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.
Herewith, the final two chapters of DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE? The last installment will be the Summary and Appendix.
Chapter X – AN ANALYSIS OF HE CONTEXT OF MATT. 19:9 AND MARK 10:11, 12
A. Twelve Points in the Context and Text of Matt.19:9 and Mark 10:11, 12 Which Reveal That Matt. 19:9 Does Not Teach the Dissolubility of Marriage for Any Cause Including Adultery
Frequently, statesmen make declarations which are misunderstood and sometimes, deliberately distorted because the hearers orreaders are indifferent the context of the isolated statement which is criticized. In January 1956, while John Foster Dulles was Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, an article appeared in the LIFE magazine entitled, “How Dulles Averred War.” The Secretary of State said that most of the statements specifically attributed to him were quotations or close paraphrases of what he had already said publicly. Many of his political enemies seized upon one sentence to misrepresent the intent of what he said. Some even of his own political party misunderstood what he meant to convey in the isolated statement. Mr. Dulles later said, “The.. .sentence, if read out of context, does, I think, give an incorrect impression. .. In a subsequent issue of LIFE magazine, Editor -in-Chief Henry R. Luce, who has taken full responsibility for the preparation and presentation of the article said:
Most of the attacks on Secretary Dulles are based on one paragraph of direct quotation from the Secretary containing the words “verge of war” and “brink”. Taken in the context of the whole article, there is nothing in Secretary Dulles’ words which is contrary to common sense. For the Secretary is stating in vivid terms the perils of appeasement which should be understood by free men everywhere. Nevertheless our use of these particular words in the headlines was unfortunate in that they did not fully reflect the main emphasis of the lengthy conversation which was on the Administration’s vigorous pursuit of peace. [The underscoring (italics, in this editing) is that of the writer.]
(Henry R. Luce: Editorial, LIFE, January 1956, Chicago.)
If the editor of this leading magazine found it important to direct friendly readers and critics of Mr. Dulles to the context of the Secretary’s misunderstood declaration that they might correctly understand his isolated remark, is it not infinitely more important that Christian students should examine Christ’s isolated statement of Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) in the light of its complete context as reported by the two Gospel writers, Matthew and Mark, as in both Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark10: 1- 12? The statement of a secretary of state may affect the welfare of a nation for a decade or a generation. Christ’s statement of Matt. 19:9, if wrongly interpreted, may endanger the eternal destiny of those who presume thereby to dissolve their marriage and be married to another while having a living mate, since Christ clearly declares in Matt. 5:32, 19:9, Mark 10:11-12, and Luke 16:18 that such an illicit union is a continuing state of adultery. The Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 7:10, 11, 39 and Rom. 7:2,3 indicates that he believed that Christ taught the complete indissolubility of marriage.
Twelve facts of the context of Matt. 19:9 reveal that Christ did not in the isolated statement of Matt. 19:9 state that man might dissolve his marriage by divorce to marry another, even for the sin of adultery.
- The first fact is the significance of the Genesis 2:21-24 passage which Christ, in part, quotes in Matt.19:4-6a in reply to the first question of the Pharisees. “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Christ said:
Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh (Matt. 19:4, 5).
The Greek verb leave is future, active, indicative, with the force of an imperative. Williams has accordingly translated this verb, “must leave”.. The Greek word cleave is very strong in its connotation. It has the force of ‘”glue” or “cement. ” The Greek verb cleave is future, passive, indicative. It is passive because God does the joining of husband and wife. Marriage is more than human devised contract which can be broken at the whim of man. Williams’ translation of the parallel passage in Mark of “shall be one flesh” (10:8) is must become one”. This phrase in the Greek is in the imperative mood. Thus this statement is a command respecting the indissolubility of marriage in contrast to Moses’ suffering (tolerating) divorce. The two mates become ONE FLESH because GOD today, as in Eden, does the joining; and what He joins is made ONE FLESH as at the beginning when Eve was taken from the side of Adam, and thus was obviously one flesh with him,..To Christ; a spouse with two mates is a monstrosity, for in the divine economy of marriage, one plus one equals ONE, and there is no such thing as two wives plus one husband or two husbands plus one wife equalling ONE FLESH. A divorcee who is remarried while his former wife is still living has two women (although the first lives apart from him), but only the first is his scriptural wife. The one flesh union with his first wife is still binding!
When Christ completed His quotation (Matt. 19:4, 5) from Genesis 2:21-24, He drew the following positive conclusion: “Therefore they are no more twain but one flesh“(Matt.19:6). The phrase “no more” which is one word, ouketi, in the Greek is very emphatic. The following uses of the word will verify that fact:
Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God (Mark 14:25).
The Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more (Acts 8:39).
Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no dominion over him (Rom.6:9).
2. The second fact is that Christ’s further statement, “WHAT THEREFORE GOD HATH JOINED TOGETHER, LET NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER” (verse 6), confirms that He taught the complete indissolubility of marriage for any cause whatsoever. Keep in mind that Christ in this statement is still answering the specific question, “IS IT LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO PUT AWAY HIS WIFE FOR EVERY CAUSE?” The declaration of verse 6, above, reveals that God forbids a man, any man to put away his spouse. Patently, therefore, if there is a putting away, it is man, not God, who attempts to dissolve a marriage union which God has joined as ONE FLESH until death breaks the union.
Observe that Christ said, “What therefore God hath joined together….not whom. The Greek word what in this text is neuter, singular. It does not therefore relate to the two specifically as people uniting by a merely earthly and human contract, but rather the abstract joining wrought by God. Christ is directing mean to the fact that the joining is God’s doing, not man’s. Some have presumed to say that marriages are made in heaven, and so if a man and wife find after marriage that they are unhappily mated, they may decide that their union was not made in heaven and disregard the joining instituted by God Himself. The underlined (here, bold-italicized) phrase which follows is one verb in the Greek, “What therefore God hath joined together.” This verb is very emphatic, and is an aorist, indicative. Its force is stated thus by A. T. Robertson when commenting on this very text. “It is the timeless aorist indicative (sunezeuxen), true always.”
(Archibald Thomas Robertson: Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I, Nashville, Tennessee, Sunday School Board of Southern Baptist Convention, 1933 p. 15
In view of this fact, is it any wonder that Christ followed these words immediately by “let not man put asunder”. Only God has the prerogative of joining man and woman into ONE FLESH. Only He, therefore, has the right to sever the relationship. Christ said “let not man put asunder”. Let man beware of putting asunder what God has joined together, for Christ says of those whom God binds together as ONE FLESH, “they are no more twain.
Desertion, sexual unfaithfulness, or cruelty may affect the personal joy of the union or may adulterate the union, but none of them ·can any more break the ONE FLESH union (made by God) than desertion or cruelty can break the relationship of a son and father, since adultery does not dissolve the marriage union, as has been proven on pages 24 through 29, it must be death only (as under Moses), or it must be man who presumptuously and vainly tries to do so by divorcing his spouse and marrying another. He may apparently succeed under a state’s law, but he does not dissolve the union before God. If he divorces an adulterous mate, it is he, man, who divorces the wife; God will have no part in the transaction. No spouse has the right to dissolve his (or her) marriage with an adulterous mate.
Wherefore they are no more twain, but ONE FLESH. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt.19:6).
3. The third fact is that the Pharisees (the schools of both Hillel and Shammai) understood the above statement of Christ to be a direct answer to their “for every cause” question; for they understood it to preclude the dissolution of marriage for “any cause,” including adultery, or they would not have quickly retorted:
Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away (Matt.19:7)?
The followers of the school of Shammai built their doctrine of the right of an innocent party to dissolve a marriage union for adultery on Moses’ divorce permission (Deut. 24: 1 – 4). In fact, they believed that Moses even commanded to put away the wife. See the first line of Matt. 19:7, above. The school of Shammai clung to the phrase, “some uncleanness” (Deut. 24: 1), as a basis for divorcing “unchaste mates. ” They believed that the phrase, “some uncleanness,” gave them hope in such matters; whereas they realized that in Moses’ day it could have had no such application, inasmuch as then adulterous spouses were stoned to death. The school of Shammai waited breathlessly for Christ’s answer, since they built so much on Moses’ utterance of Deut. 24: 1 – 4. Christ quickly gave them an unequivocal answer:
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so (Matt. 19:8).
Observe that the word your, which is twice underscored in verse 8 above, indicates that Christ made an immediate application to the Pharisees of the hardness of heart of the Israelites, who earlier insisted on divorcing their wives. Had Christ said, “their hearts” and “their wives,” He would have applied Israel’s attitude to divorce (Deut. 24:1-4) strictly to the Israelites of Moses’ time.
The Pharisees reasoned, as did the Israelites before them, that a husband should not be deeply distressed for a wife when putting her away, since Moses had permitted (as they supposed, commanded) them to give a bill of divorcement and put away a wife not desired, especially if there was something unclean about her. Had not Moses said that when such a wife was given a bill of divorcement, she was free to “go and be another man’s wife”? Indeed, Moses had permitted Israelites to give a bill of divorcement because of the hardness of their hearts. The word hardness, which was used by Christ in 19:8, means a heart dried up, a heart that is hard and tough. Many of the Pharisees were cruel to their wives.
When Moses under God allowed (tolerated) divorce (Deut.24:1-4), the Israelites had just come out of Egypt. There they were steeped in the customs and practices of a heathen society where divorce was common in the then known world for virtually any cause. In Africa, the young nation Israel was birthed from the stock of Jacob. At that time they were in the kindergarten of divine ethic and moral responsibility (Ezekiel 20:5-8). Because they were so strongly impregnated with the low moral standards, idolatry, and hardness of heart of that time, Moses permitted divorce until the kingdom of God should come in which God would provide for the indwelling of His Spirit in the hearts of men so that an Edenic devotion of one spouse to another would be readily possible. Then there would be no excuse for their not living according to the high standard of marriage given at the beginning. As already indicated, Christ completely abrogated the tolerance of Moses’ divorce declaration of Deut. 24: 1-4. He tore down the temporary permission of a Mosaic economy for the standard of the kingdom of God which should reign in the heart of every true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. All men are invited to enter the kingdom of God through the new birth. The school of Hillel had heretofore rested divorce for every cause upon Deut. 24: 1-4, as had the school of Shammai for the cause of adultery, but after Jesus Christ came, followers of neither school could ever rest upon it again for divorce (which would dissolve a marriage) for any cause!
The hard hearted Pharisees of Christ’s day were covetous of other men’s wives in spite of the commandment, “Thou shalt not covet thy…neighbor’s wife” (Ex. 20: 17). David had coveted Uriah’s wife as he looked upon her beauty. The Pharisees possessed the same spirit of covetousness, and Christ rebuked them for it. He said;
Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it. . . . Whosoever putteth away his wife. and marrieth another committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery (Luke 16: 15, 16, 18).
4. The fourth fact is that when the Deuteronomy passage (Deut.24: 1-4) was brought to the attention of Christ by the Pharisees ( Matt. 19:7) as the justification for putting away a wife for every cause, including, adultery, Christ did not so interpret Deut.24: 1-4; nor did He find any remote provision in the passage for the putting away of an adulterous spouse in His day when the stoning of an adulterous spouse was no longer practiced in the land by the authority of the civil rulers. Christ refused to enter into the dispute over the phrase,”some uncleanness.” He rather rejected Moses’ entire divorce permission; since He had earlier abrogated it when speaking of the inadequate righteousness of the Pharisees (Matt. 5:20. 31, 32). Christ did not come to institute a new divorce law but to abrogate Moses’ divorce permission for any and every cause, and so bring men back to God’s original marriage law, which made every union of husband and wife ONE FLESH that could be no more twain! Had Christ believed the doctrine of Shammai, the doctrine of the FIVE WORD School of our day, He would not have summarily rejected the divorce declaration of Moses (Deut. 24: 1-4) in toto. Christ called men back to the Edenic law of marriage since His kingdom would provide grace to live in conformity with its standards. His kingdom did not provide for divorce of a kind that would permit a spouse to marry another while having a living mate.
Certainly if divorce statutes did not exist under God’s original economy, and if Moses’ permission for divorce was abrogated by Christ, then there remains no divorce statute in the Bible. Indeed Christ referred to divorce in Matt. 5:32 and did not in these passages set up a new divorce law permitting the dissolution (divorce) of a marriage for adultery because he had renounced he very declaration of Moses (Deut. 24: 1-4) upon which the Jew for·centuries based their right of divorce for the cause of adultery. There is no later divorce enactment than that of Moses in the Scriptures. There remains, therefore, no provision under the kingdom of Christ for the dissolution of the marriage union; “from the beginning it was not so”(Matt.19:8b). There is however, a scriptural provision for separation (a mensa et thoro; I Cor.7:-10:11) without the right of remarriage. This type of supposed divorce is often loosely spoken of as divorce, which terminology is not strictly correct.
5. The fifth fact is that Christ’s unequivocal statement in Matt.19:8, in reply to the sharp interrogation of the Pharisees of the schools of Hillel and Shammai left no doubt that Christ taught that God’s Edenic law of marriage was applicable and binding when He spoke, and even until now.
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO (Matt.19:8).
By the above statement ( 19:8), Christ unmistakably answered the specific question of the Pharisees “IS IT LAWFUL FOR A MAN TO PUT AWAY HIS.WIFE FOR ANY CAUSE?” He, thereby, revealed that whereas Moses’ declaration (Deut. 24: 1-4) permitted, (tolerated) temporarily the putting away of wives because of the hardness of the hearts of Israel, that “from the beginning it was not so…”
The Greek verb of the latter phrase reveals that the Edenic law of marriage prohibiting divorce for any cause is still binding. The verb is in the perfect tense, denoting the continuation of past action, and the results of that action down to the present. The Greek tense in question, according to A. T. Robertson is “to emphasize the permanence of the divine ideal” of marriage. And Marvin R. Vincent in commenting on the statement, says. “The original ordinance has never been abrogated and superseded, but continues in force.”
(Marvin R. Vincent: Word Studies In the New Testament, Vol. I. Grand Rapids,Wm. B. Eerdmaus Publishing Company, 1948. p.108).
Observe that Christ did not say, “AT THE BEGINNING,” but “FROM THE BEGINNING.” Christ did not originate the doctrine of indissolubility; He went back to Genesis for that. It was there Instituted by the triune God.
It is important at this point to remind the reader that Moses’ declaration in Deut.24:1-4, as read in the original Hebrew, did not set forth a new divorce law nor command men to put away their wives for any cause. Indeed, Christ understood Moses correctly when He said, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered [permitted] you to put away your wives. “By this statement Christ revealed that the declaration of Deut.24:1-4 was a toleration of divorce but not an approval of it, for “from the beginning it was not so.” God’s Word uttered through the prophet Malachi plainly indicates God’s attitude toward divorce throughout the Old Testament period. It follows:
Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth. For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD ofhosts; therefore take heed to your spirit that ye deal not treacherously against the wife of his youth (Mal. 2: 15b-16).
To and through verse 8 it is positively clear that the Pharisees understood that Christ unequivocally closed the door to the dissolution of marriage for any cause including adultery, the statement of Deut. 24: 1-4 notwithstanding. It is not possible, therefore, to believe that Christ suddenly reversed Himself by His statement in verse 9 (as it was originally uttered by Him). The internal evidence of Matt. 19:9, whether in its variant reading or its Authorized Version text, verifies this fact. For Christ to have reversed Himself in the face of His four emphatic statements (Matt.19:3-8) described under points (1), (2), (3), (4) and (5) above would have been double talk. The divine Christ did not use doubletalk. He did not stultify Himself. Clearly, the Pharisees did not understand Christ’s statement of Matt.19:9 as men of the FIVE WORD School do today.
The remaining evidence which follows will establish the fact that Christ taught the complete indissolubility of marriage.
6. The sixth fact is that the Disciples who heard Christ’s entire discourse to the Pharisees (Matt. 19: 1-9) which included the disputed, isolated text of Matt.19:9:
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 is put away doth commit adultery,
understood Christ, notwithstanding this statement, to close the door to the dissolubility of marriage for any cause, including adultery. Their shock that He taught thus was sharpened because of their previous knowledge and acceptance of the divorce teaching of the schools of either Shammai or Hillel, since the Jews of that time universally embraced one or the other. Upon the conclusion of Christ’s utterance of Matt. 19:9, whatever its original wording may have been, the Disciples retorted in amazement, “If the indeed the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry” (Matt.19:10).
Indeed, the amazement of the Disciples indicated that they did not under stand Christ’s statement of Matt. 19:9 to support the teaching of the schools of either Shammai or Hillel.
The Disciples reflected the feeling of their day. To them marriage was unbearable if it provided for no release for any cause. They thought that it would be better in that case not to marry at all. The doctrine of the complete indissolubility of marriage was entirely new in that period and repugnant to them.
Christ immediately corrected their distorted view that it would be better not to marry at all if one could not at will divorce his mate when he was displeased with her or found her unfaithful.
Matthew Henry presents the following in referring to the passage under discussion:
It seems, the disciples themselves were loth to give up the liberty of divorce, thinking it a good expedient for preserving comfort in the married state; and like sullen children, if they have not what they would have, they will throw away what they have. If they may not be allowed to put away their wives when they please, they will have no wives at all; though from the beginning, when no divorce was allowed, God said, It is not good for man to be alone, and blessed them, pronounced them blessed who were thus strictly joined together; yet, unless they have a liberty of divorce, they think it is good for a man not to marry. Note, 1. Corrupt nature is impatient of restraint, and would fain break Christ’s bonds in sunder, and have a liberty for its own lusts. 2. It is a foolish, peevish thing for men to abandon the comforts of this life, because of the crosses that are commonly woven in with them, as if we must needs go out of the world, because we have not everything to our mind in the world; or must enter into no useful calling or condition, because it is made our duty to abide in it. . . . If the yoke of marriage may not be thrown off at pleasure, it does not follow that therefore we must not come under it; but therefore, when we do come under it, we must resolve to comport with it. by love, and meekness, and patience, which will make divorce the most unnecessary undesirable thing that can be.
(Matthew Henry: Commentary on the Whole Bible, Vol. V., Westwood, New Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company. n.d. p.270).
Charles C. Garret has fittingly commented on the same passage in referring to the necessity, if need be, for a married person to be a eunuch for the kingdom of heavens sake :
Not by malformation: Not by a surgical operation: But by an act of own will, in an effort to honor God and to please your Lord, you make yourself [as it were] a eunuch, for the sake of the kingdom.
(Charles C. Garret; P. O. Box 394, Parksley, Virginia. An unpublished article loaned to the author).
Certainly, there are innocent mates whose spouses have not committed adultery who are required to be eunuchs, as it were, for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. Examples are given on pages 133 through 135. If Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage, then innocent mates whose spouses have committed adultery must also obtain grace from God to overcome natural inclination and to be, as it were, eunuchs for the kingdom of God’s sake. In the kingdom of God. there are other severe requirements demanded by God that the average man believes to be impossible, namely, to turn the other cheek, to be free from the lust of the eye, and to love a bitter enemy. See Matthew 5:43-48. Whether or not these laws of the kingdom are extremely difficult to fulfill. Christ says that they must be obeyed if one is to enter the kingdom of God (Matt.5:19, 20).
7. The seventh fact is that Christ’s answer to the Disciples respecting eunuchs did not change their conviction that He taught in Matt. 19:9, as in all of Matt. 19:3-9, that marriage was indissoluble for any cause, including adultery, or they would not have asked Him the second time for further explanation of His stringent view respecting divorce and remarriage. This is verified by the fact that “in the house His disciples asked him again of the same matter”(Mark 10:10), when he subsequently went into the house with His Disciples.
The same matter clearly refers to what Christ had said in Matt. 19:3-9. His words astounded them because of their severity as contrasted with the leniency of the current view of divorce in even religious circles of devout Jews. They demanded a clarification, therefore, to put at rest their troubled minds.
The Disciples’ second query in the house occurred after their objection in Matt. 19:10, for the words of 19:10 immediately followed those of Matt.19:3-9; whereas the second question was asked when they went apart into the house.
A. T. Robertson has pointed out in his comment on Mark 10:11 that whereas Mark’s Gospel does not, in Matt.19:9 mention “except it be for fornication” the point is actually involved in what Mark recorded.
(Archibald Thomas Robertson: Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. I. Nashville, Tennessee, Sunday School Board of Southern Baptist Convention, 1933. p.349).
The FIVE WORD School persists in bringing the exceptive element (the seeming exception) of Matt. 19:9 over to Mark 10: 11, 12 to modify its meaning. Surely there is more reason that Mark 10: 11, 12 should modify Matt. 19:9 than the reverse, for Mark 10: 11, 12 was clearly a commentary on Matt. 19:3-9as shown above. It is Christ’s last recorded utterance on divorce. Will a student presume to follow different rules of interpretation for Matt. 19:9 than he normally would in the interpretation of other isolated texts in parallel Gospel accounts? Is there something questionable about the FIVE WORD School’s method of interpretation? Certainly serious students will doubt its objectivity!
8. The eighth fact is Christ’s clarifying statement to the Disciples in the house in reply to their further query about the same matter discussed in Matt.19:3·9. The answer did not weaken His earlier statements, which taught unequivocally that marriage was indissoluble, nor did it in the least subscribe to the FIVE WORD School’s view of Matt. 19:9. His clarifying commentary on Matt.19:3-9 and Mark 10:2-9, follows:
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, commiteth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10:11,12).
Christ’s last clarifying statement on divorce on the same discourse which is found in Matt.19:3-9 and·Mark 10:2-9 made no provision for divorce for any cause, including adultery, nor did it provide for the remarriage of an innocent mate after divorcing an adulterous spouse. It forever made clear that He taught the complete indissolubility of a valid marriage for any cause.
Since Christ had abrogated the one and only divorce permission (Matt.5:31, 32) of the Scriptures (Deut. 24: 1-4), and since He brought man back to God’s original marriage law, which made no provision for divorce for any” cause, He would not and, did not announce another divorce law permitting a spouse to put away a mate so that he might marry another. Rather He said: Wherefore they are no more twain, but ONE FLESH. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder (Matt. 19:6).
Should a school of doctrine base its position on the meaning of a word (such as divorce) without regard to the context of the key passages bearing on the subject? Indeed, “ETYMOLOGY WILL KILL YOU, BUT CONTEXT WILL SAVE YOU.”
9. The ninth fact Is that Christ’s last statement on divorce (Mark 10:11,12), quoted above, carries the emphatic “whosoever.” Such a declaration., therefore, was crystallized into an unqualified and universal statement. Other, examples of the force of the Greek word whosoever (ean), which is used here, are found in Matt.5:19, 30; 20:26,27; Mark 10:15,43,44. If these passages are read, the reader will get the full force of the Greek word ean.
The Greek word for “whosoever” in John 3:16 Is the same as the “whosoever” found in Luke 16:18. The latter reads: “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.”
Inasmuch as the FIVE WORD School builds its doctrine on only one principal text, the isolated text of Matt.19:9, and inasmuch as the context of that verse has shown that the isolated text (as understood by the FIVE WORD School) hangs in mid-air without the support of its complete context, it is important to reexamine carefully Matt.19:9 to see whether there within it further support for the fact that Christ taught the complete indissolubility of marriage.
10. The tenth fact is that if a Greek text which supports Matt.19:9 (A.V.) is accepted as the one and only approved text, the major thrust of that text prevents an innocent wife from marrying another, even though her husband marries another and thereby commits adultery. If Christ, as the FIVE WORD School believes, permitted an innocent husband to divorce an adulterous wife that he might approvedly marry another, why did He not permit the innocent wife ·of the latter part of the verse to marry another? Certainly, it cannot be just to allow an innocent male spouse to marry another and forbid that right to an innocent female spouse, despite the fact that her husband has committed adultery by marrying another. Obviously, it is clear that Christ forbade the innocent wife to marry another because the husband had not by his adulterous second marriage validated his second union. The husband was, indeed, ONE FLESH with his first wife even though he married again. Could Christ in one breath, in one text; contradict and stultify Himself?
11. The eleventh fact is that the minor thrust of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) (if the Authorized Version is accepted as the one and only approved text) forbids the adulterous wife to marry another.
And whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery (Matt.19:9b, A.V.).
This Statement precludes, without exception, the right of any divorced woman to marry another, and declares that if she does so, she will commit adultery, as he who marries her will also do. Indeed, Jesus said that whoso “marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery, but this could not be adultery for whosoever marries her if her first marriage was dissolved. If the adulterous wife is still married to her innocent husband, he must certainly still be married to her. A one-way marriage bond is nonsense. Indeed, if he is, as Scripture teaches, still married to the adulterous wife it would be authorizing bigamy to permit him to marry another.
Alfred Edersheim, in commenting on this portion of Matt. 19:9, states:
Generally it is understood as implying that a woman divorced for adultery might not be married. . . . The Jewish law, which regarded marriage with a woman divorced under any circumstances as unadvisable, absolutely forbade that of the adulterer with the adulteress.
(Alfred Edersheim, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 335)
If the followers of the FIVE WORD School presume to teach, as they must if they are consistent, that the adulterous spouse may marry another while her first mate is still alive, then they nullify their interpretation of the exceptive clause. They insist that Matt. 19:9 only authorizes an innocent spouse to divorce his mate and marry another for the cause of adultery. They certainly teach that an innocent mate may dissolve his union with an adulterous spouse so that he may be free to marry another. If the mate is thus freed to marry another by the alleged dissolution of his marriage with an adulterous mate, then the adulterous mate must also be free to marry another, since the first union is no longer binding. Thus the position of the FIVE WORD School makes Christ appear to teach that an adulterous spouse and an innocent spouse have equal rights to marry another…How astounding! By this teaching, the FIVE WORD School makes Matt.19:9 utterly confusing and meaningless and inconsistent with its complete context.
12. The twelfth fact is that whereas Matt.19:9(A.V.), according to the FIVE WORD view, has been shown to be hanging in mid-air without a supporting context, the Matt. 19:9 (variant reading) stands completely related to its context. This is so because the variant reading clearly supports the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage described in Matt. 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12, its complete context. It would be impossible for a tail three feet in length to wag the body of a creature twelve feet in length. Does the exceptive clause of five words. as in the English Authorized Version, control the entire context of more than one hundred and fifty words? The variant reading has been shown earlier to be virtually identical to that of the text of Mark 5:32. This text, as indicated on pages 65 through 66, provides no specific authorization for an innocent spouse to divorce an adulterous mate or to marry another should he divorce such a mate. For the convenience of the reader Matt. 19:9 (A. V.), as altered by the variant reading, is presented below:
Whosoever shall divorce his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to be made an adulteress, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
If the Greek text of Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) could be proved beyond question to be the one and only approved Greek text of Matt. 19:9. which any eminent scholar of Greek manuscripts will disallow, there would still be no necessity for adopting the FIVE WORD School’s interpretation of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.), for a competent Greek grammarian will readily acknowledge that there is no rule compelling an exceptive clause to modify both the clause before and after it in the same sentence. Greek authorities have pointed out that when the meaning of the grammar of a text is in question, it becomes necessary for an objective Greek student to render an interpretation of the intent of the grammar of a text in the light of its complete context.
Inasmuch as the variant reading of Matt. 19:9 or a correct understanding of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) is not in conflict with the context which teaches the indissolubility of marriage, it is not strange that the early Church did not quote this text to support a doctrine for the dissolubility of marriage until the sixth century.
The reader should not forget that the interpretation of the early Church of the “exceptive clause” did not give any ground on which remarriage was justified, but, rather, the sole ground on which anyone could even separate (a mensa et thoro; I Cor.7:10,11) from his spouse without making himself morally responsible for the adultery of the spouse whom he put away. The early Church did not permit an innocent wife to remarry. She based her view for the position described in this paragraph on the “exceptive clause” of Matt. 5:32 and that text as a whole, and on the Matt. 19:9 text found in the minority of manuscripts which gives the variant reading.
(Felix L. Cirlot, loc.cit.)
The very early Church had the oral teaching of the Apostles who knew what Christ taught respecting the indissolubility of marriage. Even in the second century there were many who could verify what the Disciples of Christ taught, for there were then living men who had heard and known the Apostles and others who had described what they taught.
In the light of the twelve points of the context of Matt. 19:1-12 and Mark 10: 1-12, it is plain to see that the early Church derived her view of the indissolubility of marriage from the true facts of the teaching of Christ in .the Gospels and in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. First Corinthians was written before the Gospels. The early Church knew that the exceptive clause of Matt.19:9 as found in some manuscripts did not modify the clause which followed it.
In view of the above, it is easy to understand why Mark did not feel it important to introduce the exceptive statement of Matt.19:9 into his Gospel record of Christ’s divorce discourse with the Pharisees. Which was given in the presence of the Disciples (Mark 10:1-12). Certainly Mark was sure, as was the early Church, that the original text of Matt.19:9, whatever it was, did not teach the dissolubility of marriage.
The importance of Mark’s comment on the indissolubility of marriage is state thus by Alfred Plummer of Trinity College, Oxford,, in his commentary on Matthew:
According to the earliest evidence (Mk. 10: 1-12, which is confirmed by Luke16:18) Christ declared that Moses allowed divorce as a concession to a low condition of society. But there was an earlier marriage law of Divine authority, according to which the marriage tie was indissoluble. To this Divine law men ought to return…
It is very improbable that Christ did teach this [that adultery justified divorce]. If we want His true teaching we must go to Mk. and Lk., according to whom He declared the indissolubility of the marriage bond. He told His disciples that the remarriage of either partner, while the other is living is adultery….
Mark would have no motive for omitting the exception, if Christ had made it. . .
(Alfred Plummer: An Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany,1953. pp. 81,82)
The section which follows the Implications of the Harmony of the· Two Divorce Accounts will show that the early Church obtained her doctrine of divorce and marriage from the writers of the Gospels, and from the Apostles and their records, as well as from the oral teaching of the Apostles and those who heard them.
B. The Implications of the Harmony of Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark 10: 1-12,the Context of Matt. 19:9 and Mark 10:11,12
- Implication 1: CHRIST’S STATEMENT OF MARK 10: 11,12 INCLUDES BOTH CHASTE AND UNCHASTE HUSBANDS AND WIVES.. This is proven by the fact that Mark 10:11,12 has been shown to be Christ’s last commentary on His entire statement to the Pharisees (Matt. 19:1-9 and Mark10: 1-9). Matt. 19:9 includes the problem· of chaste and unchaste spouses. In addition to that fact, the Mosaic declaration of divorce (Deut.24: 1-4) was rejected by Christ in this very context, even though He knew it was the basis of the school of Shammai for divorcing adulterous mates.
2. Implication 2: THE TWELVE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THE HARMONY AND CHRIST’S COMMENTARYOF MARK 10:11,12 on MATT.19:1-9 REVEALTHAT HIS REFERENCE TO THE DIVORCING OF AN UNCHASTE MATE IN MATT.19:9 DOES NOT IMPLY THAT AN INNOCENT MATE HAS THE RIGHT TO DISSOLVE HIS MARRIAGE TO MARRY ANOTHER.
3. Implication 3: THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF MATT. 19:9 (WHATEVER ITS ORIGINAL READING MAY HAVE BEEN) MAY NOT REST ON THE ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD DIVORCE.
The context of the harmony of the two divorce accounts shows that one may not determine the meaning of the text (Matt. 19:9) exclusively by the meaning of the word divorce. A detailed study of the word divorce is given on pages 121 through 124.
4. Implication 4: THE TWELVE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THE HARMONY OF THE PARALLEL DIVORCE ACCOUNTS AND THE COMMENTARY OF MARK 10:11,12 SHOW THAT CHRIST WAS NOT SPEAKING OF A GENERAL LAW OF MARRIAGE IN MARK 10 AND AN EXCEPTION TO THAT RULE OF MARRIAGE IN MATT.19.
5. Implication 5: THE COMMENTA RY OF MARK 10:11, 12 AND THE TWELVE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THE HARMONY REVEAL THAT CHRIST DID NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SO-CALLED HARDNESS-OF:HEART DIVORCE (Matt. 19:8) AND THE SO-CALLED SOFT·HEARTED DIVORCE OF MATT. 19:9; NEITHER DID HE MAKE PROVISION FOR THE DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE TODAY, IN EITHERCASE.
A detailed treatment of this subject is given in the Appendix on page; 174 through 176,
6. Implication 6: .THE TWELVE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THE HARMONY CONFIRM THE FACT THAT CHRIST DID INDEED FORBID AN INNOCENT SPOUSE FROM REMARRYING IN MATT. 5:32b; 19:9b, AND LUKE 16:18b.
7. Implication 7: THE TWELVE PRINCIPAL POINTS OF THE HARMONY SHOW THAT CHRIST’S TEACHING OF THE COMPLETE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE IS IN COMPLETE CONFORMITY WITH THE DIVORCE TEXTS OF THE EPISTLES, NAMELY ROM.7:2,3 AND I COR.7:10,11,39.
One would expect that Christ’s last statement on the subject of divorce and remarriage would have clarified His previous statements on the same subject. Such is obviously the case. One would also expect that the teaching of the Epistles would harmonize with the teaching of the Gospels respecting this doctrine, as is true of other doctrines.
The Sunday School Times of Nov. 10, 1956 presented the following rule of interpretation of Scripture in its column, Notes on Open Letters:
It is one of the first principles of sound Bible study that, when we find clear testimony throughout the Bible to any truth, we must not set over against this any passage that may, on the surface, seem to contradict it. God’s Word never contradicts itself, and there is always an explanation, either here or hereafter, of all passages in God’s Word by which they will be seen to be in full harmony with all other passages.
(Philip E. Howard: “Notes on Open Letters” The Sunday School Times (November 10, 1956), Philadelphia.
===================================================
Chapter XI – THE TEACHING OF THE PAULINE DIVORCE TEXTS
A. The Witness of I Cor. 7: 10, 11 , and 39 to the Conservative View of Matt. 19:9 Is Presented.
And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband : But and if she depart. let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.
. . . The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.
The phrase in I Cor. 7:10,12, “I command, yet not I, but the Lord”, is believed by Adam Clarke to mean that the Lord Jesus Himself had by His own mouth forbidden such separations with a view.to remarriage. 75
Matthew Henry believed that by these words the Apostle Paul was referring to the specific passages of Matt.5:31, 32; 19:9; Mark 10: 11, 12, and Luke 16: 18.76
The Pulpit Commentary presents the same view.
(H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Editors, op. cit. , Vol. XIX, p.225)
Dean Henry Alford of Canterbury believed the Apostle’s above statement referred specifically to Matt. 5:32 and 19:9. His statement is quoted on page 23 of this book.
- How Did the Apostle Paul Know What Christ Taught About Marriage and Divorce?
The Apostle Paul certainly was not ignorant of the teaching of Christ on the question of marriage and divorce even concerning the problem of unchastity and wedlock. He lived before the Church Fathers, having been born a few years after the birth of Christ. He knew the other Apostles of Christ, for he conversed with them on a number of occasions. Soon after his conversion, he was brought by Barnabas to the Apostles. In Acts 9:27, it is said that “Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and [he declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that He had spoken to him. In Galatians 1:18, the Apostle tells how he went up to Jerusalem to see the Apostle Peter three years after his first visit, which was long before he wrote the First Epistle to the Corinthians. The same text states that he abode with Peter fifteen days. He also saw James, the Lord’s brother, at that time. On a still later visit to Jerusalem, described in Acts 15:2-31, he sat with the Apostles as they discussed, among other things, the matter of fornication .(v. 29). The date of this Council has been established at 49 or 50 A. D. or earlier than is agreed he wrote the first letter to the Corinthians.
(James Orr, General Editor, op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 2272)
It is important to remember that the Church Fathers were sure that the Apostle Peter had been the source of Mark’s Gospel. H. S. Miller has asserted that as the Church Fathers held there was a connection between Peter and Mark’s Gospel, so there was a similar connection between the Apostle Paul and Luke’s Gospel.
(H.S. Miller: General Biblical Introduction, Houghton, New York, 1940, p.128)
Milton S. Terry affirms that the tradition of the early Church established the fact that Luke ‘s Gospel was essentially that of the Apostle Paul.
(Milton S. Terry, loc. cit.)
Is it any wonder, therefore, that the teaching of the Apostle Paul in I Cor. 7; 10, 11, 39 and Rom.7:2, 3 is essentially the same as Mark 10: 11, 12 and Luke 16:18? Surely the early Church was aware of the same sources.
From Acts 16:10-17; 20:4-15; 21:1-18; 28:16; Col. 4:. 14; Philemon 23, 24, and II Tim. 4: 11 it is apparent that Luke was an intimate companion of the Apostle Paul. Dr. W. Graham Scroggie has found more than’ one hundred words which are used exclusively by Luke and the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. Irenaeus (A. D. 120-200) said that Luke who was the companion of Paul placed in a book the gospel which was preached by Paul. Tertullian (A. D. 160-222) said that Mark was Peter’s interpreter, and that Paul was the enlightener of Luke, and guided him in the choice of his essential materials in preparing his gospel. Origen (A. D. 186-253) said that Paul commended the gospel of Luke: Jerome, Eusebius and other Church Fathers confirm this relation of Luke to Paul.
(W. Graham Scroggie, op. cit., pp.334, 336, 360-363)
Kenneth E. Kirk comments on I Cor.7:10,11,39 as follows:
. . . Saint Paul says nothing as to the remarriage of the man. But since he forbids either the husband or the wife to seek a divorce, or to act as though one had been obtained, it is natural to suppose that he would insist on the practice of “remaining unmarried” if this instruction, however, refers to the woman alone, it represents an epoch making advance upon contemporary practice. Both Jewish and Roman custom allowed a wife who (by whatever legal means and for whatever cause) was divorced from her husband complete liberty of remarriage. Saint Paul introduces his startling innovation without the slightest apparent recognition of its revolutionary character. He quotes is as the word of the Lord which will be accepted as such without a challenge. Both these facts go far to prove that long before the synoptic tradition had been reduced to its present form [the four Gospels] and within twenty-five years of the Crucifixion itself, there was absolute unanimity in the Church that our Lord had proclaimed the indissolubility of marriage.
(Kenneth E. Kirk, op . cit. , p.71)
The early date of the Apostle’s reference to Christ’s teaching respecting marriage and divorce (I Cor.7: 10, 11) is indicated by his statement in I Cor.15:6. “After that, He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater pan remain unto this present. but some are fallen asleep…
The great Oxford University scholar, and Christian Apologist, C. S.Lewis, states the following in the Introduction to J. B. Phillips’ translation of the New Testament Epistles:
The epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The Gospels come later. They are not “the gospel”, the statement of Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted “the gospel”. They leave out many of the “complications” (that is, the theology) because they are intended for readers who have already been instructed in it. In that sense the epistles are more primitive and are more central than the Gospels – though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God’s act (the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis of it comes in the epistles: then, when the generation who had known the Lord was dying out, the Gospels were composed to provide for believers a record of the great Act and of some of the Lord’s sayings. The ordinary popular conception has put everything upside down.
(J.B. Philllps,op. cit.,pp.ix,x.)
2. Did the Apostle Paul Have the Problem of Fornication is the Marriage Relationship Before Him When He Wrote 1 Cor. 7:10,11,39
And unto the married I command. yet not I, but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband; but and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife…. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband is dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will only in the Lord.
Certainly these verses make no provision for the FIVE WORD view of the exceptive clause, nor any idea like it. They teach the complete indissolubility of marriage without reference to whether one’s spouse may or may not commit unchastity.
The FIVE WORD School of Divorce suggests that the context of these verses does not relate to the controversy revolving around Matt. 19:9 but refers only to the matter of a conscientious Corinthian wife’s fearing that as a Christian she should not live with an idolatrous husband. That the Apostle Paul was in part answering the question in chapter 7 of whether a “Christian mate” should continue to live with a “”heathen mate” is no doubt true. A careful reader, however, will observe, that I Cor. 7 grew out of the discussion of the problem of fornication, which was discussed by the Apostle Paul in detail in chapters 5 and 6. Compare I Cor. 5:1,9,11; 6:9,18. Near the close of chapter 6, the Apostle said, “Flee fornication.”
Chapter 7 opens with the statement, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman, but because of fornication, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (R. V.). Obviously, therefore, the Apostle Paul had not forgotten that the ·city of Corinth reeked with fornication and adultery. Indeed it had come into the membership of the Corinthian Church in a manner that not common among the Gentiles. In view of the condition the city and Church the Apostle found it necessary to give the Corinthian Christians some important rules respecting divorce and remarriage, nor could he have forgotten the problem of the father whose wife had committed unchastity. If the Apostle Paul had believed that a spouse might put away an unchaste mate to marry another, he should have certainly said something about it in the Corinthian Epistle. In the light of Christ’s teaching in the Gospels, it is certain that Paul did not believe in the dissolubility of marriage for adultery.
A review of chapter 7 will make the above position more obvious. A simple outline of this chapter follows:
- (7: 1-7) Wives and husbands, be faithful to your conjugal duties.
- (7: 8-24) Wives and husbands do not leave your unbelieving mates to be celibates because you believe on the one hand you are holy (by virtue of your new birth) and mistakenly, on the other hand, that your children will be defiled because your spouse is unholy, since he has not been born of the Spirit.
- (7: 25-39) Unmarried Corinthians should consider celibacy as possibly their special callings so that they might be holy in body and spirit.
He concludes this section with the all-inclusive rule of marriage of I Cor. 7:39.The Apostle Paul could under no circumstances, have forgotten the rank and dreadful moral corruption of the Corinthian citizenry nor the unchaste wife in the Corinthian Church when he made this declaration (I Cor. 7:39). Should not the husband of this woman have been informed of his right to divorce his wife with the alleged inherent right to remarry if the doctrine of the FIVE WORD School is correct? As has been observed, the Apostle Paul knew the teaching of Christ respecting divorce and marriage, and he knew that Christ taught the complete indissolubility of marriage.
The rule of I Cor. 7:39, which restricts everyone, including the “innocents” of Matt.19:9 and the deserted one of I Cor.7:15 from marrying another for any reason other than the death of his mate, must be divinely binding upon all for the following reasons:
First, the LAW OF CHRIST (I Cor. 7:10-12) forbids the remarriage of anyone for any reason except the death of the living partner. The Apostle Paul said that he was “under the law to Christ” (I Cor.9:21). Christ’s law respecting marriage and divorce Is described in Matt.5,32; Luke16:18; Matt.19:9, and Mark 10:11,.12. Second, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the writing of the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, knew that Moses’ divorce permission had been abrogated. He knew the LAW OF CHRIST. The teaching of the Apostle Paul is no less inspired than the teaching of Christ. The Gospels are not more divinely inspired than the Epistles. Certainly the Holy Spirit, the Third person of the Divine Trinity, could not contradict by His words through the Apostle Paul the words of the Second Person of the Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ.
The Church of Christ has always agreed that the truths of the Gospels are not the extension of the Epistles. but the Epistles are the extension of the truths of the Gospels. The doctrine of redemption in the Gospels is amplified and clarified in the Epistles. The same is true of the doctrine of the deity of Christ. No one can question the fact that the doctrine of the second corning of Christ is much more amplified and clarified in the Epistles and also in the book of Revelation. When the Epistles treat a doctrine found in the Gospels, it is always to clarify and amplify it. Do the Epistles contradict the Gospels or the Gospels the Epistles? Certainly not. The Epistles clarify and define more clearly the doctrines of the Gospels; therefore this must be true of the doctrine of divorce.
See the Pulpit Commentary (Matt. 19: 1 -12) with regard to the fact that the majority of Church Fathers from Hermas and Justin Martyr downwards affirm that the general teaching of Christ makes for the indissolubility of the marriage bond.
(H.D.M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell. Editors, op. cit., Vol. XV, p. 245.)
A famous book entitled The Shepherd was quoted by Irenaeus, (120-200A.D.) one of the most distinguished writers and theologians of the Church of the second century. The Shepherd is believed to have been written by Herrnas, the brother of Bishop Pius, who served as Bishop from 139-154 A. D. One thing is very certain, this book was widely used and highly esteemed in the Christian Churches during the second, third, and fourth centuries. Dean Stanley called the book “The Pilgrim’s Progress of the Church of the second century. “This book was a beacon light that upheld the Christian standards of the Early Church. The contemporaries of Hermas were in a position to challenge its doctrines in the light of the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament. They were familiar with the meaning and grammatical usages of the times of the Apostles. A portion of The Shepherd, sometimes called The Pastor of Hermas, on the subject of the divorce problem of Man.19:9 follows:
The husband should put her (an adulteress) away and remain by himself. But if he puts his wife away and marries another, be also commits adultery. It adds that if the wife repents–If the husband does not take her back, he sins and brings a great sin upon himself for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented.
(A1exander Roberts and James Donaldson, Editors: The Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol II:. Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdrnans Publishing Company, 1950. p. 21).
The following comment on I Cor. 7:11 was taken from the Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics:
In the first place, he [the Apostle Paul] recognizes the possibility of separation “a menso et thoro ‘’(v. 11); if husband and wife are separated for any1reason, they are to remain single or become reconciled to each other. Even though he were not actually considering the case of separation for conjugal infidelity. We may feel sure that. If he had done so, the Apostle would have approved of the counsel given in the Shepherd of Herrmas:
The Jewish husband who divorced his wife was forbidden by the law to take her back; but it is characteristic of the gospel to give prominence to the possibility of repentance; and so Hermas charges the husband who has put away his unfaithful wife to remain unmarried (dia ten metanonian) so that the sinner might have an opportunity for repentance with consequent restoration (Mand.iv I.).
(James Hastings: Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. VII. New York, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951, p.439)
A detailed study of I Cor. 7: 15 will be found in the Appendix on pages 182 through 186.
B. The Witness of Rom. 7:2, 3 to the Conservative View of Matt. 19:9 is Presented.
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.
The law here mentioned could not refer to the divorce law (permission) of Moses because Christ had abrogated it (Matt. 5:31, 32), as the Apostle Paul well knew. It can only refer to the Edenic law of marriage, which Christ unequivocally affirmed was the law of the kingdom of God which had supplanted the divorce permission of Moses. The Apostle Paul in Rom. 7:2, 3 is speaking of the divorce law of Christ which, as has been seen, was a reaffirmation of the law of marriage (Matt. 19:8) “from the beginning” . .. The FIVE WORD School is quick to allege that the passage is, in its context, a mere analogy and, therefore, has no bearing on the problem of the divorce and remarriage of an innocent party.
No one will deny that the words of Rom. 7 :2, 3 are used as an analogy to illustrate the loosing of a true Christian from the dominion of the Mosaic law, but to say that their weight and force end there is to be dishonest with the Scripture. Christ repeatedly told parables or gave analogies to illustrate His doctrine, but never did He support a doctrine by an analogy which was based on a myth or fable or figure which was untrue to life. The Apostle Paul followed His divine Teacher’s example. He never based his analogies on figures that were not true to life and sound principles of godliness.
Would a careful student presume to say that the Apostle Paul under the divine inspiration of the Holy Spirit was not In Rom. 7: 1-6 clearly affirming that the Christian is freed, loosed, and released from the law of the Old Covenant through identification with Christ in His death and resurrection? It was, indeed the death and resurrection of the believer in Christ that freed him from the Mosaic law so that he might be married to another, namely, to Christ, that he should bring forth fruit unto God (Rom. 7:4). If this be true. and surely no believer of the Word of God can deny it, then the Apostle Paul must have chosen a bona fide analogy that was valid in the sight of God, or the Apostle’s whole argument respecting the Christian’s way of release from the law of Moses would have collapsed. Most surely, Christ did not teach that adultery automatically dissolved marriage union. It follows, therefore, that had He taught that adultery did dissolve the union, the analogy of the Apostle Paul would have been an untrustworthy one.
C. The Implications of the Teaching of The Divorce Texts (Rom. 7:2,3; I Cor. 7: 10, 11, 39 of the Epistles are Stated.
1. The Apostle Paul by the Holy Spirit agrees with Moses that death is the only agency dissolving the bond of matrimony of a chaste and unchaste mate and, indeed, of all mates, according to the teaching of Christ.
2. The Divorce texts of the Epistles agree with the statements of Christ which teach the Indissolubility of Marriage.
Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so (Matt.19:8).
Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery (Mark 10: 11,12).
Continue to Summary and Appendix
www.standerinfamilycourt.com
7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Lets Repeal “No-Fault” Divorce!