Matthew 5:33,34

"Again, you have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not on-oath, but shalt from-give unto the Affirmer thy oaths: 34 but I say unto you, swear not at all..."

In both the Old Testament and the New, the importance of doing what we promise is critically important.  But, there's a definite difference in how we personally assure others (and God) that we will perform as stated. In the verse and a half above, Jesus makes this difference as clear as possible.  He says, in the Etymological New Testament that "Thou shalt not on-oath..."  The ENT's ultra-literal translation allows the reader to see the two-part word Jesus used to indicate a superficial ("on") oath.  The OT forbade superficial oaths, on-oaths.  One had to genuinely "from-give" what one had sworn.  This is one method to help ensure that one does as promised: make the oath more elaborate.  Add a phrase like "so help me God" to a promise.  Perhaps, if we make our oaths more intense and complex, we will really perform them. 

Jesus takes a different tact.  By stripping our affirmations of all verbal clutter, we are left with simply our Yes or our No.  Nothing else...except our integrity.  This minimalist approach is the New Testament answer to human perfidy. We do as we say because we wish to retain our dignity, our self respect.  We claim allegiance to Jesus and his teaching.  And now we will do as we have promised.

Matthew 5:32

"but I say unto you, that every one who doth from-loose his woman, except for the cause of fornication, attempteth to make her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is from-loosed is perceived to commit adultery."

Most translations of the Bible that profess to be literal, also add italic words.  These additional words are not literally present in the text, but clarify the sense of the verse.  The Etymological New Testament also uses this same method.  In the verse above two key words are added to make clear Jesus' teaching on divorce and remarriage. 

The husband (or wife) who divorces a partner for frivolous reasons is actually attempting to make their spouse an adulterer.  And, in that particular Jewish culture, the person who married the divorcee is often perceived to be committing adultery.  Jesus teaching on marriage, here and elsewhere, shows that two things are important concerning marriage: a very strong commitment AND a non-judgmental attitude toward the one who is unfairly divorced. 

Matthew 5:31

"It was said also to those of old time, Whosoever shall from-loose his woman, let him give her a writing of from-stand."

In this section of Matthew 5, Jesus says some words about what we call divorce.  The Etymological New Testament translates the verb and noun ultra-literally in verse 31 above.  The verb is "from-loose" while the noun is "from-stand."  To divorce one's spouse is to loose that person from the marriage bond.  The resulting state is that they now stand from that former relationship.  

In this case, the person being divorced, or from-loosed, is "his woman."  The Greek text has no special word for "wife" (or "husband").  Rather, the context determines the translation...for most Bibles.  The ENT consistently uses the literal "woman" or "man" which allows the reader to see the semantic range of these words in various contexts.  

Matthew 5:29 ...and Figures of Speech

"And if thy right eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should be from-whole-loosed, and not thy whole body be cast into Hinnom-Ravine."

The genres of scripture are many and varied.  Even within Matthew's Account of Jesus' life, the reader must be aware of the various literary types. In this 29th verse of the fifth chapter, the Etymological New Testament remains very literal.  The ENT provides no additional clues to the figures of speech being used.  That is a limitation of ultra-literal translation.  Versions of scripture that tend toward paraphrase can be very helpful in passages such as these.  And, many good commentaries also make clear the hyperbole intentionally used by Jesus with his first century audience.

After his use of hyperbole to encourage us to pluck out our eye, Jesus speaks of what happens to us if we fail to live a disciplined life.  The end result is being cast  into Hinnom-Ravine.  Many translations that are known as being very literal, translate "Hinnom Ravine" as "hell" in this and related verses.  The problem is that translating as "hell" is actually a paraphrase rather than literal translation.  It could be that one might be able to demonstrate that Jesus' linguistic use of the Hinnom valley southwest of Jerusalem was figurative.  But, one would then need to go on to show what the specific literal concept was. But, if a translation is set forth as being a literal one, then it needs to fulfill that role.  The proper place for speculation or theological argumentation is in a commentary or at least in a paraphrase of the text.

The Aramaic word GEHENNA is thus rendered ultra-literally in the Etymological New Testament as Hinnom-Ravine. How to understand this expression, whether literally or as a figure of speech, is left to the research of the reader.

Matthew 5:28

"but I say unto you, that every one who doth view-cast on a woman to on-feel after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Some verses of Scripture seem particularly prone to misinterpretation.  Or to strange and even esoteric application.  Through ultra-literal translation, the Etymological New Testament provides a way for us to take our time as we consider Jesus' teaching on adultery. 

Two words of interest in this verse are "view-cast" and "on-feel."  Through literal translation of the Greek components of these words, the ENT helps suggest the nature of this adultery of the heart.  In both cases, the Greek text uses intensifiers:  view-casting and on-feeling.  This is an action and mental state that require time and prolonged focus of our heart.  The issue for Jesus in this passage is not casual interest, but something much more intense.  To stay after someone with "on-feel" is to begin to cross the line of healthy sexuality. 

Matthew 5:25

"Well-mind with thy adversary quickly, while thou art with the same, in the way; lest the adversary beside-give thee to the judge, and the judge beside-give thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison."

Jesus' instruction in this verse above is to come to terms, to be reconciled with your adversary.  The Etymological New Testament provides the ultra-literal translation "well-mind" for this sense of concord we are to reach with those who consider themselves our opponents. Coming to a place of agreement, of wellness with those who work against us: this can be a way forward in tough situations.  If we do not make the effort to "well-mind" with an adversary, then we may find ourselves "beside-given", derailed to our own prison, entrapped by our own hubris. 

Matt 5:21

"You have heard that it was said to them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in-had of judgment:"

The Greek word that the Etymological New Testament translates as "in-had" is often rendered "danger" by many versions in this passage.  The ENT's translation reflects the literal two part Greek word that means to hold or have very closely. In Hebrews 2, the word is usually translated as "bondage" rather than danger or guilt.  In the papyrus, the word is used of a broad range of things that can bind us to themselves.  That binding agent can be something like killing (as in the verse above) or zeal or even passionate love. 

In the verse above, Jesus makes the observation that the act of killing binds us with judgment.  We are "in-had" of judgment.  Similarly, as the next verse will show, it is our core thoughts and attitudes which bind us to certain outcomes in our lives.  We can be bound to love...or to its opposite.