THE EXCEPTION PHRASES: EXCEPT πορνεία, INCLUDING πορνεία OR EXCLUDING πορνεία? (MATTHEW 5:32; 19:9)
The following link is to a scholarly article by Allen R. Guenther which challenges the traditional thinking concerning Mt. 5:32 and Mt. 19:9:
Filed under Uncategorized
Question & Answer Format (Mt. 19:3-9)
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
The Pharisees asked Jesus two questions (Mt. 19:3, 7). The question and answer format in Mt. 19:3-9 reveals that Jesus answered their questions. It is very important to know which answer goes with which question. Notice the simple format:
Question #1: “Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife for every cause?”* (Mt. 19:3)
Answer #1: “. . . . Therefore what God united, a human cannot divide” (Mt. 19:4-6)
Question #2: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her?” (Mt. 19:7)
Answer #2: Moses gave no command to divorce. Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts. “But from the beginning it has not existed this way. Whoever dismisses his wife not over fornication and marries another commits adultery. . . .” (Mt. 19:8-9)
After Jesus answers the first question, he does not later change his answer to their first question. The second answer is specific to the second question. Some, however, believe that what Jesus says in Mt. 19:9 affects the answer in Mt. 19:4-6 and changes Jesus’ answer. If we want to know what Jesus is answering, we first have to know the question.
____________________
*Unless otherwise stated, translations are mine.
Filed under Uncategorized
Digging Deeper into MH EPI (Mt. 19:9) and How “the Church Fathers” Understood Marriage
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
As you delve into the translation of MH EPI, it will become clear that “except” (if it is misunderstood to mean “unless”) is not a legitimate translation (Mt. 19:9). How should we translate Mt. 19:9 and what are the possible meanings of the verse? Please consider the following:
“Whoever divorces his wife not over fornication and should marry another, is committing adultery and he who marries her when she is divorced is committing adultery” (Mt. 19:9, Modern Literal Version, MLV).
1. Paraphrase: Whoever divorces his wife not for fornication and marries another commits adultery.
Explanation: Whoever divorces his wife for a nonsexual cause and marries another commits adultery. Jesus does not address divorcing for fornication. The Jews could not under God’s law grant divorce over adultery or fornication (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Therefore Jesus does not say, “Whoever divorces his wife for fornication and marries another does not commit adultery.” Jesus says the effect of divorcing a God-joined spouse and marrying another is adulterous. The consistent teaching of Jesus is:
Divorce + Marriage to another = Adultery (Mt. 5:32; 19:9; Mk. 10:11-12; Lk. 16:18).
2. Dr. McFall gives this as a possible but not the most probable 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. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her” (Explaining the Translation of Mt. 19:9 by Dr. Leslie McFall, p. 1).
3. Dr. McFall believes the following is the most likely interpretation: “If we take the most literal translation another meaning comes to light. The translation reads: ‘Now I say to you that who, for example, may have divorced his wife—not over fornication which was punished by death—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her’” (Ibid., p. 1).
4. God’s Word provides the answer. Sometimes, we may need help with the translation and interpretation.
The interpretation of those who lived very close to the first century (such as Justin Martyr, AD 151, who also did not believe in marriage after divorce while the God-joined spouse lives) should cause us at least to “sit up and pay attention” rather than completely dismiss how they viewed the New Testament Greek Scriptures. The so-called “church fathers” believed that marriage was indissoluble until death. Why? They clearly did not understand Mt. 5:32 and Mt. 19:9 as many do today. They did not have the confusion we may have with our English translations that cause us to understand “except” as “unless.” It is far more accurate to say they understood Mt. 5:32 as an “exemption clause” (see The Exemption Clause (Mt. 5:32)) and Mt. 19:9 as an “exclusion clause” (fornication is excluded from the action of dismissal, thus referring to a non-fornication dismissal) (The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage (Dr. McFall), pp. 76-77, 204, 208-210). They certainly did not understand Mt. 5:32 or Mt. 19:9 as an “exception clause” permitting marriage to another while the God-joined spouse lives.
Dr. McFall documents, “For the first four or five centuries Christ’s Church retained Jesus’ teaching on marriage and no divorce (only separation for the unbelieving partner who demanded it). [Footnote 347: See J. Carl Laney’s contribution in H. Wayne House (ed.), Divorce & Remarriage: Four Christian Views (Downers Grove, ENG.: Inter-Varsity Press, 1990), p. 34 n. 33, where he states that the majority of the Patristic evidence is that they permitted divorce for adultery (equated with fornication) but not remarriage, which is footnoted to Gordon Wenham, “May Divorced Christians Remarry?” Churchman 95 (1981), pp. 152-53. The single exception was Ambrosiaster (A.D. 375) who allowed remarriage for an ‘innocent’ husband, but not for an ‘innocent’ wife.]“ (Ibid., p. 296). McFall further states, “Davies Morgan made a thorough study of the Early Church Fathers’ understanding of the term porneia in 1826, and this was his conclusion. ‘Little attention has been given to the exceptive clause [in Matthew] and no attempt had been made to mitigate its restriction, except by Origen. It had been seldom quoted. Tertullian was almost its only expositor; and all the Christian fathers were agreed in upholding the indissolubility of marriage, as if there had been no clause of exception, or as if that clause related only to a cause precluding marriage.’ [Footnote 348: Hector Davies Morgan, The Doctrine and Law of Marriage (2 vols; Oxford: W. Baxter, 1826), Vol. II. Appendix I. (pp. 396-550) ‘On the Hellenistic and Ecclesiastical meaning of the word πορνεία,’ p. 550.]“ (Ibid.).
The following is another document for research along the same lines: http://www.marriagedivorce.com/pdf/Restoration-of-Christian-Marriage.pdf. Under “Complete Agreement” Stephen Willcox says:
“Of all the early recognized Church Fathers who ever wrote, all who were written about, concerning every discussion and every debate, in thousands of surviving documents, over hundreds of years, there is not a single dissenting authoritative voice on the essential core doctrines of marriage, divorce and remarriage. Each taught the same doctrine, each held the same opinion and each enforced the same moral standards you read here.”
See also the previous article: Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mt. 19:9) Should Not Be Translated “Except”
Filed under Uncategorized
Bound for Life, Released Only by Death (Mt. 19:8; Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:25-28, 39)
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
Twice Paul uses the same root word δέω (deō), “to bind” in reference to marriage (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39):
“The married woman has been bound by law to the living husband; but if the husband may have died, she has been released from the law of the husband” (Rom. 7:2; unless otherwise stated, translations are mine).
“A woman has been bound for as long a time as her husband lives. But if the husband may have died, she is free to marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).
Paul uses δέω (deō), “to bind” in reference to betrothal (engagement) one time (1 Cor. 7:27):
“Have you been bound to a woman? Do not seek to be loosed. Have you been loosed from a woman? Do not seek a woman. But if you may have married, you did not sin, and if the virgin may have married, she did not sin. . . .” (1 Cor. 7:27-28). The NIV renders it similarly: “Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. . . .”
Here, Paul’s use of “bound” is not in reference to a “wife,” as the translation reflects (i.e., “woman”). The context of Paul’s statement is concerning “virgins” (v. 25), not those who are married. Paul mentions “the present necessity” (v. 26) and addresses men who have been “loosed from a woman” (v. 27). The men who have “been loosed” are those who are no longer betrothed (engaged). Paul tells these men, “do not seek a woman.” Then Paul says, “But if you may have married, you did not sin” (v. 28). In 1 Cor. 7:25-28 Paul discusses the virgins and does not include those who are divorced.
Twice Paul says the law of husband and wife is in effect until death—divorce does not unbind or set one free from the law of marriage—only death does (Rom. 7:1-3; 1 Cor. 7:39). One is “bound” by marriage and is “loosed” when a spouse dies. The one whose spouse is dead is not bound by the law of marriage but is free to marry. Jesus and Paul taught the one-flesh law is for life (Gen. 1:27; 2:23-24; Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-8).
Divorce does not sever those who are “bound.” Notice the perfect tense of δέδεται (dedetai) occurring in both Rom. 7:2 and 1 Cor. 7:39. Corey Keating says, “The basic thought of the perfect tense is that the progress of an action has been completed and the results of the action are continuing on, in full effect. In other words, the progress of the action has reached its culmination and the finished results are now in existence. . . .” (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#PERFECT).
Jesus and Paul uphold God’s will concerning marriage “from the beginning” (Mt. 19:4, 8). Notice the perfect tense of the negated γέγονεν (gegonen, “has not existed”) in reference to Moses’ permission to divorce: “from the beginning it has not existed this way” (Mt. 19:8). This means that permission to divorce did not exist in the beginning and continues not to exist to Jesus’ present time. Marvin Vincent says, “The A. V. is commonly understood to mean, it was not so in the beginning. But that is not Christ’s meaning. The verb is in the perfect tense (denoting the continuance of past action or its results down to the present). He means: Notwithstanding Moses’ permission, the case has not been so from the beginning until now. The original ordinance has never been abrogated nor superseded, but continues in force” (Vincent’s Word Studies, http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/19-8.htm).
Paul emphasizes that a married woman “has been bound” (perfect tense, Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39). Once bound, the results of that action continue in full effect until death: “A woman has been bound for as long a time as her husband lives. But if the husband may have died, she is free to marry whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).
Filed under Uncategorized
List of Commands (Imperatives) in the Book of James
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
One might be left with the impression that James is a book of imperatives after seeing a command in virtually one out of every two verses. There are 54 imperatives (60 counting hypotheticals) in 108 verses.
The following list is based on Greek imperatives:
1) 1:2—“consider”
2) 1:4—“let have”
3) 1:5—“let him ask”
4) 1:6—“let him ask”
5) 1:7—“let suppose/think” (negated/prohibition)
6) 1:9—“let boast”
7) 1:13—“let say” (negated/prohibition)
8) 1:16—“be deceived” (negated/prohibition)
9) 1:19—“let be”
10) 1:21—“receive”
11) 1:22—“be/become”
12) 2:1—“hold” (negated/prohibition)
[2:3—“sit”/“stand”/“sit” (hypotheticals; w/subjunctive)]
13) 2:5—“listen”
14) 2:12—“speak”
15) 2:12—“act”
[2:16—“go”/“be warmed”/“be filled” (hypotheticals; w/subjunctive)]
16) 2:18—“show”
17) 3:1—“let be” (negated/prohibition)
18) 3:4—“behold/look”
19) 3:5—“behold/look”
20) 3:13—“let him show”
21) 3:14—“boast” (negated/prohibition)
22) 3:14—“lie” (negated/prohibition)
23) 4:7—“submit/subject yourselves”
24) 4:7—“resist” (cf. 1 Pet. 5:9)
25) 4:8—“draw near”
26) 4:8—“cleanse” (to free/strip: Mt. 8:2-3; 1 Jn. 1:7, 9)
27) 4:8—“sanctify/purify” (cf. Jn. 11:55; 1 Pet. 1:22)
28) 4:9—“lament/be grieved”
29) 4:9—“mourn” (cf. Mt. 5:4)
30) 4:9—“weep”
31) 4:9—“let be turned”
32) 4:10—“humble yourselves”
33) 4:11—“speak against” (negated/prohibition)
34) 4:13—“come now” (cf. “see now,” Mt. 26:65)
35) 5:1—“come now” (purpose is to reprove; 4:13)
36) 5:1—“weep” (w/“howling”—repentance; 4:9)
37) 5:4—“behold/look”
38) 5:7—“be patient” (cf. 2 Pet. 3:9)
39) 5:7—“behold/look”
40) 5:8—“be patient”
41) 5:8—“strengthen”
42) 5:9—“grumble” (negated/prohibition)
43) 5:9—“behold/look”
44) 5:10—“take”
45) 5:11—“behold/look”
46) 5:12—“swear” (negated/prohibition)
47) 5:12—“let be”
48) 5:13—“let him pray”
49) 5:13—“let him sing praise”
50) 5:14—“let him call”
51) 5:14—“let them pray”
52) 5:16—“confess”
53) 5:16—“pray”
54) 5:20—“let him know”
Filed under Uncategorized
The Modern Literal Version (MLV)
I recommend this version of the MLV on a number of fronts. The following are just a few of the verses I commend to your consideration of the translation:
Mt. 19:9, “not over”
Heb. 11:3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, etc., “in faith”
Heb. 13:7, 17, 24, “leaders”
Their website is http://modernliteralversion.org.
~Timothy Sparks
Filed under Uncategorized
Learning from God's Word 