A Review of Maurice Barnett's Two Articles
and a Study Of Mark 10:11,12
Mark 10:11,12 by Maurice Barnett
Mark 10:11,12 Revisited, by Maurice Barnett
When one reads Mark 10:11, "And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her," against whom does he conclude that the adultery is being committed?
Who is the "her" of ver. 11? There are brethren who say that the man's adultery is committed against his wife. There are other brethren who claim that the man's adultery is committed against the second woman and not the wife. The purpose of this study is to reach the right conclusion about this matter by examining the grammar and context of Mark 10:2-12. Our study will consist of a review of two published articles on the subject by brother Maurice Barnett (not a word of his exhaustive studies is omitted), and then a number of concluding notes of my own.
This is a lengthy review. Near the beginning of his first article, brother Barnett said that it would be necessary for him to be, "technical and detailed." Obviously, in order to answer an article that is "technical and detailed" one must also be "technical and detailed." This fact, coupled with the fact that I have reproduced brother Barnett's articles in their entirety, makes this a lengthy document. I trust, however, that this will make for a fair and thorough study of both sides of this question.
In order to distinguish my comments from brother Barnett's, my comments are in red Book Antiqua font.
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery."
Though reading a little differently from other passages on this same subject, there is no contradiction between any of them. There is no "exception clause" here as we find in Matthew 5:32 or 19:9, but neither is such a clause in Luke 16:18, nor other passages on marriage and remarriage. Each of the places on the subject, Matthew 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18, Romans 7:2-3, I Corinthians 7:10-11, gives us something different. This is in the same way that Matthew 28, Mark 16 and Luke 24 on the "great commission," though varying in details, are in complete harmony. Each gives us information not found in the others. This is true on any number of subjects and in many passages.
The controversy on Mark 10 centers on the application of the personal pronoun "her." A personal pronoun is a word that stands in the place of a noun. But, who is the antecedent of the personal pronoun, "her," in verse 11? Who is the person that "her" refers to? Does the personal pronoun apply to the wife who has been put away or the second woman the man has married? Because controversy has existed relative to the grammar and construction of these passages, it will be necessary to be technical and detailed in taking apart their structure.However, for a proper understanding of the matter, not only must the "grammar and construction" of Mk. 10:11 be considered, but also the context of the passage (vv.2-12). This Maurice totally ignores in his treatise! Of course, he has to do so in order to give his argument a semblance of truth.
First, the antecedent of pronouns. There are three clauses in verse 11. The first clause says, "Whosoever shall put away his wife." The subject of the clause is a man, though the word "man" is not stated in the text. It is understood from the gender of the pronoun "his" and the relationship indicated in the clause. The verb is "shall put away." The direct object of the verb is the word "wife" (Greek, gune). Gune may mean just a woman or it may refer to a woman who is a wife. No, "Whosoever" finds its antecedent in "man" of v. 2 (and 7). Maurice from the beginning of his article ignores context! As to gune, in v. 11 Maurice knows that it means "wife," and not just "woman," since this gune belongs to the man ("his gune"). So, all versions translate it "wife." There is no word in the Greek language to say "wife" (or, "husband" -- only "his woman," or "her man"). -- Incidentally, the NKJV in v.12 should also read, "wife" (as it does in v.11), and not "woman." It is feminine gender and singular in number. Its case is accusative which indicates only that it is the object of the verb, "put away." This clause is joined to the next clause by a coordinate conjunction, "and" (kai). No issue here.
The second clause is "marry another." The unstated subject is the same "man" of the first clause. The verb is "marry." The object of the verb is the word "another." An assertion has been made that this second clause is subordinate to the first clause, amounting to nothing but a parenthesis. This is said in order to, somehow, push it out of the way and tie the third clause, "(he) commits adultery against her" to the first clause so that "her" refers to the put away woman. But, that is not possible.I make no such assertion, because without the second clause, the third one would not be true! Simply putting away a wife is not committing adultery, how much less against someone! The reason that the "her" refers to the wife who is put away, and not to the "another" (woman), is that the issue at hand has to do with a man and his wife (ver. 2) and not with a man and some other woman that he might marry. What the man (husband) does is in reference to his wife! The "another" is mentioned only to complete the case that adultery has been committed. (Adultery could not be committed without another woman being involved). But such a one was no part of the Pharisees' captious question put to Jesus, nor of Jesus' teaching in reply to the Pharisees' question. Let us stay with the context!)
First, kai (and) is a coordinate conjunction. Daniel Wallace in his book, Greek Grammar Beyond Basics, page 667, says, "The coordinate conjunction links equal elements together, e.g., a subject (or other part of speech) to a subject (or other part of speech), sentence to sentence, or paragraph to paragraph." Most any Greek Grammar will say the same thing. It means that (kai and) joins words or phrases of equal status. "(He) marries another" cannot be subordinate to the first clause; it cannot be a parenthesis. The action in the third clause depends on that of both the first and second clauses. It takes the process of putting away one person followed by remarrying someone else to result in "commits adultery against her" in this verse.True.
Is it not interesting that Baptist preachers make the same argument on Acts 2:38 regarding the conjunction kai? They insist that "and (kai) be baptized" is a parenthesis and thus "for the remission of sins" has application only to "repent." That is just as valid as the assertion on Mark 10:11.True.
The word, "another" in the second clause is from the Greek word allos. Allos is an indefinite pronoun.Another outspoken brother on this issue, considered in agreement with Maurice in the present controversy, believes that it is an "adjective and substantive." I agree with Maurice that it is an indefinite pronoun.
It is indefinite because it does not name a specific person. Though the word "woman" is not specifically stated in the text, it is a noun that is included in allos. "Woman" is a part of the word itself because the form of the word, allein, is feminine gender. The significance of that meaning in grammatical structure is common in Greek. Allein is singular in number because only one woman is being considered. It is accusative case because it is the direct object of the verb "marry."The word "woman" is understood in allein and the word woman is a noun, but the word allein is not a noun! The word "woman" is part of the word itself because the word stands for the noun "woman" at the first part of the verse! That is what makes this pronoun feminine gender and singular in number. Without "woman" (gune) in the first clause, there would be no pronoun allein in the second clause!
It has been insisted by some that allein in this passage is an adjective and can thus be dismissed as an antecedent of the personal pronoun, her. By saying that, some hope to prove that only the put away wife can be the antecedent and thus, in some way, the adultery is actually committed against the put away wife.According to Webster's 20th Century Dictionary, unabridged, a pronoun (pro + noun = for a noun) is "in grammar, a word used in the place of or as a substitute for a noun." It also states that "another," standing alone, is a pronoun! (The word "another," before a noun -- e.g., another book -- is an adjective, but such is not the grammatical construction in Mk. 10:11).
An adjective modifies a noun in that it changes or describes a noun, but what noun does allein (another) modify?Allein here is an indefinite pronoun, as Maurice has earlier stated. It is not an adjective but an indefinite pronoun. But, of course, some pronouns in certain cases can be adjectival.
The noun "wife (gune)" is substituted by the pronoun "another." The pronoun stands for noun! To use Maurice's own words: "A personal pronoun is a word that stands in the place of a noun." A pronoun can serve as an adjective when it precedes a noun (e.g., another book), but alone the pronoun is not an adjective, although adjectival in function.
There is nothing about allein that changes or describes the word gune, the put away woman. "Another" does not change nor describe "wife." And, it could not modify the man because neither pronoun nor adjective in the female gender could modify the male gender. When the pronoun, allos, stands alone, answering to a who that must be supplied from allos itself, then it is an indefinite pronoun and identifies the person contained in it, a woman.
How did Maurice get "woman" out of the feminine pronoun, allein? Why, for example, didn't he say "truth," instead of "woman," since the Greek word "truth" is also feminine! In Mk. 10:11 the pronoun allein "stands alone," as Maurice is wont to say, but it stands for the noun "woman" which precedes it (its antecedent). That is the reason, and the only reason, that in this passage we get "woman" out of allein.
Acc. to Webter, "another" = "not the same; different; as, we have one form of government, England another. 2. one more, an additional; as, grant one request, they will ask another favor. 3. a similar but actually different; some other; as, another Caesar." To answer Maurice, allein "modifies" the noun "woman" (wife) in that it sets forth "one more (wife), an additional one"! The man puts away one wife and marries another (different) wife. The second woman is "similar" (in that she is a wife) but actually different" (as to person). She is "not the same" (woman as the first wife), but is a "different" person. The pronoun here is adjectival in function.
"My analytical Greek NT shows 'another' (Gr. alleen) in Mk. 10:11 to be: Adjective, Pronominal, Accusative, Feminine, Singular" -- Chris Reeves. If it is an adjective, it is pronominal ( = functions as a pronoun). If it is a pronoun, if is adjectival ( = functions as an adjective).
Perhaps we can illustrate this from Matthew 26:69-71 - "Now Peter was sitting without in the court: and a maid came unto him, saying, Thou also wast with Jesus the Galilaean. But he denied before them all, saying, I know not what thou sayest. And when he was gone out into the porch, another maid saw him, and saith unto them that were there, This man also was with Jesus of Nazareth."
There are two maids in these passages. In verse 71, the translators have added the word "maid" in italics in order to indicate the word is not in the Greek text. The word that is there is allei, feminine, singular of allos. The second woman is a maid like the one stated in verse 69 is a maid. But, the second maid (allei) does not modify, change nor describe the first maid at all. Allei only introduces a second maid to the story.Maurice insists on his chosen terms, "modify, change, describe," in order to emphasize that allein here is not an adjective. But, as shown above from Webster's Dictionary, "another" is adjectival in that it "modifies" the second-mentioned "woman" in reference to the first-mentioned woman by showing that the different one (allein) is likewise a woman-wife, similar but not the same person. Therein is a "change." What is "described" is the difference of person who at the same time is similar. Yes, Mark is introducing a second woman to the picture. This shows that the "against her" has reference to the first wife, because the second one introduced is similar but is an additional one. Similar and additional in reference to whom? TO THE FIRST WIFE! No one is saying that the two maids were the same person; no one is saying that the two wives are the same wife! But, there could be no "another" without the first one! The "another," being adjectival, doesn't modify the first woman directly but without "woman" in the first clause there could not be another woman similar while different from the first one. The same is true of the two maids. The word "maid" could not be supplied in italics (v. 71) without the first maid having been mentioned first in v. 69! There are many Greek words in the feminine gender; why in this case was the feminine word "maid" chosen? Obviously because "another," being a pronoun, stands for the noun, "maid" in v. 69. One can no more separate the "another" (Mk. 10:11) from the woman (that is previously mentioned) than he can the "another" from the maid (who was previously mentioned)!
Likewise, allein, in Mark 10:11, is introducing a second woman to the reader. Since the word for "woman" in Greek is the noun gune, as in the first clause, allein is introducing a second gune to the reader just as allei in Matthew 26 introduces a second maid. Allein identifies her as another woman numerically different from the first one. And, as with gune in the first clause, the second gune is feminine, singular.True.
The phrase in Mark 10:11 is grammatically identical to Matthew 19:9. It is kai gamese allein moixatai in both places. Has anyone really had a problem in Matthew 19:9 with understanding that the man is putting away his wife and marrying another woman?No, and this is not the issue. Why bring up this point? In Matthew 19:9, how does allein change or describe the wife who has been put away? It doesn't. Mark 10:12 gives us the perspective of a woman doing what the man does in verse 11. If she puts away her husband and marries another (allon, masculine, singular), she commits adultery. Is there any doubt that allon here means she married another man? No, and this is not the issue. Why bring up this point? Luke 16:18 has different grammatical forms of the terms from that of Mark, while the meaning is the same. Whereas, Matthew and Mark use allos, Luke uses heteros (feminine, singular, accusative) which is translated as another, both words referring to a woman other than the put away wife. Allos and heteros mean the same thing in these passages and the switch in terms would only refer to a perspective about the second woman. There is no issue here.
The general meaning of allos is another numerically of the same kind. Heteros ordinarily means another numerically of a different kind (see Galatians 1:6-7), though there are exceptions so that both words are used at times as synonyms. If there is any difference between Matthew/Mark and Luke on allos or heteros, it is this: Luke may be indicating by using heteros that the second woman is a woman but is not a "wife" as is the first woman, a difference in relationship with the man. This can be illustrated by Herod and Herodias, Mark 6. Though they had married, she was still considered to be the wife of Philip. Herod was the "other man" in this instance but did not stand in relationship with Herodias as did Philip. Regardless, both allos and heteros in these verses are pronouns that identify the noun contained within the words.There is no issue here.
But, just for the sake of argument, let's say for the moment that allein here is an adjective. It is a pronoun, adjectival in use, but not an adjective. Adjectival = pertaining to, having the nature or function of, an adjective. We can let an expert tell us about Adjectives. The following is from A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament by Dana and Mantey, page 117.
"The genius of the adjective is description. It denotes some fact which distinguishes or qualifies a noun. Thus in the expression 'beautiful garden' the adjective simply points to the fact of beauty as it relates to the garden. But note that the adjective designates a state of being, beauty, just as the noun designates an object, garden. So the fundamental sense of the expression might be represented 'beauty-garden' (a garden of beauty). Thus, in its function, we see that the adjective is at heart a substantive, being the outgrowth of a noun used in qualifying relationship with another noun."Note: "in its function," "is at heart a substantive," " the outgrowth of a noun," BUT AN ADJECTIVE IS NOT A NOUN!
The significance of allos is "second-woman." Those two words cannot be separated in meaning with the emphasis on "woman," a noun. Notice that Dana and Mantey say that the function of an adjective is at heart a substantive. But, whether we view allein as a pronoun or an adjective, it is still a substantive. Being a substantive, it can be the antecedent of a personal pronoun, as is true in Mark 10:11.This is Maurice's ipse dixit! A pronoun or an adjective are not a noun (substantive). Dana and Mantey do not say that an adjective is a substantive; they say that the function of an adjective is at heart a substantive. Maurice puts words in their mouth! He would like to think "that allein here is an adjective" so that he could then argue that it is a substantive ( = noun), and then have a noun as the antecedent of "her!" But, he knows better; "another" (allein) is a indefinite pronoun. Why does he "for the sake of argument" argue a point that he doesn't believe yet gives it credence by citing a Greek authority?
The prepositional phrase in Mark 10:11, "against her," is ep' autein. "Her," autein, is a personal pronoun that is feminine, singular, accusative. The rule of Greek grammar is that a personal pronoun must agree with its antecedent in gender and number. It may also agree in case but not necessarily. But, seeing that both gune and allein (gune) are singular, feminine, accusative, either one, by the rule of grammar, may be the antecedent of "her." However, it cannot be said, by the rule of grammar alone, that the antecedent of the personal pronoun is definitely the first woman, the one who was "put away."No one claims that by this consideration alone that the wife, and not the "another," is the antecedent of "her." (But Maurice is going to conclude his article affirming definitely that the antecedent of the personal pronoun, "her," is the second woman! But the context, the grammar, and the connection of v. 11 with v. 12 are all against him! (More on this later)
To draw this more exactly, a second rule of grammar for antecedent qualification must be applied. The closest substantive(Note that he doesn't say, "noun") that agrees with the personal pronoun in gender and number is the antecedent. In this instance, it is allein (gune), the woman in the remarriage, the second woman that is in the clause immediately before ep' autein. This means that the second woman, the one of the remarriage, is the antecedent of the personal pronoun, "her." Again Maurice assumes what is not the case: a pronoun or adjective is not a noun! He uses the word "substantive" that IN GRAMMAR means a noun. Why didn't he say "noun?" He could not because the closest NOUN that precedes "her" is gune, not allein! Allein is a pronoun. (Maurice says so himself! Quote: "Allos is an indefinite pronoun.") The word "substantive" as a noun means any word or group of words used as an equivalent of a noun. But as an adjective, it means a word used as a noun. Here Maurice doesn't call allein a substantive word; he calls it a substantive ( = a noun)!
Second,the meaning of "commits adultery." There are several word forms that refer to adultery. From moikuomai comes the verb form in Mark 10, moikatai. This term in this form, moikatai, is found in only five places in the New Testament and not once in the Septuagint. It refers to the literal action of unlawful sexual intercourse in these passages. The verses are
Matthew 5:32 - "Whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery."
Matthew 19:9 - "Whosoever shall put away his wife ..... and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery."
Mark 10:11 - "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
Mark 10:12 - "...and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery."
Of course, Luke 16:18 belongs here but it must be noted that "commiteth adultery" is a different grammatical form than in these other passages. Luke 16:18 says - "Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery." "Committeth adultery" appears twice in this passage and comes from moikeuei. Unlawful sexual relations is still the meaning. There is no issue here.
Further, "commits adultery" is not figurative but literal.Maurice is right; in this passage adultery is certainly literal and it is with the second woman! Anyone who tries to make adultery in this passage to be figurative is greatly mistaken. But, while the act is one thing, the effect is another. The effect of it is against the original wife. That is Jesus' point. This should be clear on the flip side of the context, Mark 10:12 - "and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery." Whereas verse 11 looks at the process from the standpoint of the man, verse 12 turns it around to show that the same rules apply if the woman is the one who puts away her husband and marries another man. By putting away and then remarrying, she commits adultery. The meaning of adultery is the same in both verses. The man who marries "another" is guilty of unlawful sexual relations against....whom? Not the wife he put away. This is Maurice's ipse dixit! We ask: Why is it not against the wife he put away? Thayer, p. 417, commenting on the Greek verb says, the man "commits the sin of adultery against her (i.e., that has been put away), Mk. 10:11." He can only be having unlawful sexual relations with the woman he marries, the second woman. Maurice does a switch on us, switching from "against" to "with." No one denies that the adultery committed is WITH the second woman. One doesn't commit adultery with his wife! In doing this, the man is involving the second woman in sinful sexual intercourse. Of course. Who denies it? But Paul didn't say "involve!" He said that the adultery committed with the second woman is adultery committed AGAINST her, the first wife.
Let's look at Matthew 5:32. The exception clause is a true parenthesis and we will leave it out for the moment. It thus says that "...every one that putteth away his wife ... maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery."If the exception clause is left out, the statement is not true. If a man puts away his wife for fornication, he puts her away, but he does not make her an adulteress; she already was one before he put her away! Does Maurice not agree? Jesus had a reason for putting in the exception clause; it is not a "true parenthesis."
This emphasizes the accountability of the man who puts away his wife unlawfully. He "causes her to commit adultery," so says another translation. This is said on the assumption that the put away woman will not remain celibate. This is seen in the clause about the one who marries her when she is put away. They both commit adultery in that case. Putting away a spouse, just the act itself, does not make anyone an adulteress. What if the man of Matthew 5:32 remains celibate? In that case it would still be true that he causes her to commit adultery, if she remarried.This is true.
Whereas, Matthew 5:32 looks at the subject from the point of view of the effect that putting away has on the woman who is put away, Mark 10:11 is looking at the subject from the point of view of the man who does the putting away and the effect on the woman he then marries.Not so! Both passages speak of the ungodly action that the husband commits and the effect on the mistreated wife. In the first case he unlawfully puts her away, thus exposing her to the sin of adultery (upon her remarriage). In the second case he unlawfully puts her away and remarries, thus committing adultery, and this adultery is to her hurt or prejudice. It is against her, Jesus says. Maurice does another switch on us! He says that the first passage speaks of the effect on the put-away woman (wife), but instead of the second passage speaking of the effect on the put-away wife, he switches to the effect on the second woman that he then marries! He does this by assuming what he can't prove: i.e., that "against her" refers to the second woman, not the original wife!
Third, the meaning of "against her," ep' autein. The third clause in Mark 10:11 tells us that in putting away and remarrying "(he) commits adultery against her." Again, the "he" is understood without its being stated. "Against her" is a prepositional phrase that is the object of the verb, "commits adultery." The translation of the preposition, epi, as meaning "against" is ambiguous. Greek Grammarian, Nigel Turner, points out - "On the other hand, this is not Mark's usual employment of epi with accusative, and when he does use it for against, he does not mean it in a sense like sinning against, but always of violence against (Satan divided and rising against his own kingdom; nation rising against nation; children rising against their parents; with swords and staves against a robber)." The Bible Translator, Oct. 1956, pages 151-152. See also Gingrich & Danker, page 288, who use the expression "hostile intent" when "against" is the meaning. Thayer, page 135, says that in using "against" as the meaning of epi with the accusative, it refers to "things done with hostility." However, other Lexicons, as do Thayer and Gingrich & Danker, give several terms as possible meanings of epi with the accusative. Its most basic meaning is "upon" but it may mean to, toward, concerning, with respect to. A Critical Lexicon by Bullinger, page 35, says of epi with the accusative, "(wither) upon, by direction towards; to, implying an intention (for, against)."
Maurice cites Thayer on "epi" (p. 235), who says that "epi" with the accusative means "things done with hostility; against," but Thayer on p. 417 applies it to the put-away wife, giving Mk. 10:11 as an example of such use! Here is the quote from p. 417:
"commits the sin of adultery against her (i. e. that has been put away), Mk. X.11"
Maybe Maurice was not aware of the statement that the scholar he cited, Thayer, makes on p. 417 that flatly contradicts Maurice's conclusion in this matter! Thayer says: "epi -- accusative -- hostility -- against -- her that has been put away -- Mk. X.11"!
When a husband puts away his innocent wife for just any cause, and then marries another woman, he most certainly is, as long as he is married to the second woman, committing adultery against the wife to whom he is still bound by God, because he is showing hostility toward her. Hostility is from the word that relates to an enemy. It speaks of overt acts unfriendly toward and in opposition to a certain one. His adultery is thus hostile toward the one to whom he had made vows before witnesses of his love for her. He is treating her as an enemy, not a loved one. Being hostile toward one doesn't necessarily mean literally sticking a knife in him, or using "swords and staves" against him!
The conclusion in the article by Nigel Turner mentioned above is that epi with the accusative should be translated "with." He is not alone in this. Not absolutely alone, but VIRTUALLY SO! (No one is alone in any conclusion drawn on any subject, but what does that prove?) Check the many, many versions of the Bible on this passage! Since Turner "is not alone on this," does Maurice agree with him that it "should be translated 'with'?" If not, what is his point? The Greek/ English Interlinear by Alfred Marshall, page 182, translates it "with." And Berry's Interlinear translates it "against." Maurice really agrees with Berry, does he not? A Grammatical Aid to the Greek New Testament by Robert Hanna, page 77, says, "The preposition epi has the sense of 'with' after the verb moikatai" Hanna's work is a compendium of major Greek grammars. Why, then, does Maurice not stay with the translation, "with?" Thayer says epi used with moikatai means against, p. 235 on epi, and on p. 417, he says that this verb with epi means commit adultery "against her (i.e. that has been put away), Mk. X.11. Robinson's Greek And English Lexicon, page 245, says, "after verbs which include the idea of alliance, etc. with..." Maurice assumes that Jesus is talking about the adultery being committed in alliance with the second woman, and therefore epi should be translated "with." Assumptions are not proof.
Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon, page 197, Bass's Greek and English Manual Lexicon, page 84 and Laing's A New Greek And English Lexicon, page 154, also include "with" as an optional translation of epi with the accusative. These comments cannot be simply brushed aside as of no consequence.The issue is not that epi, followed by the accusative case, may be translated with several different words, including "with." (It might be noted that Thayer does NOT give "with" as a translation of epi followed by the accusative case, nor does the lexicon of Liddell & Scott). Unless Maurice settles on "with" as the proper translation of epi here in Mk. 10:11, and he does not, is he simply brushing these comments aside as of no consequence?
From the above information, the phrase could as well be translated, commits adultery with respect to her, commits adultery with her, commits adultery upon her, commits adultery concerning her or commits adultery toward her.Yes, if context is completely ignored and only grammatical considerations of certain authorities are employed. Does Maurice accept the above translations? If not, why not?
In keeping with Bullinger and others, who say it could imply an intention either for or against, it could be translated as "commits adultery for her" that is, commits adultery in order to have her.Does Maurice agree with such conclusions? No. Has he "brushed aside as of no consequence" all of the authorities and conclusions that he has cited? One would think that by now he would be thoroughly convinced by his own citations of authorities that "with" is the proper translation! With other possible meanings of epi with the accusative, to insist on translating it as "against" sounds more like forced interpretation by translation. Did Marshall, in his one-man translation force his interpretation of "with" into his interlinear? Does the insistence of some brethren upon the translation of "with" sound "more like forced interpretation by translation?"
The text does not require "against" as the proper translation.The context most certainly does require "against" as the proper translation, because a husband can't commit adultery "with" his own wife! Incidentally, brother Jeff Belknap has approved articles by both Maurice and brother Willie Ramsey on his web site. Willie insists that "with" is the proper translation. Is he "forcing" his interpretation here? He writes: "Since we have shown the context is 'epi' in regard to the second wife, 'with' accurately describes the action of 'adultery' committed concerning her. It is 'with her'".
However, let's go with the word, "against" and see where it takes us. We have already seen Lexicographers and Greek Grammarians who uniformly say that when epi with the accusative means "against," it refers to hostility or violence toward someone. A person is thusharmed (Physically? Not necessarily. Neither the wife nor the second woman can be said to be harmed physically by the adulterous marriage) by the action under consideration. However, any violence or hostility toward the put away wife was already done when the man put her away. Why, according to Maurice's authorities no possible violence or hostility was ever done to the original wife, since the husband didn't do her physical harm like armies rising up against armies! Has he forgotten his quote from Nigel Turner? After all, Matthew 5:32 says that the man who puts away his wife causes her to commit adultery, or, makes her an adulteress; that does indeed harm her. Physically? Of course not! Mentally, yes. Any kind of "harm, violence, hostility," that Maurice is going to attribute to the second woman upon being married by the ungodly husband, certainly in like manner can be attributed to the wife of his covenant! If Maurice denies it to her, he must for the same reason deny it to the second woman. But, by the act of marrying another woman, the man does not do violence to nor commit a hostile act toward the put away wife; he does not harm her by this. The truth of the matter is that harm or hostility is committed to the original wife in BOTH CASES: when he puts her away, and when he marries another woman.
If the put away wife is indeed the antecedent of "her" by which it somehow gives her the right to remarry,This misrepresents his opponent! We do not say that "it" somehow gives her the right to remarry; we say that fornication is the cause that gives her the right to repudiate the fornicator-mate, and to remarry if she chooses it would not do harm to her but would be a joyous event; she would be pleased by it! It would free her.
What a calloused statement to make! By what stretch of the imagination can Maurice conclude that a godly wife would rejoice in seeing her husband doomed to hell because of his adultery? Has he ever heard of one trying to restore a person overtaken by sin? Certainly he has read Gal. 6:1! He has a godly wife rejoicing ("joyous event,") and "pleased" that her husband is lost in sin. Does he rejoice when he sees one in sin, or does he seek his repentance and restoration? Does he really believe that a godly wife feels no pain, no opposition, and no harm upon seeing her estranged husband going and marrying another woman? She feels nothing but joy and pleasure? His position is hard-pressed for him to so express himself! -- And, incidentally, does he suppose that the second woman would feel any joy and pleasure over getting to marry the man that she wants to marry? Or, do you suppose that she feels that marrying him is letting him do violence, hostility and harm to her?
However, he does do violence to the second woman by marrying her. It harms her because he includes her in his adultery. He makes her an adulteress and that places her soul in danger. Going with the translation "against" here still does not establish any violence committed against the put away woman.The second woman harms, does violence to, HERSELF. She places her own soul in danger by marrying the man who still is bound to a wife. She didn't have to marry him. He didn't force her to marry him. She made herself an adulteress. Nothing is done by another TO HER; she voluntarily does it to herself! But the original wife has something done to her over which she has no control.
The evidence is clear.Really? To whom? Our brother's "evidence" has completely ignored the context of the passage! The context is set up in Mk. 10:2. The Pharisees asked about a man and his wife, not about a man and a second woman whom he might marry. The personal pronoun in the third clause of Mark 10:11 refers to the second woman he marries, not to the put away woman of the first clause. This is his conclusion; but he's mistaken. The man does not "commit adultery against" the put away woman, but rather the second woman. Jesus, asked about the man putting away HIS WIFE for just any cause, told the Pharisees that if he does it, not for the cause of fornication, he commits adultery against her; that is, against his wife! Maurice flies into the face of the context! -- How strange that Maurice takes up so much space with Greek authorities and citations making epi "with," and not "against," and then dumps it all to conclude his article with "against" the second woman. He has been all over the place with his article!
3928 W Colter Street. Phoenix. AZ 85019
Mark 10:11-12 Revisited
by Maurice Barnett
"And he saith unto them. Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her: and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery."
An article in this paper last month analyzed verse 11. I suggest that you reread that article. It was concluded there that the antecedent of the personal pronoun "her" was the second woman, the woman the man marries, the one contained in the word "another." Enough evidence was presented in that article to show this to be true though all of the evidence was not presented there. I thought that it would not be necessary to go into so much detail. However, it appears that we must give more attention to these points.
Allos/another: Although allos is classified as a pronoun in the Gramcord system, its actual function varies. Gingrich and Danker Lexicon says it is an adjective and substantive. What it is, and how it functions, are two different things! It can't be both an adjective and a substantive ( = noun) at the same time! It can be substantive (that I say not, "a" substantive); that is, a word that functions as a noun, but that does not make it a noun! In his first article, brother Barnett argued against allos being an adjective. In this second article, he argues that allos, according to certain works, can be an adjective, and even a noun! Which is it brother Barnett? In his first article, brother Barnett was critical of "some" who "insisted" that allein was an adjective. Is brother Barnett now one of those insisting that allein is an adjective? This is echoed in Zodhiates' Complete Word Study Bible on Mark 10:11 where it is listed as an adjectival noun. We can see these uses (my emphasis--bhr) of the word in various passages. It may describe (my emphasis--bhr) a noun in that the noun is "another" numerically of something in the same class. Or the noun may be contained in the word allos, itself, and allos stands in the place of (my emphasis--bhr) that unspecified noun. As Zodhiates says, it is both an adjective and a noun because it describes the noun contained in the word. No, it is not a noun; it is a pronoun that functions (use, describe, stands in the place of) as a noun.
It continues to be boldly stated that neither a pronoun nor an adjective can be the antecedent of a personal pronoun and thus allos in Mark 10:11 could not be the antecedent of the pronoun "her" in that passage. It is asserted that only a noun can be the antecedent of a pronoun.Why, then, does Maurice labor to prove that allos is a noun, citing Zodhiates? Such a position is totally untrue. This is very easily proven and we need go no further than the passages in the New Testament on the subject of divorce and remarriage to do this. Note:
"And I say unto you, Whosoever (hos, pronoun) shall put away his (autos, pronoun) wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery." Matthew 19:9.
"And he saith unto them, Whosoever (hos, pronoun) shall put away his (autos, pronoun) wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." Mark 10:11.
In both of these passages, the pronoun, hos, is the antecedent of the personal pronoun, autos. In these passages, both hos and autos are masculine, singular, which identifies the connection between them.No, both pronouns, the relative (hos) and the personal (autos), find their antecedent in "man" as stated by the Pharisees (Mk. 10:2)! It is the man for which "whosoever" stands that is the antecedent of "his." And, need we point out that the personal pronoun, autos, is the same pronoun translated as "her" in Mark 10:11? No, we have no need of that! We can produce many passages in the New Testament where pronouns are the antecedents of pronouns but will not take up space here to do so. You have not done so yet. A pronoun ( = for a noun) has its antecedent in a noun, whether the noun is close by or remote, whether specifically stated or implied by the context. This is true by the very definition of pronoun! It may stand alone in a sentence, but in the context it has an antecedent. But, there is more that we will look at.
"..but I say unto you, that every one (pas, adjective)(adjectival, Thayer, p. 491 top right) that putteth away his (outos, pronoun) wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress." Matthew 5:32.
"Every one (pas, adjective) that putteth away his (autos, pronoun) wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery." Luke 16:18.
These two passages have the adjective, pas, as the antecedent of the personal pronoun, autos. Both are masculine, singular. And, as with pronouns as antecedents, there are many instances of adjectives as antecedents of personal pronouns in the New Testament. It does not matter whether or not allos functions as a pronoun, adjective or an adjectival noun, it is readily the antecedent of personal pronouns and the scriptures clearly prove that, as we will see.Brother Barnett is mistaken. The text says, literally: "Every (pas) the putting-away one (ho apoluon, participle with the definite article) his wife." Machen, p. 108 tell us, "The participle, like any other adjective, can be used substantively ( = like a noun) with the article. So, the antecedent of "his" is the one (who is putting away). Jesus says that this is true of every one of such ones. So, here pas is adjectival, describing the one who is putting away, and the one (putting away) is the antecedent of "his" in Lk. 16:18a.
Look at Lk. 16:18 as given literally: "Every the putting-away-his-wife-and-marrying-another-one commits adultery, and the marrying-one-who-is-put-away-from-a-husband-one commits adultery.
Maurice argues from the English, not the Greek! The adjective "every" describes "the one (who puts away his wife and marries another)" and "the one" is the antecedent of "his."
Allos,and its related term, heteros, have no meaning apart from a person, place, thing, time period or the like. The terms answer to who, what, when or where. They may refer to another person, another country, another boat, another day, another route, etc. Allos and heteros describe the person, place or thing as being another numerically from some other of the same class, along with a slight nuance of difference between the two terms in some passages, as we saw in the previous article. At times, the noun being referred to is specified in the original text along side allos or heteros and at times, it is contained within the words allos and heteros alone. Either way, one cannot separate allos or heteros from the noun that accompanies it, whether the noun is specified in the text or not. If the noun is not specified in the text, by either direct occurrence of the noun or by implication from the context, how can one know just what noun of numberless ones is to be understood? When allos and heteros stand alone, a previous noun has appeared already, or is supplied in the context by implication. For example, if the "noun is contained within the words allos and heteros alone," just which noun shall we supply when allos stands alone? cloud? leaf? breeze? tree? book? rock? etc. So, Maurice's use of the phrase, "stand alone," can be misleading. The pronoun is never without the noun for which it stands. As Maurice well states, pronouns "have no meaning apart from a person, place, thing, time period or the like."
We noted in the previous article that Matthew 26:69-71 tells us about Peter's encounter with several people, while Jesus is before the chief priests. A maid identified Peter as a disciple, which he denied. Then "another (allos)" maid said the same thing, which Peter again denied. The translators added the word "maid" in italics but it does not appear in the Greek text. Yet, that is exactly what allos, by itself, means in the passage, another maid.It means "maid" for the simple reason that the noun maid was mentioned prior to the occurrence of the personal pronoun, "another." The same is true in Mk. 10:11; the woman (wife) is first mentioned, and so "another" means another woman (wife). She was a slave girl just like the one mentioned in verse 69, another numerically. Now, to the parallel account in Luke 22:56-60,
"And a certain maid seeing him as he sat in the light of the fire, and looking stedfastly upon him, said, This man also was with him.(I might interject here that in the Greek text there is no word for "man," just the pronoun "this <one>." But Peter's name was already mentioned in the passage, and the people to whom the maid was directing her remarks saw her pointing to, or otherwise indicating, Peter. You can't have a pronoun without a noun!) 57 But he denied, saying, Woman, I know him not. 58 And after a little while another (heteros) saw him, and said, Thou also art one of them. But Peter said, Man, I am not. 59 And after the space of about one hour another (allos) confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this man also was with him; for he is a Galilaean. 60 But Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest."
The first man mentioned is identified by heteros, another. It points to a second person numerically different from the woman previously mentioned. Yet, it indicates that though this is another numerically, there is also a difference in that it is now a man instead of a woman.The masculine pronoun heteros finds its antecedent in "officers," Lk. 22:52; Mk. 14:54; Mt. 26:58, one of these, a man. The context demands that heteros here be another of the audience present which was made up of officers, Matthew and Mark tell us. In the second instance, verse 59, allos is used and translated another to indicate another numerically but he is also a man as was the person just mentioned. Peter responds to both of them by calling them "man." There is no doubt that heteros and allos both, by themselves, mean man, or another-man. By themselves they mean another of the previously mentioned noun (in this case, "officers"), or of the noun supplied by the context, but not necessarily man, or another man. In Gal. 1:7, heteros stands alone, but means another gospel (v.6), not another mystery, nor another temple (or any other noun of neuter gender! This is further indicated by the fact that both heteros and allos are masculine gender. Peter could have said it differently and the text would have then recorded it: "Peter said to him, I know not what thou sayest," using a personal pronoun instead of the word "man." That would have made both heteros and allos antecedents of a personal pronoun. Our brother makes a good try, but Peter (per the Greek text) said, Man, not him! That man was a temple officer in that immediate audience. You can't have a pronoun without a noun for which it stands!
In other uses where the accompanying noun is specified in the text with pronouns following, John 18:15 mentions "another disciple" as antecedent to the pronoun ekeinos.The verse says: "And Simon Peter followed Jesus, and [so did] another disciple. Now that disciple was known unto the high priest ..." Here "another" is an adjectival pronoun and "disciple," a noun, is the antecedent of the pronoun, "that." In Matthew 21:36, it has "other servants" antecedent to the pronoun, autos. The verse says: "Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them in like manner." Here "other" is an adjectival pronoun and "servants" is the antecedent of "them (autos)" Matthew 4:21 has "other brethren" as antecedent to autos that twice follows. The text says, "And going on from thence he saw two other brethren, James the [son] of Zebedee, and John his brother, in the boat with Zebedee their father, mending their nets; and he called them." The antecedent of "their" and "them" (autos) is the noun "brethren." The word "other" (other brethren) is an adjectival pronoun. These are just some of the passages where the attendant noun is specified along with allos. With every pronoun, since a pronoun means "for a noun," there has to be a noun for which it stands, whether the noun be near or remote.
But, what about passages where allos stands alone, without a specific noun accompanying it? Well, note the following passages.
"For I also am a man set under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one. Go, and he goeth; and to another (allos). Come, and he (in verb) cometh; and to my servant. Do this, and he doeth it." Luke 7:8.
Here allos stands alone to mean another-soldier. The personal pronoun, "he," is contained in the 3rd person, singular verb, erkomai. That is what 3rd person, singular means in the verb form. Allos is the antecedent of the personal pronoun.No, both pronouns, allos and "he" (implied in the form of the verb used, and so it is not necessary to state the pronoun, "he"), have their antecedent in the noun "soldiers." Both pronouns are used in the place of the noun "soldiers."
"I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another (allos) shall come in his own name, him (ekeinos) ye will receive." John 5:43.
Here, again, allos stands alone to simply identify another-person. It is the antecedent of the demonstrative pronoun, ekeinos.Again, both pronouns allos and akeinos find their antecedent in men who come as great leaders, or as the Messiah himself. The context (vv. 30-44) shows this plainly. John the Baptist was one of them who was sent and came. God the Father is mentioned as having sent Jesus who came. Other such ones would send themselves and come in their own name (authority). The word "men" is mentioned (v. 41 just prior to v. 43). The noun, for which the pronoun stands, will always be stated specifically, or be implied, in the context! Maurice, by stating that "allos stands alone to simply identify another-person," admits that the context is talking about persons (who, in context, come with great claims). Otherwise, we could supply for allos just any noun (person) that came to mind (such as a school-teacher, a beggar, a cripple, etc.)! If one is interested in a passage that uses the related term, heteros, which is translated "another (woman)" in Luke 16:18, then look at Matthew 15:30,
"And there came unto him great multitudes, having with them the lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and many others (heteros}, and they cast them (autos) down at his feet; and he healed them (autos)."
Here, heteros is the antecedent of the personal pronoun, autos, that appears twice after it in the passage. Not so! Again, both pronouns heteros and autos find their antecedent in the context. A sick woman came to Jesus and he healed her (vv. 21-28). Then in v. 30 great multitudes brought more sick people to him to be healed. Matthew says, per the Greek text, that they approached Jesus, having with them "(omit "the") lame, maimed, blind, dumb and many others." Having mentioned some sick people with specific maladies, Matthew had only to mention "others" to indicate some who were sick with even different maladies from those mentioned. The antecedent of heteros, then, is sick people, understood from the context in which Jesus healed them. Also, note that if Maurice has a point, that heteros is the antecedent of autos, then Jesus healed only the "others" and not the first mentioned group of sick people! But Jesus healed them all; autos refers to all of the sick people brought to him and cast at his feet.
However, the following passages are even more directly related to Mark 10:11 because allos stands alone as the antecedent of the personal pronoun autos. This is the very thing that some deny is even possible. Let's see.Maurice does not have a pronoun standing alone (that is, with no antecedent) that in turn serves as the antecedent of a following pronoun. If such were the case, what would keep one from understanding, or inserting in the text, any noun that came to mind? There must be a noun for there to be a pronoun (= for a noun)! He can find many cases in which the antecedent is not in close proximity to the pronoun, or that is simply implied in the context, but he can't find a pronoun that "stands alone" without an antecedent. Wherever he finds a pronoun he will find a noun that is the antecedent! So, the pronoun alone is not the antecedent of a following pronoun, but along with the following pronoun both have an antecedent or antecedents. This is true by the very definition of pronoun. It is the noun for which the pronoun stands that in a given case may be the antecedent of a following pronoun. But it does not follow that every pronoun that is followed by a pronoun is the antecedent of the following pronoun. This is what Maurice wants to set forth, in his effort to make "another" of Mk. 10:11 the antecedent of "her."
"And others (allos) fell upon the thorns; and the thorns grew up and choked them (autos)." Matthew 13:7.The antecedent of both pronouns is seed (v. 4, implied in the sower sowing, but explicitly stated in Luke's account, Lk. 8:5, "the sower went forth to sow his seed"). It is the noun "seed," represented by the pronoun "others," that is the antecedent of "them."
"And about the eleventh hour he went out, and found others (allos) standing; and he saith unto them (autos),Why stand ye here all the day idle?" Matthew 20:6.The antecedent of both pronouns is laborers (v. 1, "a householder, who went out early in the morning to hire laborers"). It is the noun "laborers" in the pronoun "others" that is the antecedent of "them." It so happens in this particular case that allos and autos refer to the same persons, but the antecedent of both pronouns is the noun laborers!
"I sent you to reap that whereon ye have not labored: others (allos) have labored, and ye are entered into their (autos) labor." John 4:38The context shows that sowers and reapers are under consideration (vv. 36,37, "He that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal; that he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together. For herein is the saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth"). The allos and the autos find their antecedent in the sowers. Both pronouns stand for sowers. If Maurice were teaching a class on the passage would he supply just any noun (like pilots, mechanics, trees, bricks, etc.) to allos because it "stands alone?" Whatever correct word (noun) that he would supply for allos (others) would be the antecedent of autos (their).
"And he saith unto them. Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another (allos), committeth adultery against her (autos)."The same that has been observed in the cases above applies equally here: The two pronouns find their antecedent in the noun "woman" at the beginning of the verse. allos here refers to another woman, distinct from the first one in person, but like the first one is a woman so is allos! There could not be "another" woman without the first one (a noun) mentioned! autos also finds its antecedent in the aforementioned noun, woman. In this passage, given the point treated in the context, "her" refers to the noun woman (wife), not to the pronoun "another," which itself has to refer back to the woman (wife). The context determines which woman, as to identity, is the antecedent of the personal pronoun, "her."
In each of these passages, allos stands alone with the noun contained within the word allos, itself. A quibble has even been made regarding whether or not allos has a definite article attached to it, which is supposed to make some difference. Well, there certainly is "some difference" as the lexicons observe, but this point of Maurice's is not germane to the discussion of our differences. In each of the above passages, there is no article with either allos or heteros. It is obvious, however, that they are antecedents of the pronouns. No, what is obvious is that both pronouns, like all pronouns, have their antecedent in a noun! Whether allos is singular or plural makes no difference to the function of an antecedent. Likewise, the particular noun contained in the word has no bearing on the grammatical construct. If a pronoun "stands alone," it does not have a noun "contained" in it. If a noun is "contained" in it, it doesn't "stand alone." If "stand alone" is made to mean that no noun immediately precedes it (it being an indefinite pronoun), then "stand alone" is meaningless to the issue, because where the noun appears is immaterial. The point is that every pronoun must have a noun, near or remote, explicitly stated or implied in the context, to which the pronoun can relate, or for which it can stand. In each of the above passages, allos is the antecedent of the personal pronoun, autos. In each passage, autos agrees with allos in gender and number, the necessary requirements for an antecedent. In each of these passages, allos is a substantive. A pronoun is NOT "a substantive," because it is NOT a noun. It might be considered substantive in function; that is, used as a noun, but it is not a noun. Seeing that allos in Mark 10 is the nearest substantive to the personal pronoun, then the "second-woman" is the antecedent of "her," not the woman who was put away. In grammar, a substantive is a NOUN, and seeing that the original woman (wife) is the nearest noun to the personal pronoun, "her," then the original wife is the antecedent of "her," not the allos ("another," a pronoun) whom the husband married after putting away his original wife. Maurice simply states an ipse dixit: "Seeing that allos in Mark 10 is the nearest substantive to the personal pronoun, then the 'second-woman' is the antecedent of 'her,' not the woman who was put away." allos is not a substantive, but a pronoun just like "her" is a pronoun. He claims that a pronoun can be the antecedent of a following pronoun, but here he is saying that a substantive can be the antecedent. He has switched terms on us!
"Against" her:We took note in the previous article that when the preposition, epi, with the accusative case means "against" that it refers to violence or hostility against someone. To illustrate this, let's look at John 8:3-7. A woman is taken in adultery. The Law of Moses prescribed stoning to death in such an event. The Jews were trying to get Jesus to say whether she should be stoned or not. Either assertion by Him would have endangered Him with the people on one hand or the Roman authorities on the other. His response was, "He that is without sin among you first cast a stone at her."
The word for "woman" in verse three is the Greek word, gune, as in Mark 10:11. In the statement of Jesus, "at her" is epi with the accusative case with the personal pronoun, autos, also as in Mark 10:11. Gune, in verse 3, is no doubt the antecedent of the personal pronoun, autos, in verse 7. Maurice is correct here: a noun (gune) is the antecedent of "her," a personal pronoun! And such is always the case. And, there is no doubt that to translate the prepositional phrase as "at (against) her" is correct in this place. Stoning the woman would certainly be an act of violence, of hostility; she would be harmed by it. Now, this kind of instance is what is meant by Lexicons when they talk about epi with the accusative meaning "against" in some passages. The translators say "at her," and not "against her," because idiomatic English requires such. In English we do not say: cast stones against one, but at one. Now Maurice is careful to admit, "in some passages." In Jn. 8:3-7 the casting of stones at one is certainly violence, hostility or harm in a physical way! Is Maurice about to imply that Mk. 10:11 is a passage where physical violence, hostility or harm is the idea suggested by epi ("against")? Let's see!
However, look at Mark 10:11. "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." Where in this passage is there even the slightest implication of violence or hostility against the put away woman such as illustrated in John 8? Such a position on Mark 10 exists only in the imagination.There are several points to notice here:
(1) Maurice is on record as stating: "However, he does do violence to the second woman by marrying her. It harms her because he includes her in his adultery. He makes her an adulteress and that places her soul in danger." So, is he saying that the second wife is being treated with physical violence, comparable to stoning?
(2) Concerning the put-away woman (wife), he asks for the slightest implication of violence or hostility against her such as illustrated in John 8? Well, we put the same question to Maurice: "Where in this passage is there even the slightest implication of violence or hostility against the second ("another") woman such as illustrated in John 8?
(3) Maurice has told us that the Greek authorities claim that "against" (epi with the accusative) requires violence, hostility or harm to be done. He claims that Jesus is saying that such is done against the second woman, and he affirms that such cannot even slightly be implied that it was done against the original wife such as illustrated in John 8.
(4) The only conclusion that can be drawn from what he has written is that physical violence, hostility and harm were done by the ungodly husband against the second woman that he married, such as was to be done against the woman in John 8! If not, why not?
(5) If physical, violent harm, as in John 8, was not done to the original wife in putting her away, and was not done to the second wife upon marrying her, what point does Maurice have in bringing up John 8:3-7?
(6) Maurice approves of the versions that render epi in Mk. 10:11 "against." Yet he will not take the position that physical harm, such as in stoning, is inherent in epi in this case. Is he suggesting that maybe "with" is the proper translation here, instead of against? Where does he take a stand?
(7) We turn his question on him: "Where in this passage is there even the slightest implication of violence or hostility against the second woman such as illustrated in John 8?"
(8) He writes: "Such a position on Mark 10 exists only in the imagination." We ask him: In whose imagination? Who takes the position that violence, hostility and harm have to be physical, comparable to stoning, and that that is what happened to the wife of Mk. 10:11? We also ask him: Is your position in your imagination only?
It is a theological interpretation, an assertion of one's opinion.This is purely a prejudicial statement. We could reply with the same: Your interpretation "is a theological interpretation, an assertion of one's opinion." Talk is cheap!
There is nothing in the grammar, terms, overall statement or context that would require that conclusion. If so, where is it?
Look again to what "it" refers:"Where in this passage is there even the slightest implication of violence or hostility against the put away woman such as illustrated in John 8? Such a position on Mark 10 exists only in the imagination." This is Maurice's strawman; he here clobbers it to pieces! If he won't make the harm done to the second woman a harm that is comparable to stoning, by what reasoning can he charge others with making the harm done to the original wife of that sort?
Will anyone deny that the man who puts away his wife without the cause of fornication and marries another commits unlawful sexual relations with the woman he marries?I certainly don't deny it. But this is not the issue. Why bring it up? This is a smokescreen, a diversionary tactic! "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery with her" is true. Our brother argues on the assumption (that he hasn't and can't prove) that "her" refers to the second woman. On this assumption, yes, the man commits adultery with the second woman upon marrying her. It is also true that he, upon marrying the second woman, commits adultery against the wife to whom he remains bound and from whom God has not released him! This is the woman (wife) to whom "her" refers. This is the "woman (wife) that is the antecedent of "her.
Verse 12 takes the same rule from the woman's standpoint as follows, "and if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry another, she committeth adultery." With whom does she commit adultery? She commits adultery with the man she marries.No one denies that adultery is committed with the second man should she marry him. Why bring up a non-issue? If one still insists on "against" as the proper translation of the preposition, then it would apply only to the woman he marries seeing, first, that she is the antecedent of the pronoun, and second, he does, indeed, harm her by involving her in committing adultery. I see first that the original wife, per the CONTEXT, is the antecedent of the pronoun "her," and I see that the husband's marrying the second woman MOST CERTAINLY IS AGAINST THE WIFE to whom he had vowed to be faithful and whom now he has repudiated. THAT HURTS! -- Let our brother declare himself and tell us what the proper translation of the preposition epi is in this passage (Mk. 10:11). Is it "against," or "with?" Have the many, many translations, not only in English versions, but in that of other languages, which say "against," unduly insisted on that translation? Does he, wisely using the ASV, repudiate its translation of "against?" His two articles have simply cast doubt upon the translation, "against," but have left his readers in limbo as to what the "proper translation" is.
And, that is adultery that continues, Romans 7:2-3! As long as the put away woman lives, the woman he marries will be an adulteress just as he will be an adulterer. The man harms her when he marries her.No, she harms herself by marrying a man still bound to his wife that he repudiated, and he harms his first wife by marrying a second woman! And, he does it as long as he remains married in adultery to the second woman.
If this isn't enough to establish the matter, there is more; we have not yet exhausted all of the information and evidence. I will state the conclusion, again. The evidence shows that the antecedent of the personal pronoun "her" in Mark 10:11 is the second woman, the one the man marries.The "evidence" that his two articles present is wholly on contested points of grammar. What has my brother, in all of his two articles, said about the context in which Mk. 10:11 is found? Not one word of evidence has he given from context; and he can't while maintaining a false conclusion!
gospel truths, Vol.14, #11, p.9
End of my review of Maurice's two articles: I will here offer some additional thoughts for your study and consideration. Our earlier rules regarding font style and color do not apply. The following observations are mine (B.H.R.):
The "PRONOUN ANTECEDENT OF PRONOUN" Argument
Let us consider the contention of brother Maurice Barnett, that a pronoun, followed by a second pronoun, can be the antecedent of the second pronoun. (This he argues to "prove" that in Mk. 10:11 the pronoun "another" is the antecedent of the pronoun "her," the second woman that the husband marries) We ask: In a particular context, is such the case, or is it the noun for which the pronoun stands that is the antecedent of the pronoun? Again, does the position of pronouns always determine that the last one finds its antecedent always in the pronoun just previous to it?Here are some secular examples:
1. The context: Of the gathered group of associates some one in particular was being obligated to speak up and give his decision, but he was afraid. Then the statement:"The fearful man would not speak up, so another gave his decision." Someone might contend: "another" is the antecedent of "his." No, the other man gave the decision of the man too fearful to speak up and give it. The fearful man = the antecedent of "his."
2. Here's a context: The mute man had to give his decision. "The mute man could not speak up so another gave his decision." -- Here "another" is not the antecedent of "his"! It is not the antecedent because of the context. "Man" is the antecedent of "his," and the context determines that "his" has (mute) "man" as its antecedent, and not "another."
3. Consider the statement:"John gave him a piece of his mind!" Let Maurice tell us what the antecedent of "his" is, observing that "him" precedes "his."
4. Another example:"Harry has many workers, and whoever cheats him works against his own best interests." Who is the antecedent of the pronoun, "his" that follows the pronoun, "him?" Will Maurice tell us that it has to be "him" (John), since the pronoun "his" immediately follows the pronoun "him?" Or, is it the worker (whoever)? Obviously in this example the antecedent of "his" is the noun "worker," represented by the pronoun, "whoever".
5. Again:"John in his business has many workers, and whoever cheats him deprives him of his assets." Admittedly John is the antecedent of both pronouns, "him," and also of the pronoun, "his," although the pronoun "whoever" precedes the first pronoun "him."
6. If I should say: "Whoever puts away his wife, and marries another, breaks vows made to her," what is the antecedent of "her," observing that "another" precedes "her," exactly as in the case of Mk. 10:11?
7. The context: Mary is alone with her five sisters. "Mary hit one of her sisters, and another condemned her for it." The simple fact that two pronouns (another, her) are in close proximity does not prove that the first one is the antecedent of the second one! Context rules!
Here are two examples taken from the Scriptures:
8. Lk. 16:23,24,"And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me..."
Question: At the end of v. 23, what is the antecedent of "his?" Is it the nearest noun (name) previous to the pronoun, which is "Lazarus," or is it the noun farther removed, which is "Abraham?" Was it Lazarus' bosom, or was it Abraham's bosom?
Question: If "Abraham" is the proper antecedent of "his," what is the antecedent of the next pronoun after "his," which is "he" at the beginning of v. 24? Does "he" find its antecedent in the previous pronoun, "his?" The antecedent of "he" is found remotely in the "rich man" of v. 22! How do we know this? By the proximity of two pronouns, the first being the antecedent of the second? No, we know it definitively by context! Here "he" finds its antecedent much farther back in the reading where is mentioned the "rich man" (v. 22).
Given the context, is it hard to figure out the antecedents of these personal pronouns in this passage? There is no problem at all; the context makes it all clear.
Maurice concludes his first article, stating:"The personal pronoun in the third clause of Mark 10:11 refers to the second woman he marries, not to the put away woman of the first clause." That conclusion is stated categorically! (Note that in his first article, he states categorically: "This is said in order to, somehow, push it out of the way and tie the third clause, "(he) commits adultery against her" to the first clause so that "her" refers to the put away woman. But, that is not possible.")
His conclusion is based on his alleged examples of first pronouns being the antecedents of pronouns that follow, as set forth in his second article. At best he may affirm that IN SOME CASES the first pronoun may represent (a pronoun stands for a noun) the antecedent of the following one, but how would he know so assuredly that such is the case in Mk. 10:11, because the matter would have to be settled BY THE CONTEXT (about which he has proposed nothing in the argumentation of his two articles)! But, it is the context that rules, not Maurice, nor I, nor anyone else.
We all see that "he" (Lk. 16:24) refers back to the "rich man," but some brethren can't see that "her" (Mk. 10:11) refers back to the original wife. Why? Because they assume up front that nothing exists between the husband and the wife once he divorces her! This flavors their interpretation.
9.Mk. 10:11, "Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her."
The antecedent of "her" is the wife who is put away. How do we know? The context rules! Jesus is replying to the captious question of the Pharisees concerning a man and his wife and his actions of putting her away. Jesus shows how doing so will effect the wife if he commits adultery (by marrying another woman). His doing so will be against her!
There is absolutely nothing in the grammar that prohibits this interpretation! There is absolutely nothing in the grammar that demands any other interpretation. Any other interpretation is "forced."
Where is the Bible version that says anything but "against?" Where is the version that uses paraphrases that indicates anything except against "the first wife"? (See later "Some Concluding Notes Of Mine," point # 12).
If our brother objects to my first eight examples just given, giving as his reason that they are not parallel to Mk. 10:11 in grammatical construction let him take note:
1. The sole point being made is whether or not the first of two pronouns is the antecedent of the next pronoun that follows. Brother Maurice has written: "We can produce many passages in the New Testament where pronouns are the antecedents of pronouns but will not take up space here to do so."
2. All that my examples purport to do is illustrate that in the case of two pronouns of proximity it is not always the case that the first of the two be the antecedent of the following one!
3. Pronouns find their antecedent in nouns, not in pronouns! And the nouns always will be found in the context.
4. A pronoun by very definition is not a noun; it stands for a noun!
SOME CONCLUDING NOTES OF MINE:
1 - If the ASV is the correct rendition of Mk. 10:11,12, the "she herself" of v.12, being the wife, has to be the "her" of v.11! --- Taking the NKJV rendition (based on the Textus Receptus), the "a woman" is the same in kind as the woman or wife of ver. 11, and therefore is the same as the "her" of v. 11! In the Greek text, Textus Receptus (Received Text),vv. 11,12 both have "gune," but in the NKJV v.11 says "wife" and v. 12 says "woman." Both verses should be rendered "wife," and for the same reason! Jesus' and the Pharisees were treating the issue of a man and his wife, with the ensuing consequence of a certain action. The other woman ("another") is mentioned only to complete the thought of committing adultery. (Naturally, for the husband to commit adultery there must be another woman involved!). The context is showing the consequence of the actions of a husband as relates to his wife, and the consequence of the wife, doing the same things, as relates to her husband.
2 - Thayer, p. 417, says, in connection with the Greek verb, commits adultery: "against her (i.e., that has been put away), Mk. 10:11." To use Maurice's words: This cannot be "brushed aside as of no consequence."
3 - The context rules! The Pharisees didn't ask about a man's dealings with a second woman, but about a man with his wife! The only issue raised by them, and to which Jesus responded, was that of CAUSE FOR PUTTING-AWAY A WIFE. Jesus' reply teaches that there is only ONE CAUSE, and he shows the consequence of doing what the Pharisees advocated, and of remarrying. The consequence is adultery against the mate, whether done by the husband or by the wife!
4 - The seventeen versions of the Bible in Spanish that I have, in Mk. 10:11, all say, "contra" (against). Not a one says "con" (with). The twenty English versions that I have all say "against." Not a one says "with." How many versions does Maurice have that say "with"? How many hundreds of scholars were involved in these many (37!) translations made by Catholics, Protestants, and brethren, in both English and in Spanish (to say nothing of many other languages)? Does that not carry any weight with Maurice? Has he "brushed aside as of no consequence" this evidence?
5 - Maurice cites one sole interlinear, Marshall's that says "with" for epi. That is a one-man rendition! Why didn't he admit that other interlinears, whether a one-man rendition, or that of a body of men, say "against" (Berry's, J.W.'s)? Is he shielding his readers from this fact? I was preaching for 13 years before Marshall's Interlinear came out in 1958. I had and was using the Interlinear that preachers had and were using, Berry's Interlinear. Berry's says, "against." How did we manage before 1958?
6 - He cites a number of examples in which he claims that a pronoun is the antecedent of a pronoun that follows, but are his examples comparable with Mk. 10:11 that starts with a noun ("gune") in the sentence? Yes, some pronouns ("for + a noun") might have a noun implied in it (for example, "another," "whosoever"), but the noun in the sentence, the context, or the grammar determines just what noun is implied. -- From a grammar book at the Hopkinsville library on pronouns: "Gr. -- antonumía, before the name or noun, typically used as a substitute for a noun or noun phrase. In contemporary grammatical theory, pronouns are sometimes used as a subclass of nouns." This author claims that a pronoun is almost a noun ("subclass of nouns"), meaning represents a noun, or is substantive in function, but he does not say that a pronoun is a substantive (noun).
7. This quote from brother Tim Haile:
Some are inconsistent in their use of Greek Texts in reference to Mark 10:11, 12. Having no support for their position among the most reliable, accepted and widely used translations of the New Testament, they are forced to fall back on the one-man interpretation of Mark 10:11 in Marshall's Interlinear. Marshall suggested that the Greek word epi should be translated by the word "with," rather than "against." This would have the man's adultery being committed "with her" rather than "against her." Of course, Marshall used the Westcott and Hort text, which means that he has the pronoun "she," in verse 12! This is devastating to my opponents' position! They need the Textus Receptus in verse 12 in order to get the noun "woman" into the text. Otherwise, they must search for the antecedent of "her" in verse 12, and this cannot be the adulteress that these brethren claim to be the antecedent of the "her" of verse 11. What do they do about this inconsistency? Nothing! They are forced to ignore it.
8 -- In Mk. 10:11, the noun gune (woman) is the antecedent of "her." Maurice's contention is that a pronoun can be the antecedent of a following pronoun, but the context, and the tenor of the Scriptures, won't allow it in this case. (a) The man could not possibly be committing adultery against the second woman, unless he somehow forced her into marriage, thus "harming" her, and the context in no way suggests such a scenario. (b) The context clearly shows that the issue is what goes on between a husband and his wife and the consequences of it (v. 2), but not between a husband and some second woman that he might marry.
9 -- If the correct translation of epi in Mk. 10:11 is with, and not against, then there is no point at all in arguing about pronouns and antecedents, because we all agree that the husband, in marrying the second woman commits adultery with her! So, Maurice's articles, arguing pronouns and antecedents, show that he must conclude that epi here must mean against, and not with!
(He is all over the place on the issue, and doesn't take a definitive stand, but the tenor of his articles leads one to conclude that he at least "favors" the conclusion that epi here means against. He certainly knows that the many translations say against, not with! He, like I, uses the ASV. Does he disagree with its rendering of against?)
10 -- This passage (Mk. 10:11) is very troublesome to the "marital status" brethren because they do not want the wife, who has unlawfully been put away (the "marital status" argument) by her husband who subsequently commits adultery, to have the cause of fornication by which she is divinely permitted to put him away and remarry! So they labor hard to keep the adultery committed from being against her! This is what's behind these brethren's erroneous argumentation.
11 -- The truthfulness of the present controversy does not hinge solely on whether the phrase "against her" in Mk. 10:11 has reference to the put-away wife, or to the second woman that is married by the ungodly husband. But the point that Jesus makes is that a wife can have adultery committed against her after she unlawfully has been put away by her husband. And fornication, which includes adultery, is the sole cause that Jesus gives in Mt. 19:9a that permits the innocent spouse to repudiate the fornicator-mate, and to remarry if he so desires.
12 -- Versions which say something besides "against her."
1. "Any man who divorces his wife and marries another woman," he told them, "commits adultery against his wife." (Phillips Modern English)
2. He said to them, "The man who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his wife;" (Today's English Version)
3. "Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against his former wife," (The Bible: An American Translation, Edgar J. Goodspeed)
4. He told them, "A man who divorces his wife and marries someone else is unfaithful to his wife. A woman who divorces her husband and marries again is also unfaithful." (Contemporary English Version, The American Bible Society, 1995)
5. So He said to them, "If any man divorces his wife to marry another woman, he commits adultery against his former wife," (The New Testament, Charles B. Williams)
6. "And he said to them, Whoever puts away his wife and takes another, is false to his wife. And if she herself puts away her husband and takes another, she is false to her husband." (Basic Bible in English).
7. In addition to these versions I have two (that say something besides "against her"); they are Catholic versions in Spanish. They say: "against the first one." (The Amplified New Testament has an interesting rendition on this verse; it says: "Whoever dismisses (repudiates and divorces) his wife and marries commits adultery against her." This shows that "repudiate" is a synonym for dismiss or put away. Most of the Spanish versions that I have use the word "repudiar" (repudiate) where versions in English say, "put away.").
The point here is not to defend these translations (paraphrases) in every way, but to demonstrate that when these translators had to determine from the context who the "her" was in verse 11, they concluded it was the wife who was put away. "Against her" is a very literal translation of ep autein (that is, two English words for two Greek words), and the context, immediate or remote, must determine who the "her" is. Paraphrases by nature tend to be more commentary than literal translations in many cases. In the cases above, the paraphrase serves to comment on the context of Mark 10:2-12. Beginning at Mark 10:2, there was something in the context about a "man" and his "wife" (other than the word "another" in Mark 10:11) that led these translators to refer to the wife in verse 11 that was put away, and against whom the adultery was committed. What led these translators to use the word "wife" or "former wife" in verse 11? They had to have some grammatical or contextual reason for doing so. Their reason was taken from the context which begins back in verse 2. None of them uses language that would refer the "her" to the "another" or second woman that the ungodly husband would marry!
There are brethren whose position in the present controversy obligates them to keep the focus off of the first, original wife! According to them, after the civil divorce, since the marriage relationship is sundered, there is nothing left that the husband might do that would permit the wife to act on it. So, Mk. 10:11 cannot possibly mean that the husband, upon marrying another woman, can possibly do anything that relates to the first wife. As brother Maurice says: "that is not possible." So, to them the first wife is now totally out of the picture! Therefore in Mk. 10:11 the "her" cannot be allowed to mean the first, original wife! That must be denied at all costs, and deny it they do!
In spite of the ungodly husband's putting away his innocent wife, he is still bound by God to her, and he is still her husband. She is still his wife. He sundered the physical marriage relationship, but God did not release him from the marriage bond. So, when he commits adultery with another woman, he does so against his wife. His adultery with the second woman relates to his original wife! (See this very point in Num. 5:12ff.)
According to some brethren, there must not be any longer any relationship at all between the man and his wife after a putting-away. They believe that the man cannot commit adultery "against" his wife after he puts her away for any cause, and she cannot subsequently put him away for fornication because, they say, "there is nothing left to put away." So, when they come to Mark 10:11, they say that the man commits adultery "against" the second woman.
They shift the focus onto the second woman because they believe that nothing exists between the man and his wife. They assume the "her" in Mark 10:11 is the second woman, because they have already assumed that a man cannot commit adultery "against" his wife after he puts her away.
These brethren do not want the wife to have adultery committed "against" her, because that would demonstrate that a relationship still exists between the man and his wife after a putting-away for any cause. If a relationship does indeed exist between the man and his wife, then the wife may put-away the guilty mate for the cause of fornication (Mt. 19:9a); something that these brethren assume cannot take place. But do they not agree that the man and the woman are still husband and wife (1 Cor. 7:11) and that they are still bound by the marriage bond (God did not release them)? Although the marriage relationship is sundered, not all relationship is gone!
She may, for the cause of fornication, disavow him, thus repudiating him, and God will release her from the marriage bond. Released, she is free to remarry.
The idea is ridiculous that a husband's literal adultery, being committed with a second woman, cannot be AGAINST HIS ORIGINAL WIFE! (I suggest a survey among wives to see just how many would agree with our brother). Also let me emphasize that such far out argumentation, as that presented by brother Maurice, shows how unthinkable it is for some brethren, who are using his argumentation, to push it to the point of dividing the church, cutting off fellowship with those who will not accept their view. Let a brother have his scruple that will not allow him to remarry even though, after being unjustly put away, fornication is committed against him by the ungodly mate. No one should set him at nought. But neither let that brother judge the innocent spouse who has the liberty to act on the cause of fornication, to repudiate the guilty mate and to remarry.
In Mk. 10:11 Jesus addresses what a spouse does to his mate, in putting him away for just any reason (except for fornication), and remarrying: he does a thing that harms that mate; it is against him. Although he has already repudiated the mate, his fornication is still against the mate! They are still bound by the marriage bond; they are still husband and wife, and so his fornication is still against the mate!
Bill H. Reeves
Review of Joel Gwin's Debate Charts | Home Page