Textkit Logo

Matt 19:3 and 6

Are you learning New Testament Greek with Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek? Here's where you can meet other learners using this textbook. Use this board to ask questions and post your work for feedback. Use this forum too to discuss all things Koine, LXX & New Testament Greek including grammar, syntax, textbook talk and more.

Matt 19:3 and 6

Postby Herald » Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:46 pm

Since the pharisees are asking if it is lawful in the sense of possible ( [face=SPIonic]ecestin [/face]). Isn't Christ's answer essentially NO! with the imperative

[face=SPIonic]mh xwrizetw[/face] (Matt 19:6)?

In other words, divorce is Not possible for every cause and then He stipulates the causes making divorce possible in the sentences following?
Herald
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 11:40 pm

Postby klewlis » Wed Aug 11, 2004 7:04 pm

hmm...

I'm unclear as to how you're drawing the connection to the two phrases.

I'm not sure that [face=SPIonic]xwrizetw[/face] has the force that you think it does... third person imperatives aren't that strong. I think that if the intent was as you say, then the author would have used [face=SPIonic]exestin[/face] again--both for the force of the word itself and also for the rhetorical value of negating the earlier statement.

But I could be wrong. :)
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby callee » Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:19 pm

The OP is a little unclear to me as well, but, if I could dare to oppose the moderator, I do not believe that the 3rd person inflection of the imperative in v6 should really be taken, in this case, as overly mitigating, since contexual elements seem to suggest otherwise.

The Pharisees come in v3 specifically "to test" Jesus, i.e. whatever we read in the ensuing text should not be taken completely at face value, since it is merely a means to a test. The Pharisees then ask if divorce is permissable "for any reason." Notable is that Matt has added that phrase vis a vis Mark, in whom the question is simply "is divorce permisable (at all)". Matt's addition likely reflects his placing of the question in the context of the long running Pharisaical debate as to whether divorce should be allowed only for sexual impropriety (Shammai) or could duvorce be justified on many other different grounds as well (Hillel)? In otherwords, while Mark has Jesus ruling on the issue of divorce itself, Matt is asking Jesus to settle the debate between shammai and hillel. Note that in Matt 5:32 Matt has already had Jesus side with Shammai. In any case, Jesus responds by hearkening back to the creation ideal "from the beginning" in v4 and then a verbatum LXX cite in v5, followed by his own interpretation in v6, which as an expression of the creation ideal, therefore looks like an absolute blanket prohibition on divorce. Or, in other words, though in v9 Matt does have him side with shammai again, the essence of his answer (still preserved in Mark) is "What? Shammai? Hillel? They're both full of it!"

This is more confirmed in v7, where the plot picks up again from v3 as the Pharisees proceed with their testing. "Why then did Moses allow divorce?" It works as a trap because they have, apparently, just tricked Jesus into contradicting Moses. Moses allowed some divorce, but Jesus just made a blanket prohibition! "Ha Ha Ha, what do you say to that Jesus boy!!" The contradiction only occurs if v6 is taken as an absolute prohibition.

The whole scene is yet another expression of the classic gospel motif, that of comparing Jesus to Moses (always to find Jesus superior) and thus to compare nascent christianity with judaism (with similar results). In this case, Jesus demonstrates in v8 not only how they do not even understand Moses properly, but in Jesus own superior understanding of Moses and ethical transcendence (i.e. stating a higher ethic than Moses), the typical Jesuaic superiority is confirmed.


edited to fix a garbled thought.
callee
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:49 am
Location: Toronto

Postby klewlis » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:36 pm

callee wrote:if I could dare to oppose the moderator


lol. of course you are allowed to disagree with me. you are far more educated than i. ;) thanks for the input.
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby callee » Wed Aug 11, 2004 11:57 pm

klewlis wrote:lol. of course you are allowed to disagree with me. you are far more educated than i. ;) thanks for the input.


Now now, we both know who always scored higher grades...;)
callee
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 2:49 am
Location: Toronto

Postby klewlis » Thu Aug 12, 2004 8:17 pm

callee wrote:
klewlis wrote:lol. of course you are allowed to disagree with me. you are far more educated than i. ;) thanks for the input.


Now now, we both know who always scored higher grades...;)


well I may have had better grades but that was so long ago in our measly undergrad classes. You've got 4 more years over me now!
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1596
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada


Return to Koine Greek And Mounce's Basics of Biblical Greek

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests