At 10:58 AM 10/8/97 EDT, you wrote:
>
>b-greek-digest Wednesday, 8 October 1997 Volume 01 : Number 1013
>
>In this issue:
>
> Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
> Clergy/Laity
> ENTOS in Luke 17:21
> Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
> Re: Clergy/Laity
> Re: Ephesians 4:11?
> Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
> Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
> Re: Acts 2:38
> B-Greek Survey
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>From: Tombivins@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:10:17 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
>
>I too have been studying the divorce/remarriage issue. I wish I could ge=
>t
>access to Ward Powers=92 doctoral dissertation. But could I get a reply =
>on the
>following (please forgive my Greek):
>
>1. In Matt 19:1-9, two different words are discussed. APOLUO and
>APOSTASION. I never find Jesus condemning an APOSTASION. Is it possible=
>, in
>the Greek, that Jesus (Matt 19:9) only has a problem if the person only h=
>as
>an APOLUO without the APOSTASION?
>2. Can APOLUO in verse 9 be considered a synonym of APOSTASION of the
>earlier verses?
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: BanjoBoyd@aol.com
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 01:44:02 -0400 (EDT)
>Subject: Clergy/Laity
>
>Being limited as a student of the English Bible, I had come to think that
>Clergy/Laity was an artificial distinction that, though traditional, had
>developed outside of the New Testament. Though I now learn that these words
>can be traced back to the Greek KLHROS and LAOS, it still seems to fall short
>of the New Testament. The only place in the N. T. where I found KLHROS is
>referring to a class of persons was in I Peter 3:5, (KJV: heritage) where,
>much to my suprise, it seems to be equlivant to "the flock" (ie: the laity!?)
>
>
>...and since "lay" comes from "LOAS," does that mean that a "lay-person" is a
>"people person?" [ : ^}> )
>
>The Barbarian
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: John Reece <jonree@earthlink.net>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:00:49 -0400
>Subject: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
>
>With the fear and trembling of a novice on the Internet (I just had a
>modem put in my computer this week), I will try to put briefly in the
>form of e-mail some of the fruit of past exegetical effort.
>
>Larry Krupper did "not find it [ENTOS] at all in the LXX". I have found
>it in the LXX in 8 verses:
>
>1 Maccabees 4:48 (NRSV) says "They rebuilt the sanctuary and the
>interior (ENTOS) of the temple."
>
>Psalm 39:3 (NRSV; 38:4 in LXX) says, "my heart became hot within
>(ENTOS) me."
>
>Psalm 103:1 (NRSV; 102:1 in LXX) says, "Bless the Lord, O my soul, and
>all that is within (ENTOS) me."
>
>Psalm 109:22 (NRSV; 108:22 in LXX) says, "my heart is pierced within
>(ENTOS) me."
>
>Song of Solomon 1:10 (NJB) says, "Your cheeks show fair between their
>pendants and your neck within (ENTOS) its necklesses."
>
>Sirach 19:26 (NRSV) says, "There is the villain bowed down in mourning,
>but inwardly (TA ENTOS) he is full of deceit."
>
>Isaiah 16:11 (NRSV) says, "...and my inmost being (TA ENTOS)..."
>
>Daniel 10:16 says, "at the sight of you my inmost being (TA ENTOS) is
>changed in me (EN EMOI)" (my own "literal" translation - JR; none of the
>English versions give a full or "literal" tranlation of the redundany in
>the Greek text).
>
>Matthew 23:26 says, "First clean the inside (ENTOS) of the cup and the
>dish, and then the outside (EKTOS) also will be clean."
>
>The consistent biblical sense of ENTOS, as seen in the nine other
>occurances of the word in the Bible, is "within, inside"
>
>I find it helpful to look at another approach to ascertaining the sense
>of the word in Luke 17:21; that is, to check contexts in which the
>Author of Luke-Acts used Greek words translated by the versions into
>English as "in the midst" or "among", so as to see what word or words
>the author most likely would have used in Luke 17:21, if indeed he had
>meant to express such a meaning. In Acts 2:22, we find this translation:
>"Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and
>wonders and signs which God performed through him in your midst." The
>final phrase in the quote is EN MESO hUMON. It seems to me that that is
>the phrase that would have been used in Luke 17:21 if the author had in
>mind a sense corresponding to "in the midst" or "among".
>
>This conclusion is reinforced by a consideration of the context of Luke
>17:21, in which the contrast is between what can be seen by "careful
>observation (NIV) and what cannot be seen by such observation (because
>of being out of sight within).
>
>A.T Robertson (in Word Studies in the Greek New Testament) adequately
>answers the challenge which says "Surely Jesus would not say to the
>Pharisees that the kingdom of God is in their hearts": In the words of
>Robertson, "What Jesus says to the Pharisees is that they, as others,
>are to look for the kingdom of God within themselves, not in outward
>displays and supernatural manifestations. It is not a localized display
>'Here' or 'There".
>
>John Reece
>jonree@earthlink.net
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Jonathan Robie <jwrobie@mindspring.com>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:33:42 -0400
>Subject: Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
>
>At 06:00 AM 10/8/97 -0400, John Reece wrote:
>
>[SNIP!]
>
>Well, as I was writing my own response to Lars, along came this wonderful
>post from John Reece, which is much better than what I was saying. I still
>want to rescue a few things from my now-obsolete post:
>
>1. The idea of the kingdom being within each of us also occurs in phrases
>like hO ESW ANQRWPOS "the inner person" and hO EN TW KRUPTWi ANQRWPOS "the
>hidden person".
>
>2. Lars suggested that ENTOS+genitive occurs only once, but both instances
>of ENTOS that I see are accompanied by the genitive.
>
>3. BAGD has a number of bibliographical references on Luke 17:21 in its
>entry for ENTOS.
>
>Jonathan
>
>***************************************************************************
>Jonathan Robie jwrobie@mindspring.com http://www.mindspring.com/~jwrobie
>POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703 http://www.poet.com
>***************************************************************************
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "John M. Sweigart" <jsweiger@cswnet.com>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 06:47:49 -0500
>Subject: Re: Clergy/Laity
>
>BanjoBoyd@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> Being limited as a student of the English Bible, I had come to think that
>> Clergy/Laity was an artificial distinction that, though traditional, had
>> developed outside of the New Testament. Though I now learn that these words
>> can be traced back to the Greek KLHROS and LAOS, it still seems to fall short
>> of the New Testament. The only place in the N. T. where I found KLHROS is
>> referring to a class of persons was in I Peter 3:5, (KJV: heritage) where,
>> much to my suprise, it seems to be equlivant to "the flock" (ie: the laity!?)
>>
>>
>> ...and since "lay" comes from "LOAS," does that mean that a "lay-person" is a
>> "people person?" [ : ^}> )
>>
>> The Barbarian
>Hello Banjo;
>The whole word group surrounding KLHROS is fascinating and well worth
>study but I think that it has always something to do with inheritance
>and does not emphasize any unique group in the body of Christ. The LAOS
>accoding to LSJ can mean "foot soldiers or soldiers as a group, the
>crowd at a play, and in the OT the people in distinction from the
>priests and Levites." Of course in the NT the priesthood of the
>believer, one of the pillars of the Reformation, eliminates that
>dichotomy since all believers are capable of offering the various
>bloodless sacrifices commanded in NT writing.
>- --
>__________________________________
>
>Rev. John M. Sweigart
>Box 895
>Dover, Arkansas 72837
>Cumberland Presbyterian Church
>__________________________________
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Paul F. Evans" <evans@esn.net>
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 08:08:37 -0400
>Subject: Re: Ephesians 4:11?
>
>This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCD3C1.6155E7E0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Anton,
>
>Just a thought. Even though this is an aorist verb, it does not
>necessarily limit the endowment represented to the past. It may limit the
>act, but does not limit the nature of the endowment. IMHO the tense cannot
>dtermine this. Only the context can really determine whether or not Paul
>intended a permanent endowment or a temporary one.
>
>Paul F. Evans
>Pastor
>Thunder Swamp Pentecostal Holiness Church
>MT. Olive
>
>E-mail: evans@esn.net
>Web-page: http://ww2.esn.net/~evans
>
>- ----------
>> From: Anton Hein <ahein@xs4all.nl>
>> To: B-GREEK@virginia.edu
>> Subject: Ephesians 4:11?
>> Date: Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:00 AM
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a question regarding Ephesians 4:11. In the Greek, is the "gave"
>> in this verse a continuing action, or a one-time act.
>>
>> The question behind the question is: can this verse be used to support
>> the idea of a present-day five-fold ministry? Or did the church at one
>> time have apostles and people ministering in the office of apostle, but
>> currently we have evangelists, pastors and teachers?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Anton
>> --
>> Christian Ministry Report - http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein
>> Promoting Balance in Renewal/Revival Movements.
>> CMR's Renewal Discussion List: email hub@xc.org
>> with in the body of your message: info cmr-renewal
>- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCD3C1.6155E7E0
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
><html><head></head><BODY bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><p><font size=3D2 =
>color=3D"#000000" face=3D"Arial">Anton,<br><br>Just a thought. =
> Even though this is an aorist verb, it does not necessarily limit =
>the endowment represented to the past. It may limit the act, but =
>does not limit the nature of the endowment. IMHO the tense cannot =
>dtermine this. Only the context can really determine whether or not Paul =
>intended a permanent endowment or a temporary one.<br><br>Paul F. =
>Evans<br>Pastor<br>Thunder Swamp Pentecostal Holiness Church<br>MT. =
>Olive<br><br>E-mail: evans@esn.net<br>Web-page: =
>http://ww2.esn.net/~evans<br><br>----------<br>> From: Anton Hein =
><<font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>ahein@xs4all.nl</u><font =
>color=3D"#000000">><br>> To: <font =
>color=3D"#0000FF"><u>B-GREEK@virginia.edu</u><font =
>color=3D"#000000"><br>> Subject: Ephesians 4:11?<br>> Date: =
>Tuesday, October 07, 1997 9:00 AM<br>> <br>> Hi,<br>> <br>> =
>I have a question regarding Ephesians 4:11. In the Greek, is the =
>"gave"<br>> in this verse a continuing action, or a =
>one-time act.<br>> <br>> The question behind the question is: can =
>this verse be used to support<br>> the idea of a present-day =
>five-fold ministry? Or did the church at one<br>> time have =
>apostles and people ministering in the office of apostle, but<br>> =
>currently we have evangelists, pastors and teachers?<br>> <br>> =
>Thanks,<br>> <br>> Anton<br>> -- <br>> Christian Ministry =
>Report - <font color=3D"#0000FF"><u>http://www.xs4all.nl/~ahein</u><font =
>color=3D"#000000"><br>> Promoting Balance in Renewal/Revival =
>Movements.<br>> CMR's Renewal Discussion List: email <font =
>color=3D"#0000FF"><u>hub@xc.org</u><font color=3D"#000000"><br>> with =
>in the body of your message: info cmr-renewal</p>
></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></font></body></h=
>tml>
>- ------=_NextPart_000_01BCD3C1.6155E7E0--
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Glen Riddle <glen1@flash.net>
>Date: Wed, 08 Oct 1997 07:28:12 -0700
>Subject: Re: ENTOS in Luke 17:21
>
>lakr wrote:
>>
>> Dear B-Greekers,
>>
>> I have been researching the use of ENTOS with respect to Luke 17:21.
>> I have read the articles in the 'Journal of Evangelical Theological
>> Society, March 1992' and 'The Westminster Theological Journal 1962,
>> Volume 25'. They take oposing views for the translation of this
>> word.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Larry Kruper
>>
>check out the article by H.J. Cadbury (ref. in BAGD) where he showed
>from papyri ENTOS UMWN was idiomatic for "available to you" or "within
>your reach". It's been years since I've looked at the article, but I
>think that's the jist of it.
>blessings,
>gpr
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: Ward Powers <bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au>
>Date: Thu, 09 Oct 1997 00:25:38 +1000
>Subject: Re: Matt. 5 - porneia
>
>At 20:09 97/10/05 -0500, Jeffrey Gibson wrote:
>
>>Ward,
>>
>>Thanks for your considered thoughts on the background and
>>interpretation of the meaning of PORNEIA in Mt 5:32 and 19:9. I,
>>too, have previously been involved in writing on NT divorce texts
>>(specifically Mk 10:1-12). And what you have said set in contrast
>>with my own views have led me to the following comments and
>>questions.
>
>
>Jeffrey's thoughtful questions demand and deserve a thoughtful answer.
>
>
>[SNIP]
>
>>2. You are quite right to say that respecting the Rabbinic
>>interpretation of Deut 24:1, M. Git records three, not two
>>alternatives.
>>
>>In fact, here is the text:
>>
>> The School of Shammai say: A man may not divorce his wife
>> unless he has found any unchastity in her, for it is
>> written 'Because he has found in her indecency in
>> anything' [Deut. 24:1a]. And the School of Hillel say:
>> (He may divorce her) even if she spoiled a dish for him,
>> for it is written 'Because he has found indecency in
>> anything'. R. Akiba says, Even if he found another fairer
>> than she, for it is written, 'And it shall be if she find
>> no favour in his eyes ...'.
>>
>>But I am a little leery of your claim not only that Akiva lived
>>"just after" the time of Jesus, but also that the view attributed
>>to Akiva flourished during the time of Jesus, and therefore
>>represents the foil against which the Matthean Jesus formulates his
>>teaching on divorce, and against which PORNEIA should be
>>understood. Akiva, according to Strack, flourished between 110-135
>>CE. (And he was known to be ignorant of the Law until he was
>>forty!) So if it the third view originates with him, *as M. Git.
>>clearly states*, it is hardly one that is contemporary with Jesus
>>(or, for that matter, Matthew). If it did *not* originate with him,
>>but earlier (and presumably with someone else), why is this not
>>indicated in M. Git.?
>
>
>Jeffrey:
>
>I myself would consider that it is going beyond the evidence to conclude
>that M. Git. says that the view in question originated with R. Akiba. The
>passage states, "R. Akiba says". It does not assert that he was the first
>one to say this, but only that it was the view that he (a prominent Jewish
>teacher) held and affirmed. Thus it is the view associated with his name.
>It is by no means unheard of that a view already proposed can be put
>forward by a later advocate and become associated with his name. An
>example: the view that Mark was the third of the Synoptic authors to write
>his Gospel, and that he drew upon Matthew and Luke, was put forward by
>Henry Owen in 1764. But after Griesbach made it the basis of his Synopsis
>(1789/90) it became known as "the Griesbach hypothesis", and still is so
>termed to the present time - e.g., in the title of the 1983 book by C.
>Tuckett, "The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis". Why not call it "the
>Henry Owen Hypothesis"? Indeed, William Farmer's school tried to popularize
>the term "the Owen-Griesbach hypothesis". But, since the time of Griesbach,
>his name has been attached to it. So also we have the evidence (see below)
>that the view which the Talmud associates with Akiba was current as early
>as Christ's day; and we can legitimately refer to it as "the Akiba
>position" or the like.
>
>
>>My reason for raising this point (and my
>>justification that raising it is within the scope of B-Greek) is to
>>question whether Akiva's view is really the interpretative key to
>>Mt 5:32. It seems to me, based on the evidence of M. Git., that it
>>is far too late to qualify as such. What is your evidence that the
>>view attributed to Akiva co-existed, and did not follow (as M. Git.
>>implies) with those of Shammai and Hillel?
>
>
>What is the situation Jesus is discussing in Mt 19:9? It is the situation
>of a man who leaves his wife and marries another woman instead - exactly
>the situation put forward by Rabbi Akiba, who makes no mention of fault on
>the part of the first wife (as in Deut 24:1) - just that the husband has
>found someone else whom he likes better. Contrast this with Shammai and
>Hillel, neither of whom mention the husband preferring another woman and
>both of whom speak of some fault on the part of the wife, differing only in
>how serious that fault needs to be. So Jesus is referring to behaviour in
>line with the Akiba view when he talks of the person who sheds Wife No 1
>when she has not been guilty of "porneia"/"ervath davar", and marries
>instead of her, Wife No 2.
>
>So also in Mt 5:32: the view, and the behaviour, that Jesus is addressing
>is exactly identical with the Akiba position as set out in the Talmud.
>
>
>>3. Even should we admit that the Akivan view of the *grounds* for
>>divorce *was* "flourishing" prior to 30 CE (or before the time of
>>Matthew -- when do you date Matthew, by the way?), this, I think,
>>gains us nothing. My reading of Mt 5:32 is that Jesus is not
>>dealing with the issue of whether certain grounds used in
>>justifying divorce (whether Akiva's or anyone else's) are
>>illegitimate, but whether divorce itself is to be countenanced,
>>*even when the wife has engaged in PORNEIA*. For Jesus'
>>pronouncement, standing as it does as an antithesis (EGW DE LEGW
>>hUMIN hOTI), is in meany in Mt. 5 to undercut the view to which it
>>stands antithetically. And this is not "You have heard it said,
>>`Anyone who divorces his wife may do so if he finds in her some
>>unseemly thing such as spoiling food or getting ugly'". Rather it
>>is, "It was also said, `Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her
>>a certificate of divorce.'. Might we not be better off in taking
>>PAREKTOS LOGOU PORNEIAS as meaning "the grounds of PORNEIA (however
>>interpreted) not withstanding", and therefore Jesus pronouncement
>>as saying "But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife,
>>even on the otherwise legal ground of unchastity, makes her an
>>adulteress"?
>
>
>PAREKTOS only otherwise occurs twice in the GNT: 2 Corinthians 11:28, as an
>adverb; and Acts 26:29, as a preposition (as in Mt 5:32) - its use in this
>verse reads, "except for these chains".
>
>The authorities I have consulted confirm my own understanding that, both in
>and out of the GNT, as a preposition PAREKTOS means "except" (or a
>synonym). I cannot see any basis for reading PAREKTOS as you propose, as
>"notwithstanding" or "even" - which would give (as we both agree) a
>different meaning to Christ's words. Is there an authority for this meaning
>that I have overlooked?
>
>If we accept then the recognized meaning of this word, the Greek of Mt 5:32
>says, "Everyone who divorces his wife except on the basis of porneia makes
>her into an adulteress." This comment is not condoning or (to use your
>word) countenancing divorce. It is certainly not providing a ground that
>excuses or allows divorce. Divorce always represents a failure to fulfil
>God's perfect will, and is always a consequence of sin within the marriage.
>
>Rather, Jesus is here saying, "Everyone who divorces his wife when she is
>not guilty of committing porneia makes her (stigmatizes her as) an
>adulteress - that is, gives her the stigma of a person who has committed
>porneia, when she is not such a one." The case which Jesus excludes is when
>she HAS been guilty of porneia, when of course she brings upon herself the
>stigma of "adulteress".
>
>
>>4. If I understand you correctly with regard to the meaning of Mt
>>19:9, you make the claim that, given the appearance of MH at the
>>beginning of the clause containing the term PORNEIA, Jesus'
>>pronouncement contains a "not" and not an "exceptive" clause. But
>>is there functionally any real difference between Jesus saying "...
>>who ever divorces his wife for any grounds other than PORNEIA, and
>>marries another commits adultery" (which I take to be the essence
>>of how you'd translate this verse)
>
>
>No, this is certainly NOT what I am saying. (This is one of the eleven
>views about divorce and remarriage which I have found held in the church,
>and which in my book I seek to show to be misguided and erroneous.) Let me
>hasten to clear up this misunderstanding of the interpretation which I
>advocated in my previous post.
>
>
>> and "... whoever divorces his
>>wife, except for PORNEIA, and marries another, commits adultery"?
>
>
>Jesus has just said (Mt 19:8) that Moses tolerated divorce, though this was
>because of their hardheartedness, and it was not in accord with God's
>intention from the beginning. The basis upon which Moses allowed divorce
>was when the wife had been guilty of "ervath davar" ("porneia"). But the
>Pharisees (Jesus says) have gone into hardheartednesss much further than
>this. They endorse divorce, not on the basis of the wife's porneia (when
>even that concession was an accommodation to hardheartedness), but just so
>that the husband can marry another woman whom he desires more than his wife.
>
>My understanding is that Jesus is here (Mt 19:9a) describing what some of
>the people were doing, and he then tells them (Mt 19:9b) how this is viewed
>in God's eyes. What they are doing is divorcing a wife, not on the ground
>of her porneia, and then taking another woman as wife. This is turning from
>one's wife to another woman: which is adultery.
>
>Another of the eleven views of divorce found in the church just cuts off
>the latter part of the precondition, and has it that marrying a second wife
>(after a divorce) is adultery; this view therefore bans the remarriage of a
>divorcee. But in the teaching of Jesus, the person who is committing
>adultery is the person who is doing two things as a package deal (two sides
>of the one coin, as we say): getting rid of Wife No 1 to marry Wife No 2.
>The situation envisaged is where the first wife is discarded because the
>husband is now more attracted to another woman and wants her instead. That
>is, it is the Akiba situation exactly.
>
>
>>5. In either case, we end up with a Jesus who seemingly says that
>>there IS at least one circumstance in which divorce is legitimate,
>>namely, when the husband finds ervath devar/PORNEIA in his wife.
>
>
>No! No!! A thousand times No!!! (If I were permitted, I would shout a
>little here and say NO!!!! - just for emphasis. But I had better restrain
>myself and confine myself to the quieter tones of scholarly discussion.)
>
>The command of Christ is clear: What God has joined together let no human
>being split asunder (Mt 19:9/Mk 10:11). Paul cites this command of Christ
>(1 Corinthians 7:10): "To those who have become married, I give this
>command - not I, but the Lord - a wife must not be separated from her
>husband." (All these verses use the same word for what is forbidden:
>CWRIZW, "sunder, sever, separate, split apart".)
>
>There is no situation, ever, where divorce is "legitimate", in the sense of
>"in accordance with the law of God", i.e., the will of God. It is always an
>evil, the result of sin, a consequence of a marriage breakdown that ought
>not to have occurred and that is due to culpable human failure. It is a bad
>thing when a marriage breakdown occurs: there are no circumstances that can
>make a bad thing into a good thing.
>
>But lest this should go forth as a partial (and therefore unbalanced)
>presentation of the total biblical teaching, let me hasten to add two extra
>points:
>
>1. A broken marriage is not the worst possible sin. Sometimes the
>sinfulness of how we treat each other in a marriage makes it a foretast of
>hell, so that to get out of that situation is the lesser of two evils. But
>even when something is "the lesser of two evils:, it is to be recognized as
>an evil, not somehow transmogrified into something good.
>
>2. A broken marriage is not the unforgivable sin. Christ came to bring
>forgiveness, and the whole message of the gospel is a message of repentance
>and forgiveness of sins (Lk 24:47). Repentance, forgiveness, and cleansing
>bring us a fresh start, by God's grace. This can include remarriage, in
>accordance with Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians 7.
>
>>But this leaves us with Jesus teaching something which is in flat
>>contradiction not only to what Jesus is reported as teaching in Mk
>>10:2-12, but also in the remainder of the Matthean story in which
>>Mt 19:9 occurs (Mt 19:3-12). I'm curious to know how you resolve
>>the conflict.
>
>
>No question, there is a major point of difference between what Matthew
>records, and what Mark records. Can they be reconciled? Some commentators
>have said the later church added an exception into Mt 19:9 to avoid an
>absolute total blanket prohibition on divorce and provide one basis for
>escaping a marriage. (On this view, the "exceptive clause" does not go back
>to Christ, and thus does not have dominical authority.) Other commentators
>say that what is explicit in Mt is implicit in Mk, and so can be accepted.
>My response is, The reconciliation between what is said in the two Gospels
>comes from seeing the exact nature of the wording (and thus, the meaning)
>of the clause in question in the Greek, and noting the different context in
>Mt and Mk.
>
>Mt 19:9 is paralleled in Mk 10:11 (cf. also Lk 16:18). How does it happen
>that Mt 19:9 - and Mt 5:32 - have the reference to "porneia", whereas Mk
>10:11 and Lk 16:18 do not? (In what follows I will summarize what requires
>quite a few pages in "Marriage and Divorce".)
>
>The answer is most clearly seen if we start by comparing Mt 19:9 with Mk
>10:11. The two verses are almost identical in wording. Mk contains EP'
>AUTHN ("with her" or "against her"), which Mt lacks, but the two major
>differences are (a) that Mt contains (and Mk lacks) the MH clause MH EPI
>PORNEIA: and (b) that Mt says he is recording what Jesus said to the
>Pharisees (19:3) who were citing Deut 24:1 to Jesus (Mt 19:7), whereas Mark
>says he is recording part of a subsequent further discussion between Jesus
>and his disciples.
>
>Now let's look at the other two relevant Gospel verses. Check Lk 16:18: it
>is found in a context of general teaching without reference to Deut 24:1.
>
>Check Mt 5:31-32: Jesus says, "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife
>must give her a certificate of divorce.'" This is a PARTIAL quote of Deut
>24:1, omitting the reference to grounds. Jesus attributes this as something
>that "was also said". He is not citing the OT; this is always done by
>saying "it is written" (e.g., Mt 11:10; 21:13; 26:31) or "have you
>not/never read" (e.g., Mt 21:16; 21:42; 22:31), or by giving the name of
>the OT prophet or writer (e.g., Mt 13:14; 15:7; 22:43), or by attributing
>what was said to God (e.g., Mt 15:4; 19:5).
>
>In contradistinction, when Jesus says "you have heard that it was said" (or
>similar, as occurs several times in Mt 5), he is referring to the oral
>tradition amongst the Jews - he is picking up on those places where Jewish
>tradition was distorting the teaching of the OT by adding something or
>leaving something out, or giving it a slight twist. In Mt 5:31 Jesus is
>citing a current oral use of Deut 24:1 which omits the ground for divorce
>mentioned in that verse. That is, it is the Akiba teaching of divorce,
>which omits "porneia" on the part of the wife.
>
>In sum, then: What is the feature of the context of Mt 5:32 and 19:9 which
>is not present in Mk 10:11 and Lk 16:18? The two occasions when Jesus
>mentions "porneia" are in the context of current Jewish teaching about Deut
>24:1 which omits reference to "ervath davar"; the two occasions when Jesus
>talks of divorce without reference to porneia are in the context of
>speaking to his disciples (Mk 10:11) or speaking more generally on the
>topic (Lk 16:18), without the Pharisees or the question of current Jewish
>teaching on Deut 24:1 being in view.
>
>Conclusion: Jesus mentioned "porneia" ("ervath davar") in relation to a
>type of teaching on divorce which, while drawing upon Deut 24:1, was
>omitting the Deuteronomic reference to it.
>
>
>>6. Might not the conflict be solved if we understood MH EPI PORNEIA
>>not as "except for PORNEIA" nor "for any grounds other than
>>PORNEIA", but as PORNEIA notwithstanding"? To my mind this fits in
>>better with what precedes Jesus' pronouncement (his appeal in Mt
>>19:4-6 to Gen 3 to show that God's will is that a marriage union
>>should not be sundered) as well as with his answer to the question
>>of his interlocutors about why, if God intended no divorce, Moses
>>allowed it (Mt 19:8; cp. vs. 7), AND with the disciples'
>>proclamation that in the light of Jesus' teaching "... it is not
>>expedient to marry" (Mt 19:10) - a response that seems inexplicable
>>if Jesus HAD conceded that divorce for PORNEIA is legitimate.
>
>
>Jeffrey, we are in complete agreement in our reading of the Scriptures that
>God's will is that a marriage union should not be sundered, and that God
>intended no divorce.
>
>It was no part of the Deuteronomic legislation to "provide for" divorce in
>any sense which means that divorce is to be regarded as acceptable
>behaviour; it provides for divorce only in the same sense in which an
>automobile insurance policy provides for car accidents or a fire
>extinguisher and a first aid kit provide for fires and injuries. Therefore
>it is quite wrong, it seems to me, to say that Moses accorded to divorce
>the status of law, or of divine permission, for it goes quite beyond the
>wording of Deuteronomy to say this. There is not the slightest suggestion
>that Moses approved it or "made it legal". Rather, divorce had a "common
>law" existence in the land and he sought to control and reduce it without
>in any way condoning it or legalizing it - as in our country we might seek
>to control road accidents or forest fires or prostitution without in any
>sense approving of these things.
>
>
>>7. I'm also curious to know what you make of the fact that the
>>question which garners Mt 19:9 from Jesus is said by Matthew to be
>>something which subjects Jesus to PEIRASMOS (cf. Mt 19:2; compare
>>Mk 10:2). Is this purely an academic test, a request for
>>information which might be helpful in settling the (as M. Git
>>shows) a vexed question on how ervath devar should be interpreted?
>>Or do you see it as something else?
>
>
>Divorce was a topical issue at the time. Asking Jesus a question about it
>could be likened a little bit to asking a political candidate or prominent
>leader today to declare where he stood on abortion or gun control. The
>Pharisees were testing Jesus in the sense of putting him on the spot. If he
>answered that he agreed with the Shammai or the Hillel or the Akiba
>position, he would be put offside with the advocates of the alternative
>schools; if he dodged the issue he could be dismissed as far as the
>relevance of his teaching to real issues was concerned. The Pharisees
>thought that, whatever Jesus answered or did not answer, it would
>strengthen their position in opposition to him.
>
>What Jesus did by way of answer was to show that divorce had no place at
>all (on ANY grounds) in God's perfect will.
>
>
>>Yours,
>>
>>Jeffrey Gibson
>>jgibson@acfsysv.roosevelt.edu
>
>
>For your consideration.
>
>Ward
>
>Rev Dr B. Ward Powers Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
>10 Grosvenor Crescent Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
>SUMMER HILL NSW 2130 email: bwpowers@eagles.bbs.net.au
>AUSTRALIA.
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "F. Holly Mitchell" <mitchell@dobson.ozarks.edu>
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:38:29 -0500 (CDT)
>Subject: Re: Acts 2:38
>
>> >I am looking for comments on the Greek construction of Acts 2:38.
>> >Specifically the relation between 'repent' and 'be baptised'. Are they two
>> >equal commands?
>>
>> The greek is:
>> METANOHSATE, [FHSIN,] KAI BAPTISQHTW hEKASTOS hUMWN EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU
>> XRISTOU EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN
>>
>> I'm not sure just what you are getting at by "equal commands" but METANOHSATE
>> and BAPTISQHTW are both aorist imparatives conjoined by KAI and so would seem
>> to be equal to me.
>>
>> >Also the 'for the remission of sins'. Does this mean that
>> >the baptism remitted the sins?
>> >
>>
>> In my opinion, EIS AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hUMWN is to be taken with
>> METANOHSATE...KAI BAPTISQHTW...EPI TWi ONOMATI IHSOU XRISTOU (which last
>> phrase, from BAPTISQHTW to XRISTOU, I translate together as a unit thus: "be
>> baptized in the name of Jesus Christ). In other words, these two things
>> being done (i.e., I repent and am baptized in the name of Jesus Christ), the
>> result (indicated by EIS...hUMWN) is that my sins are forgiven.
>
>My text includes a footnoted reference to Acts 3:19,
>METANOHSATE OUN KAI EPISTREYATE EIS TO EZALEIFQHVAI hUMWN TAS hAMARTIAS,
>
>Here, it really seems as if the crucial act is turning again to God.
>But now I've got more questions than I started with. (aaargh!!!)
>
>Is there a subtle distinction between the meanings of METANOEW and
>EPISTREFW that I'm not getting or are the two verbs parallel?
>
>Also I'm betting that whether the result is AFESIN TWN hAMARTIWN hMWN or
>EZALEIFQHNAI hUMWN TAS hAMARIAS, it *still* means that my sins are removed
>as far as East is from West.
>
>What do you learned doctors think?
>
>God Bless,
>Ginger (assistant to Holly)
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>Date: Wed, 8 Oct 1997 09:38:41 -0500
>Subject: B-Greek Survey
>
>I apologize for the bandwidth that a re-sending of the survey form
>requires, but although we've had about 60 replies (out of approximately 450
>list-members of both B-Greek and B-Greek Digest) thus far, there are some
>of our most regular posters who have not as yet responded and I'd like to
>make sure they have a chance before I complete the tabulation and publicize
>what has been learned about the list-membership.
>
>Two points: (1) This really IS voluntary, and if you don't want to reply or
>don't think it's worth the time and effort for you to reply, you need not
>do so. (2) I think that if you use your mailer's reply function on this
>version, there's no danger that it will go anywhere except back to me.
>
>Thanks very much. I will say at this point only that the replies have
>indeed been interesting, informative, and gratifying regarding the utility
>of our list--but I'll let you know in more detail what I mean by that after
>I'm sure that those who want to respond have done so.
>
>B-Greek Survey (purely voluntary)
>
>Welcome to B-Greek. We are very glad you are here, and would like to know a
>little more about you. We know that we have a wide variety of people on the
>list - from self-taught beginners to well-known authorities, from
>computational linguists interested in the formal structure of the language
>to simple believers trying to further their spiritual life. We would like
>to know more about your own background in order to help us make everybody
>welcome here. We are not trying to figure out what most people are like in
>order to establish norms for the list; instead, we are more interested in
>knowing about the range of people who are interested in B-Greek. However, we
>know that some people prefer not to participate in surveys, and there is no
>pressure to do so. Although we think the range of backgrounds discovered by
>this means may be of interest to all, we do not intend to disclose any
>information about individuals, nor have we any intention to release
>information derived from this questionnaire to any publishers or
>advertisers.
>
>Some of the questions may well admit of more than one answer; feel free to
>indicate all that you deem applicable to your own situation.
>
>1. From what basis of interest did you subscribe to B-Greek (-Digest)?
>(a) lay-person seeking to develop/expand skills in Biblical Greek in order
>to read the Biblical text in the original language
>(b) pastor of a church seeking to develop/expand skills in Biblical Greek
>in order to be a better communicator of the Biblical message in teaching
>and/or preaching
>(c) undergraduate college student learning Biblical Greek
>(d) seminary student learning Biblical Greek
>(e) seminary or university graduate student using Biblical Greek for research
>(f) lay-person interested chiefly in Biblical Greek language/linguistics
>(g) professional teacher of Biblical Greek (e.g., in a university, seminary)
>(h) other? Please explain.
>
>2. How much and what kind of Greek study have you done?
>(a) very little or none
>(b) self-taught (Explain, if you'd like to)
>(c) one or more years of course work in college or seminary
>(d) several years of reading and study
>(e) other? (e.g., translator of the Bible into vernaculars, in the field)
>Please explain.
>
>3. What do you find most helpful in B-Greek exchanges? (answer all that apply)
>(a) answers to specific questions about the grammar of Biblical texts
>(b) exegetical insights into the meaning of Biblical texts derived from
>grammatical analysis
>(c) discussion of questions of Biblical Greek language: words, morphology,
>or syntax
>(d) bibliographical information regarding Bible or Greek or related subjects
>(e) pedagogical discussion on learning and teaching of Greek
>(f) other? Please explain.
>
>4. What, if anything, do you find annoying in B-Greek exchanges?
>(optional, but please answer if you have peeves)
>
>5. Have you published anything you might like others to know about?
>(optional: your answer will win you no awards nor will it qualify or
>disqualify you)
>
>6. Do you maintain a web-site with matters pertinent to B-Greek
>subscribers? Would you share the URL with us?
>
>7. Since e-addresses are often inadequate indicators of where a poster
>resides, would you please tell us where you live?
>
>Carl W. Conrad
>Department of Classics/Washington University
>One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
>Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649
>cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
>WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/
>
>
>
>------------------------------
>
>End of b-greek-digest V1 #1013
>******************************
>
>** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
>
>To unsubscribe from this list write
>
>majordomo@virginia.edu
>
>with "unsubscribe b-greek-digest" as your message content. For other
>automated services write to the above address with the message content
>"help".
>
>For further information, you can write the owner of the list at
>
>owner-b-greek@virginia.edu
>
>You can send mail to the entire list via the address:
>
>b-greek@virginia.edu
>
*********************************************************
Dr. J. Lyle Story lylesto@beacon.regent.edu
Associate Dean (t)804/579-4402
School of Divinity (f)804/579-4597
Regent University
1000 Regent University Drive
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
*********************************************************