CHRIST, SUPERIOR TO AARON: Hebrews 4:14-5:14
Jesus is our superior, sympathetic and sinless high priest.
Filed under Uncategorized
Instrumental Music in the Worship
The study of Instrumental Music in the Worship OR THE GREEK VERB PSALLO PHILOLOGICALLY AND HISTORICALLY EXAMINED by Kurfees is an excellent resource in helping to equip for proper teaching on the subject.
http://icotb.org/resources/Kurfees,MC-InstrumentalMusicinWorship.pdf
Filed under Uncategorized
Explaining the Translation of Mt. 19:9 by Dr. Leslie McFall
Dr. McFall granted permission to make the following 11 pages available from his e-book:
APPENDIX B, abstracted from his e‑book (11 august, 2014): AN EXPLANATION FOR THE AUTHOR’S LITERAL TRANSLATION OF MATTHEW 19:9
This is the link for his entire free e-book:
The Biblical Teaching on Divorce and Remarriage (Dr. McFall)
Filed under Uncategorized
A Nameless Church by Hugo McCord
Many churches have special names, but the New Testament church has no name. Denominations have proper names. The word “denominate” means to “name” something. The New Testament church is called the house of the Lord, the family of God, the body of Christ, and the kingdom of Christ (Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:13; Hebrews 3:5-6; 1 Timothy 3:15), with no proper name.
The individual members of the New Testament church have a proper name. Their name is not “disciple,” though they are disciples (Acts 9:1). Their name is not “brethren,” though they are brothers and sisters (Acts 9:30). Their name is not “saints,” though they are saints (Acts 9:32). Their proper and divinely given name is “Christian” (Acts 11:26; 1 Peter 4:16), but to call the church the “Christian Church” is to denominationalize that great institution.
To speak of the New Testament church as “the church of Christ” is right as it is to speak of it as “the church of God” (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 1:2), but neither is a proper name. To speak of “Church of Christ” congregations, “Church of Christ” preachers, is to denominationalize that church. The New Testament church has no proper name.
Filed under Uncategorized
The Exemption Clause (Mt. 5:32)
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
I previously stated my understanding of Mt. 5:32 (What Is Jesus Saying in Mt. 5:32?). To address the “matter of fornication” in more detail, I defer to the summary Dr. McFall sent me in email correspondence on July 20, 2015:
“Shalom Timothy,
A husband is responsible for his wife’s sexual history. The three cases where a man is not held responsible are these.
First, when he divorces her on a non-fornication issue, thinking he has the authority of Moses to do so, and the expectation was that she would remarry another man, but she does not, but uses her freedom to live as a prostitute. She knows this is wrong, and it was her decision to live a life of sin. Her first husband cannot be held accountable for this sinful life.
Second, where a wife committed suspected fornication while still married to her husband, and her husband could not prove it with two witnesses, but he ‘knew’ she was unfaithful, so he used some other, non-fornication excuse to divorce her, he will not be held responsible for her pre-divorce fornication, because it was her decision to commit secret fornication while still married to him.
Third, a man can marry a divorced woman. He is not responsible for her sexual history before he married her.
I trust this helps. I have added the above as a Summary to the next edition of my ebook, to clarify the three cases where he is not culpable for her sexual history.
The revelation that Jesus brought to light was that when a man divorces his wife, thinking he had Moses’ permission to do so on a non-fornication issue, and she marries another man, this is not a marriage, but a life of fornication, because two living men may not have relations with the same woman. This was the ‘shocking’ aspect of His new revelation about God’s intention for marriage: it was to be an unbreakable, undissolvable, one-flesh union until death parted them.”1
____________________
1See Dr. McFall’s discussion of “Deuteronomy 22:20-21 as the background to the exemption clause in Matthew 5:32”: McFall, pp. 218-220 (see also pages 156, 202-203, 239 and 273-274 for details pertaining to his summary).
Filed under Uncategorized
The “Except” List: Where It Is Necessary to Divorce and Remarry
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
Those who seek God’s favorable authorization for divorce and remarriage may point to passages where they see “except”:
- Mt. 5:32—exemption from blame, not permission to divorce and remarry (see also What Is Jesus Saying in Mt. 5:32? and The Exemption Clause)
- Mt. 19:9—Many see Jesus saying, “Whoever divorces his wife for the exception of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery.”
- Jesus actually says, “Whoever dismisses his wife not over fornication and marries another commits adultery.”*
- The Jews could not under God’s law grant divorce for adultery or fornication (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10).
Notice the following Scriptures where people must insert “except” to have God’s blessing for divorce and remarriage:
- The “one-flesh” law is permanent (Gen. 1:27; 2:23-24; Mt. 19:4-6; Mk. 10:6-8), except when people want to divorce and/or remarry
- A person must forgive his/her spouse of any and every sin an unlimited number of times (Mt. 18:21-22, 35), except the sin of adultery, which carries with it the consequence of divorce if the “innocent spouse” chooses to execute the divorce penalty upon his/her spouse
- “Therefore what God united, a human cannot divide” (Mt. 19:6; Mk. 10:9), except when people think they have the ability to do so
- Jesus does not endorse being hard-hearted (Mt. 19:8; Mk. 10:5), except when people want to divorce
- In the context of Jesus’ time, God’s law was the death penalty for adultery, and Jesus did not change God’s law before his death (Deut. 22:22; Lev. 20:10; Jn. 8:3-7; Heb. 9:15-17), except when people decided to divorce for adultery
- God did not institute divorce in the beginning and Jesus did not institute divorce; so divorce neither came from God in the beginning nor existed within God’s will to Jesus’ present time [notice the force of the Greek perfect tense: “but from the beginning it has not existed this way” (Mt. 19:8)], except when people want Jesus to state exactly the opposite and would have Jesus instituting divorce for fornication in the very next verse (Mt. 19:9)
- Marriage to another person is adulterous (Mk. 10:11-12), except when a person wants to divorce and marry another person
- Again, marriage to another person is adulterous (Lk. 16:18), except when a person wants to divorce and marry another person
- God forbids taking a believer to court (1 Cor. 6:1-8), except when a believer wants to divorce a believing spouse
- “Christians are banned from taking other Christians before the law courts of this world (1 Cor. 6:1), which belong to Satan. Yet the only way to obtain a divorce is to go to Satan to obtain it, which he will be only too ready to hand out” (McFall, p. 126).
- The believer is commanded not to separate or abandon the unbelieving spouse (1 Cor. 7:10-13), except when the believer wants to divorce the unbelieving spouse
- When people are united by God in marriage, they are bound for life and released only by death (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:39), except when people want to divorce and/or remarry
- God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16), except when people want to divorce
____________________
*Unless otherwise stated, translations are mine.
Filed under Uncategorized
Reasons Mὴ Eπὶ (Mh Epi or Mē Epi) Should Not Be Translated “Except For” (Mt. 19:9)
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
This article details the problem with using the English word “except” to translate the Greek word μὴ in Mt. 19:9. Nowhere in either the Greek New Testament or the LXX is the word μὴ (mh or mē) or the words μὴ ἐπὶ (mh epi or mē epi; Mt. 19:9) to be translated as “except.”
There is no manuscript in existence that supports the Textus Receptus reading of εἰ (“if”) before μὴ (“not”) in Mt. 19:9. All the manuscript evidence supports the omission of εἰ. Based on overwhelming evidence, the correct reading is μὴ ἐπὶ (“not over”). The text is firmly μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ (“not over fornication”) and is the reading of the Majority Text (M-Text), the Greek New Testament (GNT) and all other texts that do not follow the Textus Receptus tradition.
In reading an English version of Mt. 19:9, many people seem to understand “except” as an exception. It is hard to get an exegesis correct if the translation is not correct or if the translation creates a misunderstanding.
Please consider the following reasons the Greek phrase μὴ ἐπὶ (mh epi or mē epi; Mt. 19:9) should not be translated “except for”:
1. Mὴ ἐπὶ (mh epi or mē epi; Mt. 19:9) should be translated “not over.”
- Mὴ should be translated “no” or “not”— https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/me
- Eπὶ should be translated “over” or “on/upon” or “to/for”—https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/epi
2. The only evidence in the Septuagint (LXX; the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) is that μὴ ἐπὶ means “not on/over/to/for.”
- 2 Kings 18:27—“not to”:
- Jer. 5:9—“not over/upon/for”:
- Jer. 5:29—“not over/upon/for”—
- Jer. 9:8-9—“not over/upon/for”—
3. The only evidence in the New Testament is that μὴ ἐπὶ means “not on/over/to/for.”
- Rom. 15:20—μὴ ἐπ’ is “not on/upon”— http://biblehub.com/interlinear/romans/15-20.htm
- 1 Tim. 5:19—μὴ ἐπὶ is “not on” [ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ is “if not on”]—http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_timothy/5-19.htm
4. Dr. Guenther states the following in “THE EXCEPTION PHRASES: EXCEPT πορνεία, INCLUDING πορνεία OR EXCLUDING πορνεία? (MATTHEW 5:32; 19:9)” (https://legacy.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/Library/TynBull_2002_53_1_05_Guenther_ExceptionPhrases.pdf):
“Our conclusion regarding the meaning of the μὴ ἐπί phrase in Matthew 19:9 is that it must be understood as, ‘apart from πορνεία, ‘πορνεία aside’, or ‘excluding the subject of πορνεία’. It does not mean ‘except’ as it has traditionally been interpreted” (p. 96; p. 14 of the pdf).
5. Many people think the English preposition “except” means “unless.” The primary definition of the English preposition “except” is “excluding” (see definition of “except”). The definition of the English conjunction “unless” is “except if” (see definition of “unless”). “Except/Excluding” does not mean “unless/except if.”
The proper understanding of μὴ ἐπὶ is “not over/excluding.” Mὴ ἐπὶ does not mean “except if for/unless for.” If μὴ ἐπὶ is rendered “except for” and if people misunderstand it to mean “unless,” that misunderstanding then might cause people to believe that Jesus taught in contradiction to God’s law.
- The Jews could not under God’s law grant divorce over adultery or fornication (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22).
- If Jesus had changed God’s law while he was on the earth, he would have violated it (Deut. 4:2; Prov. 30:6).
- Jesus did not come to change God’s law but to fulfill it (Mt. 5:17-19; Lk. 24:44).
- Christ’s new covenant went into effect after his death (Heb. 9:16-17), not before his death.
6. Jesus calls us back to the way God instituted marriage, which did not include divorce (Mt. 19:4-8).
7. The evidence provided is sufficient to show that μὴ ἐπὶ should not be translated “except for.”
For a comprehensive discussion of translating Mt. 19:9, please see Explaining the Translation of Mt. 19:9 by Dr. Leslie McFall.
See also The “Except” List: Where It Is Necessary for Divorce and Remarriage to Be.
Filed under Uncategorized
What’s Wrong with Believers Pursuing Marriage to Unbelievers?
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
Some believe that while it is not a perfect situation for a believer to pursue marriage to an unbeliever, God nevertheless favorably accepts such a union. Some also acknowledge that a believer’s pursuit of marriage to an unbeliever is unwise or foolish, but nevertheless not sinful. Passages such as 1 Cor. 7:12-13 and 1 Pet. 3:1-6 are given as evidence. Also, it is pointed out that there is a chance that the unbeliever could obey the gospel: “For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Cor. 7:16, NASB).
In many of the situations Paul and Peter were addressing, couples had married while both were unbelievers. What is to be done when one spouse becomes a Christian? Both Paul and Peter make it clear that the believer is not to abandon the unbelieving spouse but is to try to save the unbeliever with the message of the gospel.
However, what does God reveal concerning marriage for a believer who is not yet married? We should recognize a couple of Paul’s statements within 1 Corinthians where it is clear he is addressing consideration of marriage for the believer:
(1) “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39, NKJV). The phrase “in the Lord” is important and can easily be shown to be synonymous with “in Christ” (see “In the Lord”).
(2) “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (1 Cor. 9:5, NKJV). The word rendered “right” is the word exousia (“authority”). The word translated “believing” is adelphē (“sister”). What is the meaning of “a sister, a wife”? Clearly, the meaning is a sister in Christ as wife, a believing wife; one who is “in the Lord.” Paul only envisions that God is authorizing marriage between a brother in Christ and a sister in Christ.
In the second letter to the Corinthians Paul says, “Do not become unequally yoked with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14). [Inquiry has been made about the translation “do not become.” For two translations of “do not become” see Young’s Literal Translation: “Become not yoked with others — unbelievers” and Bible Hub’s interlinear: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_corinthians/6-14.htm.] Μὴ (mē, “not”) with an imperative (“do become”) becomes a prohibition = “Do not become.” Here the prohibition is generic: in whatever way God’s people may become unequally yoked with unbelievers, do not do that. “Unequally yoked” is translated from ἑτεροζυγέω (heterozygeō).
Rengstorf says, “The word is a further construction from ἑτεροζυγος, ‘unequally yoked’ (so Lv. 19:19; Phil Spec. Leg. IV, 203 in the prohibition of mating animals under a different yoke, i.e., of a different species like the ass and the ox), and is not found prior to 2 C. 6:14. ἑτεροζυγος gives us the meaning of the verb, namely, ‘to go under one and the same yoke with someone else even though one does not have the requisite presuppositions.’ In 2 C. 6:14 the word describes figur. the abnormal situation which results when Christians in their conduct follow the rules of the world, which knows nothing of what is given to the community: μὴ γίνεσθε ἑτεροζυγοῦντες ἀπίστοις . . . Paul leaves us in no doubt that when this happens the community ceases to exist as such, even though it continues to do so in outward form (cf. v. 15ff.).”1
Paul first gives a generic, nonspecific prohibition: “Do not become unequally yoked with unbelievers” and then a generic statement, “what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). He continues with general questioning, “what harmony has Christ with Beliar [the personalization of evil] or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?” (2 Cor. 6:15). Paul continues with another question, “what agreement has a sanctuary of God with idols?” (2 Cor. 6:16). Some believe that Paul only has actual idols in mind in verses 16 and 17. However, Paul started with “unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14) and his question prior to verse 16 was concerning what a believer has in common with an unbeliever (2 Cor. 6:15). Paul makes a generic appeal when he states, “Therefore, having these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all defilement of flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God” (2 Cor. 7:1, NASB).
Considering the context before and after verses 16 and 17, Paul addresses believers’ unequal yoking with unbelievers in a general way in 2 Cor. 6:16-17. God lives in the believers and the believers must withdraw from everything that is incompatible with God’s holiness. In other words, as previously stated, in whatever way believers may become unequally yoked with unbelievers, they are commanded not to do so. Some have pointed out that marriage is the closest yoking possible, but others deny any application of 2 Cor. 6:14 to the pursuit of marriage to an unbeliever. However, the generic prohibition “do not become unequally yoked with unbelievers” has a wide range of applications for the believer.
Addressing the view above (as stated in the opening paragraph), God will “accept such a union” in that God will join a believer to an unbeliever (Mt. 19:6). It is possible for a believer to become unequally yoked with an unbeliever, but it is a violation of God’s will (2 Cor. 6:14). Just as Israel rejected God in choosing a king (1 Sam. 8:7) but could not undo their decision once it was granted (yet needed to seek God’s forgiveness for their sin, which they eventually did, 1 Sam. 12:19-20), so a believer who chooses an unbelieving spouse rejects God’s will concerning the matter. Once joined by God, no attempt is to be made to undo it (Mt. 19:6). The believer should seek God’s forgiveness for violation of God’s will and is to try to save the unbelieving spouse with the gospel.
If people acknowledge that it is an unwise or foolish choice for believers to pursue marriage to unbelievers, then notice Paul’s prohibition: “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 5:15-17, NASB). Paul uses two imperatives (commands): “do not be foolish” and “understand what the will of the Lord is.” It is a violation of God’s will for believers to be foolish, but God is willing to forgive such a violation. We avoid becoming foolish by understanding the Lord’s will.
Another verse that gives guidance is Mt. 6:33–“Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness.” How can one seek first God’s kingdom when he/she is seeking to marry a person not even in God’s kingdom? If a person is seeking to marry a child of the devil, how is that person drawing closer to God? “Draw near to God and he will draw near to you” (Jas. 4:8).
Genuine truth seekers who care deeply about spiritual matters will consider seriously, “What does God want me to do?” and “What is right with it?” rather than “Is it a sin?” or “What’s wrong with it?” When we approach the study of God’s Word with the right attitude, we are more receptive to God’s will and to what God authorizes.
____________________
1Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, “ἑτεροζυγέω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 901.
See also Wayne Jackson’s article (which I became aware of after publishing this article). He has additional research worth investigating: Should a Christian Marry Outside the Faith?.
Filed under Uncategorized
“Unmarried” (1 Cor. 7:11)
By Timothy Sparks
tdsparks77@yahoo.com
http://www.timothysparks.com
What does “unmarried” mean in 1 Cor. 7:11? Paul specifically addresses those who are “married” (1 Cor. 7:10). Paul says the Lord had commanded those who are married that a wife is not to “separate” from her husband (1 Cor. 7:10). The word for “depart” or “separate” is χωρίζω (chōrizō), the same word Jesus uses: “Therefore what God united, a human cannot separate” (Mt. 19:6, translation mine).
If a married woman is separated from her husband, she has two options: (1) to “remain unmarried” to anyone else or (2) to be reconciled to her husband (1 Cor. 7:11). The separation does not make them “unmarried” since they are “married” (1 Cor. 7:10). Paul tells separated wives to remain unmarried to any other person or to be reconciled to her husband (since she is still married to her husband) (1 Cor. 7:11). If she cannot be reconciled to her husband, why must she remain unmarried to any other person? Jesus says, “. . . and marries another, she commits adultery” (Mk. 10:12).
The following sources pretty much say the same thing about the primary meaning of 1 Cor. 7:11. We begin with a number of translations or paraphrases of 1 Cor. 7:11–
NASB: “(but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not [a]divorce his wife” [a] Or leave his wife
Phillips: “But if she is separated from him she should either remain unattached or else be reconciled to her husband.”
Expanded Bible: “But if she does ·leave [or divorce], she must not marry again, or she should ·make up [reconcile] with her husband. Also the husband should not ·divorce [or leave] his wife.”
New Century Version: “But if she does leave, she must not marry again, or she should make up with her husband.”
New International Reader’s Version: “But if she does, she must not get married again. Or she can go back to her husband.”
New Life Version: “but if she does leave him, she should not get married to another man. It would be better for her to go back to her husband.”
Worldwide English (New Testament): “But if she does leave him, she must not marry again, or she must come back to her husband again.”
Wycliffe Bible: “and that if she departeth, that she dwell unwedded, or be reconciled to her husband; and the husband forsake not the wife.”
Commentaries:
F. F. Bruce–
“The parenthesis, if she does separate from her husband, let her remain single (i.e. unmarried to any one else) or else be reconciled to her husband, may be Paul’s gloss on the dominical ruling, but is in keeping with Mk. 10:12″ (New Century Bible Commentary, 1 and 2 Corinthians, p. 69).
John Barclay–
“What about those who are already married and are tempted to escape from marriage? Here Paul for once gives a command (cf. v. 6), though not on his own authority but on that of the Lord (v. 10). This is one of those very few places (9:14 is another) where Paul refers explicitly to the teaching of Jesus. He here cites a saying also attested (with some variations) in the Synoptics, in which Jesus declared divorce to be illegitimate (Mk 10:2-11; Mt 19:3-9; Lk 16:18). In the case of a wife he imagines a second-best option whereby she separates/divorces (vv. 13-15 suggest that these may be synonyms for Paul) but does not marry again (v. 11)” (The Oxford Bible Commentary, 1 Corinthians, p. 1119).
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary–
“11. But and if she depart—or “be separated.” If the sin of separation has been committed, that of a new marriage is not to be added (Mt 5:32)” ( 1 Corinthians 7 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)
Pulpit Commentary–
“Verse 11. – If she depart. The reference throughout the verse is to separation due to incompatibility of temper, etc.; not to legal divorce” (1 Corinthians 7 Pulpit Commentary).
R. C. H. Lenski–
“All that can be said is that various reasons may bring about a separation and cause a wife (or a husband) to leave. . . . When we compare all that the Lord said regarding marriage we see what is meant by the command: ‘let her (him) remain unmarried or else,’ etc. Marriages were so often disrupted in order that the dissatisfied spouse might marry another; note Matt. 19:9, ‘and shall marry another.’ For this reason so many of the Jews got rid of their wives–they wanted some other woman. . . . For such a person but one other possibility remains, reconciliation with the deserted spouse. The conclusion is often drawn that, although the two are separated as indicated (and we may add perhaps even legally divorced), they are, nevertheless, still married in the sight of the Lord and thus also in the sight of the church. Paul could easily have said that in just a few words; he did not do so although he is reminding the Corinthians of the Lord’s own command regarding marriage” (Interpretation of I and II Corinthians, pp. 289-290).
Robertson and Plummer–
“But if unhappily she does do this, she must remain single, or else be reconciled to her husband. . . . 11. ἐάν δέ καὶ χωρισθῇ. ‘But if (in spite of Christ’s command) she even goes so far as to separate herself,’ she is not to marry any other man. The divorce is her act, not her husband’s. “Christianity had powerfully stirred the feminine mind at Corinth (11:5, 14:34). In some cases ascetic aversion caused the wish to separate” (Findlay). With the καί compare εἰ δὲ καί in 4:7. Christ had forbidden marriage with a divorced with (Luke 16:18), and His Apostle here takes the same ground. If the wife who has separated from her husband finds that, after all, she cannot live a single life, the only course open to her is to be reconciled to the husband whom she has injured. For the construction (καταλλ. c. dat.) see Romans 5:10. Like εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος (v. 15) and ἀλλʼ εἰ δύνασαι (v. 21), this ἐὰν δὲ καὶ κ.τ.λ is a parenthesis to provide for an exceptional case. He then continues the Lord’s command, that ‘a husband is not to put away (ἀφιέναι = καταλύειν) his wife.’* St Paul, like our Lord, forbids divorce absolutely: πορνεία in the wife is not mentioned here as creating an exception; and it is possible that this exception (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:19:9; see Allen and Plummer ad loc.) was unknown to the Apostle, because it had not been made by Christ” (The International Critical Commentary:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/icc/1_corinthians/7.htm).
Meyer says a lot more than what follows–the Greek below is translated “remain unmarried” (see the link for additional study of Meyer’s commentary:
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/meyer/1_corinthians/7.htm)–
“μενέτω ἄγαμος] assumes that her marriage is not to be looked upon as really dissolved; hence she would be guilty of adultery should she contract another union. Comp Matthew 19:9.”
Expositor’s Greek Testament–
“In some cases, not so much incompatibility as ascetic aversion (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:3 f.) caused the wish to separate.—The γυναῖκα μὴ χωρισθῆναι is qualified by the parenthesis ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ: “but if indeed she have separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband”. P. is not allowing exceptions from the rule of Christ, but advising in cases where the mischief was done; the aor[1032] sbj[1033], χωρισθῇ, is timeless, taking its occasion from the context: see Bn[1034], § 98. Her remaining unmarried is virtually included in the law of Christ (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9). καταλλαγήτω, pass[1035], “let her get herself reconciled”: the vb[1036] indicates the fact of alienation or dissension, but not the side on which it exists (cf. the theological use of καταλλάσσω in Romans 5:10 f.); if the husband disallows her return, she must remain ἄγαμος.—Romanists have inferred from the text, after Aug[1037], and notwithstanding Matthew 5:32, that even adultery leaves the marriage-vow binding on the wronged partner; but this question is not in view here (see Ed[1038] in loc.)”
Filed under Uncategorized
