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

Mt 19:9, MH EPI PORNEIA

On Mon, 9 Jun 1997 CEP7@aol.com wrote:

> 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:

Please note I changed the subject.  We were recently informed that any
discussion relating logic to grammar on this list was out of bounds. :(
Since your question assumes my argument for the sake of argument, then
we can re-title the subject line, so as not to cause any problems, and
continue our discussion accordingly.

You ask two good questions.  Thanks.

Question #1: Why does Jesus not discuss the case of the immoral wife?
Whenever anybody asks this question it shows they are at least tracking
and understand what I have said, even if they do not agree.  Usually, the
negative inference is so locked in peoples' thinking that they continue on
that track and think they have to figure out what that exception is.

No, by MH EPI PORNEIA Christ is excluding from consideration at this point
the case of the immoral wife.  The verse says nothing about the case where
the wife was immoral and we cannot logically infer anything about it.

Why does Christ do this?  Simply because He has already discussed that
case in the immediately preceding verses, and now He discusses all other
cases.  In verse 6 Christ said, "What therefore God has joined together,
let no man separate."  Here Christ categorically forbids divorce.  In
response to this the Pharisees bring up the Deut 24 passage where Moses
ENETEILATO (Pharisees' interpretation) the husband whose wife was guilty
of PORNEIA to give her a bill of divorcement and to put her away.  Christ,
of course, interprets it differently (for the hardness of their hearts
Moses EPETREYEN).  He then reaffirms what He said in v. 6 by saying, "but
from the beginning it has not been this way."  Thus, He has covered the
case of the wife who commits PORNEIA and there is no need to cover it
again.  The need in v. 9 is to affirm the consequences of all other cases.

I believe I also just answered your second question.

Now, let me ask you a question or two.  First, if MH EPI PORNEIA implies
the negation, how do you get it?  Can you give me one precedent in the
Greek NT?  How about in the LXX, or other Koine Greek, or even Classical
Greek?                              

Sincerely in Christ,

Paul Dixon
References: