| 4. Linguistic Exegesis The sentence opens with timios {τίμιος | tí-mi-os} in the nominative, fronted before the subject ὁ γάμος, producing an emphatic predicate construction: “honorable the marriage,” which is most naturally rendered with an implied copula as an instruction, “marriage should be honored.” The prepositional phrase en pasin {ἐν πᾶσιν | en pâ-sin} broadens the scope to all people or all situations. The coordinated clause kai hē koite amiantos {καὶ ἡ κοίτη ἀμίαντος | kaí hē koí-tē a-mí-an-tos} parallels the first, with hē koite as the subject and amiantos as a predicate adjective, again with an implied “is/should be,” using “bed” as a metonymy for marital sexual relations. There is no explicit main verb in these two nominative clauses, so English supplies “should be” to convey the hortatory force. The explanatory conjunction gar {γὰρ | gar} introduces the rationale clause: pornous gar kai moichous krinei ho theos {πόρνους γὰρ καὶ μοιχοὺς κρινεῖ ὁ θεός | pór-nous gar kaí moi-khoús kri-neî ho the-ós}. Here, pornous and moichous form a coordinated double direct object of krinei, while ho theos functions as the subject placed after the verb for emphasis on the objects under judgment. The future indicative krinei encodes a certain, decisive future action. The shift from nominal, verbless clauses to a finite verb in the final clause creates a movement from ideal norm (honored, undefiled marriage) to solemn warning (inevitable divine judgment), which the translations maintain by rendering the first part as moral exhortation and the last as a firm predictive statement. |