REVEREND MlLTON T.WELLS (1901-1975)
EASTERN BIBLE INSTITUTE
GREEN LANE, PENNSYLVANIA
1957 – (Public Domain)
Note by Standerinfamilycourt: Rev. Wells was an Assemblies of God Pastor and served as President of the Eastern Bible Institute in Pennsylvania, now known as the University of Valley Forge.
Our Lord Jesus Christ would have called his scholarly work, with its rigorous application of all the principles of hermeneutics to the scriptural texts on marriage “faithful”.
The author uses the term “Five-Word-School” for those who reject Christ’s teaching, centered around Luke 16:18 and other scripture, that the marriage covenant is dissolved only by the physical death of one of the spouses; those who instead prefer to center their view around Matthew 19:9 according to the Erasmean / Lutheran / Calvinist rendering, in such a way as to contrive a “biblical exception” (except-it-be-for-fornication) to justify remarriage after civil divorce.
CHAPTER I – WHAT CONSTITUTES MARRIAGE?
The true definition of marriage is given by Christ in Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark in 10: 1-12. These passages will be discussed detailedly later in this book. Christ based his ·definition of marrlage on the principles laid down “from the beginning”, as described in Genesis 2: 21 -24. These principles did not permit polygamy “from the beginning.” The man, of his own choice, was to “leave his father and mother” and “cleave unto his wife” and the Scripture adds, “they shall be one flesh.” The taking of the wife was to be for life, for Christ said: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain; but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Mark 10:6,9).
The underscored words can leave no doubt that it was God’s intention from the beginning that man should have but one wife at a time, for the Scripture above states that the husband shall “cleave to his wife” not to his wives. Such a union of a man’s choice is a union which “God hath joined together”; as we shall see in the study of the harmony of Matt. 19:1 -12 and Mark 10: 1- 12. Indeed it is not man but GOD who joins husband and wife together as one. Neither the clergyman nor the justice of the peace ties the knot. Marriage is not of civil political or human origin. It was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden when God joined Adam and Eve as husband and wife. God has not given any government the right to legislate any matrimonial laws contrary to His revelation. Those who circumvent the true laws of marriage by adopting the human laws of marriage will answer for it at the eternal judgment bar of God Almighty. Any judge who dissolves a marriage is dissolving it contrary to the law- of God and will himself answer before the true Judge of all men for his action. Any minister who marries anyone to a divorcee who has a living mate will himself answer in eternity for participating in the sin of adultery for allegedly joining together those whom Christ has forbidden to be husband and wife.
Marriage is more than cohabitation between a male and female. Christ’s statement in John 4: 17, 18 proves that fact, as do the many Scriptures of the Old Testament which affirm that an unlawful union of a single man with a single girl is fornication. If, however, one party to the unlawful union is married, sin is called adultery. The passage In John follows:
The [Samaritan] woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband. For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now has is not thy husband; in that saidst thou truly.
Some have supposed that physical union of itself constitutes marriage. Christ’s above statement, “he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” makes it exceedingly clear that this is not so. It seems that she was a divorced and remarried woman because the men with whom she had earlier lived were called “husbands” by Christ. It is unlikely that the five husbands died one after the other prior to her marrying the succeeding one. The spirit of the passage indicates that he was dealing with a dissolute woman who freely divorced one husband for another. The man with whom she now lived was not her husband despite the fact that she had married him. Hollywood has many such women. Indeed, marital union consummates marriage; however. the union is entered before that. Adam took Eve to be his wife before he cohabited with her. And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man, And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen. 2:22,23a). Note that Adam spoke of Eve as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (ONE FLESH) before he went in to her. This was true because her body was made of his body, her flesh of his flesh; and this was obviously before coitus. In this light a woman becomes a man’s wife from the time that he publicly takes her, lawfully before men and lawfully before God, to be such. Any other view is both unscriptural and unacceptable to all serious thinking individuals, whether Christian or non-Christian, To accept another view is to accept promiscuity, prostitution, and polygamy with all their polluting and degenerating customs, vile practices, and evil consequences. No thinking parent would want his son or daughter to become a victim of such a society. The all-wise God provided that marriage should be socially and morally exalting by making it a life long union before God and man.
Other Scriptures show that both in the Old and New Testaments a betrothed woman was considered to be a man’s wife before marriage was consummated in coitus. See pages 61 through 62 for a more detailed discussion of this matter. The fact that a man who cohabited with a betrothed damsel (against her will) was put to death under Moses indicates that fleshly union did not of itself con stitute marriage; neither is there a suggestion in the Scripture (Deut, 22:25) that such a young woman was not still the wife of her husband despite her unfortunate and grievous experience, In fact, the young man in question would not have been put to death had she been an unbetrothed damsel (Deut.22:28, 29). Deut.22 :24 states that the man who commits fornication with a damsel that is betrothed has “humbled his neighbor’s wife.” Matthew’s Gospel confirms muchofthe above. Joseph was deeply distressed that Mary, the virgin, was with childbefore he cohabited with her. He would have “put her away priv!ly (Matt. I :19) had not the angel of the Lord appeared unto him and said, “Joseph ..fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. l :20). Verse 24 adds, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him,and took unto him his wife…There is no doubt, therefore, that a betrothed woman was known in a Biblical sense to be the wife of a man before he “knew her” in the intimacies of consummated marriage. Even in modem society a woman is known and recognized as a man’s wife immediately after the wedding ceremony before coitus. In fact, should such a husband be killed on the same day before coitus. the wife would have legal rights to a wife’s share of his property. This is common to the laws of most Western nations. A man or woman cannot expect to be (nor are they later) properly united when they take their vows of matrimony unless they expect to give to each other conjugal rights.
The Biblical idea of marriage provides for a stable home and the interests of the children of that home .It is not a mere human contract which may be scrapped whenever one or the other may choose. Such a contract would permit divorce by withdrawal of either spouse from the contract upon dissatisfaction with the manmade union. The tiny sect of early Christians were in the midst of a society which practiced that kind of marriage. They were bold to teach and practice Christ’s teaching respecting marriage and, as a result, revolutionized marriage in the civilized world in subsequent generations. The early Church created a new conception of a monogamous lifelong marriage. It insisted that such was God’s law and that its members conform to that belief. The fact that their belief and practice transformed society’s view and practice of marriage throughout the civilized world can only be accounted for by the fact that it came from the teaching of the divine Lord, It is not strange, therefore, that for many generations most Christian churches have had within their marriage ceremony, at leastin substance, the following words:
I, B.,take thee C. .to be my wedded (wife)(husband), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for 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,
Unregenerated men of the day teach that when the partners cease to love one another, marriage may cease. Christ, to the contrary, taught that when sentimental love ceased to be felt, the marriage union continued. In fact, the Scriptures are plain; the union of a male and female is a real marriage whether or not”falling in love” was the origin of it. Adam did not find his wife; God brought her to him. Isaac had no opportunity to “fall in love” with Rebekah; she was chosen by Abraharn through Eliezer for his son. Such arrangements were common in Bible times and are common today over a large part of the world. Indeed, love may exist apart from marriage and marriage apart from love. Hollywood has debased and prostituted the meaning of love. They have given it a purely sensual and selfish meaning. The movie world suggests that when you become “fed up” with the girl you married, you may drop her, because you are no longer gratified with her. Sex is the center and circumference of marriage on the screen, and.unfortunately the screen in theater and home has set the standards o f marriage for a very large segment of American society and has subtly infiltrated the thinking and standards even of evangelicals.
There are three Greek words for love: eros , philia, and agape. The first is centered in sex and sex atttaction. It seeks its lover for its own gratification and fulfillment. The second, philia, is the word which best explains friendship. It means a mutual sharing of common interests, attrations and ideals. Each lives for the other while the other is loyal and true. It is based on reciprocity. I love you for you fondly love me.”Let the fondness of either of the two cease and the philia ceases to carry through. The last of the three words, has within it the spirit of altruism. and selflessness. The word describes the love of God which is commended to mankind in spite of his sinfulness. adulteries, dishonesties, hates, bitternesses, infidelity, and unfaithfulness. SeeRom.5:6-10. Gods aid to Israel,
“I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee” (Jer.31:3).
The last kind of love (agape) Christ expects to be existent in marriage. “Hus bands, love your wives. Even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph.5:25). This kind of love persists in showing itself to one who neither merits nor deserves it. True, the love of eros and philia are not superseded by agape; they are enriched and dominated bythe latter which is God-like. The spouse is loved for his or her own sake and for God’s sake. Human standards of love are set aside for God’s. Marriage in this sense of love as instituted at the beginning is lifelong and exclusive. It Is indeed, in the sight of heaven, indissoluble!
====================================================
CHAPTER II – BASIC RULES OF SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION WHICH ARE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPT BY EVANGELICAL CHURCHES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT
A. Maxims and Principles of Interpretation Follow
Bernard Ramm presents the following in his text entitled, Protestant Biblical Interpretation:
(Bernard Ramm: Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Boston, W. A. Wilde Company, 1950, pp.78-96)
A LIST OF GENERAL HERMENEUTICAL MAXIMS
( I) The Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an accommodation of divine truth to the human mind.
(2) We must interpret the Bible with the realization that it is a progressive revelation becoming more clear as it nears the completion.
(3) Our interpretations must keep a sound historical basis, i.e. our interpretatlons must not create an historlcal blunder.
(4) In our interpretation we must discover the meaning of a passage, not attribute one to it a priori. Happy is the man who can approach his Bible as free from predilections, prejudices, and biases as it is possible to do, humanly speaking. Too often the Bible is approached with stock in·trade or mere traditional interpretations. But the task of the interpreter is to determine the meaning of the Bible, not to verify his prejudices.
(5) Give preference to the clearest and most evident interpretation of a passage. Frequently the interpreter is confronted with two equally probable interpretations as far as grammatical rules are concerned. One is a strain upon our credulity. while the other makes good sense. We are to choose that one which makes the best sense and imposes the least strain on our credulity.
(6) No statement should be interpreted as having more than one meaning unless unusually strong reasons warrant. One of the most persistent hermeneutlcal sins is to put two interpretations on one passage of Scripture breaking the force of the literal meaning and obscuring the Word of God.
(7) Interpretation is one; application is many.
(8) Interpret the Bible harmonistically. This Is based on the belief in the veracity of Scripture. Therefore, the Christian interpreter seeks to interpret the Bible free from all contradictions. He will sympathetically endeavor to adjust all parts of the Bible to each other so there will be a consistent system.
(9) Everything essential in Scripture is clearly revealed, This principle maintains that if a truth is an essential teaching of the Bible we need not scour the Bible to find it, nor will it be taught In one passing reference. ….The basic manner in which this principle is violated is as follows: a certain point of theological debate arises and its scripturalness is questioned. The defender of the view then proceeds to find a verse or passage that has a verbal or perhaps even conceptual reference to his doctrine. The defender proceeds to invest the verse or passage with the doctrine o r dogma he is defending. Having found a peg on which to hang his doctrine. he considers it Scriptural.
We may consider something Scripturally proved when the very body of the concept is found in the Bible itself; not when we can find a peg to hang a doctrine upon.
( 10) All interpretations must be grounded in the original languages if they are to pass as accurate and factual interpretations.
(11) Ignorance as to the meaning of some passages must be admitted.
(12) Obscure passages mu:st give right of way to clear passages. There is the danger and temptation to invest a passage of very dubious meaning with far greater content than it will bear.
(13) Check all interpretations by referring them to secular studies, a doctrinal system, and the great efforts of the past.
(14) Finally, the Old Testament must be continuously searched for help in interpreting the New Testament .
(Lewis Sperry Chafer: Systematic Theology, Vol. I. Dallas, Texas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1947. p 8);
Leading theologians of the day accept the following as a fundamental principle of interpretation:
Induction is distinctly the scriptural method of interpretation. Such inductions are imperfect when some but not all the texts bearing on a given subject are made the foundation of a doctrinal declaration.
The following principle is universally accepted by evangelical teachers:
The consensus of opinion of Bible Scholars is against founding a doctrine upon an isolated verse of Scripture when the preponderance of Scripture states otherwise. No one should ever attempt to bring the general tenor of Scripture to the terms of an isolated verse, but should rather call the isolated verse to the terms of the broader teaching of Scripture on a given subject.
B. The Law of Witnesses is Plain.
In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (IICor. 13:1).
C. The Treatment of Contexts Is Important.
- General Principles of Contexts and Their Abuses
It is also an accepted rule of true interpretation that every text should be understood in the light of its context or contexts. Every verse of Scripture or phrase of Scripture has both a limited context and a general context. The statements immediately before and after a given verse of Scripture which bear on the same subject are its limited context. The position that the text holds in reference to the book in which it is found is likewise important. The general context embraces both the book in which the text is found and its relationship to the general tenor of Scripture found in THE BOOK, the Holy Scriptures, as a whole.
Bernard Ramm has shown the importance of a context in this statement:
Just as a knowledge of each individual word falls to yield the meaning of a sentence and recourse must be made to grammar, so at times when all the grammatical data are known the sentence is still uninterpreted. For example, the word nature has several major meanings in the English language as a consultation of any unabridged dictionary will reveal. What the word means in any given sentence can only be determined by the context. So the study of the context takes its place with the study of words and grammar as absolutely is very conscious of contexts.
It is striking that the contexts of Scriptures which support the Conservative School of Divorce are attacked by the FIVE WORD School to discredit their having any validity as a support for texts of Scripture which speak strongly for the Conservative position of divorce. Examples of the practice of the FIVE WORD School in this regard will follow later.
2. Context of Parallel Accounts in the Gospel
A full treatment of this subject will appear under the introduction to the harmony of the two divorce accounts, Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark 10:1-12.
D. The Presumption of Establishing a Doctrine upon One Text is Revealed
There is a wide difference of opinion in the Church of Christ between the Arminian and Calvinistic schools of theology respecting the eternal security of the Christian believer, yet neither of these schools presumes to build their doctrine upon one text. Neither do opposing schools, which differ widely respecting their views of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, pre-millenialism, the time of the rapture of the Church, and the doctrine of sanctification, presume to build their doctrine on one text.
Think of the presumption of either an individual or group that would seek to establish a doctrine of the absolute humanity of Christ. to the utter exclusion of his deity, on ONE text, namely, I Tim. 2:5:
For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men. the man Christ Jesus.
The statement of this text that Christ is a man must be modified in the light of a preponderance of Scriptures which show Him to be deity as well as man.
Think of the presumption of either an individual or group that would seek to establish a doctrine that human teachers are not needed in the Christian Church because of the statement of ONE text, namely, I John 2:27:
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
The statement of this text that a Christian needs no man to teach him must be modified in the light of a preponderance of Scriptures which show that God has appointed teachers for the Church to instruct others under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Think of the presumption of either an individual or group that would think to establish a doctrine of the final restitution of all wicked men on ONE text.namely, I Cor.15:22:
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
There can be no doubt that this text teaches that all shall be made alive in Christ, but it is and must be modified and qualified by the preponderance of other Scriptures bearing on the subject which show that all men will not have eternal life, but only those who repent of sin and accept Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord.
Think of the presumption of an individual or group that would seek to establish the right of an innocent party to marry another after divorcing his spouse if he. or they, sought to build such a doctrine on ONE isolated text. namely, Matt. 19:9(A.V.):
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another. committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which ls put away doth commit adultery.
Truly this text appears on the surface to support the assumption of the group of interpreters called the FIVE WORD School, but the preponderance of texts and passages of Scripture teach otherwise, as will be shown in this book.
SIFC: Did Jesus really say anything at all about an “exception clause” as apparently quoted (solely) in the book of Matthew? Is there such a thing — or was Erasmus and virtually the entire post-Reformation Church in serious, soul-endangering error? Have literally millions gone to hell since the 16th century for unrepented biblical adultery “sanctified” within the church walls? To get to the truth, we need to dive into some hermeneutical principles, next installment, Chapter IV.
Continue to Chapters III and IV
www.standerinfamilycourt.com
7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!