Permanency of Marriage

[Raptor]

Quick note. This whole idea that Matthew (or portions of Matthew) was written for Jews only is nonsense, confusing and dangerous. There is no Scriptural basis for this teaching.

[bearbear]

Originally Posted by Raptor

Quick note. This whole idea that Matthew (or portions of Matthew) was written for Jews only is nonsense, confusing and dangerous. There is no Scriptural basis for this teaching.

Matthew is of course intended for everyone including Gentiles to read as is the book of James which was addressed to the twelve tribes of Israel. However the original intent of the author may have been to demonstrate to a Jewish audience that Jesus is the Messiah.

Matthew frequently quotes the Old Testament to prove that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies and he uses Jewish terminology and customs without explanation (Sabbath laws, phylacteries, ritual purity), assuming his readers are familiar.

Matthew uniquely uses "kingdom of Heaven" instead of “kingdom of God,” likely to respect Jewish reverence for God's name.

And there's a some evidence that Matthew or at least an earlier draft of it was originally written in Hebrew.

Papias (c. 110–130 AD)
Quoted by Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History 3.39.16:

“So then Matthew wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language, and every one interpreted them as he was able.”

Irenaeus (c. 180 AD)
From Against Heresies 3.1.1:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome…”

Origen (c. 200–240 AD)
As cited in Ecclesiastical History 6.25.4 (by Eusebius):

“First was written according to Matthew … who published it for the believers from Judaism, composed in the Hebrew language.”

Epiphanius (c. 350–403 AD)
In Panarion 30.13.1–30.22.4:

“They have the Good News according to Matthew in its entirety in Hebrew … in the Hebrew alphabet, as it was originally written.”

Jerome (c. 380 AD)
From Lives of Illustrious Men (chapter 3), also reported in Dialogue Against Pelagians & letters:

“Matthew … first of all composed a Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters … while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek.”

[Nell]

This discussion has also strayed, not only from the topic, but from forum principal Local Church Discussions. Both will soon be closed to further posting.

Nell and UntoHim
Admins/Moderators

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by Nell

This discussion has also strayed, not only from the topic, but from forum principal Local Church Discussions. Both will soon be closed to further posting.

Nell and UntoHim
Admins/Moderators

You barely have anybody logging in the LCD site anymore and less and less participation. Now you want to close an interesting discussion that does actually have a main point about WL´s interpretation of verses in Matthew about divorce and re-marriage. If anything was off-topic was your own reply about Logos and Rhema....

[bearbear]

During the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, the Gentile believers were given just a few essential instructions- among them, to abstain from sexual immorality and from food sacrificed to idols. You might think, “Wow, that’s simple—we only had a couple of things to follow!” Yet, according to Jesus’ letters to the churches in Revelation 2, it seems we didn’t keep even those.

Rev 2:20-21
“Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling.”

Rev 2:14
But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, so that they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice sexual immorality

If you look at church history we compromised on divorce and remarriage starting in the 4th century when Christianity became a state religion in Rome and especially in the 15th century with Erasmus' re-interpretation of divorce & remarriage which was adopted in the reformation.

It’s possible Erasmus is a type of Balaam that Jesus warns about. Erasmus was a genius and Greek scholar and the first English NT is based on his Greek edition. But he later was revealed to be a skeptic, possible practicing homosexual according to Luther and false Christian, the prince of humanists. The majority of evangelical churches today hold to Erasmus’ teachings and interpretations of scripture regarding divorce & remarriage without realizing their origin.

https://www.danielrjennings.org/This...Remarriage.pdf

[bearbear]

On the subject of translations, this video covers evidence that Erasmus corrupted his Greek NT edition which the first English Tyndale bible is based on to allow for remarriage due to adultery in Matthew 19:9.
Later Greek scholars caught Erasmus' mistake but modern translations still reflect his corrupted version of the Greek NT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lozGs3Zsc

Interestingly, the Darby bible translation of Matthew 19:9 is consistent with Dr. Leslie McFall's research

"But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery."

Thus, Jesus is condemning a particular case of divorce while allowing for divorce when there is fornication but he does not give permission to remarry even if one divorced for fornication.

Also found another article here that talks about Dr. Leslie McFall's research:
https://www.christianforums.com/thre...upted.8316408/

The good news is that Theologians of the past, have been debating this error for five hundred years, and it is evident that they have formed a consensus and they are currently in the process of correcting this error in editions of the Greek New Testament.

The bad news is that this error is not being corrected in English Translations of the New Testament, nor have Pastors and Preachers corrected their errant interpretation of Matthew 19:9.
...
Going to the other extreme, in the spirit of friendly debate, Doctor Leslie McFall suggests an alternative interpretation. He suggests that instead of '[except] for fornication', this phrase should be interpreted as 'not [even] for fornication', arguing that there is no such thing as 'even' in Greek, therefore it is not impossible to include it as a clarification. It is enclosed in square brackets to show that 'even' is not in the Greek text but merely added as a clarification.

[bearbear]

Matthew 19:9 [DARBY]

But I say unto you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, not for fornication, and shall marry another, commits adultery; and he who marries one put away commits adultery

Perhaps another way to interpret the verse via the "not for" translation is that Jesus does not permit marrying the divorced woman-- why? Because she is still married to the husband she is divorced from whether or not it was due to fornication.

However the husband is free to divorce his wife due to fornication but not to remarry.

You can go to bible hub to see the Greek interlinear for Matthew 19:9:

https://biblehub.com/text/matthew/19-9.htm

And see that the latest accepted Greek manuscripts contain "μή ἐπί" instead of Erasmus' corruption "εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ". Then google "μή ἐπί" to see that that the consensus is that "except for" is an incorrect translation and that it should be translated to "not for" or "not upon"

https://timothysparks.com/2015/03/27...slated-except/
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.c...in-matthew-199

Or click on each word:

μή means not: https://biblehub.com/greek/3361.htm
ἐπί means upon: https://biblehub.com/greek/epi_1909.htm