[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Grammar, Logic, Mt 19:9


In a message dated 6/8/1997 3:22:50 AM, pauld@iclnet.org (Paul Dixon - Ladd
Hill Bible Church) wrote:

<<If A and B, then C  (If a man remarries after divorcing his wife
and his wife was not immoral, then he commits adultery).  This is v. 9.

	If A and not B, then not C  (If a man remarries after divorcing
his wife and his wife was immoral, then he does not commit adultery).

The last statement is an invalid inference from the first, v. 9.  The
verse neither says the second statement, nor does it imply it.

Comments?>>

Paul,

Assuming your argument that Jesus does not have the immoral wife in view here
then we need to ask two questions: (1) Why does Jesus not discuss the case of
the immoral wife? (2) What would be the case with the immoral wife? It seems
the Pharisees question is in the direction toward a case of lawful divorce
and remarriage. If the case of the immoral wife did not have a significant
difference in the context, there would be no reason to have the negation
clause. It seems that Jesus' statement does suggest this inference in light
of the context and that MH EPI PORNEIA is operating semantically similar to
an exception clause.

Charles Powell
DTS
Follow-Ups: