My Reasons and My Reason, Part 4

My first dates were all about driving—driving and not killing us, and talking to a girl when I wasn’t driving (and while I was for that matter). Then I met A. I’ll call her A. Girlfriend has a meaning I don’t want to imply, more like wife, or concubine I suppose. (In most States a girlfriend can’t take half of everything a man owns when she leaves him or is sent packing.) My mother had warned me about A, how she would seek male affection. A had grown up without a father.

Her mother was divorced, and could never remarry. Today, Jesus’ saying—everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία), makes her commit adultery‎[1]—sounds to me as if He assumed she would remarry. But then, I understood it as a prohibition. Besides, whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,[2] Jesus continued. That pretty much assured her that no one at my church would marry her.  Marrying someone “outside of the faith” (someone who believed that a divorced person could remarry) was frowned upon there.

When I began to squeeze A’s breasts and fondle her nipples, I didn’t realize that God might have something against it. At sixteen I don’t recall knowing the word of the Lord that came to Ezekiel [Table] (Ezekiel 23:1-3 NET):

“Son of man, there were two women who were daughters of the same mother [Table]. They engaged in prostitution (zānâותזנינהin Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution (zānâזנו). Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there” [Table see Addendum].

I’m not sure what difference it would have made. I knew that breast squeezing and nipple fondling was frowned upon. I thought that was because it would lead to the sin of premarital sex. As it turned out, A’s nipples weren’t so virgin. She and her former boyfriend, a friend of mine from church, had committed the sin of premarital sex. They only did it once. Then they stopped seeing each other and never did it again.

I enjoyed squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples. I think she enjoyed it, too. I found it very hard to believe that I was just a surrogate for the father she didn’t have. It seemed like she really loved me, as me, not as a symbol of something else. It all felt very real. And I was happy and satisfied squeezing her breasts and fondling her nipples. I had no intention of committing the sin of premarital sex. She didn’t want to do that again either.

At sixteen I didn’t study the Bible. I was flying blind. I read only the minimum that was presented in church services and Sunday school. There were moments when I was in a particularly religious mood that I tried to read more, but then I was in the wrong frame of mind, expecting, hoping that the Bible would confirm and applaud my religiousness. So I didn’t recognize the Lord’s ἐγκράτεια standing between A and me and the sin of premarital sex.

I hadn’t heard the fruit of the Spirit. I’m not saying no one ever talked about it. I’m saying I hadn’t heard it yet. I certainly wasn’t taught that I was strong, and the word of God resides in [me], and [I] have conquered the evil one.[3] That would have stood out amidst all the teaching that any contact with a young female would lead inexorably to the sin of premarital sex.

I didn’t know a thing about ἐγκράτεια. It was literally “all Greek to me.”[4] I didn’t have a Bible that translated ἐγκράτεια self-control, which I might have related to sexual matters. My Bible read temperance. I was sixteen; I didn’t drink. But even if I had considered the fruit of the Spirit I would have considered the works I was required to do to please the Spirit of God.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:[5] It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality [KJV, to avoid fornication], let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.[6]

I am fairly sure now that squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples qualifies as sexual immorality (NKJV). I wasn’t so sure then (nor am I now) that it qualified as fornication (KJV). And I sincerely doubt that it qualifies as πορνείας (a form of πορνεία; translated sexual immorality [NKJV] or fornication [KJV]). I don’t say this to justify myself but to know God. There is no way that my understanding of πορνείας at age sixty can justify my behavior at age sixteen.

Children,obey your parents in the Lord for this is right, was Paul’s understanding of the law: “Honor your father and mother,which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, that it may go well with you and that you will live a long time on the earth.[7] I was clearly disobeying my parents, squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples. For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.[8]

God, for better or worse, has entrusted (or abandoned) children to the mercy of parents. And I don’t say abandoned for my sake, but for the many women I know molested as children by their fathers. My childhood was idyllic by comparison. My travails were my struggles to understand biblical words and concepts, my troubles were not understanding them.

At the same time, however, knowing God is not simply a matter of semantics but a uniquely profound intimacy. Did He intend for me to understand that the two women in the allegory He gave Ezekiel engaged in prostitution in Egypt because their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there? Or was the breast squeezing and nipple fondling incidental to engaging in prostitution (zânâh)? I have a fairly good idea how pre-modern Jews answered that question:

Jews in the pre-modern world lived, with few exceptions, in Jewish communities and under the yoke of Jewish tradition and halakhah. This affected every aspect of their lives, including sexual relations. As stated above, every sexual act between a man and woman outside marital relations was considered as coming within the definition of prostitution (be’ilat zenut), and the rabbis strongly condemned manifestations of sexual license in the Jewish community. Many regulations were issued by the various communities to fight prostitution in all its forms.[9]

If they were correct, then I was guilty of πορνεία when I squeezed A’s breasts and fondled her nipples. I was one of the πόρνοι by definition: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral (πόρνοι, a form of πόρνος), idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.[10] Today, forgiven by the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ, that verdict against me is bearable. What is too hard to bear, then as now, is that this particular understanding of πορνεία makes a πόρνῃ (prostitute) of A by definition. My emotional aversion to that gains some spiritual credence if I plug this behavior into Jesus’ statements regarding divorce and πορνεία:

Matthew 5:32 (NET) Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for “her virgin breasts were squeezed and her nipples fondled,” makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for “her virgin breasts were squeezed and her nipples fondled,” and marries another commits adultery.

I don’t think any of the women at my church who considered themselves holier than God would have called A a prostitute because I squeezed her breasts and fondled her nipples, though I am fairly sure they considered it sexual immorality forbidden by Paul in the Bible. Committing the sin of premarital sex was the primary meaning of fornication there.

Matthew 5:32 (NET) Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for “the sin of premarital sex,” makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for “the sin of premarital sex,” and marries another commits adultery.

This interpretation of πορνεία has some precedent in the practice of the righteous in first century Israel (Matthew 1:18, 19 NET).

Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately [Table].

It seemed plausible that Jesus meant the sin of premarital sex for πορνείας (a form of πορνεία) as recorded by Matthew, until I considered his law.

Exodus 22:16, 17 (NKJV) Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 (NKJV)
If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out [Table], then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days [Table].

At sixteen when I believed in the sin of premarital sex I thought that A and my friend did the right thing by breaking off their relationship. In the light of God’s law however I hear Jesus say, Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human traditionYou neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition.[11] In others words, to accept the sin of premarital sex as Jesus’ meaning for πορνείας in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is to liberate young men from any sense of obligation to the young women they seduce or date-rape. (In fact, they were encouraged to send those young women away, to divorce them, that is.) At the same time it offers men a ready excuse to divorce their wives who have been seduced or date-raped, at any time men choose to play that card. Viewed in the context of God’s law the sin of premarital sex sounds like a man-made religious belief with no relationship to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

I don’t think the people who enacted this legislation intended any of that any more than Caiaphas intended to condemn Yahweh come in human flesh to death. I assume that my religious forbears were shotgun-wedding-type of folk. Without wasting a lot of time tracking down documentary evidence it’s not too difficult to imagine that their children thought that was too harsh or even hypocritical. After all, people should confess their sins and turn from them. (I’ll ignore the timing with a political need to delay baby boomers’ entrance into the labor force as coincidence only.)

At sixteen I didn’t mistake the Lord’s ἐγκράτεια, keeping A and me from the sin of premarital sex, for my own righteousness. I didn’t feel very righteous. Though it’s probably an exaggeration I felt like I was always at odds with my parents over A. So I simply discounted the credibility of my counselors, those who assured me that “familiarity breeds contempt,”[12] that was “that familiarity leads to the sin of premarital sex.”

I did have a vague sense of an overarching dishonesty to my life. I may have called it hypocrisy at times, but I was destined to go much deeper into that hypocrisy before I recognized what it was. In the spring of my junior year of high school after I had turned seventeen, I made a conscious decision to reinvent myself. I moved away from the “straight” world of my parents, my church, even my friends at school, to turn toward the “hip” world. It seemed more honest somehow. And A was caught up, and discarded, in that self-reinvention. The tension at home was eased.

Over the summer I took up with B. She was not “hip” precisely, but she was an accomplished musician. We enjoyed hours of arty conversations, went to ballets, operas and musicals together. And, fully clothed, we aped all the motions of the missionary position until we both achieved orgasms. We could do it openly in a public park on a Sunday afternoon, surrounded by “hip” people who knew exactly what we were doing and blessed and approved it.

A and I had taken it for granted that we would grow up and get married. We talked about it all the time. I didn’t share that with B. I’m not sure what she thought about it. She knew that she would go away to school to pursue a music degree. I knew that I already had my sights set on C, the young woman who became my high school girlfriend/wife/concubine that fall.

At a party in C’s basement the spring before my junior year ended, I had sat at the bar watching her. She was the queen bee of “hip” at school. I found out later she had dropped acid for the first time that night. She had broken up with her boyfriend, a senior. But a couple of other seniors buzzed around her all night. I was nobody, a “straight,” a “hip” wannabe—and a junior.

“You must be a real head,” the long-haired guy next to me said as he looked up from his cheap wine.

Head had no negative connotations in my mind at the time. It was the exalted appellation reserved for the long-haired Jesus-like bodhisattvas who ran the head shop. I had short hair! I didn’t know what he was talking about, and said so. As it turned out, he was impressed that I wasn’t drinking (part of “straight” culture) but was holding out, apparently, for dope (part of “hip” culture).

Looking back now I wonder what more I needed to perceive that “hip” culture could be as superficial and status conscious, as “dishonest,” as “straight” culture. At the time what I heard was a long-haired disciple of the long-haired Jesus-like bodhisattvas saying, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile[13]—to me! I was grateful that (so long as I kept my mouth shut) I could be accepted into the kingdom of “headom” even before I had my bona fides in order. And later that night, after the cops broke up the party, I shared my first joint. It did absolutely nothing for me, except to make what hair I had and my clothes smell funny.


[1] Matthew 5:32a (NET) Table

[2] Matthew 5:32b (NET) Table

[3] 1 John 2:14b (NET)

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_to_me

[5] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had μοι (KJV: unto me) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[6] 1 Corinthians 7:1, 2 (NKJV) Table

[7] Ephesians 6:1-3 (NET)

[8] James 2:10 (NET) Table

[9] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/prostitution.html

[10] 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 (NET) Table

[11] Mark 7:8, 9 (NET)

[12] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Familiarity_breeds_contempt; “Familiarity breeds contempt–and children.” http://www.twainquotes.com/Familiarity.html

[13] John 1:47 (KJV)

Immorality

Perhaps this is as good a time as any to say that I take it for granted that Jesus spoke Greek, and that those who heard him understood him perfectly well in what was by then, more than three centuries after the conquest of Alexander the Great, their native tongue.  And yes, of course, the Greek they spoke and understood was shaded and colored by their own culture and heritage.

I first encounter the Greek word πορνεία in Matthew 5:31, 32 (NET):

“It was said, ‘Whoever1 divorces (ἀπολύσῃ, a form of ἀπολύω) his wife must give her a legal document.’  But I say to you that everyone2 who divorces3 (ἀπολύων, another form of ἀπολύω) his wife, except for [the cause (λόγου, a form of λόγος) of (KJV)] immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία), makes (ποιεῖ, a form of ποιέω) her commit adultery (μοιχευθῆναι, a form of μοιχεύω), and whoever marries a divorced (ἀπολελυμένην, another form of ἀπολύω) woman commits adultery4 (μοιχᾶται, a form of μοιχάω).

The word ἀπολύω is a compound of ἀπό (off, away) and λύω (loosen).  So while it is perfectly legitimate to translate the off-loosening of a wife and sending her away with the word divorces in verse 31 and divorced in verse 32, it is equally legitimate to translate the off-loosening of another’s sin and sending it away as forgive and forgiven in Luke 6:37 (NET).5  A good precedent for translating ἀπολύω forgive is found in Matthew 18:27 (NET), The Parable of the Unforgiving Slave, where it is coupled with ἀφίημι.

The lord had compassion on that slave and released (ἀπέλυσεν, another form of ἀπολύω) him [e.g., from custody], and forgave (ἀφῆκεν, a form of ἀφίημι) him the debt.

More to the point, perhaps, these story images give me a vivid picture of what forgiveness is.  But I’m laboring this point because the first occurrence of ἀπολύω, as divorce, gives me a little more insight into Matthew 5:31 and 32.  Joseph considered sending away his fiancée Mary, Jesus’ mother (Matthew 1:18, 19 NET):

Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way.  While6 his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit.  Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous (δίκαιος) man, and because he did not want (θέλων, a form of θέλω) to disgrace7 (δειγματίσαι, a form of δειγματίζω) her, he intended (ἐβουλήθη, a form of βούλομαι) to divorce (ἀπολῦσαι, another form of ἀπολύω) her privately.

Joseph is an interesting pivotal character between an old vision and a new vision of righteousness.  He could not be tainted by a wife who had known another man, but he was not willing to disgrace her either.  If he were fully under the old vision of righteousness he probably should have disgraced (δειγματίζω) her to completely absolve himself of wrongdoing.  But clearly his heart wasn’t in it.  So he planned to divorce or send her away privately, as opposed to forgive her privately when considered in context.  The story continues in Matthew 1:20 (NET):

When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David8, do not be afraid to take Mary9 as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.”

When Joseph married Mary as the angel of the Lord commanded he made the pivot into a new vision of righteousness.   He quietly bore the unrighteous assumptions of all who could count to nine, for who in first century Israel would ever believe an old Gentile excuse like, “a god did it,” particularly the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob?

There was a dark side to the old vision of righteousness.  Under law it is easy to mistake not-sin for righteousness.  In Matthew 19:3 (NET), some Pharisees came to [Jesus] in order to test (πειράζοντες, a form of πειράζω) him.  They asked,10 “Is it lawful11 (ἔξεστιν, a form of ἔξεστι) to divorce (ἀπολῦσαι, another form of ἀπολύω) a wife for any cause?”

I think it was wise to translate πειράζω test here.  The word can mean tempt to evil (1 Corinthians 10:9 NET), And let us not put Christ to the test (ἐκπειράζωμεν, a form of ἐκπειράζω), as some of them12 did (ἐπείρασαν, another form of πειράζω), and were destroyed by snakes; and (1 Corinthians 10:13 NET), No trial (πειρασμὸς, a form of πειρασμός) has overtaken you that is not faced by others.  And God is faithful (πιστός): He will not let you be tried (πειρασθῆναι, another form of πειράζω) beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial (πειρασμῷ, another form of πειρασμός) will also provide a way out so that you13 may be able to endure it.  It could also mean the prudent examination of any spiritual claim to authority (2 Corinthians 13:5a NET), Put yourselves to the test (πειράζετε, another form of πειράζω) to see if you are in the faith; examine (δοκιμάζετε, a form of δοκιμάζω) yourselves!

It is entirely possible that some of the Pharisees present intended exactly this latter kind of examination of Jesus when they questioned Him.  It is possible that some were curious whether Jesus agreed with them or not.  There was a dispute about divorce between the schools of Shammai and Hillel14 a generation earlier.  And it is possible that some had already judged Jesus as evil and were searching for evidence to condemn him.

The translation of the Pharisees question—Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?—is good politic but also probably reflects the actual situation.  It is possible that someone wanted confirmation of a growing suspicion: Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause at all, ever, under any circumstances?  Love, mercy and forgiveness were not unknown in Israel.  And ἔξεστι seems to me to carry the hope that the law, what is lawful, correlates in some positive way with righteousness.  (That hope was dashed by the way when Paul penned Romans 3:20 [NET], For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.)  And it is highly probable that many of the Pharisees asked Jesus, Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause that seems good to me?

Jesus did not turn to Exodus, Leviticus or Deuteronomy to answer the question, but to Genesis.  He answered15 (Matthew 19:4-6 NET):

“Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator16 made them male and female,17 and said, ‘For18 this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united19 with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?20  So they are no longer two, but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined (συνέζευξεν, a form of συζεύγνυμι) together, let no one separate (χωριζέτω, a form of χωρίζω).”

So, to keep it clear in my own mind, Jesus’ answer to the Pharisees’ question—Is it ἔξεστιν (in the sense of right or righteous) to divorce a wife for any cause?—was a fairly emphatic, “No.”  Then the Pharisees asked an entirely different question (Matthew 19:7 NET), Why then did Moses21 command (ἐνετείλατο, a form of ἐντέλλω) us to give a certificate of dismissal22 and to divorce (ἀπολῦσαι, another form of ἀπολύω) her?23

Jesus answered (Matthew 19:8 NET), Moses24 permitted (ἐπέτρεψεν, a form of ἐπιτρέπω) you to divorce (ἀπολῦσαι, another form of ἀπολύω) your wives because of your hard hearts (σκληροκαρδίαν, a form of σκληροκαρδία), but from the beginning it was not this way.

Jesus’ next statement raises a few questions.  Was He continuing to address the Pharisees’ second question?  Their first question?  Both?  Or neither?  Jesus said (Matthew 19:9 NET):

Now I say to you that whoever divorces (ἀπολύσῃ, a form of ἀπολύω) his wife, except25 for immorality (πορνεία), and marries (γαμήσῃ, a form of γαμέω) another commits adultery26 (μοιχᾶται, a form of μοιχάω)[KJV, and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.]

If this statement refers back to the Pharisees’ first question, then it seems to provide an exception to no divorce and remarriage.  If it refers to the second question it seems to address an obscure point about πορνεία, presumably by the wife, exempting the husband’s remarriage after a divorce from being considered μοιχᾶται, committing adultery.  I’m having some difficulty predicting its meaning if it references both or neither question.  (There is no note explaining why the last half of the verse was removed from the NET.)

The disciples response (Matthew 19:10 NET)—If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better (συμφέρει, a form of συμφέρω) not to marry (γαμῆσαι, another form of γαμέω)!—is not particularly helpful to clarify the issue.  What it does imply is that men who want to divorce their wives and remarry, who believe that this statement is an exception to Jesus’ understanding of the issue, and who want to justify themselves by law, have a selfish interest in making the meaning of πορνεία as broad as possible.  And that makes me cautious about accepting immorality as the best possible translation of πορνεία.

 

 

Addendum: December 15, 2018
Tables comparing Matthew 5:31, 32; 1:18-20; 19:3; 1 Corinthians 10:9; 10:13; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Matthew 19:4, 5; 19:7-10 and Luke 6:37, 38 in the NET and KJV follow.

Matthew 5:31, 32 (NET)

Matthew 5:31, 32 (KJV)

“It was said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a legal document.’ It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Ἐρρέθη δέ· ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον ερρεθη δε οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου δοτω αυτη αποστασιον ερρεθη δε οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου δοτω αυτη αποστασιον
But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, |καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται| εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην μοιχασθαι και ος εαν απολελυμενην γαμηση μοιχαται εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου παρεκτος λογου πορνειας ποιει αυτην μοιχασθαι και ος εαν απολελυμενην γαμηση μοιχαται

Matthew 1:18-20 (NET)

Matthew 1:18-20 (KJV)

Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way.  While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Τοῦ δὲ |Ἰησοῦ| Χριστοῦ ἡ γένεσις οὕτως ἦν. μνηστευθείσης τῆς μητρὸς αὐτοῦ Μαρίας τῷ Ἰωσήφ, πρὶν ἢ συνελθεῖν αὐτοὺς εὑρέθη ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου του δε ιησου χριστου η γεννησις ουτως ην μνηστευθεισης γαρ της μητρος αυτου μαριας τω ιωσηφ πριν η συνελθειν αυτους ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου του δε ιησου χριστου η γεννησις ουτως ην μνηστευθεισης γαρ της μητρος αυτου μαριας τω ιωσηφ πριν η συνελθειν αυτους ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ πνευματος αγιου
Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Ἰωσὴφ δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς, δίκαιος ὢν καὶ μὴ θέλων αὐτὴν δειγματίσαι, ἐβουλήθη λάθρᾳ ἀπολῦσαι αὐτήν ιωσηφ δε ο ανηρ αυτης δικαιος ων και μη θελων αυτην παραδειγματισαι εβουληθη λαθρα απολυσαι αυτην ιωσηφ δε ο ανηρ αυτης δικαιος ων και μη θελων αυτην παραδειγματισαι εβουληθη λαθρα απολυσαι αυτην
When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.” But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

ταῦτα δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐνθυμηθέντος ἰδοὺ ἄγγελος κυρίου κατ᾿ ὄναρ ἐφάνη αὐτῷ λέγων· Ἰωσὴφ υἱὸς Δαυίδ, μὴ φοβηθῇς παραλαβεῖν Μαρίαν τὴν γυναῖκα σου· τὸ γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ γεννηθὲν ἐκ πνεύματος ἐστιν ἁγίου ταυτα δε αυτου ενθυμηθεντος ιδου αγγελος κυριου κατ οναρ εφανη αυτω λεγων ιωσηφ υιος δαβιδ μη φοβηθης παραλαβειν μαριαμ την γυναικα σου το γαρ εν αυτη γεννηθεν εκ πνευματος εστιν αγιου ταυτα δε αυτου ενθυμηθεντος ιδου αγγελος κυριου κατ οναρ εφανη αυτω λεγων ιωσηφ υιος δαυιδ μη φοβηθης παραλαβειν μαριαμ την γυναικα σου το γαρ εν αυτη γεννηθεν εκ πνευματος εστιν αγιου

Matthew 19:3 (NET)

Matthew 19:3 (KJV)

Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him.  They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?” The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ Φαρισαῖοι πειράζοντες αὐτὸν καὶ λέγοντες· εἰ ἔξεστιν  ἀπολῦσαι τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἰτίαν και προσηλθον αυτω οι φαρισαιοι πειραζοντες αυτον και λεγοντες αυτω ει εξεστιν ανθρωπω απολυσαι την γυναικα αυτου κατα πασαν αιτιαν και προσηλθον αυτω οι φαρισαιοι πειραζοντες αυτον και λεγοντες αυτω ει εξεστιν ανθρωπω απολυσαι την γυναικα αυτου κατα πασαν αιτιαν
1 Corinthians 10:9 (NET)

1 Corinthians 10:9 (KJV)

And let us not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by snakes. Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

μηδὲ ἐκπειράζωμεν τὸν |Χριστόν|, καθώς τινες αὐτῶν ἐπείρασαν καὶ ὑπὸ τῶν ὄφεων ἀπώλλυντο μηδε εκπειραζωμεν τον χριστον καθως και τινες αυτων επειρασαν και υπο των οφεων απωλοντο μηδε εκπειραζωμεν τον χριστον καθως και τινες αυτων επειρασαν και υπο των οφεων απωλοντο

1 Corinthians 10:13 (NET)

1 Corinthians 10:13 (KJV)

No trial has overtaken you that is not faced by others.  And God is faithful: He will not let you be tried beyond what you are able to bear, but with the trial will also provide a way out so that you may be able to endure it. There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

πειρασμὸς ὑμᾶς οὐκ εἴληφεν εἰ μὴ ἀνθρώπινος· πιστὸς δὲ ὁ θεός, ὃς οὐκ ἐάσει ὑμᾶς πειρασθῆναι ὑπὲρ ὃ δύνασθε ἀλλὰ ποιήσει σὺν τῷ πειρασμῷ καὶ τὴν ἔκβασιν τοῦ δύνασθαι ὑπενεγκεῖν πειρασμος υμας ουκ ειληφεν ει μη ανθρωπινος πιστος δε ο θεος ος ουκ εασει υμας πειρασθηναι υπερ ο δυνασθε αλλα ποιησει συν τω πειρασμω και την εκβασιν του δυνασθαι υμας υπενεγκειν πειρασμος υμας ουκ ειληφεν ει μη ανθρωπινος πιστος δε ο θεος ος ουκ εασει υμας πειρασθηναι υπερ ο δυνασθε αλλα ποιησει συν τω πειρασμω και την εκβασιν του δυνασθαι υμας υπενεγκειν

2 Corinthians 13:5 (NET)

2 Corinthians 13:5 (KJV)

Put yourselves to the test to see if you are in the faith; examine yourselves!  Or do you not recognize regarding yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you – unless, indeed, you fail the test! Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.  Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Ἑαυτοὺς πειράζετε εἰ ἐστὲ ἐν τῇ πίστει, ἑαυτοὺς δοκιμάζετε· ἢ οὐκ ἐπιγινώσκετε ἑαυτοὺς ὅτι Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν ὑμῖν; εἰ μήτι ἀδόκιμοι ἐστε εαυτους πειραζετε ει εστε εν τη πιστει εαυτους δοκιμαζετε η ουκ επιγινωσκετε εαυτους οτι ιησους χριστος εν υμιν εστιν ει μη τι αδοκιμοι εστε εαυτους πειραζετε ει εστε εν τη πιστει εαυτους δοκιμαζετε η ουκ επιγινωσκετε εαυτους οτι ιησους χριστος εν υμιν εστιν ει μη τι αδοκιμοι εστε
Matthew 19:4, 5 (NET)

Matthew 19:4, 5 (KJV)

He answered, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator made them male and female, And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν· οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ὅτι ὁ κτίσας ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις ουκ ανεγνωτε οτι ο ποιησας απ αρχης αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους ο δε αποκριθεις ειπεν αυτοις ουκ ανεγνωτε οτι ο ποιησας απ αρχης αρσεν και θηλυ εποιησεν αυτους
and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and will be united with his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

καὶ εἶπεν· ἕνεκα τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ κολληθήσεται τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν και ειπεν ενεκεν τουτου καταλειψει ανθρωπος τον πατερα και την μητερα και προσκολληθησεται τη γυναικι αυτου και εσονται οι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν και ειπεν ενεκεν τουτου καταλειψει ανθρωπος τον πατερα αυτου και την μητερα και προσκολληθησεται τη γυναικι αυτου και εσονται οι δυο εις σαρκα μιαν

Matthew 19:7-10 (NET)

Matthew 19:7-10 (KJV)

They said to him, “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?” They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

λέγουσιν αὐτῷ· τί οὖν Μωϋσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι λεγουσιν αυτω τι ουν μωσης ενετειλατο δουναι βιβλιον αποστασιου και απολυσαι αυτην λεγουσιν αυτω τι ουν μωσης ενετειλατο δουναι βιβλιον αποστασιου και απολυσαι αυτην
Jesus said to them, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because of your hard hearts, but from the beginning it was not this way. He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

λέγει αὐτοῖς ὅτι Μωϋσῆς πρὸς τὴν σκληροκαρδίαν ὑμῶν ἐπέτρεψεν ὑμῖν ἀπολῦσαι τὰς γυναῖκας ὑμῶν, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς δὲ οὐ γέγονεν οὕτως λεγει αυτοις οτι μωσης προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υμων επετρεψεν υμιν απολυσαι τας γυναικας υμων απ αρχης δε ου γεγονεν ουτως λεγει αυτοις οτι μωσης προς την σκληροκαρδιαν υμων επετρεψεν υμιν απολυσαι τας γυναικας υμων απ αρχης δε ου γεγονεν ουτως
Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.” And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται λεγω δε υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου ει μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται λεγω δε υμιν οτι ος αν απολυση την γυναικα αυτου μη επι πορνεια και γαμηση αλλην μοιχαται και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται
The disciples said to him, “If this is the case of a husband with a wife, it is better not to marry!” His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Λέγουσιν αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ  εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶν ἡ αἰτία τοῦ ἀνθρώπου μετὰ τῆς γυναικός, οὐ συμφέρει γαμῆσαι λεγουσιν αυτω οι μαθηται αυτου ει ουτως εστιν η αιτια του ανθρωπου μετα της γυναικος ου συμφερει γαμησαι λεγουσιν αυτω οι μαθηται αυτου ει ουτως εστιν η αιτια του ανθρωπου μετα της γυναικος ου συμφερει γαμησαι
Luke 6:37, 38 (NET)

Luke 6:37, 38 (KJV)

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

Καὶ μὴ κρίνετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ κριθῆτε· καὶ μὴ καταδικάζετε, καὶ οὐ μὴ καταδικασθῆτε. ἀπολύετε, καὶ ἀπολυθήσεσθε και μη κρινετε και ου μη κριθητε μη καταδικαζετε και ου μη καταδικασθητε απολυετε και απολυθησεσθε και μη κρινετε και ου μη κριθητε μη καταδικαζετε και ου μη καταδικασθητε απολυετε και απολυθησεσθε
Give, and it will be given to you: A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be poured into your lap.  For the measure you use will be the measure you receive.” Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text

δίδοτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν· μέτρον καλὸν πεπιεσμένον σεσαλευμένον ὑπερεκχυννόμενον δώσουσιν εἰς τὸν κόλπον ὑμῶν· γὰρ μέτρῳ μετρεῖτε ἀντιμετρηθήσεται ὑμῖν διδοτε και δοθησεται υμιν μετρον καλον πεπιεσμενον και σεσαλευμενον και υπερεκχυνομενον δωσουσιν εις τον κολπον υμων τω γαρ αυτω μετρω ω μετρειτε αντιμετρηθησεται υμιν διδοτε και δοθησεται υμιν μετρον καλον πεπιεσμενον και σεσαλευμενον και υπερεκχυνομενον δωσουσιν εις τον κολπον υμων τω γαρ αυτω μετρω ω μετρειτε αντιμετρηθησεται υμιν

1 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had οτι preceding Whoever.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

2 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had πᾶς here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ος αν (KJV: whosoever).

3 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἀπολύων here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had απολυση (KJV: shall put away).

5 Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven.  Give, and it will be given to you… (Luke 6:37, 38a NET) Context plays an interesting role here.  If Jesus had said judge, and you will be judged; condemn, and you will be condemned the translators would have been more likely to translate ἀπολύετε and ἀπολυθήσεσθε (forms of ἀπολύω) in the next phrase, “send away, and you will be sent away.”  As it is ἀπολύετε and ἀπολυθήσεσθε are not negated like judge and condemn, but stand with Give, and it will be given to you

7 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had δειγματίσαι here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had παραδειγματισαι (KJV: to make her a public example).

10 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had αυτω (KJV: unto him) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

11 The Stephanus Textus Receptus, Byzantine Majority Text and NA28 had ανθρωπω (KJV: for a man) here.  The NET parallel Greek text did not.

12 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had και (KJV: also) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

13 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had υμας (KJV: ye) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

15 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had αυτοις (KJV: unto them) here. The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

16 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had κτίσας here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ποιησας (KJV: he which made them).

25 The Stephanus Textus Receptus had ει μη here, where the NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text had simply μὴ.

26 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had και ο απολελυμενην γαμησας μοιχαται (KJV: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.