Yikes! I agree with this wholeheartedly. Does this mean I'm becoming Hebrew Roots?
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Divorced: Abandoned, Put Away or Kicked to the Curb
- Thread starter Verifyveritas76
- Start date
- Status
Yes, aside from your own personal subjective view on the subject, do you have anything objective to present that would support your statement. If you want to critique the Greek, please do so by presenting details not opinions. Until you do or can provide something better than "take my word for it, its a terrible translation", I'm calling BS
Yikes! I agree with this wholeheartedly. Does this mean I'm becoming Hebrew Roots?
Call it what you like, Mojo. As for me, I tend to eschew labels anyway.
But if it means you simply try as best you can to read Scripture As Written...blessings.
Maybe it means you're becoming a "textualist"...
Rather the burden of proof would be on you to prove that the first apolyo used as shalach, changes its meaning as it is used the next two times
Consider this just a warning, until you can prove the change of the usage within the passage conclusively, either textually or however, this is a put up or shut up moment
I am not a linguist, and don't pretend to be. But, shouldn't we also factor in that Jesus did not speak these words in Greek? He spoke them in Aramaic! So, the translation presented in Greek is itself a translation. Jesus spoke the common language of the day, so does that account for at least some of the apparent contradiction?
The common language of the day was Greek except for small groups of religious leaders primarily in Judea as I understand it.
IMHO, the language it was spoken in is irrelevant if we don't have the transcript to either prove it was spoken in that language or written in that language. I do believe that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that Matthew was written first in Hebrew, but I havent seen any evidence to indicate that though the book was first written in Hebrew, that it necessarily correlates that it was because Jesus only spoke in Hebrew. I'm sure that He spoke in Hebrew, and I don't see it beyond the pale to assume that He spoke Greek, seeing He grew up in Nazareth, which had a large Greek speaking population. (In either case, I know of no copy in Aramaic) We don't have the Hebrew copy to my knowledge (other than fragments) so we must contain ourselves to understanding what we have.
I'm not saying the Greek text is right, or the translation is right. What I am saying is that it is there. To make a claim that totally disregards both the translation and the Greek text without any proof other than personal bias and a circular reference that is dealt with in verse 31 and then contrasted in verse 32 is unacceptable. To make that worse by either ignoring a request for proof or then smugly replying to the effect that he doesnt have to will not be tolerated on any thread, much less my own.
I would prefer to see the proof as this passage has raised questions in my own understanding. If he is incapable of doing so, that's fine, he can retract or rephrase in a less arrogant manner. If he'd rather not, that's fine, but he will not be welcome on this thread and any subsequent posts will be moderated.
I will respectfully disagree that Jesus and the Nazarenes primarily spoke Greek, and that Aramaic wasn't a factor. I wasn't there, and my studies in the matter are from years ago.
I do think it has a bearing on things.
Just like many of us argue that a cultural bias prevents others from truly embracing polygyny, I believe there are instances of cultural bias at work this debate.
I don't have the physical or mental energy to dispute further or study it out much more since it isn't a big part of my personal dealings in my life right now. I am not looking to divorce my wife, nor am I looking to add a divorcee to my family.
I do think it is important, and won't discount it. I will sit on the sidelines and observe. As you can see, that's what ive done for all of this thread.
I do think it has a bearing on things.
Just like many of us argue that a cultural bias prevents others from truly embracing polygyny, I believe there are instances of cultural bias at work this debate.
I don't have the physical or mental energy to dispute further or study it out much more since it isn't a big part of my personal dealings in my life right now. I am not looking to divorce my wife, nor am I looking to add a divorcee to my family.
I do think it is important, and won't discount it. I will sit on the sidelines and observe. As you can see, that's what ive done for all of this thread.
I can appreciate this and you may be right about the primary language. My point is that we have nothing in those languages to clarify or contradict what we have in the Greek to my knowledge.
As I understand it, we are accountable to know what we've been given, both the Hebrew and the Greek.
(Playing devil's advocate here). Who's to say that the Deuteronomy 24 passage hasn't been adjusted to fit the translator or scribes own bias (BC) and that Jesus was correcting it in the Matthew 5 passage? It is a very slippery slope once you start going down that road, so if you do, it's best to have some sort of proof to back your claims.
My only point to this is that the Greek (as I see it) was translated pretty accurately and it says the same thing basically in the English as it does in the Greek. I am totally open to considering textual criticism, I just havent seen it yet and that is what I've been asking for! The issue with two different English phrases is somewhat confusing, I agree, but not unmanageable once compared with the Greek. Jesus is not pulling a bait and switch here. He isn't starting with divorce and finishing with restricted fellowship. He's dealing with shalach/divorce all the way through.
My only interest (as I think Ive tried to show all the way through this thread) is that I want to know what's acceptable marriage material in His eyes. I'm ok with bringing someone in that's divorced if He's ok with it. I'm also MORE ok with not bringing in someone that's divorced if He's not ok with it. I just want answers so that I can give an account for myself. I'm pretty sure that "Mark said so" isn't gonna cut it.
I know that's basically what my argument against poly was, except substituting Paul for Jesus there. maybe saying that Jesus is stricter than the law isn't the right way to say it, I mean the adultry in your heart thing was already forbidden under the the do not covet bit, and the murder in your heart thing was already contrary to the love your neighbor as yourself bit. Maybe more appropriate to say that Jesus' interpretation grants more weight to things we might call 'no harm no foul' and gives less weight to the things we might naturally obsess over. Certainly that was the case between Him and the Pharisees.
Likewise under the law, the direct commandment is that a man may divorce his wife if uncleanness is seen in her, but the prophet Malachi is told that the Lord hates the putting away. Therefore It seems to me that the Lord did not make putting away illegal, but hates it nonetheless. Jesus clarifies this was done because of the hardness of men's hearts, and Paul asserts that the law binds a woman for as long as her husband is alive. The new life in Christ demands as our reasonable duty that we no longer do anything that displeases the Lord, even if it is legal to do so. Which I guess is what I'm driving at when I say that about strictness.
Maaaaaaaan... are you sure that you aren't adding a whole grip of words there? I note that the word ONLY shows up twice in capital letters. The greek word for only is monos, and He did not use it in these verses, and Jesus elsewhere demonstrates that he knew this word.
It just MIGHT be that there are people reading this who would find George Howard's Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and the 'Peshitta' in Aramic, not to mention work such as Nehemiah Gordon's studies of multiple copies of the Hebrew texts of Matthew, valuable.
Last edited by a moderator:
As Ive been saying, if you've got em, show em. If not, I have no problem deleting your posts til you do.
Just looked up the translation in the Hebrew Matthew through this link .
Matt 5:31
Again Jesus said to his disciples:
You have heard what was said to those of long ago that everyone who leaves his wife and divorces [her] is to give her a bill of divorce, that is libela repudio. 32 And I say to you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of divorce. But concerning adultery, he is the one who commits adultery and he who takes her commits adultery.
Seems to me that even George Howard agrees with the Greek and English.
Matt 5:31
Again Jesus said to his disciples:
You have heard what was said to those of long ago that everyone who leaves his wife and divorces [her] is to give her a bill of divorce, that is libela repudio. 32 And I say to you that everyone who leaves his wife is to give her a bill of divorce. But concerning adultery, he is the one who commits adultery and he who takes her commits adultery.
Seems to me that even George Howard agrees with the Greek and English.
So then maybe the interpretation of adultery in this verse is key. Is the man committing physical, sexual adultery, or a "break a covenant" adultery?
Sorry if that was brought up earlier. I haven't followed this thread too closely.
I also appreciate you trying to be thorough to determine who is eligible to you. If only others were so thorough.
In my own opinion, I kind of think that breaking the covenant in any way lies at the root meaning of adultery. These passages would seem to indicate that. The sexual breaking of covenant just happens to get the lion's share of attention.
Did I miss something, wasn't that what his whole last post was about?
Guys, I'm locking this thread until circumstances permit a more thorough review. I'm getting ready for a hurricane, Nathan and Ron are on the road, and all the moderators are dealing with various home front (work, family, etc) issues. Just the way it is. Everybody have a good weekend and we'll dig into this deeper as time permits.
Mark did not draw the connection between apolyo and shalach, which is what VV asked him to do. He especially did not prove what he said here:
Because when you're talking about proper translation of a greek word, it's incomprehensible to me to make the claim that the word comes from the hebrew. It has the appearance of not knowing which section of the bible you're even in.
I think perhaps Mark was taking it for granted that we knew what he meant. I'm guessing what he assumed is that we already knew the following:
That in the Tanakh in Deut 24 the word for putting away is "shalach" and that in Matthew 5 and 19 the word "Apolyo" is relied upon to be a faithful translation. I'm almost positive that's what he meant by saying the word 'divorce' is from the hebrew root shalach. It took me a while to get there because I'm terrible with hebrew and if I don't have the connection spelled out for me, I'll have to find it myself.
What I initially took Mark to mean was something quite different. I thought he was saying that the word for 'divorce' used in Matthew 5 was not a greek word, but was a hebraism whose root hebrew word was shalach. So when I attempted to track it down and saw the word 'apolyo' there, the first thing that came to mind is : "Wow he's way off... those two words aren't anything alike"
- Status