue that creates more questions than they answer. The Jewish betrothal interpretation takes Mat 19:9 and gives it a completely different meaning than Mar 10:11. Those that hold the Jewish betrothal interpretation would teach that Mar 10:11 is talking about marriage, not Jewish betrothal. Then when they go to Mat 19:9, they say that the same words that Jesus spoke now mean something else, as Matthew is written to the Jews.
If you hold that Mat 19:9 is dealing with Jewish betrothal, then you must hold that the same account in Mar 10:11 is teaching that same thing. But the problem is that there is no so-called ‘exception clause’ in Mar 10:11. With no ‘exception clause’ you now have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish betrothal cannot be broken even for fornication, and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can be broken.
As far as I can see, the Jewish betrothal interpretation raises more questions than it answers. For honest souls that are seeking truth, all scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:2, 3; ICor 7:11, 39) other than Mat 19:9 are very clear that there are no exceptions for divorce and remarriage.
So, what we need is a clean way to deal with Mat 19:9 that does nott raise more questions that it tries to answer. Leslie McFall’s correction of the Greek gives us a clear way, and I see no reason not to take it.
What This Means to You
In closing, what McFall’s article provides us with is a proper way to explain the so-called ‘exception clause’ that Erasmus created by adding εἰ to Matthew 19:9. There is no information on why Erasmus added εἰ. None of the manuscripts he used support this addition, and the marginal reading from manuscript MS69 with this reading appears to be added post-Erasmus.
This addition changed the information phrase of “he may not have divorced her for fornication” into a conditional clause “except it be for fornication”. This introduced an allowance for divorce into the Bible translations that used Erasmus’ Greek. This addition has caused people to believe that if anyone divorces his wife for marital unfaithfulness, they are free to remarry and they are not committing adultery.
This means we need to warn those who are thinking of divorcing and remarrying that there is no exception (allowance) for remarriage. Those who are currently remarried who have a living spouse from a previous lawful1 marriage are in the state of adultery, and copulation in that union is adultery.
Those that are in an adulterous remarriage need to repent of this sin and separate and seek restoration with their rightful spouse, or remain single.
It would also be good if you bring this up with the leaders in the congregation you attend. When God shows us light and understanding from his Word, we are responsible to share it with others around us.
____________________________________
1The use of lawful is in respect to the New Covenant law (the law of liberty, the royal law), and is not referring to the law of Moses or the current marriage laws of any nation.
2Written on November 15, 2008.
November 17th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Interesting paper, but I would have to see how it stacks up to the Ante-Nicene Fathers textually. The early church did universally forbid remarriage after a divorce, but the reality is that there is some disagreement among them in that some did allow a separation from an adulterous companion, but never remarriage.
I also have had a problem with the Jewish espousal view, and have come to believe that “except for fornication” is referring to the fact that divorce IS permitted is a couple are living in fornication, i.e. fornication is its broad sense of any illicit sexual activity. In other words, the man is 1 Co. 5 was in fornication for taking his father’s wife (incest). In this case he was permitted, in fact demanded, a divorce from Paul. The same would apply to remarriages while the first spouse still lives. The second marriages is an illicit sexual activity (adultery) and hence a divorce is permitted from the 2nd spouse.
I have written a paper on this, but it is not on my Primitive Christianity website. I would be glad to send it to anyone for examination.
Mike
November 17th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Hi Mike; It is my understanding that addition of ει that Erasmus added is not found in any of the quotes of Mat 19:9 in the every church fathers. There is no reason to seek divorce instead of separation unless one of the parties wants to remarry.
>>>The second marriages is an illicit sexual activity (adultery) and hence a divorce is permitted from the 2nd spouse.
If we take Mat 19:9 with the exception clause “except for unchastity” then we are going to have to take what the exception clause is applied to. The exception clause is applied to remarriage in the case of divorce.
I think applying the Mat 19:9 except clause to people in a double marriage is going to be more difficult to maintain than the Jewish espousal view.
If you look at the same account in Mar 10:11, 12 it is not dealing with double marriage at all.
The problems of both of these ways to deal with the exception clause is done away when ει is removed which changes “not” to “except”.
November 19th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Thank you Bob, you have written a great summation of McFall’s article. I can recommend other books including those written by Dr. Joseph Webb, and John Tarwater.
November 19th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Hi Michael; Thanks! I was very excited to find a better way to dead with Matthew 19:9 than the Jewish espousal.
November 21st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
That is interesting; however, this article begs the question of why you aren’t disturbed by the variations and contradictions and changes in the Biblical texts. I can only assume that you don’t believe that the Bible is the perfect word of God; and then I would have to ask, if you don’t believe that, why worry about what the Bible says in the first place? Even if it is inspired, it is still two thousand years old. Surely we have had more inspirations since then.
Also, to clarify, would you interpret this passage to say that divorce itself isn’t as bad as re-marriage?
November 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Hi Alice; Thank you for your comments. No the variations don’t bother me. Greek textual criticism has rejected Erasmus’ addition but the English translations have left the results of it in their translations. As far as contradictions I feel like they are apparent contradictions and you can always find an explanation if you want one.
I would hold that the Bible texts when original given were the inerrant Word of God. Also I would hold that there have not been more inspirited scriptures produced since the Bible.
I hold the Bible teachings there is grounds for separation due to unfaithfulness or verbal, emotional, or physical abuse but no grounds for divorce as that opens up the way to remariage.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Greetings:
I had noted in my comment above that the article I wrote about the The Fornication Puzzle of Matthew 19:9 was not on my Primitive Christianity site. I had forgotten that I had put it on there some months ago. I find that this view makes all the various verses fit together without any straining, at least in my own mind.
Peace, Mike
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:54 am
Hi Mike; I will take a look at it and perhaps get back to you.
November 22nd, 2008 at 10:12 am
Dear Bob
Thanks for this summary – it makes Leslie’s position very clear.
The Greek at Mt.19.9 is not easy, as you can see from Leslie’s literal translation: “Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife–he may not have divorced her for fornication–and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.”
It is not clear whether the ‘not’ is an elipsis (as Leslie assumes) or an exception (as Erasmus assumed).
The decisive verse for me is Mt.5.32 where Matthew translates the original Aramaic of Jesus sightly differently. He says “… who divorces his wife except for..” – the Greek here is ‘parektos’, which is unambiguously means ‘except’. This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.
Hope this is helpful.
David
November 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Hi David; I am not sure why you would feel that the way the Greek is in Mat 5:32 would solve the ambiguity in Mat 19:9 unless you are applying the exception in Mat 5:32 to the second clause “and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery”. The second clause of Mat 5:32 is grammatically independent from the exception and states that the person marrying the divorced person is committing adultery no matter why the person was divorced.
In these two scriptures the so-called exception is being applied to two different issues. In Mat 5:32 the exception is applied whether or not the one divorcing is causing the one divorced to commit adultery (if they remarried). In Mat 19:9 the so-called exception is applied to where the one divorcing is themselves guilty of adultery when remarrying.
I think you would have a point if the Greek construction of the exception clause from Mat 5:32 was for example in Mar 10:12. Then the exception would then be applied to the same issue as Mat 19:9. But this is not the case.
You can see clearly what the so-called exceptions are being applied to when you remove them from both scriptures. In Mat 5:21 the exception is being applied to “put away his wife… causeth her to commit adultery” where the so-called exception in Mat 19:9 is being applied to “put away his wife… and shall marry another, committeth adultery”.
Have you read the article Divorce and Remarriage: Another Look at the Matthean Exception Clauses by Andrew S. Kulikovsky where to puts forth that the so-called exception clause of Mat 19:9 is a parenthetical clause? Kulikovsky holds that the clause is an editorial addition which functions as an explicit prohibition against divorce for sexual sin and translates it “(he may not divorce for sexual sin)”.
I personally found both McFall’s and Kulikovsky’s articles a very interesting way to look the so-call exception clause of Mat 19:9.
November 23rd, 2008 at 1:58 am
Just a further note on Erasmus’ addition of ei in Matt 19:9, Metzger’s Textual Commentary lists 2 textual differences for this verse (1) the use of parektos as in Matt 5:32, and (2) the addition of “and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery” ie. there are NO manuscripts that support Erasmus’ emendation. Erasmus obviously made the addition with a view to clarifying the text–but of course, the clarification was made in accordance with his understanding of what the text was trying to say. But Erasmus was not a theologian and would not have been familiar with the historical theological debate that had occurred between the Shammai and Hillel rabbinic schools. In other words, his view was not informed and counts for nothing.
November 23rd, 2008 at 2:45 am
Hi Andrew; I guess some have felt that a marginal reading of Mat 19:9 in MS 69 which had ei was used by Erasmus. Leslie McFall has gotten from Leicester Record Office scans for all the marginal corrections in MS 69. He will be going though the 200 scans to see if he can find another example of the same writing or ink color so he can determine if the margin reading of Mat 19:9 is post-Erasmus.
Here is a scan of the margin reading with ei from Mat 19:9 in MS 69.
November 23rd, 2008 at 4:59 am
Thanks Mike (Atnip) for sharing your article, pretty straightforward.
Thanks Andrew for clarifying that there are NO manuscripts that support Erasmus’ emendation/addition or the Erasmus’ Trap as Les McFall refers to it.
I want to consider the consequences of the Erasmus’ Trap, as many have read it in good faith as truth, and have based decisions on this addition. If we examine this closely this addition has produced what sort of fruit?
For the Fruit Inspectors amongst us I can recommend – Marriage and The Public Good: Ten Principals download free at http://www.wisereaction.org
November 24th, 2008 at 7:56 am
Bob said, “There is no reason to seek divorce instead of separation unless one of the parties wants to remarry.”
This misunderstands (historical) family law. Divorce allowed a man out of his marital duties of support and cohabitation with his wife. Even in this country until into the 20th cent., divorce, where it was available, only meant a release from marital (legal) obligations, but was not a pure divorce that would allow remarriage. That would still have been considered polygamy, a crime.
So there certainly was a reason to seek divorce even if that act did not empower one to remarry. To permit remarriage is to forever bar the possibility of reconciliation. This is contrary to the Christian model of Christ as groom and His church as bride. We have a God who will never bar reconciliation by finding a new spouse, nor One who would recognize our (occasional) finding of a new “spouse” as barring reconciliation. If we find a new thing to love, it would be illicit, and the permanent union with God would be our continuing duty.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 24th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Hi Tom Brown;
>>>Divorce allowed a man out of his marital duties of support and cohabitation with his wife.
Legal separation will allow this also. You can get a legal separation in Canada with out getting a divorce where the issues of support and dividing of property are dealt with. I expect the case is the same in the US.
>>>To permit remarriage is to forever bar the possibility of reconciliation.
I wouldn’t agree with this but reconciliation is certianly going more difficult when one or both of the separated parties remarry. Personally I feel that divorce is the first step toward remarriage and as God hates divorce and doesn’t recognize it I still don’t see any reason for a Christian to want to get one.
November 24th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Several have mentioned a hesitancy to accept the espousal interpretation. I had similar concerns until I read Tarwater’s book as well as the excellent and compelling article by David Jones, “The Betrothal View of Divorce and Remarriage,” which someone has scanned and posted here: http://www.wisereaction.org/ebooks/betrothal_jonesd.pdf. While I find McFall’s article plausible, and perhaps even compatiable with the espousal reading, the awkwardness of his translation, as well as the need to deal more thoroughly with the issues with Matt. 5:32 raised by Instone-Brewer above, make it a bit cumbersome to me. In this light, given the simplicity and cultural/conetextual support for the espousal reading, I don’t think I am ready to abandon it yet.
November 24th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Hi Gustav Swen; I have a number of issues with the espousal interpretation. First if the Jewish espousal was a contract of marriage and was the same as being married then there would be no allowance for divorce or remarriage. Even if a marriage is not consummated it is still a marriage.
The second issue I have with the Jewish espousal interpretation is it takes Mat 19:9 and gives it a completely different meaning that Mar 10:11. Those that hold the Jewish espousal interpretation would teach that Mar 10:11 is talking about marriage not Jewish espousal. Then when they go to Mat 19:9 they say that the same words that Jesus spoke now mean some thing else as he is addressing Jewish espousal.
If you hold that Mat 19:9 is dealing with Jewish espousal then you must hold that the same account in Mar 10:11 is teaching that same thing. But the problem is there is no so-called exception clause in Mar 10:11. Leaving out the so-called exception clause now is a serious issue as now we have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish espousal can not be broken even for fornication and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can.
So in my mind the Jewish espousal interpretation raises more questions than it answers. I feel to an honest soul the scriptures we have (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:2, 3; ICor 7:11, 39) we have besides Mat 19:9 are very clear there is no exceptions to divorce and remarry.
So what we need is a clean way to deal with Mat 19:9 that doesn’t raise more questions that it tries to answer. Both Leslie McFall’s correction of the Greek and Andrew Kulikovsky parenthetical clause give us a clear way and I see no reason not to take it.
November 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
David wrote:
The decisive verse for me is Mt.5.32 where Matthew translates the original Aramaic of Jesus sightly differently. He says “who divorces his wife except for..” – the Greek here is “parektos”, which is unambiguously means “except”. This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.
David is correct in that parektos unambiguously means “except”. But what is it an exception to?
The whole verse reads: “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the cause of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (NASB). Does this verse imply that a person may divorce on the grounds of marital unfaithfulness and remarry without committing adultery? In order to correctly understand the implications of this verse it is helpful to restate its propositions in a clearer form:
1. Anyone who divorces his wife for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress.
2. Anyone who divorces his wife for marital unfaithfulness, does not cause her to become an adulteress.
3. Any man who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Proposition (1) clearly states that the practice of divorcing one’s wife has the ultimate effect of turning her into an adulterer, given that she would inevitably remarry. Proposition (2), on the other hand, states that if a man divorces his wife because she has committed adultery, then he would not cause her to become an adulteress because she would already be an adulteress! Thus, her moral status would not change if she married again.
This is the reason why Matthew specifies an exception at this point. If the exception was not present, Matthew’s statement that the divorced woman would subsequently be made into an adulterer given that she would inevitably remarry, becomes superfluous because her adultery was the reason for the divorce in the first place.
Moreover, the second conjunctive clause in 5:32 (“and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery”), is grammatically independent of the exception (proposition (3)), and states that a man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery, regardless of the reason for her being divorced. This implies that any man who marries a faithful but divorced woman (i.e. a woman who was divorced for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness) commits adultery.
Therefore, if Matthew 5:32 teaches that marital unfaithfulness is valid grounds for divorce, then it also teaches that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does! This is clearly absurd, and seriously calls into question the understanding that marital unfaithfulness is valid grounds for divorce.
In other words, Matt 5:32 clarifies 19:9 by strengthening the argument that it is NOT a true exception and that sexual sin/marital unfaithfulness is not a valid grounds for divorce.
November 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Hi Andrew Kulikovsky; It was not clear to me What David mean by “This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.” I am guessing you have read David’s books where he may go over what he means. I did email my reply to him and I expect he will respond.
I completely agree with you that the exception clause in Mat 5:32 addresses whether putting a lawful spouse away causes them to commit adultery if they remarry and has nothing to do with the second clause which is grammatically independent from the exception and states that the person marrying the divorced person is committing adultery no matter why the person was divorced.
However I wasn’t able to follow your logic that “if Matthew 5:32 teaches that marital unfaithfulness is valid grounds for divorce, then it also teaches that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does”.
While I agree that the teaching that the innocent party can but the guilty party can’t remarry is wrong and not logical, I wasn’t able to follow your jump from if Mat 5:32 is held to allow divorce that it also teachings “that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does”.
Did you want to post a comment on what you hold the position of the Bible is when it comes to repentance and forsaking of the sin of adultery in the case of divorce and remarriage?
November 24th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
After teaching on this subject for over thirty years I am amazed at all the confusion being spread because of; I think, or I believe phrases. The true acid test of truth is what did Jesus and Paul really teach? What did all of the earliest Church fathers teach? Who changed the teaching and when; and who wrote all of our theology books that have led the present-day Church astray?
Paul clearly said to Timothy; “I received my revelation directly from Jesus Christ, and in that day we will be judged by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel. If anyone teaches anything any different from what I have taught you, let him be accursed. If even an angel teaches something different; let him be anathmatized.” Once we find out today’s Church is not teaching what Jesus and Paul taught, healing and order can be restored.
My newest book; “Divorce and Remarriage, The Trojan Horse Within the Church.” reveals all of these historic facts with direct quotations of all the persons involved in the original teaching and the actual quotations of those involved in changing the message.
Bill Gothard said of this book: “O have been pleased to receive and review your manuscript…You have done an outstanding job on presenting the Biblical view on divorce and remarriage. The readers cannot help but be impressed with the scholarly research you have done on this subject…for those who sincerely want the truth, your book will be a valuable resource.”
The book can be obtained through Xulon Press and Spring Arbor at any bookstore, or at Christian Principles Restored.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
We cover the Matthew exception clause in our FAQ about Marriage Divorce & Remarriage.
Hope this helps anyone studying this issue.
Cheryl
My testimony: Why I Repented of A Marriage God Called Adulterous!
November 24th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Hi Cheryl; Thanks for the links. I have been on your site but have not taken the time to read much. I did go over the exception clause in your FAQ a few days back and noticed you hold to the Jewish Betrothal interpretation for the Mat 19:9 so-called exception clause. Have you looked at either of McFalls or Kulikovskys papers on the Mat 19:9 so-called exception clause?
This thread you are posting on is McFall’s review. I plan on doing a review of Kulikovsky’s paper after I finish my review on Considerations On Divorce A Vinculo Matrimonii.
November 24th, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Dear Bob,
You had said in interpreting the passage in discussion: “There is no reason to seek divorce instead of separation unless one of the parties wants to remarry.”
I replied: “This misunderstands (historical) family law. Divorce allowed a man out of his marital duties of support and cohabitation with his wife.”
You replied to me: “Legal separation will allow this also.” This is an anachronism that presupposes the Jews at the time of Matthew’s writing had a construct known as ‘legal separation.’ I am aware of no such legal notion. My understanding of legal history is that the concept of a legal separation, and the concept of a kind of divorce allowing remarriage are very modern. I do not believe these concepts were present for the Jews of Matthew’s day.
So my point remains, that there was a reason for what the Jews would have called ‘divorce’ other than seeking remarriage.
You said in a separate comment: “First if the Jewish espousal was a contract of marriage and was the same as being married then there would be no allowance for divorce or remarriage.”
This is a non sequitur, unless perhaps you believe that the Jewish marriage is a mere contract. But the Jewish marriage was a covenant, an exchange of persons (bodies). As such, and like all covenants God made with His people, it was permanent, irrevocable. So you could have a narrowly revocable contract to marry that, once consummated into a covenant, is no longer revocable under any condition. The two shall become one flesh. If a man bargained with a woman’s father to marry her, and he then discovers that she is not a virgin (because of porneia; i.e., she is not what he ‘bargained’ for), the contract to enter the covenant of marriage would have been broken.
It seems that any interpreting of the Scripture on marriage should be founded on an understanding of Jewish law and the covenantal nature of their marriages. Otherwise we would be viewing an historically-based issue through modern lenses and definitions of very particular terms.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 24th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Hi Tom; I think I missed what you were meaning by historical family law. You are thinking 1st century. My comments to Mike were referring to 20th/21th century. His view is that the so-called exception clause of Mat 19:9 is applicable to today for people have remarried (if I understood him correctly).
>>>But the Jewish marriage was a covenant, an exchange of persons (bodies). As such, and like all covenants God made with His people, it was permanent, irrevocable.
Perhaps in the beginning but Moses gave an exception in Deut 24:1-4 that allowed them to put their wife away and be remarriage. Now this changed with the teaching of Christ but still I am not sure what context you are saying the Jewish marriage was permanent and irrevocable?
Also while you made a comment on the first point I made to Gustav Swen which I need to look into further, what was you take on my 2nd objection to the Jewish Betrothal interpretation?
Here is my second objection:
“The second issue I have with the Jewish espousal interpretation is it takes Mat 19:9 and gives it a completely different meaning that Mar 10:11. Those that hold the Jewish espousal interpretation would teach that Mar 10:11 is talking about marriage not Jewish espousal. Then when they go to Mat 19:9 they say that the same words that Jesus spoke now mean some thing else as he is addressing Jewish espousal.
If you hold that Mat 19:9 is dealing with Jewish espousal then you must hold that the same account in Mar 10:11 is teaching that same thing. But the problem is there is no so-called exception clause in Mar 10:11. Leaving out the so-called exception clause now is a serious issue as now we have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish espousal can not be broken even for fornication and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can.
So in my mind the Jewish espousal interpretation raises more questions than it answers. I feel to an honest soul the scriptures we have (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18; Rom 7:2, 3; ICor 7:11, 39) we have besides Mat 19:9 are very clear there is no exceptions to divorce and remarry.
So what we need is a clean way to deal with Mat 19:9 that doesn’t raise more questions that it tries to answer.”
Also can you give provide me with a couple of links where I can get up to speed on Jewish family law at the time of Jesus. I have read some about the betrothal period but according to your statements it appears I am missing some principles.
Thanks!
November 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
I agree with the way Andrew Kulikovisky has refuted the opinion that Matthew 5:31,32 has evidence for divorce and remarriage. The D&R crowd is grabbing for the proverbial straw, by forcing their pet scriptures, to agree with their presupposition ie., the bible allows for D&R in certain circumstances.
What they fail to recognize (whether ignorantly or intentionally I know not) is their complete abandonment of the harmonistic principle, and the inductive method of investigation. They dogmatically presuppose the idea of D&R, and then abandon all the laws of investigation, to arrive at their predetermined conclusion, which also happens to be their premise; a mere begging the question.
The accounts in Matthew do not outweigh, or correct, any perceived ‘incompleteness’ or ‘hidden implication’ in the other texts of scripture, on the subject of marriage. Jesus Himself gives the interpretation of His own teaching, when responding to His disciples in private. His words in Matthew 19 and Mark 10, are in perfect agreement with His own description of the marriage institution ie., (Creational one flesh for life).
None of the ensuing discussions on the issue of marriage, can be interpreted in a way, that would overthrow the revealed model of marriage for all mankind. To do so, would create more than one standard, which is no standard at all. One simple example is this; If any marriage can cease to exist, (completely be dissolved) by any other means than death, we have 2 emphatically clear texts that are null and void, of their unequivocal meaning whatsoever, (Rom 7:2, 3; and 1 Cor 7:39).
If one would assert that it is certainly Gods ‘ideal’ that all marriage is until death, but their are additional qualifications that would dissolve the marriage union, they clearly force an outright contradiction. We are right back where we started from; marriage is ‘not until death’ when another perceived qualification, has an equal effect on the marriage, as death does.
But Jesus says that marriage is until death, which is the creational model that He revealed in the clearest terms. You can’t have it both ways, which proves the inference to be invalidated. If anyone wants to defend the imaginations of people in ’self-preservation’ mode, then stop appealing to the scriptures.
The Word is the only way to the Kingdom of God, and that includes obedience to Jesus standard of Holiness. Jesus will not conform to our image, we must conform to Him, or perish.
Jim II
November 25th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Bob wrote:
While I agree that the teaching that the innocent party can but the guilty party can’t remarry is wrong and not logical, I wasn’t able to follow your jump from if Mat 5:32 is held to allow divorce that it also teachings “that a faithful but divorced woman who remarries, does not commit adultery, even though the man who marries her does”.
1. You agreed that “the second clause which is grammatically independent from the exception and states that the person marrying the divorced person is committing adultery no matter why the person was divorced.”
2. We know that those in favor of divorce and remarriage argue that divorce is allowable where marital unfaithfulness is involved.
Therefore, those who favor divorce and remarriage in the case of unfaithfulness are forced to admit that–if their view is correct–a woman divorced for some reason apart from marital unfaithfulness is not committing adultery if she remarries, but–according to the Matt 5:32b–a man who marries her DOES commit adultery (as you rightly acknowledge)!
cheers,
Andrew
November 25th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
David Instone-Brewer’s response above is the key one. David is an expert scholar on the topic of marriage and divorce in the Bible and in antiquity, knows Jewish backgrounds inside and out and can read Greek and Hebrew better than most on the planet!
If you take Matthew 19:9 as McFall does then Matthew and Jesus contradict themselves between 5:32 and 19:9. The Erasmian epi merely clarifies what is already implied in the text without it. McFall fails to observe that a me by itself can have exceptive force. A look at the earliest textual variants confirms that this is the oldest interpretive tradition, as scribes regularly changed me to parektos to make the exception clause unambiguously exceptive.
November 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Bob,
“Also can you give provide me with a couple of links where I can get up to speed on Jewish family law at the time of Jesus.”
Try here: Jewish Marriage Customs.
I can’t speak to the overall repute of this website, but the historical content on the marriage process seems to be based upon a well-studied source. Their use of the term covenant is interesting. They are saying the covenant existed throughout the betrothal period (the “engagement”) but was not yet consummated until the wedding day and intercourse.
My understanding is that a Jewish covenant is not complete until it is consummated. This Jewish source notes that the “old” way to create covenants was to “cut” a covenant. From the Bible, we learn that this happens by cutting a sacrificial animal in two, with the covenanting parties passing between its carcass parts. Jeremiah 24:18 and Genesis 15 ff. Jesus is this dissected lamb for us, that we, God’s people, can be in covenant with God.
So even if one uses the term covenant early in the betrothal process, I think all can agree that the covenant is at least incomplete (inchoate) until it is “cut” (this is where the expression “cut a deal” comes from, I believe). This passing between the animal, which could only occur when the animal had given up its lifeblood, symbolizes a permanent union of the parties to each other (in whatever their deal or venture or promise was). They would then eat the meat together (see the same Jewish Encyclopedia source) to commemorate their union which was made official through the sacrifice of the animal. “Originally the covenant was a bond of life-fellowship, where the mingling of the blood was deemed essential.” To break a consummated covenant required death, this source explains…
Sorry if I diluted your conversation with Mike by jumping into 1st century family situations. I thought since all were handling and attempting to interpret the word “divorce”, it was important to keep it close to its contextual roots.
I think this view of permanent covenants is not inconsistent with Deuteronomy 24:1-4. You can read it as “allowing” remarriage after marriage, but that is not the only way to read it. You’re viewing it as permissive language, but I view it as prohibitive language. It says *IF* a man divorces his wife and then she subsequently is taken to the marriage bed of another man, the first husband would commit an abomination to have her back. The passage is not permissive, but seems to make some concession for (i.e. a recognition and acceptance of) the weakness of the people.
This matches what Christ later had to say (‘Moses said that because you were weak’). So it did not okay “X” (divorce), but said if you do “X” you certainly may not do the abominable “Y” later. Why was this an abomination if divorce and remarriage were permissible? How was wife defiled, even if husband 2 simply died? Well, that’s because with a covenant obligation to husband 1 permanently in place, she (illegally) broke it to be bonded to another man.
Would it make sense if she could marry husband 3 after husband 2 died, but could not be reconciled to husband 1? I say not, which tells me any relationship subsequent to the covenant marriage with husband 1 is sinful (as long as husband 1 is alive). In this passage, I believe the post-consummation bill of divorce meant the husband ended his obligations of support and cohabitation with the wife. You would have to identify some other permissive language from Moses on remarriage.
I think your comparison between Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11 needs more consideration. Matthew says “no divorce except in porneia” and Mark says “no divorce.” So we have “no A except when B,” and “no A.” You say there is a problem for those who think we’re talking about the same “A” when only one has the exception, “B”.
You effectively read them this way: Matthew, “no A except when B” and Mark, “no A even when B” (“serious issue as now we have Mar 10:11 teaching that Jewish espousal can not be broken even for fornication and Mat 19:9 teaching that it can.”). But this is not what Mark says. Mark does not say “no divorce even when porneia.” Because Mark omitted the exception does not mean the Bible can’t give us that exception in another place.
So to create the conflict for the Jewish espousal view, you are effectively adding exclusivity to Mark. Your opponent can simply say “I interpret scripture with scripture, and if an exception is only noted in one of two instances, I believe it applies to both.” If the exception applies to both, then it can easily be referring to the betrothal period.
Ergo, the Jewish espousal interpretation does not raise any more questions than the opposite raises. Also, I disagree that a “clean” way to handle Matthew 19:9 is our duty. Sometimes Scriptures are hard and don’t yield easy answers.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 25th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Hi Craig Blomberg; In what way would McFall’s translation of Mat 19:9 contradict Mat 5:32. The exception clauses are related to two different things. Mat 5:32 is related to “whosoever shall put away his wife… causeth her to committeth adultery” where Mat 19:9 it is related to “Whosoever shall put away his wife…and shall marry another, committeth adultery:”
The exception in Mat 5:32 is related to causing the wife to commit adultery if she remarries where the exception in Mat 19:9 is related to the man remarrying and committing adultery.
I don’t see your reasoning that when the exception clause in Mat 19:9 is changed to a parenthetical clause that this causes a contradiction between Mat 19:9 and Mat 5:32.
November 25th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Thanks for the clarifying question, Bob. Yes, there are those who have taken the approach that the adultery occurs only if there is remarriage. Thus Bill Heth, for example, in his book with Gordon Wenham, argued for years (before changing his mind) that divorce was acceptable in the case of adultery but not remarriage. But interpreters have usually taken the two as a package deal, especially since remarriage was uniformly permitted in Jewish and Greco-Roman backgrounds after a legitimate marriage.
You can see my fuller views in my commentaries on Matthew (NAC from Broadman & Holman) and on 1 Corinthians 7 (NIVAC from Zondervan) as well as in my detailed article in Trinity Journal in 1990. Craig Keener’s and Bill Luck’s volumes on divorce and remarriage also give full details of the kind of view I would endorse. Put briefly, though, it is that the “adultery” that divorce creates is metaphorical for all wrongly divorced persons (just like in the OT, Israel’s infidelity spiritually is often likened to adultery against God) even before it becomes literal for those who remarry (after all not everyone did remarry, but Jesus says “whoever” divorces commits adultery or causes their spouse to commit adultery, depending on which passage you are looking at).
In other words, each passage singles out one possible situation out of a total four to which the teaching would equally apply: (a) a man improperly divorcing his wife; (b) a woman improperly divorcing her husband; (c) a man remarrying an improperly divorced woman; and (d) a woman remarrying an improperly divorced man.
Sorry I don’t have the time to go into all the detail here, but hopefully my fuller treatments elsewhere will make clear my views.
Blessings on all of you wrestling with this tortuous issue!
November 25th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Hi Tom Brown;
>>>Matthew says ‘no divorce except in porneia’ and Mark says ‘no divorce.’
I would see the so-called exception in Mat 19:9 to be a parenthetical clause not an exception clause. This way we don’t have Matthew saying one things and Mark another.
>>>Because Mark omitted the exception does not mean the Bible can’t give us that exception in another place.
Keep in mind that the Gospels had different authors, were written at different times and different places, they didn’t reference each other, and they were written to stand alone and to be used by congregation and convert with out being comparing to each other. When Mat 19:9 is translated as a exception clause instead of a parenthetical clause then it teachings something different than Mar 10:11.
Mar 10:2-12 is the same historical account as Mat 19:3-12. My point was that when you take Mat 19:9 and put it into the context of Jewish betrothal you will have to do the same for Mar 10:11. You can’t say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mat 19:9) refers to the Jewish betrothal and then turn around and say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mar 10:11) is referring to marriage not betrothal. If one is referring to Jewish betrothal then they both are. If they both are then Matthew gave an exception to break the betrothal in the case of fornication and Mark didn’t.
>>>So to create the conflict for the Jewish espousal view, you are effectively adding exclusivity to Mark. Your opponent can simply say ‘I interpret scripture with scripture, and if an exception is only noted in one of two instances, I believe it applies to both.’
I am translating the clause in Mat 19:9 as a parenthetical clause. My opponent should feel free to move the parenthetical clause from Matthew to Mark as it doesn’t change anything only provides further information.
>>>If the exception applies to both, then it can easily be referring to the betrothal period.
I think you have missed my point. It is more than the exception clause that has to do with the betrothal period but it is also the clause you are applying it to. When you hold that the exceptional clause has to do with the betrothal period you must do the same to the clause you are applying it to. So now the phrase “Whosoever shall put away his wife” (Mat 19:9) must be read as “Whosoever shall put away his betrothed wife”.
Your problem is that what ever you do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 19:9 you must do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 10:11. So when you change the meaning of wife to betrothed wife in one you must do the same in the other as they are historically the same accounts. When you do this you end up with an exception in one and no exception in the other.
This is the problem with applying the Jewish betrothal interpretation to Mat 19:9.
November 25th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Hi Craig Blomberg; So are you saying that while Mat 5:32 only states “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication” that it means “whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, and shall marry another” as divorce and remarriage should be seen as a “package deal”?
November 25th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Well, this helps to shed a lot of light on a subject in which I have great interest. I am so satisfied to know that the person trying to speak to me about his marriage in a way that might have been more “acceptable” to God than mine because his wife’s divorce was based on a cheating spouse, where mine was not, is really just as misled as he said I was. It’s interesting.
This article also brings me to a further conclusion–until we are face to face with God, and we ask him for full understanding of his word, we will never know exactly what he’s saying. We, as humans, claim to be intelligent beings, but, truthfully, we all fall short of understanding the glory of God…we are too dense to understand his word and its true intention, and we are always going to put our self-centered spin on the interpretations of the Bible because we have free will…because we are human.
Thanks for the article!
November 25th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
Correct!
November 25th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Hi Craig Blomberg; So back to where we originally started.
>>>If you take Matthew 19:9 as McFall does then Matthew and Jesus contradict themselves between 5:32 and 19:9.
To that I would then answer only if you choose to add “and shall marry another” to Mat 5:32 which is not there. Just kind in mind when you do that in my view you are completely changing what the verse means.
Would you feel that when you add the clause “and shall marry another” to Mat 5:32 you are changing the literal meaning of the verse to mean some completely different? And further do you think that it is possible to translate the so-called exception clause of Mat 19:9 as a parenthetical clause in the way that either McFall or Kulikovsky do?
Also as a teacher whose views have a lot of influence over what others do has this issue weighed heavy on your mind or do you feel it is pretty cut and dry?
Thanks for dropping in and sharing your view! I think it is important that we hear the best from both sides. In that way we can, with the help of the Lord, make a decision and not be tossed back by by hearing positions that we hadn’t heard or considered before.
November 25th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Hi Shandar7;
>>>Well, this helps to shed a lot of light on a subject in which I have great interest.
I am glad to hear that. I have a resource on Divorce and Remarriage and the plan is to do reviews of the top articles and books on this subject and to make them available to the public.
November 25th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Dear Bob,
How is whether an exception is parenthetical or non-parenthetical relevant?
“Keep in mind that the Gospels had different authors, were written at different times and different places, they didn’t reference each other, and they were written to stand alone and to be used by congregation and convert with out being comparing to each other.”
Not that this settles our discussion, but this view seems contrary to the classical Protestant position which holds that Scripture, our sole inerrant authority, is to be interpreted with Scripture. We can discuss what certain texts were “written to” do, but that is a subordinate hermeneutic tool to the broader truth that the texts are Divinely inspired and form a seamless whole. So if Matthew says “no divorce (except in porneia)” and Mark says “no divorce” the classical hermeneutic would be to interpret Matthew with Mark and vice versa. To interpret Mark by Matthew in a way that says ‘no divorce is ever permissible’ is to call Mark into question as containing error, which would violate the Christian belief that Mark is infallible. To interpret Matthew by Mark in a way that says ‘there is one exception which Matthew simply did not list’ does not necessarily involve a Matthian error. And it is another interpretive method that says we should not find a contradiction in two related texts where another reading is plausible.
I do think that Matthew and Mark are speaking of the same historical account. I do take Matthew in the context of Jewish betrothal and Mark in that same context. So I have no contradiction there. Perhaps you saw from the links I sent you (that you had requested) that “wife” was used to refer to a betrothed bride, not just a consummated-marriage wife.
“You can’t say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mat 19:9) refers to the Jewish betrothal and then turn around and say “Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery” (Mar 10:11) is referring to marriage not betrothal. I agree, they both are speaking of the same context, but I think you misquoted Mark there.
Matthew 19:9: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
Mark 10:11: “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”
So as I said before, we have ‘don’t do A (except for B)’ in one and ‘don’t do A’ in the other. At this juncture, you say to me, “If they both are then Matthew gave an exception to break the betrothal in the case of fornication and Mark didn’t.”
Correct. One noted the exception (whether it was parenthetical or not is irrelevant), and the other didn’t.
At this juncture, you seem to be saying to me: “So now the phrase “Whosoever shall put away his wife” (Mat 19:9) must be read as “Whosoever shall put away his betrothed wife”.”
Again, there is only a problem here if we misunderstand the meaning of the word “wife” to the Jewish audience. If we called fiancees “wives” in the modern tongue, we wouldn’t be having this confusion. If the word equally meant married bride and betrothed bride in its original writing, then I am adding nothing — wife refers broadly to a betrothed AND a married woman simultaneously.
“Your problem is that what ever you do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 19:9 you must do with “Whosoever shall put away his wife” in Mat 10:11.”
I think you said this three times or so, though I have not disputed the point. I have merely said that there is no contradiction between Matthew and Mark even when these verses are read in the same historical context.
“When you do this you end up with an exception in one and no exception in the other.”
Agreed, but more carefully would I say, when you do this, you end up with a stated exception in one and no stated exception in the other.
“This is the problem with applying the Jewish betrothal interpretation to Mat 19:9.”
This is not a problem, and this is your error. You did not address my analysis of how *the non-statement of the exception does not exclude the possibilty of an exception* in the previous comment, so I’m hesitant to repeat too much of it here. Maybe an example would clear things up. If I stated to my young son, “Do not touch the stove!” at one minute and “Turn the stove light off for me” in the next, would I be contradicting myself? No. My non-statement of an exception in the first command does not exclude the possibility of an exception existing (in this case, that son can touch stove under supervision). If I had said in the former instance “Do not touch the stove under any circumstance,” or “Never touch the stove without exception!” then my second instruction would be a contradiction of the first.
Let me apply my hermeneutic which *avoids reading contradictions where an alternate reading is possible* to another set of verses.
James 1:13: “When tempted, no one should say, “God is tempting me.” For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;”
Mark 1:12-13: “At once the Spirit sent [Christ] out into the desert, and he was in the desert forty days, being tempted by Satan.”
I think you can read this as evidence of contradiction (i.e., error) within Scripture, or you can avoid the contradiction two ways: by saying Christ was not God (which contradicts other Scripture and the Christian message in general), or by saying that the use of “temptation” has a broad and narrow meaning in these two verses (the narrow sense something of a ‘mere’ testing, and the broader sense being more of a general inclination to give in to desire).
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 25th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Hi Bob, or whoever:
I have not read all these comments for the lack of time. But I think I see what you are saying about a parenthetical clause, something I did not understand before.
Would the following be an example of how Jesus might have said Mt 5:32, were he speaking in modern English:
“But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife – Don’t be a cause of fornication! – causes her to commit adultery.”
Mike
November 25th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Hi Thomas Brown; I have decided to just respond to one issue for now and that issue is that I would feel that when a person holds that Mat 19:9 has to do with a betrothal wife instead of a married wife it takes causes all of verse 9 to do with betrothal. To me it is clear the issue was about a married wife and the issues of divorce and remarriage. Not about a betrothed wife.
For now perhaps it will be best to deal with that issue and we can get to the other issues later as the posts are getting to long to deal with more than one issue in my view. I have tried to keep this one short and to the point.
>>>How is whether an exception is parenthetical or non-parenthetical relevant?
My point was that the clause is not exception but was parenthetical and that it is descriptive and not excepting.
>>>To interpret Mark by Matthew in a way that says ‘no divorce is ever permissible’ is to call Mark into question as containing error, which would violate the Christian belief that Mark is infallible.
Well I have not done that so I am not sure how that is related here. I have maintained that there is no exception and that the so-called exception clause is a parenthetical clause that is descriptive and not excepting.
>>>And it is another interpretive method that says we should not find a contradiction in two related texts where another reading is plausible.
That is what I am suggesting.
>>>I do take Matthew in the context of Jewish betrothal and Mark in that same context. So I have no contradiction there.
So if you feel that both Mat 19:9 and Mar 10:11 are referring to Jewish betrothal do you feel like they are also referring to regular marriage? I would hold that it can’t be both. Either ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife” refers to the betrothed wife or to a married wife but not to both. And if the first clause in Mat 19:9 is concerning a betrothed wife then the second clause must be also.
I hardly think the issue that the Pharisees were bringing up was completely concerning where one could put away a betrothed wife if she committed fornication. Nor do I think the disciple’s reaction “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” is referring to Jesus noting that you can only put your betrothed wife away for fornication.
This is the problem with applying the Jewish betrothal interpretation to Mat 19:9. It makes the whole conversation to be about something that it is not about. In my opinion the issue is divorce and remarriage of a married wife not a betrothed wife and the same with Mar 10:11,12.
November 26th, 2008 at 12:17 am
Hi Mike;
>>>But I think I see what you are saying about a parenthetical clause, something I did not understand before. Would the following be an example of how Jesus might have said Mt 5:32…
I think that with Mat 5:32 there is a exception clause but it is not dealing with “and shall marry another” as in Mat 19:9 but with “causeth her to commit adultery” (if she remarries). The Greek is different in Mat 5:32 than in Mat 19:9.
In Mat 19:9 the Vulgate is “such as for fornication” and Erasmus’ Latin was “unless it be for disgrace”. Here he both changed a parenthetical clause that was descriptive and not exceptional to an exception clause and also lowered the exception that he did make from fornication to disgrace.
Erasmus did the same thing with the Greek text in Mat 19:9 when he with no support added εἰ (if) before μὴ (not), thus changing the text to read from “not” to “except” thus making a clause that could be seen as parenthetical clause into a exceptional clause that has been used to make the exception for remarriage in the case of marriage unfaithfulness.
There is not one known manuscript that supports this besides a 1500’s manuscript (MS69) that has this reading in the marginal and this marginal reading is in non-scribe writing and some hold it is post-Erasmus.
McFall has exposed this and shown how Mat 19:9 should be translated as a parenthetical clause that is descriptive not exceptional.
Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife–he may not have divorced her for fornication–and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.
You can read McFall’s method in translating the above in An Explanation For McFall’s Literal Translation Of Matthew 19:9.
Others leave the exception clause as it is in Mat 19:9 but apply the exception to put away a betrothed wife. But when this is done it hijacks all of Matt 19:9 and makes the whole issue of divorce and remarriage to be about a betrothed wife instead of a married wife which is what it is clearly dealing with.
November 26th, 2008 at 7:01 am
Craig Blonberg wrote:
“David Instone-Brewer’s response above is the key one. David is an expert scholar on the topic of marriage and divorce in the Bible and in antiquity, knows Jewish backgrounds inside and out and can read Greek and Hebrew better than most on the planet!”
This sounds rather like an appeal to authority ie. trust me–I’m an expert!
I have no doubt that David knows a great deal about this topic, but he is not the only one, nor is he the only one familiar with the Jewish background, or the only one who can read the Greek and Hebrew.
How about we stick to substantive arguments about the text?
David argues that Matt 5:32 determines/clarifies the meaning of Matt 19:9. However, as I pointed out previously, these verses say different things and the exception in Matt 5:32 is not an exception that allows divorce and remarriage for “innocent” parties.
Neither you nor David have responded to this point.
And speaking of Jewish backgrounds, I’d be interested to hear anyone’s thoughts on the following:
In Matthew 19:9, Jesus was responding to the religious leader’s question about why Moses commanded that a certificate be given to a divorced woman. This command is given in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and specifies a case law relating to the handling of a woman who had been divorced and remarried, and who’s second husband had either divorced her or died. The meaning of this passage had been hotly debated among the Rabbis, and at the time of Christ, two main schools of thought had emerged: (1) The school of Shammai taught that if a man discovered some (sexual) indiscretion concerning his wife he must divorce her. (2) The school of Hillel taught that if a man simply disliked his wife for any reason, he could divorce her. It appears the Shammaites emphasized the “something indecent” of v. 2, while the Hillelites emphasized the “dislike” of v. 3.
Matthew makes it clear the Pharisees were not merely seeking Jesus’ opinion on the legality of divorce, but were actually testing Him. In light of the current Rabbinical debate, it appears they were trying to force Him into taking sides. In v. 3 kata pasan aitian can be taken as “for every reason whatever” (i.e. Hillel’s position) or “for any reason at all” but the context suggests the first alternative.
As was His custom, Jesus did not answer their question directly, but appeals to Genesis 2:24, in order to deny the presupposition on which their question is based: that divorce is permissible in some circumstances. Jesus’ response could not have been more clear, or more absolute: His answer is an emphatic NO. God specifically created men and women for each other, and it had always been His intention, right from the beginning, for married couples to stay together. Divorce is completely contrary to His will.
Note that if an exception is present in Matthew 19:9 then Jesus would have effectively been agreeing with the Shammaite view of divorce which he had just implicitly condemned.
Craig Blomberg has argued in his paper on this topic that Jesus did go beyond the teaching of Shammai in that Jesus only permitted divorce for sexual sin, whereas Shammai commanded it. But the context makes it clear that Jesus was primarily responding to Moses’ teaching (see vv. 7-8) not Shammai’s. This means that an exception would imply that Jesus was actually agreeing with Moses’ teaching in Deuteronomy 24, which is not possible, considering His response in v. 8. Jesus pointed out that Moses allowed divorce and remarriage because of hard-heartedness, but this was not God’s original intention. Therefore, in vv. 8b-9, Jesus actually over-turns Moses’ concession.
- McFall fails to observe that a me by itself can have exceptive force. A look at the earliest textual variants confirms that this is the oldest interpretive tradition, as scribes regularly changed me to parektos to make the exception clause unambiguously exceptive.-
Although I don’t accept McFall’s position, I would take issue with your claim that mh by itself can have exceptive force. mh is a negative particle.
It is generally rendered as “not” when it negates a verb, but the phrase mh epi porneia contains no explicit verb. In order to determine how mh should be rendered in this context, we must first determine what the author intended to negate when he wrote these words.
According to BAGD (sv. mh III.6), in “abrupt expressions without a verb” mh can have “a prohibitive sense in independent clauses, to express a negative wish or a warning.” An example of this use can be found in Rom 14:1, where mh negates a prepositional phrase as is the case in 19:9. Thus, my translation of 19:9 is as follows (2 options):
(1) Instead of assuming an ellipsis of ei/ean which is not found anywhere in the immediate context, it would be more appropriate to assume an ellipsis of the third person singular aorist subjunctive verb apolush mentioned in the preceding clause. Indeed, when mh is used with the aorist subjunctive, it often denotes a prohibition (see eg. Luke 1:15, 8:12). Therefore, 19:9 may be translated as follows:
I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, ([he may] not [divorce] for sexual sin), and marries another woman commits adultery.
(2) Even if the ellipsis of apolush was not a possibility, the negated phrase epi porneia would still convey a similar meaning. The phrase epi porneia communicates the possibility of divorce “on the basis of sexual sin,” which is then negated by mh. In other words, the possibility of divorce on the basis of sexual sin is being denied. This could be rendered as follows:
I tell you that any man who divorces his wife, ([divorce] on the basis of sexual sin is not allowed), and marries another woman commits adultery.
In addition, most of the textual variants containing parektos aren’t that early or that numerous. B and min. 33 are the only representative of the Alexandrian text type, but min. 33 is quite late and B is well known for its many corrections. The other witnesses (fam 1, fam. 13, and D) are late and all Western or Caesarean which are well known for the way tendency to harmonise similar texts. Therefore, the harmonisation of 19:9 with 5:32 is better understood as simply some (late) scribes attempts to clarify or simply a difficult passage, rather than reflecting “the oldest interpretive tradition.”
cheers,
Andrew
November 26th, 2008 at 7:02 am
Craig Blomberg wrote:
“You can see my fuller views in my commentaries on Matthew (NAC from Broadman & Holman) and on 1 Corinthians 7 (NIVAC from Zondervan) as well as in my detailed article in Trinity Journal in 1990. Craig Keener’s and Bill Luck’s volumes on divorce and remarriage also give full details of the kind of view I would endorse.”
My paper deals in detail with both Craig Blomberg’s Trinity Journal article and Craig Keener’s book. Suffice to say I disagree with them both.
cheers,
Andrew
November 26th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Dear Bob,
“I have decided to just respond to one issue for now”. Fair enough.
“and that issue is that I would feel that when a person holds that Mat 19:9 has to do with a betrothal wife instead of a married wife it takes causes all of verse 9 to do with betrothal.” In thinking about it, I’m not sure I would say “instead of” but you get to this later, so I’ll take it up there.
“To me it is clear the issue was about a married wife and the issues of divorce and remarriage. Not about a betrothed wife.” It may seem clear to you, but you have not made it clear to me. Consider this, which calls into question whether it is “clear” that the issue is about a married wife:
“The verb for “divorce” in Matthew 19:9 is the same as that used when Joseph intended to put Mary away quietly, apoluo. We know they were not married [at that time], but betrothed. By way of distinction, 1 Cor 7:27 (“Are you married? Do not seek a divorce.”) . . . uses the different verb lusis for “divorce”.
“The verse more literally says something like ‘whosoever shall release his woman, except in the case of fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery’.”
We both agree that divorce is not permitted. I think changing the “except” here to “as” still leaves us with a betrothed wife, not a married wife. Under Jewish law, the penalty for marital porneia (adultery) was death. Deuteronomy 22:22. Therefore, if a man released (apoluo) his wife in the case of porneia, she would be stoned to death, meaning he could not commit adultery (because she was no longer alive).
“Well I have not done that so I am not sure how that is related here.”
I was going through the logical possibilities, not trying to put words in your mouth. Sorry for any confusion.
“So if you feel that both Mat 19:9 and Mar 10:11 are referring to Jewish betrothal do you feel like they are also referring to regular marriage?”
I think they may be referring to no divorce of betrothed *or* married wives.
“I would hold that it can’t be both. Either ‘Whosoever shall put away his wife” refers to the betrothed wife or to a married wife but not to both. And if the first clause in Mat 19:9 is concerning a betrothed wife then the second clause must be also.”
The second clause can refer to an occasion that is only possible with some of the women categorized in the first clause, so I disagree with your “must be also” conclusion. Consider a hypothetical: a sign at an amusement park says “all adults may ride this roller coaster except those who are pregnant.” Under your logic, it seems the first clause could only be referring to female adults, as the second clause is only applicable to female adults. In our case, there is no logical problem with Matthew 19:9 saying “no divorcing [married wives or betrothed wives] except in porneia,” and simultaneously maintaining that the porneia scenario is only possible with the betrothed wives (since the married wives would be stoned).
“Nor do I think the disciple’s reaction “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” is referring to Jesus noting that you can only put your betrothed wife away for fornication.”
I think I am prepared to maintain that the wife refers to both married and betrothed wives, so I agree with your point here without contradicting my above comments on apoluo and on the death penalty for adulterous wives.
Peace in Christ,
Tom
November 26th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Thank you so much for the clarification. I am a woman who, over a year ago, left a second marriage having been convicted by the Spirit that it was adultery. Bringing these historical facts to light has helped me in my understanding … I knew it was wrong but the evidence seemed weak in the KJV. I am glad to know that it was not always so.
I am grateful for God’s grace and mercy even to one such as I.
November 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Hi Tracy; Well may the Lord bless you for that. Lord willing you should feel free to share your testimony how the Lord lead you that way. I would be happy to post it here.
Also there are other articles on this site that I would encourage you to read. Especially the concept of freedom from sinning and practical holy living. Check back from time to time on this article as I am updating it regularly and adding new material.
Today I have added a facsimile of Mat 19:9 showing Alfred Marshall’s Interlinear translation and the NA21 Greek text. This clearly shows the εἰ not inserted and the interlinear translation is “not of (for) fornication”.
I am working not on getting another well known Interlinear translation with the TR Greek text where the translation is “if not for fornication”. This “if not” is taken as “except” and what should be a exclusion to divorce “not even for fornication” (McFall Translation) has been changed to a exception to divorce “except it be for fornication” based on Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ.
Another thing that is good to keep in mind is the difference between Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9. Mat 5:32 has an exception clause but it is an exception to blame not an exception to divorce and remarry.
While the other scriptures (Mar 10:11, 12; Luk 16:18, Rom 7:2, 3; 1Cor 7:11, 39) are very clear on divorce and remarriage, to most people Mat 5:32 and Mat 19:9 leave them puzzled. But once you are clear that Mat 19:9 is an exclusion to divorce not an exception to divorce and remarry as it appears to me in the KJV and Mat 5:32 is a exception to blame not an exception to divorce and remarry it all fits together like a puzzle and people can get peace in this difficult question.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
One reader of this blog commented to me that…
I wondered why no one had referred to Michael W. Holmes, “The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions,” Journal of Biblical Literature 109 (1990) 651-64. His is the most thorough discussion of the variants in all the divorce texts, and he fairly conclusively shows that the “shorter” reading in our critical texts (UBS4 and NA27) for 19:9 is in error, and “that the original text of 19:9 . . . is found today almost exclusively among MSS of the Byzantine and (to a lesser degree) secondary Alexandrian traditions” (663).
November 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Greetings from Sydney Australia, the land ‘down under’.
This dialoge has been good reading, very interesting and very helpful.
To those who have contributed, thanks for standing Gods right and only way.
It would be good to have a summary and conclusion.
As a pastor’s wife I firmly believe and stand for marriage God’s way, married for life.
Bob, keep up the good work. May God continue to bless you.
December 5th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
I have to say this discussion of Erasmus is irrelevant. Jesus did say this in Greek anyway. He said it in Aramaic. And the historical context has to do with incest. Jesus is probably commenting on the cause celebre of his day– the marriage of Herod Antipas to his brother’s wife, Herodias. In other words Jesus is ruling out divorce except on grounds of incest. This comports nicely with what Paul tells us was Jesus’ teaching (and the earliest evidence we have for it– in 1 Cor. 7), namely Jesus permitted no divorce of couples joined together by God.
Lastly, porneia is not the technical term for adultery (that’s moixeia as the context in Matthew shows, see Mt. 5), nor is it a term normally used of fornication as a specific sexual sin. When it is used as a technical term it means incest, or when it is used more broadly it means all sorts of sexual abberations, not just fornication. The context of the discussion in Mt. 19.1-12 suggests that Jesus was offering a more restrictive view of things than normal, hence the disciples explosive reaction– “if that’s how it is between a man and a woman…”
BW3
December 6th, 2008 at 2:35 am
Hi Ben Witherington;
>>Jesus did[n't] say this in Greek anyway. He said it in Aramaic.
Yes but it was written in Greek.
>>>And the historical context has to do with incest.
I don’t think you can prove that.
>>>Lastly, porneia is not the technical term for adultery (that’s moixeia as the context in Matthew shows, see Mt. 5), nor is it a term normally used of fornication as a specific sexual sin.
Most people that are deal with this issue know that fornication is translated from porneia not moichao and that porneia has the meaning of porneia“1) illicit sexual intercourse a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc. b) sexual intercourse with close relatives;”
>>>When it is used as a technical term it means incest
I don’t think you can provide support for that.
>>>The context of the discussion in Mt. 19.1-12 suggests that Jesus was offering a more restrictive view of things than normal, hence the disciples explosive reaction– “if that’s how it is between a man and a woman…”
I would agree with that.
December 9th, 2008 at 7:24 am
1. Human behavior in terms of sexuality, partnerships and love has its origins in the chemicals and hormones released in the body. The urges are often overwhelming to the extent that the some individual are unable to control themselves. These hormones and chemicals’ purpose is to ensure the existence of the human species creating the urge to procreate.
Many individuals find it almost impossible to exist in solidarity and even though their initial judgment was flawed resulting in a divorce, it is impractical to expect such a person to continue his or her life in misery. If forced to live a life of solidarity such an individual will either fall into depression or engage in an illegitimate relationship as defined by the Bible.
Despite the understanding of Matt 9:19 many people remarry a different partner both turning out to be well adjusted, stable individuals and loving parents. Often the second marriage is a great success.
It is not clear if Erasmus made a mistake or corrected a mistake however despite his best intentions similar additions were made to other parts of the Bible e.g Mark 16:9-20. It is therefore not a unique case of additions made to the Bible and it is quite possibly not the last time it will occur.
Finally and most importantly, one would expect that God will inspire the correct translation of the Bible to ensure His followers follow the true and correct path. Considering both Matt 9:19 and mark 16:9-20 one can ask why God waited until the late 1400’s before inspiring a correction of the this verse, if indeed it is a mistake.
Or one could ask if Erasmus made a mistake (for what ever reason) why God has not inspired an immediate correction preventing many Christians from committing adultery in the past 500 years?
December 10th, 2008 at 10:24 am
Thanks–not read all; I always questioned that verse and felt the coma placement in KJ Eng. precluded even divorce, far less remarriage–to say nothing of all the others precluding divorce and certainly remarriage. Not knowing Greek and finding no one who could tell me, I typed into Google: “divorce except for fornication–Scripture” and this came up. Thanks! h
December 17th, 2008 at 5:08 am
Ok… I’m zooming past the comment here to simply note: “And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce…’ [Jer 3:8 NASB].
Interesting that divorced His wife and yet some people still want to try to prove that divorce is always a sin and that God never really allows it. It’ll be interesting when we stand before a divorced God to give account for what we taught on earth about divorce. You’d think the thought of such would give some people pause. Apparently, it doesn’t.
December 17th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Thanks for this article.
I’m not convinced the removal of ει changes the actual meaning of the text, especially since there is no verb in the prhase in question.
For instance, I could say “You kids can play outside when it rains, NOT floods, and have fun.” Or I could say “You kids can play outside when it rains, except when it floods, and have fun.”
The meaning is the same.
As for Mark 10:11 and Matthew 19:9 not being in agreement with each other – I disagree. When two people report the ame thing, one will include details the other leaves out. This does not mean they contradict each other. For example, I could tell two of my children, “You can not go outside, except to take the trash out, until I come home.” One child might recount this to his sister (who never takes out the trash) as, “Dad said we can not go outside until he comes home”. The second child could recount this to his other sibling (who DOES occasionally take out the trash) as, “Dad said we can not go outside, except to take the trash out, until he comes home.’ Both are correct, but one is more accurate in the details, and this accuracy enhances understanding. But it does not change the overall meaning of the message.
In this case under discussion, the audience of Mark would not know of the ‘not for pornea’, but this does not mean the qualifier was not present when stated by Jesus.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
I am a simpleton, in fact not worthy of being a student of Scripture; I say that to qualify myself for offending anyone here.
Here is my point. In V8 of chapter 19 of Matthew, Jesus answers the Pharisees with this speaking of Moses:
“8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
then he gets into the meat of this blog topic:
” 9″And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
for the sake of my argument, I will agree here and move on.
Then the disiples say:
10The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.”
Good point, but still not my piont:
Jesus then says:
11But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given”
Hhmm, one must stop to think of how a conversation is built and verbally how we speak to one another, moreso, how Jesus would speak of this in leu of the ultimate picture parable, Christ and the Church. Marraige is to be the magnificent glorification of Christ and the Church.
Walk with me as I attempt to write what is in my mind:
Christ address this first: “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.”
Looking at this verse and looking at the others right after it, one must draw the connection of hearts being hard. This is profound, stay with me here for a minute: Moses understood his culture in that not everyone could show uncondition forgiven love; Jesus draws this conclusion as well, with the culture in His time, He too understood not everyone could show unconditional forgiving love, and He too gave an escape clause, something He knew no one could forgive…. fornication. Even in today’s society and inside of Christiandom today, there is no room for forgiving this sin against God and reconsile a marriage.
Again I am no scholar, it is evident, but I am one who does not beleive divorce is acceptable between to beleivers. Here is why, even with the fornification clause excuse! Because if we apply the simple truth of two things:
1. No sin is unforgivable by King Jesus
2. Marriage is the glorification of Chrsit and the Church
point one is self explanitory, point two might need some explination:
How many times have we “whored” ourselves to things unclean in the sight of God or done the things Jesus says not to;but then we quickly run back to Him for forgivness, if He is the husband of the church and we are turning to anything other than God, then we too are an adulteress. But yet God still accepts us not based on us, but on the premise of Christ’s finished work on the Cross!
So how much more should we hate divorce and only understand that Jesus was only talking to the Pharisees, understanding that they concept of forgivness based on furture grace of the cross would not be something they would embrase.
Enough of my confusion, bottom line, inside Christiandom, forgiveness and reconsiled marriages is what it is about. This verse though, I would argue, as I did above, is for the unbeliving.
Thank you for youe time and I beg of you to reproof if thisis incorrect.
Respectfully
Thomas
January 17th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Dear sir,
While I admit I have not read all of the items on this post (which is a lot of information), it seems that there is a concesus as to the Scripturalness of divorce and remarriage. Here is my issue: Legally, I had been married for a little over 6 years (1995-2002), until our divorce in about 2002. I then remarried in 2004, and am still married. My question is, how can someone come to the conviction that the second marriage is wrong? I had problems with it from the start, but did it anyway. My 1st marriage was not for adultery. There was an adulterous situation, but that was forgiven earlier on (but there was no assumption that I would have put her away upon finding out of the adultery). Now is a different situation altogether. For some reason, I still feel that I shouldn’t have filed for divorce (I never repented of it-or the remarriage).
I understand that this post deals mainly with the textual aspects of the Bible verses used concerning divorce/remarriage, but where does someone go from realising (or even not having arrived at that conviction yet) that marriage/divorce is wrong. The church we attend has a different view of the remarriage part of it (do not seek reconcialiation with former spouse if they have not remarried-but I think she is remarried now anyway). I am sorry if this is a lot information here but you have hit something that I have been going through for few years. I’m not sure if this automatically posts (I guess I’ll find out after submitting this comment), but if not, you don’t have to post it since it doesn’t deal directly with this discussion.
thank you
allen f.
January 19th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I greatly appreciate the principle behind this thread[i.e. truth over convenience]. I will not weigh in on the overall discussion at hand but will comment on one particular aspect. I find it a bit of a stretch to interpret Deuteronomy 24:1-4’s “uncleaness” as ‘previous marriage.’ I agree with Bob’s definition of the Greek equivelant. The Hebrew word here means “shameful disgrace.” It would seem to me that it should be more likely that this should be interpreted as any sexual deviance.
Is it the case that people under the Law had more grace? That does not make sense to me. It seems that proponents of both sides of this discussion must have found some innovative ways of interpreting Deuteronomy or at least you have found a way to reconcile a problem of God giving instruction thorough Moses that is completley against his will. That seems problematic and confusing…
I am interested in getting feedback about this from anyone. You guys do an excellent job of articulating your points and you’re always considerate; very refreshing. Mike Atnip…..great article
January 31st, 2009 at 6:18 am
I think that if you spent the time to openmindedly look at the Jewish betrothal view you would find that there are no contradictions to other scriptures at all. People of who have defended this point of view may not have always presented a perfect explanation of it but I beleive that it is the truth. All I can do is point you to the truth which is here http://www.ndtime.net/different_views_points_theories_put_away_porneia.htm
I am not being proud or trying to make myself better than anyone else I just love the truth and hope you do too.
March 15th, 2009 at 5:25 am
New articles links added at http://www.WiseReaction.org
Les McFall has done a critique on an article of William Heth.
No-Divorce, No-Remarriage easy theology.
Michael
March 29th, 2009 at 8:53 am
I was so excited to find this site and this article! Just last November, when this article appeared, I was finishing up a term paper on the “exception clauses” here at the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family in Washington DC. I had judged that as the exception clauses were only Matthean, thus either added by Matthew or from Jesus but included only by Matthew, they were there because they were something that would only make sense to Matthew’s Jewish audience. The Hebrew or Aramaic word which would have been used, which the Greek “porneia” translates, is “zenut.” “Except fot zenut.” It could mean a whole slew of sexual misdeeds. But what we learned from the Dead Sea scrolls is that the word at the time was being used to refer to marriages which, according to Jewish law, weren’t really valid marriages…that of a king to his niece, for instance. Jesus was saying that a “divorce” of people who weren’t really validly married anyway…was an exception from his “no divorce” ruling. I didn’t take the time to read your blog comments…maybe someone else said the same thing. I think the thought process everyone needs to follow is the one Augustine finally came to: Jesus clearly condemns divorce in the other gospels, and this gospel therefore can’t be in disagreement…..there is something else about Matthew that we just don’t understand! The “erasmus lecture” was very interesting! God bless you…your work is blessing the Lord! Anne Cherney
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:46 am
Hi to the owner and commenators of this Discusiion
As a person who is in the midst of the questions at hand.
I in no way find any of this Helpful.Divorce through relationalproblems,violence,and others Including sexual activity outside the Lawful marriage by either parties .
IS AN EXTREMELY EMOTIONAL,hurtful,gut renching,violent experience of the Human Phycy.
And to me to be argueing over two word s with 2 letters which may or may not have been introduced by a writter /interpretor of scripture several centuries ago is to me a work of futility.
For Jesus was not about the action but the repentance of that action.
And if we study the Word with regard to the word GRACE we will find that to repent of any action is to have that action to be forgiven of
AND REMEMBERED NO MORE
In other words If I repentand ask for the cleasing of the filthiness of the action I am to be be whiter than snow
AND MOST importantly If I was to go to GOD and Repent again HE(GOD) would say “I (GOD) do not remember what you are talking about.
For God Never repents on what he has forgiven .
The Futility of the arguement is to forget what has been left behind not just in divorce and remarriage but any sin
And it seems to me that this subject is being held up as a sin worse than any other.
If I remember correctly James says If you say you are without sin then you are a liar
Isnt Lying a sin in fact no different to any other Sin including Adultery!!!
Are we not as the Pharasee’s sitting in the Temple argueing who is right and who is wrong.
who is the most learned of this subject or another subject
“With Tears” while all around us there are people are suffering from the results of thier sin regardless of what it is/was
The Gospel is JESUS AND HIM CRUCIFIED by which we ,no matter what we’ve done may be Reconcilled to God in spite of Ourselves.And know the true Freedom that he gives us and declares us to be Saints,dearly Beloved,Sons of God By which we Call him
ABBA FATHER my Father,My Father.
I there fore exhourt you to Preach the gospel instead of arguing about the gospel
May I finally say this in and with LOVE
STOP being as Gnostics!
In God s Love an the experience of being forgiven of what you argue about BecauseJesus Shed HIS BLOOD that I may walk and enter int the Holy of Holies with him
Trevor From Down Under
May 17th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Thank you for posting this. This is very helpful. I pray that this article receives wide circulation and will help many see the necessity of remaining married for life.
Do keep up the good work Bob!
DW
May 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I have been looking into this for a few months because I recently found myself in this situation (remarried after divorce). I have looked at many views of the “exception clause”, and think the betrothal view makes sense except for one aspect. The no remarriage supporters frequently reference the early church fathers’ nearly universal ban on remarriage, yet the early church mostly seems to allow for divorce in cases of adultery. The “betrothal exception” would seem not to support that.
I can see Dr. McFall’s rendering as a very real possibility, but again, that would not be supported by the ECF stand on the issue. The same can be said for the “incestuous marriage” explaination.
There has to be a way to explain what Matthew, Mark and Luke said that doesn’t cause a contradiction, eith with Jesus Himself, or the other Gospel writers. I am definately not a Greek scholar, but have tried my best to make sense of this and look at the Greek. I know there is debate on whether or not the “exception” refers to the divorce alone, or the divorce and remarrige together. I can only see the harmonization with Mark, Luke, and the early church by placing it on the divorce only.
Here is my thinking on the subject: The sin of adultery (in remarriage applications at least) is committed in the remarriage, not the divorce. Matthew 5:32 implies that divorcing a wife without her committing adultery will cause her to commit adultery due to the fact that she would most likely have to remarry to survive. If she had already committed adultery against her husband, his divorcing her would not make her an adulteress because she has already done so. Either way, a man marrying a divorced woman committs adultery, because she is another man’s “one flesh” covenant wife, whether she has committed adultery or not. I see Matthew 19 as a little bit more complicated, unless you see the exception as only applying to the reason of divorce, and not allowing remarriage. This is what gave me the most trouble, until I mentally constructed similar sentences in my mind, and then it became clear. I believe that is what is intended. For example, “A married man who goes to a motel, not for a business trip, and meets another woman commits adultery. This would clearly say that a man is wrong to go to a motel and meet up with another woman (Think Mark 10:11 and Luke 16:18). It also says that while going to a motel for business purposes is acceptable, it doesn’t make it okay to meet another woman while on his business trip; his motive for going to a hotel is justified, his resulting actions are certainly not. Again, the sin is in the resulting action.
Seeing the exception this way makes it clear to me in Matthew’s Gospel he is not making Jesus is contradict himself regarding the permanancy of the one-flesh relationship, it is the same message as Mark and Luke recount, and the early teachings of the church support it.
July 3rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Wonderful article… Thanks for the resources.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I don’t understand any of this. (I am slow). I didn’t want to divorce my wife…she divorced me, she was the guilty party…did Jewish Women divorce thier men at all? And because I had no choice in the matter, did I make her an adulterer when she was one already, especially because she divorced me?
It was 20 years ago…I was a young man…she is remarried. Should I stop dating?? Would I be an adulterer if I remarried? Should I still try to get back with her even though she is married?
Sorry about all the questions.
Jeffy
August 12th, 2009 at 7:50 am
I have a few thoughts here. I believe that remarriage is wrong. I also believe it is wrong to break up a new marriage, so that you can go back to the first marriage.
What do you think though about Esther in the Bible, she was “raised up for such a time as this” to save her people and obviously was doing God’s will in marrying a divorced man.
I do not believe that God would Ever guide us to do something that although helping save some lives, would be against His Holy ordained law. God would never lead us into sin. So what is the answer here?
Also I believe that God says He will always protect His inspired Word, and that it will always be maintained until He comes again. I cannot find this scripture reference right away.
Are you saying though that only the original Greek and Latin manuscripts where the inspired Word of God? Is so, is it ever possible to make an inspired translation of the Bible?
I would be afraid to attempt this myself! Rev. 22:18-19 It is not wise to Add to or Minus from God’s Word!
August 12th, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Lisa,
To be sure remarriage while one has a living spouse is wrong. Jesus and Paul both called the new relationship, not a lawful marriage joined by Him, but adultery (having unlawful relations with one who is not your spouse). To break up a “new marriage” as you say, is to REPENT from adultery……….to turn from an illicit relationship and to turn back to the Lord. Nowhere in God’s Word do we ever find where this relationship defined as adultery turns into a lawful marriage, joined by God as ONE FLESH. We do have evidence given us in the example of Herod/Herodias—neither a divorce, nor remarriage, nor adultery dissolves the original marriage. John told Herod that he had PHILIP’s wife (she didn’t belong to Herod no matter that she was “legally” his wife). New vow taking does not magically turn an adulterous/incestuous relationship into a God joined marriage.
In regards to ANY OT practice with marriage, all bets are off. Jesus brought marriage back to the ORIGINAL creation intent for marriage—one man/one woman for life. Polygamy is no longer tolerated (which is a form of adultery against the original spouse), nor is divorcing one’s covenant spouse and marrying another—-again, a relationship Jesus deemed adulterous.
You are correct in that the Lord said He would protect His Word. In Lk. 16:16-18 we find: 16 “Until John the Baptist, the law of Moses and the messages of the prophets were your guides. But now the Good News of the Kingdom of God is preached, and everyone is eager to get in.[a] 17 But that doesn’t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God’s law to be overturned.
18 “For example, a man who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery. And anyone who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”
See, Jesus said that to divorce and remarry is adultery, as is marrying a divorced person, yet much of the church today is practicing adultery—-they have “taken away” from the Word of God. They have joined themselves to other people’s spouses or have forsaken those God joined them to and have entered into adulterous relationships—-condoned by man and man’s laws. The days we are living in are very sad.
August 13th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Hi Cindy,
Thank you for your well thought out post. Sadly, it seems few take Jesus’ words seriously about divorce and remarriage. But Jesus’ words still stand for today.
August 13th, 2009 at 12:20 pm
In response to Lisa, a couple of clarifications, with support for Cindy’s response;
1. Queen Vashti was unjustly judged for maintaining her modesty and decency. She was not divorced but reduced to the level of a common wife, and replaced by Esther, who was never asked to present herself for the sake of men lusting after her like Vashti was. The opinion that the King was a ‘divorcee’ is an unfounded assumption made popular by the opponents of creational marriage.
2. The common error of talking about an adulterous and unlawful “re-marriage” in the same context of an existing covenant marriage, is what leads to false conclusions. One has to assume that a divorce decree actually dissolves a one-flesh union. Scripture everywhere plainly shows that it does not. A divorce does show that one or both spouses are doing what Jesus commanded them not to do ie,. (put space between themselves). Cindy’s posting of Luke 16:18 is a perfect example. Look at the facts that are revealed in this verse alone;
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. (Luke 16:18)
We have in the above verse the example of a man that “putteth away” (divorce, repudiate) his wife. The same man then “marries another”, stop right there. So far it is perfectly clear that the man in the verse has taken the necessary civil & legal steps to get rid of his wife, and “marry” another woman. However, Jesus calls this mans condition “adultery” not a marriage that is approved by God. Man calls it a marriage because the majority of mankind are living and judging according to the flesh (soulishly) and not the Spirit, which is “according to godliness.” The man in this verse would need to legally forsake this immoral union for the sake of the public, but not in order to reconcile to his wife. Even though he put her away, she is still called his “wife.” The divorce did not dissolve his marriage, and God will not be mocked by mans own inventions.
The latter half of this verse when taken in it’s literal sense, literally forbids any man (whosoever) from marrying any woman that has been divorced from her husband. This makes perfect sense with the first part of the verse. Whoever would attempt to legally “marry” the mans wife in the verse would have to be entering into the sin of adultery because Jesus shows that she remains the mans wife in spite of his treachery (divorce).
The same could be said of Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 7. In both instances, the parties are still refereed to as the husband or wife of the one that has departed or been put away. That being said, it is impossible to conclude that Jesus would sanction the transgression of His own holy law. When Jesus says that marrying another is committing adultery against the covenant spouse, then His explanation forbids the possibility of recognizing a civil ‘re-marriage’ as anything but adultery. Jesus can’t contradict His own standard of holiness and purity.
Lastly, and for the sake of illustration, please consider the outcome of justifying an ‘exception’ to the permanency of marriage other than the death of the spouse. For example, if Lisa is in a true covenant marriage, but believes that there is an exception to her marriage outside of death, then the necessary implications are as follows;
1. Her marriage is a temporary agreement based on prudence and the current agreement between her and her husband to continue with the benefits of staying together.
2. If Lisa’s husband walked into sin with another woman, and subsequently pursued the legal requirements to make the immoral woman his “wife”, Lisa would have to uphold and support the new “marriage” or she is guilty of the sin of partiality, which is excercising unjust judgment.
3. Lisa cannot defend her own marriage based on the truth of Gods word. The fact that she and her husband are continuing faithful to each other, and committed to stay that way, doesn’t mean that you have bound yourself to obedience to the truth. Many can conform to things when there is no persecution that is beyond what they are able to endure, but when people turn toward evil, that’s when you find out what ground you are standing on.
4. If Lisa doesn’t believe that marriage is binding til death regardless of the actions of one or both of the spouses, then no marriage is literally bound until death. In other words, every marriage could be dissolved (with Gods approval it is asserted) as long as one or both of the parties perform the proper legal requirements. This very idea self destructs when it’s really taken to it’s obvious conclusion. If a man divorces his covenant wife whom he vowed “till death do us part..”, how can he make the same vow to a 2nd woman? He is contradicting himself in word and deed while he is taking the vow with a living spouse as a witness. Living for the sake of righteousness is not based on happiness by this worlds standards, but by doing the will of God, even if it requires death.
August 16th, 2009 at 10:01 pm
What are the legal requirements? I don’t read it in the Bible that says vow’s to oneaother is the legal requirements.
August 20th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Thank you Bob. I really enjoyed Andrew Kulikovsky’s paper. The issues are very clearly presented. I was going to ask Andrew for his translation of Matthew 19:9, but I just saw two renderings in one of his posts above.
Andrew, (or Bob or anyone out there) is there any other “me epi” occurence in the New Testament. If so, how are they translated into English. (Please bear with me. I don’t have a greek concordance with me.) Would appreciate very much the answer to my question. Thank you. Ray
September 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm
We know Erasmus added the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 and that his work was edited several times by others before they published their work. Does anyone know what manuscripts were used to edit his work or how the Erasmus text was edited? It would seem that if the work of Erasmus was edited so many times, someone would have caught the addition of the exception clause.
I want to thank all of you who have posted questions and answers. I have learned more from this website than anyother source. Thank you.
Mike
October 4th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Can anyone tell me where I can find documentation where Nestle-Aland rejected the exception in Matt. 19:9? I can’t find anything on the rejection and nobody believes me. Thanks.
Mike
October 5th, 2009 at 12:04 am
You need to consult Bruce Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the GNT. It gives the NA27 ranking a B grade (second from top) ie. realtively firm. All other variants appear to be assimilations to Matt 5:32.
Andrew
October 5th, 2009 at 12:24 am
Please refer to Les McFall’s website, go down to the section unpublished articles and click on link (1) DivorceMcFALLview.pdf
within this article you will find further help on this matter under the
APPENDIX D TEXTUAL NOTES ON MATTHEW 5:32 & 19:9
Regards
Michael http://www.WiseReaction.org
October 5th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Les McFalls website http://www.btinternet.com/~lmf12/
October 18th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Good discussions here. The early church allowed for no remarriage after divorce. Not one Father, who spoke the Koine Greek as his native language, understood MT as an “exception” for remarriage. The exception is for divorce in unrepentant adultery, Works like the “Shepherd of Hermas” require divorce to seperate from a unrepentant spouse, but requite remaining unmarried in hopes of reconciliation. It says that in these regards “men and women are to be treated in the same way.” This explanation of Erasmus’ error seems to be the best of why there has been confusion in the English translations. Mark and Luke are clear- no remarriage. Whatever Mathew says, it cannot be contradicting them.
October 19th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Thank you for all your comments.
Mike
December 21st, 2009 at 5:59 pm
The real killer is this – if the remarriage is an act of adultery, who is that adultery against? It must be the first spouse. Then, in Gods eyes, even though there was a civil divorce, the two are still married. So, if the civil divorce doesn’t break the marriage in Gods eyes, is the second marriage a continual state of adultery? Are all the re-married people in our churches adulterers that will not inherit the kingdom of God?
December 29th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
RE: early church…
Since I could find no recent author that finds the same intrepretation of the original greek (e.g. with out the EI the meaning is essentially reversed as McFall states), I did a little search on early church positions on divorce and remarriage and found the following:
The early church’s view on divorce and remarriage
Myron Horst
http://www.biyn.org/divorce/earlychurch.html
‘Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194 on the exception clause states that the only exception for divorce is for remarried couples to end their sinful marriage: “Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife, except for the cause of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”‘
If this and similar such discussions in that article are accurate, I think it’s safe to conclude that in whatever early texts these authors were quoting, those texts were intrepreted completely differently than McFall’s position AND, since those quotes precede Erasmus’ work by many centuries, McFall’s claim that Eramsmus is responsible for mistranslation of the “exception clause” is without merit.
After all, how could have someone “written on the exception clause” if such a clause did not at that time exist?
I wonder if any of the scholar’s here can verify or deny the validity of such early church writings?
December 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Hi David,
I think you have a good point. Can someone that has good experience with what the early church taught address this issue please?
Thanks!
Bob.
December 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Hi Chris,
Some would hold that all
persons[Christians] that are in a second marriage are lost. I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.Thanks!
Bob.
[Bob: Comment changed to clarify original meaning.]
December 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Bro. Dean Taylor has a Booklet on Divorce/Remarriage in which he quotes extensively from the early church writings on the subject. This booklet is made of a series of articles that originally appeared in The Heartbeat of the Remnant.
Mike
[Editor: I fixed the link and deleted the other post.]
December 29th, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Thanks Mike. The article in the link you provided also contains (what appears to be the same) discourse by Clement, and I found similar quote attributed to him on another web page.
Presuming these are valid quotations, the evidence strongly indicates that McFall’s attempt to blame Eramsmus for creating the exception cause and his alternate translation of the original text are both competely without merit.
As to the proper interpretation of that clause, that is a completely different debate.
But, it seems to me, if McFall has unjustly slandered Eramsmus while putting forth an unjustifiable mis-quoting of Mathew, he has commiteed a rather serious offense and he should withdraw his paper and issue an apology imediately.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
“I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.”
This statement should be rejected outright. The scripture states that the grace of God … has appeared unto all men, teaching us to say ‘no to ungodliness’. God has not left Himself without a witness. The view above is not balanced unless we assume that a person could be committing a sin which damns the soul and be excusable as an infant. Jesus said that the one that didn’t know that masters will is beaten with few stripes, which clearly shows they are rejected. It doesn’t state that such a person could not possibly have known, just that he didn’t. The scripture also states explicitly that all men will be without excuse, but according to the above opinion, some adulteres will in fact have an excuse ie. ignorance. There is no exception found among the sins of the flesh that are found all over Gods Word. They plainly state that “those who do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God.” There are Bibles available within reach of nearly all ‘westernized’ nations, so that removes any plea of ignorance for those nations. The rest of the world can be sure that they will be called by the gospel effectually and in such a way that Jesus will be vindicated when He judges, and we know that “the Judge of all the earth shall do right.” This type of fleshly reasoning above is what opens the door, or rather hinders the door of genuine repentance. I am curious how Bob would reprove a man that was found defiling the wife of someone he knew and the man pleaded ignorance based on his belief that the woman said she “loved” him. Would Bob confirm the fact to this same man that he is not presently sinning, but will be after he informs him of his adultery? Couldn’t such a man claim to have a legitimate covenant, since he wasn’t sinning before he knew about it and “married” another mans wife? Taken to it’s inevitable conclusion, you could not truly reprove anyone for any sin unless you could show unequivocally that the person knew beforehand that they were sinning in the way that God describes sin. This isn’t possible without applying the standard of God holy commandments to the past conduct of every person. If ignorance were a legitimate excuse, what would an ignorant person repent of, their sins, or their ignorance about sinning? Jesus says that all souls belong to Him, and “the soul that sinneth it shall die.” That is the balanced view of sin.
December 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Just wanted to confirm the fact that a legal divorce does not dissolve a covenant marriage, and a “re-marriage” cannot be binding in light of the fact that God will not confirm a sinful oath. He would have to nullify His own commandment to do so. Luke 16:18 is just one of the clear examples about the binding nature of the covenant marriage. That text clearly shows the probable case of a husband that divorces his wife. As far as society is concerned, he had the signed pieces of paper that showed him divorced and subsequently “married” to his pretend wife. Nonetheless, he “is continually committing” adultery, which shows he must necessarily still be married. The latter part of the verse literally forbids the marriage of any divorced woman by any man at all.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
BTW, a competely different greek textual analysis and intrepretation of Mathew 19:9 and 5:32 is available here for those interested:
http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm
I assume most here will disagree with it’s conclusions :D
dvc
December 30th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Hi Jim II,
I post that you think the following position should be rejected outright — “sin is rated by light” and “if they [Christians] don’t know it is wrong it is not sin”
Just to clarify I was speaking about a Christian couple that were in a second marriage. I made that a bit clearer by striking out
personsand adding [Christians] to the original comment.It now reads as follows.
Some would hold that all
persons[Christians] that are in a second marriage are lost. I think a more balanced view would be that sin is rated by light. If they don’t know it is wrong it is not sin.Let me first answer your direct questions and then put together a list of your objections to the position I take and try to answer them.
In response to your questions:
I don’t think a woman telling a man that she loved him as anything to do with the position that I take that for a Christian sin is rated by light and understanding. Nor do I think telling a person that they are sinning when they are ignorantly disobeying a scripture mean now that they are sinners. Where something is sin to you is rated by your light not my light.
No a man can’t claim to have a legitimat covenant since he didn’t know he is disobeying the scriptures when he took a second wife. I would disagree that you can’t reprove a person for sin unless you can show they knew what they were doing is sin. I don’t think ignorance is a legitimate excuse to sin and I have not implied that. If a person finds themselves breaking a commandment in the scriptures they should repent both for their ignorance and for the act they have committed.
Here is a list of your objects:
1. Jesus said that the one that didn’t know that masters will is beaten with few stripes, which clearly shows they are rejected.
2. The scripture also states explicitly that all men will be without excuse, but according to the above opinion, some adulteres will in fact have an excuse ie. ignorance.
3. There are Bibles available within reach of nearly all ‘westernized’ nations, so that removes any plea of ignorance for those nations.
I will address these objections later. I need head off to Wed night Bible study.
Christian love and prayers,
Bob.
January 1st, 2010 at 11:17 am
David,
This is what McFall actually said:
“Who was the first to add EI to the inspired Word of God? We do not know who did it, but the earliest Greek manuscript to contain the addition does not date earlier than a thousand years after Christ.
How did it get into the Reformers’ Bibles? This we do know. It was through Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536), the Dutch humanist3. He was not a Reformed Christian. He was brought up in the Catholic Church but, like the Reformers, he became disillusioned with the Catholic Church’s teaching on a number of issues, one of which was their insistence that Jesus did not permit divorce or remarriage.”
Contra your claim, McFall did not say that Erasmus created the exception. In fact he clearly states that we do not know this! The oldest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain EI, and it is only found in very late manuscripts known for their scribal editing. The editors of the UBS4 GNT gave MH EPI PORNEIA a B rating (very reliable). The only evidence we have for EI being there is indirect like the quote from Clement. But note that Clement was the founder of the Alexandrian school which was well known for eccentric interpretations, and the the allusion to Matt 19:9 is not a direct quotation anyway so we have little idea of what the text actually said or where it came from.
What we do know is that Erasmus added it to his published Greek Text. That is clearly McFall’s point.
May I suggest that it is YOU who needs to immediately apologise for unjustly slandering McFall by attributing to him something he did not say. This is, may I suggest, a rather serious offence.
Andrew
January 1st, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Andrew,
I did not say that McFall’s claim that EI was added by Erasmus was the point of slander. It is, rather, the claim that Erasmus’ actions caused a mis-translation of the Reformers bible as well as the following confusion and contention over the meaning of Mathew 19:9, along with the strong inference, by focusing so much attention on Erasmus’ sympathy for an alternate interpretation of that clause, that Erasmus must have done so on purpose.
McFall claims that MH EPI PORNEIA (without EI) translates to an EXCLUSION, not an exception … however, this is not supported either by other modern translators, nor, apparently by Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194, over 800 years prior to the claim of the earliest known manuscript to contain EI.
It’s easy to see that Clement could not have interpreted his text to mean an EXCLUSION, as did McFall, since his comments would no longer make any sense with McFall’s translation …. E.G.:
“Now that the Scripture counsels marriage, and allows no release from the union, is expressly contained in the law, ‘Thou shalt not put away thy wife,
except for the cause ofeven in the case of fornication;’ and it regards as fornication, the marriage of those separated while the other is alive.”So, McFall sure seems to be guilty of trying to do exactly that which he is implying Erasmus did purposefully and successfully: change the translation to suit his belief of what the meaning SHOULD be.
Apparently, the addition of EI is simply a red herring that had essentially no impact in the translation of the reformer’s bible (or any others.) It certainly could not have impacted Clement’s interpretation unless Clement’s text of around 194 A.D. also contain EI.
dvc
January 1st, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Hi David,
I took the corrections from you last post and added them to your second last post. Please check your last post and verify that the corrections were added correctly.
Thanks!
Bob.
January 1st, 2010 at 7:00 pm
David,
You said:
McFall claims that MH EPI PORNEIA (without EI) translates to an EXCLUSION, not an exception … however, this is not supported either by other modern translators, nor, apparently by Clement of Alexandria writing around A.D. 194, over 800 years prior to the claim of the earliest known manuscript to contain EI.
:
Apparently, the addition of EI is simply a red herring that had essentially no impact in the translation of the reformer’s bible (or any others.) It certainly could not have impacted Clement’s interpretation unless Clement’s text of around 194 A.D. also contain EI.
No! The addition of EI is everything! If EI was in the original text then there is definitely an exception. Case closed.
However, there is virtually no evidence that EI was in the original text! Clement’s reference/translation is not a direct quote so this is indirect evidence at best.
The reformers used Erasmus’ text as the basis for their translations so the presence of EI MH made it clear that this was an exception and so they translated it as such. If MH by itself was in the text then it is likely that they would have translated it differently. Admittedly, the the use of MH by itself is most unusual and is not specifically discussed in the standard grammars. Smythe’s classical Greek Grammar has the most comprehensive discussion and it offers no support for an exception. It suggests a prohibition (my view).
Modern translators–unless the project has a specific translational goal–always tend to favour traditional renderings. Most modern translators assume that there has been an ellipsis of EI so they always translate it as an exception. The ellipsis view has a number of problems which I have discussed in my paper.
Andrew
January 1st, 2010 at 8:37 pm
Andrew,
RE: Smythe’s classical Greek Grammar has the most comprehensive discussion and it offers no support for an exception. It suggests a prohibition (my view).
I am more inclined to accept a view that the evidence indicates, which is that either a) scholars of greek text of AT LEAST A.D. 194 translated MH EPI PORNEIA as ‘except…” or b) EI must have existed in an greek text accepted by church elders as early as A.D. 194, which would therefore give inclusion of EI far greater authority than ANY currently existing text that does not.
Regardless of that, NO current english translation of the bible that I can find, including those that claim to have used texts other than, or in addition to Erasmus’ translation contain text that agrees with McFall’s translation.
http://www.biblegateway.com contains the full text of 22 english translations, only one of which is remotely close to McFall’s .. The Wycliffe New Testament:
And I say to you, that whoever leaveth his wife, but for fornication, and weddeth another, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]; and he that weddeth the forsaken wife, doeth lechery [doeth adultery]. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mathew%2019:9&version=WYC
Further, of the discussions of on the translation of MH EPI PORNEIA I have found on the internet, most find the exception clause as a reasonable translation. For example, Don Martin’s very detailed translation which I posted previously (http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm)
I don’t see you posting any supporting evidence to your arguments, btw.
dvc
January 1st, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Some additional comments…
RE: But note that Clement was the founder of the Alexandrian school which was well known for eccentric interpretations, and the the allusion to Matt 19:9 is not a direct quotation anyway so we have little idea of what the text actually said or where it came from.
Actually, in what I quoted, there IS a (claimed) direct quote by Clement of (the first part of) Matt 19:9. As to what he is quoting, where the text came from or how eccentric or mainstream his position might be, I see that as insignificant compared to the DATE from which this quote comes.
But, let’s look further at the claim of eccentric intrepretation. Note that the view expressed in that quote is essential the same as the current official RCC church stance on marriage and divorce… eg. no divorce, no remarriage, any time, for any condition.
How similar this stance is to the current position is particularly obvious when one looks at the current (and very recent) english translation of the bible that is officially accepted by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops … the New American Bible (http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.shtml) which translates Matt 19:9 as:
I say to you, 7 whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”
So, apparently, at least this particular position of Clement’s is not quite so controversial.
I can (and will) provide further evidence to support my claims if you wish to continue this debate, btw. But ONLY, if you provide compelling evidence to support your claims, otherwise I see not point in bothering.
Saying “Case Closed” is hardly a compelling argument.
dvc
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:17 am
David,
1. I checked the quote in Schaff’s ANF, and yes, the first part is a purported quotation. Nevertheless, this is still indirect evidence. We don’t know what manuscript was used and what it actually said. If it did contain EI (or EAN) then that rendering was clearly not deemed worthy enough to be preserved in copied manuscripts since no other early manuscripts (from any of the 3 text types) contain EI/EAN.
2. Re Clement’s view matches RCC position, I’m not so sure. Clement could be taken to mean that one could divorce/separate for sexual sin, but separated people could not remarry. But alternatively, it could be taken to mean no divorce and no remarriage UNLESS one partner commits sexual sin.
3. I cannot see how the NAB translators can get “unless the marriage is unlawful” from MH EPI PORNEIA. Theology is driving this that translation, not the Greek text.
4. My reference to “case closed” was in relation to the translation “except…” If the Greek text said EI MH (or more likely EAN MH) then the translation “except…” is absolutely correct. Case closed. If you don’t believe me check any intermediate Greek Grammar (Wallace, Young, BDF, Robertson, Smythe) or the lexical entry for EI/EAN in a standard lexicon (BAGD, BDAG).
5. I haven’t made any claims apart from defending McFall’s original propositions. YOU are the one claiming that McFall slandered Erasmus. I don’t think you have any grounds for doing so. McFall has made a fair proposition and has put forward a reasonable argument in support. He may be right, he may be wrong, but he has NOT acted dishonestly or slandered anyone.
Andrew
January 2nd, 2010 at 12:55 pm
On this web site only some people have to see great thing close to this good topic. Thanks to you the the best sides of make an order are evident. We think that now used to be easy to have well composed buy custom essay at essay writing service.
[Editor: More comment spam from primewritings.com, I removed the links.]
January 2nd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
So to recap your argument then: in the hundreds of years since Erasmus did his translation, EVERYONE prior to McFall has got it wrong, including all those RCC defenders who viciously attacked Erasmus during his lifetime and all those people and groups that went back and re-translated the bible, including those who do or did not support the view that Mathew 19:9 allows for divorce and/or remarriage.
And, ALL people who claim that a translation that allows that MH EPI PORNEIA (literally “not for fornication/whoredom/lewdness/whatever”) can be reasonably intrepreted as an exception MUST be either uniformed or are purposely mis-translating the greek, because thier translation does not fit your (and McFall’s) opinion?
Hardly convincing.
As per Clement (and similar statements attributed to early church elders), the evidence certainly appears to exist and should be checked by reputable scholars on BOTH sides of the debate, since it may offer the only hope of actually answering this question.
Further, McFall should publish his paper to jurried journal, so that it is properly scrutinized and debated publicly by other scholars.
As for apologizing… I said ….
But, it seems to me, IF McFall has [done the things my analysis seems to indicate he did] THEN he should apologize.
In my opinion, the evidence casts McFall’s conclusions in grave doubt. But, regardless, I have nothing to apologize for.
dvc
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:13 pm
Thank you Chris for asking the following critical question on the 21st of December…”Are all the re-married people in our churches adulterers that will not inherit the kingdom of God?”
Personally I can see that scripture is very clear on this, and the answer is yes. Much has been written and debated on this very topic. All I can recommend is that each person continues to seek, read, pray and ask God for help on this topic, as their eternal destination depends on it.
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Thankyou Mike (Primitive Christianity comment on 29th December) for recommending the booklet written by Bro. Dean Taylor. It is the best booklet I have read on the topic of Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage (Adultery) it has been an answer to my prayers..
January 2nd, 2010 at 3:39 pm
David,
I have read articles written by Les McFall and Andrew Kulikovsky, I am very impressed with both men and the efforts they have made and what they have written. They are both extremely knowledgable, and extremely gracious men.
It would be great if you too David can share with us any work you have done in this area. Do you have a website, or can you provide links to your work?
Thanks
Michael
January 2nd, 2010 at 5:30 pm
In the exchange between David & Andrew, I wanted to make one fact perfectly clear; The clearly defined model and standard of marriage, accoding to Jesus Himself, is the creational example of Adam & Eve, not the 5 word phrase found in Matthew 19. Even if Les or Andrew were 100% wrong on thier conclusions, we can be sure that whatever it means, it does not have a meaning that would permit the overthrow and repeal of Gods own law concerning marriage. We know that the ‘word of fornication’ phrase does not and cannot be applied in such a way that would modify the latter part of the vers. Context forbids it, language construction forbids it, and non-contradiction forbids it. All this debate over this seemingly difficult phrase has the appearance that one is searching for the secret key of knowledge concerning Gods will on marriage, but not so. Jesus said “therefore they are no longer two but one flesh.” He clearly delivered this revelation while knowing that this command, along with various others, would be despised, profaned, and made of none effect by mans traditions. God respects no mans person, and that which is highly esteemed among men, is an abomination in the sight of God. Would anyone knowingly venture the destiny of their soul and body to even a doubtful interpretation? I think not. If the rioghteous scarcely be saved, where will the ungodly and sinner appear? The 5 word phrase is plausibly explained by either Les McFalls view, or betrothal. Any other interpretation violates the unchangeable decree of God with regard to marriage. Why not just accept Jesus own commentary where He explained His teaching in private to His followers? His words clearly allow no release from the vow except by death, which is a reasonable ending of a marriage, even to the ungodly.
January 2nd, 2010 at 7:33 pm
Micheal,
I have claimed no expertise in any particular subject area. I simply see holes in the arguments put forth by McFall on this particular subject that, as of yet, have not been accounted for.
Einstien’s expertise and intelligence has never been questioned either, however he was still completely wrong in his discussions about Quantum Physics. Expertise and a body of correct writings in any particular subject do not prove the correctness of any particular writing.
I also haven’t put forth any view as to the proper intrepretation of God’s law concerning marriage or divorce. While Jim II’s view may be correct, there are very many that disagree with his analysis. But, until such time as one can prove a particular point beyond a reasonable doubt, no one will ever know for sure and the arguments will continue. Contray to the claims of this article, I don’t believe that McFall has done so.
dvc
January 2nd, 2010 at 9:12 pm
Agree totally with what Jim II has written.
With the thousands of books articles and sermons produced about Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage it can be seen that confusion exists, exactly what satan wants! If we all had a covenantal attitude rather than a contractual attitude (Good Shepherd verses a Hireling attitude) we would fight to uphold marriage as a moral absolute, and not look for justification for people to separate and divorce. Two become one in marriage, one spirit, one body, one flesh an analogy of Christ and the Church. Satan wants to destroy the analogy by confusing us.
May I recommend a brillant book titled Covenantal Relationships by Asher (Keith) Intrater http://www.revive-israel.org/books.php
What is our attitude towards the marriage covenant? What value do we put on marriage? Can will liken divorce to abortion, that is marriage and life are disposable? I certainly make a stand against divorce and abortion. I also make a stand against same-sex marriage, in the same way I also make a stand against adultery (remarriage of divorced persons).
We always over complicate matters, the Gospel and God’s requirements must be simple and straightforward so that even children can understand…
January 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 pm
I must correct one assertion from David that attempts to marginalize my last post, which I don’t believe was intentional. Although I can’t entirely discredit the charge of my last post being “my analysis”, I can address the valid context of my post, along with the issue of ‘reasonable doubt’ in the sense that David uses it ie, the issue still stands within the bounds of reasonable doubt.
Firstly, my ‘analysis’ is not a personal opinion that would seem to enrich my own life in the eyes of the world. I came to the knowledge of the truth about 2 weeks after my conversion in 2004. At that time I recognized the childlike faith that was working in me by grace, and I believed wholeheartedly that Jesus standards, (the spirit if the law) were immovable, and at the same time loved and esteemed by His sheep. One fact that struck me with a sense of the wisdom which is from above is that Jesus doctrine is “according to godliness”, which I have never let go of, and by grace never will. The point I made in the last post about the model and standard of marriage (as expressed by Jesus Himself) is irrefutable regardless of how many multitudes can be assembled in concenses against it. The reason being is that creational marriage, which is indissoluable except by death, is in fact “according to godliness.” Now we know that whatever God says cannot and will not be abrogated or repealed in order to accomodate the violation of that very same word. All other opinions, that would allow for the dissolving of a marriage by sin, do in fact imply the establishment of a sin tolerant standard, that virtually overthrows the pure standard set forth by God Himself. That is the wisdom of man and the basic principles of fleshly centered philosophy. By this type of wisdom “man knew not God” for the simple reason that it always accomodates the flesh instead of deny it. God set forth all His standards of holiness with the understanding that most would violate them through their love of pleasure rather than God, and to thier own destruction. Nonetheless, the holiness of the moral laws of God have not been altered, but shown to be eternal and unimpeachable by those that disobey, as well as by those that “continue in well doing.” The contrary consequences show that the law is upheld in the strictest sense. If the conclusions are inconsistant with godliness, we must necessarily reject them as being opposed to true righteousness and holiness.
On the issue of reasonable doubt, the very statement is missing the essential perspective that it deserves from scripture. Paul said that even doubting the lawfulneess of a rightful act, or something that would fall under things of indifference, (foods, holy days), should not be done when the conscience is accusing. Thus the statement that “blessed is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he allows…” Now to assert that a marriage can somehow be dissolved by the refusal of one or both parties to glorify God through this one flesh covenant, does not bring the truth about their accountability before God into any doubtfulness whatsoever. ONe or both of the spouses are sinning against and violationg their vow before God, and the unchangeableness of the standard continues to hold them accountable to it. There is not only the absense of reasonable doubt through Gods decree, there is no doubt to be found whatsoever, if we maintain the standard of godliness as the scale of measurement and judgment. Wha I seem to hear within this discussion is the idea that a secondary and subprime standard exists that God will affirm and uphold, even though it defiles His holy standard entiresly, and especially the thing it typifies. That is mans invention, and always will be. It goes without saying that all the world will see whose word will prevail in the end. Now that we have taken all doubt away, we can talk about the plausibleness of what Matthew 19 is saying, as long as it doesn’t seem to repeal the standard set forth in verse 6, unless one wants to imply that Jesus overstated the case in the first place, a frightening proposition indeed.
January 3rd, 2010 at 1:58 pm
I apologize to Jim II if I marginalized his post. That wasn’t my intention. I certainly realize that there are many who hold to the same point of view.
My point was simply that there are many different, sometimes commpletely opposing viewpoints held by differing peoples and each of those people justify thier beliefs with as much conviction and strength, also quoting scripture to show how the gospel supports what ever that view is.
RE: We always over complicate matters, the Gospel and God’s requirements must be simple and straightforward so that even children can understand…
Only if God chose to make these matters so simple and straightfoward. Unfortunately He chose not to do so. If things were so simple and straightforward, there would only exist on Christian church. Indeed, if it was so clear and obvious, there would be only one religion in this world. However, that is not the case.
A simple clarity of Mathew 19:9 would help matters greatly. Unfortunately, any such clarity must actually be undeniably true, or it is worthless, regardless of what we wish for.
dvc
January 3rd, 2010 at 10:40 pm
You wrote:
——-
So to recap your argument then: in the hundreds of years since Erasmus did his translation, EVERYONE prior to McFall has got it wrong, including all those RCC defenders who viciously attacked Erasmus during his lifetime and all those people and groups that went back and re-translated the bible, including those who do or did not support the view that Mathew 19:9 allows for divorce and/or remarriage.
——-
Wrong! You don’t seem to have much idea at all about what what McFall is actually arguing.
McFall’s point has nothing to do with the translation of the text. McFall contends that Erasmus added EI to his published Greek text, against all the manuscript evidence. Thus, assuming that EI was in the original text the translators were quite right to translate “EI MH” as “except”. But the point is that EI was NOT apparently in the original text. And NO ONE, I might add, including those who advocate that Matt 19:9 allows for D&R for sexual sin, argues that it did!!!
——
And, ALL people who claim that a translation that allows that MH EPI PORNEIA (literally “not for fornication/whoredom/lewdness/whatever”) can be reasonably intrepreted as an exception
——
Wrong again. MH does not literally mean “not”. MH is a negating particle. It only means “not” when it negates a verb which is not the case here.
——
MUST be either uniformed or are purposely mis-translating the greek, because thier translation does not fit your (and McFall’s) opinion?
——
Wrong again. They mistranslate the Greek because their translation does not fit:
1. Established Greek grammar.
2. The teaching of Luke.
3. The teaching of Mark.
4. The teaching of Paul.
5. The teaching of the OT.
6. The immediate context in Matthew.
7. The wider context of Matthew.
—–
Hardly convincing.
—–
Agree or disagree, David, but at least do McFall the courtesy of getting his position (and mine) right!
——
As per Clement (and similar statements attributed to early church elders), the evidence certainly appears to exist and should be checked by reputable scholars on BOTH sides of the debate
——
It already has been. The results are in the NA27/UBS4 and the accompanying textual commentary by Metzger. These results (at least in relation to the texts in question) are not controversial and are not disputed by anyone that I know of. No one seriously believes EI was in the original text.
——
In my opinion, the evidence casts McFall’s conclusions in grave doubt. But, regardless, I have nothing to apologize for.
—–
You should apologise for going off half-cocked without even bothering to understand McFall’s argument.
January 3rd, 2010 at 11:03 pm
David wrote:
——–
I am more inclined to accept a view that the evidence indicates, which is that either a) scholars of greek text of AT LEAST A.D. 194 translated MH EPI PORNEIA as ‘except…” or b) EI must have existed in an greek text accepted by church elders as early as A.D. 194, which would therefore give inclusion of EI far greater authority than ANY currently existing text that does not.
——-
Textual criticism doesn’t work like that. It is a much more sophisticated process. See Metzger’s Text of the New Testament or David Alan Black’s introductory work on textual criticism. We have many early manuscripts and NONE contain EI.
——
Regardless of that, NO current english translation of the bible that I can find, including those that claim to have used texts other than, or in addition to Erasmus’ translation contain text that agrees with McFall’s translation.
——
Indeed, beacuse the earliest ones used Erasmus’ or derivative texts, later ones were mere revisions of the earlier translations, and modern translations in 20th century that used the WH and NA critical texts adopted the traditional renderings and rationalised the translation in the ways I discuss in my paper.
——-
Further, of the discussions of on the translation of MH EPI PORNEIA I have found on the internet, most find the exception clause as a reasonable translation. For example, Don Martin’s very detailed translation which I posted previously (http://www.bibletruths.net/archives/BTAR260.htm)
——-
His translation follows all the other modern translations, but like them, it is grammatically dubious not mention contextually dubious as well. He doesn’t even discuss the grammatical problems. Is he even aware of them?
——
I don’t see you posting any supporting evidence to your arguments, btw.
——
That’s because I haven’t posted any of my arguments, btw.
If you want to look at my view and the problems with the “exception” in Matt 19:9, then please read my paper which is linked above on this discussion board.
January 8th, 2010 at 1:50 am
Well, this discussion is getting boring so this will probably be my last post. Heck, I don’t even really care all that much about this issue, I just happened upon this while doing some research for a friend.
But I sure am surprised how quick people here have been to just accept what is essentially a major re-write of history (and your divine writings of God), founded on claims of what could only be considered some kind of vast conspiracy created by one man. A man who didn’t even support the side that supposedly benefited by his duplicity and was viciously attacked by both conservative Catholics AND reformers alike. Geez, he must have been the devil incarnate!
For a nice brief history of this man, wikipedia has a good page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desiderius_Erasmus
Personally, I think anyone who could write something like “The Praise of Folly” back in those days is hero to me :D
Anyway, I’ll just finish up with the following notes…
Andrew said:
Wrong again. They mistranslate the Greek because their translation does not fit:
1. Established Greek grammar.
2. The teaching of Luke.
3. The teaching of Mark.
4. The teaching of Paul.
5. The teaching of the OT.
6. The immediate context in Matthew.
7. The wider context of Matthew.
Twice you criticized translations as based on theological ideology. Now you are stating theological ideology as 6 of the seven points above? Really?
RE: On checking early church quotes / Clement It already has been. The results are in the NA27/UBS4 and the accompanying textual commentary by Metzger. These results (at least in relation to the texts in question) are not controversial and are not disputed by anyone that I know of. No one seriously believes EI was in the original text.
That wasn’t the issue.
RE: Indeed, beacuse the earliest ones used Erasmus’ or derivative texts
Not quite …
Wycliff New Testament, translated from the Latin Vulgate and published in 1380:
And I seye to you that whoever levith his wyf but for fornicacioun and wed ditli an oother doth leccherie and he that wed dith the forsaken wyf doth leccherie
McFall also provides a slightly different text for Wycliff (from a later revision, I suppose) in a section, which claims “The object of this section is to show that while the majority of English translations are based on a Greek text which has thrown out Erasmus’ unsupported addition of EI in Matthew 19:9, they have not thrown out his unbiblical teaching on divorce and remarriage.”
…
“JOHN WYCLIFFE BIBLE (1395) (Wycliffe) And Y seie to you, that who euer leeueth his wijf,
but for fornycacioun, and weddith another, doith letcherie; and he that weddith the forsakun
wijf, doith letcherie.”
And also McFall’s claims (earlier): “And that is exactly what happened in the case of Matthew 19:9, where a scribe in the 15th century added to his copy of the Greek text …”
But… Erasmus’ first translation was performed in 1516, 163 years AFTER the Wycliff translation was published.
Also, McFall says: “Everyone took on trust that Erasmus had been faithful to the handwritten Greek copies that he used to produce the first published edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516.” Really?? I don’t think so!
According to many sources, Erasmus’ work was intently scrutinized and often criticized, for example:
“James Lopez de Stunica, the editor of the forthcoming Complutensian Polyglot, criticized Erasmus’ text for various faults, and for the omission of the clause in 1 John 5:7-8. The influential scholars of France followed Stunica in denouncing the edition, although most of their criticism was directed not against the Greek text, but against the innovative Latin translation.” http://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-e.html
I’m sorry, but this article should be properly published in an appropriate journal and given the full evaluation of respected biblical scholars before any of its conclusions can be accepted, if at all.
And, no, I don’t apologize.
January 9th, 2010 at 4:14 am
oh, gosh, one more thing….
Since I’ve been referred to Metzger so many times, might as well include his take on the subject as well…
As quoted from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/biblical-prophecy/BP0909W1.htm …
“The ‘excepting clause’ in the Matthean account of Jesus’ teaching on divorce occurs in two forms… parektos logoi porneias (‘except on the grounds of unchastity’), and me epi porneia (‘except for unchastity’). It is probable that the witnesses… which have the former reading have been assimilated to 5:32 where the text is firm” (Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, United Bible Societies, London, 1971, pp. 47-48).
So…. Metzger translates me epi porneia as ‘except for unchastity’? How very interesting!
January 12th, 2010 at 4:57 am
Oh, one more (hopefully minor) issue …
RE: Bob’s comment
19. Bob Mutch Says:
November 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It was not clear to me What David mean by “This solves the ambiguity in Mt.19.9.” I am guessing you have read David’s books where he may go over what he means. I did email my reply to him and I expect he will respond.
I do hope everyone realizes I am NOT the same Dave as refered to above?
Just wanted to make this very clear.
While I’m at it, I guess I should make very clear why I have this interest in this paper.
Fundamentally it’s simple. I thought this was the MOST unChristian paper I’ve read recently. It accuses a long dead person (Erasmus) of being just a horrible Christian (to say the least!!), but also, EVERY BIBLICAL TRANSLATOR who followed (and apparently up to and beyond 163 years prior) of being either incompetent (e.g. didn’t really understand how to intrepret me epi porneia because they were apparently too stupid) or (worse) PURPOSELY mistranslated it to further a theological idealogy-based goal. Excepting only a small number (4 to be precise) of recent translators, of which McFall (the author of this paper) is included… oh my :O :D
McFall says this rather clearly in his paper.. read it.
I find this paper highly offensive. I find this paper very unChristian. I find this paper poorly researched and undefensible. I find this paper just plain badly written.
That’s me and my position.
Bob:
I really would like to encourage you to re-cast your review of this article in a bit more neutral light, such as including phrases such as the author “claims such and such” and “presents evidence that may show” and so one. For example…
“In his paper, he discusses an addition that Desiderius Erasmus added to his Greek-Latin New Testament (1516 1st ed) that he claims changed the way Matthew 19:9 has been translated.”
.. and …
“McFall offers evidence he says shows how Erasmus’ addition of the Greek word εἰ in Mat 19:9 has lead to the incorrect translation of this verse.
… and so on …
thanks
[Editor: Edited out a slang term.]
January 12th, 2010 at 10:21 am
Hi David,
Thanks for those points on “he claims” and “offers evidence he says”. I have added both of them.
Thanks!
Bob.
February 4th, 2010 at 9:21 am
Hi Jeff Hildebrand,
>>>It was 20 years ago…I was a young man…she is remarried. Should I stop dating??
If it was your and her first marriage then yes you should stop dating as you are still married to her in God’s eyes.
>>>Would I be an adulterer if I remarried?
Yes you would be an adulterer if you remarry.
>>>Should I still try to get back with her even though she is married?
I am not sure how to answer this one. I would hold that the scriptures teach that she is your wife and you are married for life.
Perhaps instead of working on trying to get your wife back the Lord may want you to work on your walk with him.
Thanks!
Bob.
February 4th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
In Matthew 5 & 19, if what Jesus said was interpreted by the Pharisees and others as saying that adultery was a legitimate grounds for divorce and remarriage, doesn’t it seem like they would have jumped at the chance to make a case that Jesus was contradicting Moses by His apparent disregard that the law said the adulterers were to be stoned rather than just divorced?
February 5th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Hi to Everyone
Trevor Here
My First Comment Is This
Good grief ….are you Fellows still on this Subject???
To Jeff,I can understand Your Concern and I Feel Great Compassion For You.
Jeff You need to understand This
Its for Freedom that Christ Has Set You Free
Yield not again to the Bonds Of Slavery.
I.E If Christ has set you Free You are Free Indeed.
Jeff in the light of This. You Now Must Go by and Trust The Holy Spirit
For It is only The Holy Spirit That CAN Convict us of Sin
and When HE does and not the arguements of Men
He brings us to TRUE Repentance…..Only the Holy Spirit Can Do That
Jeff You need only to Yield unto God and In His Time He Will Exalt You
i.e Bring you into the Freedom and Liberty That is OURS/YOURS JEFF, IN CHRIST
So in Answer to Your Questions
Draw near to God and I promise You He WILL Reveal To You At The Right Time
The Answers You Need
God Bless You Jeff
Simply the Fact You are seeking is the Most Important
Brcause God Will Reward You For That By Answering You
Trev
trvmcnamee3@gmail.com
- Show quoted text -