An Exegesis of First Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20 in Light of Remarriage in the Contemporary Christian Community of Faith

AN EXEGESIS OF FIRST CORINTHIANS 7: 10–16 AND MATTHEW 18: 15–20 IN LIGHT OF REMARRIAGE IN THE CONTEMPORARY CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY OF FAITH

ELKANAH KUZAHYET–BUKI SHEKARI April 22, 2013

B.A., ECWA Theological Seminary, Jos Plateau State, Nigeria, 2004

Thesis

Submitted to the Faculty of Theology, Acadia Divinity College, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University Spring Convocation 2013

This thesis by ELKANAH KUZAHYET-BUKI SHEKARI was defended successfully in an oral examination on 9 April 2013.

The examining committee for the thesis was:

Dr. Anna Robbins, Chair

Dr. Timothy Gombis, External Examiner

Dr. Christopher Killacky, Internal Examiner

Dr. Craig Evans, Supervisor & MA Director

This thesis is accepted in its present form by Acadia Divinity College, the Faculty of Theology of Acadia University, as satisfying the thesis requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Theology).

iii

I, ELKANAH KUZAHYET–BUKI SHEKARI, hereby grant permission to the University Librarian at Acadia University to provide copies of my thesis, upon request, on a non-profit basis.

Elkanah Kuzahyet–Buki Shekari Author

Dr. Craig Evans Supervisor

9 April 2013 Date

DEDICATION

To my mother Amina Hannatu Shekari;

My sisters: Grace Ashia Gwar and Tammar Kassang Peter;

And my beloved Wife: Laitu (Leah) Shekari

I dedicate this work to the preceding women in my life who taught me so much about our

shared life of faith and marriage commitment.

ABSTRACT

Both Paul and Matthew responded to the spiritual needs of their different faith communities in the first century. In regards to the marriage, divorce and remarriage Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7 that a Christian couple should neither divorce nor separate; however if it happens they should remain unmarried or else reconciled (vv. 10–11). To a mixed couple he said the believing spouse should not divorce the unbelieving spouse (vv.

12–13). He mentions the rationale why the believing spouse should remain with the unbelieving one if he or she agrees to remain also (vv. 14, 15c–16). Nonetheless if the unbelieving spouse decides to separate or divorce the believing one, the believer is not under bondage to the marriage covenant anymore (v. 15a–b). The Pauline treatment of the subject asks the questions: what does it mean not to be under bondage? Who is an unbeliever? Or even what does it mean to be an unbeliever?

While in regards to relationship, Matthew provides steps for solving relationships in crisis to a troubled faith community that is either Jewish or predominantly so. In response he outlines a three level solution to solving the problem: the offended should confront the offender in love in order to solve their crisis; if it fails the offended should invite witnesses and with him meet with the offender; and finally, the faith community or

Church should be involved in solving the problem. The three levels are put in place in order to restore to fellowship the sinning member of the community. However if he or she persists on his or her sinful state by refusing reconciliation and restoration, then the community of faith is mandated to cast him or her out of its fellowship. The Matthean text asks the questions: would a brother or sister in the faith community behave that way?

Does his or her character or attitude portray that of a ‗true‘ disciple of Christ?

There are several commentaries and studies on the above texts, which show that scholars hardly associate the Matthean pericope with marriage, divorce and remarriage while they also disagree over how the 1 Corinthians‘ text is understood particularly in respect to what it means that the believing spouse is not under bondage. Nevertheless Paul and

Matthew leave us with important questions to answer; the ones of which interest this research is: does Paul‘s advice on marriage, divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians

7:10–16 and Jesus‘ teaching on discipline, reconciliation and restoration when someone offends or wrongs another in a faith community or Church in Matthew 18:15–20 relate in some way? And if yes, how might they relate? And if we do relate them, what insight might come out of it for some contemporary faith communities in respect to marriage, divorce and remarriage?

vii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABC African Bible Commentary

ACCS Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture

JBQ Jewish Bible Quarterly

AJSR Association for Jewish Studies Review

AMR Africa Media Review

NETS A New English Translation of the Septuagint

APOT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament

BECNT Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament

BN–NF BiblischeNotizen–NeueFolge

BNTC Black‘s New Testament Commentaries

BSac Bibliotheca Sacra

BST Bible Speaks Today

CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CECCEECIEC Conference of European Churches and Council of European Episcopal Conferences Islam in Europe Committee

CEJL Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature

CJ Classical Journal

CTR Criswell Theological Review

ECWA Evangelical Church Winning All (formerly, Evangelical Church of West Africa)

EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament

Grk Greek

GTJ Grace Theological Journal

HALOT A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament

viii

HAR Hebrew Annual Review

HTR Harvard Theological Review

Heb Hebrew

HEEBT Hebrew–English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud

IBCTP Interpretation Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching

ITC International Theological Commentary

JANES Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society

JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

JPS Jewish Publication Society (Torah Commentary series)

JRS Journal of Roman Studies

JSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism

JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series

JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament, Supplement Series

JTS Journal of Theological Studies

LCB Local Church Branch

LXX Septuagint

MT Masoretic Text

NCBC1 New Century Bible Commentary

NCBC2 New Cambridge Bible Commentary

NEB New English Bible

NIBC New International Bible Commentary

NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament

NIDB New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible

NIDNTT New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology

NIDOTTE New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis

NIGTC New International Greek Testament Commentary

NIV New International Version

NRSV New Revised Standard Version

NT New Testament

OT Old Testament

OTG Old Testament Guides

OTP Old Testament Pseudepigrapha

SBL Society of Biblical Literature

TynBul Tyndale Bulletin

TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (abridged in one volume)

TJ Trinity Journal

TNTC Tyndale New Testament Commentaries

TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries

TWOT Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament

VT Vetus Testamentum

WBC1 Word Biblical Commentary

WBC2 Westminster Bible Companion

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page Signature Page…………………………………………………………………………...ii Permission Page…………………………………………………………………………iii Dedication…………………………………………………………………………...... iv Abstract……………………………………………………………………………...... v List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………...vii Table of Contents...... x Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………….xiii General Introduction…………………………………………………………….…...... 1

0.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………….……....1

0.2. Difficulties…..…………………………………………………………….………….2

0.3. Need……………………………………………………………….…………………4

0.4. Previous Works…………………………………………………….…………...... 5

0.5. Delimitations of Study…………………………………………………….…………9

0.6. Intended Outcome……………………………………………………………...... 9

0.7. Summary of Study………………………………………………………...………..10

0.8. Conclusion………………………………………………………….………………12

Chapter 1: Interfaith Marriage in the Old Testament and Jewish Literature…………………………………………………..…………………...13

1.1. Introduction………………………………………………….....……………...... 13

1.2. Interfaith Marriage in the OT……………………………………….……...…...... 13

1.2.1. A Survey of Interfaith Marriage in the OT…………………………………...... 13

1.2.2. An Exploration of Ezra 10:1–17…………………………………………..………36

1.3. Interfaith Marriage in Jewish Literature…………………………………………….57

1.4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………..…………67

Chapter 2: Interfaith Marriage in the New Testament and Greco–Roman World…………………………………………………………………..69 2.1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………69

2.2. Interfaith Marriage in the NT…………………………………………………...... 69

2.2.1. A Survey of Interfaith Marriage in the NT…………………………………...... 69

2.2.2. An Exploration of 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:1.……………………………………….82

2.3. Interfaith Marriage in the Greco Roman World…………………………………….98

2.4. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...... 102

Chapter 3: An Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7:10–16…………………………………..104

3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...104

3.2. Textual Variant and Literary Context……………………………………………...104

3.3. A Word Study and Review of the Use of ἄπηζηνο………………………………....106

3.3.1. Old Testament Study and Review....……………………………………………..106

3.3.2. Septuagint Study and Review………………………………………………...... 109

3.3.3. Extra–Biblical Literature Study and Review…………………………………….110

3.3.4. New Testament Study and Review…………………………………………...... 111

3.4. The Analysis and Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16……..…………………113

3.5. Conclusion……………………………………………………………………...... 125

Chapter 4: An Exegesis of Matthew 18:15–20…………………………………...... 128

4.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...128

4.2. Historical Background………………………………………………………...... 129

4.3. The Matthean Community……………………………………………………...... 132

4.4. A Word Study and Review of the Use of ἀδειθφο and ἀδειθή…………………...138

xii

4.4.1. Old Testament Study and Review....…………………………………………….138

4.4.2. Septuagint Study and Review……………………………………………………140

4.4.3. Extra–Biblical Literature Study and Review…………………………………….140

4.4.4. New Testament Study and Review………………………………………………142

4.5. The Context, Analysis and Interpretation of Matthew 18: 15–20…………………143

4.6. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………151

Chapter 5: The Relationship of 1 Corinthians 7:12–16 and Matthew 18:15–20……………………………………………………………………..153

5.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...153

5.2. The Relationship between the Texts.……....…………………………………...... 153

5.2.1: The Overview of Both Texts and Word Relationship…………………………...153

5.2.2: The Relationship between the Matthean and Paul‘s Teaching…………………..155

5.3. Who is a Christian or Believer?...... 156

5.4: The Application: Is Buki Forbidden to Remarry?...... 159

5.4.1. The Old Testament Perspective…………………………………………………..159

5.4.2. The New Testament Perspective…………………………………………………160

5.4.3. The Church History Perspective…………………………………………………162

5.5. Conclusion and Recommendation…………………………………………………167

Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………...169

xiii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The door of Acadia Divinity College was first opened by God through the works of Dr.

Craig A. Evans and others like Shawna Peverill and Lorraine Higgins whose splendid emails flamed my interest the more. I came to Acadia with many Pastoral burdens having served as a pastor with ECWA Kaduna South District Church council in Nigeria for some years. It was my many firsthand experiences as a pastor, which challenged me to ask the question: Are 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20 related in any way. If yes do they address the subject of remarriage in some contemporary faith communities?

I have had the best at Acadia at my disposal in pursuit of my graduate studies and thesis writing. Dr. Craig A. Evans introduced and developed my interest in extra–biblical literature like Dead Sea Scrolls and the use of the OT in the NT; Dr. Glenn Wooden introduced me to the Septuagint for the first time in 2011; Dr. Robert Wilson‘s Church history class helped with its emphasis on the Reformation; I later met Wolfhart

Pannenberg in Dr. William Brackney‘s theology class; while Danny Zacharias reminded me that I did not yet know Greek and Hebrew, hence he took me as his TA; he treated me as a friend and brother; and lest I forget, thanks for the Hobbits; Dr. Carol Janzen drilled me in Research methodology. I value in no small measure the presence of professors whose classes I never had the privilege of attending, and also non–teaching staff.

I am truly grateful to Dr. Craig A. Evans my MA thesis supervisor for his leadership before and during the course of my research and writing. I think my thesis was largely successful not only because of his guidance but importantly because he understood where

I was coming from and felt my concern and passion to address the problem in my faith

xiv community. I am also grateful to my thesis defense panel: Dr. Anna Robbins, Dr.

Timothy Gombis (of Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, USA), my external reader, and

Dr. Christopher Killacky, my internal reader, for their questions which gave me the chance to see how I am understood, and also their very kind and encouraging comments.

My studies in Acadia Divinity College would be impossible without the scholarship and other forms of support I received. The family of Dr. & Mrs. Lionel Moriah was God sent; my family and I deeply thank you for your labour of love. The same goes to the African

United Baptist Churches for their general support. Rev Wayne Desmond and the members of Cherry Brook United Baptist Church in Halifax deserve special mention for opening their hearts to us. Therefore, may the Lord bless you indeed and enlarged your coasts (1 Chronicle 4: 10). My pastor, Rev Tim Archibald, and the entire congregation of

Kings Presbyterian Church in New Minas, we thank you because your sincere love and support have made Leah, Elyon and I feel at home among you. You are forever etched in our hearts wherever the Lord leads. We say mun gode so sai Allah ya sa muku albarkansa ninki ba ninki. I am also grateful to ECWA Gospel Church Ungwan Sunday, Kaduna

State, Nigeria, our home Church, for everything.

I appreciate all the members of the Wednesday‘s prayer meeting, Andrew & Mary

Cunningham, baba Barry & mama Florence MacDonald, mama Esther Kalkman, Ted &

Debra Hutten, Jeff & Julie Skaling (and Julie Skaling Physiotherapy Clinic for their excellent service when I needed attention while I wrote my thesis), Dion & Marisa

Davidson, Sheila Richardson, Chad & Sarah Clements, John & Dorothy Ochieng, Jim

Smith, Wendy Stubbert, Deven MacDonald, Tyler Bennicke, Michael Gill, Janet Baker and many more I am unable to name, I say, thanks for your friendship and love.

I am indebted to Andrew, Dion and most especially mama Mary Montgomery for meticulously proofreading my manuscript chapter by chapter. She truly sacrificed a lot for the final proofreading. However I take full responsibility for any errors which escaped both my readers and I.

I am truly blessed with the support from my parents, Mr. & Mrs. Shekari Kaffoi Buki, who taught me about the love of God through Jesus and the Christian life through many mornings and evenings of Bible stories and memory verses. My siblings are my biggest fans and I say thank you for such love and belief in me. Williams deserves special mention for stepping in to fill the void created by my absence while I study in Acadia; I say a very big thank you. My thanks also go to my extended family, my parents–in–law,

Rev & Mrs. Nuhu Galadima, brothers and sisters–in–law and friends. To my wife, Laitu

(Leah), and son, SaGwaza–Elyon, you have endured many months of my presence when

I was not actually with you. I thank you and love you so much. This is ours to cherish as the Lord has given us victory and rest from this very project.

Above all I give glory and honour to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for His never ending love, grace and provision without which none of the above would have been possible. When I arrived at the Divinity College, I still remember it was in the heart of the winter of 2011; I never knew how this journey would end. However I can look back now and say it was the winter of despair; but I see the end of my journey to graduate in the spring of hope. May this hope impact our contemporary faith communities and beyond.

Elkanah Kuzahyet–Buki Shekari April 2013

General Introduction

An Argument for Remarriage in the New Testament: An Exegesis of 1Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20

0.1: Introduction

―I, …, take thee … to [be] my wedded wife [or husband], to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer [or] poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death [do] us [part], according to God[‘]s holy ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.‖1 The preceding marriage vow embodies the essence of the marriage institution. However, a contemporary view of marriage is moving away from the one expressed above in the Book of Common Prayer. Consequently the marriage institution is hardly valued as it should be which is evident in the life expectancy of many contemporary marriages.2 This situation affects Christian communities as well. Christian communities are hardly showing enough light of Christ by practicing and living contrary to the faulty contemporary view of marriage, which has gradually blinded many to the true concepts of marriage as a divine institution with a beginning and purposes. The fact is: divorce and remarriage are not divine intentions; rather, they are a divine concession expected to be observed under some conditions.

1 ―Of Matrimony‖ in Brian Cummings (ed.), The Book of Common Prayer (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 66 [I smoothen the translation]. Interestingly, the wife‘s vow added ―and to obey‖ after ―in sickness and in health, to love, cherish …‖ Cummings observes that there were five different versions of the book at 1662 namely 1549, 1552, 1559, 1609, and the 1662 (p. liii). Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury produced the book in 1549 for use in the Church of England after the breakaway from the Roman Catholic Church (p. ix, xiii cf. Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academy, 1999), 430.

2 The high profile wedding of Kim Kardashian and Kris Humphries in 2011 is an example which only lasted for 10 weeks (Chicago Sun–Times, October 31st 2011). Many celebrities‘ marriages do not even last that long which is probably because both their understanding and intentions of marriage are entirely faulty; hence they do not take the marriage covenant seriously. 1

This thesis discusses a basis for divorce and remarriage which has not been given the kind of attention it deserves. It gives special attention to the following Scripture texts 1

Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20. In the first text, Paul writes to the

Corinthian believers about the marriage relationship in believer–believer and believer– unbeliever contexts, which he tells the former not to divorce and that separation should only lead to reconciliation not remarriage; to the latter he maintains the same stance except that if the unbelieving spouse deserts the believer, the believer is not under bondage. In the second text, Matthew addresses a community on the steps to reconciliation should a brother/sister sins against another. He said the offended should seek to reconcile with the one who sins against another; however if he/she refuses the various attempts to reconcile, he/she is to be treated as a tax collector or a Gentile. The thesis will investigate if 1 Corinthians 7:10–16 and Matthew 18:15–20 are related in any way. If yes, are they addressing the subject of remarriage in a/some contemporary faith community/communities?

0.2: Difficulties

Firstly, the issues of divorce and remarriage are serious concerns which have divided

Christendom into many groups due to diverse interpretations of the biblical data on the subject. It seems, however, that there are two dominant interpretations.3 One, that reconciliation is the only option after divorce, for remarriage is neither reasonable nor permitted, except for infidelity and desertion. The desertion clause expresses a situation

3 H. Wayne House presents four interesting perspectives on the subject in his book Divorce and Remarriage namely: (a) no divorce and no remarriage; (b) divorce but no remarriage; (c) divorce and remarriage for adultery or desertion; and (d) divorce and remarriage under variety of circumstances (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1990). However, with careful investigation on the preceding, views ‗c‘ and ‗d‘ seem to dominate discussions on the subject within contemporary Christendom. 2

whereby an unbelieving partner leaves a believing one, probably because of conflicting beliefs. Moreover, this view also holds that remarriage is permissible in the death of one‘s spouse.4 Two, that there are wide variety of reasons for divorce and remarriage aside the above exception clauses.5 It is very interesting that both camps use the Bible in support of their claims, which presents a perplexing situation.

Secondly, it is reasonable to argue for a ‗special kind‘ of literary relationship between the two texts. Therefore this investigation may seem a fruitless search or like the turning and twisting done in the blacksmith‘s shop since it may be misunderstood to mean both the dominical traditions in Matthew 18: 15–20 and 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 are directly addressing the same subject matter, which will require a significant burden of proof.

Moreover, that it has not been properly and widely researched could indicate its implausibility. However the need within the contemporary Christian community requires this investigation.

4 This group may be said to represent the Rabbi Shammai School of interpretation of Deut. 24: 1–4 cf. Ex 21: 10-11 which based the ground for divorce on marital unfaithfulness. The following are proponents of this view: David Instone-Brewer Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: A Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/Cambridge: UK, 2002), 94– 188; John F. MacArthur, Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2009), 73–78; Thomas R. Edgar (House: 1990), 151–214; Andrew Cornes, Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 180–259, 301–09.

5 This group may be said to fall into the school of interpretation of Rabbi Akiba who taught that divorce is allowed under any condition, for example: that divorce is established even when a man does not enjoy his wife‘s cooking (Instone-Brewer: 85–188). It is reasonable to think that our contemporary society leans towards this school of interpretation, for example Craig S. Keener And he Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers: 1991), 104–10; Larry Richards (House: 1990), 215–68; David P. Gushee, Getting Marriage Right: Realistic Counsel for Saving & Strengthening Relationship (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2004). 3

0.3: Need

The traditional teaching of no divorce except for adultery, which dominated Western

Christianity some decades ago, has now significantly changed. The Church has even substantially moved on from the Rabbi Shammai‘s ‗infidelity exception‘ as the ground for divorce, which Jesus also endorses, to Rabbi Hillel‘s ‗anything exception.‘ Some of the very important concerns about this radical change are: Does biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage support it? How is the Western Church respected, different and appealing to its non–Christian neighbours?

This, however, may not be said about African Christianity, which has benefitted immensely from its Western brethren. So its views on the subject are not very different from that of Western Christianity decades ago. This resulted in inflexibility on the matter of divorce and remarriage within a large section of the African Church, which still staunchly camps with Rabbi Shammai. Consequently, there are many African Christians who do not see scriptural support for remarriage even in gross misconduct leading to desertion. This study aims to encourage the contemporary Church to be wary of the weed among wheat (cf. Matthew 13: 24–30, 36–43) and to also respond in obedience to

Scripture teaching. This is important and timely because we seem to forget the simple definition of a Christian and that character matters in the Christian faith.

A Christian woman I will call Kassang left her Christian husband, Kaffoi, after three years of marriage on grounds the Christian community admits to be unbiblical. In response, pastors, families, other respected members of the Christian community and friends mediated between them to bring about reconciliation. Kaffoi was willing to

reconcile with his wife but she refused and he learned from reliable sources that she became involved in infidelity after she separated from him. Ten years later, she is now a single mother of two: the evidence of her infidelity. Whenever they meet she either dodges or scorns him, telling him that he should not wait for her. Kaffoi, on the other hand, has not had sexual relations and the Church has told this fine Christian brother that his only options are (a) to remain single and (b) to remarry only after she is dead. The

Christian community of faith seems to hold firmly that although infidelity is mentioned in

Matthew as ground for divorce, remarriage is not permitted but only reconciliation because marriage is a covenant of until death do us part. Interestingly, a few in the

Christian community advised him, off the records, to remarry. Kaffoi senses neither a gift of singleness nor celibacy and feels he cannot wait anymore; he yearns for an intimate relationship. Is remarriage forever forbidden to him?

The scenario of the above couple does not fall directly into any of the dominant groups as discussed by Wayne House except that the Christian community of the separated couple holds that Scripture teaches that infidelity may result in divorce but remarriage can only take place at the death of one‘s spouse. What is the relationship between the two exception clauses of our texts? Who is a Christian? Would Christians either divorce or desert their Christian spouses for no just reason? Does a marriage covenant end? These are some of the important questions for the Kasang and Kaffoi marriage situation.

0.4: Previous Works

Jesus commented on the subject of divorce and remarriage that anyone who divorces his/her spouse for any reason other than infidelity should not remarry for it is adultery

(Matthew 19: 8–9 cf. Mark 10: 11–12). Marital unfaithfulness is ground for remarriage in

Jesus‘ teaching in Matthew; however, the Markan account is clearly against divorce and does not provide any ground for it. When addressing Christian couples, Paul is silent that infidelity is ground for divorce and remarriage as stated in the Matthean dominical tradition. He rather stresses that believing–couples should neither separate nor divorce; however, should divorce occurs, they should consider reconciliation not remarriage (1

Cor. 7: 10–11). When Paul address a mixed marriage situation he maintains that the believing spouse should not separate or divorce the unbelieving spouse; however, should the latter initiate the separation or divorce, the believer is not under bondage to the marriage covenant (1Cor. 7: 12–15).

The Reformer, Martin Luther, said that no one should divorce his\her spouse unless for adultery; otherwise he\she is worse than an unbeliever.6 Later, renowned Christian psychologist and counsellor, Jay E. Adams, developed this idea around the teaching of

Jesus in Matthew 18: 15–17.7 However, David Instone–Brewer critiqued Adam‘s treatment of the Matthean pericope. He argued that Adam‘s analysis of the text is more casuistry than exegesis.8 Moreover, that this view introduces another purview in 1

Corinthians 7: 15 which will then imply that if there is a conflict between a believing couple and the offending spouse has refused to reconcile with the innocent spouse, even after the Church‘s involvement, then the Church can withdraw his/her membership from its faith community. This is because he/she is to be treated as unbeliever who is not

6 It is taken from ―The Estate of Marriage‖ where Luther used several texts in support of his understanding of the subject among which was Matthew 18: 15–17 (Instone-Brewer: 280).

7 Barbara Roberts, Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion (North Carolina: Maschil Press, 2008), 119–22 (or Appendix 3).

8 Instone-Brewer: 280-81. 6

willing to remain married to his/her spouse. Therefore the innocent party is not under bondage and, by implication he/she is free to remarry.9

Barbara Roberts argues further that a Christian spouse is not under bondage on the grounds of abuse, adultery and desertion.10 She said the Christian is free but not obliged to divorce under those circumstances for the Scripture encourages reconciliation if possible. This book is particularly interesting to this thesis because of her inclusion of desertion as ground for divorce. Her views on the matter will be interacted with in chapters 4 to 6 of the thesis.

It is not only unpopular to associate Matthew 18: 15–20 and divorce and remarriage, there is also disagreement on how the text is understood. While the main puzzle in 1

Corinthians 7: 10–16 is that: on the one hand are scholars who said if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believing one is not under bondage: meaning not free to remarry;11 on the other, are those who agree with the previous, except that the deserted believer is free to remarry.12 Both positions have some very good exegesis in support of their claims.

Consequently this thesis will investigate whether Paul‘s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7: 10–

16 explains the dominical traditions or vice–versa. Moreover, it will examine whether

9 Ibid.

10 2008: 37–44.

11 The following constitutes only a few: Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans; 1987), 302–03 cf. Anthony Thiselton the First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000), 480–606.

12 The following Bible commentators understood the text to mean that: Leon Morris, the First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (TNTC; 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987: 101–120); Craig S. Keener, 1–2 Corinthians (NCBC2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005: 61–72); Hans Conzelmann, A Commentary on 1 Corinthians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 114–36 and many others. 7

allowance for remarriage fits the context of the 1 Corinthians 7 or is only being read into it.

This thesis will argue the following: Firstly, that when a Christian spouse is divorced or deserted by his/her Christian spouse for no biblical reason and after several efforts at reconciliation, he/she refuses or chooses to live in adultery or even remarry,13 the deserted Christian should be allowed to remarry if he\she decides. The believing partner who is deserted by his/her ‗Christian‘ spouse is not under bondage, meaning free to remarry. It will further argue that the one who deserts the other for no biblically based reason and is unrepentant does not show fruit of being a Christian irrespective of his/her

Church commitment. Secondly, that even though the divine plan for marriage is a lifetime–covenant it may surely end because of the exception clauses or even death.

Thirdly, that there is a relationship between Matthew 18: 15–20 and 1 Corinthians 7: 10–

16, which may allow remarriage since marriage is a voluntary union of loyalty, fidelity and sexual intimacy between spouses as long as both shall live. The marriage covenant is not originally intended to end under any circumstance; however sin has flawed its ideal standard, resulting to the exception clauses. Moreover, it is paramount that reconciliation is emphasised after separation or divorce; and should divorce become inevitable due to infidelity and/or desertion, remarriage is allowed as in the case of the death of one‘s spouse.

13 The Scripture teaches that in such case both adultery and remarriage are synonymous since ―… anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness and marries another woman commits adultery‖ (Matt 19: 9). However, the context here is that of a man/woman who unlawfully separates from their spouse and are involved in sexual activity with another person or even remarried. 8

0.5: Delimitation of Study

This thesis is concerned with whether 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20 are related in any way and if they are both addressing the subject of remarriage in the community of faith. It is not the intention of this thesis to argue for the following: Firstly, that both Matthew and Paul were writing about the same subject matter of marriage, divorce and remarriage in the above exegetical strata. It is nevertheless reasonable to see that both are concerned about true discipleship in their faith communities; therefore, they are related in a way. Secondly, that they share the same immediate community of faith or recipients. The former appears to have written to a Jewish community while the latter to a predominantly Gentile community. Thirdly, that Paul was drawing from the Matthean logion to arrive at his conclusion in the exegetical stratum. Therefore, it is not the burden of this thesis to prove that the texts are united on the above fronts. It is, however, its intention to investigate the relationship of the texts and to ascertain if together they present another ground for remarriage.

0.6: Intended Outcome

The theoretical framework of this thesis seeks to support the view that both divorce and remarriage are biblical teachings and as such must be exercised within the provisions of

Scripture. It also supports the biblical explication of a conservative stance on divorce and remarriage, emphasizing God‘s purpose for the marriage covenant. This cannot be said about the liberal camp which reduces the significance of marriage to a mere commodity someone buys and returns whenever and however. The thesis seeks to show that the grounds for remarriage is not only in the case of adultery and the death of a spouse as the

first camp explicates, but also on the grounds of desertion and gross misconduct as suggested in 1 Corinthians 7 and Matthew 18.

There is also a kind of desertion taking place in many faith communities in Nigeria like the story of Buki and Kasang. It is ‗unique‘ because a ‗believer‘ deserts his/her believing spouse for no just reason, then refuses to reconcile and/or is living in adultery or even remarries. This thesis responds to the above problem and provides a biblical basis for remarriage in this context.

0.7: Summary of Study

The general introduction of the thesis stated the research question: Are 1 Corinthians 7:

10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20 related in any way? If yes, are they both addressing the matter of remarriage in the faith community? It also discussed the following: a) the possible difficulties; b) the need for the investigation; c) previous works on the subject matter; d) the scope of this research; e) what the researcher hopes to achieve through this research.

Chapter one: Interfaith marriage in the OT and Jewish literature. This section will survey interfaith marriage in the OT; it will give special attention to Ezra 10: 1–17 and the works of Philo, Josephus and rabbinic literature. The intention is to ascertain God‘s design for marriage from its beginning, how the people responded to it and how it morphs with the sand of time.

Chapter two: Interfaith marriage in the NT and Greco–Roman literature. It will survey interfaith marriage in the NT; then explore 2 Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1 and also interacts

with the works of Plutarch, Xenophon and others on the subject matter. The purpose is to investigate if the NT continues or charts a different course with the OT and, importantly, to see the response of the recipients.

Chapter three: Exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16. It focuses on the following: Firstly, to verify Paul‘s possible use of the term ἄπηζηνο unbeliever in 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16. This word study will involve the analysis of the word in the OT, LXX, NT and non–canonical materials mainly from Greek writers like Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Plutarch and others. Secondly, it will undertake an exegesis of 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 in order to explicate Paul‘s concerns for his recipients.

Chapter four: Exegesis of Matthew 18: 15–20. It also focuses on the word study of

ἀδειθφο/ ἀδειθή brother/sister in the text and notably its use in the OT, LXX, NT and non–canonical materials. The word study will illuminate the Matthean community discourse and the Matthean proposal for solving conflict in the faith community.

Chapter five: The relationship between the two texts. It will discuss if 1 Corinthians 7:

10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20 are related in any way. If yes, are they both addressing the subject of remarriage in the community of faith? The process of showing their relationship and if they both address the theme of remarriage will involve our understanding of who is a Christian and discuss briefly how Scripture is understood and applied in history. The purpose is to present how both texts will respond to the above case of gross misconduct and/or desertion.

0.8: Conclusion

Faith and practice are hardly seen in contemporary Christianity even when it needs to stand firm on whom it believes in and what it stands for. Faith communities around the world need to show the world that they are living and practicing the teaching of their

Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. This is important for Christians considering the symbolic importance of marriage; and to set example for the world not the other way round.

This thesis is concerned about reminding Christendom to return to living the Christian life and its teachings. Its main purpose is to address the problem of gross misconduct whereby a ‗Christian‘ deserts their spouse for no just reason and refuses reconciliation after several efforts. This is the case in my faith community in Nigeria. Even though in most cases the deserting ‗believers‘ are either living in adultery or have even remarried, the deserted believers‘ wish for remarriage is not supported by the faith community.

Therefore, Matthew 18: 15–20 and I Corinthians 7: 10–16 will be considered in responding to this challenging situation. Moreover, the investigation will involve the study of Jewish and Greco–Roman literature.

CHAPTER 1:

INTERFAITH MARRIAGE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND JEWISH

LITERATURE

1.1: Introduction

The Scripture says the Jewish race came from the Gentile race through Abraham for the purpose of uniting both races to God. They have different self–definitions, which put each at par with the other; thereby ensues a kind of a restricted relational boundary.14

This self–identification defines the general socio–religious culture of the group. So there are some distinctions between them. The current chapter will discuss interfaith marriage in the OT and Jewish literature, accomplishing the following: (a) a survey of interfaith marriage in the OT; (b) an explication of Ezra 10: 1–17; (c) a discussion of the matter of interfaith marriage in the Second Temple Jewish literature like the Apocrypha,

Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Targums and the Talmud.

1.2: Interfaith Marriage in the Old Testament

This major section will discuss interfaith marriage in the OT in the following ways: One, a survey of interfaith marriage in the OT; two, the explication of Ezra 10: 1–17.

1.2.1: A Survey of Interfaith Marriage in the Old Testament15

Some view one race as superior to another; while others understand God to have divided

14 Saul M. Olyan, ―Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,‖ Journal for the Study of Judaism 35 (2004), pp. 1–2.

15 It is paramount to observe that the term interfaith marriage signifies a marriage union between a couple of two different faiths or religions. James William McClendon observes that there is a relationship between religion and culture; hence one cannot be separated from the other (Systematic Theology: Witness; Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2000), pp. 17–98. 13

the human race and that it is His divine will for it to remain forever. This is in spite of what Christ has done.16 Thus, there shouldn‘t be intermarriage under any circumstances because that would go against the Creator‘s will. But how true are these orientations?

Does the biblical data available support such positions? This section will review the following: (1), A survey of passages and allusions against interfaith marriage in the OT;

(2), A survey of interfaith marriage in the OT; and (s) Why is God against interfaith marriage in the OT?

1.2.1.1: A Survey of Passages and Allusions Against Interfaith Marriage in the Old

Testament:

This survey will begin from Genesis 12 with the call of Abram from Ur of the Chaldeans.

This is imperative because it was the call that started the nation of Israel which consequently introduces the distinction between the Jews and Gentiles. The first passage is from the Deuteronomistic historian whose treatment of the subject matter may be neatly divided into pre and post–Mosaic Law periods.

The father of Shechem, Hamor, was the first to use the word !tx intermarry in Genesis

34: 9 when he discussed with Jacob his desire to !tx with Israel. However, Genesis 24: 1–

4 was the first time the idea of intermarriage between larfy Israel and ~yog Gentiles was introduced during the pre–Mosaic Law period; the idea was rejected. The text relates to

16 There are supremacist groups like the ‗whites‘ group run by Dr. Edward R. Fields who discourages inter racial marriage with ‗blacks‘ because it is a threat to all, especially the ‗whites‘ (Truth Track: Inter-Racial Dating, Inter-Racial Marriage, Judgement Day, Marietta, Georgia). While the ‗black‘ supremacist group, which developed from the early ideas of Black Theology, claims that salvation is only through the black colour. Fard Muhammad and Elijah Muhammad founders of the Nation of Islam movement also argue the same message (en.wikipedia.org/wiki.Black_supremacy). See also the detailed discussion on the subject in the works of James H. Cone Black Theology and Black Power (New York: Seabury Press, 1969) and James W. Perkinson, White Theology: Outing Supremacy in Modernity (New York & Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004). 14

an exchange between Abraham, now in his old age, and his trusted chief servant. He asked him to never get a wife for his son, Isaac, among the Canaanite women; rather, he should go to his relatives and get his son a wife. Genesis 28: 1–5 (cf. 27: 46) is identical to the picture of 24: 1–4; however, in this case it was Isaac who hwc commanded his son,

Jacob, not to take a wife among the Canaanite women but from his uncle‘s household.

The Hebrew hwc underscores how important this injunction is to Isaac and to Rebekah who said that should Jacob marry among the Canaanites women, her life would not be worth living (27: 47). Jacob was however willing to compromise this standard by allowing his daughter, Dinah, who was raped by Shechem the Hivite, to marry him (34:

1ff); however, both Simeon and Levi refused the intermarriage pact by killing the men and plundering the city. The reason for their action was because their sister was defiled, a different argument against the intermarriage of 28: 1–5 cf. 27: 46, here Rebekah says the women cwq disgusts her, and she feels like vomiting.17 The Hebrew !tx was again used in

Exodus 3: 1 and 4: 18 but they were both translated as father in–law. The Hebrew !tx was further used 30 times in the post–Mosaic Law period by the Deuteronomist. It is mentioned thirteen times in Exodus 18 where it is always translated father in–law (cf. Ex

3: 1; 4: 18; Numbers 10: 29) in reference to the father in–law of Moses, Jethro.

The first time !tx was used in the post–Mosaic Law period and translated as intermarriage is in Deuteronomy 7: 3. However, the first divine injunction against

17 Friedrich Wilhelm Gesenius and Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, Hebrew–Chaldea Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1979). This may suggest a contrast between the way Isaac and his family lived and the way their Canaanite neighbours lived. It is reasonable to conclude that their socio–religious way of life is what leaves her with the feeling of wanting to vomit. However, it is hard to conclude whether this feeling is to be understood literally or figuratively; either way, it leaves Rebekah feeling disgusted. 15

intermarriage at this period came earlier in Exodus 34: 15–16.18 The Exodus passage admonishes the Israelites to be cautious with the relationship they form when God finally leads them into the Promised Land. God states that Israel shouldn‘t go into covenant with the residents of the Land for the following reasons: One, the people are prostituting over other gods19 (interestingly, the word translated whore [NRSV] and prostitute [NIV] is hnz which is the same used to describe Tamar‘s act when she tricked her father in–law,

Judah, into having sexual relations with her [Gen. 38]). Two, the people will invite Israel to a friendly meal which will actually consist of their sacrifices to their gods. Three, intermarriage will cement their relationship and consequently, result in hnz. The Exodus

34: 15–16 injunction against intermarriage is immensely important for it is aimed at preventing a future problem which if not heeded will lead Israel away from God.

Carol Meyers observes that the intermarriage prohibition between Israel and the Gentile nations is between Israel‘s males and females in the land; and that this has nothing to do with the normal liaison between an Israelite male and a local male. Moreover, that the

―asymmetrical prohibition of exogamy‖ including both sexes, which is evident in exilic texts such Ezra 9: 12 and Nehemiah 10: 30 does not apply to Exodus 34: 16.20 This

18 Exodus 34: 15–16 may be the first OT passage against !tx between Israel and Gentiles. However the Abrahamic covenant expects such injunction in the God–Israel relationship since: (i) God called Abram from his cultural orientation in Genesis 12: 1–5 suggesting that He expects something different. (ii) The divine–human covenant was reaffirmed in Genesis 15 and 17, especially with crowning the covenant in chapter 17 with the physical sign of circumcision; consequently, this covenant relationship sets Israel aside from the other nations. God has distinguished Israel as His people and instrument for a purpose and !tx may be counter–productive (cf. Gen. 12: 1f). Thus, if Israel will fulfill its divine purpose, there will be need for a new self–identification, which Abraham recognized in 24: 1–4 and Isaac followed suit with.

19 Nahum Sarna says that the Hebrew hnz ―is often used figuratively to express infidelity to the covenant with God. Its use here may allude to the sexual immorality often associated with pagan cults, and particularly with the popular excesses in connection with the golden calf, as mentioned in 32: 6,‖ Exodus (JPS; Philadelphia & New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 218. 20 Exodus (NCBC2; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 265. 16

suggests that exogamy between Israelite females and males from the land is excused, since the problem seems to be with the Israelite men and the local girls. However, if there is a relationship between the golden calf episode in 32: 1ff and the injunction in 34: 15–

16 as Sarna sees,21 which seeks to prohibit apostasy, then it goes beyond the marriage between an Israelite man and a local woman. It may seem that only such marriage is prohibited; but considering that the purpose is against religious hnz prostitution and the cultural orientation of the people, which does not please God (cf. Leviticus 18: 27–30), it is unlikely.

Deuteronomy 7 gives an outline on God‘s program for conquering the Promised Land in which He demands Israel‘s complete allegiance. Verses 2–4 draw attention:

… when the Lord your God gives them over to you and you defeat them, then you must utterly destroy them. Make no covenant with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, for that would turn away your children from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly.

The Deuteronomist brought the same caution again in Joshua 23: 12 when Joshua, now an elder, addresses Israel, now lavishing in the Promised Land. Before his death, he admonishes the people toward absolute allegiance to God‘s program for conquering

Canaan. He is concerned that they might easily forget the conditions that led them to the

Promised Land and adapt to the same orientation of the previous land owners which disgusts God as Deut. 23: 11–13 says:

Be very careful, therefore, to love the Lord your God. For if you turn back, and join the survivors of these nations left here among you, and intermarry with them, so that you marry their women and they yours, know assuredly that the Lord your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap for you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from this good land that the Lord your God has given you.

21 1991: 218. 17

Chapter 23: 4–5 also forbids intermarriage and opens up an angle: that Israel should not engage with the Ammonites and the Moabites nor admit them into their congregation.

Besides the same applies to the Egyptians and the Edomites; except that they could be admitted into the assembly of Israel in the third generation (vv. 6–8). So, God commanded Israel to relate with some groups of people; to relate with some after a certain time; and to completely avoid relating with others.

The Chronicler historian on the other hand wants his readers to be careful not to follow in the path which compromised the divine–human covenant relationship. The people compromised the covenant when they refused to pledge their unflinching allegiance to

God who led them into the Promised Land; consequently, they were taken into captivity.22 So, since God has mercifully and graciously brought back some of the exiled to their land of inheritance, Ezra reminds the post–exilic community in 9: 12–14 that they should be careful never to

… give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity, so that you may be strong and eat the good of the land and leave it for an inheritance to your children forever.' After all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, seeing that you, our God, have punished us less than our iniquities deserved and have given us such a remnant as this, shall we break your commandments again and intermarry with the peoples who practice these abominations? Would you not be angry with us until you destroy us without remnant or survivor?

The preceding passage is very relevant because God‘s favoured people have returned from exile and have been restored to their given land. Therefore, they need to know what happened and to also answer the following questions: ―What are we to do now that we are back in the land?‖ ―What is our connection with Israel in the past?‖23 Interestingly,

22 Tremper Longman III & Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2006), 21–3.

23 Ibid: 22. 18

what they need to do now is exactly what Israel in the past failed to offer God: absolute allegiance to him and obedience to the covenant stipulations.

1.2.1.2: The Survey of Interfaith Marriages in the Old Testament:

This section will look at some intermarriage activities between Jews and Gentiles prior to the post–exilic Ezra–Nehemiah universal ban on the Jews against exogamy in order to answer the questions: Was there intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles prior to the post–exilic ban? If yes, then who was involved and what was the nature of the relationship?

The first reference to interfaith marriage in Scripture between Abraham‘s descendants and the Gentile race is Esau‘s taking of a Canaanite wife in Genesis 26: 36 and later adding two Hittite women in 28: 6–9. The next is Judah in Genesis 38 who also married a

Canaanite; she bore him three children (Er, Onan and Shelah). Joseph was married to an

Egyptian woman, Asenath (cf. 41: 45). Moses married a Midianite/Kushite woman named Zipporah (Ex 2: 21). Samson took a Philistine woman even against his parents‘ advice (Judges 14; 16: 4–22). The sons of Naomi and Elimelech married Moabite women among whom was Ruth who later married Boaz and begot Obed the grandfather of King

David (Ruth 1–3). King David married a Calebite and an Aramean in 2 Samuel 3: 3.

Bathsheba married Uriah the Hittite who was among the recognized soldiers during the period of David (2 Sam. 11: 3). King Solomon married several foreign wives (1 Kgs 3: 1;

11:1; 14: 21). King Ahab married Jezebel, a Phoenician, in 1 Kings 16:31. The mother of

King Hiram of Phoenicia was a Jewess from the tribe of Naphtali (1 Kgs 7: 13–14).

The above survey demonstrates the following: a) that there was a healthy intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles. b) This practice cut across social parameters in the commonwealth of Israel since both Kings of Israel and peasants were involved. c) The marriage covenant between Israel and the Gentile nations involved both males and females. d) That foreign daughters–in–law and sons–in–law integrated very well into the

Jewish race as in the cases of Rahab,24 Ruth and Uriah the Hittite the husband of

Bathsheba. e) However, it seems that some within the commonwealth of Israel detested such marriage covenant as in the case of Samson‘s parents.

The Deuteronomist was also very critical of exogamy in Israel in some later biblical texts

(Numb 12: 1; 1 Kgs 11: 1–3; 16: 31–33). Armin Lange observes that:

With the reforms of king Josiah and especially with the extensive development of deuteronomistic thought during the Babylonian exile the exclusive veneration of the national deity of Israel became part of the Jewish cultural identity …[So, whenever] Jews follow foreign gods [it is] because they are married to non–Jewish spouses. Hence mixed marriages were not an ethic but a cultural challenge. Intermarriages are regarded as diluting the exclusive veneration of YHWH and thus as diluting Jewish cultural identity (cf. Exod 34: 14 – 16; Deut 7: 1–5; Josh 23: 12–13; Judg 3: 5–7).25

The incipit of Matthew also presents an interesting perspective on some of the mixed marriages recounted above. Matthew 1: 5 relates that ―… and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse.‖ This verse relates that, firstly, Rahab the prostitute from Jericho who helped the Jewish spies prior to the destruction of her city, Jericho, was not only accepted in the commonwealth of Israel as Joshua reported but that she married Salmon and was the mother of Boaz. This makes

24 Rahab the prostitute agreed to betray her own people and land to save the Jewish spies. She also integrated well into the Jewish community in that she married Salmon and became the mother Boaz (Matt 1: 5). 25 ―Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughter Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9: 12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre–Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ BN–NF 137 (2008), 20. 20

her the great grandmother of King David. Secondly, while Ruth, the Moabite, the wife of

Boaz was the grandmother of the same King David. This demonstrates that non–Jews who married into the race were not only allowed to integrate but occupied an important place in both the Judeo–Christian history and events.

1.2.1.3: Why is God Against Interfaith Marriage in the Old Testament?

Joe M. Sprinkle‘s study notes four ways that uncleanness is contracted in the OT, focusing basically on Leviticus, namely skin disease, discharge of bodily fluids, touching unclean things, and touching unclean animals.26 Moreover, he states the requirements of the various ritual impurities as obligated by the Laws.27 In his discussion on the rationale of the purity laws in Israel, he concludes thus ―the purity system is central to creating a sense of sacred space for ancient Israel.‖28 Therefore,

… the whole land of Israel was somewhat sacred space, in contrast with the defiled space of Gentile lands. Nonetheless, Gentile sojourners (gri) are allowed to share the semi- sacred space of land, even partaking holy things, such as the Passover meal (provided that they followed the law of circumcision) and the Feast of Weeks (Exod 12:48; Deut 16:14).29

Sprinkle‘s study does not provide a complete solution to the above question;30 however, it has raised a relevant point. The above quote may infer that there are three levels of lands namely: the sacred, which the Israelites occupy; the semi–sacred, which the ger or

Gentile sojourners occupy within sacred space of Israel‘s land; and the defiled, which the

26 ―The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament,‖ JETS 43 (2000), 637– 57.

27 Ibid: 641–46.

28 Ibid: 654.

29 Ibid: 654–55.

30 In fairness to Sprinkle, his essay was not intended to answer the above question. He was rather concerned about the basis of the purity laws in the OT. 21

other Gentile nations occupy. Therefore, are the Gentiles intrinsically impure? Sprinkle‘s study infers yes. This explains why sacred land becomes semi–sacred because there are ger who are circumcised and follow ritual cleansing laws after contracting impurity from carcass (Ex 12: 48; Lev 17: 15).31 However, the lands of the other Gentiles (who are not ger) are basically defiled.32 Moreover, that the ger are somewhat still ritually unclean, since the land is semi–sacred, even after undergoing certain ritual cleansing suggests that the Gentiles may have a different quality.

The research of Christine E Hayes on the Israelite–Gentile identity may provide answers to the main question under analysis and the implications of Sprinkle‘s inference.33 In response, the following three possibilities require assessment: That the Gentiles are ritually impure, morally impure and genealogically and/or racially impure in the context of Israel.34

Hypothesis one: Ritual impurity.35 The leading position of the 19th century is that the

―Gentiles were considered to be ritually impure‖ since they failed to observe the laws of ritual purity, as Emil Schürer put forward in 1891.36 Gedaliah Alon‘s 1977 work not only

31 Sprinkle: 654–56.

32 Ibid.

33 The book Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002) is an excellent work of many years of research and discussion with some respected scholars in the field of OT and Judaic studies.

34 Hayes, ibid: 19–34.

35 Jonathan Klawans defines ritual impurity as ―the highly contagious but generally impermanent defilements also commonly known as ‗levitical‘ … [it] results from primary or secondary contact with any one of a natural processes and substances, as described in Lev. 11–15 and Num. 19‖ (―Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,‖ AJSR (1995), 289.

36 Hayes: 19. 22

agreed with Schürer but went further to add that the Gentiles are intrinsically–ritually impure and that it was a permanent defect since it was innate and communicable from

Gentile to Gentile.37 Moreover, Saul Olyan went further in his study (Rites and Ranks:

Hierarchy in Biblical Representation of Cults, 2000) to say that even the ger were ritually impure.38 Hayes however disagreed because: One, God‘s creation of mankind in Genesis

1 shows that they are the most valued of His creation and that humanity whether Jew or

Gentile is not intrinsically–ritually impure. If not the divine–human relationship between

God and Adam and Eve could not have happened.39 Two, the separation of Israel from the Gentile nations was not because Israel was special; since they came from them.

Rather, they were called as a result of God‘s grace and his plan that they pursue a life of separateness in ―both ritual and moral purity‖ (cf. Deut. 7: 6–8).40 Therefore,

… in theory, any other people might have been fit for selection by God to enter into the covenant and to observe its demands for moral and ritual purity. Israel‘s purity is thus contingent rather than intrinsic; it is a goal to be achieved by obedience to God‘s covenant, by separation from impure physical states and substances … (Ex 19: 5–6). Purity and the holiness to which it conduces are covenantal notions. Because only God‘s covenant partners are obligated to avoid most voluntary ritual impurities and cleanse themselves from avoidable ritual impurities, Gentiles are by definition exempt from the ritual purity laws set forth in Lev 12 – 15. Thus Gentiles are neither intrinsically impure nor derivatively defiled … by the sources of ritual impurity detailed in Lev 12–15 …41

Three, the regulations about the gerim residing among the Jews also suggest otherwise.

Hayes observes that they were worthy recipients of ―partial and full assimilation … into

37 Ibid: 19–20. Sprinkler‘s inferential understanding on the clean and unclean laws in the OT regarding the Gentiles, seems synonymous with Alon‘s response to whether Gentiles are ritually impure or not.

38 Ibid: 20.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid: 20–1.

Israelite society in biblical times‖ without any sort of conversion but only fulfilling certain requirements. Consequently, they are ―granted certain rights, protections, and privileges in return (Josh 6: 25 cf Jer 35; Josh 9; 14 cf. Judg. 1: 16; 1 Chr 22: 2 cf. 2 Chr

2: 16).‖42 The Deuteronomist shows that they participated in Temple sacrifices and importantly, God instructed that they were treated equal to the Israelites (Numbers 15:

14–16). Moreover, they were allowed to participate in both personal and communal offerings which were aimed at obtaining expiation for their unintentional sin and that of the community (Numbers 15: 25–26, 27, 29).43 Hayes‘ conclusion is that there is no biblical basis that Gentiles are intrinsically–ritually unclean in part or in whole.44

There are two exceptions to the above conclusion which excludes the Gentiles from the levitical laws on purity in the OT. These exceptions are stated in Numbers 19: 10–13 (cf.

31: 7, 19–20) on corpse impurity and Leviticus 17: 15–16 on carcass impurity. The prior passages do not excuse Israelites, gerim or Gentiles from the corpse and carcass impurity penalty and their demands,45 which seem to be within the purview of the universal law against shedding human blood in Gen 9: 3–6.46 Therefore, the ―Gentiles are subject to the minimal purity requirements of the universal Noahide covenant, and Israelites are subject

42 Ibid: 21.

43 Ibid.

44 Cf. Klawans: 291.

45 Vered Noam, ―Another Look at the Rabbinic Conception of Gentiles from the Perspective of Impurity Laws‖ in Judaea–Palaestina, Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity (eds. Benjamin Isaac and Yuval Shahar; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 104–08.

46 Hayes: 12, 37–9. 24

to the more elaborate purity requirements of the Sinaitic covenant.‖47 Vered Noam notes that since the living Gentile contracts corpse impurity and that the corpse of a dead

Gentile also produces impurity if it was touched (cf. Numbers 19: 10–13; 31: 19–20), that although ―the ordinances on impurity are addressed to Israel does not mean that it is not possible for a Gentile to be object of impurity.‖48 Nonetheless, it is unreasonable to reduce the Gentiles as intrinsically or innately impure on a biblical basis.

Hypothesis two: moral impurity.49 Moral impurity is different from ritual impurity. The former is not contagious while the latter is.50 On the definition of moral impurity, which is the heart of the holiness code discussed in Leviticus 18–26,51 it is thus contagious to the Israelites, gerim and goyim as well; no one is excused.52 The moral impurity mentioned in Leviticus 18–20 centers mostly on unlawful sexual relations and other various laws on unethical behaviours. Such immoral lifestyle is the culture of the Gentiles and, crucially, causes uncleanness (Lev 18: 24ff). Also, it was such impurity that drove the native people from their land (Lev 18: 24–25, 30). To reiterate, moral impurity is

47 Ibid 48 Noam: 108. There is no any difference, in my opinion, between Hayes‘ submission and Noam on the subject matter (Hayes: 12, 37–9, 114–16).

49 Klawans defines moral impurity or uncleanness as the result ―from committing certain acts so heinous as to be considered defiling… there is no contact–contagion associated with moral impurity‖ (289– 90 cf. Eyal Regev ―Moral Impurity and the Temple in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology,‖ HTR 97 [2004], 383.

50 Ibid.

51 Hayes: 23 cf. Klawans: 291.

52 Klawans: 288–90; Hayes: 22–6. 25

exclusively neither gerim nor Gentile but applies to Israel as well; they are not contagious from A to B as Saul Olyan assumed.53 Another uniqueness of moral impurity is ―there is no purification rite akin to those associated with ritual impurity.‖54

God gave his purity laws which protect against moral impurity. Gentiles are not innately– morally impure; rather, they are inured to immoral living (Lev 18: 26).55 So the gerim and the goyim, who live an unclean lifestyle, are morally impure. This may explain why the Jewish–Gentile relationship was later described by resentment especially in the contexts of the sanctuary and intermarriage during the post–exilic period.56 Since the standard of the moral purity lifestyle of the Israelites is basically different than that of the

Gentiles, it is only plausible that it may have been responsible for the later sour relationship.

It is now important to briefly study the above state of the Israel–goyim relationship from the perspectives of two historians in order to see its development from high to low.

Deuteronomistic history shows that despite God‘s grace, mercy, deliverance, nationhood, new land and a divine–Israel union, Israel still rejected him for other gods.57 The

53 Hayes: 23–4.

54 Klawans: 291; Hayes: 23.

55 Ibid: 292; 24. Klawans observes that although Gentiles are not inherently impure; but the same cannot be said about their profanity. Therefore they are violators of sacred laws (ibid).

56 Klawans: 292; Hayes: 23–6.

57 Longman III and Dillard: 21–3. 26

Tetrateuch,58 from which we have briefly considered some texts in passing, shows that the gerim are to be allowed in the land of Israel and to also participate in offerings and sacrifices and building the community (Num 15: 14–17, 25–29). As Cohen rightly, observes:

… as a rule intermarriage is not a major concern to the Deuteronomic historian (Josh– Kings). He notes without comment several marriages between Israel and foreigners [here are some examples] … Judg 8: 30 – 31 … 2 Sam 3: 3/1 Chron. 3: 2 … 1 Kgs 14: 21/ 2 Chron. 12: 13 … 2 Sam. 17: 25 … 1 Kgs 7: 13–14 … 2 Sam 11: 3 …59

Besides, there are five texts (1 Kings 3: 1; 7: 8; 9: 16; 9: 24; 11: 1–2) which the

Deuteronomist discusses on Solomon‘s intermarriage to Pharaoh‘s daughter; however, only 1 Kings 11: 1–2 is against such union.60 There seems to be only one passage which the Deuteronomist out–rightly condemns intermarriage which is Judges 14: 2–3:

Then he came up, and told his father and mother, ‗I saw one of the daughters of the Philistines at Timnah; now get her for me as my wife.‘ But his father and mother said to him, "Is there not a woman among the daughters of your kinsmen, or among all our people, that you must go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines? …

The historian showed in Deuteronomy 7: 2–4; 23: 4–5 that Israel–goyim relationship was almost established in the Pentateuch for it is God‘s plan that it exists and even progresses,

58 Martin Noth hypothesized that Genesis to Kings should be divided into Tetrateuch, which would contain the following books: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus & Numbers and Deuteronomistic History, which would contain from Deuteronomy to Kings. This, therefore, separates Chronicles from Samuel and Kings even though Chronicles has many materials which are found in both books. The Noth model of dividing the Pentateuch and attaching part of it with other books in the traditional historical section of the OT while leaving the remaining section of the historical books as Chronicler’s History, has received wide acceptance in biblical scholarship, see Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works from Genesis through Kings; in Thomas B. Dozeman, Thomas RÖmer, and Konrad Schmid (eds.), SBL (Atlanta, Georgia: SBL, 2011), 1–8. 59 Shaye J. D. Cohen ―Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion and the Impurity of Women,‖ JANES 16–17 (1984–85), 24. The above text informs that the intermarriages took place between both Jewish men vs. foreign women and Jewish women vs. foreign men.

60 Ibid: 24–5. However, it remains unclear why Deuteronomistic historian adds Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite and Edomite women to the list who are not among the nationalities God issued an earlier ban on intermarriage in Deut. 7: 3–4 cf. 23: 4–9 (ibid: 25–6). 27

in view of the call of Abram (Gen 12: 1–3),61 but within the divine–Israel covenant stipulations. But it seems that this relationship was not later observed as God desired. The prophet Ezekiel admonished:

Say to the rebellious house, to the house of Israel, Thus says the Lord GOD: O house of Israel, let there be an end to all your abominations in admitting foreigners, uncircumcised in heart and flesh, to be in my sanctuary, profaning my temple when you offer to me my food, the fat and the blood. You have broken my covenant with all your abominations. And you have not kept charge of my sacred offerings; but you have appointed foreigners to act for you in keeping my charge in my sanctuary.62

The preceding passage shows God‘s response to the same Israel–goyim relationship through his prophet. The Israelites seem to have softened the stipulations concerning their relationship with the other nations (goyim) and instead of winning them over into the commonwealth of God they were rather won over to other gods. However, Klawans is correct to observe,

… the presence of Gentiles in the sanctuary is a profanation, … [but] not a defilement. The exclusion of Gentiles should not be seen as a purity law because it applies to all Gentiles at all times. Impurity … is generally a temporary state, and can be conveyed in and out of the Temple. The exclusion of Gentiles is to be compared to the exclusion of priests with a physical deformity: they are excluded because they are profane, even though they are not impure.63

The above may also be compared with Prophet Joel‘s words in 3: 17 when he said ―… and Jerusalem shall be holy, and strangers shall never again pass through it.‖

However, the same cannot be said about the Chronicler historian whose interests lie in answering some core questions for the post–exilic Jews now in their land. Therefore, he

61 There is no better way to understand this text: ―I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves‖ (Genesis 12: 3). This divine declaration may be better applied to understand that Israel needs to have a relationship with the goyim in order to bless them. 62 Ezekiel 44: 6–8. It is important to note that the prophet lived and prophesied both before and after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians.

63 Pp. 292–93. 28

wrestled with the following questions: Where do the returnees go from here? What relationship do they have with Israel‘s past?64 He answers such concerns by sticking to the holiness code required of Israel in the past, still incumbent on the returnees, a chosen people who are set apart for God‘s glory and purpose. The returning Jews were willing to do that and even went the extra mile in order to remain true to their calling.

The historian points out the foreign marriage of King Solomon to Pharaoh‘s daughter in 2

Chronicles 8: 11, which says: ―Solomon brought Pharaoh's daughter up from the city of

David to the house which he had built for her, for he said, ‗My wife shall not live in the house of David king of Israel, for the places to which the ark of the LORD has come are holy‘‖ (1 Kings 9: 24–25 cf. 11: 1–2).65 The Deuteronomist did not say why Solomon would not want his Egyptian wife to live in the city of David; while the Chronicler was very clear. The Deuteronomist historian appears to have championed Solomon‘s marriage to Pharaoh‘s daughter as a great achievement, since it was an alliance with Egypt (1 Kgs

3: 1), which Pharaoh paid a huge dowry by capturing Gezer and killing the Canaanites (1

Kgs 9: 16).66 However as things worsen in Israel, the alliance is no longer hailed but was questioned and regarded as the chief reason for Israel‘s decline.67 The Chronicler seems

64 Longman III and Dillard: 21–3. The writer was rewriting history, by adapting the books of Samuel and Kings to explain to the returnee Jews of their connection to Israel in the past. He told them the divine–Israel story of grace, failure, judgment, exile and restoration in his narration, to which Michael Wilcock likens a sermon with rich theology, The Message of Chronicles (BST; Leicester, England: IVP, 1987), 14–6. Chronicles conclude somewhat as Deuteronomy with the call to worship God (2 Chron. 36: 23 cf. Deut. 30: 19–20). 65 Cohen observes that the Chronicler certainly knew about Solomon‘s Egyptian‘s wife; yet he neither condemned him nor even mentioned his other many foreign wives (ibid: 27, 37).

66 Ibid: 37. The italic is mine. It is plausible that the Deuteronomist is hereby portraying Solomon in 1 Kings 9: 16 as a hero. Due to the marriage alliance, Pharaoh led an attack, which resulted in the death of many Canaanites and the destruction of their city; these he referred as his daughter‘s dowry.

67 Ibid: 37. 29

not to have approved of Solomon‘s marriage to an Egyptian princess; but Cohen thinks differently.68 Therefore the Chronicler may have intended to show a later development in the ban of intermarriage with foreigners, fully expressed in Ezra and Nehemiah. It is also reasonable to ask: Why did the historian single out the Egyptian princess and not the other foreign wives? Could it be because she was unwilling to assimilate into her new socio–religious context while the other foreign wives did?69 Were the other foreign wives allowed to stay near the temple?70 Moreover, there certainly were men of Israel who married foreign women. It is plausible that they assimilated into Israel‘s society; if so, did they remain in Jerusalem with their husbands or did their husbands also find alternative accommodations? However if it is as Cohen and others observe, then it might be difficult to convincingly show that the Chronicler‘s motive is to bring together both Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah. However discarding such a possibility in the Chronicler‘s narrative might be a difficult mission also.

The subject of intermarriage during the post–exilic period was treated differently. In Ezra foreign spouses were divorced and children from such unions also sent away (10: 3–

68 Cohen concludes that the Chronicler does not condemn the action of Solomon in part or whole (ibid: 27, 37 cf. Wilcock: 155).

69 Cohen answers that ―… Chronicles [does not] know anything about ‗conversion‘ [rituals of later Judaism] (p. 37 cf. p. 30). This is reasonably so because ―in biblical times … there was no ritual of ‗conversion‘ for either man or woman. Foreign women were assimilated into the people of Israel through marriage with a Hebrew husband. Upon her marriage she joined his house and his clan and would normally accept his way of life. The idea that a woman could ‗convert‘ to Judaism in her own right, through a ritual of immersion, and that her Jewishness was independent of that of her own husband, did not emerge until the first century B.C.E or C.E‖ (ibid: 30).

70 Nupanga Weanzana opines that the other wives of Solomon stayed near the temple ―1&2 Chronicles‖ in Tokumboh Adeyemo (ed.), ABC (Nairobi, Kenya: Word Alive Publishers, 2010), 507–08. 30

14).71 In Nehemiah foreign spouses were instead allowed to remain with their Jewish men but future intermarriage was banned (13: 23–27).72 It is this nature of composition and historiography which Martin Noth frowns at.73

As noted above, Scripture does not generally prohibit Israel from intermarriage; except with certain groups of goyim (Exodus 34: 15–16; Number 31: 15–17; Deuteronomy 7: 2–

4; 23: 2–9).74 It is the Gentile attitudinal tendencies or culture of immorality that is ground for such an injunction (cf. Exod 34: 15–16; Deut. 7: 2–4). However, interestingly,

―the women of foreign nations are considered to be ultimately assimilable, whereas those of the seven Canaanite nations are not‖;75 except that Israel may relate with the

Egyptians, Moabites, Ammonites and Edomites after some generations. Hayes was correct to remark that the injunction against intermarriage on grounds of immorality is partial and so permeable. The ban is pervious since should the foreigners renounce immorality and instead pledge allegiance to the moral–religious decrees of the God of

Israel they would be accepted into the community of Israel.76 Since the moral ground is penetrable, it is not comprehensive prohibition against intermarriage.77

71 The Ezra text will be later discussed in detail in the exegesis section of this chapter.

72 This will be discussed in the integration section of the exegesis of Ezra 10.

73 The Chronicler’s History (JSOTSupp; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), 75–88. 74 Cohen: 24–6; Hayes: 19–34; Klawans: 290–91.

75 Hayes: 25.

76 Ibid: 26.

77 Ibid. Moreover, that the foreign women assimilate into the society of Israel when taken as wives provides evidence that the moral hypothesis is a permeable boundary. 31

Hypothesis three: Genealogical impurity.78 The Chronicler historian notes in his incipit the importance of genealogy in his genealogical introduction to the family tree of Israel.

He starts however, with Adam from whom all the other people groups came (1 Chr. 1: 1–

27). In his exhaustive list of the House of Israel, the historian dedicates 336 verses in 1

Chr. 1: 27–8:40 for its lineage, while giving special attention and importance to Judah probably for King David (1 Chr. 2: 3–4: 23). This attention is deserved since the majority who returned from the 586 BC exile were Judeans. Knoppers rightly observes that

Genealogies, whether from Israel, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Phoenicia, or Greece, are not simply compilations of traditional material, but are assertions about identity, territory, and relationships. The names of ancestors, towns, and groups were of special relevance to ancient writers, because their genealogical connections defined the ancestor‘s, town‘s or group‘s position in relation to others. A group‘s proper allegiances and sympathies were reflected in its lineages. To this extent, assertions about the past expressed political, economic, and social perceptions and aspirations of the present. Differences in names, derivations, and kinship ties were not inconsequential details but indications of where the closest ties existed between peoples.79

Ezra also provides the genealogy of the returnees from exile in chapter 2 and 8, emphasizing again the importance of family lineage. The Ezra roll call should not be underestimated; as Knoppers noted it relates to their ancestors, town, their connection to both the family tree and the land they have just returned to as well as other peoples.80

Louis Epson outlines the rationale for the later ban on Judean–goyim intermarriage during the post–exilic period: ―the custom of endogamy, enmity with other groups, religious differences with other groups, racial differences … and self–preservation in times of

78 The genealogy or lineage of a people group is very important for their existence and survival as it shows their allegiance, lineage and relation to others cf. Gary N. Knoppers, ―Intermarriage, Social Complexity, and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah,‖ JBL 120 (2001), 18. 79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

threatened assimilation.‖81 Epson‘s reference to ―racial differences and self–preservation‖ for continuing a pure Jewish blood-line so as to preserve the Jewish race from admixture is a crucial point. Hayes is critical of both Epson and Olyan for their understanding of blood purity as a basis for the later ban on intermarriage in Ezra–Nehemiah. She observes the rationale for Ezra–Nehemiah‘s insistence on endogamy as genealogical purity82 although the Jewish genealogy had actually not been without Gentile admixture.83 Olyan holds that exogamy between Jewish men and Gentile women would lead to adulterating the priestly bloodline.84 This implies that the Ezra–Nehemiah‘s rationale was not just about the preservation of pure Jewish blood-line; but most importantly the priestly bloodline. However, it is reasonable to see the danger of admixture of the bloodline as having general consequences and not just for the priestly line.85

The notion of genealogical purity didn‘t stem from Ezra–Nehemiah. It was rather God‘s demand upon the men of the tribe of Levi whom He had consecrated for service as priest according to the Deuteronomist. According to Leviticus 21: 7, 13–15 ―… they are holy to their God‖ therefore, a priest ―… shall marry only a woman who is a virgin. A widow, or a divorced woman, or a woman who has been defiled, a prostitute, these he shall not marry. He shall marry a virgin of his own kin, that he may not profane his offspring

81 Hayes: 24; according to Hayes Olyan also sides with Epson on the purity of blood as the basis for the later total ban on intermarriage between the Jews and Gentiles (p. 27).

82 Hayes: 27. It is only reasonable to see that the idea posited by Epson and Olyan‘s ―purity of blood‖ rationale for Ezra–Nehemiah‘s ban against exogamy would lead ultimately to the preservation of pure Jewish lineage during the Second Temple period. Therefore, if this is right then Hayes‘ observation might just be semantics or rather, creating a mountain out of mole hill.

83 Knoppers: 15–30.

84 Saul M. Olyan: 4–5 cf. Arthur J. Wolak, ―Ezra‘s Radical Solution to Judean Assimilation,‖ JBQ 40 (2012), 101.

85 Wolak: 95. 33

86 among his kin; for I am the LORD; I sanctify him. The idea of being set apart originated in Genesis 12 with the call of Abraham. It then progressed to the 12 tribes of Israel who were set apart from the rest of the world. However, within the Jewish commonwealth,

God also set aside the priestly line of Levi from the other tribes and the world for service.

This might have informed Ezra–Nehemiah‘s decision to generally ban exogamy during the Second Temple period by viewing not only the priestly bloodline as requiring preservation but all the Judeans who returned from exile. Interestingly, some Bible scholars have related the use of the ―holy seed‖ language in Isaiah 6: 13 with the ―people of the land‖ as Ezra–Nehemiah painted. Isaiah 6: 13 relates that: ―even if a tenth part remains in it, it will be burned again, like a terebinth or an oak whose stump remains standing when it is felled. The holy seed is its stump.‖ This is ―… suggesting that the exile from the land served to purify the holy seed, therefore, making Judeans, or those of the Jewish descent, inappropriate for marriage and procreation with the others.‖87

Hayes observed that the ―holy seed‖ perspective of Ezra successfully accomplished the following: a) placed a permanent and/or an impenetrable restriction between Jewish and

Gentile relations; b) agreeing with Epson, that it expands the ban against intermarriage from between Jews and selected Gentile nations to Jews and all others; hence a universal ban since it now sees humanity as divided into the ―holy seeds‖ and ―others‖; c) agreeing with Olyan, that this impermeable universal ban against Jewish and Gentile intermarriage

86 Italics mine. 87 Ibid: 101. 34

cuts across gender; hence it affects both Jewish males proposing marriage to Gentile women and Jewish women receiving such proposals from Gentile men.88

The above three hypotheses may be summed up as follows: Klawans states that ritual impurity is not what informs the universal restriction in Jewish–Gentile relations in Ezra–

Nehemiah since it entails ‗highly contagious but generally impermanent defilements;‘ the important factor is moral impurity, which is the characteristic of the Gentile.89 Hayes with Klawans argue against the importance of ritual impurity but reiterates both moral and genealogical impurities.90 However, Olyan is critical of both in his recent study of the issue. He opines that though both scholars were correct that the subject of moral impurity plays no small role in the Ezra–Nehemiah concept of purity and impurity as it concerns the Jewish people, they were off–track in their insistence that:

… ―moral‖ impurity alone is at play in the Ezra–Nehemiah narratives concerning aliens, as Klawans does, or that only ―moral‖ and lineage pollution are at issue there, as Hayes asserts. ―Ritual‖ defilement of a novel sort is evidently a concern in Neh 13: 4–9, and the influence of the ―ritual‖ impurity tradition is also discernible in the communicability of the lineage pollution by means of reproduction. Perhaps more importantly, Klawans and Hayes have not discerned the complex relationship of the purity ideology of Ezra– Nehemiah to the traditions out of which it developed.91

He concludes his study by suggesting that Ezra–Nehemiah succeeded in their ban against intermarriage by ―… expansive and creative exegesis of earlier texts such as Lev 18: 24–

30, Deut 23: 4–9 and Deut 7: 1–6 plays a crucial role in the exclusionist program ...‖ and

88 Hayes: 32.

89 Klawans: 289, 311–12.

90 Hayes: 19–44.

91 Olyan: 15. 35

by impressing upon the returnees to categorise people into the ―holy seed‖ and ―others.‖92

Thus, intermarriage between the ―holy seed‖ and the ―others‖ was universally opposed because it is a ―sacrilege‖ l[m which requires offering; it defiles the priestly bloodline; the orientation and culture of the ―others‖ would pollute the returnees; and that the

―others‖ are defiled ritually.93 However, as convincing as Olyan may be, it is also reasonable to consider Hayes‘ overwhelming argument against the hypothesis that

Gentiles represent ritual impurity which he insists on.

1.2.2: An Exploration of Ezra 10: 1–17

There are two significant events which shook Israel after the dominion of King David and the prosperity of King Solomon. First, the reign of King Rehoboam, which marked the discontinuity of Israel as a nation of 12 Tribes which he took over from his father King

Solomon.94 This development resulted to two Kingdoms, Judah in the South and Israel in the North. Second, the defeat and deportation of both Kingdoms: the North was taken by the Assyrians in 721/2 BC while the South had the same experience in 597 and ultimately in 586/7 BC at the hands of the Babylonians.95 This section will investigate the literary

92 Ibid: 2–6.

93 Ibid: 16. 94 King Rehoboam refused the counsel of the old men and rather went with that of the young men as 1 Kgs 12 told it. Consequently, the nation of Israel was divided into Southern and Northern Kingdoms. The basis for this division–refusal to listen to the counsel of aged men–is reflected in the Africa saying that ―What an elder has seen [i. e known and experienced] a young man cannot, not even if he climbs a tree.‖ As true as it may be, this view cannot be said to be positive for it has reduced the impact of the young in many spheres of endeavour within the continent.

95 Philip R. Davies & John Rogerson, The Old Testament World (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005, 2nd ed.), 73–84. 36

and historical contexts of the Judean exiled under the leadership of Sheshbazzar and

Zerubbabel from 538–522 BC96 and then seek to understand Ezra 10: 1–17.

1.2.2.1: The Contexts of Ezra

Studying the book of Ezra presents historical, compositional and literary challenges. It had been thought that Ezra shared the same author with other post-exilic books like

Chronicles and Nehemiah, termed the Chronicler. Martin Noth argued:

To all intents and purposes, the work of the Chronicler has come down to us as a literary unity… it is generally accepted as certain that in 1 and 2 Chronicles + Ezra and Nehemiah we have but a single work. In this case, therefore, in contrast with our analysis of the Deuteronomic History, there is no need to start with demonstration of the work‘s literary unity.97

Noth‘s conclusion was reasonable considering it was common at the time to attribute the three books to the same author.98

Sara Japhet superbly discussed and debunked the four hypotheses which gave rise and supported the concept of a Chronicler authorship of the post–exilic books. She concludes

96 See the Chronological Chart of main events in the Southern Kingdom as compiled by Hugh G.M Williamson, Ezra and Nehemiah (OTG; Sheffield, UK: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Press, 1985), 13. This is vital if we must understand its core message within the post–exilic context; hence only aspects important for exegeting the Ezran text are presented.

97 1987: 29.

98 The view was argued in L. Zuni‘s Dibre-Hayamim oder die Bücher der Chronik, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, historisch Entwickelt in 1832 and two years later by F.C. Movers in his Kritische Untersuchungen über die biblische Chronik in1834. C.C. Torrey, a British scholar, also argued the same in his 1896 The Composition and Historical Value of Ezra Nehemiah (Sara Japhet ―Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,‖ VT 18 (1968), 330 cf. Longman III & Dillard: 204–05).

that there are both identical and conspicuous differences in the literary style in Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah.99 Therefore,

Our investigation of the differences between the two books, which was restricted to one field, has proven that the books could not have been written or compiled by the same author. It seems rather that a certain period of time must separate the two. We are certain that a further study of the literary characteristics, the attitude to the sources and their use and the theological conceptions of the two books will greatly support our conclusions.100 Another concern is whether Ezra and Nehemiah should be treated as a single composition or not. In response, James Vanderkam concludes in favour of separate compositions.101

He argues on three fronts, namely, that there are differences in language; different sources (and how they are used) and that they have different themes.102 Interestingly, for

Vanderkam, the linguistic, vocabulary that are special to Ezra and the overwhelming use of official sources distinguished Ezra from Nehemiah as well as Chronicles.103 However,

translated as ―the hand of God was good כְּ יַד־אֱ ֹלהָ יוהַ ּטֹובָ ה ףָלָ יו For instance: the construction 99 upon me‖ was exclusively Ezra–Nehemiah (Ezra 7: 9, 28; 8: 18, 22, 31 & Nehemiah 2: 8, 18) as it is not found in Chronicles and any other OT text (ibid: 366–67). This begs the question: is this pointing to an author or authors? This may suggest the later (ibid: 377).

100 Ibid. The following also agreed on a separate composition: Derek Kidner, Ezra & Nehemiah: An Introduction & Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1979), 136–39; Tamara Eskenazi, In An Age of Prose: A Literary & Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 14–32; Longman II and Dillard, 204–05 and others. However, David A. Talshir critiqued both Japhet and Williamson that ―Can it be determined by linguistic investigation whether the books of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah are the product of a single person?‖ (―Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship Between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,‖ VT 38 [1988]), 165. He responded that ―… in order to prove that two works are by separate authors it is sufficient to prove that clear-cut oppositions in language and style exist between them. In contrast, there is no simple way to prove the opposite; for affinity in language between two literary works is no proof of unity of authorship. Even if extensive linguistic affinity can be demonstrated between two works, and there are no clear-cut oppositions between them, this in itself is no proof for unity of authorship. Thus linguistic analysis is admittedly limited in this kind of study‖ (ibid: 167). He concludes that the hypothesis of a single authorship should be reconsidered because linguistic ground goes either for or against a single authorship (ibid: 193).

101 James C. Vanderkam, From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Boston, USA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002), 60–80.

102 Ibid.

103 Ibid: 80.

at best, this invites a reinvestigation into the question, for Vanderkam does not appear to alter Sara‘s result. One may employ Talshir‘s modus operandi of scrutinizing Japhet‘s

1968 investigation to erode Vanderkam‘s linguistic, vocabulary and source criticisms as grounds for deciding both the authorship and separate origins of Chronicles, Ezra and

Nehemiah since truly it can go either way.104 Therefore, the conspicuous differences existing between two literary works of the same period do not satisfactorily provide basis for independent composition; neither does it prove dependent composition. The burden of proof does not lie there; it probably lies with the author (‘s) intention for the people and their responses to the religious and developmental projects in their land.

It is most reasonable to conclude:

1) That it is very difficult to determine with certainty the author of Ezra or Ezra–

Nehemiah even though Bava Bathra 15a in the Babylonian Talmud gave the authorship to Ezra. It is plausible but ―… concrete internal evidence is lacking.‖105

2) That it should be Ezra–Nehemiah rather than an independent Ezra and Nehemiah considering the arguments for and against.

3) That since there is no consensus among Bible scholars in regards to identifying with certainty the author of Ezra–Nehemiah, dating the book becomes perplexing. However,

104 See David Talshir‘s modus operandi on foot note 86. 105 Longman III and Dillard: 204. Interestingly, Bava Bathra 15a presents Ezra and Nehemiah as one work and that Ezra also contributed to the writing of 1&2 Chronicles which were later completed by Nehemiah the son Hachaliah. 39

an early date, after 458 BC, the traditional date of Ezra‘s mission, might be plausible, thus dating the work between the last years of the reign of Darius II to about 400 BC.106

4) That there were few Judean returnees considering those that remained.107 They also returned to a very weak community among strong neighbours, especially in the north, who saw them as a threat. Among the neighbours were Tobias, Sanballat and Geshem who plotted against the Judeans. They probably felt their survival was threatened due to their size, poor economic and lack of sound religious and community life. Succinctly, they are but a remnant returned into a society with strong external boundaries facing them on the one hand but a weak internal integration on the other hand.108

5) That Ezra was saddled with an intricate mission. It may not seem so at first; but considering that he was expected to please his Persian master and simultaneously embark on religious reforms in Judah, makes it clear that ―… with Israel‘s loss of national sovereignty, many of the Laws in the Pentateuch could no longer be literally or directly obeyed‖109 since they would potentially clash with existing Persian laws. Therefore, Ezra was saddled with the burden of reinterpreting the Torah faithfully but also remembering the earthly power.110 In order to achieve this, he had to introduce a new technique for the

106 Kidner: 138; H.G.M. Williamson, Ezra & Nehemiah (WBC1; Waco, Texas: Word Book Publisher, 1985), p. xxxvi; H.G.M. Williamson, 1987: 46; Longman III and Dillard: 204.

107 Longman III and Dillard: 207; Brettler: 199.

108 David Janzen, Witch–Hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9–10 (JSOTSupp; London: Sheffield Academy Press, 2002). 109 Williamson, 1987: 65.

110 K.G. Huglund has argued that the decision of the Persian or Achaemenid Empire to free the Judeans may have been a response to the threat of military attack from Egypt and Greece. It is reasonable to see a military purpose for freeing the Judeans. The empire would expect solidarity since they freed them from Babylonian captivity. The strategy, according to Huglund, was that since the Judeans would build 40

interpretation of the Sacred text in order to address depressing situations confronting his people. The Ezran exegetical method was later adopted by latter Jewish exegetes.111

The first Judean deportees left under the leadership of Sheshbazzar the prince112 and

Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–3). King Cyrus handed the Temple articles, which Nebuchadnezzar seized during the attack on Jerusalem to Sheshbazzar the prince (1: 7). Cyrus commissioned the Judean returnees with the mission to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem to worship God (1: 2–4). The Judeans might have left Babylon around 539–7 BC113 yet

King Xerxes still felt the need to commission Ezra for another duty for which he journeyed with other deportees in 458 BC (chap 7).

The mission of Ezra and its impacts are recorded from chapter 7–10. Chapter 7 is an introductory letter from King Xerxes to the Judeans concerning the mission of Ezra in the region and to the ―treasurers of Trans–Euphrates,‖ saddling them with the responsibility of funding Ezra‘s mission should he need it (7: 21ff.). Chapter 8 begins with the list of family heads who agreed to return with him (vv. 1–14). However, upon his count, Ezra

walls around their city and their presence would serve as a military outpost whereby the enemy would only reach the empire after defeating the Judeans who had been renowned warriors (cf. Longman III & Dillard: 207–208). Hoglund‘s thesis is sound. On the one hand, the motive of the Archaemenid Empire in the deportation was basically to portray itself as a liberator in contrast with previous world powers, like Babylon and Assyria; while on the other hand, it gave them a political, administrative and significant military means for control after the deportees had resettled on their land (Wolak: 96).

111 Williamson, 1987: 65–6.

112 The identity of Sheshbazzar in post–exilic biblical literatures has attracted several scholarly the prince of הַ נָשִ ִׂ֖ יא לִ ָֽ יהּודָ ה discussions on the matter. This is understandable because in Ezra he was both the governor (5: 13). Suffice it to say, scholarly discussion seems to hinge on פֶחָ ִׂ֖ ה Judah (1: 8) and as relating the Ezran Sheshbazzar with the Davidic Shenazzar mentioned in 1 Chron. 3: 18 is a phonetic possibility which the author did not intend to make; and his governorship identity attracted the link with the Zerubbabel cf. Williamson, 1985: 17–9; Leslie L. Allen, Ezra (NIBC; Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 21–2. 113 Allen: 16; Williamson, 1985: 8; David J. Clines, Ezra, Nehemiah & Esther (NCBC1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984), 34.

noticed the shortage of Levites, so he requested more. He got 38 Levites and 220 Temple servants whose function was to assist the Levites (vv. 15–20).114 They finally met with the previous returnees who had already settled and completed the building of the Temple under Zerubbabel (vv. 31–36). Chapter 9 records the heart of Ezra‘s religious reform which subsequently led to his prayer of confession, renouncing exogamy (between Israel and their neighbours). This scenario climaxes with national confession, repentance and the sending away of foreign spouses from the Judean community.115

Weanzana observes rightly that the above reconstruction of the land and the work of Ezra and Nehemiah has a continuity with the Israel of the past; continuity between post–exilic

Judeans and the pre–exilic Israel. The post–exilic ―altar of sacrifice‖ was built on the destroyed pre–exilic site (3: 3). The building of the new Temple was like a rebuilding of the old (5: 11, 15; 6: 17). The Temple articles used in the post–exilic period were the same used in the pre–exilic period (1: 7–11). The religious sacrifices and feasts observed after exile, as well as the Temple personnel, are structured after the pre–exilic fashion (3:

2–3; Neh. 8: 14; 12: 24, 45). Finally, and importantly, the Judean returnees could trace their ancestry back to the pre–exilic age (3: 10; 7: 1–5; 8: 18; Neh. 7: 5–6).116

1.2.2.2: The Analysis and Interpretation of the Text:

The post–exilic Judean community needed a leader in common with Moses and Aaron to assure them that the Lord God was with them and involved in their situation. They got

114 The need for Levites delayed their journey to Jerusalem for about 2 weeks (see 7: 8–9; 8: 31).

115 The heart of Nehemiah may also fit into the above reconstruction since Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as a unit. The contents of the unit is as follows: First, the reconstruction of the Temple in Jerusalem under Zerubbabel (Ezra 1–6); secondly, the reconstruction of the community in Jerusalem under Ezra (Ezra 7–10); thirdly, the reconstruction of the walls of Jerusalem under Nehemiah (Nehemiah 1–6).

116 P. 530. 42

one in the person of Ezra. Chapter 7 introduces him as one well versed in the Law of

Moses which God had given Israel to believe and observe (vv. 6, 10–11). He was also a descendent of Aaron (vv. 1–5). He was both a priest and a scribe, an uncommon combination,117 whose influence among the Judeans was almost instant when he arrived.

His lamentations alone were enough to call the people to order for ―… instead of whipping a reluctant people into action, Ezra has pricked their conscience to the point at which they now urged him to act.‖118 Chapter 9 relates his self–inclusive prayer of repentance for exogamous marriage in Israel. This method of penitential prayer reminds readers of Daniel‘s prayer in Babylon (cf. Dan 9: 1–19). Chapter 10 picks up where 9 leave off. The analysis of Ezra 10: 1–17 will involve the following: A creative exegesis

(vv. 1–6); a creative plan to support the creative exegesis (vv. 7–17) and integration into comparable assertion.

1.2.2.2.1: The Creative Exegesis119 (vv. 1–6)

The narrative now reverts to the third person singular as in chapter 7, changing from the first person singular of chapter 9.120 The opening clause of chapter 10 describes Ezra ―… praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself down‖ (v. 1) as in chapter 9. This

117 Ibid: 531.

118 Kidner: 69–70. 119 Creative Exegesis is interpreting the Scripture in the midst of anxiety; see Johanna W. H. Van Wijk–Bos, Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (WBC; Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 43. This style of exegesis can be applied to address a question in favour of a side to the disfavour of another. Interestingly, it seems very genuine and focused on righteousness. The Serpent seems to apply such style in his discussion with Eve which eventually led to the fall in Genesis 3 and during his temptation of Jesus in Matthew 4. Therefore Satan‘s purposes in both examples were definitely against God. However, this was not the case in the Ezran text.

120 This impresses that the compiler had resorted to adapting Ezra‘s memoir instead of taking from it verbatim it as he did in chapter 9. However, it is plausible that the memoirs themselves contained such variants as it might have been an Ancient Near Eastern style of writing as may be seen in the Cyrus cylinder (Clines: 125). 43

does not intend to imply a renewed act aside from that of the preceding chapter but rather it might be recapping Ezra‘s lamentation in chapter 9. Therefore, the use of the conjunction while fits the context.

There are words and constructions in chapter 9 that deserve attention since the introductory clause of chapter 10 is tied to chapter 9. Firstly, that the Judeans have ―… not kept themselves separate [ldB-aol] from the neighbouring peoples with their detestable practices [hb[wT]‖ (9: 1). Secondly, this action is understood as unfaithfulness (9: 2 cf. v.4). Thirdly, Ezra laments in response to the developments as in the following words: j~mv bvy … jrm … [rq121 (9: 3 cf. vv. 4–5). The prayer of lament of Ezra focused on the Yahweh-Israel covenant relationship. He said Israel was unworthy of the divine provisions because of their consistent failure to meet their part of the covenant demands.

The following words also deserved emphasis: (a) rav remain (9: 8) refers to the gracious provision of Yahweh in preserving a remnant from captivity. (b) Ezra accused the

Judeans of bz[ disregarding the command of Yahweh (9: 10). The phraseology resembles a Mosaic construction although the text reads ―through your servants the prophets‖ (9:

11)122 and alludes to other texts such as Ex 34: 15–16; Deut. 7: 1–3; 11: 8; 23: 6, 11–13;

Isa 1: 19. There seem to be different perspectives on the state of the land. The LXX renders that ―the land, into which you go to inherit it, is a land subject to disturbance by

121 Translated: to ―tear up‖ his garment and cloak, to ―Pull out‖ his hair… and beard, and to ―sit down stupefied‖ (ibid) William L. Holladay, Ludwig Köehler & Walter Baumgartner, HALOT (Leiden: Brill 2000). 122 Williamson was right to note that ―… since it is mainly the Pentateuch which is cited, Ezra would appear not only to be regarding Moses as a prophetic figure (cf. Deut. 18: 15; 34: 10), but also to be blurring the sometimes too rigid distinction between law and prophecy by subsuming the whole under the category of the spoken, prophetic word of God‖ (1985: 137). 44

the removal of the people of the nations for their abominations, 123 wherewith they have filled it from one end to the other by their uncleanness‖ (2 Esdras 9: 11).124 The

Masoretic text (MT) terms it ―a land unclean with the pollutions of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations‖ (v. 11 NRSV). This hints at disparity between the two texts; the LXX suggests that the pollution of the lands was a result of the campaign which removed the people of the land for their uncleanness which ―filled … [the lands] from one end to the other‖ (v. 11) while the MT says clearly that the land was polluted due to the people‘s abominations.125

Ezra‘s lamentation prompted Shecaniah the son of Jehiel126 to do a creative exegesis in response to the situation at hand which no longer had Ezra lamenting alone but with a

as union with foreign וַ בנֹּשֶ נָשִ יםנָכְּרִ ּיֹות large crowd as well. He identified the problem

123 Lancelot C. Brenton translated the Greek phrase as ―is a land subject to disturbance by the removal of the people of the nations for their abominations‖ (The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: with an English translation and with various readings and critical notes; London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited Press, 1794), 629. Takamitsu Muraoka gave two options for translating the Greek phrase (a) ―a land going through various changes brought about by the different ethnic communities‖ and (b) ―a land going through various changes brought about by the large–scale ethnic population movements‖ (A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets; Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 2002), 366. Glenn Wooden on the other hand translated the phrase as ―it is a land undergoing change by the changing of the peoples of the nations, with their things put far away‖ (A New English Translation of the Septuagint in Albert Pietersma & Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 412. The Greek word seems to be the concern with Brenton seeing it as disturbance; while both Muraoka and Wooden translate it as changes, which may refer to the idea of shifting or moving from one place to another. The way one chooses to understand the Greek word may be inconsequential since they offer the same idea. However Brenton offers the best emphasis.

124 Brenton‘s 1794 translation. 125 If the above suggestion on the Septuagint is true, then the translators or editors have, in part, accused God with polluting the land since He ordered the campaign.

126 Leslie Allen tenders the possibility that Shecaniah might have had a foreign grandmother if the Jehiel of 10: 2 is the same as the one of 10: 26 (see additional notes on 10: 2, p. 82). 45

to send away women לְּ הֹוצִ יא כָל־נָשִ ים וְּהַ נֹולָ ד :women127 and went further with the solution

which יצא comes from the root form הֹוצִ יא and children from the land. The Hebrew word is used in Deut. 24: 2 in the context of divorce. The NIV translates it as leaves while the

NRSV as goes off. The exegete saw it as necessary for cleansing the land and to create social boundaries between the Judeans and their neighbors.

There are some interesting thoughts here. One, the exegete does not deem the women fit to be strangers or aliens, for this category would have made them enjoy some sort of protection and freedom in Israel. The law is clear on the social responsibility incumbent on all Judeans in favor of the aliens or strangers (cf. Ex 12: 48–49; 22: 21; 23: 9; Lev 16:

29; 19: 34; 24: 22; Deut. 1: 16; 15: 15: 16: 19: 21: 22; 23: 2–7; 24: 17). Moreover, both foreigners and aliens are considered as defenseless people, widows and fatherless, who require help and protection (Jer. 17: 6). Two, the women are not referred to as wives but as foreign women; so labeling them as ―those who come from elsewhere and are passing through, who do not intend to stay with the community for whatever reasons.‖128

127 A. Philip Brown II discussed the identity of the ‗people of the land‘ and the ‗foreign women‘ in Ezra 9–10 (―The Problem of Mixed Marriages in Ezra 9–10,‖ BSac 162 (2005), 439–49. Brown concludes that ―drawing together the evidence from Ezra 3-4 identifying (tw))))crah (y)m[ as syncretistic, non-Jewish immigrants, the Old Testament usage of hb[wt and the clear usage of twyrkn ~yvn in 1 Kings 11 to refer to idolatrous, non-Jewish women, one must conclude that the peoples denoted by these expressions in Ezra 9- 10 are non-Jewish foreigners whose religious practices were idolatrous. It was not intermarriage with foreigners as such that caused Ezra such consternation, but with foreigners who, whether syncretistic or pagan, were idolaters‖ (p. 449). This asks the question does this identity apply to those of the foreign women of Nehemiah 10: 30; 13: 23ff and Malachi 2: 11–16? Yes it applies to Nehemiah because of the literary unity of Ezra–Nehemiah and if so then it is unlikely that Ezra‘s call for Jewish men to divorce their foreign wives was because the women were idolaters. It has been related that Ezra‘s concern was genealogy while, as it will be discussed later, Nehemiah was concerned about the threat to the Hebrew language. Therefore, the cause for their action may be summed up as protecting Jewish identity (Kidner: 131). The Malachi rationale, as it will be shown later, was more concerned about Jewish religious life which may fit into Brown‘s study on foreign women.

128 Van Wijk–Bos: 44 46

Interestingly, their status in the Jewish community was decided for them, and not by them which is hardly justice but a ―witch–hunt‖ as Janzen observed.129 The creative exegesis has opened up a purview on the issue of divorce, that is, it may be on legitimate or illegitimate ground, although divorce is not enshrined in the law but recognized as an

‗existing practice‘ in Israel (Deut. 24: 1–4 cf. Matt. 19: 8).130 Janzen observes, rightly, that this style of exegesis was necessary due to purification and genealogies but failed to see that ‗Yhwhism‘ may be threatened in a Jewish community of nearly 20,000 people by about 100 foreign women, albeit legally living within it previously.131 So, the Jewish community needed to deal with the challenge of their external boundaries which entailed addressing the purity issue, their genealogical sanctity and their geographical boundary.

Meanwhile the heart of their internal integration was to maintain a community after attending to external issues, they could now be dedicated fully to Yhwhism in Israel.132

129 Pp. 1–36, 54–83. He defines witch–hunt as ―the act of a social group to blame a sub-group for social dissension for which this sub-group is not responsible, occurring when there is no obvious candidate to blame for social dissension. It purifies the society of a perceived social evil. Because the witches–the sub-group in question– have not committed any crime, charges against them have to be manufactured, if any are offered at all. Witches can be blamed for a particular social crisis when there is no obvious candidate to blame. They are blamed because of who they are, not because of what they have done‖ (p. 19). However, it may be that they are easily blamed because of what they are known to be capable of doing but this does not excuse blaming anyone wrongly.

130 Clines: 126–127; Janzen: 17.

131 (Pp. 13–22). Janzen missed an important point when he failed to see that pollution may be caused by the activity of or a ritually impure person within the Jewish community let alone 100 women. This, however, does not excuse the unfavourable consequence of such illegitimate divorce. For further discussion on the population of the returnees (Lange: 21–3).

132 Ibid: 55–115. Hayes would agree with Janzen‘s thoughts on purification and genealogical grounds for such exegesis (see Jewish Identity and Gentile Impurities).

Shecaniah also stressed on Israel‘s unfaithfulness then invited the people into a covenant with133 Yhwh as a Witness before his creative exegesis to send away all foreign wives and their children in Yehudah. However he said this is to be based on the law and the

according to כַ ּתֹורָ ה counsel of Ezra (10: 3).134 He reiterates that this solution should be the Torah. Interestingly, there is no such provision in the law, which is what makes his solution a creative exegesis. On the one hand, he masterly involved all the Judeans in the implications of his creative exegesis; on the other, he left the conclusion of the matter in the hands of Ezra. Van Wijk–Bos opines that a dismayed Shecaniah found a creative way of solving the problem in part while leaving the burden on Ezra to complete what he had started. She sees this as manipulating leaders.135 Ezra‘s response to the Shecaniah‘s

136.ש בע into כל־י שראל exegesis and invitation to act was emphatic and precise by leading

The oath has the following implications: One, even though it was not all Israel who were present who swore, nevertheless, it is binding on all Israel (cf. v. 2f). Two, importantly,

133 The preposition prefix eL in the Hebrew word WnyeholaeL should be rendered before or in front of (NIV cf. Williamson, 1985: 143) and not with (NRSV cf. Fredrick C. Holmgren, Ezra & Nehemiah: Israel Alive Again, ITC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company & Edinburgh: The Handsel Press Limited, 1987, 80; Van Wijk–Bos: 43). The former makes sense because with could give the impression that the human party is the ―dominant partner in [the] relationship with God. [Whereas t]he people enter rather into a solemn commitment to which they invoke God as a witness; it is thus effectively the same as the oath in v. 5‖ (Williamson: ibid).

as it appears in the MT shouldn‘t be אֲד֩ נָי Williamson (1985) was right that the Hebrew word 134 translated as the Lord [God] since He does not ‗advise‘ but ‗command;‘ and since God‘s involvement is rather mentioned at the end of the verse, the word should be translated the lord which would refer to Ezra (p. 143 cf. Kidner: 70; Allen: 82). 135 P. 44. This suggests that Ezra simply went with Shecaniah‘s exegesis – but this does not sound like the Ezra of the book of Ezra. As a skilled interpreter and teacher of the law, he would not likely have allowed this creative exegesis to escape his watch if he did not think it to contain the right message for God‘s people at the time.

be literally taken to mean all Israel as rendered in the כל־י שראל This begs the question: Should 136 NIV, NRSV and by some commentators? It is very implausible that a community of nearly 20,000 people … כָ ל־יִשְּרָ אֵ ל in the phrase כל would all be present at the time. Therefore, it is be reasonable to translate ‖.as Ezra ―made every/all Israel [present] to swear וַּיַשְּ בַ ע

God had been involved as a witness and the decision was to be made in the light of his law for Israel.

1.2.2.2.2: A Creative Plan to Support the Creative Exegesis (vv. 7–17)

The Shecaniah creative exegesis seeks to address the problem of exogamous marriage in the post–exilic Jewish community. The execution of the plan was left in the hands of the

Judeans, hence, making Ezra somewhat indirectly involved as an observer but who also influenced the whole process from behind the scenes. The influence of Ezra in the Jewish community of the post–exilic period cannot be over–emphasised, for his lamentation alone was enough to cause anxiety and search for solution among the returnees.

Therefore, the presence of Ezra commands great influence in the post–exilic Jewish world. The creative plan involves some four steps.

Step one: a town crier137 delivers a message (vv. 7–9). There was a proclamation requesting all the people to convene after three days which was very possible to have convened at such short notice (v. 9) considering the number of the returned exiles. It appears that it was ―local leaders‖, i.e. the ―chiefs and elders‖, who summoned the people and not Ezra.138 The proclamation comes with this severe consequence for defaulters: property forfeiture and the exclusion from the returnees‘ community (v. 8). The Hebrew

137 Des Wilson defines ―a town crier‖ as ―a popular misnomer for the traditional emissary newsman, who function[s as] news reporter …, correspondent …, messenger …, spokesman (or woman), envoy …, contact man [or woman], courier …, postman, broadcaster …, herald … and also perform[s] other related roles‖ (―Traditional Systems of Communication in Modern African Development: An Analytical Viewpoint,‖ AMR 1, 1987), 90–91. Moreover, he discussed some very important functions of the traditional means of communication which might interest exegetes of the Ezran pericope (pp. 99–01).

138 Williamson, 1985: 154. This is possible since verses 5–6 said Ezra involved other leaders in the whole process. It is also possible that while in the room of Jehohanan son of Eliashib he further discussed the issue with the leaders (v. 6). Therefore, they understood his whole plans and the procedure(s).

which conveys the idea of ―be devoted to destruction by חרם word translated to forfeit is the ban‖139 or better said to be ―devoted to Yahweh, i.e. the sacred ban … rendering it

which בדל unusable for secular purposes.‖140 The Hebrew word translated expelled is gives the idea of, to detach oneself from a living organism (in context).141 Moreover, the

appears to be the earliest form and proof on the use of בדל use of the word excommunication in both Jewish and Christian communities (cf. Jn. 9: 22; 12: 42).142

Anyone who refuses the message of the town criers stands the risk of losing their identity, which is at stake due to intermarriages. Ezra was conferred with powers by King

Xerxes to carry out such discipline (see 7: 26) hence, he was able to excommunicate anyone.143

Step two: The address of Ezra to the returned exiles (vv. 10–11). He is clear about the

מְּףַלְּּתֶ ם problem facing the entire community. He started by generalizing the sin of

marriage to וַ ּתֹּשִ יבּו נָשִ ים נָכְּרִ ּיֹות unfaithfulness to all the men,144 which is explained as

.in HALOT חרם :Holladay 139

140 Clines: 129. Such properties may be burnt, destroyed or accepted for use in the Temple (Cf. Josh 6: 21; 7: 25; Num. 18: 14; Ezek. 44: 29).

in HALOT בדל :Cf. Holladay 141

142 Clines: 129.

כל־ which is a synonym of כל־אנשי־יהודה in כל In context, it is only reasonable to translate 143 as all [the men of …] since there is something at stake for all the returned exiles that refused to ישראל attend (cf. with foot note 123).

.is a qal active perfect, second person plural masculine מְּףַלְּּתֶ ם Evidently the Hebrew verb 144 which is also in the second person plural אַּתֶ ם Moreover, it is in accord with the personal pronoun

foreign women (cf. v. 2). The concept that the sin of one /few affects the entire post– exilic community portrays ideological continuity with pre–exilic community (cf. Numb

13–14; 16; Josh 7). The solution of Ezra is not different from Shecaniah (v. 3); except,

honour or literally to sing a song of תֹודָ ה and importantly, he based it on the need to praise/ thanksgiving but in its context it literally means to sing a (song of) confession to

what is acceptable to him. God is worthy of the song of confession רצֹונ YHWH and to do since He is the ―Righteous Judge and [the] [M]aintainer of justice, who has uncovered the[ir] evil deed … [Moreover, since] mere confession is inadequate … positive

אֱ ֹלהֵ י־ is to the יהוה obedience to the divine will [is imperative].‖145 Interestingly, the

God of their fathers which also links the post–exilic Jews to their ancestors of the אֲ בֹּתֵ יכֶ ם pre–exilic era. The means of honouring and doing the will of YHWH is also identical to the solution of Shecaniah to the problem (cf. v. 3). However, the approach of Ezra adds uniqueness to the solution for he said the way to honour and do what is acceptable to God

separation or excommunication (cf. v. 8) from the neighbouring people and from בדל is foreign women (v. 11 cf. v. 3).146 It is reasonable to think that since this ban affects all

Gentiles and not just the sent away women, it might have helped to reduce the impact of sending the foreign women away from the Yehudim community.

masculine. This generalization is also paramount ―because marriage with foreigners is not a private matter, but determines the character of the community‖ (Clines: 129).

145 Clines: 129.

is an imperative verb which is used to issue command. The point here is בדל The Hebrew word 146 that the people seem not to have any alternative since it is a command. Therefore, if they desire to honour God and do his will, then, it is imperative that they detach themselves from the other people and put off their foreign wives. Divorce was allowed in Israel, however, the situation in Ezra 9–10 ―was a classic example of … which the lesser of two evils had to be chosen‖ (Kidner: 71). 51

Step three: The response of the assembly (vv. 12–17). In accord, the assembly pleaded

‗guilty‘, saying ―Yes!‖ (NEB); ―it is so‖ (NRSV); you are right! (NIV) therefore, we must do as you have said (NRSV).147 However, the people observed the following: (a) to reschedule the meeting due to the number in attendance, the rainy season, and that the matter needs more time hence it is not to be solved in the here and now, which point to the importance of what is at stake and also its value to the people (v. 13). (b) To hold another meeting between the victims of exogamy and the leaders, who would represent the whole community (v. 14). The process appears so transparent and the people so patriotic about their land, genealogy and relationship with God that they are committed to the whole process. This may be due to their identity which tied to the land they had returned to and their second temple. But the suggestions were objected by four persons from which are two Levites. Clines opines that they are more in favour of a vigorous/zealous ground than a tolerant one; so they would have wanted the matter resolved immediately.148 Ezra‘s response shows that he did not think, given the situation, that justice is served well when it is hot (v. 16). The matter was finally laid to rest after three months of hearing (v. 17); Cline also states that it was a difficult task because determining the racial status of a half Jewish and half Gentile woman wouldn‘t be easy.149 Importantly, those who are found guilty of the sin of exogamy each offered a

may be rendered as to כִדְּ בָרֶ יָך ףָלֵ ינּו לַףֲ שֹות The literal translation of the following Hebrew words 147 do according to your word upon us. However, the LXX rendered the same words as this word of yours is a big thing for (upon) us to do. So the LXX appears somewhat different from the MT.

148 P. 130 cf. Williamson: 156–57.

149 P. 131. 52

guilt offering (v. 19).150 Then there was the roll call of the affected returnees (vv. 18–43) and after which v. 44 151 the mothers and children were sent away from the community of their husbands and fathers as put forward by the creative exegesis.152

1.2.2.3: Integration into Comparable Assertion

This section will specially investigate two Post–exilic texts, Malachi and Nehemiah, in order to ascertain if this same attitude towards Gentiles continues in other books of this period. First, the prophecy of Malachi: He ministered during the post–exilic period in

Yehudah. It seems the work of Ezra and Nehemiah had laid a foundation for his ministry.

Alden observes that Malachi took over during the leave of absence of Nehemiah, which is unknown, when he had to return to serve the King of Persia (cf. Neh. 5: 14; 13: 6), but that might be 434 BC.153 Malachi might have prophesied at a post–Ezran period due to

150 Guilt–offering is for an intentional or unintentional offence which has caused damage (Norman Henry Snaith. ―The Sin-Offering and the Guilt-Offering,‖ VT 15, 1965), 73–4.

151 Julius Caesar used the phrase when crossing the Rubicon River to start a civil war with Rome in 49 BC. It means the die is cast/ an irreversible point (Plutarch’s Life–Volume Two, translated by A. H. Cough, Electronic Classics Series, The Pennsylvania State University, 2003), 147–48. Cf. iacta alea est, by Gaius Suetonius, the secretary of Emperor Hadrian (76–138 CE), (The Lives of the 12 Caesars, translated by Joseph Garvose, USA: Parkway Publishing Company, 1931), 20–1.

152 The Hebrew rendering of verse 44 in the MT is difficult to conclude. Williamson translated it as ―and there were of the (masc) wives, and they (masc) bore children‖ (see critical note 44.a-a. 1985, p. 144). Williamson discussed on scholars stance on the Hebrew rendering of v. 44 (1985: 144–45). The LXX rendering - πάληεο νὗηνη ἐιάβνζαλ γπλαῖθαο ἀιινηξίαο θαὶ ἐγέλλεζαλ ἐμ αὐηῶλ πἱνύο all these had married foreign women and they begot sons by them, which might actually give the correct or close to its original rendering. 153 Robert L. Alden ―Daniel and the Minor Prophets‖ in Frank E. Gæbelein (ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1985), 701. The overwhelming reasons put forward for a post–exilic dating of Malachi may be summed as (a) that the post –exilic ruler in Jerusalem is called a txp governor and not $lm king which is a pre–exilic term for Jewish leaders; (b) that the Temple, not Solomon, is standing and functioning might be pointing to the Second Temple; (c) that the marriage concerns of Malachi resemble that of the period under focus (cf. Ezra 9–10; Neh. 13); (d) that there are vocabulary similarities like rkn with other post–exilic literatures (Mal. 2; Ezra 10; Neh. 13); (e) that there 53

the issues raised in his message. He pointed out that the relationship between the Judeans and God is low. They now doubt the love of God (vv. 1–5) which might have led to the breaking of covenant through their defiled sacrifices (vv. 6–14), divorce (2: 10–16), injustice (2: 17) and holding back tithing (3: 6–12). There is a warning message against the priesthood (2: 1–9). Chapter 3 begins with the coming of the Lord which is depicted as a refining moment for purifying all impure admixture in the land so that healthy relations may be restored (vv. 1–5 cf. 4: 1–3). The coming of a prophet like Elijah would be the pointer of that time (4: 5–6). So, even though Israel treated God dishonourably (3:

13–15), he would remember his covenant with Israel and consequently keep a remnant

(3: 16–18).

Chapter 2: 10–16 narrates that the Judeans have broken their covenant with YHWH by divorce. The Malachi exegetical stratum is one of the schwierige Passagen in the

Scripture for the sake of literary, linguistic, syntactical, and textual concerns in the stratum.154 The crux of the stratum is that God is interested ―in matrimonial faithfulness; i.e., the first marriage should be observed as a covenant between a man and ‗the wife of his covenant‘‖155 However, this is not the case since hdwhy (Yehudah i.e. children of

בעל בת־אל נכר YHWH, but in context it refers to ‗son‘ or ‗child‘ of YHWH) has married

are similar thematic issues like tithing (Mal 3: 7-10; Neh. 10: 37-8), desecration of the priesthood and others (Mal 2: 11–13; Ezra 10; Neh 13: 28–30) (Alden: 701–05; Paul L. Redditt ―The Book of Malachi in Its Social Setting,‖ CBQ 56 (1994), 240–55; Ina Willi-Plein ―Problems of Intermarriage in Postexilic Times‖ in Moshe Bar-Asher, Dalit Rom-Shiloni, Emmanuel Tov, Nili Wazana (eds.), Shai le–Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and Language (Jerusalem: Bialik Institution, 2007), 177–89. However, Redditt argues that despite the above reasons and many more the dating of Malachi‘s ministry might still be opened (ibid). 154 For a discussion of the above concerns see Willi-Plein: 177–183 and Markus Zehnder, ―A Fresh Look At Malachi II: 13–16.‖ VT, 53 (2003), 224–59.

155 Ibid: 181.

the daughter of a foreign god. This intermarriage between Judah and the daughter of a foreign god has been suggested to be an alliance.156 The implication of the alliance

into an impossible relationship whether intended or בעל YHWH and/אֵ ל brings together

to be כרת יהוה … אהל יַףֲ קֹּב not. The consequence of such action is similar to that of Ezra cut off from the tent of Jacob (v. 12 cf. Ezra 10: 8).157 The marriage to foreign wives (v.

11) appears to be woven together with the act of hate and divorce of one‘s first marriage covenant with the wife of his youth (v. 16).158 It also appears that, according to Malachi, the marriage to foreign wives was the reason for the sons of YHWH divorcing their

Jewish wives. God is a witness to their first marriage covenant which they have broken

(v. 14) which is similar to the rendering let us make a covenant before our God in Ezra

godly offspring (cf. Ezra 9: 2) for the זרע א ל הים This has affected the raising of .3 :10 purpose of religious purity according to Zehnder159 while Hayes said for preserving holy seed, apparently against profanation, for the sake of genealogical purity (cf. Mal 2: 11–

12).160 Therefore, Malachi is concerned about God‘s intention for marriage covenant as an unbreakable bond and the need of having a generation of godly offspring for the worship of God. Malachi was concerned about raising godly offsprings and not just

156 Zehnder: 226–28. He discussed broadly how to understand the text in three perspectives namely literal, figurative and literal–figurative; but he seems to argue for a literal–figurative view (ibid: 225–28).

;Ezra 10: 8) are synonymous in meaning) בדל Malachi 2: 12) and) כרת The Hebrew words 157 except that the former is ambiguous in meaning and also seems to convey a more forceful meaning than the latter.

158 Ibid: 251–58. 159 Ibid: 249.

160 Christine Hayes, ―Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,‖ HTR, 92 (1999), 9– 11. 55

Hebrew children from pure Jewish bloodline as the genealogical purity of Ezra presented; however they both prohibited intermarriage.

Second, Nehemiah: He is a cupbearer for King Xerxes (1: 11). Just like Ezra, he also contributed largely to the ―zeal for righteousness‖ for Judaism.161 He, with the help of

God, sought the king‘s permission and support to set out on a mission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem which were in a disgraceful state (1: 3). The building project is challenged by certain people within the region, notably, Sanballat, Tobiah and Geshem (chaps 1–3).

There is further opposition to the project but it continues under pressure (chap 4). The

Judeans faced the problem of high taxation and poverty (chap 5). The project was completed under duress and a roll call was made on all the returnees under the leadership of Nehemiah (chaps 6–7 cf. Ezra 2). Ezra is introduced leading a national repentance

(chaps 8–9) and another roll call (chaps 10–12: 26). The walls of Jerusalem were dedicated (12: 27–47). The last of Nehemiah‘s reform is against intermarriage (chap 13).

Nehemiah 13 is the main event in his memoirs which is identical to the problem of intermarriage in Ezra 9–10. However, there is an early build–up to the matter of intermarriage which climaxes in 13: 23–30, for example: (a) the call to separate from foreigners (9: 2) which is a reflection of Lev 20: 26.162 (b) The people made a ‗binding agreement‘ to conduct themselves according to the law of YHWH (9: 38). (c) They identified with endogamy as part of the agreement and went against intermarriage (10:

161 Kidner: 77.

162 Williamson sees Neh. 9: 2 in the historical context of Ezra 9–10 which is aimed at stressing ―the purity of the community who entered into the covenant renewal‖ (1985: 305–311 cf. Clines: 189–90). 56

30).163 However, they broke their agreement to remain faithful to their oath since the

Hebrew men and even priests married foreign women (13: 23–28 cf. 10: 30; 9: 38, 2).

Consequently, their children couldn‘t speak Hebrew language but others, reasonably to say those of their mothers (13: 24). This indicates the overwhelming presence and impact of foreign cultural identity in raising the ‗Hebrew‘ children. The Nehemiah response to intermarriage in the land was unlike Ezra‘s for he ―… rebuked164 [cf. 13: 11, 17], cursed

… beat some of the men and pulled out their hair‖ (13: 25).165 Then he made them to renew their oath neither to take foreign daughters for their sons nor marry their daughters to foreigners. This oath was unique because it was made in God‘s name so it is done differently from the previous one (cf. 10: 30). The language used in v. 25 is Mosaic

(Deut. 7: 3 cf. Ezra 9: 2) and the example of King Solomon in vv. 26–27 (cf. 1 Kings 11:

1–2) appears to impress that despite his successes, wealth, wisdom and even having been loved by Yahweh, yet he failed due to intermarriage. So, by implication: how much more would ordinary Judeans not easily go astray?166

163 Williamson sees Ezra 9: 1–2 as the ―legal background‖ for Neh. 10: 30 (ibid: 334). Clines rightly said that ―it is noteworthy that the pledge says nothing of any dissolution of existing marriages [unlike the case of Ezra]‖ (1984: 205 cf. Van Wijk–Bos: 84).

164 The word ‗rebuked‘ may also be rendered as to ‗contend‘ which gives the idea of ―arguing one‘s case against an opponent‖ (Kidner: 132). Kidner also sees Nehemiah‘s reaction as a ―divine sanction‖ upon the Judean men who intermarried (ibid). Williamson on the other hand notes ―a spontaneous reaction.‖ Moreover, he said there were only few cases of intermarriage which was not the case for Ezra (1985: 398–99).

165 The portrayal of Nehemiah‘s response in the Syriac translation differs substantially from the Masoretic Text (Clines: 247). Van Wijk-Bos rightly observes that even if we are missing the ‗behind the scenes‘ of the narrative, not as in Ezra, however this is ―at least the quality of honesty‖ by the narrator (p. 97).

166 Cf. Williamson, 1985: 399. 57

Nehemiah‘s chief concern appears to be the future of the Hebrew language167 which ultimately is a threat to the Jewish identity of post–exilic Jews. The response of

Nehemiah clearly links post–exilic Jews with pre–exilic Israel because of his use of Deut

7. It is clear that Nehemiah and Ezra faced the same problem of intermarriage in their community. It is also clear that their approach to the same problem was different albeit they referred to the same authority, Torah, which makes their solution to the problem interesting. Therefore, Ezra and Nehemiah used the same Torah but reached at somewhat different conclusions: repentance, divorce and exclusion by the former vs. repentance, remain together, and exclusion by the latter.168

2.3: Interfaith Marriage in Jewish Literature

Jewish literature refers to works by Jews on Jewish themes written in their mother tongue while ancient Jewish literature, which is the main focus of this section, refers to biblical and rabbinic literature. The biblical literatures are the Jewish Scripture which is divided into Torah (Law), Nevi‘im (Prophet) and Ketuvim (Writings). The rabbinic literature refers to the body of writing being classified as Targum, Talmud and Midrash.169

167 Willi–Plein: 188–189; Williamson, 1985: 389–99. Clines, however, argues that the Hebrew language was not the rationale for Nehemiah‘s stance on intermarriage in the land. Rather, because it threatens the existence of the post–exilic community (pp. 246–47 cf. foot note 115). In a recent study Katherine E. Southwood defended the language rationale for Nehemiah‘s action (―And They Could Not Understand Jewish Speech‖: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah‘s Intermarriage Crisis, JTS 62 (2011), 1– 19.

168 The above study affects Africa at least in two ways, see Weanzana: 532. 169 Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005), 217. The Targums are the Aramaic rabbinic translations of the Hebrew Scripture which means to interpret or paraphrase. The Targums may be classified into Pentateuch (Onqelos, neofiti and Samaritan Targum versions), Jonathan (on the Prophets), and the Writings (ibid: 216–17). The Talmud is classified into Mishna, Tosefta, the Jerusalem (Yerushalmi or Palestinian) and Babylonian (or Bavli) and several other minor treatises (ibid). The Midrash refers to 58

Notably, the rabbinic literature falls under three periods: (a) the early period with the

Tannaic from 50 BCE to 200 CE; (b) the middle period with the Amoraic 220 to 500 CE;

(c) and the later period with the Saboraim and Geonim from 500 CE to 1050 CE.170 This section of the research will give special attention to the Pseudepigrapha, Apocrypha and

Talmudic writings.

2.3.1: Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha Literature

The point of departure is the OT Pseudepigrapha171 collections on the book of 1 Enoch

6–10. It narrates an elaborated version of Genesis 6: 1–4172 on 200 angels in heaven who disobeyed and lusted after women on earth (chaps 6–7). The possible motive of 1 Enoch

6–11, observed George W. E. Nickelsburg was the bloodshed during the Diadochan era for the control of Alexander‘s empire after his death.173 Besides, another was to oppose the Jewish–Gentile intermarriage explained in the above section. The following

Sentences /phrases appear to suggest so: 1) the [angels, sons of heaven,] took for rabbinic commentary or interpretation of the Jewish Scripture from Mekilta to Aggadat Esther writings (ibid: 217–20).

170 Ibid: 217. Evans offers a comprehensive chat on the ―Principal Tannaim of the Mishnaic Period‖ from the first to the last and those of the post–Tannaitic era (ibid: 218).

171 The OT Pseudepigrapha are collections of noncanonical texts of Jewish and Christian writers between 7/6 BC to 9 CE. They contain writings builds upon OT events and ideas. So they are considered ―falsely superscript‖ and, consequently, didn‘t make it to the Canon of Scripture (Evans: 27–8). Charlesworth, however, dates the work between 200 BC to 200 CE; for an excellent general introduction to the Pseudepigrapha canon, see ―Introduction for the General Reader‖ in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), OTP Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. 1983), xxi–xxxiv.

172 1 Enoch is also known as the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Enoch. The main character of the narrative is Enoch whom the Judeo–Christian Scripture attributes great honour (Gen. 5: 24; Heb. 11: 5). Evans dates it from 200 BC to 50 CE (2005: 29); see also E. Isaac, ―(Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch,‖ in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), OTP Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc. 1983), 5–7. St Augustine fought against the view which upheld the inspiration of Enoch of Tertullian and others (R. H. Charles, The Book of Enoch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893), 62–3.

173 Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction, (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 51–2. 59

themselves women and began to go into them [ειςπορευεςθαι προσ αυτασ] and to defile themselves with them [μιαινεςθαι εν αυτα σ].174 The angelic beings were defiled by intermarriage with humans. Hence the defilement was not due to menstrual flow; but by sexual contact.175 2) And the women conceived and bore giants [γιγαντασ

μεγαλουσ].176 This corrupted the human race and resulted in the breaking down of the society.177 The seeds from that union and the watchers were responsible for the problem on earth. Again, the author seems to draw a contrast between the children conceived and born from human–human relations and sons of heaven–human relations; for he appears to say that before the unholy union there was peace in the world of the human race. 3) The climax of the narrative of 6–10 is God‘s decision in chp 10: 1ff to destroy the earth due to the pollution caused by the fallen angels and their offspring.178 So endogamy may as well be the author‘s motif in 1 Enoch 6–10.

The Testament of Levi narrates the account of Levi and, importantly, ―the divine origin of the priesthood and God‘s resolution of its abuses.‖179 The interesting part in the

174 Charles: chap 7: 1 cf. 10: 11 (1893: 64–5, 74).

175 George W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 182–84. The use of defilement in 7: 1 applies to its use in 9: 8; however, the same cannot be said for its use in 15: 4 which appears to include menstrual flow as another reason for their defilement (ibid: 271).

176 Charles: chapter 7: 3 (1893: 65).

177 Ibid: chaps 7: 2–6; 8: 1–4; 9: 6, 9–10; 10: 7–8 (pp. 64–73). 178 The Greek MS of George Syncellus reads Go to Noah and tell him (10: 2) (Isaac, 17 note 10c; Charles: 71). The rendering of 10: 1–3 ―belong to an Apocalypse of Noah‖ (ibid). 179 Nickelsburg, 1981: 135. The story begins with a vision which corresponds with Genesis 34 about the rape of Dinah, Levi‘s sister, and the intention of the Hivites to intermarry with Israel. The motive of the first vision seems to develop a divine rationale in defence of Levi and Simeon‘s chaotic response which destroys the lives and properties of the Hivites (vv. 25ff cf. Jubilees 30: 1–6, 18–20). 60

Testament of Levi for this research is: 1) his father‘s, Jacob‘s, admonition to him to ―Be on guard against the spirit of promiscuity, for it is constantly active and through your descendants it is about to defile the sanctuary. Therefore take for yourself a wife while you are still young, a wife who is free of blame or profanation, who is not from the race of alien nations.‖180 2) Levi‘s final admonition to his children seems to have built upon his father‘s admonition:181

You will bring down a curse on our nation, because you want to destroy the light of the Law which was granted to you for the enlightenment of every man, teaching commandments which are opposed to God‘s just ordinances. You … married whom you profane; you have intercourse with whores and adulteresses. You take Gentile women for your wives and your sexual relations will become like Sodom and Gomorrah.182

The above quotes portray the ongoing ban against exogamy in the Jewish commonwealth of the Second Temple period. Interestingly, Levi‘s exhortation to his children was a tradition from one generation to another; thereby following after the footprints of his father. The father of Levi did not engage in exogamous union but married within the family, as his own father desired. The children as well must not intermarry but should marry within the family, endogamous union. Therefore, Levi, himself, is passing the same exogamous marriage restrictions to his own children, which they should abide by and also pass the same exhortation to their children down the line. Levi, importantly, appears to link his exhortation with their priesthood calling by God.

180 Chap 9: 9–10, see H.C. Kee, ―Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Testament of Levi‖ in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (pp. 791–92).

181 The final words of Levi to his children correspond with Jacob‘s own to his children in Genesis 49.

182 Ibid: 793. 61

The book of Jubilees is a midrash of Genesis–Exodus,183 and it is similar to the T Levi already discussed above.184 It is interesting how the writer redacts some vital aspects in the Shechem–Dinah narrative when compared with Genesis 34. For example: Jubilees 30 narrates that Dinah was snatched (carried away) and brought to Shechem (v. 2) while

Genesis 34 narrates that she went out185 to look at the Hivite women (or even visit her friends) where Shechem saw her.186 Jubilees 30 admonishes, saying:

And if there is any man who wishes in Israel to give his daughter or his sister to any man who is of the seed of the Gentiles, he shall surely die, and let him be stoned because he has caused shame in Israel. And also the woman will be burned with fire because she has defiled the name of her father‘s house and so she will be uprooted from Israel. And do not let an adulteress or defilement be found in Israel all of the days of the generations of the earth because Israel is holy to the Lord. And let any man who causes defilement surely die, let him be stoned because thus it is decreed and written in the heavenly tablets concerning all of the seed of Israel: let anyone who causes defilement surely die. And let him be stoned. And there is no limit of days. And there is no remission or forgiveness

183 Evan: 46 (cf. Cana Werman, ―Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,‖ HTR 90, (1997), 2.

184 Jubilees 30 and the Testament of Levi 2–7, 9, 14 appear identical (see foot note 170). O. S. Wintermute observes that Jubilee is a 2nd BC account of God‘s revelation to Moses during the forty days encounter on Mount Sinai (Ex 24: 18). The author retold the events of Genesis–Exodus by condensing, omitting, expurgating, explaining, supplementing ―and sometimes radically recast the biblical episodes‖ (―Jubilees‖ in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), OTP Vol. 2: Expansions of the “Old Testament” and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, & Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo–Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday and Company Inc., 1985), 35–44 (cf. Werman: 3). Jubilees 34 present Melka, Levi‘s wife, as an Aramean, which does not fit her description in the Testament of Levi. The final admonition of Levi to his children appears to project Melka as Jewess, for Levi is a proponent of endogamy; hence, he must marry within his racial and religious boundaries. If this is true, then there is a racial disagreement between Jubilees and the Testament of Levi.

185 Nahum M. Sarna observes that in the ANE custom once girls get to the age of marriage they do went out suggests that יצא not normally go to strange town alone unprotected; moreover, the Hebrew word ―the text casts a critical eye upon Dinah‘s unconventional behaviour. [Moreover, the] Akkadian and can connote … promiscuous conduct‖ (Genesis, JPS; Philadelphia: The [יצא] Aramaic equivalents, the verb Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 233. 186 Josephus also redacts the story in such way that refuses to reflect the Hivite–Israel intermarriage treaty which was ratified by the circumcision of all Hivite men (as requested by Israel), the attacking of an unsuspecting and weak city, and also plundered it (―Antiquities of the Jews‖ 1. 21. 1–2 in Josephus: Complete Works, transl. by William Whiston, Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960), 43–44. Werman discusses the disparities between Jubilees 30 and Genesis 34 (6–10). Hayes‘s perspective on the source and nature of defilement as a result of intermarriage and the holy seed motif in the Book of Jubilees is interesting (1999: 15–25).

except that the man who caused defilement of his daughter will be rooted out from the midst of all Israel, because he has given some of his seed to Moloch and sinned so as to defile it.187

The quote points to the religious ideology that Jewish–Gentile marriage is unacceptable in the Jewish community and defaulters will be punished by either death through stoning or fire, or rooted out of the Jewish community. It seems the writer of the Jubilees intends this law to be everlasting since the ―law has no limit of days‖ (v. 10). Moreover, he equates Jews who accept their sons‘ and daughters‘ marriage with Gentile with the sin of child sacrifice which the Torah prohibits (Leviticus 20: 2–5; 18: 21).

Tobit 4: 12188 says

Be on your guard, my boy, against all illicit sex. Above all, take a wife from among the descendent of your ancestors, and do not marry a foreign woman who is not of your father‘s tribe. For we are [truly] children of the prophets. Remember my boy that Noah [was a prophet first, then], Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our ancestors of old, all took wives from their kindred and they were blessed in their children, and their posterity will inherit the land.‖189

The above father to son admonition portrays what education is ―in the ancient classical mode, by proverbs and aphorisms that inculcate good habits of conduct and living.‖190

The father, Tobit, warns his boy against fornication (cf. Tob 1: 3) and ―above all‖ exogamous marriage (cf. Tob 1: 9); hence, he should marry from within his clan or tribe

187 There is a holy seed motif in the above quote (cf. Jubilees 16: 17–18). The above quote is taken from verse 7–10 (Wintermute: 112–13).

188 Tobit falls under the Apocrypha collection of noncanonical works. The term ―is a Greek word literally meaning ‗hidden away‘… the word … has come to mean ‗false‘‖ (Evans: 9). The body of writings in this collection may be grouped into historical, romantic, moralistic, devotional and apocalyptic (ibid: 10). The heart of Tobit is a fictitious tale of morality, unmerited suffering and divine help. The date of composition is in doubt. But scholars tend to date it between 4th to 1st centuries BC (Larry R. Helyer, Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: a guide for New Testament students, Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002), 45. Joseph A. Fitzmyer did an excellent and extensive discussion on the general introduction of the book, see ―Tobit‖ in Loren T. Stuckenbruck et al (eds.), CEJL (Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 3–88. 189 Ibid: 164. This translation is from the Long Recension found in Sinaiticus (4th /5th century). The Short Recension is found in Vaticanus (4th century), Alexandrinus (5th century) (ibid: 4–5). The SR version does not contain the words in italic; while the LR version does not contain the ones in bracket.

190 Ibid: 166. 63

in Israel probably to avert the threat of extinction (Tob 3: 15).191 Consequently, angel

Raphael later reminded Tobiah of his father‘s exhortation on endogamy within their clan

(4: 12 cf. 6: 16). This ancient Israel education gives the notion that the patriarchs were blessed as a result of endogamy; therefore, for Tobiah to continue in that blessing, he needed to continue in their footprints.192

Philo of Alexandria193 notes:

Again, Moses commands, do not either form a connection of marriage with one of another nation, and do not be seduced into complying with customs inconsistent with your own, and do not stray from the right way and forget the path which leads to piety, turning into a road which is no road … the anxiety and fear which parents feel for their [children] is not [trivial]; for perchance, they may be allured by mischievous customs instead of genuine good ones, and so they may be in danger of learning to forget the honour belonging to the one God, which is the beginning and end of extreme unhappiness.194

This appears to be Philo‘s explication of Deuteronomy 7: 3–4 which commands Israel against intermarriage, but specifically, with the 7 Canaanite nations. However, Philo, just as the book of Jubilees, Tobit and other Second Temple writings, understood the

191 Ibid: 98–9, 102–04, 112, 148, 155–57, 172.

192 The preservation of a pure Jewish bloodline for continuity appears to be a major theme in the book of Tobit. So Hayes was right that preservation of genealogy explains the father‘s admonition to his boy (1999: 13-14).

193 Philo (20 BC to 50 CE) was a respected Jewish theologian and philosopher whose primary language was Greek not Hebrew because of the influence of the city he lived, Alexandria. He is remembered for his extensive writing on Jewish life and religion, philosophy and other many other things (Evans: 2005), 167–73.

194 Philo, ―The Special Laws III‖ in The Works of Philo, transl. by C.D. Yonge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993), 596–97. 64

command to be general rather than specific as the Deuteronomy text intends.195 He has this exception to Egyptians, quoting Moses he says:

The law giver says, ―Let them, as a reward for their friendly reception of you, have a peace treaty with you. And if any of them should be willing to forsake their old ways and to come over to the customs and constitutions of the Jews, they are not to be rejected and treated with hostility as the children of the enemies, but to be received in such a manner that in the third generation they may be admitted into the assembly, and may have a share of the divine words read to them, being instructed in the will of God equally with the natives of the land, the descendants of God‘s chosen people.‖196

The above quote comes from Deuteronomy 23: 7197 where the biblical data names two nations namely, Edom and Egypt and not one as Philo presents it. It is not very clear if third generation Egyptians who decided to forsake their idolatrous lifestyle for the

―constitutions of the Jews‖ would be allowed to intermarry. It is reasonable to infer ‗yes‘ for he said ―they may be admitted into the assembly, and may have a share of the divine words read to them, being instructed in the will of God equally with the natives of the land, the descendants of God‘s chosen people.‖198 However, this opportunity appears to benefit only Egyptians and not the entire Gentile race.

2.3.2: The Rabbinic literature

The key concern of Second Temple Jewish identity, as discussed in the explication of

195 Shaye J.D. Cohen, ―From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage‖ in Reuben (ed.), HAR 7 – Biblical and Other Studies in Honour of Robert Gordis (Ohio: Oberlin Printing Company, 1983), 26–7.

196 Yonge, ―On The Virtues‖ (p. 650 cf. Jos, Complete Works 8. 7. 5), 182.

197 Yonge misses the Bible text: instead of Deuteronomy 23: 7 he has 27: 3 (footnote 14, p. 650).

198 Ibid.

Ezra 10, is the post–exilic Jewish commonwealth in dialogue with past Israel. This is necessary so as to understand how they ended up in exile and above all how to uphold a peaceful relationship with Yahweh. This concern is evidenced by the following rationales against intermarriage in the post–exilic Jewish community: genealogical, language, and raising a generation of godly offspring for the worship of Yahweh. Hence, the Jewish community adopted a post–exilic exegetical method which sometimes reinvents the meaning of the Torah in order to recreate a commonwealth which meets the needs of a weak community living among powerful neighbors. This methodology started with Ezra and Nehemiah and continued to the point: ‗Israelites gradually became Jews.‘199

The point of departure is the daily prayer of blessings incumbent on every Jew which emphasizes the segregation between male and female, Jew and Gentile, slave and free. R.

Judah uttered the content of the prayer, saying: ―Blessed is He who did not make me a

Gentile. Blessed is He who did not make me a woman. Blessed is He who did not make me a brute (or slave)‖ (b. Menahot 43d; m. Berakot 7: 1);‖200 This underscores, once again, the importance of Jewish men. Moreover the blessings may probably aim at calling attention to the holy seed motif. On the above subject matter, the m. Megillah 3: 7 states:

―If one says … [instead of] ‗… Thou shalt not give any of thy seed to set them apart to

Moloch, thou shalt not give to transfer it to a Gentile woman‘ he is both silenced and

199 Cohen, 1983: 23.

200 Menahoth in Rabbi I Epstein (ed.), HEEBT, translated by Eli Cashdan (London: The Soncino Press, 1989), 86 and Berakoth (ibid, translated by Maurice Simon, 1990), 89. My translation is fairly different from Rabbi Eli‘s translation of the tractate. A Greek equivalence renders it as ―that I was born human and not a beast, a man and not a woman, a Greek and not a Barbarian‖ (Richard N. Longenecker, Galatians (WBC1; 41, Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1990), 157. 66

rebuked.‖201 Interestingly, there are rabbis who taught and argued that this prohibition intermarriage is Mosaic.202 This exegesis supports the context for the general prohibition against intermarriage. R. Simeon b. Yohai is one of the leading proponents for the general prohibition on intermarriage in rabbinic literature.203 But Talmudic sources inform that there are some rabbis who acknowledge the pre–exilic understanding of the

Scripture text.204 M. Yebamoth 3: 2 states that

A man who is wounded in his stones, and one whose membrum is cut off, are permitted to marry a proselyte or an emancipated slave. They are only forbidden to enter into the assembly, as it is said in scripture, he that is wounded in his stones or hath his privy membrum cut off shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord.205

It is interesting that, even though, the above rabbinic text continues to herald the prohibition on intermarriage; it also appears to open a window of possibility. Raba responded to the injunction in m. Yeb 3: 2, saying:

Is the law there due at all to sanctity or non-sanctity? [It is merely due to] the possibility that he might beget a child who would proceed to worship idols. This, then, is applicable only when they are still idol worshippers. When, however, they are converted, they are

201 Megillah in Rabbi I Epstein (ed.), HEEOTBT, translated by Maurice Simon 1990), 48–49; cf. Malachi 2: 15 in ―The Targum of the Minor Prophets,‖ in Martin McNamara et al (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums Vol. 14, translated by Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990), 234. The phrase ―transfer it to a Gentile woman‖ means to impregnate her; however, this prohibition appears to be against nation(s) which worship ―Moloch‖ (Meg, note a3, p. 49). Deuteronomy 7: 3 in the Targum notes that: ―You shall not marry with them; … for anyone who marries with them, it is as if he married with their idols‖ ―Targum Pseudo–Jonathan: Deuteronomy,‖ in Martin McNamara et al (eds.), The Aramaic Bible: Targums Vol. 5B, Ernest G. Clarke (trans.) (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1998), 27. The Targum is referring to the seven Canaanite nations (cf. B. Kiddushin 68b in I. Epstein (ed.), HEEOTBT, translated by H. Freedman, 1990).

202 ―B. Abodah Zarah 36b says: ―But [the prohibition against] an Israelite having intercourse with a heathen is a law of Moses from Sinai, [therefore,] If [an Israelite] has intercourse with a heathen woman, the Zealots may attack him‖ (ibid, translated by A. Cohen, 1988), 72; cf Sanhedrin 9: 8 (ibid, translated by H. Freedman, 1990).

203 B. Yebamoth 23a (ibid, 1994, Israel W. Slotki (trans)), 44–45; cf. B. Aboda Zarah 36b (p. 72).

204 For example: R. AIha b. Adda b. Abodah Zarah 36b.

205 M. Yebamoth 3: 2 (p. 151). 67

undoubtedly permitted, and it was only the Rabbis who placed them under a prohibition as a preventive measure. But such a preventive measure was instituted by the Rabbis in respect of those only who are capable of procreation, not in respect of those who are incapable of procreation.206 Raba‘s exegesis of m. Yeb 3: 2 gives a stronger reason when he observed that it was the earlier Rabbis who instituted the general prohibition against intermarriage even though the Torah only mentions 7 Canaanite nations. He argues even further that Deuteronomy

7: 3–4 does not prohibit against intermarriage with Canaanites since they could turn away from their idolatrous ways.207

2.4: Conclusion

The chapter discussed inter–faith marriage in the OT and Jewish literature. The research showed that God created the human race from which He set Israel apart for redemptive purpose (Genesis 12). The investigation also revealed that it was God‘s intention for

Israel to be different from the other races for the sake of purity and worship. This explained the Deuteronomy 7 and Leviticus 18 injunctions against intermarriage with the

7 Canaanite nations and unlawful sexual relations. The plan is to attract other nations to

God and not for Israel to be attracted to other gods. It is reasonable that intermarriage with all human people groups is allowed if the people would live in purity and worship of

Yahweh. Therefore, intermarriage took place in the Israel before and even after the giving of the Laws, which even involved respected personalities. There are Gentiles who intermarried with Israel and became respected and very involved in Israel‘s commonwealth.

206 B. Yebamoth 76a (ibid).

207 Cohen, 1983: 29. R. Judah believes that the Canaanites could abandon idolatry and return to the God of Israel (B. SotahI 35b (ibid, 1994, transl. by A. Cohen), 70–1. 68

The exile, however, changed such relations as the returnees adopted a creative exegesis to respond to their immediate spiritual, social, language and many other challenges. Race received more attention than fulfilling God‘s redemptive purpose for humanity. The emphasis is on growing Israel as a nation. This is the situation of the Second Temple period. Jewish literature sources revealed the same pattern and even more of stricter rules on the Jewish–Gentile relations. In fairness to the Jewish literature whose main position seems that intermarriage is defilement and a sexual sin to the Jews, there were Rabbis who acknowledged the ancient truth of Israel–Gentile relations.

CHAPTER 2:

INTERFAITH MARRIAGE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AND GRECO–ROMAN

LITERATURE

2.1: Introduction

The New Testament begins with Matthew‘s incipit which addresses the impact of

Jewish–Gentile intermarriage. This chapter will discuss interfaith marriage in the NT and

Greco–Roman literature. The discussion will focus on interfaith marriages between

Christians and non–Christians. The approach will be the same as the preceding chapter:

(a) survey of interfaith marriage in the NT; (b) explication of 2 Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1; and (c) a discussion of interfaith marriage in the Greco–Roman literature.

2.2: Interfaith Marriage in the New Testament

2.2.1: A Survey of Interfaith Marriage in the New Testament

This section will discuss interfaith marriage in the NT. The investigation will help to understand if the rationales prohibiting exogamy in Jewish commonwealth developed by

Ezra–Nehemiah, Second Temple and Rabbinic sources continue in the NT; if not, why not? This particular question is very important considering that Christianity is a product of Judaism. The point of departure for this investigation is the Matthean incipit which records some key intermarriage of the pre–exilic period. This section will discuss the following concerns: (1) Survey of passages and allusions against interfaith marriage in the NT; (2) Survey of inter–faith marriage in the NT; and finally (3) Why is God against interfaith marriage in the NT?

2.2.1.1: A Survey of Passages and Allusions Against Interfaith Marriage in the New

Testament:

The concept of interfaith marriage in the NT has taken a paradigm shift from the OT‘s concern over racial identity and worship to the NT focus on theological and worship concerns for its people. Evidently, on the one hand, the Hebrew word !tx intermarry in

Genesis 34: 9 was translated in the Septuagint as ἐπηγακβξεχζαζζε which is from ἐπη +

γακβξ ο. The Greek word may also translate as levirate marriage. The Septuagint may have mistranslated it since the narrative does not give any salient reason to think in that fashion; the Masoretic text may have the correct rendering although it may also be translate as father in–law. Conversely, the word intermarriage is non–existent in NT literature. Moreover, the theme of intermarriage is not as widely covered in the NT as in the OT. The heart of the discussion on interfaith marriage in the NT may be correctly said to be based on the theological conviction of the Christian faith and not racial identity.

The passages and allusions to interfaith marriage in the NT appear to only exist in Paul‘s

First and Second epistles to the Corinthians. Paul expounds on the theme of marriage in 1

Corinthians 7: 10–16 to address marital concerns affecting the Corinthian Church. The main focus of the above passage is firstly the union between a Christian spouse and another (vv. 10–12); and secondly a Christian spouse and a non–Christian spouse (vv.

13–16). On the interfaith married couple, he observes that the Christian spouse (wife or husband) should not end the marriage covenant; unless the non–Christian (husband or wife) wants to break the covenant.208 It is logical to say that Paul‘s admonition centers on

208 Paul‘s basic ground for the believing partner to remain with the non–believer is said to be (1) the non–believing partner is willing to remain (vv. 12–13); (2) the believing partner has sanctified the non– believing one as the latter is willing to remain to the former (v. 14); (3) for evangelistic purpose (v. 16). It 71

a non–Christian couple whereby one of whom confessed Jesus Christ while leaving the other in unbelieving state. Therefore, Paul does not accept a Christian going into a marriage covenant with a non–Christian. This is reasonable because of 2 Corinthians 6:

14–16a:

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness? What agreement does Christ have with Beliar? Or what does a believer share with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols?209

The argument goes like this: a believer is in partnership with righteousness, in fellowship with the light and belongs to Jesus Christ. The non–believer is in partnership with unrighteousness, in fellowship with darkness and belongs to Beliar: this makes (interfaith) marriage impossible. But in fairness to the context of the text, Paul was addressing the matter of the false apostles who came to Corinth in his absence and raised up some questions among which is the authenticity of his apostleship and authority (chap 9–12).

William Lane Craig said, nonetheless, the text applies to the marriage covenant since two people in the above conflicting situations on the essentials of life, faith and allegiance will make a bad match for a lifelong covenant relationship.210

2.2.1.2: The Survey of Interfaith Marriages in the New Testament:

The Matthean gospel begins with an important incipit which discusses the genealogy of is reasonable to think that Paul may as well be saying that: God bears witness to marriage covenant among Christian and non-Christian couple. This text will be discussed further later in this chapter.

209 The Message puts it as ―Don‘t become partners with those who reject God. How can you make a partnership out of right and wrong? That‘s not partnership; that‘s war. Is light, best friends with dark? Does Christ go strolling with the Devil? Do trust and mistrust hold hands? Who would think of setting up pagan idols in God‘s holy Temple?

210 ―Marrying a Non–Christian‖ in Q & A With William Lane Craig # 19, (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/marrying-a-non-christian). The 2 Corinthians 6 passage will be explicated below. 72

Jesus. Matthew‘s goal appears to reach predominantly Jewish recipients; hence the need to trace Jesus‘ ancestry from Abraham to Joseph the husband of Mary. 211 This places

Jesus in his family and historical context.212 An idea of interfaith marriage in the NT appears first in Matthew‘s incipit (vv. 3, 5, 6) which takes readers back to the OT. The incipit includes the names of four women in the Jesus genealogy namely: Tamar (v. 3 cf.

Gen. 38), Rahab (v. 5 cf. Josh 2; 6), Ruth (v. 6 cf. Ruth 1–4) and Bathsheba (v. 6 cf. 2

Sam 11).213 There are other notable women, who deserve Matthew‘s inclusion like

Rebekah but Matthew‘s concern is with women who married in the clan of Judah. The motive of Matthew‘s incipit appear not to argue for Jewish–Gentile intermarriage; rather to underscore the participation of Gentiles in the redemptive story of God which was about to consummate.

Matthew informed his readers that the story of Jesus is part of the authentic religious story of Israel. Luke also demonstrates that the story of Christianity which begins with

Jesus Christ (Acts 11: 26) is part of the scriptural story of Israel. This he does by the

211 The importance of tracing one‘s ancestry soared during the post–exilic period when racial identity became the condition for being a member of the Jewish community in Ezra–Nehemiah (Knoppers: 18).

212 Craig A. Evans, Matthew (NCBC2; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 32–3. Therefore, ―the story of Jesus is part of Israel‘s scriptural story‖ (ibid: 32).

213 It is not Jewish to include the names of women in such an important list by the author, if not for a relevant reason for his readers. Craig S. Keener analyses various scholarly positions on the reason for Matthean inclusion of women. He concludes that Matthew‘s inclusion of these four women was probably to remind his readers of the presence of Gentile women in the lineage of Kings David and Solomon. Hence, ―Gentiles were never an afterthought in God‘s plan, but had been part of his work in history from the beginning‖ A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999), 80. John Nolland disagrees because ―Ruth is very clearly a former Gentile who has found refuge under the wings of the God of Israel, and the same should probably be said of Rahab‖ The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ Bletchley: Paternoster Press). It is reasonable to argue that because a Gentile becomes a proselyte does not necessarily make them Jewish. Therefore, the view of Nolland is not plausible. Keener was also right that ―Matthew exhorts his readers that as much as Jesus is connected with the heritage of Israel, he is for all peoples as well, and his disciples have a responsibility to let everyone know about him‖ (ibid: 80–1). 73

lengthy account of Stephen before the Sanhedrin council. He re–echoes Matthew‘s sentiment and went further in support of Christianity. Acts 7: 29 states: ―Moses fled and became a resident alien in the land of Midian. There he became the father of two sons.‖

Stephen‘s central point for mentioning where Moses resided may have been his marriage to a Gentile woman, which his contemporaries would not normally talk about.214

Matthew‘s incipit and Lukan narrative of Stephen‘s defence are OT examples of intermarriage which they used for apologetic reasons in defence of Jesus Christ and

Christianity: the former as the fulfillment of Yahweh‘s project in Genesis 12 and the latter to argue that Christianity is the outcome of that project.

Acts 16: 1–3 introduces the character of Timothy and his family: Jewish–Christian mother and a Greek–non–Christian (?) father.215 Nothing more is known about Timothy‘s family background; except Paul mentions in his epistle that ―I am reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also‖ (2 Tim 1: 5). Therefore, he might have been a third generation Christian from his maternal angle.

Paul‘s response to the marriage problems in the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. 7: 12–16) may have been actual situation in that community of faith. If it is true then, we have a complex situation of interfaith marriage in the faith community. However as discussed earlier, this is a latter development and not a state which begun with the couple‘s marriage.

214 Craig S. Keener, ―Interethnic Marriages in the New Testament‖, CTR, 6/2 (Spring, 2009), 30– 3.

215 Keener reasoned that that Timothy‘s father did not circumcise him since it would mean mockery to the Greeks indicates that his father was neither a proselyte nor a Christian (ibid: 33–4).

The NT uses OT examples to support their claims that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of the OT and that Christianity in the will of God for humanity. The NT is concerned about separation as a Jesus community which includes all who believe in Jesus Christ and not on racial grounds as Judaism emphasized. Therefore, the NT agrees that Christianity comes from Judaism; yet, it is built upon a different conviction of faith. The same applies to its view on intermarriage.

2.2.1.3: Why is God Against Interfaith Marriage Between Christians and Non–Christians in the New Testament?

There are numerous answers to the above questions based on contemporary Church traditions and their understanding of the Scripture. This creates an even more confusing question: are their responses based on their different traditions or their interpretation of

Scripture? In any case, it appears in some cases that it was based on the former. It is absurd when traditions override Scripture most especially if Scripture is clear on the matter of concern.

The canons of the Eastern Orthodox Church disapprove both interfaith and interdenominational marriage involving its members. It may easily accommodate interdenominational marriage under some circumstance listed in its canons; it is however absolutely against interfaith marriage with a very minimal possibility left in the hands of the autocephalous to decide. A key condition for the any intermarriage is that children from such union are baptized and nurtured after the Orthodox Church. The theological grounds for such conclusion is that marriage is a mysterion and sacramentum instituted by God (Gen.1: 27f; 2: 18–25). Paul discusses marriage as symbolic of the mysterion

union between Christ, the head, and the Church his body (Eph. 5: 21–32). Hence, the

Orthodox canons disapprove interfaith marriage on both ecclesiological and eschatological grounds.216 However the rule of economy of the Russian Orthodox Church states: the Church has the right to act in ways it believes enhance God‘s salvation plan for humanity. This empowers the Church to allow interfaith marriage for the purpose of salvation (cf. 1 Cor. 7: 12–16).217

The Roman Catholic Church holds firmly to their tenets of faith on unconditional basis but can as well relax them and allow interfaith marriage. The Canon Law on marriage of the Church states that it is incumbent on all adherents to protect the ‗unconditional basic tenets‘ of the Church even in their marriage. Nonetheless, the Church may allow interfaith marriage under any of the following circumstances: that the non–Christian was not baptized by the Church and is not a former member of a non–Roman Catholic

Church.218 The theological ground for such analysis is that marriage is an irrevocable covenant of personal consent which, importantly, involves Christ. Therefore marriage is both mysterion and sacramentum. Moreover, ―the relation between the two marriage partners is understood as the vital basis on which the encounter with Christ takes place.‖219 The implication on the presence of Christ in that relation points to the

216 ―Marriages between Christians and Muslims: Pastoral Guidelines for Christians and Churches in Europe‖ in the Conference of European Churches and Council of European Episcopal Conferences Islam in Europe Committee, www.ccee.ch/ressourcen/download/20080515151749.rtf, (2008), 11–4.

217 Ibid: 14. This understanding is not adopted by other Eastern Orthodox Churches (ibid: 25).

218 Ibid: 15.

219 Ibid: 14, 25. The Anglican Church somewhat agrees with the Roman Catholic Church. They understand marriage as God‘s gift to all humanity; therefore, interfaith marriage is welcomed. The Church solemnizes one third of all marriages in England. However the Church is not bound to solemnize a divorcee whose partner still lives. The Church also reasons like the Russian Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches which see such union as evangelistic means to sharing Christ to the non–Christian (ibid: 11–2, 25–6).

sacrament of baptism. The idea suggests that the presence of Christ will facilitate an encounter with Him and thereby cause the non–Christian to believe in Christ. The mysterion and sacramentum of marriage is a means by which the couple experiences

God‘s salvation. However, even though God‘s salvation is experienced, the salvation of the non–Christian is not absolute.220

The Conference of European Churches and Council of European Episcopal Conferences seem to show that most European churches have agreed to interfaith marriage. However, there are different pastoral steps and biblical grounds for their allowance, and their

Church traditions play major role in such decision. The Church in North America seems to presently face the same challenge.221 What does the Scripture teach: should Christians marry non–Christians?

The Nigerian Church and a large section of the African Church take a conservative stand on interfaith marriage. A good example is the Redeemed Christian Church of God with over 2000 parishes in Nigeria alone, with many more in 11 African countries, and also present in three European countries, two Caribbean countries and USA.222 The principal

220 Ibid: 13. This indicates that inter–church marriage is not allowed in the Roman Catholic Church since a non–Christian is preferred over a Christian from another denomination. The schism caused by the Reformation of the 16th century may be at the heart of this decision.

221 Ibid, see chapter 5 ―Special Pastoral Concerns‖ (pp. 23–7). This investigation is very important since Churches in the developed world lead the way while those in the ‗developing‘ and ‗under– developing‘ world are directly or indirectly influenced by their decisions. For example see the responses of African Bishops on homosexuality in the Anglican Church in Homosexuality and Anglicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Anglicanism#Church_of_the_Province_of_Central_Afri ca). 222 http://www.rccg.org/foundation.php. The church‘s headquarters in Lagos State Nigeria holds an all-night prayer meeting every first Friday of every month with an average attendance of 500,000 people (ibid).

doctrine on the Christian life goes against interfaith marriage.223 Another example is the

Evangelical Church Winning All (ECWA) which says:

All marriages contracted and solemnized in ECWA shall be governed by the provisions hereunder. No accredited ECWA minister, officer, member shall, while remaining a minister, an officer, or a member of ECWA, go outside of ECWA to contravene these provisions without facing disciplinary action. Marriages contracted and solemnized in ECWA shall be in accordance with Christian beliefs as set forth hereunder. Marriages shall be recognized as a holy estate and honourable in the sight of God. It shall not be entered into lightly or unadvisedly (Eph 5:21-33). A Christian marriage is that between two persons- male and female- who having individually confessed Jesus Christ as saviour, and living life worthy of his name, have, by acts of their individual wills, entered into a permanent lifelong one flesh bond … In recognition of the gravity of this matter, the officiating minister at a wedding and the pastor of the concerned LCB shall be required to conduct a pre-marital counselling sessions with both parties to ascertain their commitment to the Lord Jesus Christ and to each other. ECWA pastors are strongly advised to encourage HIV and genotype tests to intending couples in their churches. Pregnancy test shall be prerequisite for counselling along with other established rules for solemnization of Christian marriage in any ECWA Church. The tests shall be conducted at least six months before marriage and reconfirmed a month before the wedding date… Any person or persons in ECWA not yet joined in holy matrimony, who engages in acts of unchastity or incontinence, shall be subject to Church discipline… disciplinary action shall be against any person or persons in ECWA, though married, who commits acts of marital infidelity (1Cor 5:11; 6:18-20; 7:8-9; Heb 13:4) no man and woman in ECWA, living together without being joined by the Church shall be accepted or recognized by the Church for purposes of solemnization … Both parties wedding away from their regular place or places of worship shall be required to present a letter of accreditation to the LCB hosting the wedding ceremony, testifying of their Christian standing and commitment. No person or persons shall contract marriage on non-Christian grounds, and later come before the church for blessings and/or solemnization … No accredited ECWA minister shall join in holy Matrimony, a Christian and a non-Christian. No accredited ECWA minister shall join in holy matrimony, two persons, one or both of whom have once been divorced and whose previous marriage partner or partners are still living ( Mk 10:11,12; 1Cor 7:10-11; Mal 2:16). No person or persons in ECWA who have previously divorced or have been divorced, shall on any grounds while remaining in ECWA, be permitted to contract another marriage whether inside or outside of ECWA while the previous partner or partners is/are alive. A divorcee who remarries while the previous partner is still alive shall be committing adultery according to the Bible (Matt 5:32; Mk 10:11- 12; Rom 7:1-3; 1Cor 7:10-11; Mal 2:15-16). No divorcee shall hold any elective post in accordance with ECWA policy… Marriage shall last for as long as both parties remain alive (Jn 4:17-18; Rom 7:1-3; 1Cor 7:10-11). Any person or persons who have violated these divine ordinances concerning marriage as aforementioned before their conversion, or confession of Christ Jesus as saviour, shall be accepted by the Church as new creation in Christ and in recognition of the grace and mercies of God unto salvation

223 The procedures of the church made it impossible (Asonzeh Franklin-Kennedy Ukah, The Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Nigeria. Local Identities and Global Processes in African Pentecostalism. Dissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades an der Kulturwissenschaftlich Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth, 2003), 172–82. 78

(Acts 17:30; 2 Cor 5:17) … No ECWA council, body or bodies, or accredited minister shall under any circumstances dissolve or annul a marriage, whether or not contracted or solemnized in ECWA, for what God has joined together, let no man put asunder (Gen 2:24; Matt 19:6; Mk 10:8,9). In the event of the death of one of the two parties in a marriage, the living partner shall be free to contract another marriage (Rom 7:1-3), which marriage if solemnized in ECWA, shall be governed by the aforementioned provisions. 224

The Canadian Baptist Convention holds that interfaith marriage is inconsistent with

Scripture teaching.225 The stance of the Presbyterian Church of Canada may be summed in chapter XXIV article III of the Westminster Confession of Faith that

It is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. [Thus] … such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.226

The consecration motif appears to have played a significant role in the understanding of

Jewish identity and its subsequent effects on Jewish–Gentile relations. The word for holy or consecration comes from the Heb vdq and the Grk .227 In Scripture, it ―entails setting someone or something apart from others of their class. Usually … [it] elevates its object‘s status vis–a–vis God and is equivalent to making its object holy.‖228 The focus is on people and not animal or things.

224 The Constitution and Bye-Laws of ECWA (Jos, Plateau State: ECWA Productions Limited [Challenge Press], 2010), 142-45; ECWA Ministers’ Handbook (Jos, Plateau State: ECWA Productions Limited [Challenge Press], 2002), 88-94. The italic mine for emphasis. While for the abbreviations see the list of abbreviation. The Church‘s position on interfaith marriage, divorce and remarriage very is clear.

225 ―Resources for Special Occasions in Personal and Family Life‖ in A Manual for Worship and Service (Canada: Canadian Baptist Ministries, 1998), 21–2.

226 http://presbyterian.ca. There are further information on footnotes 479 & 480.

227 The key Greek text for this research is by Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, C. M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger & A. Wikgren The Greek New Testament (4th ed.), (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993).

228 Robert Kugler, ―Consecrate‖ in Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (ed.), NIDB Vol. 1 (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2006), 726–27. Cf. Jackie A. Naude ―vdq‖ in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1997), 877–87. 79

The starting point is the divine–human covenant relationship with the call of Abraham from the human race in Genesis 12 which is analysed thus:

1. The Maker of the covenant: God (verse 1) ―The Lord said ...‖

2. The parties involved: God & Abram (verse 1) ―The Lord said to Abram‖

3. The command of the covenant: God to Abram (verse 1) ―Go out from your land,

your relatives, and your father‘s house to the land that I will show you‖

4. The blessings of the covenant: from God to others

a. It is personal (verses 2-3) the frequent reference of God saying ―I will show

you‖; ―I will bless you‖; ―I will make your‖ and ―I will bless ... and I will

curse‖ all these are to the favour of Abram and his descendants.

b. It is for others as well, because the Lord said ―you will be a blessing [also]‖

(verse 2); ―I will bless those who bless you‖ (verse 3) and ―... all the people on

earth will be blessed through you‖ (verse 3).

c. It involves a land, which is presently not his but will belong to his descendants

in the future, for that‘s exactly what God meant by ―I will give this land to

your offspring‖ (verse 7).

5. The way the blessings will come from God: (verses 2-3)

a. From God to Abram > the nation of Israel > others (people groups/Gentiles).

b. From others (people groups/Gentiles) > the nation of Israel > Abram > God.229

6. The condition of this blessing from God to others: it will come only if the others

(people groups/Gentiles) bless Abram and his descendants (see verse 3).

229 Walther Eichrodt states that the main purpose of this covenant relationship is: ―… the consummation of ... [Yahweh]‘s dominion [over all His creations]‖ (Theology of the Old Testament Vol. 1, translated by J. A. Baker, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961), 206-27, 472-511. 80

7. The condition of the curse from God to the others: if the other people treat Israel

with disdain, for verse 3 says: ―I will curse those who treat you with contempt.‖

8. The nature of the covenant:

a. It depends completely on the unchanging character of God (verse 1) for it

says: ―the Lord said.‖230

b. However, it also requires the demonstration of trust, obedience and faith in

God (12: 4; 26: 5).

The above text reveals God‘s plan: Abram is called into a covenant with God in order to be a means through which all human race will be blessed. This Abrahamic covenant also involves building up a nation for God‘s use. Therefore, the descendants of Abraham are set apart for the purpose of God: to usher in His sovereign reign for all humanity. This is further seen in the covenant ratification by circumcision, which distinguishes Abraham and his descendants from all the others (Gen 17).

There are other consecrations of people in Israel by God for His use. The firstborns, humans or animals, are consecrated for God‘s use (Ex 13: 2; Deut. 15: 19). The following groups of people have been consecrated for God‘s special use: the people of Israel (Ex

19: 10, 14; Lev 11: 44; 20: 7; Josh 3: 5; 7:13; Ezek 20: 12; 37: 28; Joel 2: 16); the tribe of

Levi (Ex 19: 22; 29:1, 33; Lev 22: 9); the family of Aaron (Ex 40: 13; Lev 8: 12; 21: 15;

1 Chro 23: 32); and the Zadokites (Ezek 48: 11). Those chosen by God for His special project are expected to live by the demands of the divine–human convention which offers blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience (Deut 28).231 The convention

230 Evidently Yahweh reaffirms the same covenant promises (Gen 15 & 17) then to Isaac and Jacob (Gen 26 & 29). 231 VanGemeren: 883–86; Kugler: ibid. 81

stipulates, among others, that Israel should not intermarry with the 7 Canaanite nations

(Deut 7). The means of consecration includes the following: the word of God (Gen 2: 3;

Ex 13: 2; Lev 10: 3; 22: 9); the priests are expected to consecrate themselves before the

Lord (Ex 19: 22); blood of sacrificed animals (Ex 29: 1); and the priest‘s vestment (Ezek

28: 3; 44: 19).232

The teaching of the NT builds on the OT teaching: some have also been set apart for the work of God; Jesus Christ makes their consecration possible through his atoning sacrifice on the cross. The redemptive work of God was accomplished through the death of Christ and the following results ensue: those who believed are washed and anew (1 Cor 6: 11); they are ‗called God‘s holy233 people‘ (Rom 1: 7; 1 Cor 1: 2; Eph 1: 1); they are ‗chosen‘ people of God (Col 3: 12); the Gentile believers have joined the Abrahamic roots of faith and also enjoy a new status of faith as the other believers (Rom 11: 16f); the Church of

Christ has become the community of God‘s holy people (1 Pet 1: 16; 2: 9). Therefore as

Kugler again says ―through God Christ has become for the believers δηθαηνζχλε,

ἁγηαζκὸο and ἀπνιχηξσζηο (1 Cor 1: 30); they have created their own salvation.‖234 This redemptive relationship between Christ and the Church, people of God, is symbolized in

Ephesians 5: 21f as the mystical union (marriage) between a man and a woman. The NT notion of to be ‗holy‘ finds its roots from the OT; hence it also conveys the meaning of consecration or set apart. There are two basic points of departures between the OT and

232 Kugler: 726.

233 The term ‗holy‘ or ‗saint‘ ( does not mean ―a state or a quality of the believers, but to Christ‘s setting them apart for God, thus removing them from this world (Col 1: 12f)‖ (H. Balz, ― ‖ in H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds.), EDNT Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 19.

234 Ibid. 82

NT: on the one hand, the means of consecration and on the other the recipients of the consecration.

Paul begins his second epistle to the Corinthians as to the church of God in Corinth, together with all its saints or holy people (1: 1). This designation has set his recipients apart from the non–believers. Peter also states that ―But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God‘s own people, in order that you may proclaim the mighty acts of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light‖ (1 Peter 1: 9).

Therefore, ―I urge you as aliens and exiles to abstain from the desires of the flesh ….

Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge‖

(1 Peter 1: 11–12). Consequently, the first century Church did not teach interfaith marriage given their understanding of their Christian identity and its implications: be different among the ‗Gentiles‘ in order to preach Christ to them directly or indirectly.235

2.2.2: An Exploration of 2 Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1

The second epistle to the Corinthians presents a strained relationship between Paul and believers in Corinth which the apostle intends to heal. He accomplished that task by navigating through some difficult issues namely: his integrity, apostleship and collection for brethren in Jerusalem. Paul‘s response to above issues was exhortative, polemic and apologetic. The main focus of this section is to understand the above text. The

235 Interestingly the term ‗Gentile‘ has taken another meaning in 1 Peter 2. It does not have racial identity; rather the conduct of living. Therefore Christianity has metamorphosed the term from its Judaic understanding. 83

exploration of the text will engage some contextual issues and the explication of 2

Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1.

L. Mummius Achaicus, a Roman soldier, destroyed the old Corinth in 146 BC.236 The place remained desolate until Julius Caesar made it a Roman colony and also rebuilt it into its beauty.237 He remade the city not just on beauty but on three philosophies: liberty; as home for ex-service men who honourably served the empire, like in the military; and merchants.238 Therefore, the reworking of Corinth and these guiding principles made it one of the most beautiful cities in the Roman Empire. Its beauties are mostly in wealth, education, sport, and a melting point of diverse people and/or cultures since it is the capital of Achaia.239 Moreover, there was good network of roads for easy transportation and religious pluralism was commonplace.240 Suffice it that:

The city community and city culture … were formed after the Roman model, not a Greek one ... The city community and the city culture felt themselves to be prosperous and self–sufficient … The core community and core tradition of the city culture were those of trade, business, and entrepreneurial pragmatism in the pursuit of success.‖241

The above background stresses the context and also gives an idea of the unique

236 Leon Morris, 1 Corinthians (TNTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company; 1987), 17.

237 Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ Carlisle, Cumbria: Paternoster Press; 2000), 3.

238 Ibid.

239 Leon Morris: 17–9.

240 Thiselton: 3, 6.

241 Ibid: 3-4.

challenges facing the Christian community in Corinth of Paul‘s epistles. In spite of the trials, to Paul no doubt, Corinth was strategic to the expansion of the gospel because of its prominence and the respect it received from the other cities and its people. Luke reports in Acts 18 that Paul visited Corinth and later founded the Church, probably, in late 40s to early 50s.242 This commences a wonderful relationship between Paul and the Christian community in Corinth. The Church later had some critical concerns which Paul responded to by letters, sending of his associates and sometimes personal visits.243 The issues in this Church were enormous and quite confusing, as Fee rightly observes Paul‘s dilemma in 1 Corinthians:

Paul‘s difficulties in writing this letter are essentially twofold: on the one hand, he must reassert his authority in a situation where it has severely eroded. This is made the more difficult by his use of servant imagery as the model of leadership in the Church (3: 5-9; 4: 1-5) – how shall he assert his own authority over them and not destroy the perspective of that imagery? [See 4: 14-21]. On the other hand, he must convince them to change both their theology and their behaviour to conform to his, since they are moving toward positions that threaten the gospel itself.244

While in 2 Corinthians Paul is still addressing a weak and disjointed community living among a strong and striving external boundary. He faces some opponents who took advantage of existing misunderstanding to influence the Corinthian believers to doubt his character, apostleship and ministry thereby resulting in a broken relationship. The opponents argued for suspending his scheduled visit, Paul is not a true apostle, since no true apostle says both ‗yes‘ and ‗no‘ on the same thing and with the same mouth.

242 Bible scholars disagree on the year Paul arrived and left Corinth in Acts 18. Thiselton discussed that matter (pp. 29-32); Gordon D. Fee settles for a 49–51 AD date (1987: 6).

243 It is apparent that Paul wrote more than two epistles to the Corinthian‘s Church but to go further into the number he wrote is currently debatable (see Fee‘s ―a proposed reconstruction‖ pp. 6-8 & Morris: 25).

244 Fee: 7. 85

2.2.2.1: The Contexts of 2 Corinthians

The two Corinthian epistles received overwhelming internal and external evidence of

Pauline authorship and their attestation.245 On authorship, however, there is a minority opinion like that of Rudolf Bultmann who argues that 2 Corinthians was written by both

Paul and Timothy.246 Paul begins 2 Corinthians with salutation (1: 1–11) then defends his apostleship in response to his opponents (1: 12–7: 16) and also his integrity by explaining the reason for his sudden change of schedule. He connects his integrity with his call as an apostle, which he said aims at preaching the gospel and reconciling people back to God.

Paul‘s apostleship is a sensitive topic for him since he again discusses it in 10–13 where he underscores its importance and authority despite the frailty of the messengers.

Therefore, after his apologetics in defense of his apostleship which is reasonable to argue that it also defends his gospel message and vice versa, he exhorts the Corinthians to support the believers in Jerusalem.

2 Corinthians has some crucial literary concerns: (a) The ―lost epistles‖: scholars believe that Paul wrote at least four different epistles to the Corinthians.247 (b) The unity of the epistle is questioned on grounds of interpolation of chaps 10–13 which J. S. Semler first proposed in 1776; while Adolf Hausrath in 1870 named the section as Paul‘s ‗tearful

245 C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1973), 21–25; Paul Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan /Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997). Murray J. Harris, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005), 1–3.

246 The Second Letter to the Corinthians, translated by R. A. Harrisville, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985), 19.

247 Harris, ibid: 1–8; Colin G. Kruse, The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (TNTC; Leicester, England: IVP/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 1987), 19–35. 86

letter‘ mentioned in 2: 3–4; 7: 8–12.248 Other disjunctions have been argued notably by

Bornkamm for 2: 14–7: 4; Bultmann for 6: 14–7: 1; Betz for 8–9.249 The identity and association of Paul‘s opponents also remain another major concern due to their obscurity in the epistle.

It is very important to briefly discuss the interpolation in 2 Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1 since it is the exegetical stratum for this chapter. Bultmann went even further that this section is non–Pauline because, he argues, the paraenesis250 is non–Christian but Jewish.251 These raise two concerns for our text: that it is interpolation and it is Jewish not Pauline. On the first concern, those who argue for interpolation have reasons to do so because of the abrupt flow of thought of 6: 11–13 and 6: 14–7: 1. Paul discusses the nature and challenges of the apostolic ministry in 2: 14–6: 13 which appears to have the intention to juxtapose his apostleship with his opponents‘. He speaks to them as a father would to a child in order to heal their wounded relationship and get it back on track (6: 11–13); then he sets in a different topic: Christian and non–Christian relations (6: 14–7:1). This, according to scholars in favour of interpolation, lacks fluidity. Moreover, they argue that the section belongs to Paul‘s previous epistle which was inserted into the epistle.252

However as already addressed above, there are scholars who recognized the jerky nature

248 Keener, 2005: 146–47; see Harris extensive treatment of the literary problem, 8–51; Kruse: 35– 40, 135–36; Barrett: 23–5.

249 Ibid; Bultmann: 175–80. However, Harris, Kruse (ibid) and Keener (ibid: 148–51) are among scholars who appear not in favour of the above proposed interpolation in 2 Corinthians (ibid).

250 Paraenesis is a Greco–Roman style of admonition used by moral philosophers to encourage their followers to steadfastly remain in a certain standard of living which is not different from their teaching. However, this meaning is inconsistent in antiquity (Stanley Kent Stowers, Letters in Greco– Roman Antiquity, Philadelphia: Westminster Press 1989), 51–3.

251 Bultmann: 180.

252 Barrett: 21–5, 193–95; Kruse: 37–40; 87

of the transition ―but it seems by no means impossible‖253 hence went against interpolation arguing that 6: 14–7: 1 has always been a part of the exegetical stratum.254

On the second concern, that the style is unique to Jewish and not Pauline, that it does not appear to have any bearing on the Corinthians‘ situation; that it is hapax legomenon,255 that there is semblance with Qumranic ‗terminology and theology‘ as argued by Fitzmyer and others, another Jewish angle of the argument is that the stratum is inconsistent with

Pauline theology of ‗freedom‘ considering its ‗uncompromising exclusivism that is levitical or pharisaic in nature‘256 It will suffice that the literary issues which concerned the scholars may be summed up as language, theology, and fluidity. Harris notes that there are many similarities between the pericope and 2 Corinthians letters and in others too, for example the ‗righteous–faith‘ and ‗flesh–spirit‘ parallels and these antitheses: righteousness and lawlessness, light and darkness, Christ and Beliar, believer and unbeliever, and God‘s temple and idols (vv. 14–16) are Pauline.257 Paul‘s theology is different: for example his concept of temple in the text is distinct from the OT.258 So, it is reasonable to conclude that ―the whole pericope is structured around the typically Pauline

253 Barrett: 194.

254 Kruse: 39. It is very important to ask: why would a later redactor interpolate the text? Therefore, ―interpolation theory raises greater problems than it solves‖ (ibid: 135, 39).

255 Hapax legomenon is simply the use of words that appear nowhere in the NT Greek and LXX. For example, these Greek words do not appear anywhere in the NT κεηνρὴ, κνιπζκνῦ while the following do not appear in all Greek Bible ἑηεξνδπγνῦληεο ζπκθψλεζηο Βειηάξ and ζπγθαηάζεζηο (Harris: 17).

256 Ibid: 15–21.

257 Ibid: 21–2.

258 This will be discussed below. In response to the argument for its jerky transition see Barrett: 194. 88

‗indicative–imperative‘ dialectic.‖259

2.2.2.2: The Analysis and Interpretation of the Text:

It is important to reiterate the above discussion on the literary analysis of the pericope on the claims of interpolation and non–Pauline insertion: the thesis concludes that it is

Pauline, and as Barrett argued260, interpolation is very possible given the situation. The analysis of the pericope under study will take the following forms: the heart of the matter in the paraenesis to remain consecrated and the summary of the matter in the paraenesis to remain consecrated. It is also necessary to observe reader‘s anticipated response and to answer the question: how do we better understand the pericope?

2.2.2.2.1: The Paraenesis to Remain Consecrated: The Heart of the Matter

The paraenesis to remain steadfast in the faith warns believers on three things and explains why that is imperative with some rhetorical questions. Paul further discusses blessings for remaining steadfast in the faith, which appear to be incentives for remaining consecrated.

2.2.2.2.1.1: The Paraenetic–Imperative to Remain Consecrated (vv. 14a, 17):

The Paraenetic–imperative for believers to remain consecrated involves the following: not to mismatch with non–believers; the injunction to come out from their midst and be separate; and touch nothing unclean. This is vital in our discussion on the Christians‘ identity and their view of non–Christians‘ identity.

259 Murray: 494–95.

260 Cf. F.F. Bruce, I & II Corinthians (NCBC1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/London: Marshall, Morgan & Scot, 1980), 213–14. 89

2.2.2.2.1.1.1: Believers vs. Non–Believers: “Μὴ γίνεζθε ἑηεποζςγοῦνηερ” (v. 14a):

Paul begins the pericope with the negation Μὴ not joined with the imperative γίλεζζε to become to prohibit an action in progress or a habitual action.261 The word ἑηεξνδπγνῦληεο yoke NIV, partner Message, mismatch NRSV, mismated262 is a participle of manner expressing how to obey the injunction. This command is mainly for believers not to form any relationship with the ἀπίζηνηο non–believers. The characteristic of the Greek imperative is that its fulfillment depends wholly on its recipients. This prohibition reminds of Deuteronomy 22: 10 which commands the Israelites against mismating an Ox and Donkey together during plowing (cf. Lev 19: 19). Is the Pauline prohibition about marriage or pagan partnership? Kruse opines for the latter263 while Keener and Rienecker for the former.264 Moreover, both Greek and Latin writers have used similar words to mismate in the context of marriage.265 It appears, however, that there is no specific but a general partnership intended for the pericope.266 Therefore, it is reasonable to deduce that the prohibition targets any relationship with the unbelievers which hinder believers‘ from setting themselves apart. Moreover, to argue for pagan practices alone is to forget the connection between the unbelievers and pagan practices, especially if the ἀπίζηνηο are

261 Fritz Rienecker, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), 474; Harris: 498.

262 Warren C. Trenchard, Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998), 41.

263 Kruse: 136. He supported his argument with the succeeding verses (15–16).

264 Keener: 194; Rienecker: 474. Thus a marriage covenant between a Christian and non–Christian is considered partnership with the non–believers (ibid); Issiaka Coulibaly, ―2 Corinthians‖ in Adeyemoh (ed.), ABC, p. 1431.

265 Keener: 194 (see notes 102–03).

266 Barrett: 195–96. 90

immersed in a Greco–Roman cultural worldview.

2.2.2.2.1.1.2: Believers vs. Non–Believers: “ἐξέλθαηε ἐκ μέζος αὐηῶν, καὶ ἀθοπίζθηηε …

ἀκαθάπηος μὴ ἅπηεζθε” (v. 17a–b).

The above phrase presents three further imperatives on the believers‘ relations with unbelievers, which again fully depends on the response of the believers. Paul continues his injunction with come out from their midst and be separated or be set apart (cf. Matt

25: 32) … do not touch unclean things.267 The first and second injunctions come out and separate are both emphasizing a punctiliar action. However, the third one appears to prohibit an action in progress or a habitual action due to the relationship between κὴ and

ἅπηεζζε (present imperative with a negation) in the structure. The entire injunctions are somewhat akin to the call of Abram from his old life into a new one of commitment to

God and the entire humanity (Genesis 12). The call later developed into a divine–human covenant relationship (Genesis 15, 17) and as in the Abrahamic covenant this also comes with blessings for obedience. The injunctions fit the LXX Isaiah 52: 11 which offers future hope to Israel in the Babylonian exile and warned them against the pagan lifestyle of the people. Paul, however, changes the third person singular pronoun from cf.

her to them to refer to the unbelievers instead of the Babylon intended מִ ּתֹוכָ ּה in Isaiah. The above Pauline imperative emphasizes a paradigm shift ―from ceremonial to ethical purity‖268 hence from just doing to both doing and especially being.

267 John Chrysostom relates ‗unclean‘ with adultery and fornication in his homilies on Paul‘s Corinthian epistle, 1–2 Corinthians in G. Bray (ed.), ACCS: NT Vol. vii (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1999), 262.

268 Bruce: 215; Barrett: 200–01. 91

Is Paul arguing that unbelievers are unclean? The moral holiness motif in the text suggests the unbelievers are morally unclean269 which violates the calling and the standard of living binding upon believers. Therefore, Paul calls the believers in Corinth not to come near such lifestyle after they have separated from them .270 The problem is with their moral purity which is controlled by their belief system, a system in conflict with that of the believers. Jewish sources show that the Diasporan Jews could not completely avoid mismating with the Gentiles,271 so it is a difficult prohibition for the believers to observe as well as 1 Clement later reported.272

2.2.2.2.1.2: The Exposition of the Paraenetic–Imperative to Remain Consecrated (vv.

14b–16b)

In his mission to admonish believers to remain consecrated, Paul issues some imperatives which the above discussion categorized into two. The focus in the imperatives was for believers to set themselves apart from unbelievers as failure to do that would compromise their consecration and ultimately render the sacrifice of Christ useless. In this section, he continues his discussion with the reasons for his imperatives. The explanation involves five rhetorical questions which explore the believers–unbelievers relationship side by side in a comparative analysis and the grounds for the analysis.

269 Barrett: 201; Barnett: 353.

270 The Peshitto NT renders v. 17b as ―and come not near the unclean things‖ (The New Testament Translated from the Syriac: Peshitto Version, translated by James Murdock, New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2001), 333.

271 Keener: 194.

272 Barrett: 22. 92

2.2.2.2.1.2.1: The Comparative Analyses (vv. 14b–16a)

The five antithetical comparative analyses are verbless constructions, thereby easily linking one analysis with the other and assuming in advance a negative answer. The first analysis explores the relationship between ‗righteousness‘ and ‗lawlessness‘ (v. 14b). The meaning of righteousness is easily determined by its antonym. Lawlessness happens when one violates the laws of God; and this explains why the Psalmist calls for cleansing after his lawless act (Ps 51 cf. 19: 12–13). Righteousness is a condition which God imputes contemporaneously upon anyone who believes; while lawlessness is a state possible by unbelief and a different orientation from the former. It is also important to note that adherents of these conditions respond to the ethical demands of their orientations. The Psalmist juxtaposes those virtues and their different ends (Psalm 1). The second analysis explores ‗light‘ and ‗darkness‘ (v. 14b). Bible sources show salvation emanates light for those in darkness (Isa 9: 2; Matt 4: 16); Jesus is ‗the light of the world‘

(John 8: 12; 9: 5; 12: 46) and those who follow (believe in) him are ‗the light of the world‘ (Matt 5: 14). While darkness is a sign of judgement (Ex 10: 21; Matt 8: 12; 22:

13; 25: 30); the wicked live in darkness (Pro 2: 13–14; 1 Thess 5: 4–7); and it is also symbolizes death (Ps 88: 12; 143: 3; Isa 5: 30; 47: 5). Qumran sources reveal that ‗light‘ and ‗darkness‘ symbolize good and evil.273 Therefore, light symbolizes God while darkness, Satan (1 John 1: 5; 2 Cor 11: 14 cf. 4: 4).

The third analysis compares Christ with Beliar (v. 15). The Greek agreement and music from which originates symphony274 asks if there is

273 Ibid: 197; Harris: 501 (note 33).

274 Trenchard: 121; Barrett: 197–98; Barnett: 347. 93

harmony between the two beings. Philoxenus of Mabbug says the Holy Spirit ―cannot agree to remain in a place where Satan dwells.‖275 The fourth is between believers and unbelievers (v. 15). Philoxenus‘ statement makes such harmony impossible which is in consistent with Paul‘s intended response. The Greek πιστῷ believer may as well be translated as faithful; hence impressing the idea that believe falls short of its intended meaning if it is not accompanied by the ethical demands of its orientation. The main point is that one cannot be both believer (faithful) and unbeliever at the same time; but one of the two.276 The last analysis involves the temple of God with that of idols (v. 16).

Yahweh prohibits Israel from worshipping idols (Ex 20: 4–5, 23; Deut 4: 15–19). It continues into the NT with the church leadership reiterating the prohibition (Acts 15: 29) while Paul associated such worship with the worship of demons (1 Cor 10: 20). He concludes that believers ―cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons‖ (v. 21). Cyril of

Jerusalem relates that worship with Satan.277 Therefore, once again there is no harmony.

The above five comparisons logically progressed from one to another; hence it appears the succeeding enforces a more rigid negation than the previous.

2.2.2.2.1.2.2: The Basic Ground for the Comparative Analyses (v. 16b)

;Βαζ. 1:9 1) הֵ יכָ ל The LXX rendering of ναός temple is identical to the Hebrew words

275 Bray: 262.

276 Barrett: 198–99.

277 Bray: 98.

Chron. 28:11; 2 Ch. 8:12 cf. 15:8; 29: 7, 17).278 1) אּולָ ם Βαζ. 22:7; ψ 44: 15) and 2 ;3:3

The temple was God‘s sanctuary in the OT. The journey, however, began with the

Tabernacle in Ex 26 which was subsequently completed מִשְּ כָ ן revelation to construct the

:the Tent of Meeting (Exodus 27: 21; 28 לאֹּהֶ מֹוףֵ ד in Ex 40. It is also synonymous with

43; Lev. 1: 1; Numb 1: 1; 16: 18–19; Josh 18: 1). The Tent of Meeting was the place of inquiry and meeting for Israel and Yahweh (cf. Exodus 33: 7–11). This relationship developed in the building of a temple (1 Kg 5–8) which was later destroyed in 586 BC (2

Kg 25). There were two known temples at the Second Temple period, namely that of

Zerubbabel in 516 BC (Ezra 5–6; Hag 1) and King Herod (Jn 2: 20). However, while the

Jews were still in exile, God spoke through His prophets that a time will come when He will write His laws in their hearts (Jer. 24: 7; 32: 39; Ezek. 18: 31; 36: 26).

The Greek word ναός also appears in the NT and has been translated both as sanctuary

(NRSV) and temple (NIV) (Matt 23: 16, 17, 21; 23: 35; Mk 14: 58; 15: 29; Lk 23: 45); as house (Acts 7: 48) and shrine (Acts 17: 24). Paul‘s understanding of ναός appears unique to its above meaning: that believers are the ναός of God and His πλεῦκα Spirit lives in them (1 Cor 3: 16; 6: 19; 2 Cor 6: 16).279 This set the background for later epistles to understand ναός within the context of a faith community; and it is synonymous with νἶθνο house of God (cf. 1 Pet 2: 5; 4: 17).280 So for Paul, believers are the temple of God where

278 O. Michel, ―ναός‖ in G. Kittel and G. Friedrich (eds.), TDNT (abridged in one vol.) by Geoffrey W. Bromley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 625–27.

279 This may have been Paul‘s deduction of Jesus‘ statement in John 2: 19 (cf. Mk 14: 58; 15: 29) where he said he will rebuild the Temple in three days not with hands if the temple (referring to his body) is destroyed (ibid).

280 Ibid.

the Holy Spirit lives (cf. Eph 1: 13–4; 4: 30; 2 Cor 1: 21–22). This condition necessitates the preceding paraenetic–imperatives.

2.2.2.2.1.3: The Paraenetic–Promises for Remaining Consecrated (vv. 16c, 18)

Psalm 1 renders the paths of the righteous and that of the wicked; and announces the rewards for choosing each path. The same applies to the above pericope. For after all the paraenesis and imperatives Paul now draws attention to God‘s promises for the obedient who remained set apart for His use. The promises he mentioned will be discussed into two categories below.

2.2.2.2.1.3.1: The Promises Discussed:

Promise One: God and worshippers relationship (v. 16c). ἐλνηθήζσ ἐλ αὐηνῖο θαὶ

ἐκπεξηπαηήζσ θαὶ ἔζνκαη αὐηῶλ ζεὸο θαὶ αὐηνὶ ἔζνληαί κνπ ιαφο I will live in them and walk among them and I will be their God and they shall be my people. The OT citation appears to have been taken from multiple passages like Ex 29: 45; Lev 26: 11–12; Ezek

37: 27 (Ex 6: 7; 29: 45; Jer 7: 23; 11: 4; 24: 7; 30: 22; 31: 33; 32: 38; Ezek 11: 20; 14: 11;

34: 24, 30; 36: 28; 37: 23, 27; Hos 1: 10; 2: 23 (cf. Rom 9: 26); Zech 8: 8; 13: 9). The heart of the promise from the above texts reasonably fits into God‘s promises of comfort and encouragement to the exiles through His prophets which also invite them to look forward into the future. The exiles were later freed from captivity and rebuilt their city and restored their religious life (Ezra & Nehemiah); nevertheless Paul understood the fulfillment of this eschatological promise in believers through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. This ushers in a new age of faith where race, gender and social status are

not a barrier because what matters most is faith in Christ.281 Moreover the OT sometimes appear to present the God–Israel relationship in a kind of cultic and physical institution; however, Paul reformulates the concept of temple into a(ny) person who truly believes in

Christ.282

Promise Two: Father and children relationship (vv. 17b–18). θἀγὼ εἰζδέμνκαη ὑκᾶο θαὶ

ἔζνκαη ὑκῖλ εἰο παηέξα θαὶ ὑκεῖο ἔζεζζέ κνη εἰο πἱνὺο θαὶ ζπγαηέξαο, ιέγεη θχξηνο

παληνθξάησξ then I will welcome you, I will be your father and you shall be my sons and daughters. This promise is unique from the preceding because it is dependent on the imperatives of v. 17a. The Grk εἰζδέμνκαη infers receiving with favour into fellowship.283

Paul may have reformulated the above promises from Ezekiel 11: 17; 20: 34 – 38, 41;

Zeph 3: 20; 2 Sam 7: 14; Isa 43: 6; Jer 31: 9. To speak to his audience directly, he contextualizes the 3rd person singular in 2 Samuel 7: 14 into the 3rd person plural; he also appears to cite Isa 43: 6 to clarify the ‗they‘ as both sons and daughters. The divine promises were to the ancestry of King David but it was later extended to the entire Israel

(Jer 31: 9). Pauline reconstruction of the OT promises refers to believers in Christ.284 For

Paul therefore, it is no longer a personal privilege but a general one to all believers in

Christ. This has been God‘s intention which is now fulfilled at the right time.

2.2.2.2.1.3:2: The Readers’ Anticipated Response

Paul discussed the demands and benefits (promises) of remaining consecrated in Christ.

281 Harris: 505–06.

282 Barrett: 200.

283 Rienecker: 475; Harris: 509.

284 Harris: 509–10; Barrett: 201; Kruse: 139; Barnett: 353–54.

As he continues, his paraenetic–imperative becomes more pastoral in nature. He opens with a reminder of the preceding promises to his audience, including himself (we 7: 1), and the call to set apart by purifying the body and spirit from desecration. Paul‘s use of

θαζαξίζσκελ let us purify in the aorist tense reveals that he intends his recipients to completely break free from ‗everything that contaminates‘ them. This draws attention to the early imperatives (6: 14, 17) requiring separation and distance from unclean thing.

Consequently, this will be remarkable step toward ―perfecting holiness,‖ which is a gradual process (Phil 3: 12–14)285 and they will need stamina in the form of God‘s sufficient grace.286 Therefore Paul expects the believers in Corinth to respond to his offer of ‗right hand‘ of fellowship with God and one another.

2.2.2.2.2: The Paraenesis to Remain Consecrated: The Summary of the Matter and How

do we now better understand the pericope?

The above discussion shows that believers are called to separate from unbelievers because they are faithless and their living orientation is different. The unique nature of the believers is made possible by the death and resurrection of Christ. Interestingly, it welcomes anyone who believes in Christ: this is God‘s grand design from the OT. So, the discussion answers the question: who is a believer? The answer gives joy to the believer because of their now unique identity.

They are also faced with a great challenge in responding to the question: ―what should a believer do with unbelievers?‖ The answer is evangelism (cf. 6: 1–10). It challenges the believer from their comfort zone and ‗individual‘ world of self into a large hurting world

285 Harris: 513.

286 Kruse: 141. 98

in need of answers and hope of a Saviour even though most times it denies such obvious need. Evangelism involves living the identity of separateness by being different and the conscious effort to speak about the Christ who made the believer‘s identity possible.

Therefore, for evangelism to be effective it has to be two–fold: living and speaking. This is necessary because if we are living our new identity without speaking about it then believers may be termed as moralists; however, if believers are speaking without living it then they may be termed as hypocrites.

3.3: Interfaith Marriage in Greco–Roman Literature

The subject of marriage in the Greco–Roman literature is unique to that world for it portrays its value and importance given to the institution. It is interesting comparing their marriage thought and culture with contemporary practices.287 This section will focus on interfaith marriage in the Greco–Roman world beginning with the Greeks first then the

Romans. It is very important at this point to state that faith and culture are synonyms because, McClendon argues, faith is shown through culture (customs, practices, principles and social behaviour) and culture is a product of faith (system of religious beliefs): faith and culture are inseparable.288 Consequently, I treat the Greco–Roman thought and culture on the subject as a faith matter. This section will address exogamous union in the Greek culture followed closely by the one in the Roman context.

287 Cheryl A. Cox ―Marriage in Ancient Athens‖ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2011), 232–35.

288 2000: 17–98.

3.3.1: Exogamous Union in the Greek Literature

The marriage patterns of the Greeks elucidate their perception on citizenship and family values because of the unique relationship between citizenship and marriage;289 hence the foreigners, former slaves and their offspring cannot be citizens. Consequently, the number of resident aliens reached an unprecedented level.290 There were few exceptions that the Greek state offered citizenship to foreigners but it appears the recipients did not enjoy its full benefits.291

The concept of honour and shame was very important in the Greek state; hence a spouse decision ought to be taken with caution as it may affect the honour of their wider family.292 Xenophon reports that the Lacedaemonians were a people who desired to be different from those of other Greek states. Hence they developed a constitution incumbent on all citizens of the state.293 The constitution provides that motherhood is the most important function of free born woman; free born women face no less physical training and competition than men. Consequently it was expected that couples (men and women) from Lacedaemon would become both strong and able to also produce stronger children.294 This special orientation appears unique to the women of Lacedaemon

289 R. K. Sinclair, Democracy and Participation in Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 3–4, 24–7.

290 Nicholas F. Jones, The Association of Classical Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 97 cf. see also foot note 43 for an extensive discussion of the matter.

291 Sinclair: 24–27; Saba: 399–402.

292 Cox: 231.

293 Xenophon, Scripta Minora Vol VII, ed. E.C. Marchant (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1971), 137.

294 Ibid: 139. 100

women;295 their system on raising children was also unique.296 The cultural system of

Lacedaemon resulted in stronger women, better educational system for the children and high morals.297 Therefore the preceding orientation might have disallowed intermarriage between Lacedaemonians and others even within the Greek state because of their different view on marriage, family, children and society.298

The Athenians allow endogamy with any person who holds their citizenship but usually with members of their city or district. Exogamy is later prohibited and defaulters face severe consequences. For example: a non–citizen was sold into slavery; the father who gives his non Athenian citizen child (even free–born Athenians) into marriage to an

Athenian citizen will be deprived of his citizenship and properties.299 It is only reasonable to argue that with these laws in place any intermarriage will be almost impossible. Hence the investigation of J. K. Davies found only three cases of exogamy in Athens.300 There were few changes to the laws during the late Hellenistic and Roman period when the ban was lifted; yet, the figure was an inconsequential 14 cases.301 The same or synonymous

295 Ibid.

296 Ibid: 141–45.

297 Ibid: 149, 185. Moreover the Lacedaemon women are remembered as strong women who ruled their men and also ―produce‖ them (Mary R. Lefkowizt and Maureen B. Fant, Women’s Life in Greece and Rome; Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982), 76–8.

298 If the above conclusion were true of the people then it would paint the same picture as the Judean Jews who would normally not relate with Samaritans and even intermarry with them. This was on the basis of their view that they were the pure Jews because of their bloodline.

299 Lefkowizt and Fant: 73–81.

300 Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives, CJ 73 (Dec 1977–Jan 1978), 111. 301 Torben Vestergaarn, ‗Milesian Immigrants in Late Hellenistic and Roman Athens‘ in The Epigraph of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome, ed. Graham John Oliver (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000), 102–103 cf. Sara Saba, ‗Greek Cities and Families‘ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing 101

laws against exogamy also rule in Latmos and Pisada due to the Sympoliteia treaty.302

Therefore, the Athenians and, most probably, the entire Greek state prohibit intermarriage during its heydays; however, it appears that as the aeon progresses so also the laws.303

3.3.2: Exogamous Union in the Roman Literature

The portrayal of intermarriage in the Roman literature is very distinct from its Greek counterpart because exogamy was permitted by the Roman laws.304 There are records from inscriptions of marriages between Roman citizens and people with different legal status like former slaves and freeborn305 and Egyptians.306 According to Weaver the number of such intermarriage was even higher especially if the freedmen served within high social households in the empire.307 This suggests the Romans permitted more exogamy than their Greek counterpart.

Ltd, 2011), 399–402. The Milesians were in the eastern part of Asia Minor while the Athenians in the western part of Asia Minor. They share the same culture, religion, language, and many things in common; so they intermarry (ibid: 98–102).

302 Riet van Bremen observes that amid 323 and 313 BC the satrap of Karia imposed the sympoliteia treaty between Latmosians and Pidasians who lived in Karia in western Asia Minor. The treaty prohibits endogamy in those cities for the next six years during which exogamy must take place between them. Therefore, this evidences that exogamy was the rule of thumb in those cities (‗Family Structures‘ in A Companion to the Hellenistic World, ed. Andrew Erskine, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003), 314–22 cf. Sara Saba, ibid: 397–98.

303 Vestergaard: ibid: 102–03.

304 P.R.C. Weaver, ―The Status of Children in Mixed Marriages‖ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), The Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University 1987), 145–69.

305 Richard Gordon and Joyce Reynolds, ―Roman Inscriptions 1995–2000,‖ JRS 93 (2003), 273. See further comments on footnote 393 (ibid). However, the marriage between a freedman and woman from an influential family like that of a senator is not permitted (Lefkowitz and Fant: 119).

306 Lefkowitz and Fant: 119–20.

307 Ibid: 156.

102

However, citizenship was very influential in the Roman law on intermarriage as discussed above although more liberal than Athens, their stand on slaves appears to be the same.308 Rome ‗graciously‘ extended citizenship status to neighbouring communities, soldiers and their families and some of whom they conquered at war.309 These groups of people were classified into those without voting rights and those allowed to intermarry with Romans; thereby becoming Roman citizens.310 The Roman‘s motive for allowing such intermarriage could be for the enrichment of the republic.311A citizenship reform later took place which introduced changes on citizenship status.312

3.4: Conclusion

The above discussion focused on interfaith marriage in the NT and Greco–Roman literature. It is evident that the OT stance on the subject influenced the NT in no small measure as Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism. The NT gives a different rationale for prohibiting interfaith marriage between Christians and non–Christians which reformed the OT grounds (of which racial identity was a chief concern). The message of the NT admonishes the believers/Christians to be different from the world by being like

Christ in order to evangelize the world. Therefore, God‘s mission for the Church is still

308 This was even when Rome was generous with its citizenship (Peter A. Brunt, Italian Manpower 225 BC–AD 14, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971), 4–5, 15, 538–44.

309 Ibid; Penelope Allison, ―Soldiers‘ Families in the Early Roman Empire‖ (ed. Rawson, 2011), 164–69; Adrian N. Sherwin–White, The Roman Citizenship, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), 139–44.

310 Sherwin–White: ibid.

311 Weaver observed some underlying factor which allowed intermarriage and one of which was to populate the empire. The law stated that a child bears the father‘s status if he is Roman but the mother‘s if she is Roman but the father is not (145–69; Keener 2009: 41–42).

312 Stephen L. Dyson, ―The Family and the Roman Countryside‖ (ed. Rawson, 2011), 441; Ibid: 251–63; 367–79. 103

the same as the one for Israel (Gen 12: 1–3); except that the community of faith He intends to use this time consists of variety of people already united under Christ and under a different orientation than the OT. We have also seen some presence of interfaith marriages in the NT, but the overriding rule was that believers should not engage in exogamous covenant with unbelievers. The Greco–Roman literature showed a different response to the subject with the Greeks more conservative than their liberal counterpart, the Romans. Interestingly, the research showed that intermarriage between others and the

Greco–Roman citizens only flourished more when they ceased to be world powers as opposed to when they were a force to reckon with.

104

CHAPTER 3:

EXEGESIS OF FIRST CORINTHIANS 7: 10–16

3.1: Introduction

While the OT and Judaism wrestled with interfaith marriage which latter morphed to inter racial marriage between Israelites/Jews and Gentiles, Paul is faced with a different concern of interfaith marriage at the supernatural level.313 This current chapter will explain First Corinthians 7: 10–16 and to investigate the state of the ἄπηζηνο unbelieving spouse referred in the text. Hence, there will be a word study and review on the use of

ἄπηζηνο in the OT, LXX and extra–biblical literature.

3.2: Textual Variant and Literary Context of the Text

3.2.1: Textual Variant p46 is a second century (175–200 CE) manuscript, which preserves Hebrews and about all of Paul‘s epistles excluding the Pastoral letters.314 It was published in 1934, 1936,

1937. This collection is particularly significant and thus some were included in the 16th edition of the Nestle Greek text in 1936.315 The significance of p46 for our text begins in

Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B) א v. 14 with ἀδειθῷ brother which is in affinity with

313 Keener, 2009: 41.

314 Philip W. Comfort, Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publisher, Inc. 1990), 4, 50–1. p46 has Hebrew immediately following after Romans which speaks on how much they ‗value‘ the book and their view of its Pauline origin (ibid: 51). The possible places of discovery include the following: Fayum in Egypt; in the ruins of a Church monastery, Atfih in ancient Aphroditopolis; and Akmim near Panopolis and was discovered together with p45 and p47 (ibid).

315 Ibid: 52; for a discussion on its textual character see Comfort (ibid). 105

(Vaticanus) instead of ἀλδξί husband the popular option (NRSV, NIV, NASB and others).316 p46 presents alternative translation of ἡκᾶο us over ὑκᾶο you in v. 15; hence changing the phrase called you into called us which is in affinity with Vaticanus and has also been adopted by most modern translations (NIV, NASB, RSV and others).317

3.2.2: The Literary Context318

Paul begins the epistle with his usual epistolary greetings then almost immediately responds to the problem of division and disagreement in the Church. No one owns the

Church but Christ; therefore he calls them to unite in Christ (chaps 1–4). There are other serious issues within the faith community like incest for which he says the person should be disciplined; he frowned on lawsuit due to their position in Christ, and also addressed immorality (chaps 5–6). There are others issues like marriage and divorce (chap 7), food sacrifice to idols (chaps 8–11), worship and spiritual gifts (chaps 11–14), the resurrection

(chap 15), collections and travel (chap 16).

The opening of chap 7: 1 (cf. 8, 12 &16) may point to 1: 11 on the source of Paul`s information. He discussed varieties of marital issues ranging from sexuality, divorce, remarriage, celibacy interfaith marriage and others. He was careful to distinguish between Christ`s command and his, which subjects his command to Christ`s authority; rather than to differ from it (cf. v. 25). It appears that the heart of his message may be

316 David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academy, 2003), 295–96; and others have ἀλδξί ηῷ πηζηῷ (Tertullian, Irenaeus and others) (ibid). However, p46 was not regarded by most modern translations (NIV, NRSV).

317 Comfort: 140; Garland: 296; however, NRSV now opted for called you and not called us anymore.

318 Some background information has been discussed in the previous chapter.

106

summed up in the principle that In whatever condition you were called, brothers and sisters, there remain with God (v. 24) which is evident in his discussion in 7: 2, 8, 10, 11,

12–16, 26–27, 37, 40 where exceptions are allowed.319 Paul admonishes the faith community on the following: that married couples to remain faithful to one another and sexually active (vv. 1–6); celibacy is an option (vv. 7–8); that reconciliation not divorce is the response to separation which is not allowed (vv. 10–11); interfaith marriage (vv.

12–16). He turned his focus on the unmarried again where he substantiated his thoughts on celibacy and status (vv. 25–40).

3.3: A Word Study and Review on the Use of ἄπιζηος:

The focus of this section is to study and review the use of ἄπηζηνο from the OT, LXX,

NT and extra–biblical literature. The intention is to investigate the identity of an unbeliever in the above mentioned context. The outcome will be a better understanding of the text.

3.3.1: Old Testament Study and Review

The word ἄπηζηνο unbeliever or unbelief appears foreign to the OT; except one turns to

πηζηφο in order to understand the concept of ἄπηζηνο better. The OT views πηζηφο believe or belief as man‘s response, usually in either fear or trust, to God‘s primary action. The

firm, secure, reliable;320 interestingly, it is viewed as a אמן OT synonym of the word is character which remains with the subject; therefore, it demands a relationship between

319 Garland: 243.

This character is ascribed to servant (1 .אמן Kittel et al, ibid; however this is its niphal use of 320 Sam 22: 14; Nu 12: 7); witness (Is 8: 2; Jer 42: 5); messenger (Pro 25: 13); prophet (1 Sam 3: 20); priest (1 Sam 2: 35); supervisors (Neh 13: 13); as a metaphor for a bride (Is 1: 21, 26) (ibid). 107

This connection is .אמן abstract and practical reality without which it is no longer important. While it also means to believe,321 this ―expresses both recognition of the objective relation of object to reality and also recognition of the subjective relation of the believing subj[ect] to the obj[ect].‖322 This is similar with the niphal; except that it also emphasizes a relationship between the subject and the object whereby both are in agreement. Importantly, both the subject and object agreed since on the one hand is the

―recognition of the claim inherent in such terms as (to believe) and on the other the validity of this claim for the one who trusts.‖323 These linguistic,324 historical325 and

.seem to sum up the word אמן theological326 reflections of

The opposite of the above analysis is the absence of belief, trust, and faithfulness between the subject and object. Nehemiah 9: 30 gives the idea of a broken faith between God and

בגד Israel which Malachi 2: 10, 11, 14 address from another angle that Judah was

321 This use is in the hiphil. The LXX usually rendered it as πηζηεχεηλ, ἐκπηζηεχεηλ, and once as θαηαπηζηεχεηλ and πείζεζζαη (ibid).

322 Ibid.

323 Ibid.

which portrays God‘s character as חֶסֶ ד The linguistic reflection offers variety of synonyms like 324 faithful, gracious, loving (ibid).

325 The historical reflection offers the divine–human or Yahweh–Israel which portrays a relationship of belief and trust between the parties involved (ibid).

326 The theological reflection offers a rich insight into the prophetic understanding of the word whereby they look into future acts of God towards Israel and by extension humanity, for example Is 43: 10; Hos 4: 1; 10: 2. 108

faithless to Yahweh since they profaned their ancestral covenant due to exogamy.327 This however does not entirely answer the concern because it simply reversed the meaning of

since there appears to be no Hebrew word for unbeliever; and since both the LXX אמן

This is reasonable 328.אמן and the NT built ἄπηζηνο from πηζηφο which originates from

as παξηδὼλ which is from παξνξάσ to overlook, take no מַףַ ל since the LXX translated notice329 not ἄπηζηνο from πηζηφο.330 Therefore, this may reflect the mindset of the OT whereby the Israelites and all Gentiles who worshipped Yahweh like proselytes were viewed as believers while all other Gentiles who remained in their idolatrous practices were viewed as unbelievers. However, it appears from investigations that race was instrumental in defining the identity of the unbeliever during the Second Temple period.331 The Shema in Deut 6: 4 may be a good example in support that the OT appears to portray those of different race and religious beliefs as unbelievers. This is reasonable for Israel‘s religious beliefs and practices are in conflict with those of the Gentiles; moreover the plan was for Israel to introduce the incomparable and righteous rule of

has been used in the OT Ex 21: 8; 1 Sam 14: 33; Ps 73: 15; Jer 3: 8, 20; Isa בגד Cf. other ways 327 ;disloyal (NRSV), unfaithful (NIV), unfaithfully (NASB) (Lev (5: 21)6: 2 מַףַ ל A similar word is .16 :24 Numb 5: 6; 1 Chr 9: 1; 10: 13).

328 Ibid.

329 Walter Bauer, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated & adapted by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press/ Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1952), 635.

330 Muraoka opines that παξνξάσ should be deleted because it is varia lectio ‗i.e. variant reading‘ which stresses it is a corruption in the reading; hence it should have no place in the ‗original Septuagint text of the passage‘ (2002: 441, XXII & XVII).

331 This is reasonable since the Israel–Gentile relationship was at its lowest point from the Second Temple period when intermarriage was prohibited (see my chapter two, Hayes and Klawans). 109

Yahweh to the Gentile world (Ex 15: 11 cf. Ps 35: 10; 71: 19; 77: 13; 89: 6–8; 113: 5;

Mic 7: 18).

3.3.2: Septuagint Study and Review

The Greek ἄπηζηνο comes from πηζηφο while πηζηφο332 derives from πείζσ. The translators of the LXX appear to have used ἄπηζηνο thrice: twice in Isaiah 17: 10 and once in Proverbs 17: 6;333 it means not inspiring trust and unbelievable, incredible, faithless, and unbelieving.334 Once again the antonym of ἄπηζηνο may introduce us into the mindset of the LXX translators‘ choice of the word. It means faithful, trustworthy, trusting, and inspiring trust or faith in the context of a person‘s character in relations to

God and another person and the context of things like words.335 The Isaiah text indicts

Israel of unfaithfulness to their ancestral covenant with God because they θαηέιηπεο forgot and ἐκλήζζεο remember Him νὐθ not.336 Therefore, the varia lectio approach of the LXX translators morphed the meaning of ἄπηζηνο into a different realm of relationship between God and Israel which the NT also adapted to state the relationship between believers in Christ and God. This adaptation will be discussed below.

332 See Bauer, 670–71 and Muraoka, 459 for their excellent discussion of the Greek word.

333 Bauer, 85; Muraoka, 49; Bauer further states that the word is varia lectio in Prov 28: 25 (ibid); Muraoka observes that only the Isa 17: 10 passage was the only credible translation because the LXX translation seemed to have a different Hebrew word in mind (cf. MT) (ibid).

334 Ibid.

335 Bauer: 670–71.

336 However, it also has other close forms ἀπηζηέσ disbelieve, unbelieving and not to obey; and ἀπηζηία unbelief and unfaithfulness (ibid: 84–85) which are not in the LXX rather in the NT. The use of ἀζεηέσ declare invalid, nullify, set aside and reject is another which conveys the meaning of ἄπηζηνο (ibid: 20). 110

3.3.4: Extra–Biblical Literature Study and Review

The Pseudepigraphal text of T. Levi 4: 1 says ―… men will be unbelieving [ἀπηζηνῦληεο] and persist in their iniquity. On this account with punishment will they be judged.‖337 The angel Michael continues with the language of judgment according to 1 Enoch 67: 12–13 upon those who refused to believe.338 Cf. 4 Ezra 8: 62 which implies that God has revealed His forthcoming judgment to the believers but the unbelievers are still in the dark about His plans.

The Apocryphal text of the Wisdom of Solomon, the author specifically warns against the sin of apostasy by reminding his readers about the exploits of Yahweh in Egypt which the

Egyptians recognized to be the handwork of a superior God (cf. 3: 10). He mentioned

ἀπηζηία in his list of evil which he argued are some characteristics of idolatry (14: 25) which will not go unpunished. Therefore, why will the apostates choose to worship idols and adopt living the life of the Greeks and Epicureans? However considering the negative response of the apostates, the admonition of the writer ―might [only] uphold the courage of the faithful; it could have no effect on [the] unbelievers except to make them scoff the more.339

337 R. H. Charles, Pseudepigrapha Vol. II, ed. Charles (pp. 316–17).

338 The identity of those to be punished appears to be either ‗kings‘ or ‗angels‘ (Charles: 232).

339 R. H. Charles, Apocrypha of the OT Vol. 1. There is another form in the Wis. Sol 10: 7 ἀπηζηνχζεο from ἀπηζηέσ to disbelieve and incredulous (cf. 1: 2; 12: 17; 18: 13; 2 Mac 8: 13; Aristeas 296 translates the word as incredible [Herbert Andrew, ed. Charles, ibid: 120]). Sirach 1: 28 (cf. v. 27) relates a parent admonishing their son not to disobey or rather do not act unbelieving to the fear of the Lord. The Greek word translated disobey or unbelieving is ἀπεηζήζῃο not ἄπηζηνο; nevertheless it leaves one with the idea and thought of ἄπηζηνο in the text. Moreover that ἄπηζηνο derives from πηζηφο whose etymology is πείζσ makes the use of ἀπεηζήζῃο reasonable. 111

Philo adapted the Mosaic report of Israel‘s grumbling for water in Meribah and God‘s incredible intervention recorded in Numbers 20: 1–13. He used the form of ἀπηζηία to admonish his readers against unbelieving the mighty acts of God they appear to be scorning. He continues that anyone who ―disbelieves these facts … neither knows God nor has he ever sought to know him …‖340 He also adapted Exodus 16 which he used the word to point that Israel disobeyed Moses on the size of Manna they were to have for they disbelieved him thinking it was his rule not God‘s.341

The above literature appears to relate the word under study to future judgment which sounds reasonable considering the above Pseudepigraphal texts. The Apocrypha and

Philo use the word to warn against complacency, apostasy and to offer encouragement to

πηζηφο. It was a time whereby Greco–Roman culture and their polytheistic religious beliefs impacted Jewish lifestyle in general. Consequently the writers drew from the life and situations of the Jews of old to encourage those who are standing firm while admonishing apostates to return. The word has also been used in either ways not discussed above for example by Xenophon.342

3.3.3: New Testament Study and Review

The Greek ἄπηζηνο and its other forms appear 23 times in the NT alone.343 The NRSV

340 Yonge, On the Life of Moses 1, 212 (p. 479).

341 Ibid: 2, 261 (p. 514); see also Antiquities of the Jews 2.13.1; 2.15.4–5; 19.1.16; 2.12.2.

342 Anabasis, 2.6.19, translated by Carleton L. Brownson (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press/London: William Heinemann Ltd, ibid, 1922), 166; and his biography of Cyrus in Cyropaedia 3.1.26, translated by Walter Miller (ibid: 1914), 234–35.

343 There are other forms like ἀπεηζέσ unbeliever (Acts 14: 2; Rom 15: 31); δηαθξίλσ & δηζηάδσ doubt, waver (Rom 14: 23; Matt 14: 31) and ἀζχλζεηνο faithless (Rom 1: 31).

112

translated it into the ensuing 5 related contexts: unfaithful, unbelieving/ unbelievers/ unbeliever, incredible, faithless and doubt. Luke used it to mean ‗faithless‘ (9: 41);

‗unfaithful‘ (12: 46) and ‗incredible‘ (Acts 26: 8). John used once as ‗doubt‘ (John 20:

27) and ‗faithless‘ (Rev 21: 8); Matthew (17: 17) and Mark (9: 19) each used it once to mean ‗faithless‘. Paul used it 16 times in his epistles: 14 times in Corinthian while twice in Titus and Timothy. He appears to have only used ἄπηζηνο to convey a state of unbelieving.344 The Gospels mostly used the word to mean the absence of believe while

Paul‘s primary use was to address the πηζηφο–ἄπηζηνο relationis since the believers are living among the unbelievers. This is a case of a minority living among an ungodly majority. Therefore, it is challenging the believers to relate with unbelievers but also be different.

How do we translate the Greek ἄπηζηνο in 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16? Bible scholars across the divide have translated it as unbeliever.345 But could it be ‗unfaithful‘, ‗doubtful‘ or

‗incredible‘? Take for example, ‗incredible.‘ It will imply that the γπλὴ (vv. 12, 14) and

ἀλὴξ (vv. 13, 14) are incredible to their Christian spouse. This is clearly not Paul‘s intention in the text, for he would not have said θαὶ αὕηε ζπλεπδνθεῖ νἰθεῖλ κεηʼ αὐηνῦ and she agrees to live with him (v. 12b) or θαὶ νὗηνο ζπλεπδνθεῖ νἰθεῖλ κεηʼ αὐηῆο he agrees to live with her (v. 13b) since both couples are doing well. If it were ‗doubtful‘

344 Paul used the Greek word thrice in the subject position: twice as the subject of the deponent verb εἰζέξρνκαη in a πηζηφο–ἄπηζηνο relationis (1 Cor 14: 23, 24) and also adjectivally with ηίο (1 Cor 14: 24); and once as the subject of ρσξίδσ (1 Cor 7: 15). The word also appears thrice in the object position: once as the object of ἑηεξνδπγέσ and also in a πηζηφο–ἄπηζηνο relationis (2 Cor 6: 14); as the object of θξίλσ (Acts 26: 8) and γίλνκαη (Jn 20: 27). Luke used it once as the adjunct of ηίζεκη (12: 46). It was used to modify the following adjectives: thrice by γελεὰ (Matt 17: 17; Mk 9: 19; Lk 9: 41); twice by γπλὴ (1 Cor 7: 12, 14); twice by ἀλὴξ (1 Cor 7: 13, 14); and once by ρείξσλ (1 Tim 5: 8); λφεκα (2 Cor 4: 4); and ηίο (1 Cor 10: 27).

345 See Bruce, Morris, Garland, Keener, Rogers and many others. 113

then it would mean both couples are already doubtful about living with their Christian spouses; hence Paul would also have no need for (vv. 12b, 13b). The words incredible and doubtful may qualify for synonym and antonym: so what applies for one, applies for another in this context. Lastly, ‗unfaithful‘ may mean the γπλὴ (vv. 12, 14) and ἀλὴξ (vv.

13, 14) are unfaithful to their Christian spouses, which suggests marital unfaithfulness to their Christian spouses. This reading may fit the stratum well because Paul had warned that ἄλδξα γπλαῖθα κὴ ἀθηέλαη a husband should not divorce his wife (v. 11 cf. vv. 12,

13); while in the case of ρσξίδσ separation, θαηαιιαγήησ reconciliation is the solution

(vv. 10, 11). So, this leaves the fate of the marriage after marital unfaithfulness with the unfaithful spouse because of ζπλεπδνθεῖ νἰθεῖλ κεηʼ αὐηῆο (or αὐηνῦ).346 This may be wishful thinking considering the scholarly witness that argues pro unbeliever. This is consistent with the rise of Christianity in the Greco–Roman culture and the marriage context in 1 CE. Moreover it is reasonable to argue that the situation painted in the stratum was no straw man but a real situation because he was responding to reports on the state of the Corinthian believers.

3.4: The Analysis and Interpretation of 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16

The text may be outlined as follows: command against divorce in a believer–believer union and a believer–unbeliever marriage. Paul was clear about the sources of the two commands: on the one hand he said ―not I but the Lord‖ (v. 10) and on the other he said

―I and not the Lord‖ (v. 12). This distinction raises so many questions like: Why the distinction? Does his command agree with Christ‘s or not? The questions are very

346 Similarly the fate of the relationship between the brother who sinned and the one sinned against in the Matthean community rests upon the former although the latter was commanded to initiate the reconciliation process. However the use of the conditional statement implies that reconciliation largely depends on the offended (Matt 18: 15f). 114

important and necessary because he made the distinction and probably wanted his readers to note it for a reason. Therefore, how would they have responded to it? Moreover, since the text was written before the 2 Corinthians 6: 14–7: 1 already discussed in the previous chapter, it is important to note their relationship.

3.4.1: The Command on Christians Against Divorce: A Focus on a Believing Spouse

(vv. 10–11)

This section discusses the command against divorce and its exception347 because of

παξαγγέιισ (v. 10).348 Paul instantly links the command with a higher authority that νὐθ

ἐγὼ ἀιιὰ ὁ θχξηνο not I but the Lord (v. 10 cf. Jesus (cf. 9: 14; 11: 23; 14: 37; 1 Thess 4:

15): in essence the reading may be rendered as ―To the married the Lord commands that

…‖ (v. 1). Chrysostom observes that ―Paul‘s views on this subject do not come from himself but from God, who is speaking through him.‖349 Theodoret of Cyr relates the dominical tradition with Matt 5: 32 which supports the R Shammai ruling that adultery is ground for divorce.350 However, this is unlikely because the dominical tradition which

Paul appeals to appears to prohibit divorce under whatever circumstances; therefore, the passage rather fits Mark 10: 2–12.351

347 The choice of Paul to begin with a believer–believer marriage situation could be, among other reasons, to challenge them to live up to expectation for the next category, believer–unbeliever couple.

348 It means to give orders, command and instruct (Rogers: 405 cf. Acts 5: 28).

349 Bray: 63.

350 Ibid.

351 Jesus seems to further explain his teaching of Matthew 5: 31–32 in Matthew 19: 3–12. In the former he endorses the interpretation of the rabbinic school of Shammai on the matter that adultery is ground for divorce. on the latter he explains that divorce was allowed for adultery because of the 115

3.4.1.1. The Command (v. 10)

Paul begins his command by prohibiting γπλαῖθα (the) woman from κὴ ρσξηζζῆλαη separating or leaving her husband.352 The Greek ρσξίδσ may be basically translated as depart, removed and separate;353 it also gives the idea of divorce. It appears to be in a close relationship with the subject γπλαῖθα, the adverb κὴ not and the preposition ἀπὸ from in verse 10. The above relationship between ρσξίδσ and the other words highlights the following: the subject of the prohibitive command; the main Greek word points to the content of the command; while ἀλδξὸο husband, man is the object of the command. Thus,

Christ‘s command to the Christian woman prohibits separation from her Christian husband. Paul understands and uses Jesus‘ command as still efficacious as if it was just said: for ―he makes practically no reference to Jesus simply as a historical person.‖354

3.4.1.2: Another Angle to the Command: ἐὰν δὲ καὶ σωπιζθῇ (v. 11)

ζθιεξνθαξδίαλ stubbornness or hardness of heart of the people (v. 8) as ἀπʼ ἀξρῆο δὲ νὐ γέγνλελ νὕησο but it was not to be like this from the beginning (v. 8). 352 Paul‘s focus on the wife first before the husband has been suggested to mean she was of the ‗feminist party‘; one of the ‗eschatological women‘; one of the ‗Montanist women prophets‘ who left their husbands on a ‗perceived impulse of the spirit‘ which actually is without just cause (Garland: 281); the number of women was in the majority in early Christian community (Graydon F. Snyder, First Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1992), 97); while Barbara Roberts opens the door for many possibilities (p. 38). The believers in Corinth lived in a cultural environment where women could also divorce their husbands unlike the culture of their Jewish neighbours (Garland: 281). It could also refer to those who have or are considering divorcing their spouses for spiritual reasons which Paul had discussed in the previous verses (Keener: 63).

353 Rogers: 405. The above meaning of ρσξίδσ is possible because it is in the aorist passive (with a middle flavour) infinitive. It appears 12 times in the NT and 21 times in the LXX.

354 Snyder: 97 (cf. Garland: 282). Gordon D. Fee observes rightly that Paul recognizes both his and Jesus‘ authority. He further dispels the concerns that Paul rarely appeals to the authority of Jesus in his epistles with two strong points in favour of a close relationship. He argues that Paul appeals to Jesus‘ ethical instructions (cf. 4: 16; 11: 1) while on the concerns within Gentile Christians/Church he appeals from his authority as an apostle which also derives from Jesus (1987: 291–92). 116

The command opens up another angle which appears to introduce an exception: ἐὰλ δὲ

θαὶ ρσξηζζῇ but if she separates …. However in response Hans Conzelmann argues that it is not an exception because the use of the aorist tense indicates ―an already existing situation.‖355 While Garland disagree because the ―idiom does not refer to something that has already occurred. Paul is not trying to overturn their past actions but is instructing them that Christians may not end their marriage at will.‖356 Conzelmann may be right since the aorist is an external aspect i.e. it views the action as a whole and complete.

Nevertheless it is hardly an exception; rather it presents the following options to either remain unmarried or reconcile to her husband in case of separation.357 The patristic father

Chrysostom once again commented that ―Separations are best avoided if at all possible, but if not, the wife should not take another husband.‖358 Reconciliation359 was the motive to remain single which underscores the weight of the marriage covenant. The husband appears for the first time in the text as the subject to another command toward the wife in the text. He is prohibited to ἀθηέλαη divorce his γπλαῖθα wife.360 Paul reveals the heart of

God concerning marriage to believing couples that the Lord commands against divorce.

355 1 Corinthians, translated by J. W. Leitch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 120.

356 2003: 282–83. Leon Morris seems to think the same (p. 105–06)

357 Garland: 283. Does the verse suggest that the wife initiated the breakup of their marriage? It appears so since she was asked not to separate from her husband and importantly was saddled with the responsibility of reconciling with him (ibid). Rogers observes that in Judaism it was possible for the wife to return to her husband in reconciliation before the divorce bill was received (p. 406).

358 Bray: 64.

359 Paul is the only NT writer who uses θαηαιιαγήησ from θαηαιιάζζσ to reconcile someone to back to God or to reconcile a man and a woman both in its verbal form (6 x) and noun form (4 x) (ibid).

360 The verb ἀθηέλαη appears 142 times in the NT alone. It has been mostly translated left/leave and forgive in the Gospels and Acts. It was used only thrice in Pauline epistles to mean divorce (1 117

3.4.2: The Command on Christians against Divorce: A Focus on an Unbelieving

Spouse (vv. 12–16)

Paul addressed the marriage concerns of Christian couples and relied upon dominical tradition to conclude that the Lord prohibits divorce. This dominical ruling, however, does not answer other marital concerns bothering the Corinthian faith community. So he gives his own ruling on other matters on interfaith marriage between a Christian and a non–Christian (Gentiles or Jews) which he also wants taken as genuine as those before

(v. 12). For he is trustworthy (v. 25); he also has the Holy Spirit living and guiding him

(v. 40); and that ―all Scripture is God–breathed and is useful …‖ (2 Tim 3: 16). The discussion of vv. 12–16 may be outlined into first the command, second the grounds for the command, and third the exception to the command.

3.4.2.1: The Command (vv. 12c, 13c)

Paul‘s command appears in verses 12, 13 and it is directed to the believing spouse in marriage to an unbelieving spouse. The presence of ἀθηέησ and αὐηφο together convey the meaning of to leave or divorce. The Christian is prohibited to divorce κὴ ἀθηέησ their unbelieving spouse and their believing spouse (v. 11). Therefore, for Paul, the prohibition on divorce applies in both Christian and non–Christian and Christian–Christian marriage contexts. However, he was stricter on the Christian–Christian union for he seems to say no divorce absolutely; but on the Christian and non–Christian marriage he left its fate

Corinthians 7: 11–13). Paul renders it in the present tense (v. 11) which may suggest an internal aspect i.e. it views the action closely and also in process or unfolding. This may indicate that the husbands are in the act of divorcing their wives for whatever reason while Paul points its unlawfulness (cf. Garland: ibid). The point is the act was ongoing as he wrote the epistle. David Instone–Brewer discusses on the synonymous relationship between ρσξίδσ and άθίεκη in ―1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco–Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri,‖ TB 51 (2001), 101–15. 118

with the non–Christian (see below). The interfaith union could not have been between a

Christian widow or widower and non–Christian because of Paul‘s paraenesis to marry

―only in the Lord‖ (v. 39 cf. 2 Cor 2: 14; Neh 13: 25); except if such union had already taken place he responds to it.

3.4.2.2: The Grounds for the Command (vv. 12–14, 15c, 16) i. The decision of the unbelieving Spouse (vv. 12ab, 13ab): The above command is preceded by ζπλεπδνθεῖ applaud, approve and consent νἰθεῖλ to live/dwell. If the unbelieving spouse consents to live with the believing one, the believer should not issue the bill of divorcement. Interestingly, even if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believing spouse appears not allowed to initiate the divorce. Rather the unbeliever is the one who is allowed to do this (v. 15). The presence of εἴ in the text introduces a first class condition.361 The use of ηηο any makes it a general rather than a particular protasis and it is a valid argument.362 So the condition in the text is ‗undetermined‘ because of the

‗reason of man‘s actions or choices.‘363 Moreover the condition deals more with possibilities than realities i.e. the condition portrays a ‗probable or doubtful‘

(possibilities) than a ‗true or false‘ (realities) condition.364 Therefore, the ground of the above command is when the unbelieving spouse agrees to live with the believer despite their different faith, (which is unlike the Ezran post–exilic Jewish community that

361 The presence of εἴ with a protasis in the indicative mood and an apodosis in any Greek mood states a first class condition i.e. a condition which is assumed to be true or untrue for the sake of argument. See Rogers: 406; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basis: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996), 690–711.

362 Wallace: 706, 708.

363 James L. Boyer, ―First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean?‖ GTJ 2 (1981), 76.

364 Ibid: 77, 78, 96.

119

divorced all its foreign women); hence handing them the key to the marriage.365 The bishop of Gabala, Severian notes that ―Paul did not mean that a woman should marry an unbeliever, only that she should stay with him if she is the already.‖366 ii. The Believing Spouse Sanctifies the Unbelieving Spouse (vv. 14a): He used the same sentence but swapped the subject and object positions to stress that such a union does something crucial in the life of the unbelieving spouse. He said the believing spouse

(husband or wife) ἡγίαζηαη (from ἁγηάδσ) set apart as sacred to God; make holy, consecrate; purify367 the ἄπηζηνο unbelieving spouse. Paul states ἡγίαζηαη in the perfect passive tense which impresses a lasting condition or complete action with a continuing result.368 OT notion of clean and unclean, holy and unholy is at play here, except it is not the unbeliever who impacts impurity on the believer; but the believer who sanctifies the

ἄπηζηνο. What does that mean? Is it transferrable without faith?369 Yonder Gillihan

holy, it is קדש argues that since the NT and LXX translated ἅγηνο from the Hebrew root halakhic meaning that Paul intends to say that such interfaith marriage is licit and

365 Garland however argues that Christians have clear biblical warrants to divorce their non– Christian spouse citing Ezra 10: 3, 19 (p. 284). It is unacceptable to argue from Ezra 10: 3, 19 that Christians who are married to unbelievers have scriptural justification to divorce them. The explication of the Ezra passage in chapter 2 shows it is a misfit to directly apply the text to any Christian community because the rationale for the Ezra‘s prohibition, for example, has been argued to be for racial identity motif; while Neh 13 appears to have a language motive. However the NT comes with a different message which is devoid of race, gender, social status, and language (cf. Gal 3: 28).

366 Bray: 64.

367 Rogers: 406.

368 Ibid; Garland: 286–87; Morris: 107. This is the chief role of a stative/perfective aspect.

369 Conzelmann: 121. Fee rather sees a high view of God‘s grace through its agent, the believing spouse (300–02). The following have also been suggested: ‗believer‘s baptism‘; ‗set apart for God‘s purpose‘; ‗set apart to receive a Christian witness and influence that he/ she might not otherwise have‘; ‗the willingness of the unbelieving partner to remain with the believer has made him a part of and to enjoy the Christian‘s covenantal status‘; and that ‗clean trumps unclean in this relationship‘ (Garland: 286–88 cf. Conzelmann: 121–23). 120

valid.370 Hayes however argues that the presence of the ‗instrumental preposition (ἐλ)‘ makes Gillihan‘s solution unacceptable since Paul said the unbeliever is sanctified by or through and not to the believer. So for Paul, being sanctified means ―moral cleansing

[which] results in righteous behavior. To be sanctified is to be cleansed of the impurity of immoral deeds.‖371 The unbelieving spouses are presently in the state where the believing spouses used to be before their sanctification (1 Cor 6: 9–11).372 Another ground for the command is that the believing spouse, by God‘s grace, has the opportunity to influence the character of the unbelieving spouse which may gradually develop into saving faith. iii. The Children are Clean (v. 14b): The status of the children of the interfaith marriage has also been sanctified (vv. 12–14a). This is reasonable considering the believing spouse had impacted the unbelieving one; so their children are not ἀθάζαξηά … δὲ ἅγηά unclean but holy. Godet (1886) argued that Paul might have included the children because the community of faith could have been treating children from similar marriages differently than they did others.373 This is unlikely since it is logical to arrive at such conclusion considering his thoughts on the interfaith marriage. The argument may be presented as:

The believing spouse is sanctified The believing spouse sanctified the unbelieving spouse The children of the believing–unbelieving couple are sanctified

370 Hayes, 2002: 94–5.

371 Ibid: 95 (cf. Garland: 288–89). Morris sees this as the influence of the believing spouse upon the unbelieving spouse since ―it is a scriptural principle that the blessings that flow from fellowship with God are not confined to the immediate recipients, but extended to others (e.g. Gen 15: 18; 17: 7; 18: 26ff.; 1Kgs 15: 4; Is 37: 4). Thus the sanctification of the believing partner reaches out to the unbeliever‖ (p. 107).

372 Cf. with Origen‘s admonition concerning the believer–unbeliever marriage (Bray: 64).

373 Garland: 289. 121

Hence there is a connection between the moral and spiritual upbringing of the children and the role of their believing parent in such influence. It will be another motivating reason for staying in the marriage because leaving will mean raising the children in an ungodly culture of the unbelieving parent especially if the woman is the believer.

Severian stresses that ‗the faith of the parent overcomes unbelief‘ because ―When the children are clean and holy, uncorrupted by unbelief, the faith of the parent has won.‖374

The Greco–Roman culture grants full custody to the father which makes it very difficult for mothers to leave especially when she is a believer.375 Paul states that the children are not ἀθάζαξηά unclean which may point to the moral impurity inherited from their unbelieving parent. Consequently it does not point to genealogical impurity.376 Then immediately he said they are ἅγηά holy children. What does it mean to be declared holy?

Roman laws prohibit the intermarriage between born or freed citizens and non–citizens.

In Roman marriages of different social status the children inherited their father‘s status, while in the case of non–Roman marriages children inherit their mother‘s status.377 This indicates the importance of children to the Roman Empire. Therefore, the holy status of the children of interfaith couple (v. 14) does not mean that they are saved but

Their consecration involves the question of status, analogous to mixed households involving Jews … Just as the consecrating of the unbelieving partner (7:14) does not automatically save (7:16), neither does that of the children. A believer who remains in the marriage, retains an influence on the children, who would otherwise (in first-century marriages) normally remain only with the father …378

374 Bray: 65.

375 Keener, 2009: 41.

376 Hayes, 2002: 96

377 Weaver: 145–69. 378 Keener: 43. 122

iv. The Believing Spouse has been ―Called to Peace‖ (v. 15c)379: The Greek ἐλ δὲ εἰξήλῃ

θέθιεθελ ἡκᾶο ὁ ζεφο God has called you all to peace.380 The structure of the verb

θέθιεθελ called in the perfect tense conveys an aspect which reports a completed action in the past but with continuing results being viewed closely in the present. This impresses that Paul admonishes the Corinthian believers that this is time to live out their calling to or in peace in the face of challenges to their interfaith marriages and the life of both their sanctified spouses and holy children. Therefore they should remain and live out the fruits of their calling. By implication, they would have impacted the lives of their spouse and children through peaceful evangelism.381 v. The Unbelieving Spouse may be Saved (v. 16): The conjunction γὰξ for which begins v. 16 after ηί how is causal which places the believing spouse in the possibility to cause change that may result into the salvation of the unbelieving spouse. The Greek ζψζεηο

379 How should the words in bold in the sentence ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ θέθιεθελ ἡκᾶο ὁ ζεφο be rendered: ―in peace‖ (NIV) or ―for peace‖ (NRSV)? Garland observes that the rendering of the phrase ἐλ δὲ εἰξήλῃ in or for peace may give an entirely different meaning to the text. The Greek preposition ἐν with the dative case conveys ‗in, on, at; near, by, before; with, among, within; into; to, for‘ (Trenchard: 38, 291). The construction ―for peace‖ impresses that the believing spouse is in the object position of the verb (ρσξίδεηαη separate) which the subject ἄπηζηνο unbelieving spouse caused upon it. So the phrase will mean the believing spouse should not contest the decision of the unbelieving spouse to separate or divorce them (Fee: 302–305; Garland: 291–292). While ―in peace‖ places the believing spouse in the subject position of the action of the verb (ρσξίδεηαη separate) upon the object unbelieving spouse. This will mean that the believing spouse should not separate or dissolve their marriage with an unbeliever on the ground of different faith in the context (ibid: 292). The ―call to peace‖ may be the option of choice. However it seems that Paul may have intended both considering he said, on the one hand, that the believer has sanctified the unbeliever which could mean there is no reason to either separate or divorce them for their unbelief; while on the other, since the immediate context of v. 15c positioned the unbeliever in the subject, so performing the action, could mean the believing spouse should not contest the decision of the unbeliever to dissolve the marriage. Therefore it is unlikely that the call to/for/in peace should be limited to the last clause in v. 15 rather to the whole discussion on interfaith marriage (cf. Morris: 107–08).

380 It may even be better rendered ―God has called you into … peace in which He wishes you to live‖ (Rogers: 406).

381 It may seem reasonable to argue that the discussion of v. 15c should have been done after v. 15ab which has not been discussed yet because it flows with the exception clause. However, I think as true as it is, it also ties well with the entire discussion on interfaith marriage in vv. 12–14 and vv. 15–16 (cf. Bruce: 70; Morris: 107–08). 123

save is a future tense i.e. an external aspect which conveys an aerial view; hence an inconclusive picture of the event in the present. This condition stresses two things: (1) it shows future possibilities than realities; (2) it challenges a believer to remain in their interfaith marriage and keep working for the salvation of their unbelieving spouse and child(ren). The salvation of the unbelievers is very important to Paul as may be seen in the relationship between ζψζεηο save and θεξδήζσ gain/win (appears 5 times in 9: 19–

22). So the contemporary notion of personal satisfaction and happiness in marriage is alien to Paul‘s world which is why he admonishes Christian spouses to meet their marital obligations (v. 3) and their Christian obligation to ―win some‖ if possible (v. 16).382

Therefore the salvation possibility of the unbelieving spouse and their children is another reason for Paul‘s command. The Greek ἐλ δὲ εἰξήλῃ θέθιεθελ ἡκᾶο ὁ ζεφο God has called you all to peace is important here because Paul admonishing the believing spouse to remain with his/her unbelieving spouse if he/she agrees appears for evangelism motive

(v. 16).383 The evangelism motif is evident in Paul‘s connection of εἰξήλῃ peace with

θαηαιιάζζσλ reconciliation: for it was ―God‘s act of reconciliation, which establishes peace between God and humanity (Rom 5: 1–11; 2 Cor 5: 18–21; Eph 2: 14–17; Col 1:

20–22).‖384 Paul has also included believers in this ministry of reconciliation to peace with God (2 Cor 5: 16–21).

3.4.2.3: The Exception to the Command (v. 15ab)

Paul was very clear that the fate of the interfaith marriage should be on the unbelieving

382 Garland: 294–95.

383 Fee: 305–06.

384 Garland: 293. 124

spouse who decides whether to remain or not.385 The particle εἰ if introduces a conditional statement: ἄπηζηνο ρσξίδεηαη, ρσξηδέζζσ if the unbeliever separates, let him separate [or better let it be so].386 Once again this is not a reality but a possibility since the condition has to be met before it becomes reality; hence it is still in the realm of possibility. Roman law stipulates that either party could end the marriage with or without the approval of the other.387 Contrariwise, Paul admonishes the believer not to issue the divorcement bill considering the possible spiritual and moral influence their presence might impact upon their unbelieving spouse and child(ren).388

The impact of the above exception is that the interfaith marriage could dissolve and the believing spouse is νὐ δεδνχισηαη not enslaved or under bondage (v. 15b). Scholars have extensively debated over the consequence of the meaning of νὐ δεδνχισηαη. Fee argues that remarriage is not the logical consequence in the verse rather it has been read into

385 Ibid: 290.

386 Barbara Roberts opines that the first and second ρσξίδσ should be translated differently as separate … divorce (2008: 39).

387 Keener: 65.

388 Cf. Theodoret of Cyr (Bray: 65). Roberts infers that the believing spouse may divorce their unbelieving spouse if they consented not remain with them (p. 41). The problem with that is: it places the believer in the subject, as the initiator of the divorce. Her treatment of this important theme appears more experiential and emotional than exegesis, which makes some of her deductions very unlikely. For instance she says v. 15 covers all kinds of reasons for divorce which even Scripture approves; thus the verse overshadows separation or desertion by an unbeliever. Therefore, to her, context does not play much role in deciding the meaning of the verse since it is not about ―‗Who walked out?‘ but ‗What (or who) caused the separation?‘‖(pp. 37–40). I think both questions appear very important to v. 15 in particular. Moreover, that this context applies to the believers who separate from their believing spouses for no just reason. But on the contrary this does not also fit the context of v. 15. She argues again that the Greek ζπλεπδνθέσ in the context of vv. 12–13 introduces the possibilities that the unbelieving spouse consents to live with the believing; but it does not mean the unbeliever also consents ―to live with her [believing spouse] as a spouse ought to live‖ (p. 44). So by implication, even when he/she consents to remain in the marriage but abuses his/her believing spouse, Paul says the believer is free to divorce him/her. This is very unlikely to be Paul‘s intended message to the Corinthians. Craig L. Blomberg observes rightly that ―once one moves beyond clearly definable grounds for divorce and remarriage, one opens the door to all possible abuse of biblical principles‖ (―Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19: 3–12,‖ TJ 11 NS [1990]), 193. In short since she misses the exegesis, her application to these important issues is flawed.

125

Paul‘s meaning of the text.389 However given the circumstance, the deserted believer is not bound and since Paul writes off the possibility of ―being reconciled‖ (v. 17)390 due to differences of faith issues and that remarriage may only be done ―in the Lord‖ (v. 39),

Paul would allow remarriage given the situation, especially when the deserting spouse went ahead and remarried. Therefore, I hold that remarriage is allowed given the situation.

3.5: Conclusion

Paul sets out to address some specific marital issues, all of which may not be known, in the faith community in Corinth. The analysed exegetical stratum above discussed his response to the problem of asceticism as a ground for rejecting and/or ending marriage among the Corinthians. He approached the concern from the perspectives of a marriage of Christian couple and interfaith marriage (a believer and an unbeliever). It will suffice to say the following patterns or themes were developed in Paul‘s discussion of the text:

3.5.1: The Traditional View of Marriage Covenant:

Paul insists that marriage is a covenant which should not end by separation or divorce; however if it eventually happens remarriage is not an option in a believer–believer union except in a believer–unbeliever union (vv. 10–13, 15).

3.5.2: The Concept and Importance of Household Evangelism:

Paul stresses the importance of a believer–unbeliever marriage from the point of

389 Fee: 302–03; See the 7 reasons advanced by Heth and Wenham (Blomberg: 187–88) Contrariwise are Bruce: 70; Morris: 107–08; Keener: 65; Garland: 290–91, 96.

390 Conzelmann: 123. 126

evangelism. He points out that the believing spouse does not receive any form of impurities; rather it is the unbelieving spouse who receives sanctification from the believer; thereby making the believing spouse God‘s agent in the life of the unbeliever.

This status also impacts the lives of their children who then become holy. Therefore, the believing spouse serves as Christ‘s ambassador by reconciling their household to God through their moral and faith influence (vv. 14, 16).

3.5.3: The Relationship between Possibilities and Realities in the Marriage Covenant and Household:

However as positive as the above points may seem, Paul only uses the language of possibilities and not realities. This means although believers should not separate and divorce their spouses be they believers or unbelievers, they may still reject this imperative. It also means that although the believers are charged to remain with the unbeliever, it does not mean that the unbelievers will consent to remain in the marriage. It means that although the believers have sanctified their unbelieving spouses and their children are holy, it does not mean that their unbelieving spouses and children will come to faith. All these and many remain possibilities; they become realities after the intended outcome is realized. So believers should keep hope and faith (vv. 11–16).

3.5.4: A Progressive View of the Marriage Covenant:

As traditional as Paul was in his treatment of the concern, he is also forward thinking. For example he said if the unbelieving spouse leaves, the believing one should not fight against the decision; and the believing spouse is not under bondage which means free to

127

remarry (v. 15). However what about if the deserting spouse is also a member of the faith community?

128

CHAPTER 4:

EXEGESIS OF MATTHEW 18: 15–20

4.1: Introduction

The Gospel books have received so much attention concerning where and how to classify their genre. Most Bible scholars have proposed that the Gospel books are historical and biographical literature391 with the latter mostly favoured.392 Greco–Roman literature has greatly influenced the Gospel books which are seemingly Jewish biographical piece of literature. This influence may be observed in their similarities with the biography of

Apollonius by Philostratus and the work of Plutarch on comparative biographical account which set the stage for historiography.393

The pericope from Matthew 18: 15–20 discusses the ―status and behaviour in the royal family‖394; ―… stumbling blocks [within the community of faith]‖395; ―… community

391 History and Biography may be close in meaning because of their shared interest; but their distinctions also stand out. History, on the one hand, presents an interesting account with a specific importance on the event(s) being re–told usually technically; while biography, on the other, is presents the character of a chosen protagonist and not an event in a less technical way ―for a less technical audience.‖ Craig S. Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ UK: Cambridge, 1999), 16–9.

392 Scholars who see Matthew as biographical include: Stanton, Witherington III, Aune, Keener (ibid: 18) and John Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ UK: Cambridge/ Bletchley: The Paternoster Press , 2005), 19; while their opposite include Ulrich Luz and others who would rather see it as a historical document (Studies in Matthew, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ UK: Cambridge, 2005), 73-6.

393 Keener: 16-22; Luz: ibid. The Greco–Roman literature led to his conclusion that the gospels are ―a work of history of a very distinctive nature‖ (ibid: 76). It has also been observed that purely Jewish biographies without the Greco-Roman influence is very hard to find; except for the OT characters of Job, Ruth, Esther, Jonah and Daniel (Keener: 20).

394 Nolland: 718.

395 Keener: 452. 129

discourse‖396 and ―brotherhood in the Church.‖397 Some background information of

Matthew, a word study and review on the use of ἀδειθφο and ἀδειθή in the contexts of the OT, LXX, extra–biblical and NT literature will be helpful in the interpretation of the text.

4.2: Historical Background

The anonymity of the four Gospel writers is a serious issue in scholarship since the

Gospels are unlike the epistles which follow certain writing styles that easily identify the writers. There are scholars who argue that the names of the authors of the Gospel books were a later addition by the Church about 215 CE.398 The authorship of Matthew received the most criticism because it was not only nameless but both the internal and external evidences seem to go against the traditional view of Matthean authorship.399 Hence, so many notable scholars have decided to disagree with the traditional authorship of

Matthew, one of the 12 apostles.400

In response to Green‘s arguments (see foot note 399), the following ensues: (a) ―The

396 Ulrich Luz, Matthew (Hermeneia; 3 vol., Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2001), 2: 421.

397 Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994), 358.

398 Richard T. France, Matthew: Evangelist & Teacher (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1989), 50-1. The proposed date of 215 AD comes close to an important date, 140 AD, when Papias ascribed the authorship to Matthew (ibid).

399 Michael Green, Message of Matthew (BST; Leicester, England: IVP, 2000), 19–27. He sums the external evidences of Papias (2nd CE) as following: that it was the first to be written among the four gospels; that it was originally written in Hebrew/Aramaic and not Greek; that it was written by Matthew one of the 12. He went on to present his internal evidences which are against the external evidences: (a) that the gospel of Matthew was not written in Hebrew/Aramaic but in Greek language; (b) that Mark is the first gospel to be written not Matthew. Therefore the gospel was written by Matthew, one of the 12 (ibid). I responded below.

400 For example: Nolland: 2–4 and Green: 19–27. 130

structure and composition of the Gospel show that the evangelist is influenced by Jewish literature.‖401 Green argues that the Gospel of Matthew has almost no link to Hebrew and/or Aramaic even though Papias had reported it was written in Hebrew instead of

Greek which he said is misleading.402 Kυrzinger suggests Papias‘ statement means:

―Matthew arranged the traditions in a Jewish manner.‖403 Therefore this implies that

Matthew used and arranged other materials like Mark, Q (and other early Christian traditions) in the above manner. This may also explain the existing literary relationship of

Gospel books and their different arrangements. (b) Probably ―[t]he Matthean sources,

Mark and Q, [may] have been arrayed and circulated in Jewish Christian community before the writing of Matthew.‖404 (c) The author‘s familiarity with Jewish concepts and environment, the Law and the Old Testament suggests a Jewish author.405

Hengel refutes claims that titles were later added to the first century gospels by the

Church and presented a thought–provoking thesis contrary to that assumption. He based his research on ―the nature of references to the gospels in the second–century Christian literature, and the general practice of book–distribution in the Greek world, where titles

401 Luz, Matthew (2007), 1: 46.

402 Green: 20–2. It is interesting to note that the Hebrews/Aramaic words excused by Matthew were αββά, Βαξηηκαηνο, Βναλεξγέο, ξαββνπλί, ηαιηϑά θνπκ; while the ones he maintained were ξαββί, Γεϑζεκαλί, Ιζθαξηψηεο (Mark‘s version: Ιζθαξηψϑ), Γνιγνϑα, κακσλαο, ζαηαλαο, Βεειδεβνχι (Luz: 40– 1). Therefore it is unreasonable to argue against the presence of Hebrew and Aramaic in the Matthean gospel.

403 Luz, 1: 46. Kυrzinger and Luz excellently analysed and concluded that Papias‘ report is not misleading, ignorant and even unintelligent, as argued by some scholars (Luz: 41–6; Robert H. Mounce, Matthew, NIBC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1991), 1–2.

404 Ibid: 47. However Stephenson H. Brooks seems more inclined with an oral rather than a written tradition in circulation, Matthew’s Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (JSNTSupp. 16; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 111-23.

405 Luz: 47. Moreover, it would have been possible for a person who grew up in Galilee and not places like Rome, Philippi and other Greek and Roman cities to have learned and spoke Aramaic. 131

were necessary for identification of a work to which reference might be made.‖406

Therefore, Hengel's argument is that it would be very unlikely to have such sacred documents in circulation among the Christian communities in the late first century without proper reference to their authorship. On this conclusion, which was the result of a splendid investigation, France writing about three decades ago observed that:

Hengel's argument contains a number of statements as to what 'must have been' the case in the early Christian communities, and is open to challenge from those who propose another model. But his reconstruction is based on an extensive survey of wider world of books and reading habits in the first century. If the theory of the anonymous circulation of gospels for a generation or two is to be established over against Hengel's model, it must be supported by an equally careful demonstration that such a procedure could 'make sense' in first-century Christianity. In recent scholarship no such demonstration seems to have been offered.407

Therefore it is reasonable to argue with the Church tradition on the authorship of

Matthew as one of the twelve apostles of Jesus. Moreover, Keener rightly observes that:

―some scholars who reject Matthean authorship are troubled by the antiquity of the

Gospel titles and the tradition of authorship ... [even though] too many scholars simply ignore these difficulties.‖408

The place of writing has been argued mostly for Egypt, Palestine and Syria among Bible scholars. For example: Brandon singled out Alexandria as the place of writing due to the significant presence of a good number of Jews in the city; for they were the next leading practicing Jewish community after the destruction of the Temple and the disorganization of the Jewish community in Jerusalem.409 France appears more inclined to the Palestinian

406 France: 50-1.

407 Ibid.

408 Ibid: 40–1.

409 France: 93; Keener: 41. 132

origin of the gospel.410 The option of Syria is divided between either Antioch or Tyre (or one of the neighbouring Phoenician cities).411 The preceding discussion suggests that the author‘s place of writing may also be the same locality of his immediate recipients.412

The date of writing may be (a) either before or after AD 70; (b) the early second- century.413

4.3: The Matthean Community

There is consensus among Bible scholars that the immediate first-century recipient of this gospel was a Jewish community. Matthean scholars have shown considerable amount of interest to research and even attempt to reconstruct the first century Matthean community for the purpose of understanding the text.414 Recent research interests have focused on the socio–religious nature of the community and its relationship to Judaism. Green, for example, hypothesized that the readers were believing–Jews or those Jews who were still wrestling to understand the Messiahship of Jesus and were on the verge of becoming

410 France: 91–5.

411 France: 92–3; Keener: 41–2. The case for Syria is mainly because Ignatius the bishop of Antioch was believed to have used a copy from Syrian origin (France: 92).

412 France: 91–5; Keener: 41–2. Therefore, the place may have been ―an urban center in Syro– Palestine that spoke Greek, included a sizable Jewish community residentially segregated from Gentiles ...‖ (Keener: 42).

413 Green, (post 70 AD): 38–9; Luz (not long after 80 AD): 2007: 59; Mounce (70–80 AD): 2–3; the following are pre 70 AD: Gundry, Moule (France: 91); Nolland (14–16) and Keener; while France appears uncertain (Keener: 44; France: 82–91).

414 Bauckham argues against consensus that all the four Gospels were not specifically written for different Christian communities but to a general Christian audience in the first century. These gospels were shared across the different faith communities instead of belonging to a community (The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences, R. Bauckham (ed.), Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).

133

Christians.415 Or that the gospel was probably addressed primarily to Christian teachers in the Synagogue setting who serve as prototypes of the scribes in the Temple.416 Or the readers would be better understood, according to Green, if the gospel is read and understood both as a record presented about the Christ–events as well as an attempt to answer the spiritual and physical needs of the Matthean community.417 However his recreation of the Matthean community is unlikely especially his second and third points which seem similar to Judaism or neo–Judaism.418

4.3.1: The Social and Religious Characteristics of the Matthean Community

―The Matthean version of the Lord's Prayer gives a clear indication that Matthew's perspective was grounded in the worship of his community.‖419 This indicates Matthew was familiar with the situation of his recipients and probably they also knew him well. It has been argued that their religious and social setting was a ‗voluntary association‘420 which Ascough defined in a general context as ―groups of men and/or women organized

415 Green: 27. There are those who associate with the Messiah (10: 40ff.; 19: 29; 24: 9); those who have a ‗slaves, brothers, children [and] little ones‘ relationship with Jesus. He did not say the ground(s) of the bond and their faith status (5: 22-24, 47; 7: 3-5; 12: 49; 18: 1-14; 19: 13-14; 23: 8). However he mentioned that it is a sizable Jewish community with the presence of Gentile–believers (ibid).

416 Green observes that these Christian scribes thought they were rightful heirs to the seat of Moses (23: 2); a fitting honourable position (23: 6); they are proponents to the three central acts of faith in Judaism namely: prayer, fasting and alms-giving (6: 1-18); they occupy an important position of decision making (16:19; 18:18; 23:23) (ibid: 28).

417 Ibid: 29.

418 It is true the there is a significant relationship between Christianity and Judaism as Green argues (pp. 28–29). But it is implausible if some considerable differences between the two were not already noticed by mid to end of the first century CE especially that Green dates Matthew around 80 AD.

419 Luz: 43.

420 Richard S. Ascough, ―Matthew and Community Formation,‖ in David E. Aune (ed.), Gospel of Matthew in Current Study (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company & UK: Cambridge, 2001), 96-100. Ascough built on the works of D. Duling, A. J. Saldarini, M. H. Crosby and B. J. Malina (ibid). 134

on the basis of freely chosen membership for a common purpose.‖421 However the

Matthean community belongs to a different ‗voluntary association‘ than the one defined above; for the community:

… engages ... [and] recruits members, develops a coherent world view and belief system, articulates an ideology and rhetoric to sustain its behaviour ... [which is very different from the other] competing social [and religious] institutions and groups. The formation of such voluntary [community] requires adjustment to a new situation, the need to assign new community functions and status rankings, and the creation of new community goals. All of these activities are carried out in the narrative through the sermons and teachings of Jesus.422

The above presents the following patterns: (1) The formation stage of the community and its purpose. There was need that: ―the social wellbeing of those who identified themselves with the Messiah named Jesus was not being enhanced through continued contact with their former small group ... the Synagogue.‖423 (2) The pulling together of the community into a comparable whole. Ascough refers to this as the ―storming‖ stage basically since it is a persecution–period with great discouragement from within and outside the community.424 He argues further that the connection between persecution of the saints and apocalyptic expectations is also true about the ‗storming‘ experiences of the formative stage of the Matthean community.

[F]or Matthew, betrayal and falling away from the group as a result of this political and civil pressure were seen as an indication that the end was near. ... [T]he storming stage is also the stage at which hope for success and for betterment is instilled within the group for those who are members. We find this hope for the community reflected in the

421 This is a general definition since there are numerous ―voluntary associations‖ with different purposes/missions for their associations in the first and second century CE (Ibid: 101).

422 Ibid: 98.

423 Ibid: 102. Matthew13: 53–17: 27 is suggested in support of the formation of the new faith community although the main passage seems to be 16: 13–20 on the formation of the Church (ibid: 104).

424 Ibid: 107 (cf. Matthew 10: 17-36; 24: 9–14 [ibid, 107–09]).

135

Beatitudes (5: 3-12), which reinforce the blessing of God upon them despite their ―underdog‖ status.425

(3) The next stage introduces the community into certain standards of living that are very distinct from other voluntary associations. The point is that no one is expected to live as he or she wishes but according to the set model of the teaching of Jesus Christ. It appears that the basis of the new ethical requirements is largely because the community is now known as εθθιεζία Church instead of ζπλαγσγή Synagogue.426 The new standard for living within the Matthean community will help in solving conflicts (5: 7–29; 18: 15–

22);427 it also addresses the concern over egalitarianism in the community which the

Gospel enjoins all members to recognize and follow as the path of humility.428 (4) The last stage is the ―cooperative work–performing‖ whose focus is on making the Christian community better.429 This stage unites the community members together; consequently it is the responsibility of all and not one or some members of the community to make it healthy and growing.430 Therefore as Ascough concludes, Matthew was writing to a

425 Ibid: 111. 426 Ibid: 112–14.

427 ―The difference between the Matthean Christians and other voluntary associations in terms of conflict resolution is the emphasis within the Christian group on forgiveness – not defending one's honour according to the typical patterns ... The onus is placed on the one who is wronged not to act as one would expect – rather s/he should forgive ‗seventy times seven‘ (18: 22)‖ (ibid: 119-20). However unresolved conflict will lead to the discipline of the sister or brother who is unwilling to live by the standard of the community. The ―… process of discipline through which a member must go involves the entire community rather than a single leader or a group of leaders‖ (ibid: 121).

428 This is very different from the Synagogue since ―Matthew presents [the community‘s] governance as a theocracy focusing not on offices and officials but on the community of disciples which does God's will revealed by Jesus (1: 21; 11: 25-27; 12: 46-50)‖ (ibid: 121). Moreover the Church is a humble and serving association; while the other associations are proud and seeks after power and self- interest (ibid: 122–23).

429 Ibid: 124.

430 This is where the Gospel enjoins the Matthean community on the Great Commission in Matthew 28: 18-20 (ibid) for a growing Christian community is a witnessing community and the converse also applies. Moreover it is also true that a faith community with dumbness or tied-tongue will suffer shrinkage and spiritually. 136

Christian community that has already been formed; it has also faced some storming situations on its way to cohesion and has started bonding into the standard of the teaching of the community which is based on that of Jesus Christ. Finally, Matthew is calling the believers out of their faith community or association into other communities or associations in order to respond to the Great Commission.431

4.3.2: The Relationship Between the Matthean Community and Judaism

The relationship between the Matthean community and Judaism has been debated for a long time by Bible scholars due to the following positions: (1) that the community was inside Judaism since the struggles with Jewish religious leaders in the Matthean gospel was internal;432 (2) that the community was outside Judaism since the persecution experienced by the Matthean Christian community was from outside and by Judaism;433

(3) that a part of the community maintained a link with Judaism while the other parts completely cut ties with it.434

Brooks observes that the sayings not the parables documents offer a window into the relationship between the Matthean Christian community and Judaism. Matthew 23, for

431 Ibid: 125.

432 France: 99. This view seems to have fewer supporters for even one of the its supporters, G. Bornkamm who in 1956 had earlier supported Kilpatrick's ―inside Judaism‖ position had changed position to ―outside Judaism‖ few decades later, as Stanton observed (ibid).

433 This position has attracted a lot of supporters and among whom the following deserve special mention K. Stendahl, C.F.D. Moule, Stanton and France who seem inclined to this position (ibid: 98-102, 207-241). Luz goes with this position; but he finds it difficult to state whether the community sees itself as Jewish or Christian. He addresses the relationship between the Matthean Jewish–Christians and the non– Jewish Christians communities with excellence (ibid: 47-56).

434 Brooks: 115-123. Brook‘s treatment of the issues makes this position more plausible than the others.

137

example, tells Jesus‘ statement against insincere religion exemplified by the religious leaders of Israel. 435 Brooks‘ position may be summed as follows: One, a part of the

Matthean Christian community maintains a relationship with Judaism. He observed that this part of the community had these distinctive features: (a) it enjoyed a relatively peaceful relationship with Judaism before the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD; (b) this group therefore kept contact with the Synagogue and its leadership; (c) it also was a critic of both the leadership and its teachings which went contrary to the already known teaching of Jesus; (d) it observes some weekly religious practices like alms–giving, prayer and fasting, and understands these religious practices ‗for the exclusive reward that comes from God‘ since He sees in secret; (e) it evangelizes among the Jewish or

Israeli community only because it understands Palestine to be their scope of mission activity; (f) and finally, the group expects the coming of Jesus even before they complete their mission scope.436

Two, that the Matthean community does not maintain links with Judaism. The following explains the distinctive nature of this class: (a) the group constitutes ―a Jewish Christian community [formed] apart from, and in ideological opposition to, the Jewish

Synagogue;‖437 (b) this group seems to be suffering persecution from the Jewish religious leaders since they separated from the Synagogue; (c) they only recognize the authority of

435 Ibid: 23. Luz says Matthew 23 implies Jesus is the ‗only teacher‘ in Israel worth listening and obeying (Luz, [2005], 3: 92–95).

436 Ibid: 120. He supported his point with the following ―saying‖ passages: saying number 7, 9, 10, 11. Sayings 7 and 11 support point ‗d‘ which points to the community‘s relationship to Judaism, Synagogue, religious leaders and religious observance in order to receive reward from God who sees in secret (ibid: 119). The texts named ―Sayings 7 & 11‖ are Matthew 6: 1-6, 16-18 and 23: 2-3, 5 respectively; while ones named ―Sayings 9 & 10‖ are Matthew 10: 5b–6 and 10: 23b respectively (ibid: 160–61).

437 Ibid: 120.

138

Jesus‘ teaching and commands and none other; (d) as a result, they have cut their ties with the Synagogue, its teaching and regulations; (e) some of them might also practice celibacy in order to serve God‘s Kingdom which is closely anticipated.438 The ―Sayings

1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 16–19‖ (in that order the texts are as follow: Matthew 5: 19; 5: 21-22; 5:

27-28; 5: 33-35; 23: 8-10; 12: 36-37; 18: 18; 18: 19-20; 19: 12) support this group within the Matthean Christian community.439

4.4: A Word Study and Review on the Use of ἀδελθός and ἀδελθή:

This section will study and review the use of ἀδειθφο and ἀδειθή from the following contexts: OT, LXX, extra–biblical and NT literature. The outcome of the investigation will offer a better understanding of the character and the identity of the brother/sister in the above context of the Matthean community of faith.

4.4.1: Old Testament Study and Review

sister (114 times) reflect how Israel אָ חֹות brother (630 times) while אָ ח The word

was first used after the אָ ח understands relationship in their commonwealth.440 The word

438 Ibid: 120.

439 Ibid: 160–62. But he is unsure about ‗saying 19‘ which is Matthew 19: 12 if it falls under the second category (ibid, 119). So he treats ‗saying 19‘ under his ‗Isolation of Further M Sayings‘ from pages 87–110; ‗isolation‘ means the ‗unparalleled sayings‘ in Matthew. He argues for unparalleled relationship in Matt 19: 10-12 because there is no relationship between vv. 10-11 & 12 which he said ―in either the Synoptics or the rest of the NT. Matthew nowhere else shows any knowledge of, or concern with, the subject of eunuchs, or the possibility of celibacy as a means of expressing dedication to the Kingdom of Heaven‖ (ibid: 107-108). However Brook appears confusing since he later entertained the probability that some of the community members of his second category may have practiced. He said ―some members of this community [category 2] may also practice vocational celibacy [italic mine] as a means of service to the Kingdom of Heaven. A well-developed Christology and theology upon Jesus as the eschatological spokesperson for God, with whom he is closely identified, is evident‖ (120–21).

440 Holladay, 2000; Herbert Wolf in R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer and B. K. Waltke (eds.) TWOT Vol 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 31–2. 139

birth of Abel in order to show his relationship with Cain (Gen 4: 2). The OT has used the word in the following context of relationships: (a) Blood–brother relationship with the same mother and father (Gen 4: 2, 8–11; 25: 26; 38); (b) a blood relationship between half–brothers which is to have the same father but different mothers (Gen 37: 2–30; 42–

43); (c) another blood relationship among cousins (Gen 13: 8; 29: 15); (d) a ‗deep‘ brotherly relationship without necessarily any blood connection as in the case of David of

Jonathan (2 Sam 1: 26 cf. Prov 18: 24; 27: 10). The following also fits into the without blood relationship context: brotherly relationship with a (i) ‗fellow tribesman‘ (Gen 31:

32); (ii) a ‗fellow countryman‘ (Ex 2: 11 cf. Heb 11: 24–25); (iii) a stranger (Gen 29: 4); to relate with things (Job 30: 29); to deal with officials (1 kgs 9: 13); in relation to

the ―distinction 442אָ ח is used the same way as אָ חֹות mourning‘ (Jer 22: 18).441 While‗ between sister and half–sister is not clear (Gen 20: 5). Usually to indicate the latter the

address a אָ חֹות and אָ ח father is said to be the same (Ezk 22: 11).‖443 It will suffice that physical relationship between people where the subject shares either blood relations with others (as full, half–brother, cousins); or is without blood relations with others (as tribesmen, countrymen); and in relations to strangers, leaders, bereavement and things.

(Hebrew) קָהָ ל However there also appears to be a relationship between brother/sister and congregation /ἐθθιεζίαο (LXX) Church in the OT (Ps 22: 22). Hosea prophesied during the pre–exilic period of the Southern Kingdom that Israel has refused to respond to God.

441 Ibid.

442 Ibid.

443 Wolf: 31.

140

Consequently the prophet delivered the messages of curses and blessings: the blessings are eschatological while the curses appear immediately if they continue to disobey God.

Therefore, amidst this setting a transfer from physical to spiritual relationship through the

Yahweh and Israel covenant relationship occurs (cf. Hosea 1: 10–2: 3).444 The pattern

.introduced into its meaning קָהָ ל considerably progresses with

4.4.2: Septuagint Study and Review

as ἀδειθή sister. The discussion אָ חֹות as ἀδειθφο brother while אָ ח The LXX translates follows somewhat like the OT.445 It also means the following: ―in generic sense and of members of the same religious community‖–De 22: 2 … Ob 10; 12;‖446 ‗reciprocity‘ with

(Gen 37: 19; Hag 2: 23; Zech 7: 9, 10); ally (Amos 1: 9); ―fellow member of faith community.‖447 There is an identical relationship between ἀδειθφο and πιεζίνλ nearby, neighbour448 in that a brother is also a neighbour who may be in need (cf. Deut

15: 1ff); hence they are both ―used interchangeably‖ in respect to love (Lev 19: 17f.).449

4.4.3: Extra–Biblical Study and Review

The non–canonical books just as in the above discussion, also classify the word under

444 W Günther, in Colin Brown (ed.) NIDNTT Vol 1: A–F, transl. from Theologisches Begriffslexikon Zum Neuen Testament (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1975), 255.

445 For example: for same parents (Hos 12: 3; Ps 49: 20; Mal 1: 2); kinsman (Gen 13: 8; 29: 12); friends (Gen 19: 7); a stranger(s) (Gen 29: 4). The same applies for sister (Muraoka: 7).

446 Ibid.

447 Ibid.

companion, friend and fellow. Brother appears 850 times רֵ עַ πιεζίνλ derives from the Hebrew 448 in the LXX while neighbour (214 times in the LXX and 17 time in the NT) (cf. Muraoka: 7).

449 Ibid. 141

physical relationship with blood as brothers of the same parents (2 Macc 2: 19; 7: 1, 4, 7,

24, 37, 38; T. Reuben 1: 2; 4 Macc 13: 18, 27) with blood as nephew (Tobit 1: 21, 22) 11,

300. ; and without blood as ‗brother–in–law‘;450 it appears four times in the vocative

ἄδειθε in a brotherly relationship between man and angelic being (Tobit 6: 6, 10, 14, 16).

However, once it is in a plural form ἀδειθ it is translated ‗brother and sister‘ instead of ἀδειθφο and ἀδειθή (Eurip, Electra 535451 cf. ἀδειθνθηφλνηο Wisdom of Solomon 10:

3); ἀδειθνῖο can also mean kindred, near kinsman (Tobit 1: 3, 16; 1 Macc 5: 10, 13, 16).

Plato uses ἀδειθφο for compatriot;452 Xenophon uses ρξήζεζζαη θαὶ ἀδειθῷ for friend

(Anab, Book VII, 2, 25);453 while Plotinus refers in terms of a general relationship for example ο ἀδειθ ο sister soul and ἀ ἀδειθ ο sky brothers (Enn II, 9,

18).454

The word also appears in the following compound forms θηιάδειθνο (2 Macc 15: 14; 4

Macc 13: 21; 15: 10) and θηιαδειθία. It is also used in this form ἀδειθφηεηα to convey brotherhood or fellowship through covenant (1 Macc 12: 10, 17; 4 Macc 9: 23; 10: 3, 15;

13: 19, 27).455

450 Bauer:

451 Translated & edited, David Kovacs (Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: Harvard University Press, 1998), 206–07.

452 The Republic of Plato Vol 1 Book II 362D, James Adam (ed.) (Cambridge: University Press, 1969).

453 Brownson: (1968), 536.

454 ―Against the Gnostics‖ translated by A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinmann Ltd, 1966), 296–98.

455 Bromley, TDNT.

142

4.4.4: New Testament Study and Review

The NT also shares some same thoughts with the previous discussions, for example: the physical meaning of brother/sister (Matt 1: 2, 11; Mk 6: 3 cf. 3: 31–35; 6: 17; Lk 3: 1;

Acts 1: 14; Jn 19: 25; 1 Cor 9: 5; Gal 1: 19).456

However it also takes a spiritual form in the NT beginning with Jesus who interpreted the

10 commandments into complete love for God and love one‘s neighbours as oneself (Mk

12: 30–31 cf. Matt 5: 43–48). The ―NT demands love for the brother and love for the neighbour equally which makes them synonymous.‖457

He also identifies his brothers and sisters as all his hearers and disciples who do the will of God (Mk 3: 31–35; Matt 25: 40; 28: 10; Jn 20: 17). This is very important because his brothers and sisters are not just any of his hearers and disciples; but importantly only those who ‗do the will of God.‘ Hence believers in Christ/Christians, are all together in a very special relationship of ‗brotherhood/sisterhood‘ through faith in Christ Jesus (Acts

11: 12, 26; 15; 1 Cor 15: 1; Col 1: 2). This exceeds the normal physical meaning of the word discussed previously. The special relationship which makes believers/Christians brothers and sisters also welcomes them into the family of God, making them His sons and daughters (Jn 1: 12f; Rom 8: 14, 16f; 2 Cor 6: 18; Gal 3: 36; 6: 10; Eph 2: 19).458

Therefore the NT writers contextualize the OT and LXX usage of the word to give believers in Christ a new status which unites them to function as a body (1 Cor 12: 12–

456 Ibid: 256; Bauer: 15. Further similar use is the meaning of ‗fellow countryman‘ (Acts 2: 29; 3: 17, 22; Rom 9: 3) and neighbour (Matt 5: 22ff; 7: 3; Lk 6: 41f; 17: 3) (ibid: 16).

457 Günther: 257.

458 Ibid: 256. 143

31; Eph 3: 1ff; 4: 4–6). Paul said this new status has broken down all the dividing walls of hostilities (Gal 3: 28).

The virtue θηιία love (James 4: 4) joins with ἀδειθφο brother to form a compound relationship already expressed in the non–canonical works discussed above (cf. 2 Macc

15: 14; 4 Macc 13: 21, 23, 26; 14: 1). The forms are: θηιάδειθνο brotherly love or even fellowship, it appears only once in the NT (1 Pt. 3:8) and θηιαδειθία also brotherly love, it appears five times in the NT (Rom. 12:10; 1 Thess. 4:9; Heb. 13:1; 1 Pet. 1:22; 2 Pet.

1:7; Rev 1: 11; 3: 7). Φηιαδειθία also appears twice in its feminine accusative and dative forms (Rev 1: 11; 3: 7). There is a similar relationship between ψευδής false and ἀδειθφο brother which produces another compound ςεπδάδειθνο false brother or false fellow brother; it appears twice in the NT (2 Cor 11:26; Gal 2: 4). Consequently, the

ςεπδάδειθνο ―By his own action … excludes himself from fellowship with God, and no longer belongs to the family of God.‖459 Therefore, does this fit the Pauline description of the ἄπηζηνο in 2 Cor 7: 15?

4.5: The Context, Analysis and Interpretation of Matthew 18: 15–20

The pericope falls under the Matthean fourth discourse which responds to sin in the

Matthean faith community. The exegesis will analyse the structure of the pericope; then seek to understand it by means of interpretation; and finally discuss how we may better understand the Matthean pericope.

4.5.1: Literary Context

The pericope falls under Matthew‘s document which discusses how the new community

459 Ibid: 257. 144

should live. This community has moved from its old relationship the ζπλαγσγή to the

εθθιεζία: this change calls for new conventions as well in order to shift from the former to the present community of faith. To accomplish this, Matthew puts together some ethical considerations from the life and teaching of Christ to serve as guide in their responsibilities to God and to their neighbours. Therefore for Matthew, the life of faith in the community must be genuinely expressed ―... in daily obedience to the way of life he

[Christ] proclaimed. Faith and ethics [he] insists, are two sides of the same coin, or the coin is counterfeit.‖460

The word ζπλαγσγή appears only twice in the Gospels. The word, ἐθθιεζία, appears first in Matthew 16: 18 and second in 18: 17. Its first occurrence is immensely important because it sets the foundation for the community which Matthew was not only writing to but also belongs to. It is the famous statement of Jesus saying: ―and I tell you that you are

Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it‖ (16: 18, italic mine) which sets the program in motion. This dominical declaration was a response to Peter‘s famous declaration about the Messiahship and Divinity of Jesus

Christ (16: 16). The death of the Messiah, which proves his status and seals his sacrifice closely followed (16: 21–28). This greatly confuses Peter since he could not see the

Messiah as a sacrificial Lamb; consequently, he rebukes Jesus (16: 22). Therefore the unfolding of events may indicate that although Peter‘s declaration about Jesus Christ was the foundation on which the εθθιεζία will stand, yet Peter himself didn't really understand what it will cost for the foundation to hold firm. The response of Jesus to the same Petrine rebuke was astonishing: ―... get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling

460 Douglas R. A. Hare, ―Matthew‖ (IBCTP; Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993), 2. 145

block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns‖

(16: 23).461

The transfiguration narrative in 17: 1–13 and the subsequent events about the disciples unable to deal with demon possession (vv. 14–23)462 is similar to Moses‘ experience when he returned from receiving the Decalogue on Mount Sinai only to find out the leader he had left to guide the people, Aaron, was incapable. Therefore, the people went out of control (Exodus 24: 14; 32: 1–8). Then once again Jesus predicts his death, which is to the dismay of his disciples (vv. 22–23). The first narrative of Matthew 18 begins with disagreement among the 12 disciples on ―who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven‖

(vv. 1–9).463 The succeeding teachings are very important because they form the immediate context of our text and ζθαλδαιίδεη causing another to sin (vv. 6–9) reminds of the discussion in 16: 23; except here Jesus said don't be a stumbling block to another person by causing them to sin. The consequences for ζθάλδαινλ may lead to death; hence the imperative to cut off whatever causes it. The next narrative is a parable concerning the sheep that strayed away from the shepherd (vv. 10–14) which reminds that Jesus is the ―Good Shepherd.‖ This parable builds upon the previous teaching on

461 The relationship between these words Πέηξνο Peter, πέηξᾳ rock & ζθάλδαινλ stumbling block (NRSV, NIV) or (lit.) to cause to sin makes the construction somewhat fascinating. Πέηξνο & πέηξᾳ in our context point to the firm foundation which the future Church of Christ would stand upon. The act of Πέηξνο shows that he did not know what must happen before the new faith community would emerge.

462 Keener comments that ―they had cast out demons before, but perhaps they lacked confidence because they felt their commission (10: 7–8) was limited to a short–term mission (11: 1) or because this demon seemed more powerful than the others, requiring more spiritual preparation (cf. Mk. 9: 29)‖ (1999: 440).

463 Luz refers to the opening vv. 1–5 as apophthegm meaning an expanded chreia. He defines chreia ―as a pregnantly formulated simple sentence (or action) about a particular historical person that is used in instruction. Simple chreia can be used in the instruction in different ways. They can be expanded, e.g., by the addition of dialogue or novelistic elements. Matthew 18: 1–5 did not originate, therefore, as an expanded chreia but as the combination of two chreiai‖ (notes 1 & 2 in Matthew 2. 424–25). 146

ζθάλδαινλ (vv. 6–9) since v. 14 says God hates it when a soul ἀπφιεηαη perishes or lost which presents a relationship between ζθάλδαινλ to cause to sin and ἀπφιεηαη to perish.

Therefore Matthew may be drawing their attention to the following: learn from the disciples, their strides and mistakes; learn from the walk/ways of the Master, Jesus

Christ; and don't forget how and where you emerged from.

4.5.2: The Analysis:

4.5.2.1: Ἐὰν if is a third class conditional construct464 which appears nine times from verses 15–20. This implies that the call to acceptable and ethical standard according to the teaching of Jesus may not work out after all as intended. This is because it is conditioned by the choices of the persons living in the community of faith.

4.5.2.2: The passage may be divided into two halves because of ἀκὴλ ιέγσ ὑκῖλ truly I say to you (v. 18) and Πάιηλ ἀκὴλ ιέγσ ὑκῖλ again, truly I say to you (v. 19).465 Therefore the nine ἐὰλ may be divided into seven for the first half (vv. 15–18) and the other two for the second half (vv. 19–20). There is however a close relationship between the two halves

(vv. 15–18 & vv. 19–20) because

[The]… ἐὰλ clause connects v. 19 to vv. 15–17, and the contrast between ἐπὶ ηῆο γῆο and ἐλ νὐξαλνῖο provides a link to v. 18. [Therefore, verses 19–20 are] having a close relationship to vv. 15–18 and constituting a special unit. [Interestingly] the use of πάιηλ to link vv. 18 and 19 leaves open the question of the logical relationship between them.466

464 The third class condition ―often presents the condition as uncertain of fulfillment, but still likely‖ (Wallace: 696). The protasis must take the particle ἐάν which is close to a subjunctive mood; while the apodosis may have any mood and tense. Importantly it also conveys ―a sense of contingency‖ (ibid). Therefore it is logical, hypothetical and a ‗probable future occurrence‘ (ibid).

465 Luz: 2001: 448.

466 Ibid. He also adds that ―one of the difficulties in the interpretation of our text is created by the need to construe a logical connection between vv. 18 and 19 for this reason as well as because of its concluding position and the brevity of its apodosis‖ (ibid).

147

4.5.2.3: Verse 18 in the first half addresses a specific conflict situation which if it has not yet happened probably will in the near future; consequently it conveys steps to respond to it. Verse 19 in the second half addresses a general condition because of the Greek words

πεξὶ παληὸο concerning anything. However, it appears that the specific condition mentioned in verse 18 is a subset to the general condition mentioned in verse 19 because of πεξὶ παληὸο.

4.5.2.4: There is a movement from a singular offender to plural which has also affected number in Greek.467 The NIV rightly follows the rhythm of the movement while the

NRSV does not.

4.5.2.5: The clause Ἐὰλ δὲ ἁκαξηήζῃ εἰο ζὲ ὁ ἀδειθφο ζνπ but if your brother sins

[against you] may point to the immediate context which insists against ζθάλδαινλ causing another to sin. When the offender sins against a brother or sister in the faith community, the offended may also sin by their response which will mean to sin against

God as well; therefore if someone consciously causes another to sin, he/she have sinned; but the other person being caused to sin has a choice to sin or not the choice hinges on the person‘s response.

4.5.2.6: The second mention of the ἐθθιεζία appears in v. 17 where there is need for healing a hurting relationship within the faith community. The first mention of ἐθθιεζία in chapter 16 calls attention to its foundation and what needs be done for its firmness; while the second mention in chapter 18 calls attention to a part of its missional

467 Ibid. 148

purpose.468 The ἐθθιεζία in verse 18 has been saddled with the responsibility to δήζεηε

θαὶ ιχζεηε bind and loose which summons the entire community of faith to respond in unity. This may connect between the responsibility in verse 18 and the preceding verses

15–17: people in the community whose faith and ethics are persistently incongruent (vv.

15–17) should be δήζεηε but only if they repent would they be ιχζεηε.

4.5.2.7: Matthew somewhat differs with the Lukan account even though they seem to point to the same event. The Lukan account was not concerned about the steps outlined by Matthew or the place of the Church of the faith community in resolving conflict among believers.469

4.5.2.8: The Greek ἀδειθφο brother and ἀδειθή sister, according to the word study above, conveys both physical and spiritual relationships. The spiritual context of the word unites all people who are justified by faith in Jesus into one family of God. However, it also requires godly character from Jesus‘ disciples. Therefore, the meaning of the word transcends just hearing as a disciple; it requires both hearing and obeying the revelation of God through Jesus Christ (Mk 3: 31–35; Matt 25: 40; 28: 10; Jn 20: 17). If not then our confession does not agree with out action.

4.5.3: The Interpretation:

Most commentators observe that ὕπαγε against you is not present in some earliest manuscripts470 even though ―the early geographical distribution favours their

468 The Matthean missional purpose is first internal i.e. within the faith community before being challenged to launch outside the community (28: 18–20). 469 Luke 17; Gundry: 376.

470 Gundry: 367; Hare: 213; Keener: 453. 149

inclusion.‖471 Moreover, ―the insertion of ὕπαγε conforms to Matthew‘s diction (vv. 5, 6) and puts the onus of responsibility on the brother sinned against.‖472 This onus of responsibility will no doubt be difficult to do for at least two reasons: (a), asking the offended to take the lead in resolving conflict with the offender; (b), as Hare rightly pointed that people ―are inclined to ‗forgive‘ sins in advance of repentance rather than have to confront the guilty parties.‖473 The interpretation of the pericope for resolving conflict within the Matthean community is as follows:

One: The offended personally reach out to the offender. Matthew starts by stressing that while both the offended and the offender are responsible to solving their conflicts, it is the formwe that should reach out.474 The reason may be the offender is already in the wrong and is blind to see his wrong or already hardened to admit his wrong. But the offended is more likely to be the opposite; besides this suggests that the offended has not yet sinned by his response to the offender. Moreover he/she has received the sustaining grace of God for the situation. If the matter is resolved at this level, then let it be.

Two: The offended still personally go but with other believers within the faith community. The following has been suggested as possible reasons to have witnesses: (a)

471 Keener: 453.

472 Gundry: 367.

473 Page 213.

474 Augustine says ―If you fail to do so, you are worse than he is … Will then completely disregard your brother‘s wound? Will you simply watch him stumble and fall down? Will you disregard his predicament? If so, you are worse in your silence than he in his abuse‖ Matthew 14–28 in Manlio Simonetti (ed.), ACCS (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002), 77.

Jerome adds that the steps outlined should be taken because it is ‗a sin against God.‘ Moreover he comments on the last resort that ―the person who under the name of faith does an infidel‘s work is shown to be more cursed than those who openly are heathen. Publicans, figuratively speaking, are those who pursue the profits of the secular world and exact taxes by business, fraud, theft, crimes and false oaths‖ (ibid). 150

it is neither for the purpose of witnessing the sin of the offender nor serving as witnesses to the Church; but it is for the purpose of joining the offended in order to restore the offender.475 (b) The witnesses were to moderate and protect both the offended from eventualities and the offender from too harsh attack from the offended.476 (c) ―[A]lthough disciples seek reconciliation; they must gather evidence in the proper order in case they later need proof of what transpired.‖477 Therefore it is reasonable to think that the main purpose is reconciliation although it may not work out as shown in the pericope; nevertheless they will still be witnesses to either the reconciliation or the consequence of it. Matthew does not appear to present a rule on how many times the offender is reached before he\she is disciplined (cf. 18: 22; Luke 17: 4). So this suggests that it may take as long as possible so that the offender may be reconciled and restored.

Three: The offended still personally go with the leadership of the ἐθθιεζία. This has two clear purposes: (a) to seek for reconciliation and restoration between the offended and offender; (b) if the offender is not willing, then the verse 18 is to be applied, ―bind‖ him/her.478 This action calls the ἐθθιεζία to publicly disassociate from the offender.479

475 Gundry: 368.

476 Hare: 214.

477 Keener: 454. This sounds the most balanced among above three possibilities because it deals with the main purpose, reconciliation, and also goes with the literal meaning of the word ―witness;‖ this instruction alludes to Deut 19: 5 (Evans: 334).

478 ―Binding and loosing normally refers to forbidding and permitting. In the present case … the reference is to convicting and acquitting‖ (Evans: 334 cf. Joe Kopolyo, ABC, 1173).

479 This makes so much sense because any attempt at concealing it will go against the integrity of the faith community; the external mission of the community will suffer because it condones sin; and above all the name of the Lord will be dishonoured. This is important as the εθθιεζία is a special community of God which lives to obey Him and maintains a life of purity (Evans: 334 cf. Kapolyo: 1173). Cf. Augustine and Theodore (Simonetti: 79).

151

However the fate of the offender is not sealed even when he/she is treated as a Tax collector or Gentile;480 rather the door for reconciliation and restoration is still open between him/her and the Church481 because of ιχζεηε loose. Jesus gives example when he ate with tax collectors and sinners for he came purposely for them. How should the offender be approached? Green admonishes a careful attitude toward the offended and confrontation should be done in the following ways: charity or love, not with the intention to embarrass him/her, and prayer.482

4.6: Conclusion

The indicator is very clear that any faith community should be careful because its integrity closely hinges on its response to a brother or sister in its midst who sins and persists in his or her sin or generally in its handling of sin. It is also important that it observes how the Scripture speaks concerning difficult circumstances where the offender is an unrepentant but also influential member of the faith community who may leave the community if disciplined. Therefore, how should the community respond to this and

480 A ηειψλεο tax collector (appears only in the synoptic gospels and 21 times) is generally disliked and hated because of its purposes and tax collectors charged more than required. Rabbinic literature says they overcharged tax payers (B Sanh 25b) therefore, they are labelled thieves and robbers (B Baba Kamma 94b), unclean (M Tohorot VII, 6). They are portrayed in the gospels with Gentiles (Matt 5: 46 cf. 18: 17; Lk 6: 32); with sinners (Matt 9: 10); with harlots (Matt 21: 31–32). However Jesus befriends them (Mk 2: 14, 15–17; Lk 19: 1–10); he desires that they (and sinners) would repent (Lk 18: 9–14; 15: 1– 32 cf. Matt 18: 10–14). Therefore it is a negative qualification for a brother or sister in the faith community to be treated as such because it means that they no longer belong to that brotherly fellowship. Augustine says, ―Don‘t consider him now in the number of your brothers. But not even so is his salvation to be neglected. For even the heathen, that is, the Gentiles and pagans, we do not consider in the number of our brothers, yet we constantly pray for their salvation‖ (Simonetti: 78).

481 It is important to point that: once the matter has gone to the leadership of the faith community, the problem is no longer between the offended and the offender because it has now become between the Church or faith community and the offender.

482 Page 195; Evans: 334. 152

many more controversial situations?483 Matthew responded that: let the faith community remember the foundation on which it stands; let them remember their responsibilities to their source of existence; let them remember their responsibilities to all members of the faith community; and finally let them remember their responsibilities to those living outside the faith community.

Matthew might also desire the faith community to remember the following: (a) that as it gets involved in reconciliation and restoration it should not be disappointed and discouraged that there are some exceptions to restoring certain straying members who would persist in their wrong.484 (b) The leaders of the faith community should not misuse their privilege as leaders; (c) And the members of the community should be supportive to the excommunication of a member who persists in his/her wrong. (d) Lastly, Jesus Christ has also promised to answer the community in their struggle to deeply impress faith and ethics on the faith community.

483 Hare rightly said that ―modern Christians tend to have a very individualistic conception of sin: ‗What I do with my life is my business; it‘s no concern of yours!‘ Early Christians were more aware of the interactive function of behaviour. Serious sexual misconduct, for example, was perceived by spiritual leaders as by no means a private matter but a cancer threatening the body of Christ (I Cor. 5: 1–5)‖ (page 213).

484 Keener: 452–53. 153

CHAPTER 5:

THE RELATIONSHIP OF 1 CORINTHIANS 7:10–16 AND MATTHEW 18:15–20

5.1: Introduction

Paul says the believing spouse should seek the salvation of the unbelieving one by remaining in the marriage; however, should the unbelieving spouse leave, let him/her.

Matthew says the offended brother should also be concerned about the faith of the offending brother by following the steps he offered; but should the offending brother insist on his sinning way then he is to be cut off from the faith community. This chapter will discuss the relationship between the Pauline and the Matthean texts already discussed above and will answer the question: who is a Christian/ believer? Importantly, it will also answer the question: Is Buki forbidden to remarry?

5.2: The Relationship Between the Texts

5.2.1: The Overview of Both Texts and Word Relationship

5.2.1.1: εἴ (5+)485 and ἐάν (1+) in 1 Cor 7: 12, 13, 15; ἐάν (9+)486 in Matt 18: 15–19.

Both texts are conditional and their construction which makes it applicable to anyone.

5.2.1.2: ἀδελθὸρ (3+) and ἀδελθὴ (1+) in 1 Cor 7: 12, 14, 15; ἀδελθὸρ (2+) in Matt 18:

15.

The above words: ―brother‖ appears in both texts while ―sister‖ is implied in the

485 There are two more εἰ (v. 16) which may be an interrogative particle with a present future indicative verb ζψζεηο or may be conditional conjunctions without their protasis or apodosis. The former is more likely; hence it should be translated ‗whether.‘

486 There are two more ἐὰλ (v. 18) following directly the relative pronoun ὅζα functioning as ―correlative pronoun.‖ 154

Matthean pericope, which may inform their status in the faith community. One may infer that both writers expect the ἀδειθὸο and ἀδειθὴ to conform to the dominical ruling no matter the challenges they face considering their complex situations. This is necessary because it makes them disciples of Christ; acting contrary proves otherwise. They emphasize on the need to consider the salvation of the unbeliever and the brother who sins because of the possibility of their repentance.

5.2.1.3: οὐκ ἐγὼ ἀλλὰ ὁ κύπιορ (cf. λέγω ἐγώ, οὐσ ὁ κύπιορ) in 1 Cor 7: 10 cf. v. 12; and

ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν (cf. εἶπεν Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν) in Matt 18: 18, 19, 13 cf. v. 3).

Paul says not I but the Lord although he later said I said, not the Lord. Both still appeal to

Jesus‘ authority. In the first, he quotes the Lord; while in the second he only uses the authority he has received from the Lord as an apostle to charge the faith community toward Christ not himself. Matthew also appeals to the same authority of Christ by using his teaching to admonish his faith community on how to live together in love and peace.

The Matthean portion of the above text truly, I say unto you appears first in vv. 3, 13 before appearing in the fourth discourse. They not only state the authority of Jesus but even more: it is a trustworthy authority.

5.2.1.4: ἄπιζηορ unbeliever (5+) in 1 Cor 7: 12–15; and ἐθνικὸρ Gentile (1+) in Matt 18:

17.

The terms unbeliever and Gentile are synonymous in the NT. An unbeliever is anyone who does not belong to the faith community because he/she does not believe in and respond to Jesus Christ; so he/she is not a Christian. The term translated Gentile above appears to be a NT coinage of ἒζλνο from the OT. The Matthean use may represent its

155

OT and Jewish significance, for example: ―And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?‖

(Matt 5: 47 cf. 6: 7), which distinguishes between those who obey the law and the

Gentiles who do not; they are also associated with tax collectors (Matt 18: 17). This association implies that the OT and Judaism view them as unclean.487 Paul, however, uses its variant ἐζλῶλ with the ἐθθιεζία Church to refer to Gentile Christian churches (Rom

16: 4); and ἐζληθῶο with Ἰνπδατθῶο δῇο to mean a Jew living with Gentile Christians (Gal

2: 12 cf. Eph 3: 1). Therefore the OT and Judaism associate the word and its variants with race, uncleanness, inferiority to Jews; while the NT rather associated it with non–

Christians and an ungodly lifestyle (1 Thess 4: 5).

5.2.2: The Relationship Between the Matthean and Paul’s Teaching

Matthew says break fellowship with the offender who insists on his/her sin; while Paul says if the unbeliever deserts the believer, let it be. Importantly the brother who sins against another and refuses to reconcile even after the steps outlined, has broken faith with the faith community since binding is introduced. The deserter on the other hand breaks the marriage covenant ordained by God between two persons. The significance of the covenant involves ―two main components—personal allegiance or loyalty and interpersonal intimacy culminating in sexual relations—the answer emerges with surprising ease.‖488 The deserter destroys both the bond of interpersonal intimacy (sexual relations) and the personal allegiance that remains together until death.

487 Kittel TDNT.

488 Blomberg: 192 156

5.3: Who is a Christian/believer?

The meaning of the name ―Christian‖ seems ambiguous because it means so many things to so many people depending on the context. The following contexts are considered:

Firstly, the ―Black Theology‖ context. Hopkins observes that ―Africans brought with them to the ‗New World‘ a view that cherishes ‗both–and‘, instead of ‗either–or.‘‖489 The view of ―both–and‖ makes the African view of religion and general world view a ―chain of relationship‖ i.e. interconnectedness. Within the Christian faith the ―both-and‖ perspective has affected some Africans by forcing a union between Christianity and some

African practices which Scripture unequivocally frowns upon. Therefore, it is unbiblical to define or understand a Christian in terms of ―both–and‖ which is to integrate certain evil practices and the Christian faith.490

Secondly, some redactors have attempted to redefine Christianity and hence who is a

Christian. Notably, John Hick and Paul Knitter have redacted the essentials of

Christianity for the purpose of promoting pluralism.491 Knitter, for example, questions the Christian theology that there is no other name which saves except Jesus Christ since there are other major characters in other world religions.492 He argues that the finality and the high Christology in the NT is a serious concern to be addressed if his goal of promoting pluralism is to be achieved. So he offers the following solutions: (1) that Jesus

489 Dwight N. Hopkins, Introducing Black Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Book, 1999), 18.

490 Byang H. Kato, Theological Pitfalls in Africa (Kisumu, Kenya: Evangel Publishing House, 1975).

491 John Hick is a British philosopher of religion whose commitment has been the unity of world religions; while Paul F. Knitter was a student of Karl Rahner, the Roman Catholic theologian.

492 No Other Name? A Critical Survey of Christian Attitudes Toward the World Religions (Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Book, 1986). 157

Christ should only be seen as someone who encourages morality; (2) that the term ―Jesus is Lord‖ should be interpreted only within the Christian faith and not generalized to mean he is the only way only to God; (3) finally, that the incarnation should rather be taken hypothetically.493 This proposes an accommodative Christianity and/or Christian. Hick out rightly ―denies any uniqueness claims on the part of Jesus.‖494 Clark Pinnock‘s response to the sceptics was excellent and deserves stating in his words:

The New Testament quite effectively resists attempts of this type to rid it of the unwanted belief in the finality of Jesus Christ. Efforts to revise Christology downward are difficult to accept because they go against the suppositions. It is impossible to bring it off in an exegetically convincing way. One cannot make the New Testament teach a non– normative Christology. There may be nothing wrong with trying – one learns a lot from conducting exegetical experiments. But in terms of results, the effort to rid the New Testament of the doctrine of the finality of Christ must be pronounced a failure.‖495

The word Χξηζηηαλφο Christian (from Χξηζηφο Christ) appears first in Acts 11: 26 which says: ―… for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.‖ It is important to note that the disciples were taught the life (and teaching) of Jesus Christ, which is basically what Jesus had commanded the disciples to do: disciple all nations. Therefore, the connection between Acts 11: 26 and Matthew 28: 18–20 impresses deeply that the true identity of a Christian is not be divorced from the identity of Jesus Christ.

Christianity finds both its faith and name roots in Christ alone.

Hans Küng observes that a Christian is not one who calls Jesus ―Lord, Lord‖ and professes doctrinal beliefs of the Scripture; rather a Christian is one who through his or

493 Alister McGrath, Christian Theology Reader (Oxford, UK & Cambridge, USA: Blackwell Books, 1995), 332–34.

494 Ibid: 334.

495 Ibid: 158

her life shows that they follow Jesus Christ in practice.496 Moreover the ―Christian message is Jesus Christ himself. He, the crucified, risen and living Lord, is the criterion for the proclamation and action of the Church of Christ.‖497 However, Küng seems to have placed little emphasis on the condition of faith, which is to believe and confess

Jesus as Lord and Saviour. This emphasis is very important because its absence may reduce the whole spiritual experience of the Christian faith into one of the many religions. Further it distinguishes between Christianity and other monotheistic faiths,

Judaism and Islam, which believe in Jesus but either as a prophet or moral teacher or even both.

The response of Stanley Grenz on the question is completely acceptable, who said that the route to becoming a Christian is ―... a three–step progression that begins with knowledge, moves to assent, and reaches its goal in trust.‖498 The three–steps put forward by Grenz seem to be a summary of Paul‘s words in Romans 10: 9–15 which says:

If you declare with your mouth, ―Jesus is Lord,‖ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. As Scripture says, ―Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.‖ For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, for, ―Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.‖ How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: ―How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!‖ (NIV)

Grenz‘s insightful statement may be analysed closely with the above text as follows: (1)

496 Hans Küng‘s ―My Book on Being a Christian in Retrospect,‖ in Silvia Scatena et al (eds.), On Being a Christian: the International Review of Theology (Long Lane, London: SCM Press; 2011), 18–9.

497 Ibid: 13.

498 What Christians Really Believe and Why (Louisville & London: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 8–10. He also adds that ―only with this step is faith truly present, for knowledge and assent alone are not faith. Faith requires trust‖ (ibid: 10). 159

his idea of ―knowledge‖ fits perfectly into Romans 10: 14–15; (2) his idea of ―assent‖ is subsumed into Romans 10: 9, 10, 14; (3) while his idea of ―trust‖ goes with Romans 10:

9–11, 13. Therefore a Christian is anyone who has gone through the processes of knowledge, then moves to assent and finally reaches trust which is the main goal of knowledge and assent. Moreover, Küng impresses that ―anyone‖ must show by their fruits that he/she is keeping in step with Jesus Christ. Christianity is both faith in Jesus

Christ and practicing his kingdom values which he taught one is not divorced from the other or else it is no longer the Christian faith.

5.4: The Application: Is Buki Forbidden to Remarry?

5.4.1: The OT Perspective:

The OT allows Remarriage after divorce according to Deuteronomy 24: 1–5 which says:

(1) that divorce is permissible (v. 1); (2) that a man who divorces his wife cannot remarry her if she has a second divorce or becomes a widow (vv. 2–4); (3) that a newly married man should be excused from any form of military duties for a year (v. 5). The point is that: remarriage is not a concern in the OT as long as it follows stipulated rules.

We saw Ezra in Chapter one prohibiting exogamous marriage for endogamy in the community of exiled Jewish. He emphasizes the need to marry from within the Jewish race in order to preserve and to increase it in the face of strong external challenges to their fledgling and weak Jewish community. Therefore the Ezran divorce case also opens up the case for remarriage. This is supported by the above main grounds for sending away the foreign wives and their children from the Jewish community (Ezra 10: 3, 44).

Suffice it that the grounds mainly argue that internal racial increase and preservation are

160

key to a strong Jewish faith community; this would no doubt have supported remarriage in the Second Temple Jewish community.

Both Nehemiah and Malachi also supported the above argument in their unique way.

Nehemiah on the one hand says the Hebrew tongue enhances a strong Jewish faith community which only endogamy guarantees. Malachi on the other says there is need for the preservation of ―godly‖ seeds/children who will worship Yahweh as He deserves; however this project is only guaranteed by endogamy. It appears reasonable to argue that neither the husbands nor the wives were to blame for the condition of their marriage,499 which causes the wives to ―desert‖ their husbands. Therefore, the Ezra‘s motive for sending away foreign wives and their children was incomplete if the ―deserted‖ husbands were not allowed to remarry in order to preserve their faith community by increasing it.

This is for the main purpose of nurturing a strong Jewish faith community.

6.4.2: The NT Perspective:

The marriage condition of Buki and Kasang may be said to fit the Matthew 18 pericope.

This is because both belong to the same faith community. There was a misunderstanding: one offends the other by desertion; while the Matthean text is not specific but general since it says ―if a brother/ sister sins against you …‖ (v. 15). What is the sin? It is not specified. The key word is ―… sins against you‖ which does not specify any kind of sin; consequently leaving the context of the offense wide as long as it is dealt with within the general context of the Matthean pericope. The steps put forward by the Matthean dominical tradition in response to their marital condition were followed; yet Kasang was

499 Although there are some Bible commentators who hypothesize that the wives might have led their husbands and children away from Yahweh to idols, which would necessitate Ezra–Nehemiah to take such drastic steps in response to the development (see chapter two). 161

non–responsive. The text calls for the adoption of the dominical ruling upon the spouse who persists in the wrong. Importantly, that spouse was already involved in adultery and has offspring from the immorality.500

The Matthean pericope stops at the ruling without much direct implication on their marriage condition even though the act committed by the offending spouse may fit as subset to the action of the offending brother in the text. That makes it necessary to appeal to 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16. It is imperative to firstly ask: does their marriage portray a believer–believer union (vv. 10–11) or a believer–unbeliever one (vv. 12–16)? The above discussion has revealed that a believer or Christian is anyone, according to Grenz‘s

―exposition‖ of Romans 10: 9–15, who has been through the stages of acknowledging

Jesus Christ, trusting and agreeing with him. Moreover, such a person must show by his/her fruits/works that he/she agrees with Jesus completely and are willing to respond to him as Küng states. Therefore, the character disposition of the offending spouse depicts that of a person who disagrees with Christ, which makes him/her to fit the context of marriage between a believer and an unbeliever (vv. 12–16). To that category Paul says the believing spouse should be willing to remain with the unbeliever; however ―if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so‖ (v. 15). He further reminds the believing spouse that ―it is to peace that God has called you‖ (ibid, NRSV). This implies that: you do your very best in the Lord to remain with your unbelieving spouse;501 but if he/she leaves, don‘t fight against it. Note also that given the situation the believing spouse is not under bondage.

500 In fact because he was already involved in adultery nullifies the marriage covenant and opens up for remarriage should the innocent partner decide (Matt 19).

501 The believing spouse in the contemporary context might also want to apply the Matthean steps if it is possible, which is involving others to who would prayerfully consider the conflict. 162

Paul later in 2 Corinthians 6: 14 says believers should not be yoked with unbelievers.

This also may be seen to support the above discussion since the unbelieving spouse does not want to remain married to the believer who is innocent. Therefore remarriage is opened to Buki should he desire it. However remarriage is a quite a big leap which should not be taken casually; rather it should be approached after a considerable time has been given in thoughts, counselling and prayers. Importantly Paul says remarriage should be ―in the Lord‖ (1 Cor 7: 39).

5.4.3: The Church History Perspective:

The first mention of marriage preserved in non–biblical texts of the Christian era was written by Ignatius of Antioch (d. 108 CE) in his Letter to Polycarp 5.2. He quotes from 1

Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5 to address the subject of marriage.502 Olsen observes that the Christian view of marriage progresses from Judaism and is quite distinct from pagan practices due to its emphasis on mutual respect among spouses in that adultery is not blamed on the woman alone but on both parties; and it is indissoluble.503 The period also relates Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:15 regarding the dissolution of marriage on the grounds of adultery and desertion (by the unbelieving spouse), in which case remarriage was allowed. However the above provisions were abused as others divorced and remarried across the faith communities for other reasons than those two.504 Consequently,

Origen (d. 253/4 CE) later prohibits remarriage after divorce while the partner lives. It

502 Glenn W. Olsen ―Progeny, Faithfulness, Sacred Bond: Marriage in the Age of Augustine‖ in G. W. Olsen (ed.), Christian Marriage: A Historical Study (New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2001), 106–07. Clement of Alexander (d. may be 215 CE) concurs (ibid).

503 Ibid: 107–08.

504 Ibid: 108. 163

was later treated as adultery requiring penance before the church could accept the couple into fellowship.505

The above decision seems to be based on the holiness motif which develops chiefly from

Paul‘s 1 Corinthians 7; 2 Corinthians 6 and other non–canonical literature. The motif is grounded in the worldview of the patriarchs and Paul (1 Cor 7: 39), Tertullian argues, and that the pure and impure must not be mixed together otherwise it is fornication.506

Cyprian (d. 258 CE) also views believer–unbeliever marriage as fornication since when believers are ―… united in the bond of marriage with the unbelievers, they prostituted the members of Christ to the Gentiles … [therefore] … marriage is not to be contracted with

Gentiles … [for] … the sin of fornication is grievous.‖507 Tertullian supports his patriarchal argument not from Deut 7: 2–4; but from non–canonical traditions of Genesis like Jubilees where Abraham is portrayed as zealous for Yahweh and insists that his children follow his endogamous example.508 On the motif in the Pauline text, he said:

―For who but could understand that the apostle foresaw many dangers and wounds to faith in marriages of this kind, which he prohibits? And that he took precaution in the first place, against the defilement of holy flesh in the Gentile flesh?‖509

505 Tertullian (d. 225 CE) and the North African Church also agreed with the prohibition of Origen (ibid).

506 Hayes: 99. Chrysostom (d. 407 CE) also concurs (ibid: 100); while Jerome (d. 420 CE) says it is like the union of ―… two contradictory loves in one man‖ (Bray: 261; see also Dialogue with Jovinianus, Hayes: 101–02).

507 Augustine (d. 430 CE) closely associated fornication with unbelief when he said that: ―… the bodies also of the married are holy, so long as they keep faith to one another and to God‖ (Hayes: 100).

508 Ibid: 98.

509 Hayes rightly observes that Tertullian sees interfaith marriage as the ―mixture of the flesh of two persons–one holy and one morally defiled and capable of transferring its defilement by physical union‖ (ibid: 99). This no doubt appears to be a rabbinic view point (see discussion in chapter two). Cyprian also 164

Martin Luther says that impotence is a good ground for divorce following which the wife is allowed to remarry. He continues that she expected coitus and children only to realize that she could not enjoy both or even any due to her husband‘s impotency.510 John Calvin in Geneva allows remarriage on the grounds of adultery and desertion; he was very careful however to mention that remarriage should not be entered immediately.

Nevertheless, he opines that ―… more sin would arise from prohibiting remarriage than from allowing remarriage.‖511 Consequently, the marriage institution is more respected in

Geneva than other Protestant faith communities or cities. However, the Genevan council, against Calvin‘s will, introduced more grounds to the above exceptions; hence increasing the rate of divorce and remarriage in Geneva.512

Is Buki allowed to remarry? The Patristics answered both ‗Yes‘ and ‗No‘ at first.

Remarriage was earlier allowed on the grounds of both adultery and desertion, which they argue from Matthew 19; 1 Corinthians 7; 2 Corinthians 6 and post–biblical texts.

However, it was later explicated as a form of adultery itself; for the Jesus‘ and Pauline provisions for divorce and remarriage, adultery and desertion, have given rise to all sorts of grounds for divorce and remarriage across their faith communities. Consequently, that has significantly affected their high view of marriage; and the solution was to allow remarriage only after the offending partner had died.

supports this view by quoting from Tobias; Genesis 24; Esdras and 1 Cor 7 and 2 Cor 6 to argue in favour of endogamy within the faith communities (ibid: 99–100).

510 Robert V. Young, ―The Reformations of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries‖ in G. W. Olsen (ed.), Christian Marriage: A Historical Study (New York: The Crossroads Publishing Company, 2001), 272 cf. Roberts, 2008: 140–41.

511 Roberts: 141.

512 Ibid. 165

The Reformers answered ‗Yes‘ and went even further. Luther allowed remarriage also on the grounds of adultery and desertion whether the offending spouse was alive or dead.

Moreover he appears even ―liberal‖ with his teaching by allowing divorce and remarriage on grounds of unfulfilled marital expectations like coitus due to impotence and bearing children. This infers that divorce and remarriage may be allowed as long as prior expectations of the marriage were not met. Calvin in Geneva, however, insisted on the grounds of adultery and desertion, although the Genevan council later made more allowances against his will.

The above Church history perspective has opened another purview: What is Scripture?513

J. A. Sanders quotes W. C. Smith saying, the ―… records of human responses to divine revelation.‖514 What is interesting about Sanders‘ view of the Scripture as dialogue is that

Church history has shown it to be true as it will be discussed. The Patristics and the

Reformers have all shown that they were engaged in one form of dialogue after another between the Scripture and the issues challenging their faith communities. Those before them did the same, for example: Stephen in Acts 7: 42–43 when quoting from Amos 5:

25–27 he said

‗Did you offer to me slain victims and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? No; you took along the tent of Moloch, and the star of your god Rephan, the images that you made to worship; so I will remove you beyond Babylon.‘

Whereas the Amos text reads:

513 The intention is not to offer a detailed discussion and/or analysis on the canon of Scripture or inspiration. Rather this is an attempt to briefly discuss why the Scripture appears to be saying both ‗Yes‘ and ‗No‘ on the same matter.

514 ―Canon as Dialogue‖ in Peter W. Flint (ed.), The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2001), 7. Sanders sees the Scripture as involved in some dialogue with ‗heresies,‘ ‗between two points of view‘ in Scripture, ‗multicultural‘ worldview, and between OT and NT (ibid: 8–9). 166

Did you bring to me sacrifices and offerings the forty years in the wilderness, O house of Israel? You shall take up Sakkuth your king, and Kaiwan your star-god, your images, which you made for yourselves; therefore I will take you into exile beyond Damascus, says the LORD, whose name is the God of hosts.

The differences are obvious:

Vv Septuagint - LXX Masoretic Text -Hebrew New Testament -Acts Vv v.25 a. Rhetorical a. Rhetorical Question a. Μὴ ζθάγηα (Rhet. v.42b Question Question?) b. ζθάγηα – Victim b. xbz – Sacrifices b. ΢θάγηα – Victim c. πξνζθπλείλ - Worship

/Sakkut a. ζθελὴλ – Tent – סכות .v.26 a. ζθελὴλ – Tent/ a Tabernacle Tabernacle

King b. Μνινρ – Moloch v. 43 – ככם .b. Μνινρ – Moloch b

Kaiwan c. Ραηθαλ –Raiphan – כיון .c. Ραηθαλ –Raiphan c

v.27  – Beyond ἐπέθεηλα Βαβπισλνο – מהלאה לדמשק ἐπέθεηλα Δακαζθνῦo –Beyond Damascus Damascus Beyond Babylon

The preceding analysis was rightly described by Byang H. Kato who said the ―[Scripture is the]… never changing word of God in ever–changing modes for relevance.‖515 This invites the Scripture to dialogue with contemporary challenges facing contemporary faith communities so that it is relevant to their contemporary challenges.

6.5: Conclusion & Recommendation

This thesis considered two texts, 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18: 15–20, and asked what they mean and explicated them mainly in the context of Israel‘s history in the

515 Tite Tienou, The Theological Task of the Church in Africa (Achimota, Ghana: African Christian Press, 1990). Stephen‘s use of the Amos 5: 25–27 fits into Sanders‘ fourth kind of dialogue between the OT and the NT (p: 9). 167

light of Second Temple Jewish literature like Ezra, Nehemiah and Malachi. We have also looked at the texts in the light of Jewish history on marriage and Greco–Roman ideas. We have also investigated the research question: are 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18:

15–20 related in any way, if so, are they addressing the subject of marriage, divorce and remarriage in some contemporary faith communities? We have investigated how they relate and what application may derive from that relationship. Nonetheless here are still some lingering questions after the above investigations and application:

One, what is the identity of the brother/sister and that of the unbeliever in the 1

Corinthians 7 and Mathew 18 texts? This is informed by the study of Richard Bauckham and others who questioned the consensus which deals with the first century faith communities of Paul and Matthew as distinct from each other. Hence Paul‘s epistles were for his recipients alone while Matthew‘s biography of Jesus was only addressed to his faith community. But if as Bauckham and others argue that all Scripture of the period was intended for circulation among the various faith communities then it will be exciting to know how the Matthean audience would understand 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 and how

Paul‘s audience would also react to the Matthean text.

Two: to investigate if there is relationship between Matthew 18: 15–20 and Matthew 19:

2–12? The point is that if marriage context fits the Matthew 18: 15–20 pericope due to the immediate appearance of Matthew 19: 2–12 after the community discourse, then it will further support the relationship between 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16 and Matthew 18:

15–20.

168

Three: to investigate Paul‘s and Matthew‘s different approaches to discipline a member of the faith community in 1 Corinthians 5: 1–13 and Matthew 18: 15–20. This will help to show their response on the matter and their relationship. Importantly it may help to answer Paul‘s response to a believing spouse who deserts or divorces his/her believing spouse on non–biblical ground and goes on to remarry.

Four: to what extent can the contemporary Church apply the teaching of Matthew 18: 15–

20 (and 19: 2–12) and 1 Corinthians 7: 10–16? This is very important for the tendencies abound to read all possible marriage conditions thereby abusing the biblical data on the grounds of divorce and remarriage as experience during the patristic period.

Five: to what extent should the contemporary Church apply caution in order not to liberalize the provisions of divorce and remarriage in the faith communities? The patristic period allowed divorce and remarriage on the grounds of adultery and desertion; however that gave rise to the abuse of the provision. Consequently, the Church Fathers prohibited remarriage as long as the adulterer and deserter were still living, which meant reinterpreting Scripture to meet the abuse of Scripture. Therefore what liberty do we have and to what extent do we interpret Scripture that way?

169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, James (ed.), The Republic of Plato vol 1 Book II (Cambridge: University Press, 1969).

Allison, Penelope, ―Soldiers‘ Families in the Early Roman Empire‖ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2011), 161–182.

Alden, Robert L. ―Daniel and the Minor Prophets,‖ in F.E. Gæbelein (ed.), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1985), 3– 160.

Andrew, Cornes. Divorce and Remarriage: Biblical Principles and Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993).

Allen, Leslie C. ―Ezra‖ in R. L. Hubbard Jr. and R. N. Johnston (eds.), Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther (NIBC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2003), 3–86.

Ascough, Richard S. ―Matthew and Community Formation‖ in David E. Aune (ed.), The Gospel of Matthew in Current Study (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ UK: Cambridge, 2001), 96–126.

Balz, H. ― ‖ in Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider (eds.), EDNT Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 16–20.

Barrett, C. K. A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC; London: Adam & Charles Black, 1973). Bauckham, Richard The Gospels for All Christians: Rethinking the Gospel Audiences (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998).

Barnett, Paul The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, UK: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1997).

Bauer, Walter. A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, translated & adapted by W. F. Arndt & F. W. Gingrich (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press/ Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1952).

Blomberg, Craig L. ―Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage and Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew 19: 3–12,‖ TJ 11 NS (1990), 161–196.

Boyer, James L. ―First Class Conditions: What Do They Mean?‖ GTJ 2. 1 (1981), 75– 114.

170

Bray, Gerald (ed.) 1 & 2 Corinthians (ACCS; NT vol. vii, Downers Grove: IVP, 1999).

Brenton, Lancelot C. The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament: with an English Translation and with various readings and critical notes (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons Limited Press, 1794).

Bremen, Riet van. ―Family Structures‖ in Andrew Erskine (ed.), A Companion to the Hellenistic World (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2003), 313–330.

Brooks, Stephenson H. The Matthew’s Community: The Evidence of his Special Sayings Material (JSNTSup 16; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987).

Brown, A. Philip II. ―The Problem of Mixed Marriages in Ezra 9–10‖ BSac 162 (2005), 162–648.

Bruce, FF. I & II Corinthians (NCBC1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ London: Marshall, Morgan & Scot, 1980).

Brunt, Peter A. Italian Manpower 225 BC–AD 14 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971).

Bultmann, Rudolf The Second Letter to the Corinthians, translated by Roy A. Harrisville (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Publishing House, 1985).

Charles, R. H. The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893).

Charlesworth, James, ―Introduction for the General Reader‖ in J. H. Charlesworth (ed.), OTP Vol.1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday and Company Inc., 1983), xxi–xxxiv.

Chicago Sun–Times, October 31st 2011.

Clines, David J. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (NCBC1; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1984).

Cohen, Shaye J. D. ―Solomon and the Daughter of Pharaoh: Intermarriage, Conversion and the Impurity of Women,‖ JANES 16–17 (1984/85), 23–37.

–––––. Shaye J. D. ―From the Bible to the Talmud: The Prohibition of Intermarriage,‖ HAR 7: Biblical and Other Studies in Honour of Robert Gordis, Reuben Ahroni (ed.) (Ohio: Oberlin Printing Company, 1983), 23–39.

Comfort, Philip W. Early Manuscripts & Modern Translations of the New Testament (Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publisher, Inc., 1990).

Cone, James H. Black Theology and Black Power (New York: Seabury Press, 1969).

171

Conzelmann, Hans A Commentary on 1 Corinthians, translated by J. W. Leitch (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975).

Cornes, Andrew Divorce & Remarriage: Biblical Principles & Pastoral Practice (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993).

Coulibaly, Issiaka ―2 Corinthians‖ in Tokumboh Adeyemo (ed.), ABC (Nairobi, Kenya: Word Alive Publishers, 2010), 1425–1438.

Cox, Cheryl A. ―Marriage in Ancient Athens‖ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2011), 231–244.

Cranmer, Thomas, The Book of Common Prayer, Brian Cummings (ed.) (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011).

Cyropaedia translated by Miller, Walter (1914).

Davies, John K. ―Athenian Citizenship: The Descent Group and the Alternatives,‖ CJ 73 (Dec 1977–Jan 1978), 105–121.

Davies, Philip R. and Rogerson, John, The Old Testament World (Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2005).

Dozeman, Thomas B., Römer, Thomas and Schmid, Konrad, Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch?: Identifying Literary Works from Genesis through Kings (SBL; Atlanta, Georgia: SBL, 2011).

Dyson, Stephen L. ―The Family and the Roman Countryside‖ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2011), 431–444.

Edgar, Thomas R. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, H. Wayne House (ed.) (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1990), 151–214.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament Vol. 1 translated by J. A. Baker (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1961). en.wikipedia.org/wiki.Black_supremacy

Epstein, I. (ed.) ―Berakoth‖ in HEEBT, translated by Maurice Simon (London: The Soncino Press, 1990).

––––––––––––. ―B AbodahZarah‖ in HEEBT, translated by A Cohen (London: The Soncino Press, 1988).

172

––––––––––––. ―Sanhedrin‖ in HEEBT, translated by H. Freedman, (London: The Soncino Press, 1990).

––––––––––––. ―B. Yebamoth‖ in HEEBT, translated by Israel W. Slotki (London: The Soncino Press, 1994).

––––––––––––. ―B. Sotah‖ in HEEBT, translated by A Cohen (London: The Soncino Press, 1994).

––––––––––––. ―B Baba Kamma‖ in HEEBT, translated by E.W. Kirzner (London: The Soncino Press, 1990).

––––––––––––. ―Kiddushin‖ in HEEBT, translated by H. Freedman (London: The Soncino Press, 1990).

––––––––––––. ―Megillah‖ in HEEBT, translated by Maurice Simon (London: The Soncino Press, 1990).

––––––––––––. ―Menahoth‖ in HEEBT, translated by Eli Cahsdan (London: The Soncino Press, 1990).

––––––––––––. ―M Tohorot‖ in HEEBT, translated by Israel W. Slotki (London: The Soncino Press, 1989).

Eskenazi, Tamara, In An Age of Prose: A Literary & Approach to Ezra–Nehemiah (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988).

Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005)

––––––––––––. Matthew (NCBC2; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

Euripides, Electra, translated & edited by Kovacs, David (Cambridge, Massachusetts/ London, England: Harvard University Press, 1998).

Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1987).

Fields, Edward R. the Truth Track: Inter-Racial Dating, Inter-Racial Marriage, Judgement Day (Marietta, Georgia).

Fisher, Fred, Commentary on 1 & 2 Corinthians (Waco, Texas: Word Books Publishers, 1975).

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. ―Tobit‖ in Loren T. Stuckenbruck (eds.), CEJL (Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter, 2003).

173

France, Richard T. Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher (Exeter, UK: Paternoster, 1989).

Garland, David E. 1 Corinthians (BECNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academy, 2003).

Garvose, Joseph (translated and edited), The Lives of the 12 Caesars (USA: Parkway Publishing Company, 1931).

Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm &Tregelles, Samuel Prideaux, Hebrew–Chaldea Lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1979).

Gordon, Richard and Reynolds, Joyce ―Roman Inscriptions 1995–2000,‖ JRS 93 (2003), 212–294.

Green, Michael Message of Matthew (BST; Leicester, England: IVP, 2000).

Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on his Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994).

Günther, W. ―ἀδειθφο‖ in Colin Brown (ed.) NIDNTT, translated from Theologisches Begriffs lexicon Zum Neuen Testament (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1975), 254–258.

Gushee, David P. Getting Marriage Right: Realistic Counsel for Saving & Strengthening Relationship (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 2004).

Harris, Murray J. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company / Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2005).

Hare, Douglas R. A. Matthew (IBCTP: Louisville, Kentucky: John Knox Press, 1993).

Hayes, Christine E. Gentile Impurities and Jewish Identities: Intermarriage and Conversion from the Bible to the Talmud (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Hayes, Christine E. ―Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources,‖ HTR 92 (1999), 3–36.

Helyer, Larry R. Exploring Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period: A Guide for New Testament students (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002).

Holladay, William L. Köehler, Ludwig and Baumgartner, Walter. 2000. HALOT (Leiden: Brill).

174

Holmgren, Fredrick C. Ezra and Nehemiah: Israel Alive Again (ITC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ Edinburgh: The Handsel Press Limited, 1987).

Holmes, Samuel. ―Wisdom of Solomon‖ in R. H. Charles (ed.), APOT Vol. 1 (London: Oxford University Press, 1913), 518–568.

Homosexuality and Anglicanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Anglicanism#Church_of_the_P rovince_of_Central_Africa)

Hugh, Arthur. 2003. Plutarch’s Life–Volume Two, Translated by Cough, The Electronic Classics Series (The Pennsylvania State University).

Instone–Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: A Social and Literary Context (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ Cambridge, UK, 2002).

––––––––––––––––––. ―1 Corinthians 7 in the Light of the Graeco–Roman Marriage and Divorce Papyri,‖ TB 51. 2 (2001), 101–115.

Isaac, E. ―(Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch‖ in J. H. Charlesworth (eds.), OTP vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1983), 5–90.

James, Murdock (translator). The New Testament Translated from the Syriac: Peshitto Version (New Jersey: Gorgias Press, 2001).

Janzen, David ―Witch–Hunts, Purity and Social Boundaries: The Expulsion of the Foreign Women in Ezra 9–10,‖ David J.A. Cline & Philip R. Davies (eds), JSOTSup 350 (London: Sheffield Academy Press, 2002).

Japhet, Sara ―Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah Investigated Anew,‖ VT 18 (1968), 330–371.

Jones, Nicholas F. The Association of Classical Athens (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

Josephus, ―Antiquities of the Jews‖ in Josephus: Complete Works, translated by William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1960), 22–427.

Kee, H.C. ―Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Testament of Levi‖ in James H. Charlesworth (eds.), OTP Vol. 1: Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (New York: Doubleday & Company Inc., 1983), 775–828.

175

Keener, Craig S. And he Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament (Peabody Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991).

––––––––––––. A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ UK: Cambridge, 1999).

––––––––––––. 1–2 Corinthians (NCBC2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

––––––––––––. ―Interethnic Marriages in the New Testament,‖ CTR 6/2 (2009), 25–43.

Kidner, Derek. Ezra & Nehemiah: An Introduction and Commentary (TOTC; Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 1979).

Klawans, Jonathan ―Gentile Impurity in Ancient Judaism,‖ AJSR (1995), 285–312.

Kopolyo, Joe. ―Matthew‖ in Tokumboh Adeyemo (ed.), ABC (Nairobi, Kenya: Word Alive Publishers, 2010), 1131–1196.

Kruse, Colin G. The Second Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (TNTC; Leicester, England: IVP/ Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing Company, 1987).

Kugler, Robert. ―Consecrate‖ in Katharine Doob Sakenfeld (ed.), NIDB Vol. 1 (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2006), 726–727.

Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland, Matthew Black, C. M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger and A. Wikgren. The Greek New Testament (4th ed.) (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993).

Lange, Armin ―Your Daughters Do Not Give to Their Sons and Their Daughter Do Not Take for Your Sons (Ezra 9: 12): Intermarriage in Ezra 9–10 and in the Pre– Maccabean Dead Sea Scrolls,‖ BN–NF 137(2008), 17–39.

Lefkowizt, Mary R. And Fant, Maureen B. Women’s Life in Greece and Rome (Baltimore, Maryland: John Hopkins University Press, 1982).

Longenecker, Richard N. Galatians (WBC1; vol 41, Dallas: Word Books Publisher, 1990).

Longman, Tremper III and Dillard, Raymond B. An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2006).

Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 1–7 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2007).

176

–––––––––. Matthew 8–20 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2001).

–––––––––. Matthew 21–28 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 2005).

–––––––––. Studies in Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/ UK: Cambridge, 2005).

MacArthur, John F. Right Thinking in a World Gone Wrong (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 2009).

―Marriages between Christians and Muslims: Pastoral Guidelines for Christians and Churches in Europe ,‖ CECCEECIEC (2008) www.ccee.ch/ressourcen/download/20080515151749.rtf

―Marrying a Non–Christian‖ in Q & A With William Lane Craig # 19, (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/marrying-a-non-christian

McClendon, James William. Systematic Theology: Witness (Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 2000).

Michel, O. ―λαφο‖ in Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, TDNT (abridged in one vol.) by Geoffrey William Bromley (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1964), 625–627.

Morris, Leon. 1 Corinthians (TNTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987).

Mounce, Robert H. Matthew (NIBC; Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991).

Muraoka,Takamitsu A Greek–English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets (Louvain, Belgium: Peeters, 2002).

Naudev, Jackie A. ―vdq‖ in Willem A. VanGemeren (ed.), NIDOTTE Vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1997), 877–887.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

–––––––––––––––––––––. 1 Enoch 1: A Commentary on the Book of 1 Enoch, Chapters 1–36; 81–108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

Noam, Vered ―Another Look at the Rabbinic Conception of Gentiles from the Perspective of Impurity Laws‖ in Benjamin Isaac and Yuval Shahar (eds.),

177

Judaea–Palaestina Babylon and Rome: Jews in Antiquity (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), (2012), 89–110.

Nolland, John. The Gospel of Matthew (NIGNT; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/UK: Cambridge/ Bletchley: The Paternoster Press, 2005).

Noth, Martin The Chronicler’s History, translated by H.G.M. Williamson (JSOTSupp 50; Sheffield: JSOT, 1987).

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academy, 1999).

Olyan, Saul M. ―Purity Ideology in Ezra–Nehemiah as a Tool to Reconstitute the Community,‖ JSJ 35 (2004), 1–16.

Perkinson, James W. White Theology: Outing Supremacy in Modernity (New York and Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).

Philo, ―The Special Laws III‖ in The Works of Philo, translated by C.D. Yonge (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 1993).

Plotinus, Against the Gnostics, translated by A. H. Armstrong (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinmann Ltd, 1966).

Presbyterian Church of Canada: http://presbyterian.ca

Redditt, Paul L. ―The Book of Malachi in Its Social Setting,‖ CBQ 56 (1994), 240–255.

Regev, Eyal ―Moral Impurity and the Temple in Light of Ancient Greek Practice and Qumranic Ideology,‖ HTR 97 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 383–411.

―Resources for Special Occasions in Personal and Family Life‖ in A Manual for Worship and Service (Canada: Canadian Baptist Ministries, 1998).

Richards, Larry. Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, House, H. Wayne (ed.) (Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990), 215–268.

Rienecker, Fritz. Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, Cleon L. Rogers (ed.) Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980).

Roberts, Barbara. Not Under Bondage: Biblical Divorce for Abuse, Adultery and Desertion (North Carolina: Maschil Press, 2008).

178

Saba, Sara. ‗Greek Cities and Families‘ in Beryl Rawson (ed.), A Companion to Families in the Greek and Roman Worlds (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2011), 395– 407.

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis (JPS Torah Commentary Series; Philadelphia & New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989).

–––––––––––––. Exodus (JPS Torah Commentary Series; Philadelphia & New York: The Jewish Publication Society, 1991).

Sherwin–White, Adrian N. The Roman Citizenship (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).

Simonetti, Manlio (ed.) Matthew 14–28 (ACCS; NT, Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP, 2002).

Sinclair, R. K. Democracy and Participation in Athens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Snaith, Norman H. ―The Sin-Offering and the Guilt–Offering,‖ VT 15 (1965), 73–80.

Snyder, Graydon F. First Corinthians: A Faith Community Commentary (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1992).

Southwood , K. E. ―And They Could Not Understand Jewish Speech: Language, Ethnicity, and Nehemiah‘s Intermarriage Crisis,‖ JTS 62 (2011), 1–19.

Sprinkle, Joe M. ―The Rationale of the Laws of Clean and Unclean in the Old Testament,‖ JETS 43 (2000), 637–657.

Stowers, Stanley Kent. Letters in Greco–Roman Antiquity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1989).

Targum: Pseudo–Jonathan in The Aramaic Bible, eds. Martin McNamara et al, translated by Ernest G. Clarke (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1998).

Targum of the Minor Prophets in The Aramaic Bible: Targums, eds. Martin McNamara et al translated by Kevin J. Cathcart and Robert P. Gordon (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1990).

Tashir, David A. ―Reinvestigation of the Linguistic Relationship Between Chronicles and Ezra–Nehemiah,‖ VT 38 (1988), 165–193.

The Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Nigeria: http://www.rccg.org/foundation.php

179

Thiselton, Anthony C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NIGTC; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000).

Trenchard, Warren C. Complete Vocabulary Guide to the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1998).

Ukah, Asonzeh Franklin–Kennedy. The Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG), Nigeria. Local Identities and Global Processes in African Pentecostalism. Dissertation zurErlangung des Doktorgradesan der Kulturwissenschaftlich Fakultät der Universität Bayreuth (2003).

Vanderkam, James C. From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (Boston, USA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2002).

Van Wijk–Bos,Johanna W. H. Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther (WBC2; Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 1–98.

Vestergaarn, Torben, ‗Milesian Immigrants in Late Hellenistic and Roman Athens‘ in G.J. Oliver (ed.), The Epigraph of Death: Studies in the History and Society of Greece and Rome (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2000).

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basis: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1996).

Weanzana, Nupanga, ―1&2 Chronicles‖ in Tokumboh Adeyemo (ed.), ABC (Nairobi, Kenya: Word Alive Publishers, 2010), 467–530.

Weaver, P.R.C. ―The Status of Children in Mixed Marriages‖ in Family in Ancient Rome: New Perspectives, ed. Beryl Rawson (Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1987), 145–169.

Wilcock, Michael, The Message of Chronicles (BST; Leicester, England: IVP, 1987).

Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra and Nehemiah (OTG; Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1985).

–––––––––––––––––. Ezra and Nehemiah (WBC1; Waco, Texas: Word Book Publisher, 1985).

Willi–Plein, Ina. ―Problems of Intermarriage in Postexilic Times‖ in Moshe Bar-Asher, Dalit Rom–Shiloni, Emmanuel Tov, Nili Wazana (eds.), Shai le–Sara Japhet: Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis and Language (Jerusalem: Bialik Institution), (2007), 177–189.

.in R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer and Bruce K ‖אָ חֹות and אָ ח― .Wolf, Herbert Waltke (eds.), TWOT Vol 1 (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980).

180

Wooden, Glenn. 2 Esdras in Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright (eds.), ANETS (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Xenophon, Anabasis, translated by Carleton L. Brownson (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1922).

––––––––. Scripta Minora Vol VII, ed. E. C. Marchant (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press/ London: William Heinemann Ltd, 1971).

Werman, Cana ―Jubilees 30: Building A Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage,‖ HTR 90 (1997), 1–22.

Wilson, Des ―Traditional Systems of Communication in Modern African Development: An Analytical Viewpoint,‖ AMR 1 (1987), 87–104.

Wintermute, O. S. ―Jubilees‖ in James H. Charlesworth (ed.), OTP Vol. 2: Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, & Odes,Fragments of Lost Judeo–Hellenistic Works (New York: Doubleday and Company Inc., 1985), 35–142.

Wolak, Arthur J. ―Ezra‘s Radical Solution to Judean Assimilation,‖ JBQ 40 (2012), 93– 105.

Zehnder, Markus ―A Fresh Look at Malachi II: 13–16,‖ VT 53 (2003), 224–259.

181