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

Re: Mt 19:9, MH EPI PORNEIA

Paul,

Let's see if I'm tracking with you. Matt 19:6 states an absolute prohibition.
The Pharisees bring up the command of Moses on divorce from Deut 24. Jesus
elaborates on this and reasserts the absolute prohibition, but rephrasing it
in a way to suggest that the first statement was particularly aimed at the
porneia case in light of Deut 24, which dealt with the porneia case. In other
words, 19:6 was absolute, but aimed particularly at the case of Deut 24,
which the Pharisees apparently understood and so asked about Moses command.
Jesus elaborates on this and then asserts an absolute prohibition for all
other cases. Is that the basic gist?

If so I see a few problems, all tied to the Deut 24:1 text (I'm sure you've
heard this before). First, it assumes ASCHMWN=PORNEIA. This is not
necessarily true. While ASCHMWN refer to sexually immoral acts (Gen 34:7;
several ref in Dio Chrysostom), it does not necessarily have to (cf. 1Cor
12:23). Second, the penalty for most immoral acts by a wife was usually death
under the Law. Since Deut 24:1 states that her husband had found (hEURON)
some ASCHMWN PRAGMA, it suggests he had evidence of such that had caused her
to have no favor in his sight. If this is areference to immorality, we would
expect the language to be stronger, and on the order of a capital trial. This
is probably why there was such a debate between the schools of Hillel and
Shammai. 

It seems that the debate between the two schools that seems to drive the
issue in Matt 19, with the majority of the Pharisees siding w/ Hillel. It
seems that your view sees Jesus siding with neither school with the absolute
prohibition. I guess the text could be read that way, but it seems unexpected
since the Pharisees would not restrict the Deut 24 command to deal only with
porneia.

As to outside evidence for MH= EI/EAN MH, you are thinking in structural
rather than semantic terms. Semantically, it could be the only such structure
and still be vailid. I still think that the inference of an exception in 19:9
is no less valid than infering that Jesus is speaking top primarily PORNEIA
in 19:6-8.

Charles Powell
DTS