Like the last chart, addressed in Part Eleven in this series, the next chart deals with Mark 10:11. As we said before, Mark 10:11 speaks clearly and directly to our present subject. Our opponents feel the weight of this teaching so much that they have sought to lessen its impact by questioning the translation. Consider this chart by brother Gwin:

   1. We must first comment on the obvious. This chart wasted brother Gwin’s time, brother Reeves’ time, and the audience’s time, because, after presenting his scholars’ testimony, he says (see previous chart), “Regardless” (that is, it can all be without regard or consideration)! Brother Gwin knows that he has given only an appearance of scholarliness, but that it all doesn’t prove anything that takes away the force of Mk. 10:11. It still says that the adultery committed is "against" the original or first wife. The hundreds of Greek scholars who were involved in translating some of our best and most reliable English translations (KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASB & NIV) agreed that "epi" should be translated against. It is like a sectarian’s giving “scholarly testimony” that claims that baptism can mean pouring or sprinkling.

   2. He cites an Interlinear that, in its one-man translation, that of Alfred Marshall, renders EPI as “with.” He just as well could have cited Berry’s Interlinear that renders it “against,” but that would not have padded his case. Though there may be a few in the brotherhood who are linguistically qualified to challenge the hundreds of Greek scholars mentioned above, this number is quite small. I suspect that most of those who withstand the scholars regarding the meaning of "epi" in Mark 10:11 are simply seeking to defend their position.

   Of course, the arbitrary machinations of a few would-be "Greek scholars" accomplish little in changing perceptions of Mark 10:11 - our Bibles all still read the same way! That put-away wife was sinned against by her husband and everyone knows it. Malachi 2:14 describes a man as dealing treacherously against the wife of his covenant. And more to the point, if Jesus had chosen in Matthew 19:9 to pursue a scenario in which a man's wife had commited fornication, that fornication would have constituted adultery against him!

   3. Robert Hanna is quoted as saying, “The preposition epi has the sense of 'with' after the verb moikatai.” Why didn’t brother Gwin cite Henry Thayer, in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, who says that EPI means “against,” and who gives Mark 10:11 as a case in point? Which one is correct? Does brother Gwin believe he is qualified to say?

   4. He then cites A. B. Bruce who claims that EPI here “may mean” either with or against. Brother Gwin basis his argument on what one man says the word MAY mean. And this is sound exegesis? Notice that Bruce is even less sure than Hanna! The word "may" does not help brother Gwin's position at all.

   5. We can ignore these men and see plainly from the context, begun in 10:2, that the “her,” against whom the adultery is committed, is the man’s original wife! We’re content to leave it there, and brother Gwin et all need to be just as content.

   Using the next chart, brother Gwin suggested that brother Reeves' position places Mark 10:11 in contradiction with other marriage and divorce teaching. Because of the similarity we shall list the next two charts together:

   1. Of course all Bible passages are in harmony; who says that Mark 10:11 doesn’t harmonize with Matthew 19:9 and with Luke 16:18? So, why this chart? Well, we shall see.

   2. Jesus said what is in all three passages!

   3. Why the question marks “(???)” only on the left side, representing Mark?

   4. Mark 10 parallels Matthew 19, both being a commentary on the other, because they recount the same occasion and context. Luke 16 represents another occasion and purpose of teaching.

   5. The whole point of the two charts as designed leaves the reader with the distinct impression that Mark 10:11 is “not so special” since it leaves out (so, the three huge question marks!) what brother Gwin and associates see as paramount: whoso marries a divorced woman! Mark 10:ll must be somewhat lacking, so the giant question marks! The fact that only Mark mentions the “against her” is totally ignored (by not putting those huge question marks on the right side of both charts).

   6. The total thrust of these two charts is to impress the viewer with the idea that Mark is leaving out what to the preparers of the chart is the most important wording of all: whoso marries the divorce woman commits adultery. This is handling the Word of truth deceitfully, and not aright (2 Tim. 2:15).

   7. The truth of the matter is that Mark recorded some of the words of Jesus on said occasion, and Matthew did the same. Jesus on that occasion said both “against her” and “whoso marrieth her that is put away commits adultery.” He said it all!

   8. We remind the preparers of the chart what by now should be superfluous: the put-away woman of whom Jesus speaks, per Matthew and Luke’s recordings, was not put-away for fornication, but the woman of brother Gwin’s proposition in the debate had fornication committed against her. That does make a huge difference, these masters of scenario-switching to the contrary!

   This completes part twelve of our study. Please check the next article in the series.

Introduction | Part Eleven of the Series | Part Thirteen of the Series

Home Page