Tag Archives: Matthew 18:27

Paul’s Religious Mind Revisited, Part 4

Posted on by

Here are two different descriptions Paul wrote of himself, separated by an affliction.

Before the Affliction

 The Affliction

After the Affliction
“All things are lawful for me” – but I will not be controlled by anything.

1 Corinthians 6:12b (NET)

 For we do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, regarding the affliction that happened to us in the province of Asia, that we were burdened excessively, beyond our strength, so that we despaired even of living.  Indeed we felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against us, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead.  He delivered us from so great a risk of death, and he will deliver us.

2 Corinthians 1:8-10a (NET)

 For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.  For I don’t understand what I am doing.  For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate.  But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good.  But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.  For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it.  For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil I do not want!  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.

Romans 7:14-20 (NET)

I’ve listed these passages as “Before…” and “After the Affliction” because Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.[1]  I actually think that all of 1 Corinthians may have been written from somewhere deep within that affliction.  Paul’s pride—I will not be controlled by anything—was relative—I am…sold into slavery to sin.  I don’t believe it was pride in his own strength.  The sense of invincibility that comes with the Holy Spirit’s ἐγκράτεια is all too familiar (and I don’t do miracles or see visions or write Scripture).  The Greek word translated controlled is ἐξουσιασθήσομαι (a form of ἐξουσιάζω).  When Jesus’ disciples debated which of them was to be regarded as the greatest[2] (μείζων, a form of μέγας), He said (Luke 22:25-27 NET):

The kings of the Gentiles lord it over (κυριεύουσιν, a form of κυριεύω) them, and those in authority over (ἐξουσιάζοντες, another form of ἐξουσιάζω) them are called ‘benefactors.’  Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest (μείζων, a form of μέγας) among you must become like the youngest, and the leader (ἡγούμενος, a form of ἡγέομαι) like the one who serves (διακονῶν, a form of διακονέω).  For who is greater (μείζων, a form of μέγας), the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves (διακονῶν, a form of διακονέω)?  Is it not the one who is seated at the table?  But I am among you as one who serves (διακονῶν, a form of διακονέω).

The other occurrences of forms of ἐξουσιάζω refer to control over a husband’s or wife’s body because of πορνείας (a form of πορνεία) in Corinth.  It is not the wife who has the rights (ἐξουσιάζει, another form of ἐξουσιάζω) to her own body, but the husband.  In the same way, it is not the husband who has the rights (ἐξουσιάζει, another form of ἐξουσιάζω) to his own body, but the wife.[3]  The NKJV reads: The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.  And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.[4]  The negation οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει is absolute.  I don’t believe such slavery is to be exercised apart from mutual consent on a moment by moment basis.  To force my wife to have sex with me by the strength of my arm or a “law of Paul” is not love.

The Greek word translated sold into slavery is πεπραμένος (a form of πιπράσκω).  Because he was not able to repay it, Jesus told a parable about the kingdom of heaven, the lord ordered him to be sold (πραθῆναι, another form of πιπράσκω), along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made.[5]  The slave (δοῦλος) asked his lord for mercy.  The lord had compassion on that slave (δούλου, another form of δοῦλος) and released him, and forgave him the debt[6] until that slave would not forgive a fellow slave.

I’ve referred to Romans 7 often (in Romans, Part 28 most fully) as a description of a “house divided, one born of the flesh and of the Spirit”: 1) our old man (παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος; literally, “our old human”) was crucified with [Jesus] so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved (δουλεύειν, a form of δουλεύω) to sin;[7] and 2) the new man (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον; literally, “the new human”) who has been created in God’s image – in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.[8]  The one thing I would correct here is: “I believe, however, that through faith I, the new man or woman, lay claim to more and more of my mind and my members.”

I want to correct what I was apparently thinking more than what I actually wrote.  I assumed without grounds that the maturity of the new human through faith led to more independence.  I’ve tripped over this assumption often without ever acknowledging it.  The sentence of death has been passed against us who believe: Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.[9]  Identifying with the new me cannot mean simply transferring allegiance from the old me to the new me who has been created in God’s image.

The new me is spirit, born of the Spirit; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  Maturity of the new human leads to more and more dependence upon his Holy Spirit.  As 1 Corinthians 13 is a practical description of love, Romans 7:14-20 is a practical description of humbling oneself before God because it accurately describes the human condition vis-à-vis God the Father.  We tear down arguments and every arrogant obstacle that is raised up against the knowledge of God, Paul wrote believers in Corinth, and we take every thought captive to make it obey (ὑπακοὴν, a form of ὑπακοή) Christ.[10]

The verb obey would have been a form of ὑπακούω, “to hear under (as a subordinate), that is, to listen attentively.”  The clause καὶ αἰχμαλωτίζοντες πᾶν νόημα εἰς τὴν ὑπακοὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ reads “and we lead away captive each thought into the attentive hearkening of Christ.”  I’m not even depending on my attentive hearkening or obedience as a new human, but on Christ’s attentive hearkening or obedience through his Spirit, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father.  With this in mind I’ll continue to look at “Paul’s Regime” and “Jesus’ Regime.”

Paul’s Regime

Jesus’ Regime
I wrote you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people.  In no way did I mean the immoral people of this world, or the greedy and swindlers and idolaters, since you would then have to go out of the world.  But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian who is sexually immoral, or greedy, or an idolater, or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler.  Do not even eat with such a person.  For what do I have to do with judging those outside?  Are you not to judge those inside?  But God will judge those outside.  Remove the evil person from among you.

1 Corinthians 5:9-13 (NET) Table1 Table2

 And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations – he will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father – and I will give him the morning star.  The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Revelation 2:26-29 (NET)

 

Here Paul gave a fragment of the letter that preceded 1 Corinthians: [Do] not…associate with sexually immoral people (πόρνοις, a form of πόρνος).  He didn’t mean the πόρνοις of this world, but didn’t make that clear apparently.  In other words, what was written in the prior letter was the teaching (yeast, Matthew 16:5-12) of the Pharisees: Now when the Pharisee who had invited [Jesus] saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”[11]  Now all the tax collectors and sinners were coming to hear [Jesus].  But the Pharisees and the experts in the law were complaining, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.”[12]

The teaching of the Pharisees also helps explain why Paul used ζύμη in such a peculiar way, the yeast (ζύμῃ) of vice and evil.  For Jesus, The kingdom of heaven is like yeast (ζύμῃ), and, the kingdom of God…is like yeast (ζύμῃ).  He warned his disciples, Be on your guard against the [teaching] (ζύμης, another form of ζύμη) of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy (ὑπόκρισις).[13]

Israel was instructed to eat the Passover dressed to travel, your sandals on your feet, and your staff in your hand.  You are to eat it in haste.[14]  The meaning of unleavened bread, bread without yeast, in the Passover meal was that the swiftness of Israel’s liberation from Egyptian captivity would not allow time for their bread to rise.  It is stated clearly in Exodus 12:33, 34 (NET):

The Egyptians were urging the people on, in order to send them out of the land quickly, for they were saying, “We are all dead!”  So the people took their dough before the yeast was added, with their kneading troughs bound up in their clothing on their shoulders.

While it is understandable that after centuries of eating unleavened bread at a holy festival, “In later times, ‘leaven’ and ‘corruption’ were regarded as synonymous terms,”[15] it is also fairly clearly the thought of religious minds.  It was not ignorance: “During the festival of Maẓẓot [Passover] it was strictly forbidden to eat anything leavened…The reason for this prohibition is given in Ex. xii. 34-39…”[16]  It was an active preference for the teaching of revered religious leaders or other human authorities, the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees and Herod.

To believers in Galatia Paul wrote about the teaching of the one who is confusing (ταράσσων, a form of ταράσσω) you,[17] that Gentile believers in Galatia should be circumcised, and called it ζύμη: A little yeast (ζύμη) makes the whole batch of dough rise![18]  Though he was confident in the Lord the Galatians would reject that teaching in favor of his own, the former Pharisee did not yet call his ζύμη.

But now I am writing to you, Paul continued to believers in Corinth, not to associate with anyone who calls himself a Christian (ἀδελφὸς) who is sexually immoral (πόρνος), or greedy, or an idolater (εἰδωλολάτρης), or verbally abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler.  Do not even eat with such a person.[19]  The Greek word translated to associate with is συναναμίγνυσθαι (a form of συναναμίγνυμι).  The same word was translated do [not] associate closely in a letter to believers in Thessalonica: But if anyone does not obey our message through this letter, take note of him and do not associate closely (συναναμίγνυσθαι, a form of συναναμίγνυμι) with him, so that he may be ashamed.  Yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother (ἀδελφόν, another form of ἀδελφός).[20]  Paul used μὴ the qualified negation in both instances.

The former sounds like excommunication while the latter sounds like some kind of in-house suspension.  But I can’t blame the translators.  To the Corinthians Paul wrote, Remove the evil person from among you.[21]  To the Thessalonians he wrote, do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.  To the Corinthians he wrote of πόρνος and εἰδωλολάτρης.  Jesus had John write to the angel of the church in Thyatira about a woman who by her teaching deceives my servants (δούλους, another form of δοῦλος) to commit sexual immorality (πορνεῦσαι, a form of πορνεύω) and to eat food sacrificed to idols (εἰδωλόθυτα, a form of εἰδωλόθυτον).[22]  I am throwing…those who commit adultery (μοιχεύοντας, a form of μοιχεύω) with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds.  Furthermore, I will strike her followers (τέκνα, a form of τέκνον; literally, children) with a deadly disease (θανάτῳ, a form of θάνατος; literally, death)…[23]

Jesus’ distinction between his deceived servants—terrible suffering (θλῖψιν μεγάλην)—and Jezebel’s followers—deadly disease (θανάτῳ, death)—was part of what caught my attention and encouraged me to compare and contrast Jesus’ and Paul’s regimes.  Who but Jesus could make this judgment?  Outwardly both groups were committing adultery with (μετ᾿, a form of μετά) her, possibly but not necessarily as her partner, inspired by her teaching, probably within a group she led.  What I didn’t fully appreciate until doing this study was how fluid and continuous these groups were over time.  Individuals in either group may have repented and Jesus’ deceived servants may have continued in Jezebel’s teaching and become her followers.  Paul’s fear that false teaching might also function as yeast is not completely unfounded.  The human preference for human teachers as opposed to being led (John 16:12-16) by the Holy Spirit is not something I can wish away.

I’ll pick this up in another essay.

[1] Proverbs 16:18 (NET) Table

[2] Luke 22:24b (NET)

[3] 1 Corinthians 7:4 (NET)

[4] 1 Corinthians 7:4 (NKJV)

[5] Matthew 18:25 (NET) Table

[6] Matthew 18:27 (NET)

[7] Romans 6:6 (NET)

[8] Ephesians 4:24 (NET)

[9] Romans 6:3, 4 (NET)

[10] 2 Corinthians 10:4b, 5 (NET)  Both noun and verb are found in Romans 6:16 – ὑπακοήν and ὑπακοῆς (forms of ὑπακοή), ὑπακούετε (a form of ὑπακούω). Also Hebrews 5:8, 9 – ὑπακοήν (a form of ὑπακοή), ὑπακούουσιν (a form of ὑπακούω).

[11] Luke 7:39 (NET)

[12] Luke 15:1, 2 (NET)

[13] Luke 12:1 (NET)  The actual word order is: “the yeast which is hypocrisy of the Pharisees.”  The argument could be made that yeast means hypocrisy in this case.  I’m sticking with teaching on the assumption that Jesus would have said simply hypocrisy if that’s all He meant to say.

[14] Exodus 12:11 (NET)

[15] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9694-leaven

[16] http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9694-leaven

[17] Galatians 5:10b (NET)

[18] Galatians 5:9 (NET)

[19] 1 Corinthians 5:11 (NET) Table

[20] 2 Thessalonians 3:14, 15 (NET)

[21] 1 Corinthians 5:13b (NET) Table

[22] Revelation 2:20 (NET)

[23] Revelation 2:22, 23a (NET)

Torture, Part 2

Posted on by

And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture (βασανισταῖς, a form of βασανιστής)[1] him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, a form of ἀφίημι)[2] your brother from your heart.[3]  It seems here that Jesus stated rather matter-of-factly that his Father would turn the unforgiving over to torturers.  He did not say that God would torture them Himself but implied that others would do it for Him.  Perhaps I was too hasty dismissing Jonathan Edward’s claim that God is the superlative torturer.

This metaphor—the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts (λόγον, a form of λόγος)[4] with his slaves[5]—was given in answer to Peter’s question, Lord, how many times must I forgive (ἀφήσω, a form of ἀφίημι) my brother who sins against me?[6]  The settling of these accounts is very reminiscent of, I tell you, Jesus said, that on the day of judgment, people will give an account (λόγον) for every worthless word (πᾶν[7] ρῆμα[8] ἀργὸν[9]) they speak (λαλήσουσιν, a form of λαλέω).[10]

A man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to the king.[11]  When he was not able to repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made.[12]  I suggested that the only account that matters at a moment like this is, God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am![13]  That is essentially the account this slave gave.  He did not try to dispute the debt.  He threw himself to the ground before him, saying, “Be patient (μακροθύμησον, a form of μακροθυμέω)[14] with me, and I will repay you everything.”[15]

Love is patient (μακροθυμεῖ, another form of μακροθυμέω),[16] so, The lord had compassion on that slave and released (ἀπέλυσεν, a form of ἀπολύω)[17] him, and forgave (ἀφῆκεν, a form of ἀφίημι) him the debt.[18]  I can’t help but connect ἀπέλυσεν (a form of ἀπολύω) here with λύω[19] in, I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release (λύσητε, a form of λύω) on earth will have been released (λελυμένα, a form of λύω) in heaven.[20]  It causes me to suspect that Jesus has his thumb on the scale of binding and releasing in favor of releasing, and that this metaphor is also aimed back at that statement.

After he went out, the metaphor about the kingdom of heaven continued, that same slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him one hundred silver coins.[21]  The fellow slave asked for the same patience, but the first slave threw him in prison until he repaid the debt.[22]  Then his lord called the first slave and said to him, “Evil slave! I forgave (ἀφῆκα, a form of ἀφίημι) you all that debt because you begged me!  Should you not have shown mercy (ἐλεῆσαι, a form of ἐλεέω)[23] to your fellow slave, just as I showed it (ἠλέησα, a form of ἐλεέω) to you?”[24]

That brings me back to the beginning of this essay: And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture (βασανισταῖς, a form of βασανιστής) him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, a form of ἀφίημι) your brother from your heart.[25]  So it seems that debt in the metaphor is equivalent to sins in the kingdom of heaven.

If I accept Edward’s contention that Jesus’ heavenly Father is the superlative torturer, then this metaphor seems to describe how one might expiate his own sins by becoming God’s victim, by satisfying some portion of the Father’s desire to torture someone for some unspecified period of time.  That interpretation would make this a unique passage in all the New Testament to say the least.  And it doesn’t offer much guidance why this “Torturer” would let some off easy.  Why should any escape the torture he so desired to give them by forgiving sins, the very currency that justified the “Torturer’s” torture?  In fact, why would this “Torturer” ever forgive anyone’s sins at all, or encourage such forgiveness?

On the other hand, if I consider that a man who could not pay a debt before being handed over to daily torture is unlikely to raise the funds after he is so preoccupied, then I might consider that—So also my heavenly Father will do to you—means that the unforgiving will never get out of the prison into which He confines them.  That sounds like Christians, the forgiven, who do not forgive others will go to hell.

Most Christians I know have rules against that.  In fact, I suspect that most Christians I know would not consider themselves to be great sinners who were forgiven much and were called by God to forgive lesser sinners than themselves.  I think most would consider themselves to be more like the second slave, relatively good people who deserve to be forgiven for their relatively few sins but are not forgiven, rather they are persecuted by greater sinners than they are and long for the day when God will rise up and send their persecutors to hell.

This is one of the first times I’ve used the term Christian in these essays.  I’m not sure if the Christians I know would be willing to accept me as a Christian if they read these essays.  Frankly, if Christian has come to mean something other than little Christ, a repentant sinner following Jesus into the righteousness of love, I’m not sure I would fight very hard over the word.  It can go the way of charity and temperance for all I care.  For all I know more people would repent of their sinfulness and follow Jesus into the righteousness of love if they didn’t have to become Christians to do it.  But fundamentalist Christians are my people by birth.

I still feel embarrassment and shame that the word Christian is practically synonymous with unforgiving.  Still, I can’t say that the Holy Spirit has brought this metaphor to my mind to remind me to forgive others.  My daily prayer asking the Lord to forgive us as we ourselves have forgiven[26] others has been sufficient for that.  The only time this metaphor comes to mind is when my Christian friends use their rules or reasons to attempt to persuade me that I am too forgiving.

I don’t think I respond to this metaphor in fear of hell or torture.  I think I recognize that I am not an Apostle.  I don’t present the Gospel with the signs of an apostle…by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.[27]  Except for the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, and the willingness to forgive others that the Lord can force into, and wrench out of, this repentant sinner my Gospel presentation is idle talk; and the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.[28]

Still, this metaphor includes a category of lesser sinners.  Is this my error?  I have assumed that—I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh[29]—applied to Paul.  Not all Christians do.  For I want to do the good, Paul continued, but I cannot do it.[30]  That certainly applied to me, and I reasoned backward that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—also applied to me.  But beyond that I have assumed that it applied to all sinners.  I am completely dependent on God’s mercy and grace, no question about it.  But are there others who are not so dependent?

Are there Christians who are lesser sinners?  Christians who are mostly righteous by their own innate goodness and/or their own obedience to the law?  Christians who require less forgiveness, less of the fruit of God’s Spirit, less grace and less mercy than I require because of their own righteousness?  I don’t see that in Scripture, but does that mean it isn’t there?  Or is it due to my own blindness because I am such a great sinner?  Are the things that concern me in these essays just nitpicking persecution of the good Christians who are more righteous than I am?  Or are the good Christians in error when they assume that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—could not have applied to Saul after he was called by Jesus as the Apostle Paul?  Do they overestimate their own righteousness when they assume that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—could not possibly apply to them as the redeemed of the Lord?

As a repentant great sinner I have no objective place to stand to answer those questions.  I need to approach it differently.

In Matthew’s Gospel account I read, Meanwhile the boat, already far from land, was taking a beating (βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω)[31] from the waves because the wind was against it.[32]  Here, βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω, the root word of βασανιστής (βασανισταῖς, torture, is a form of βασανιστής), expressed the conflict of a contrary wind.  And in Mark’s Gospel account Jesus saw his disciples straining (βασανιζομένους, a form of βασανίζω) at the oars, because the wind was against them.[33]  Here “torture” is the strain of rowing against a contrary wind.

As I considered these things I saw the film “Adore.”  It became a thought experiment in forgiveness.  I will be spoiling the film for anyone who things it spoiled by knowing its plot.

Lil and Roz were best friends since childhood.  They grew up and had sons, Ian and Tom, also best friends.  One day, lying on the beach together, watching their grown sons surf, they marveled, “Did we do that?”

“They’re beautiful,” Roz said while Lil nodded.  “They’re like young gods.”

Ian was first to make a play for Roz.  She tried to restrain herself, but what mortal woman can resist the amorous advances of a young god?  When Tom saw what his mother was up to, he made a spiteful play for Lil.  Lil held out a scene longer than Roz but eventually she, too, fell prey to another young god.  And so far, even as a Christian, I can follow this tale.  Though she may withstand the charms of a thousand mere mortals, the young god will not be denied apart from the ἐγκράτεια of the Holy Spirit

When Tom came home one morning after being out all night, Roz asked, “Hey, where have you been?”

“At Lil’s, doing to her what Ian’s been doing to you,” her impertinent son replied.

Roz slapped him and went off to confront Lil.  I could hear the contrary wind howling and see the storm clouds brewing.  Obviously this film intended to recount the tragic tale of a friendship ripped apart by fateful indiscretions.   But, no.  As lifelong friends and repentant sinners Roz and Lil forgave each other instead.  And I call them repentant sinners because they both acknowledged that they were wrong and that it could never happen again.  While a repentant sinner may find it relatively easy to forgive another for the very same sin she is guilty of, it is a more difficult matter for Christians.

Lil was a widow and Tom was a young single man, but they had sex before they were married.  That is sexual immorality according to most contemporary Christians.  (It was marriage according to some of their ancestors.)  Ian was a young single man but Roz was married.  That is adultery.  A Christian cannot forgive sexual immorality or adultery unless the sinner repents in a more formal way, demonstrates some sorrow over sin, and promises to take appropriate steps not to repeat that sin.  Looking into one another’s eyes and seeing into another’s heart may be good enough for repentant sinners, but Christians have rules to maintain.

Roz and Lil couldn’t stop sinning.  They decided they didn’t have to.  They decided to enjoy the time they had, knowing full well their young gods would get bored with them eventually.  One might say, For the joy set out for them they endured the cross of being rejected for younger, prettier women, disregarding its shame…[34]  So Roz and Lil forgave each other for their lack of ἐγκράτεια (translated, self-control).

This forgiveness is a bit more difficult even for repentant sinners.  Others may question, even the sinners themselves may question, whether they are repentant sinners at all or simply unrepentant sinners.  I’ll continue to accept them as repentant sinners since they were resolved to accept the painful consequence of their sin.  What Roz and Lil discovered was not so much a change in the state of their repentance as an inability to quit their sin.

Forgiving continual, repetitive sin may be the most difficult of all for Christians.  Rules are flouted flagrantly.  Any demonstration of repentance seems dishonest at best.  But continual, repetitive sin is what Peter referred to when he asked, Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother who sins against me?  As many as seven times?[35]  Not seven times, I tell you, Jesus answered, but seventy-seven times![36]  The note in the NET reads: “Or ‘seventy times seven,’ i.e., an unlimited number of times…”  Discovering one’s own inability to quit sin is a watershed moment for Christians.

It is that time when we may understand, and join in with, Paul, saying, Indeed we felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against us, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead.[37]  It is that time when we either learn to rely on the credited righteousness of God, the fruit of his Spirit, or we turn from Christ to take cold showers, think about baseball, or whatever other strategy we might come up with to establish our own righteousness, develop our own virtue, and maintain our own pride.

Roz and Lil were oblivious to all of this.  Neither studied Paul’s letters.  No one knowledgeable in the Scriptures came forward to teach them.  But they loved one another and they forgave one another.  Ian and Tom were also best friends.  Their story is not told in as great of detail but apparently they loved one another and forgave one another, too.  All four settled into their new life for a time.

fig. 1

fig. 1

Sunning themselves on the floating dock Roz and Lil swam to as children became the visual metaphor for peace and tranquility in the film (fig.1).  It is a beautiful counter-image to the contrary-wind-straining-at-the-oars image Jesus promised those who refused to forgive one another.

I’m not suggesting that forgiveness alone facilitated this idyllic equilibrium.  The two couples had shared a meal that functioned as a wedding feast in their microcosm.  Ian stood after dinner.  “Where are you going?” Roz asked.

“To your room,” Ian said as he walked away.  It was an awkward moment.  Roz had been publicly summoned to attend to the amorous desires of her young god.  It was an expression of Ian’s desire to be sure, but it was also a command no less than David’s summons of Bathsheba.  Lil knew it was no way for her son to speak to her best friend.  Tom knew it was no way for his best friend to speak to his mother.  But Tom also understood what was at stake.

“See you at yours,” Tom announced to Lil, and left the women alone to decide their next move.  They were free within the constraints of their joy and pleasure to accept or reject the boys’ assertions of rights over them.  Young gods they might be, but they were not kings.  It may seem like blackmail to some, but the women had the same joy and pleasure to offer.  They could have called their sons’ bluffs and waited them out at the dinner table to negotiate more favorable terms.  Apparently they surrendered to their lovers’ demands unconditionally.

From then on it was clear.  Though Roz was Tom’s mother, she was also Ian’s woman.  Though Lil was Ian’s mother, she was also Tom’s woman.  Though Tom was Roz’s son, he was also Lil’s man.  And though Ian was Lil’s son, he was also Roz’s man.  Yet Roz and Lil were still less than wives.  For they were still mothers and grandmothers-in-waiting who fully expected their sons to discard them for younger more fertile women.  The women not only relinquished the honor due them as mothers, but the fidelity due them as wives.  Clearly, they gave the most for these idyllic moments of peace and tranquility.

Tom was first to break the peace.  He journeyed to Sydney to direct a musical.  Lil knew that he was enchanted by Mary, his leading lady, even before he did.  She could hear it in his voice on the phone.  When Tom returned Lil sadly backed away to give way to Mary.  Roz, whether devoted to Lil or conscience-stricken herself, cut Ian off and sent him out to find a young woman of his own.  Both women promised to be good mothers-in-law, pillars of the community and grandmothers.

Roz’s uncharacteristic moral absoluteness seemed like an unjust and foreign law to Ian, like conquest and enslavement by an alien king.  He was content to remain faithful to his lover.  He couldn’t understand why he should be punished for Tom’s sin.  He took up with Hannah at Tom’s wedding to spite Roz.  He returned to Roz later that night.  He banged on her locked door, but she wouldn’t let him in.  Hannah, however, was devoted to him.

“She’s great,” Ian said of Hannah.  “She couldn’t be nicer.  I just…You know.”

“Yeah,” Tom replied.  He not only understood how Ian yearned for Roz, it was apparent he shared that yearning for Lil.

“Pretty soon I’m going to have to give her the elbow,” Ian said of Hannah.  But Hannah was pregnant.

Years passed before the next scene: Roz and Tom and Mary and their daughter scampered down to the beach with Lil and Ian and Hannah and their daughter.  The two little girls seemed to be on their way to becoming best friends.  Apparently Roz and Lil and Ian and Tom had forgiven one another again, and reached a new idyllic equilibrium, that included Hannah and Mary and their daughters.  But it didn’t last.

Ian discovered Tom and Lil that night and realized they had carried on a secret affair.  Though Ian had apparently resigned himself to Roz’s alien law he was clearly not a poet of it, but an actor, a hypocrite.  Angrily, resentfully, he blew the whistle on Tom and Lil in front of Hannah and Mary, and all the details of their pasts came to light.  Hannah was hurt and confused, but seemed to want to understand.  Mary, the actor, the hypocrite who seduced Tom as he attempted to be faithful to Lil, would have none of it.  She woke her daughter and left that night, encouraging Hannah and her daughter to leave with them.

In the end Roz and Ian, Lil and Tom were together again on the floating dock, though it was not so idyllic as before (fig. 2).  Mary and Hannah and their daughters were missing.  It was not hard to imagine angry waves beating against their little ships, as they strained at the oars against a contrary wind.  Mary could blame her circumstances on Tom’s and Lil’s sin.  Hannah could blame Ian and Roz.  But would they ever see that it was their own unforgiving hearts that had abandoned them to torment?

fig. 2

fig. 2

Roz had made room for Hannah and her daughter in her heart (as the filmmakers made room for them on the floating dock).  Ian was clearly a one woman man.  Admittedly, forgiveness might have come harder for Mary.  Lil had no self-control.  Tom gave no evidence that his harem would be complete with only two women.  But even Mary could do worse than to live among such forgiving repentant sinners.  Still, I don’t think the filmmakers intended to produce a treatise on forgiveness.

That was the mood I was in and the subject of my meditation when I saw it.  If “Adore” had some point beyond being an interesting, provocative movie I suppose it was a feminist cautionary tale.  Roz and Lil would have created less havoc in their sons’ lives if they had simply become lesbian lovers rather than expressing their love for each other by proxy, through their sons.  It’s not hard to see why “Adore” wasn’t a fan favorite among Christians.  This is the kind of film that makes Christians feel like Lot, living among the people of Sodom, day after day, that righteous man was tormented (ἐβασάνιζεν, a form of βασανίζω) in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard…[38]

And I don’t mean to suggest that Lot (or Christians for that matter) should unilaterally forgive people to escape such torment.  We forgive repentant sinners because God has forgiven us.  Apparently, there were no repentant sinners in Sodom for Lot to forgive.  The inhabitants of Sodom were descendants of Canaan.  The origin of the Canaanites for better or worse is traced back to Noah’s curse.

Noah drank wine and exposed himself in a drunken stupor.  His son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers.[39]  Apparently Ham’s attitude was more judgmental and derogatory than mere reportage.  When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him.[40]  So he cursed Ham’s son, Cursed be Canaan!  The lowest of slaves he will be to his brothers.[41]

I’ve heard it preached that Noah was such a holy prophet God was honor-bound to fulfill even his curse.  This interpretation made some sense when I believed that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord[42] because Noah was a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries.  He walked with God.[43]  As I began to believe that God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden,[44] I began to believe that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord because the Lord chose to have mercy on him.  It followed naturally that Noah was a godly man, and was blameless among his contemporaries, and walked with God because he found favor in the sight of the Lord, because the Lord chose to have mercy on him.

Even a prophet, a herald of righteousness,[45] like Noah could have a bad hangover one morning, slip the leash, so to speak, of the Holy Spirit’s ἐγκράτεια (translated, self-control) and say something foolish.  Despite the enormity of its impact tracked over many generations I don’t think Noah’s curse had any more or less power than any other grandfather’s hateful words to his grandson.

fig. 3

fig. 3

Though he died about forty-one years before Sodom was destroyed (fig. 3), he lived long enough to see what Canaan’s descendants became.  [Addendum: January 14, 2019 I may have been a bit too uncritical here of the dates in the Masoretic text.  See: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?]  The Bible doesn’t say whether Noah regretted that curse or spent his last three centuries or so trying to justify it.  But it seems to me, even as a Christian, that it would be better to forgive my son’s offense, even unilaterally, than to curse my grandson for it.

As I consider how difficult it is for Christians to forgive anyone for anything, it becomes easier to understand why Jesus threatened us with torture.  I hope others can forgive me for refusing to see Matthew 18:35 as a proof-text for Jonathan Edward’s claim that God is the superlative torturer.

[3] Matthew 18:34, 35 (NET)

[5] Matthew 18:23 (NET)

[6] Matthew 18:21 (NET)

[10] Matthew 12:36 (NET)

[11] Matthew 18:24b (NET)

[12] Matthew 18:25 (NET) Table

[13] Luke 18:13b (NET)

[15] Matthew 18:26 (NET) Table

[16] 1 Corinthians 13:4a (NET)

[18] Matthew 18:27 (NET)

[20] Matthew 18:18 (NET) Table

[21] Matthew 18:28a (NET) Table

[22] Matthew 18:30 (NET) Table

[24] Matthew 18:32, 33 (NET) Table

[25] Matthew 18:34, 35 (NET) Table

[26] Matthew 6:12 (NET) Table

[27] 2 Corinthians 12:12 (NET)

[28] 1 Corinthians 4:20 (NET)

[29] Romans 7:18a (NET)

[30] Romans 7:18b (NET)

[32] Matthew 14:24 (NET)

[33] Mark 6:48a (NET)

[34] An impertinent paraphrase of Hebrews 12:2 (NET)

[35] Matthew 18:21 (NET)

[36] Matthew 18:22 (NET)

[37] 2 Corinthians 1:9 (NET)

[38] 2 Peter 2:8 (NET)

[39] Genesis 9:22 (NET)

[40] Genesis 9:24 (NET)

[41] Genesis 9:25 (NET)

[42] Genesis 6:8 (NET)

[43] Genesis 6:9 (NET)

[44] Romans 9:18 (NET)

Immorality

Posted on by

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 ὁ 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· ᾧ 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 ὁ 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.