Matthew 5:17. This Laney himself seems to admit when he says that porneia can be used in a broad sense in the New Testament to refer to any kind of unlawful sexual activity.263. 5:31-32. The customary translations (to commit adultery) should arise from an active form not chosen by Matthew as he records Jesus words (probably spoken in Aramaic). Should we use the fact that only when the second marriage occurs does Deuteronomy declare the woman defiled (thus perhaps implying that the union remains) to suggest (after all we have said) that, in Matthew, the clause following the questioned infinitive does give the cause to the infinitive? The presumption rests with the passive, since the middle voice is more rare, and since the middle places a wrong emphasis upon the womans culpability rather than that of her former husband. You are guilty of adultery! In 1943 Lenski argued the following points:276. There was misunderstanding regarding the Deuteronomic passage, and Jesus is trying to clear the problem up. Help take out the trash. Almost always, it results in their death! The liberal school of Hillel thought that a man had the right to end his marriage if his wife did something he found distasteful. Summarizing what we have learned to this point from structural analysis: Verses 31 and 32 are a clarification of an Old Testament Law, a correcting of a wrong, Pharasaical interpretation. And that dissolution was, according to prevailing law, a valid divorce.251. 213 I confess that I used to believe that he did, and once lectured at a gathering of theologians and Bible scholars on the subject. Do art or music or cooking with your kids. This participle appears to be used in the attributive position and therefore should be given a relative translation: The one who divorces is the one who is causing It is, therefore, not proper to imply, as many interpreters seem to do, that the divorcing subsequently leads to the causing of the woman to commit adultery, when she remarries. "When one seemed to pity a one-eyed man, he told him he had lost one of his enemies, a very thief, that would have stolen away his heart." (Trapp) 245 This against Murray and others who insist that the disciplinary measure was purely optional. 220 The reader is invited to consider the lexicon definitions/uses of kai found in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. But if the proponents of this view were to include post-consummative unfaithfulness the view itself would be destroyed. How does divorce effect the picture of marriage between husband of wife as an allegory of Christ and the church? The man makes her to be an adulteress. The man is not said in this case to commit adulteryhis sin is rather that he becomes implicated in the wrong of adultery on the part of his dismissed wife.273. First, they contend that a passive translation is not justified by word usage or by contextual considerations. Second, they consider my suggested translation, to be adulterized, is a tortuously difficult way to express two passages (Deuteronomy 22:19 and Malachi 2:14-17), which, they hasten to add, are not under consideration by Jesus. It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement. Murray finds the former the more natural,280 but argues that in either case the context shows that the woman is guilty of actively committing the offense of adultery.281 It is true that the woman is known to have been guilty of actively committing adultery, but it is not clear that we know that from the verb in question. The Pharisees are reported as saying, This woman has been caught in the act herself committing adultery (emphasis added). None have the sense of when or because. Under the heading of connecting clauses, the most promising for those who wish to see the second saying as explaining the meaning of the first clause, is: to introduce a result, which comes from what proceeds: and the, and so. Matt 5:15 is cited as an example of such a use. Some would suggest yes, insofar as Jesus professed to have come only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 5:31 is the thirty-first verse of the fifth chapter of the Gospel of Matthew in the New Testament and is part of the Sermon on the Mount. 265 Note that even the discussion of a womans groundless divorce of her husband (5:32b)see Chap 6has the complicitous male as the focus of attention in the Sermon. ( Matt 5:31-32 WEB) Divorce over dinner? 7 God blesses those who are merciful, for they will be shown mercy. This will develop your relationship with them and make them realize that your home is a fun place. However, rather than simply cite Malachi, Jesus repeats the gist of that prophetic oracle against purely legal treachery. Matthew 5:31-32, with commentary - Sermon on the Mount That in certain circumstances [they] were under obligation to do so.216, Later, Murray reaffirms his point that Jesus teaching in this passage does not oblige a person to divorce his wife, even on the grounds of adultery.217, Though Murray is quite right respecting the implications of Deuteronomy 24 regarding these points, it is most unfortunate that his book gives so little attention to the strong Old Testament teaching that divorce can be a discipline that, as a substitute for the previously mandatory execution, is morally obligatory. 241 Steele and Ryrie, Meant, pp. Play. Gods concern goes way deeper than that. We do know that one-man one-woman marriage for life is Gods natural design which goes back to Genesis and that God has always hated divorce (Malachi 2:14-16). Then Murray enters upon a long discussion of how the Greek noun (moikeuomena) translated the adulterer and the adulteress is itself a translation of the Hebrew active participle (committing adultery). Likewise it is dubious that Malachi 2 relates to Deuteronomy 24.294. The marriage covenant is a picture of Christs relationship with His bride, the church (Ephesians 5:28-29). You are wrong. I suspect that I sounded rather convincing; I heard few objections. The parallel account of this teaching is found in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18. For though Heth/ Wenham controvert his use of the Joseph and Mary incident, their objection rings hollow. But to say that the historical context reminds us of illicit intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles is one thing, to suggest that Jesus is, in the Sermon, trying to support ethnic purity is another. Nonetheless, since the primary point of the Pharasaical teaching was the right of the divorcing husband and the insensitivity to stigmatization secondary, I believe Lenskis interpretation must be kept to a secondary level. We properly look for such points because Jesus was unlikely to make a general criticism where notorious differences were existent. But, in either option (present or perfect) the time of the participle is determined by the main verb and is presumed to be inexorably tied to it as to time. And God is no more to be bullied than they. Proud member 259 Cf. But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Taken alone, thats impressive, but lexicon goes on to add the sense of this definition: and so, that is, namely. But the traditional interpretation, which interconnects the clauses is not doing that either. The causation runs the opposite direction! Steele and Ryrie provide a rather nice table of the five interpretations of this word porneia.241 From it we draw this list: 1. What does Matthew chapter 5 mean? | BibleRef.com Dont be a slob. Jesus didnt just quote the canned answers tossed around by the two sides of the debate, but instead offered a fresh and biblical perspective, looking to the heart of the issue. Why, one may ask, does Laney limit the Leviticus reference to Leviticus 17:8-14(16) and Leviticus 18:6-18? The loophole was manufactured from the phrase found some indecency in her. By Jesuss day it seems men had come to justify themselves for divorcing their wives without reasonable cause. Choose several of the ideas on the list and start doing them regularly. First, I believe that the Old Testament (Jer. Matthew 5 NLT - The Sermon on the Mount - One day as he - Bible Gateway 24:1-4) involves adultery is highly questionable. Matthew 5 - Barclay's Daily Study Bible - StudyLight.org Your husband will love you and respect you more as he sees and appreciates how you treat the children. I hope to deal with the structuring of the Sermon in more detail in a later work on Biblical ethics. But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of . Since this position has already been criticized in other regards, here I merely point out that, if Jesus did intentionally avoid controversy regarding the meaning of uncleanness in Deuteronomy 24:1, porneia could mean anything. Jesuss emphasis is on the spirit behind the law. Guy Dutys Divorce & Remarriage (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1967). In my view, then, though a divorce that aims at being a fruit of repentance would not be adulterous (because grounded upon the adultery of the marriage itself), we cannot see that this is the primary meaning of Jesus words in Matthew 5:32a. It is her husband who has destroyed the marriage by the divorcerendering her unable to fulfill her marital commitments. Daniel and his three friends would surely have adopted a different stance if they had Heth/Wenham to advise them! Give her some time to rest. Offer to cook and watch the kids while she goes out to have her hair done, nails done, get a massage, or go shopping, etc. 173-74. The saying seems to assume that the divorce is only valid if the wife is guilty of porneia, not the husband! As for the Pharisees, if Jesus was right, the teaching of the Old Testament had been eclipsed among them during the inter-testamental period, such that divorce was no longer understood as either an act of sinful treachery or a discipline painfully applied with the appeal for restoration always in view. Find time while you are at work or out doing ministry to call and text your wife. Why was this considered a test and not a sincere . But the likelihood is that the adulterization that the text wishes to express is not his making her out to be an adulteress (so Lenski), but rather that his act of divorcing makes her adulterized. All are blessed because of their part in the kingdom of heaven. He is always ready to forgive. In that instance, God tempers His treatment of men by His Son paying the penalty in full and making that payment available to sinful men. This is to say, where the difference in sex of the spouse is relevant, He notes the reciprocity. We have therefore created a library of almost one thousand (and growing) inductive Bible studies, which are available for free. Matthew 5. It is as if He were saying, You have heard the Old Testament quoted and explained in the following way, but let me explain to you its true and full meaning. In other words, the very quoting of the Law evoked in His listeners minds the aberrant teaching that Jesus intended to correct. The Beatitudes explained: A commentary on Matthew 5 - ActiveChristianity The first sin in his head, the last two in a social world which sought to justify treachery by divorce writs. Ezras corrective could not have been simply like that of Pauls in 1 Corinthians 6:18: flee immorality. No, the quasi-legal bond must be dissolved. Cannot that innocent woman realize that to remarry would be to commit adultery and remain celibate for the rest of her lifeliving honorably with her parents family?272. Matthew 5:31-32 contains Jesus' comments about divorce, delivered during the Sermon on the Mount. What does Matthew 5:32 mean? | BibleRef.com It does not meet the standard of the intent of Mosess law. He is concerned that His disciples not limit the holiness of God to fastidiously kept rules that relate only to the outer, legal life. Learn your wife. The reader should note that in two other major divorce passages, Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18, similar dual sayings are connected in the say way. Thus Paul is legitimately applying the principles of the Law (Exod. It was one of the things in the culture of the time. Together, Herod and Herodias divorced their covenant partners in order to devote themselves to each other. Matthew 5:1-12 contains the beautiful Beatitudes delivered by Jesus in His Sermon on the Mount. Knowing the grave lack of textual support for his belief that the clauses in Matthew are not genuine, he persisted in affirming that someday a flood of manuscripts will appear with the offending clauses omitted. How did the Pharisees attempt to test Jesus this time? VI, pp. One passage of scripture that people struggle to understand is Matthew 5:31-32 where Jesus states: "It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'. 11:9).270 This earlier verb is full of the connotation of indirect cause the other person stumbles, but you caused it. After her husband and sons died, the widow Naomi urged her daughters-in-law, Ruth and Orpah, to find new husbands who would provide for them (Ruth 1:8-9). But mans wickedness created loopholes in Mosess law. Structure. See also Appendix. I believe that a fair reading of the arguments shows that it is their position which does not take seriously enough the exact statement of the context. Matthew 5King James Version. While God may have ''allowed'' divorce, that does not mean He ''approves'' of it. If middle, there is a stress upon personal interest in the actor, in this case the treacherously divorced woman. The Herods were egalitarian about divorce. Matthew | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4:1-11 | 4:12-25 | 5:1-12 | 5:13-16 | 5:17-26 | 5:27-30 | 5:31-32 | 5:33-42 | 5:43-48 | 6:1-15 | 6:16-23 | 6:24-34 | 7-17 | 18-28 |. 285 The source of the grammatical discussion which follows is William D. Chamberlains An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament (Baker, reprinted 1979 from the 1941 original, pp. They go beyond that to include a means by which these self-righteous men console their consciences regarding the cast-off womans future welfare. Jesus said it was because of their hardness of heart that Moses permitted them to do this. In spite of this shaky groundwork, Murray becomes emphatic: In Matthew 5:32, therefore, it is not impossible to regard moikeuthanai as having an active meaning, namely, to commit adultery. In this case the clause would be rendered, he makes her to commit adultery. But whether this be the sense or not, it is not feasible to exclude from the word moikeuthanai actual involvement in the sin of adultery. Matthew uses that word whenever he wishes to speak of one person causing another to sin. Jesus answer is clear. Fulfill. 290 Deponent is what we call a verb which had lost its active form during is linguistic evolution, but which clearly retains an active sense though only a passive form is to be found in the language. It is adultery for the husband and it is adultery for the wife. Suffice it to say that Deuteronomy 24 is wrongly interpreted to imply a right or a responsibility to divorce. Do not complain about the house you live in or the living standard that you have. This verse opens the brief, but much scrutinized, discussion of the issue of divorce . Matthew 5:31-32 contains Jesus' comments about divorce, delivered during the Sermon on the Mount. Sin is always the reason for divorce. Further, no causal connection is found in the latter passage, whereas the use of kai as when (traditional interpretation) in Matthew 5:32a/b would allege such. 1. That structure, not for fornication, is the natural way of introducing an exception.232 If the two Matthean exception clauses are intended to teach the same point (and we know of none who disputes this point), then the latter text is sufficient to help us make a choice against the inclusivist interpretation of the clause in Matthew 5:32. It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce., It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'. But I say to you, everyone who divorces his wifeexcept for fornicationcauses her to commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery." Matthew 19:9 has it like this: "Whoever divorces his wife except . To that issue we now turn. Heth/Wenham also report several journal articles that criticize this view.231 The criticism is that this translation is ill advised. Both are personal manipulations of Biblical ethics. Jesus is the second Moses prophesied by Moses, giving a new word from God from a different mountain. Well over ten pages in this book were devoted to consideration of the contextual issues, and even a cursory reading of the headings should dispel the thought that any aspect of context is ignored. Proverbs 15:32 is one such example: He who neglects discipline despises himself, But he who listens to reproof acquires understanding. On the Feinbergs logic, the NASB publishers would be guilty of substantive distraction by their marginal reference to Proverbs 15:5 (He who regards reproof is prudent.). A stir-fried dinner MorgueFile free photo Stir-fried food is not to everyone's taste. Read full chapter Footnotes As to when the act occurs, that is determined by the main verb, to cause But the tense of the clause is present and must be supplemented by some other wording to identify when this causing is occurring. 214 The phrase you have heard that the ancients were told identified the collection into two group of threes. We shall critique each species of this view in turn. His hearers might not be party to the teaching of only one Pharasaical school and might think that Jesus was being unfair to at least their rabbi. As such, marriage is a holy and sacred relationship that is to depict Gods relationship with us. And by the same token, it is not the main purpose of Matthew to teach a legal way out of marriage. They argue that the exception clause may only mean that the divorce of an unchaste woman would not make her an adulteress, for she probably is already an adulteress.239 But whereas Kilgallen removes the judgment of adultery from the divorce, Heth/Wenham do not necessarily do so. After a brief digression concerning entrance into the kingdom (balanced by a similar digression, 7:13-23, that ends the salt section, 7:1-23), Jesus tells his listeners how to shine as a light before then- neighbor in their behavior toward the neighbor (5:21-48), in their behavior toward God (6:1-18), and in their behavior toward themselves (6:19-34). Whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery, the nature of marriage and its obligations is, as a matter of fact, Christenthum und Kirche: The First Age of Christianity and the Church, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers. It is likely that his adoptive father Joseph would have had work as a tradesman in the nearby Roman city of Sepphoris, which would have required knowing some Greek. Several responses are in order. I believe that any fair reading of the first edition will show that I have paid ample attention to every aspect of context, but I will attempt here and later to place my position in regard to context, beyond reasonable objection. The passive infinitive, he replies, does not say the remarriage causes her to be an adulteress but to commit adultery. And they cannot bear it. Think of hobbies that you can both enjoy. 210 See the excellent programmatic essay by Steven Kaufman. In large measure the material of these discourses came to Matthew from his tradition . It was the street language spoken by the Jews after they returned from Exile in Babylon. If modern day culture applied this principle of no divorce, how would culture look different? The Greeks seem to have loved participles, and a good number of that verb form are found in key divorce passages. With that aim in mind, we look at the teachings of Jesus in the order in which He spoke them. The believer is to affect the world like salt and like light. Jesus was . It should be noted that Moses was describing an existing practice of divorce rather than prescribing this method for divorce. Would Laney wish to argue that coveting is totally distinct from thefts, or that pride and foolishness are mutually exclusive? To divorce the wife, means that she is no longer required to be exclusive to the former husband, and that he no longer needs to provide for her welfare.226 In our verse, the man who is loosing the parties from their vows to each other is the man who causes something to happen to his wife, unless something else significant is also true. It can also be translated fornication which means sexual immorality. Them. This means that the spouse is now the most important person and responsibility rather than the parent. Dont be satisfied with a marriage that scores a 5 out of 10 or an 8 out of 10. 11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. You probably know the habits you have which are hurting your relationship. They say, men think they care for the rights of the woman they divorce. The second clause, whoever divorces his wife, should stir up memories of Malachi 2. 11 "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
