Category Archives: Discipleship

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapters X and XI – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 22, 2015 standerinfamilycourt

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”.

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).

Return to Introduction

Back to Chapters VIII and IX

Continue to Summary and Appendix

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Lets Repeal “No-Fault” Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapters VIII and IX – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 18, 2015 standerinfamilycourt

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”.

Chapter VIII digs into the history of the Church Fathers for the first 400 years after Jesus went to the cross, and it resurrects the key extra-biblical writings that give further insight to interpreting what Jesus taught concerning the indissolubility of original covenant marriage. (‘Variant” here means texts in addition to the text on which the English and American Revised Versions – 1881 & 1901- were based.) Chapter IX then explores Mark, chapter 10 in similar depth as Matthew 5, 19 and Luke 16 just completed.

Chapter VIII – A STUDY OF THE VARIANT READING OF MATT.19:9

If debatable questions of grammar must be decided by the context of a verse and by the context of the general tenor of Scripture bearing on the doctrine under consideration, then the same principle is applicable when scholars differ greatly in their judgment respecting the true, original Greek reading of a specific passage or text of Scripture.

The facts established in the study of Matt. 5:31, 32; Luke 16: 18, and Matt.19:9 (A. V.), and the facts that will be established in the study of the context of the harmony of Matt. 19: I – 12, and in the study of Rom. 7:2, 3 and I Cor. 7: 10, 11,39 impel one to consider and reconsider the variant reading of some of the ancient Greek texts of Matt.19:9. Thefact that all the divorce texts. apart from the dubious possibility of Matt.19:9(A.V.), close the door to the right of anyone to dissolve his marriage to another for any cause makes the study of the variant reading imperative. The strength of the argument that “fornication”in Matt.5:32 and 9:9 speaks of premarital sin, likewise makes the matter of this study very necessary. Unfortunately, the FIVE WORD School of divorce either does not treat the problem, or speaks disparagingly of any school that attempts to do so. Certainly it is more important that the doctrine of divorce besettled on the basis of the original Greek text than on sundry Jewish traditions and customs. The vital question is not what the Pharisees thought, but what Jesus said.

Sound rules of interpretation necessitate a careful study of the variant reading since it is contrary to such rules to establish a doctrine on a questionable, isolated text such as Matt. 19:9 (A. V.). The rules in question were given earlier. Three of them, 9. 10, 12, are here restated:

– 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.

– All interpretations must be grounded in the original languages if they are to pass as accurate and factual interpretations.

– Obscure passages must 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.

(Bernard Ramm, loc. cit.)

It is a fact that no competent textual scholar would presume unquestionably to say that the Greek manuscript which supports Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) gives usChrist’s original statement of this text,

The importance of variant readings of ancient Greek manuscripts and of versions is indicated in the preface of the English Revised Version of the NewTestament of 1881. which is the counterpart of the American Revised Version. A portion of this preface follows:

Many places still remain in which, for the present, it would not be safe to accept one reading to the exclusion of others. In these cases we have given alternative readings in the margin, wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve them.

(The English Revised Version London, The Oxford University Press, 1881, p.xiii).

The American Revised Version Of the Bible, which was newly edited in 1901 gives an alternative reading which makes Matt. 19:9 read virtually like Matt.5:32. It is quoted under the next heading.

The English reader who is utterly unacquainted with the matter of variant Greek readings of early manuscripts of the New Testament will better understand the problem if he remembers that whereas the Bible most widely read among English evangelical Christians is the King James Version, the Authorized Version. the people of other races have the Bible translated into their own languages, not from the English but from the Hebrew of the Old Testament manuscripts and from the Greek of the New Testament manuscripts.

These translations are not based on the originally written copies of the first writers of the several books of the Bible (which have been lost) but upon the oldest available manuscripts whose authenticity has been fully established. Of the goodly number of early manuscripts of the New Testament, dating from about the fourth and fifth centuries, their readings are found to be identical, except in a relatively few places which for the most part are of little or no doctrinal importance. Happily, the devout scholars of these ancient manuscripts are unanimous in asserting that no major doctrine of the Church is affected by the contrast in the differing readings.

B. The Variant Reading of Matt.19:9 is Presented.

The variant reading of the American Revised Version, which is an alternative reading to the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9 (A. V. ), follows,

Saving the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress.

In the light of this preferred reading, Matt.19:9(A.V.) would read:

Whoever shall divorce his wife. saving for cause of fornication make her commit adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Rotherham based his translation of the New Testament on theWestcott and Hort Greek text. He gives the following translation in a footnote of Matt.19:9:

Or. (WH): without a reason of unfaithfulness (lit. harlotry) causeth her to be made an adulteress, and he that marrieth the divorced woman committeth adultery. CF. Matt. 5:32; Luke 16:18.

The Text of Matt. 5:32 (R. V.) is as follows:

But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause Of fornication maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery. ·

The Greek reader of the variant reading of Matt. 19:9 of Westcott and Hort’s text will see that it is all but identical to that of Matt. 5:32. The English translations given above assist the English reader to see the same thing. The implications of this variant reading, which is preferred by many eminent scholars, is given later.

C. Rules by Which Textual Scholars Ascertain the Correct Greek Text of the New Testament

When manuscripts, versions, and quotations are in agreement respecting a reading, the external evidence for its correctness is established.

The internal evidence is complete when the reading that is established by external evidence agrees with the sense, the nature of the language. its connection with historical facts, and parallel passages.

If manuscripts could by their very number establish the external evidence of a reading, the matter would be simple; but the fact that a reading occurs in the largest number of ancient manuscripts is not necessarily a proof that the reading is preferred.

The Cyclopedic Handbook To the Bible by Joseph Angus and Samuel G. Green gives us the following rules of external evidence for a given reading:

Its age. There is at least a presumption that the older the document, the older the text, and one less vitiated by successive copyings. But it is both a possibility and a fact that some late MSS may preserve transcripts of very early ones which have since perished. •••
The age of the text it contains, ascertained by comparison with early patristic citations and early version•••
The family to which it belongs. In their support of readings, the MSS and versions are found to fall into groups; the same set of documents are continually together on the one side or the other. This fact has been genealogically interpreted.•••

(Joseph Angus: The Cyclopedic Handbook to the Bible. New York, Fleming H Revell Company, 1853. p.78)

When we come to consider readings which are but probable, being equally or more or less nearly equally supported by external evidence, the rules of criticism become more difficult, and the application of them must be made with less rigidity. The Cyclopedic Handbook to the Bible gives us the following rules for the internal evidence of a given reading:

Of two readings, equally supported by external evidence, that is the most probable which best suits the sense or else which could not, so easily as the other. have been written by mistake.•••
Of the readings, the easy and the other difficult, the latter is generally to be preferred; a rule thus formulated by Bengel: ‘Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua’ . Evidently, a copyist was more likely to smooth away a difficulty than to introduce one. •••
Of two readings, equally supported, the shorter is probably thegenuineone. as copyists were more likely from intention to add than to omit.although more likely from accident to omit than to add; and the ruletherefore must not be pressed in every case •••
Of two readings, the one classical and the other Oriental, the latter is more probable. •••
Of two readings equally supported, that is to be preferred which best agrees with the style of the writer, or with his design or with the context
Conjectural readings, supported by the sense, or by versions, may be probable; but must not be received as indubitable, unless they are confirmed by evidence.

(Ibid, pp.79-81)

One of the greatest Greek scholars of modern times, A. T. Robenson, has stated in his text, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament:

“No manuscript reading can possibly be original which contradicts the context of the passage or the tenor of the writing” (McClellan)….Since transcriptional evidence should come before intrinsic evidence the last piece of evidence brought forward Is the intrinsic evidence… If the external evidence and transcriptional evidence justified the Doxology as a part of the Lord ‘s Prayer, certainly intrinsic evidence would not raise any objection.

But there are cases where intrinsic evidence positively refuses to agree to the reading approved by external evidence of the documents and even by transcriptional evidence.

It is like getting married. The girl has to say .. “Yes.” When intrinsic evidence clearly rejects a reading, we may know such a reading is wrong.. . . .

(Archibald Thomas Robertson: Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, Nashville, Broadman Press, 1925, pp. 165, 166)

D. Internal Evidences Favoring the Variant Reading of Matt. 19:9 are Presented.

Scholars like Tischendorf, Weiss, Dean Alford, McClymont and Olhausen believed the exceptive clause to be a scribal addition. Interpolations will be discussed on pages 172 through173.
Eminent scholars declare tha t the exceptive element is not found in thefollowing manuscripts: Sinaiticus and Codex Ephraimus(3).
The exceptive element is not found in the Egyptian Thebaic versions believed to be of the third century; nor in the Syrian Curetorian believed to have been made in the second century, nor in some other Syrian versions.

Some scholars believe that the Greek text for Matt.19:9(A.V.) has the bet ter attestation, because it is found in the majority of manuscripts and versions and in those which they consider today (1957) to be the better qualitatively. It is important to remember that the apparent quality of a given manuscript may vary from century to century in the light of more textual information.

Felix L. Cirlot has stated the following respecting this problem in his book entitled Christ and Divorce:

Of course, other things being anywhere nearly equal, the reading having the better attestation from the manuscripts and versions ought to be preferred. In a great majority of cases, it appears to be the correct reading. But scholars are well acquainted with the fact that there is a sufficient minority of cases in which the less well attested reading seems to be in all probability correct conclusively that criterion alone is not decisive. And in the present case (Matt.19:9), other factors are not by any means equal. Everything else seems to tell 1n favor of the less well attested reading.

(Felix L. Cirlot, op. cit., p.9)

In commenting on Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, the International Standard Bible En cyclopaedia states:

The view implied by the exception, of course, is that adultery ipso facto dissolves the union, and so opens the way to remarriage. But remarriage closes the door to reconciliation, which on Christian principles ought always to be possible. (cf Hosea; Her 3; Hermas, Mand iv, 1). Certainly much Is to be said for the view which Is steadily gaining ground, that the exception in Mt. is an editorial addition made under the pressure of local conditions and practical necessity, the absolute rule being found too hard (seeH D B, extra vol.27b, and the Teaching of Our Lord as to the indissolubility of Marriage, by Stuart Lawrence Tyson, M.A. Oxon. , Universlty of the South, 1912).

(James Orr, General Editor, op. cit., Vol.III, p.1999)

E. Textual Rules Which Favor the Variant Reading of Man. 19:9 are Presented.

Of the textual rules given above, the following cast their weight on the side of the variant reading of Matt. 19:9:

Rules of External Evidence

1. Rule 1: Its age. See Section D.2.

2. Rule 2: The age of the text. See Section P. 3. and Section F.

Rules of Internal Evidence

Rule 1

See the twelve points of the Context of the Harmony of Matt. 19:1-12 and Mark 10: 1-12 which confirms the fact the variant reading is the more probable original reading of Matt. 19:9. These points are discussed on pages 92 through107.

2. Rule 5

See the twelve points referred to immediately above.

3. Rule 3

F. External Evidence Favoring the Variant Reading of Matt. 19:9 ls Presented.

Many of the Church Fathers quote Matthew 19:9 without the exceptive element. In fact, many of them reject it.

It now seems quite certain that scholarly Origen, who lived in the latter part of the second century and in the early part of the third century, quoted Matt. 19:9 without the exceptive element.

St. Clement of Alexandria, who lived from 150 A.D. to 220 A.D. appears to have had at hand the reading of Matt. 19:9 without the exceptive clause, for in commenting on this text he states that it necessitates her to commit adultery.

It appears almost certain that Tertullian, who lived in the second and third centuries, had a manuscript which omitted the exceptive element. The reason lies in the fact that, in reply to a false doctrine of Marcion, he did not quote Matt. 19:9 as it is in the Authorized Version. Marcion had said that the God of the Old Testament was not the same as the God of the New Testament because while Moses permitted divorce, Christ had denied that right. Since Tertullian virtually leaned over backwards to prove that Christ had not without qualification closed the door to all divorce, it is all but certain that his New Testament reada s did that of Origen in the Matt. 19:9 passage, or he surely would have quoted it.

(Felix L. Cirlot, op. cit., pp 9,10)

Felix Cirlot has affirmed that O. D. Watkins, who is quoted with the agreement of Kenneth E. Kirk, stated that no Church Father during the first five centuries of the Christian Church ever quoted Matt.19:9 in support of the innocent party’s right to divorce a spouse for adultery in order to marry another during the lifetime of the adulterous mate. Neither have these authorities denied that some of the Church Fathers may certainly or possibly have taught that the innocent party had the right to remarry. However, none of them stated on what grounds they made this allowance. It is possible that the following may have permitted the innocent party to remarry: Lactantius, Asterius, Basil, and Epiphanius. It is not certain that they did. Ambrosiaster certainly is one of the Fathers whom scholars affirm did teach that an innocent party could remarry. Ambrosiaster lived in the latter half of the fourth century. Neither he nor any of the other Church Fathers named stated on what grounds they allowed the right to an innocent party to remarry.

(Ibid, pp. 10,11)

One thing is certain, the testimony of the Church Fathers for the first three centuries is absolutely unanimous in affirming that marriage is indissoluble. They went further than that; they would not allow even separation (without remarriage, a mensa et thoro) except for the cause of FORNICATION. Felix Cirlot could not find (outside of the Apostle Paul himself) a case of the so-called “Pauline privilege” (ICor.7:10,11) in the first three centuries. Not until the fourth century did one writer, Ambrosiaster. allow remarriage for an innocent party who put away an unchaste spouse.

(Ibid, pp. 44,45)

Not until after the fourth century is there any considerable breach in the early Church’s position on divorce. It is believed that there is only one alleged case of a marriage having been dissolved by the approval of the Church before the close of the fourth century. The sharp departure of the Church from its primitive position did not occur until the sixth century. In the two intervening centuries only one Western writer, Ambrosiaster, allowed for the dissolution of marriage, and then Church Fathers may have vaguely referred to the same thing, but it is doubtful.

(Ibid, p.45)

During the earlier centuries, when the exception was made that one could divorce another for the cause of adultery yet could not remarry, they based their conclusion on Man.5:32, and consequently on the minority of manuscripts for Matt. 19:9 without its exceptive clause. The gospel of Matthew was in the hands of the Church during this period.

A teaching beginning with the generation in which Christ lived and continuing from the days of Paul (ICor.7:10,11) for several centuries with virtual unanimity is of very great value in determining Christ’s true statement and teaching respecting the right of an innocent spouse to marry another.

The point at which there came a departure in the divorce teaching in the early Church is important to notice. The virile form of Christianity of the ante-Nicene character was not substantially weakened by the influx of the spirit of the world until the time of Constantine. He came to power in Rome in the early part of the fourth century. He endowed Christianity with worldly power and filled the Church with poorly instructed and half-saved Christians. In the subsequent centuries of declension, the Church slowly accommodated herself to what appears to be an intrusion of an interpolation into the Matt. 19:9 text of the exceptive element. If it was in the original Greek text of Matthew, and that cannot today be proven, Matt. 19:9 was not understood by the early Church of the first five centuries to support the right of an innocent party to marry another.

Church history bears out the fact that a laxity In Christian practice precedes and causes doctrinal degeneration. Is that not what is happening in the Church today because for so long she has compromised in practice with the world’s degenerated standards of divorce and remarriage? The scriptural doctrine of the indissolubiIity of marriage cannot be maintained in any church which does not constantly teach by its standards and practice that all remarriages of divorcees are continuing examples of unions unequivocally disapproved by Christ.

What is more astounding than the mere fact that the early Church taught and practiced the complete indissolubility of marriage for so long, is the fact that the Church chose to take its stand against the strong contemporary lax social and legal attitudes toward divorce which prevailed so universally all about them. The Church, today, feels that it is on the horns of a dilemma, because so many divorcees are coming to her for help and encouragement. Shall she accommodate the Scriptures to the apparent need of the unfortunate divorcees, or shall she uphold the Biblical standard of the indissolubility of marriage for any cause while faithfully discharging her duty to such distressed individuals? Every church of today which considers the lowering of its divorce standards should remember that the early Church stood true to the Biblical doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage in a world that was pagan and strongly opposed to the moral and marriage standards of the New Testament. Not only did the Church maintain her stand on the indissolubility in the early centuries, she changed the attitude and standards of the whole world toward it. Even today the whole Church of Christ and the entire western world is still reaping the rich benefits of that heritage. Shall the Christian Church of today be less courageous and faithful than the Church of the early centuries of the Christian era? Does she not under God have the same spiritual resources?

There were other grievous social evils in the early Christian centuries. Slavery enveloped the Roman Empire of that age, yet the Christians did not set themselves to change the thinking of the masses against it, but they did set themselves to change the thinking of the masses toward marriage and divorce. Why did they not attack slavery with the same vehemence? The reason was that the Apostles had not received a “thus saith the Lord” from Christ respecting it. They had, however, received such in the doctrine of the indissolubility of marriage. No sect or school of philosophy is known to have influenced the early Church in this teaching. From whence, then, did she get the teaching? Certainly she received it from the teaching of the Gospels and from the teaching of the Apostles, who had earlier conveyed the same orally (as well as in writing) to the leaders of the early Church who succeeded them.

(Kenneth E. Kirk, op.cit., p.71)

The First Epistle to the Corinthians was written before any of the Gospels. It reaffirmed that Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage (1 Cor,7: 10, 11 ,39).

Some Christian leaders of today state that they find it unbelievable that Christ should have taught the complete indissolubility of marriage. However, the fact that the early Church taught and practiced this doctrine for the first three centuries, despite degenerate views of marriage in the contemporary world, is strong evidence that Christ must have taught such a doctrine of marriage.

J.B. Phillips states the following respecting the pungent strength of the early Church in the midst of overwhelming opposition and other handicaps. The statement is found in his preface to his translation of the New Testament Epistles, the title of which is Letters to Young Churches:

. . . these letters were written, and the lives they indicate were led, against a background of paganism. There were no churches, no Sundays, no books about the Faith. Slavery, sexual immorality, cruelty, callousness to human suffering, and a low standard of public opinion, were universal; travelling and communications were chancy and perilous; most people were illiterate. Many Christians today talk about the “difficulties of our times” as though we should have to wait for better ones before the Christian religion can take root. It is heartening to remember that this faith took root and flourished amazingly in conditions that would have killed anything less vital in a matter of weeks.

(J.B.Phillips: Letters to Young Churches. New York, The Macmillan Company, 1950. p.xiv)

In writing of the lax views and practices of marriage among the Greeks and Romans, Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury of the Church of England, said:

The Romans and Greeks were even laxer than the Jew: either partner could divorce the other on the slightest pretext and marry again.

The Church went directly against these universal social practices with the flat demand of the Gospel statements and the practice of the Pauline and other Churches. This tiny sect in the end revolutionized marriage. It routed the whole practice of the contemporary world. It created a new belief in monogamous lifelong marriage as a duty to God, and imposed it upon its members and in the end on the civilized world. Surely the impetus for such an assault and victory must have come from our Lord. It could not have happened otherwise.

(Geoffrey Francis Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury: Problems of Marriage and Divorce, New York, Morehouse-Gorham Company, 1955, pp.5,6)

Happily for the people of our generation, the impact of the early Church’s views and practice was not slackened appreciably until after the middle of the nineteenth century. Because of this rich heritage of the Western World, the common man of the occident for the most part enters marriage with the conviction that it is ordained by God to be a lifelong union.

G. Implications of the Internal and External Evidence for the Variant Reading of Matt. 19:9 are Stated.

Implication 1: Whether or not it could be proved (as at present it cannot) that the text of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) was based on the original Greek text of Matt.19:9, the fact remains that the Christian Church believed in the indissolubility f marriage for more than three centuries, and never in the first five centuries did the Church Fathers ever state that Matt. 19:9 provided in its exceptive clause for the divorce of an adulterous spouse with the right to remarry. This is true in spite of the fact that some Church Fathers quote Matt. 19:9 with the exceptive element. That is to say, the appearance of the exceptive element in Matt.19:9 did not alter the belief of the Church respecting divorce and remarriage for the period of the early centuries. This substantiates the fact that the early Church did not understand the grammar of Matt. 19:9 to teach what the FIVE WORD School says it teaches.
Implication 2: The Church of Christ of the first three centuries could not have developed, practiced, and promulgated a doctrine of marriage in such a pagan society from the very birth of the Church unless she had received the teaching of the indissolubility of marriage from Christ and His Apostles.
Implication 3: Sections 1 and 2 above erase any impression of contradiction between Matt.19:9 and Mark 10:11,12 or any other divorce statements of Christ. They also erase any apparent contradiction between Matt. 19:9 and the divorce texts of the Epistles (Rom.7:2,3 and I Cor.7:10,11,39).
Implication 4: The reader of the Scriptures may indeed have a strong conviction that the exceptive reading of Matt.5:32 was the reading of Matt.19:9 in the original Scriptures as used by the very early Church.
Implication 5: The total effect of all the implications arising out of the detailed study of the internal textual study of Matt. 19:9 and of the external evidences relating there to shows that the Conservative School’s position is to this point proven almost beyond a single doubt. The total facts established in this study raise many grave doubts about the FIVE WORD School’s view of divorce. They also erase any apparent contradiction between Matt. 19:9 and the divorce texts of the Epistles (Rom.7:2,3 and I Cor.7:10,II,39).

H. Further Doubt is Raised About the Position and Method of the FIVE WORD School

Is it not presumption for the FIVE WORD School to build a doctrine of divorce on ONE verse (Matt. 19:9 A.V.) when its Greek text is so seriously open to question? Do not strong evangelical leaders thunder against teachers of markedly abhorrent isms who presume to do a similar thing to support their peculiar doctrines? Should not the difference of opinion of eminent scholars respecting the more correct reading of the Greek text of Matt.19:9, and the fact that the early Church never quoted it for the first five centuries as a support for the right of an innocent party to marry another cause objective students to look to other statements of Christ and of the Apostles to ascertain which of the two readings is the more correct in the light of the general tenor of their combined teaching? Should they shun the normal principle of establishing a doctrine approved by the Christian Church for nearly two thousand years, namely, that induction is distinctly the Scriptural method of ascertaining divine truth, and that such inductions are perfect or imperfect in the measure they regard the teachings of all the Scriptures bearing on a particular doctrine? Has not the evangelical Church always avoided the building of a Doctrine on isolated text which has a strong variant reading? May God help each one who makes this study in the Holy Scriptures to regard truth for TRUTH’S sake more than he regards his personal opinions, prejudices, fears of ecclesiastical leaders, or the spirit of accommodation to the seeming necessities of divorcees.

The followers of the FIVE WORD School assert that they have established their position beyond a reasonable doubt, i.e., the degree of proof required by a court of law in a criminal case. However, inasmuch as the evidence presented thus far shows the FIVE WORD School’s interpretation of Matt. 19:9 to be based on only portion of ONE text, their position is open to serious question! The slender scriptural justification offered by the FIVE WORD School in support of their doctrine would in itself appear to be sufficient to cause an objective student to reject it.

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin (Rom.14:23).

Fortunately, Christ did not leave the Christian Church in ignorance respecting the meaning of His statement in Matt. 19:9, whichever reading of the original Greek one accepts. The harmony of the parallel accounts of Matt.19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 provides the context which clarifies the matter completely. “Etymology will kill you, but context will save you.” The statements of the Epistles respecting the same subject confirms the testimony of the two integrated Gospel accounts and the testimony of the early Church.

==================================================

Chapter IX – COMMENTS ON MARK 10: 11, 12 (R.V.)

And he saith unto them. Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her; and if she herself shall put away.her husband, and marry another, she commiteth adultery.

The text is Christ’s last statement on the subject of divorce. That fact is in itself of some moment, especially when it is noted that this statement is a commentary on His treatment of divorce in Matt. 19: 1-9 and Mark 10: 1-9. These portions of Scripture have become the battleground of the divorce question.

A. The Place of the Gospel of Mark Among the Gospels is Noted.

The followers of the FIVE WORD School imply that the account of Mark 10:1-12 is of less worth and importance in settling the meaning of Matt. 19:9 than the parallel passage of Matt. 19: 1 -12.

The comments of Dr. A. T. Robertson, one of the great Greek scholars of our time, is pertinent here:

In my Harmony of the Gospels, I have placed Mark first in the framework since Matthew, Luke, and John all follow in broad outline his plan with additions and supplemental material. Mark’s Gospel throbs with life and bristles with vivid details. We see with Peter’s eyes and catch almost the very look and gesture of Jesus as he moved among men in his work of healing men’s bodies and saving men’s souls.

(Archibald Thomas Robertson: Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.I. Nashville, Tennessee, Sunday School Board of Southern BaptistConvention,1923, p.251.)

One of the clearest results of modern critical study of the Gospels is the early date of Mark’s Gospel. Precisely how early is not definitely known, but there are leading scholars who hold thatA.D.50 is quite probable . . . Zahn still argues that the Gospel according to Matthew is earlier than that according to Mark, but the arguments are against him. The framework of Mark’s Gospel lies behind both Matthew and Luke and nearly all of it is used by one or the other. One may satisfy himself on this point by careful use of a Harmony of the Gospels in Greek or English. . . The early writers all agree that Mark was the interpreter for Simon Peter with whom he was at one time, according to Peter’s own statement, either in Babylon or Rome{1 Pet.5:13). This Gospel is the briefest of the four. but is the fullest of striking details that apparently came from Peter’s discourses which Mark heard, such as green grass, flower beds (6:38) [sic]two thousand hogs (5:13), looking round about (3:5,34).

Peter usually spoke in Aramaic and Mark has more Aramaic phrases than the others….Some even thlnk that he wrote the Gospel in Rome while with Peter who suggested and read the manuscript….Mark was once a coworker with Barnabas and Paul, but deserted them at Perga. Paul held this against Mark and refused to take him on the second mission tour. Barnabas took Mark, his cousin, with him and then he appeared with Simon Peter with whom he did his greatest work. When Mark had made good with Barnabas and Peter, Paul rejoiced and commends him heartily to the Colosslans (Col. 4:10). In the end Paul will ask Timothy to pick up Mark and bring him along with him to Paul in Rome for he has found him useful for ministry, this very young man who made such a mistake that Paul would have no more of him.

(Ibid., pp. 249,250).

At least nine of the early Church Fathers confirm the fact that Mark wrote much of his Gospel from what he had heard the Apostle Peter give in his sermons or in private conversation.

Papias, who lived in the early part of the second century and who was the companion of Polycarp (who was the disciple of the Apostle John) said that Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote accurately whatever he recorded.

W. Graham Scroggie, a devout evangelical scholar, made a very detailed study of the four Gospels and stated his belief that:

Mark is the earliest of the Synoptic Records and most nearly represents the Oral Gospel of early apostolic preaching. That both Matthew and Luke made large use of Mark. That, therefore, Mark is not an abridgment of Matthew and Luke, but the latter are enlargements and re-arrangements of Mark to which in each Gospel is added a large amount of material from other sources.

To Mark. therefore, must be accorded first place in historical value, because it ranks first in order of time, and is incorporated bodily In Matthew and Luke.

It is impressive that Mark, the earliest of the Four Gospels, has so much of the Old Testament in it….It is safe to say that there are, at any rate;·sixty three references…. of these 63 references 36 are quotations, verbal, or nearly so, and the remainder are allusions…. of the 661 verses inMark’s Gospel (R. V.) 61,. or nearly one-tenth, contain Old Testament references.

(W. Graham Scroggie, loc. cit., pp. 179, 190, 192)

A.T. Robertson stated in his introduction to the book of Romans that it is apparent that the early Church at Rome was made up of Gentiles and Jews. The very nature of the Roman epistle makes it impossible for anyone to believe otherwise. The Apostle Paul speaks of the “law” 77 times in this epistle and refers to circumcision and the reactions of the Jews to the Gospel of God’s free righteousness by faith apart from works.

(Archibald Thomas Robertson: World Pictures In the New Testament, Vol.IV. Nashville, Tennessee, Sunday School Board of Southern Baptist Convention,1933, p.322).

Clement of Alexandria, who was born in the middle of the second century, wrote:

The occasion for writing the Gospel according to Mark was as follows: After Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present entreated Mark, as one who had followed him for a long time and remembered what he had said, to write down what he had spoken, and Mark after composing the gospel, presented it to his petitioners.

So charmed were the Romans with the light that shone in upon their minds from the discourses of Peter, that, not content with a single hearing and the viva voce proclamation of the truth, they urged with the utmost solicitation. Mark, whose gospel is in circulation and who was Peter’s attendant, that he would leave them in writing a record of the teaching which they had received by word of mouth. They did not give over until they had prevailed on him; and thus they became the cause of the composition of the so-called Gospel according to Mark.

(James Orr, General Editor, loc. cit. , Vol. III, p. 1999)

B. The Text and Context of Mark 10: 11,12 Will Provide an Answer to the Following Important Questions:

Is the first question of the Pharisees to Christ respecting the right of putting away a wife essentially the same in Matt. 19:3 and Mark 10:2?
Did the Pharisees understand that Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage on this occasion?
Did the Disciples twice reflect their conviction that Christ taught the indissolubility of marriage despite hearing Christ’s original utterance of Matt.19:9?
Did Christ’s answer to the Pharisees indicate that He taught the indissolubility of marriage?
Did Christ give a commentary on His Matt. 19: 1-9 statement to the Pharisees when He went into the house alone with the Disciples so that His Disciples would understand that He did, indeed, teach that marriage was absolutely indissoluble?
Does not Mark10:11,12, in the light of the harmony of the two divorce accounts prove conclusively that Christ was speaking about the problem of unchaste wives in Mark as well as in Matthew?
Does not Christ’s Commentary of Mark 10: 11,12 show that He did not permit one to interpret Matt. 19:9 to mean that an innocent party had the right to marry another.
Does a true harmony of the two divorce accounts permit one to say honestly that Mark’s account speaks of “the general rule” of divorce whereas the Matthew account speaks of “the exception to the rule”?
Can one objectively say that Matthew’s account is complete without Mark, or that Mark’s account is complete without Matthew? Must not an honest student of the two accounts admit that they are mutually dependent one upon the other for completion and for an accurate understanding of the whole of the discourse in question?
Does not Mark 10: 11, 12, in the light of the context of the harmony of the two divorce accounts, confirm the teaching of Matt.5:32 and Luke16:18 that marriage is indissoluble?

C. The Context of Parallel Accounts In the Gospels Is Noted.

The context of a specific teaching of Christ is never limited to one Gospel if one or more Gospels carry the parallel account elsewhere. If a teacher chiefly bases his conclusion respecting the teaching of Christ pertaining to a particular subject on His statements in one Gospel without regard to His statements on the same occasion in another Gospel or Gospels, he is failing to follow the divine principle of “comparing Scripture with Scripture”: he is presuming to interpret a verse or a part thereof without respect to its complete context, for the respective accounts are both divinely inspired. In no sense can one be said to take priority over the other; together they make up the true context of any given verse of the respective parallel accounts.

The importance of interpreting any passage or any text in the light of the general tenor of Scripture and its parallel accounts is emphasized by Dr.Eric Lund in his text on Hermeneutics, which has been translated by Rev. P.C. Nelson:

It Is necessary to cousult parallel passages explaining “spiritual things by spiritual” (I Cor.2:13,original). ••• ·

It is necessary to appeal to such parallels not only to clear up specific obscure passages, but also to attempt to acquire exact Biblical knowledge in regard to Christian doctrines and practices. Because, as we have already indicated, a doctrine which pretends to be Biblical, cannot be considered entirely to be such

It is necessary to take the words in the sense which the context indicates, that is, the verses which precede and follow the text that is being studied.

It turns out sometimes that the connection of a phrase is not enough to determine what is the true signification of certain words. Therefore, and in that case, we ought to begin the reading further above and continue it further down in order to take into account what precedes and follows the obscure expression, and proceeding in this way clearness will be found in the context through different circumstances. 59

(Eric Lund: Hermeneutics. Paul Nelson, 2122 N. W. 23d Street, Fort Worth, Texas, 1941. pp. 59,79·

There are a number of passages of Scripture in different Gospels covering the same themes on an identical occasion. Some of these seem superficially to be contradictory to one another. Simon Greenleaf who was a notable attorney, quotes from Newcome the following in his harmony of the Gospels, The Testimony of the Evangelists, respecting the parallel accounts of Matt.12:22-37 and Mark 3: 19-30, “Thus the Evangelist is wonderfully supplemental to another by notations of time, place, and other circumstances, and the strictest propriety and agreement result from diligently comparing them. ”

(Simon Greenleaf: The Testimony of the Evangelists, Newark, New Jersey, Soney & Sage, 1903, p.348)

By painstakingly comparing one parallel passage with another, the careful student clarifies and establishes the whole body of truth under discussion in a given passage or passages of the Gospels.

All of the great harmonies of the Gospels include Mark 10: 10-12 as an essential part of the parallel divorce accounts. No objective student can honestly deny that Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark 10: 1-12 are indeed parallel accounts, nor can he deny that a true exegete harmonizes two or more parallel accounts before presuming to give a true interpretation of isolated text in the combined context.

In seeking honestly and objectively to harmonize the two passages at issue, it is well to remember a common practice of life, namely, that if one of great moral repute and seasoned judgment is reported to have recently contradicted in a brief statement all of his earlier statements on a great moral principle, friends and honest foes alike would surely study the whole body of truth which he had presented on the subject to see wherein a harmony of the seeming conflict might be found. A human might change his mind or contradict himself, but Christ who is the TRUTH could not do so. Surely there is greater reason to seek to harmonize Christ’s isolated statement of His seeming contradiction of Himself with His more harmonious statements on the same subject than to seek to harmonize the conflicting statements of a man conceived in sin. It is also important in natural circumstances to see if the speaker’s original puzzling statement has not been misquoted or confused in transcription by another’s hand. Certainly it important that we consider very carefully Christ’s last statement on divorce (Mark 10: 11 , 12) since it, rather than the FIVE WORD School’s interpretation of Matt 19:9 (A. V.), harmonizes with the greater body of truth on the same subject. Christ’s earlier divorce statements likewise harmonize with the Apostle Paul’s statements on the same subject.

The followers of the FIVE WORD School have insisted that the problem and rights of the “innocent party” be settled by isolated text of Scripture and more strictly by the meaning of FIVE words of Mart.19:9. They further insist that Mark 10: 1-12, which completes the whole context of Matt. 19: 1-12. is not relevant to the problem. A thorough study of the harmony of Matt.19:1-12 and Mark 10:11-12 will show how unscrlptural and presumptuous it is for this School to assume this to be true. Sound rules of interpretation will require that a student must decide the meaning of any verse or part thereof in the light of the complete of the parallel divorce accounts of both Gospels.

D. The Harmony of Matthew 19: l·12 and Mark 10: 1-12 Is Noted. (The Seed Bed of the Divorce Controversy).

In proceeding to harmonize the two accounts, it will be important to approach the task with complete objectivity. This harmony should indicate the true reconciliation of the two seemingly contradictory passages of Matt. 19:9 and Mark 10: 11, 12 and give Christ’s true reaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage.

1. DISTINCTIVE FEATURES OF THE TWO GOSPEL ACCOUNTS

a. The occasion of Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark 10:1-12

It ls identical in each. See Matt. 19:1 and Mark10:1.

b. The Persons

They are identical in each; Christ, the Pharisees, and the Disciples were present.

c. The Main Questions of the Pharisees: Matt.19:3; Mark10:2

They were on the identical subject, namely, whether it was right for a man to “put away” (divorce) his wife. Matthew’s account stresses one facet of the question: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” Essentially, the question of Mark’s Gospel, (10:2) and this question (Matt. 19:3) are one. The question of Mark 10:2, ‘·’Is’it lawful for a man to put away hiswife?”of necessity covers every cause; for one cannot ask such a question as10:2 without projecting an inquiry concerning more than one cauise.

The harmony of the two accounts (as will be seen) makes clear that Christ understood the implication of “every cause” in the question in Mark as truly as in the opening question as given in Matthew 19:3. Christ’s reply, as reported in either or both accounts, leaves no room for doubt in the matter.Christ’s reply in the harmony of both accounts was ONE answer, not two, since it was addressed to the same Pharisees by the same Person on the same occasion. In the strictest sense, it is apparent that the differently worded questions in the two accounts of the two Evangelists was ONE question embracing both ideas. This subject is treated in detail later.

d. Christ’s Answer to the Pharisees: Matt. 19:4-9; Mark10:3-9

Except for order and arrangement, the two accounts of Christ’s answer are identical in substance. There is this difference, however: Matthew’s account adds the following words:

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 (Matt.19:9).

It is important to observe here that the Disciples heard the original words of Matt.19:9 as a part of Christ’s whole answer to the Pharisees on the question of divorce.

1. 1. Two Questions of the Disciples on the Same Problem of Divorce

Their First Question: Matt. 19:10

His disciples say unto him,,if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

JESUS’ ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION FOLLOWS ONLY IN MATT.19:11,12

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The Disciple’s Second Question: Mark 10:11,12

And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. ·

JESUS’ ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION (Mark 10:11,12) FOLLOWS:

And he saith unto them, 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.

It should be carefully noted that the second question and the answer were stated after Christ had completed His statement to the Pharisees which included Matthew 19:9.

A HARMONY OF THE PARALLEL DIVORCE ACCOUNTS

The portion in Matthew’s Gospel which is unbrokenly underscored is not foundin Mark’s account, and the portion in Mark’s Gospel which is brokenly underscored is not found in Matthew’s account.

Both of the inquiries referred to above may possibly have been asked in the house, although this is very unlikely. Of one thing the reader may be sure, the answer of Mark 10:11-12 was given in the house to the Disciples alone and not to the Pharisees. The answer of Christ in Matt. 19:11, 12 was also not directed to the Pharisees but to the Disciples.

The objection of the FIVE WORD School that Mark 10:11,12 is not a commentary on Matt. 19:9, because the opening question of the Pharisees is different, is answered fully on pages 86 through 87.

E. Highlights of the Harmony of the Divorce Accounts are Noted.

The Two Introductory Questions of the Pharisees Are Essentially One Question:

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife (Mark 10:2)

Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause (Matt.9:13)

2. The Two Accounts Make One Context, Not Two; the Two Accounts Are Related to One Question and One Teaching, Not Two

The answer of Christ to the Pharisees (Matt. 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-9) is one answer to the Pharisees and not two. The answer of both Gospels is one. Christ’s clarifying statement in the house (Mark 10:11-12) makes this certain.

The parallel accounts of divorce in Matt. 19:1-12 and Mark 10:1-12 are equally inspired by the Holy Spirit. Some of the FIVE WORD School assert that, since the Gospel of Mark did not report the first question of the Pharisees as given in Matt. 19:3, and since Mark’s Gospel does not include the statement of Matt. 19:9 nor Matt. 19:11-12, Christ’s answer to the Disciples in the house (Mark 10:10-12) incomplete and is not, therefore, a clarification of Matt. 19:9 and 19:3-9.

The fallacy of such reasoning becomes apparent in light of the following:

By the same reasoning, as followed above by the FIVE WORD School, Matt. 19:1-12 may not be interpreted by itself, because it, too, presents an incomplete account of Christ’s full statement on the divorce problem raised in Matt. 19:1-9 and Mark 10:1-9, for these two passages were spoken on the same occasion, to the same people, on the same topic. Neither Gospel record of the divorce discourse is complete without the other.
That Mark’s Gospel does not record Matt. 19:9 (whatever it was in the original utterance of Christ) does not mean that it was not a part of the discourse of Christ to the Pharisees not that Christ did not take into account Matt. 19:3-9 when He later went into the house and gave the Disciples a clarifying statement on the whole discourse. One thing is sure, what the Holy Spirit intended Mark to record, was recorded.

3. The Fact that the Two Questions (Matt. 19:3 and Mark I0:2) under Discussion Are Not in the Same Form Does Not Make Them Two Questions.

Dissimilar forms of statements bearing on the same problem in parallel accounts in the Gospels cannot objectively be said to speak of dissimilar things. Can one honestly say that because the question of Mark 17:21:

And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?

is much shorter, and because it has left out so much of what is In Matt. 16:11, its parallel passage, that it is not the same question? The text of Matt. 16: 11 follows:

How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?

The entire context of the above references should be read to get the full impact of this comparison.

Another example occurs in Matt. 21:23 and Mark 11:28. The first of these two verses presents aquestion, as does the latter Scripture, when speaking of the authority of Christ to do the things enumerated in the earlier context of either Gospel, Matt.21:23 in part follows:

By what authority doest thou these things? And who gave thee this authority?

Mark 11:28 states the question thus:

By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?

The difference of form of the two questions does not change the fact that they are speaking of the same thing.

A further contrast of one and the same account is given In Matt.27:38 and Mark 15:17 with John 19:2. Matthew’s Gospel says that a scarlet robe was put upon Christ. Whereas Mark’s and John’s accounts say that it was a purple robe. Certainly any careful Bible student will not take these contrasts to mean that there were two robes. Rather, they mean that the eyewitnesses who brought a description of the scene differed in the term they used to describe the color, which was the same. Biblical authorities say that the purpose of Bible times was closer to what we call crimson -· a red that leans toward blue. The robe may have been old and faded, which possibilities could have added to the difficulty of naming the original color.

Newcome in Greenleaf’s harmony of the Gospels, in discussing the dissimilarities of the two divorce accounts. Matt. 19:.1-12and Mark 10:1-12, states:

The two Evangelists go on to relate our Lord’s observations about divorce and marriage: they agree in substance, which is sufficient; though they differ In the form of the dialogue, neither adhering scrupulously to the exact manner in which the words passed though we may learn it, by comparing both.

(Ibid., p.179).

The FIVE WORD School is certainly textually poor to find it necessary to assert that the question as stated in its two forms (Matt. 19:3 and Mark 10:2) constitutes two different questions. Obviously, the purpose of this School’s stating that the two forms are not one question, drawing forth one answer to the Pharisees is to discredit or nullify Christ’s commentary of Mark 10: 11, 12 on Matt.19:9 and more exactly on Matt. 19:3-9. · For, indeed, the Disciples asked Christ again of the same matter (Mark 10: 10). The teachers of the liberal school cannot allow Mark 10: 11, 12 to be such a commentary, or else their whole argument falls to the ground. Rather, these teachers persist in distorting the whole context (which is the combination of the two accounts) and twist it to conform to their prejudiced view, of ONE isolated text, Matt. 19:9 (A.V.).

4. Christ Refers to Genesis 2:21 -24 to Show That Marriage Was Indissoluble from the Beginning.

Christ said,”Have ye not read that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female“(Matt.19:4). By this statement He referred to Genesis 2:21-24 which follows:

And the LORD God . . . took one of his [Adam’s] ribs and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken.from man, [Hebrew – isha] builded he a woman [ Hebrew – ish] and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bone., and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman [ Hebrew – ish] because she was taken out of man [Hebrew – isha] ish]. Therefore,shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: they shall be one flesh.

Unlike animal kind. the male and female of the human family were not made simultaneously, separate and distinct from each other. Woman was made out of the man. By this unique and striking manner of making woman from man, God indicated that when a woman is united in marriage to man, they are ONE FLESH.unbrokenly one, until death parts one from the other. The “therefore” of Gen.2:24 proves this point. God had plenty of material at hand; He could have easily made two, or three, or more wives for Adam. God, however, planned that there should be only one Mrs. Adam. and that nothing but death could dissolve the union. True, the law of Moses did later prescribe that an adulterous mate should be stoned to purge the land from this iniquity, but it was death ,not divorce, which dissolved the union. God ordained from the beginning that a husband and wife should be ONE FLESH; there was no provision for more than one wife or husband at the same time, either by simultaneous polygamy or by the successive polygamy of divorce and remarriage. In the economy of marriage, God has ordained that one and one equals one not two!

Note that because in the original creation woman was made out of man, the statement follows from Gen.2:24:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: they shall be one flesh.

Christ’s commentary on the above follows:

Wherefore they are no more twain but one flesh. What God therefore hath joined together, let not man put asunder (Matt.19:6).

5. Christ Teaches Correctly that Moses Suffered (tolerated) Divorce. But did Not Command Israel to Put Away Their Wives.

A study of Deut.24: 1-4 will reveal that Christ did indeed understand that Moses only permitted the practice of divorce, which was current in the nations about Israel at that time, and that Moses did not institute divorce for any cause.

The comments of the Pulpit Commentary on Deut. 24: 1-4 is pertinent here. It reads:

These verses should be read as one continuous sentence, of which the protasis is in vers. 1-3, and the apodosis in ver. 4. thus: “If a man hath taken a wife,and married her, and it come to pass that she doth not find favour in his eyes, because of .some uncleanness in her, and he hath written her a bill of divorcement, and given it in her hand, and set her out of his house; and if she hath departed out of his house, and hath gone and become another man’s; and if the latter husband hate her, and write a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house; or if the latter husband who took her to be his wife, die her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, ” etc. This ls not a law sanctioning or regulating divorce; that is simply assumed as which might occur, and what is here regulated is the treatrnent by the first husband of a woman who has been divorced a second time… The woman was held to be defiled [ver. 4] by her second marriage, and thus by implication, the marrying of a woman who had been divorced was pronounced immoral, as is by our Lord explicitly asserted (Matt.5:32). The prohibition of a return of the wife to her first husband, as well as the necessity of a formal bill of divorcement being given to the woman before she could be sent away, could not fail to be checks on the licenseof divorce, as doubtless they were intended to be.

(H.D.M.Spence and Joseph S.Exell, Editors, op-cit.,pp.380-,381)

Robert Young, who gave the world the great Young’s Concordance of the Bible, gives virtually the same translation of the Hebrew of Deut.24: 1-4 in his literal translation of the Bible as does the Pulpit Commentary, above.

The great Old Testament theologian, Gustave F. Oehler, comments on Deut.24:1-4 as follows:

The proper aim of the law (Deut. 24 ff.) lies in the closing sentence, ver.4. Ver. 1 does not contain a command, and even its last clause belongs to the conditional clause . .. the apodosis begins only in ver. 4….The Pharisees indeed say (Matt.19:7): “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?” but the Lord answered ver. 8;! “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered [Greek – permitted] you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”

(Gustave F. Oehler: Theology of the Old Testament, 1^st. ed. Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 1883. pp.231, 232)

[The underscoring (italicizing in this transcription) is the writer’s and he has presented the above quotes of Christ in English, whereas Gustave F. Oehler gave them in the Greek. The change has been made to assist the reader].

Christ indicates that divorce was not in the will of God for man when He brought Eve to Adam. He said that Moses because of the hardness of Men’s hearts (Deut.24: 1-4) permitted men to put away their wives: “but from the beginning it was (Matt.19:8). When sin entered the human race, man de parted from God’s original standard of marriage. God in His wisdom and com passion met man where He found him in the centuries subsequent to the Fall, and then progressively revealed anew His original ethic for man. He dealt with mankind as a pastor deals with a church which he finds in a deplorably low state; the minister begins tactfully and slowly to lift the people from the level where he finds them that he may bring them to the ultimate of his vision and standards. This analogy explains the purpose, under God, ·of…Moses’ toleration of divorce. The toleration was part of God’s pedagogical method of bringing the race gradually back to His Edenic standards. God did not accept Moses’ permission of divorce as either His past, present, or future marital ethic; the divorce permission and other seeming concessions to evil were God’s efforts to reach man at the point of His deplorable moral decline in order patiently to bring mankind out of moral night into the full day of the moral ethic of the kingdom of God which Christ came to announce.

Cornelius Van Til of Westminster Theological Seminary and other eminent theologians of the past and present have recognized that God, in the Old Testament period, pedagogically dealt with fallen man as a father deals with a small and infirm child. After Adam, God temporarily permitted divorce and polygamy; but they were never his standard of marriage. Indeed things are allowed in a child, and particularly in a sick child, that a parent would never tolerate in the same individual when he is nearing maturity. The Apostle Paul uses this very figure of a child in Gal.4:1-8.

Christ said, “The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached,and every man presseth into it” (Luke i6:i6). The twilight of the partial revelation of God’s divine ethic ended in Christ. The Apostle Paul declared,[God]”in times past suffered (permitted] all nations to walk in their own ways”…. “And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men everywhere to repent: Because . . . He will judge the world . ..by that man [Christ] whom He hath ordained”(Acts 14,16; I7:30,3l). What God tolerated in Moses’ day, He will not tolerate today! Jesus said, in announcing the laws of the kingdom of God, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time . .. But I say unto you• (Matt.5:21,22). Certainly no citizen of the kingdom of God should now presume to live by the standards of the permissions of the Old Testament.

(From Christian Theistic Ethics by CorneliusVan Til, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1951,p.85.)

6. The Importance of Christ’s Comments to His Disciples When Alone with Them.

The importance of Christ’s utterances when alone with His Disciples is plain in the light of the following. When Christ completed His public teaching respecting the parable of the sower, Mark4:1-2, the Scriptures state: “And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked him of the parable. And he said unto them, “Unto you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables”(Mark 4:10,11). Following this statement Christ gave the Disciples a private exposition of the same truth.

We find that it was Jesus’ practice to explain more fully in private what He had said in public. In accordance with the Disciples’ custom, they asked Him, when alone, for a further explanation of His amazing declaration prohibiting the dissolution of marriage for any cause, including adultery. Then. as He was wont, He gave them a complete and final clarifying statement about the matter, and thus left no doubt in their minds that He.indeed, taught the complete indissolubility of marriage.

The Scriptures add, “But without a parable spake he not unto them: and when they were alone, he expounded all things to His Disciples” (Mark 4: 10, 11). .Mark frequently brings bright and clarifying details into his accounts which are not found in other parallel accounts. He particularly noted the fact that Christ often gave a further word of explanation concerning His teaching when He was alone with His Disciples. Mark 7: 17 and 9:38 provide additional examples of this practice. No other Gospel writer refers so frequently to this unique relation of Christ to His Disciples. It is probable that the Apostle Peter told Mark privately of the “in the house” experience and utterance of Christ in Mark 10: 10- 12, or Mark may have heard the Apostle Peter refer to it in his public reaching .. Some believe that Mark was an eye witness of many things which he records. In any case. Mark 10: 10- 12 is a part of Christ’s teaching in the parallel divorce accounts, and is a commentary on Matt 19:3-9 and the Lord’s final word on the original question of the Pharisees ( Matt. 19:3: Mark 10:2), “Is it lawful for a man to put away his .wife for every cause?”

Back to Chapter VII

Proceed to Chapter X

Appendix

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapter VII – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 18, 2015 standerinfamilycourt

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”.

This pivotal chapter delves deeply into verb tenses to provide a scholarly proof that Jesus cast remarriage adultery as ongoing sin, and not just a one-time event (contrary today’s second most popular evangelical myth).

Chapter VII – COMMENTS ON MATTHEW 19:9 (A.V.)

They [The Pharisees} say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 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 (19:8).

v.9 And I SAY UNTO YOU, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except itbefor fornication, and shall marry another. committeth adultery: and whosomarrteth her which ls put away doth commit adultery.

The text ls the citadel of the FIVE WORD School, since they insist that the problem and rights of the so-called “innocent party” must be settled by one sentence of Scripture (if the A. V. grammatical form is correct)and more strictly by the meaning of five words (the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9 A. V. ). Because those who hold the liberal view of divorce stress these five words, the writer is pleased to refer to them as the FIVE WORD School of Divorce. A careful examination will be made of this limited citadel (Matt. 19;9 A.V.) of the FIVE WORD School.

On the surface this text has presented an enigma to the Christian Church for many generations, although it was no enigma to the Christian Church in the first four centuries of its existence. The enigma lies in the fact that, whereas all of Christ’s other divorce texts close the door to the dissolution of marriage by divorce for any cause whatsoever, this text appears (note it appears) to teach that one may dissolve a marriage for the cause of FORNICATION and thus free himself to marry another. Three divorce texts of Christ(Matt.5:32; Luke16:18, and Mark 10:10,12) close the door to the apparent meaning of Matt.19:9. In addition, the Apostle Paul. who heard the teaching of the other Apostles on this question, twice closed the door to the superficial view of Matt. 19:9. Those statements are Rom. 7:2, 3 and I Corw 7: 10, 11 and 39.

The author of this book believes that the apparent enigma of Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) can be resolved. The burden of a large part of the remainder of this book will be the resolution of this enigma. Certainly it cannot scripturally be resolved, as some have attempted, by a hasty exegesis of Matt. 19:9 based largely on the meaning of the one word divorce, as understood by the Pharisees, without regard to all the salient aspects of the context and the general tenor of Scripture bearing on the same subject.

A fundamental law of interpretation, as indicated on page 11 is that the Bible must be interpreted harmonistically. All parts of the Bible will harmonize if understood correctly. Obviously, an interpreter or school of doctrine will be inerror if either arbitrarily forces the many texts presenting one unified view of a doctrine to harmonize with a private interpretation of one isolated text. This rule in itself would cause an objective student to search for the solution of the enigma by seeking to ascertain whether the ONE isolated text could be aligned with the MANY texts which agree in presenting a different view rather than taking the superficial method of depending upon the ONE isolated text for interpretation of the subject in question. The better method can be followed if all students considering the problem are willing to approach the study of this text on the above sound principles of interpretation. which have been followed by the Church of Christ from generation to generation. Should followers of the FIVE WORD School insist that students approaching this study must interpret the MANY texts onthe subject in the light of their ONE, isolated text, they should not be amazed to find that objective students approaching the problem will be completely skeptical as to their conclusions, not to say shocked that any evangelical school of thought would presume to follow such a fallacious principle of interpretation.

A. The Context of Matt. 19:9 is important

The context of this text will be treated in the Harmony of Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark10:1-12. It will be important that we study the context very carefully and objectively, for a wise divine of the past has said, “Etymology will kill you, but context will save you. ” Because a large segment of the FIVE WORD School’s argument is based on the meaning of the word “divorce” as particularly used in this context, a thorough study of this context, in all of its ramifications will be vital in solving the enigma presented to us by Matt. 19:9 (A. V.). As quoted earlier, “At times when all the grammatical data are known the sentence is still uninterpreted … . The study of the context takes ts place with the study of words and good grammar is absolutely basic to determining the meaning of a sentence.”

Bernard Ramm, loc. cit. (Ref.4)

B. A Study of the Text as Found in the Authorized Version of 1611.

1. Its General Grammatical Structure Should Be Considered.

Greek scholars agree that an exceptive clause may not necessarily modify both the clause preceding it and the clause immediately following it. The light of the context and the general tenor of Scripture bearing on the problem helps the grammarian to determine which clause it does modify. According to the above rule, the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) may or may not modify the clause which immediately follows it. Further light from the study of the context and other divorce texts will be necessary to decide wisely whether it modifies that clause. The clause reads, “and marrieth another.” This clause is not found in Matt. 5:32 as observed earlier.

The rules of Greek grammar, like the rules of English grammar, do not allow one. at will, to lift a clause out of one independent clause and put it either at the end of a second independent clause or at some ·other point arbitrarily chosen by an interpreter to favor his predetermined view of the interpretation of the statement in question. English rules of grammar will illustrate the point. We quote from a standard text book in English:

A clause is a group of words containing both subject and predicate used as only part of a sentence. A clause may be dependent or independent …., An independent clause . . . is a group of words containing both subject and predicate and capable of standing alone as a sentence. For example: The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament showeth his handiwork. Each of these clauses is independent, and each could stand alone as a simple sentence .. . . Whether such a group of words is a sentence or an independent clause depends entirely upon the way the writer uses it; it is a matter of rhetorical rather than of grammatical unity-a matter of effectiveness rather than correctness.

(Norman Foerster and J.M. Steadman: Writing and Thinking. New York, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931. pp. 130,131)

The Syriac Peshito Text of 150 A. D. divides Matt. 19:9 into two sentences. In view of the fact that no punctuation appears in the original Greek manuscripts, there are wide variations among translators in their sentence structure of a given passage. An example of the above is found in Goodspeed’s translation of Matt. 21: 18, 19. Compare the Authorized Version with Goodspeed’s which follows:

In the morning as he went back to the city. he grew hungry, and seeing a fig tree by the roadside, he went up to it, but found nothing on it but leaves. And he said to it “No more fruit shall ever grow on. you!”

Notice there is no period separating verses 18 and 19 in the Goodspeed translation. Observe also that he divides verse 19 into two sentences instead of one as in the Authorized Version. This difference in translations could be multiplied by the hundreds. Inasmuch as only the original Greek manuscripts of the NewTestament were verbally inspired, no translator is bound by the punctuation of any version, including the Authorized Version, in the sentence structure of his translation. It is important at this point to be reminded of the fact that the Greek conjunctive KAI, which is translated AND at the beginning of the last clause (an independent clause) of Matt.19:9(A.V.), is also the introductory word of a sentence in hundreds of places in the New Testament. A few examples of this are found in Matt. 21: 19, 20, 22, 23, 24.

Students of the New Testament must be careful to avoid building an interpretation of a verse merely on the punctuation of a given English translation. Rather, they should interpret a given sentence or passage of the best manuscripts according to established rules of Greek grammar. The rules of English grammar may be of assistance where they are similar to the rules of the Greek. When a verse remains as a single, isolated text, apparently contradicting by its grammar virtually all the other texts bearing on the same doctrine, one must carefully reexamine all the seeming contradictory texts and their contexts in an objective manner. If, after careful study, these texts still stand unitedly as one, challenging the seeming contradiction of the isolated text, it will be necessary to consider whether the exegesis of the many texts does not compel one to look for an alternative understanding of the grammatical structure of the one text in question. This will be especially true if the immediate and full context of the verse supports the view of doctrine set forth in the majority of texts bearing on the same subject. If the isolated text described above has a strong variant Greek reading which is accepted by a goodly number of outstanding scholars, it too must be studied to see whether it provides the answer to the enigma of the problem of the seeming contradiction between ONE conflicting and the MANY agreeing texts under study.

The FIVE WORD School insists that the exceptive clause modifies the last section of the sentence bearing on the remarriage of the divorced wife Of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.). The doctrine of this portion of the sentence, as noted earlier, is confirmed by Matt.5:32 and Luke16:18. The fact that Christ abrogated the divorce permission of Moses which formerly allowed a divorced wife to remarry is further evidence that the latter portion of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) should not be modified by the exceptive clause. And as we have seen (in the Syriac Peshito text), independent clauses may just as well be separate sentences. The evidence presented to this point should be sufficient of itself to prove substantially that the exceptive clause does not modify the portion affecting the remarriage of the divorced wife.

It is vitally important to see that the main thrust of Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) presents the sin of a man who puts away his wife without a cause of FORNICATION and the consequent sin of the divorced wife if she proceeds to marry again because her husband has divorced her and married another. There is little doubt that the husband in question married again, for that is the very reason for which the Pharisees divorced their wives. Careful observation will reveal that in the major thrust of this text (in the Authorized Version), the words, like those in 5:32 and Luke16:18, are set in juxtaposition to those of Deut.24:1-4 to declare emphatically and unequivocally that Christ abrogated the divorce permission of Moses. The divorce standards of the Pharisees jeopardized their entrance into the kingdom of God. May God grant that no one pursuing this study will jeopardize his own soul or the souls of others by the doctrine of divorce which he accepts and propagates. Observe that the divorce text of Christ (Matt. 5:32), which abrogated the divorce permission of Moses (Deut. 24:1-4), stands in a context wherein Christ is raising the standards above the low standards of the Pharisees. Note also that He said, in this very setting:

For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt.5:20).

The Christian’s soul and the souls for whom he may be responsible will be in danger if he and they hold a divorce standard no higher than that of the Pharisees. The school of Shammai of the Pharisees permitted innocent spouses to marry another for the cause of adultery, contrary to the standards of Christ. The FIVE WORD School alleges that both the innocent husband of the minor thrust of Matt. 19:9(A.V.) and the innocent wife of the major thrust of the text have a right to remarry after divorce. The latter, it believes, is free to marry again when her husband has committed adultery by marrying another, since it judges the innocent husband of the minor thrust of the verse to be free to marry again when his wife commits adultery.

The considerations which follow will show the conclusions of this school to be completely unfounded.

The fallacy of the FIVE WORD position in Matt.19:9 is first shown by its strange exegesis where by it allegedly frees the innocent wife of Matt.19:9(A.V.) to remarry while her first mate is still living. This school believes, as is generally known, that the presumed modification of the first half of the verse by the exceptive clause(“except it be for fornication”) permits the innocent husband of the minor thrust of the text to remarry. It then necessarily proceeds to assert that the latter half of the text is also modified by the exceptive clause, for if it is not, the doctrine of the right of the innocent husband to remarry in the first half of the verse collapses. By its alleged modification of the last half of the text by the exceptive clause, it presumes to assert that the innocent wife of the major thrust is freed to marry again when her husband commits adultery by marrying another.

The absurdity of the modification of the latter portion of the text. as well as the first, becomes apparent when one visualizes the necessary grammatical result. If, as this school teaches, the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) modifies both the first and last half of the text in its major thrust, then it must do the same in the minor thrust, with the consequence that the TEXT would, in the latter instance by FIVE WORD interpretation, read as follows:

“Whosoever shall put away his wife for fornication and shall marry another does not commit adultery, and he that marrieth her when she is put away does not commit adultery. ”

The total effect of the above nullifies with one stroke one phase of what the FIVE WORD School teaches, namely, that whereas it is right for an “innocent party” to marry another while the first mates lives, the “guilty party (an unchaste mate) is not free to do likewise. The FIVE WORD School is forced by its strange exegesis and interpretation to allow the “adulterous mate” of the minor thrust of the text to marry again, as the TEXT above, as altered by FIVE WORD exegesis, shows. Whether this school wills to do so or not, it divides the text, and makes one half of it contradict the other. This will be further discussed below.

In its zeal allegedly to prove that the word divorce always means the complete dissolution of the marriage bond, the FIVE WORD School stresses the fact that the divorce of the wife in Deut.24: 1-4 inherently carried with it the right of the husband to remarry while at the same time permitting the woman also to marry another, either before or after her husband had married again. The FIVE WORD School believes that Christ was using the word in the same sense in Matt.19:9. The teachers of this school conclude therefore, that as it was not a sin for the innocent wife under Moses to remarry when her husband remarried. it is no sin under Christ for the innocent wife of the type described in Matt. 5:32 to marry again when her husband does so, for they assert that always means the dissolution of the marriage bond. This kind of so-called logic (as that of the false exegesis described above), if consistently followed, will also permit an adulterous wife to marry again. Indeed, Moses allowed an innocent wife to marry again when she was divorced, for he stated in Deut. 24:I,2:

AND WHEN SHE IS DEPARTED out of his house, she may go and BE ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE.

BUT the LORD JESUS CHRIST said: It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, That whosoever shall put away hls wife, saving for the cause of FORNICATION, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matt.5:31, 32).

Indeed, under Moses, it was no sin for an innocent wife who was divorced to marry again when her husband remarried but it was otherwise under Christ. He said she committed adultery in doing so (Luke 16: 18). As shown earlier in this book, her remarriage constituted adultery, specifically because Christ abrogated the divorce permission of Moses (Deut. 24: 1-4), and thus the husband’s remarriage was not valid in the sight of God. She had no right, therefore, to remarry when his marriage union with her (his first wife) was still binding. The sin of adultery of the husband did not break the earlier union. If it did, then an unhappy spouse could free himself (or herself) simply by marrying another.

The Holy Scriptures say, “IN THE MOUTH OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES SHALL EVERY WORD BE ESTABLISHED.” The text of Luke 16:18 reaffirms that Christ’s abrogation of the divorce permission of Moses rescinded the Mosaic rightof an innocent, divorced wife to marry again under any circumstances, except the death of her mate(I Cor.7:10.11,39). “A house divided against itself cannot stand, ” neither can an interpretation which divides a text against itself. If an innocent wife cannot marry again, surely an innocent husband may not do so either. The latter part of Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) forbids an innocent wife to remarry, as does Luke 16: 18 (R. V.)below:

Everyone that putteth away his wife, and marrleth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery.

The fallacy of the doctrine and exegesis of the FIVE WORD School is further shown by its blindness to the context of Matt. 19:9, which in at least twelve points, shows that Christ did not provide for the dissolution of any marriage for cause. The detailed discussion of this subject occurs on pages 92 through107. The frightful results of FIVE WORD exegesis shown in this section will be described in detail on pages 126 through 132 of the Appendix.

2. An Examination of the FIVE WORD School’s Method of Modifying Other Divorce Texts, and Portions thereof, by ONE Exceptive Clause is noted.

The liberal school of divorce regards its one principal modifying clause (the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9, A. V.) to be more important in determining the meaning of Matt. 19:9 (A.V.) and all other divorce texts than the modifying clauses of other divorce texts which contradict the liberal view of Matt.19:9. The several modifying clauses to which the writer refers are indicated below and are virtually identical in the closing portions of these texts (Matt. 5:32; 19:9, and Luke 16:18). The last portion of these several texts reads:

And whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

The main thrust of the several verses above presents the woman in question as a chaste wife. We have in these verses, therefore, a three-fold testimony that there is an “innocent party” who may not marry another, even though her mate has committed adultery marrying another. The abrogation of the divorce law of Moses (Deut.24: 1-4) reveals clearly and positively that this chaste wife cannot, under Christ. marry another even when her husband divorces her and marries again, because his second marriage is not valid and he is, consequently, living in a state of adultery. The fact that he lives in a state of adultery does not allow her to go and do likewise.

Should not the modifying element in three divorce texts have more weight in settling the right of an innocent spouse to marry again than one modifying element of one isolated divorce text(Matt.19:9, A.V.)? How strange is the method of interpretation of the FIVE WORD School!

3. The Tense of “COMMITTETH ADULTERY” (moichaomai) in Matt. 19:9 is Significant.

Many evangelical pastors and Bible teachers are strict exegetes, as they expect others of their profession to be, in the interpretation of Scriptures relatingto the great doctrines of redemption and the future life, but fail through indifference or neglect to apply the same thorough exegesis to Scriptures relating to divorce. Surely they should give as much careful attention to the meaning of the Greek tenses in the divorce passages as in those of other important doctrines. In both the main and minor thrust of Matt.19:9 (A. V. ) the tense of the verb in question is the present. Does the spouse committing adultery commit an isolated act in the specific moment of being physically joined to the second or latter mate. or does the unscriptural remarriage of a spouse put him into a state of adultery? Is the sin one momentary sin of the past, or is it a continuing sin so long as he unlawfully remains in marital union with his second or latter spouse? Obviously, the remarried divorcees in question are those whose first mates are still living while they live with subsequent unlawful mates.

A definition of the present tense from A Manual of the Greek Grammar of the New Testament by Dana and Mantey follows:

The fundamental significance of the present tense is the idea of progress. It is the linear tense . . . . Since there is no aorist tense for present time, the present tense, as used in the indicative. must do service for both linear and punctiliar action. But it is to be borne in mind that the idea of present time is secondary in the force of the tense. The time element belongs to the indicative mood, where the present tense is really the “imperfect of present time,” while what we know as the imperfect tense is the “imperfect of past time. ” The progressive force of the present tense should always be considered as primary, especially with reference to the potential moods, which in the nature of the case do not need any “present punctiliar” tense.

(H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey: A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, New York. The Macmillan Company, 1947. p. 181.)

Williams’ translation of the New Testament is held by many to be one of the most accurate modern translations of the Greek tenses of the New Testament. He translates Matt.7:21 as follows:

Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord shall enter into the kingdom of heaven, but only those who practice doing the will of my Father which is in heaven.

The Authorized Version of the same text gives the last clause of the verse as follows:

But he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Charles B. Williams justifies this translation by stating in his footnote that the word doeth is in the present tense and is therefore better translated “practice doing.”

(Charles B. Williams: The New Testament, A Translation in the Language of the People. Chicago, Moody Press, 1937. p. 24)

Similarly. he translates the present tense of verbs of other passages in a manner to convey the meaning of a continuing action or a continuous state or process. See Williams’ translations of Mark 3,9; 14: 18; Acts 10,2, and Rom. 6:13.

A.T. Robertson gives examples of the force of the present tense in the following passages, John 15:4; Rom. 5, I; 6: I; I John 3,6, 9. He comments on I John3:6 as follows:

Sinneth not (ourch hamartanei). Linear present (linear menon, keeps on abiding) active indicative of hamartano, “does not keep on sinning. ” . . ..Whosoever sinneth (ho hamarranon). Present (linear) active articular participle like menon above, “the one who keeps on sinning” (lives a life of sin, not mere occasional acts of sin as hamartesas, aorist active participle, would mean).

(Archibald Thomas Robertson: Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.VI. Nashville, Tennessee, Sunday School Board of Southern Baptist Convention, 1933. p.222)

The word moichaomai (commits adultery) is in the present tense each time it is used in the major thrust of Matt.5:32; 19:9; Mark 10: 11,12, and Luke 16:18; and except in the major thrust of Matt. 5: 32 and in the variant reading of the major thrust of Matt. 19:9, the tense is the present in every instance in all of the texts noted at the beginning of this paragraph. The tense in the exceptions is the aorist, infinitive, passive. the word being then moicheuthenai. In these two cases it is used to show that a divorced chaste wife is made to suffer adultery because of the wrong of her husband in putting her away and thus projecting her into the sin of an illicit (adulterous) marriage, or into the sin of harlotry. These two exceptions obviously have no bearing on the fact that the verb “commits adultery” (moichaomai) is in each instance in the present tense when referring to a man who puts away his wife. These two exceptions do not alter the fact thatany man-who puts away his wife and marries another commits adultery (present tense) and he who marries her that is thus put away commits adultery (present tense).

The present tense of moichaomai stands out more pronouncedly when the reader observes that the verb apoluse (putteth away) is the same form of the verb in the forepart of Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Luke 16: 18, and in both Mark 10: 11 and 12. Theverb is in the active voice, subjunctive mood of the aorist tense. The verb “putteth away” in the latter part of Matt.5:32; 19:9, and Luke16:18 is apolelumenen. It is the passive voice of the perfect tense. The perfect tense usually represents an action as standing omplete at the time of speaking. It implies a past action and affirms an existing result. However, the word moichatai (committeth adultery) in both instances in Matt. 19:9 is in the present tense which does not speak of the act as completed or finished, but of a state or a continuing practice of evil.

Had Christ wanted to indicate that the sin of adultery in qµestion was a sinful act completed in the past, He would not have used the Greek present tense but the aorist tense in the indicative mood. or He would have used the perfect tense.

One of the greatest authorities on the subject of moods and tenses of the Greek is Ernest De Witt Burton. A statement of his textbook in this field says:

The constant characteristic of the aorist tense in all of its moods, including the participle, is that it represents the action denoted by it indefinltely: i.e.simply as an event, neither on the one hand picturing it in progress, or on the other affirming the existence of its result. The name indefinite as thus understood is therefore applicable to the tense in all of its uses.

As respects the point of view from which the action is looked at, however, we may distinguish three functions of the tense common to all of its moods.

First, it may be used to describe an action or event in its entirety . .

Second, it may be used to denote the inception of a state…It belongs to verbs which in the Present and Imperfect denote the continuance of a state

Thirdly, it may be used to denote the success of an effort . . .

(Ernest DeWitt Burton: Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek. 2nd ed. Chicago, University Press of Chicago, 1893. pp. I6 ,17.)

Observe that in Luke 16: 18 it says that both the man who puts away his wife and marries another “committeth adultery” (present tense), and the man who marries a wife that is divorced “committeth adultery.” In neither case does it say. or does any similar statement in the other divorce texts say, “He did commit adultery, in the wedding ceremony, or in the first act of consummating the physical union,” but he “committeth adultery,” that is, he is NOW COMMITTING adultery in his continuing illicit relations with the one who is not his lawful spouse before God.

John the Baptist told King Herod, respecting Herodias, whom he had ta ken to be his wife, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt.14:4). Josephus informs us that Herodias had divorced Philip and that Herod had divorced his wife prior to marrying Herodias. According to John the Baptist, Herod was living in adultery with a pretended wife. What many fail to realize is that the marriage laws of God are LIVING LAWS. They are vibrantly active and in motion under God, today!

Were it possible to get rid of the force of the present tense of moichaomai, “committeth adultery,” which It is not, one would not there by alter the fact that Christ taught that any spouse who maintains the intimacies of a true marriage while in an unscriptural marriage is living in adultery. This is clear from the fact that He said ( Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Luke 16: 18) that whoever marries a divorced woman committeth adultery, as obviously the divorced woman who remarried did also. And why did this woman commit adultery by her later marriage? could only be because Christ recognized the first marriage of herself and husband as still binding and therefore undissolved. Certainly, it could not have been adultery for her to marry another if the first husband had dissolved the earlier union by getting a divorce from her and marrying another.

Had the Christian Church regarded the true import of the present tense of moichaomai, she would not have treated the doctrine of divorce so lightly, nor would she have accepted divorcees into official and semi-official relationships (the offices and teaching positions of the Sunday School among others) of the local congregation. Indeed, the present tense of moichaomai indicates beyond any doubt that a Hollywood star who marries another while his true wife is still living is in a present, continuing state of adultery. As Billy Graham has said of the many times remarried divorcees of Hollywood, they are “living in adultery.”

Should young people of any evangelical church believe that the unscriptural act of marrying another while having a living partner is but an isolated sinful act of the past, having no relationship to a present sinful state of adultery, then surely such young people will, without compunction of conscience, secure divorces for sundry causes to marry other spouses. On the basis of such a false premise they would reason, when they found themselves unhappily married: I have committed even presumptive sins of other character and yet have been forgiven of those past sins. I know that adultery is not an unpardonable sin. I shall divorce my mate and marry another more to my liking, even though such a remarriage is the sin of adultery, for when the act of consummating marriage is over, the sin of adultery is a past sin, not affecting the future state of my new spouse and me, providing that I ask God to forgive me for it. Many a pastor knows that not a few professing Christians excuse their sinful course of divorce and remarriage by such a method of rationalization.

If one refuses to accept the significance of the present tense of moichaomai in the divorce texts, he must needs approve marriages which are disapprovedby the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a person should remember that the innocent wife of Matt. 5:31, 32 was forbidden by Christ to remarry when her husband divorced her and married again. The identical prohibition appears more emphatically in Luke 16: 18, Williams translates the latter text as follows:

Any man who divorces his wife to marry another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries the woman divorced from her husband commits adultery…

Should the wife in question remarry, both the second marriage of the former husband and her second marriage would be invalid before a holy God; nor if the aforementioned spouses should intreat the God of Israel to forgive them and put His stamp ofapproval upon their second marriages, would this change the fact that such marriages are disapproved of God. The divorce law of the kingdom of God proclaimed by Jesus Christ ( Matt, 5:31. 32; 19:9; Mark 10: 11, 12; Luke 16:18) makes this positively clear.

Does the divorce law of a given state or an action of its courts legalize before heaven a marriage which in the sight of God is a state of adultery. Does the fact that a state legalizes gambling and prostitution make them non-sinful before God? Can any true Christian believe that a state has the authority before heaven to dissolve a marriage which before God is indissoluble and thus legalize an adulterous union? Can it, presto. by legal means, make pure mates out of adulterous mates who have no right to another marriage because one or the other or both have ion an unmarried couple who were living together unlawfully before the state and unscripturally before heaven? A Christian Judge has said that an unscriptural union may become before the state a legal marriage, but it does not by its authority become a legal marriage before heaven. What is taken as a proper marriage standard by the unregenerate must not be taken as a proper standard before God. The significance of the present tense of moichaomai in the divorce texts of Christ explains why the Apostle Paul in I Tim.3:2 wrote: “‘A bishop [Greek.episkopon], overseer then must be blameless, the husband of one wife”. The “one” in question clearly means one at a time. In commenting on the passage, and particularly the phrase “‘of one wife”, A. T. Robertson states, “One at a time clearly. “22

(Archibald Thomas Robenson, op. cit. Vol.IV. p.572.)

The Apostle repeats the same exhortation in Tit.1 :5.6 when he speaks of the appointment of elders as bishops (episkopon). The following comment on this text byJoh. Ed. Huther In Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the New Testament is important here:

This expression cannot here be properly referred to polygamy; for although polygamy might at that time be still found among the civilized heathen, and even among the Jews, it was a rare exception.

(Joh Ed.Huther:Meyer’s Critical and Exegetical Hand-Book to the NewTestament, Vol. Timothy-Titus, New York. Funk and Wagnalls, 1885. p.II7).

The Americana encyclopaedia confirms the above. Paul’s statement in ITim.3:2 must therefore refer to a man who has divorced his former mate and married another and who thus has two wives. T. A. Lacey. D. D. , F. S. A., in his book, Marriage in Church and State, in commenting on the passage,”the husband of one wife” (I Tim.3:2) has shown that the interpretation that asserts that this phrase means that polygamy was permitted in the Church for all except the elders is wholly fallacious. Dr. Lacey clarifies his position by pointing out the import of I Tim.5:9, and the significance of polygamy’s relation to divorce. The statement of I Tim. 5:9, “Let not a widow be taken into the number. Under three score years old, having been the wife of one man ….. indicates that a widow who was eligible within the Church to receive old age assistance must have been married only to one man. The entire New Testament supports monogamy as the rule of God. Its condemnation of marriage after divorce confirms this rule; for if it were right to take a second wife while having the first wife, it would be right to take another wife after divorcing the first. The absence of any prohibition against polygamy in the New Testament is sufficient evidence to affirm that polygamy was unknown among the society that heard the Gospel preached in the time of the Apostle Paul.

(T.A. Lacey: Marriage in Church and State. London, the Society for Promotion of Christian Knowledge, 1947, p.11.)

W.J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson in their book, The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, have given the following comment on the phrase, “the husband of one wife,” (I Tim.3:2):

Compare 3;12, v.9 and Tit.1:6. Many different interpretations have been given to this precept. It has been supposed (1) to prescribe marriage, (2) to forbid polygamy, (3) to forbid second marriages. The true interpretation seems to be as follows: In the corrupt facility of divorce allowed both by Greek and Roman law, it was very common for man and wife to separate, and marry other parties, during the life of one another. Thus a man might have three or four living wives; or, rather, women who had all successively been his wives. An example of the operation of a similar code is unhappily to be found in our own colony of Mauritius: there the French Revolutionary law of divorce has been suffered by the English government to remain unrepealed, and it is not uncommon to meet in society three or four women who have all been the wives of the same man, and three or four men who have all been the husbands of the same woman. We believe it is this kind of successive polygamy rather than simultaneous polygamy, which is here spoken of as disqualifying for the Presbyterate.

(W.J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson: The Life and Epistles of Saint Paul. Grand Rapids, Wm.B. Eerdmans Publishing Company,1949. p.751).

The Apostle Paul in setting this standard (I Tim.3:2) was supporting what he knew Christ taught (I Cor. 7: 10, 11). Paul’s own statements in Rom. 7:2, 3, I Cor. 7: 10, 11, 39 reveal that he believed in the complete indissolubility of marriage, and the right of a wife to marry another only when her husband died. He recognized that any man who divorced a wife and married another while the firstwife was still living had two wives at a time rather than one at a time (I Tim.3:2;Tit.1:6). The quotation of John 4:16-18 is pertinent here: “Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The 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 hast is not thy husband.”

4. The Difficulty of Resolving the Problems of Unscriptural Unions Should be Considered Carefully

The significance of the present tense provides for no hasty and arbitrary advice and action on the part of a pastor towards divorcees who come to the alter of his church. Some have hurriedly advised such people to separate speedily, and have caused some of the unfortunates quickly to add sin to sin, either in one orthe other’s marrying again unscripturally. The welfare of the children of such a union will be in jeopardy if the parents in question act without divine guidance. Some conservative teachers have recommended that parents of unscriptural unions may protect their children, while they preserve a good conscience before God, by living together as brother and sister without sharing in the conjugal rights which belong to a scriptural union. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind,” of the course which God would have him to pursue under such or similar circumstances. The Assemblies of God appears to have done well to state in its manual “We recommend that these cases be left in the hands of the Lord, and that they walk in the light as God lets it shine on their souls.”

(Minutes and Constitution of the Assemblies of God, Springfield, Missouri, Gospel Publishing House, 1955. p.102).

SIFC Note: An extracted portion of this chapter originally found on pages 49-51 of this text has been moved to the end of the Appendix. This section deals with theories on how spouses who come under conviction for being in an adulterous remarriage may resolve the sinful state they find themselves in. This section includes quotes from several individuals reflecting assumptions that have not undergone the same level of rigorous application of hermeneutical principles as the rest of the book’s content has. Additionally, these statements conflict with the overall content of the book to which such principles have been applied.

The conviction that Christ clearly taught that marriage is indissoluble has led some younger evangelical churches which have earnestly striven to return to the

Apostolic standards of the Bible to set forth such declarations as given below. The position of the Christian and Missionary Alliance follows:

That divorced people who are remarried should not be used in public service in our work. (Adopted In 1921, reaffirmed Council 1949.)
That divorced persons who are remarried shall not be elected or appointed to national offices or be given Christian and Missionary Alliance Credentials or Christian Workers Certificates. (Council 1949).
That we earnestly and urgently request the local pastors to adhere, in the future, to this principle in all elective and appointive positions of trust and influence in their churches or branches for the sake of preserving our testimony and for an example to the believers, (Council 1949.)
That any flagrant violation of the above shall be subject to review and scriptural action by the District Executive Committee, (Council 1949.)
That pastors of the Christian and Missionary Alliance should not perform the marriage ceremony for divorced persons. (Adopted in 1921, reaffirmed Council 1949.)29

(Manual of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, New York, 1955. p. 68.

The position of the Assemblies of God is very similar to the declaration of the Christian and Missionary Alliance:

SIFC Note: The following position and supporting doctrine was materially and unscripturally changed beginning in 1973 per the Minutes of the Annual General Assembly. It was further updated in 2002 to require pastors to perform weddings for divorced parties who are seeking to remarry regardless that they have an estranged, living covenant spouse to whom God considers them still married until death.

We disapprove of any General Council minister performing a marriage ceremony for anyone who has been divorced and whose former companion is still living. We also warn that any minister of our fellowship who performs such a ceremony, unless he is innocently deceived into doing the same, may be dismissed from the Council.

There are now among Christian people those who became entangled in their marriage relations in their former lives of sin, and who do not see how these matters can be adjusted. We recommend that these cases be left in the hands of the Lord, and that they walk in the light as God lets it shine on their souls.

Low standards on marriage and divorce are very hurtful to individuals, to the family and to the cause of Christ, therefore we discourage divorce by all lawful means and teaching. We positively disapprove of Christians getting a divorce for any cause except for fornication and adultery (Matt. 19:9); and recommend the remaining single of all divorced Christians, and that they pray God so to keep them in purity and peace. (See I Corinthians 7.)

Since it is generally accepted among us that such persons are not to serve in official capacities in our churches, we recommend that this standard be upheld by all our assemblies.

(Minutes and Constitution of the Assemblies of God, op.cit.,pp.72, 102,193.)

The MANUAL of the Pilgrim Holiness Church presents the following respecting divorce and remarriage:

Let no one be elected as a [local] leader who is careless of our Covenant and the obligations imposed therein. A leader should be an example to the flock of Christ. If it be known that an individual has been divorced from one companion and has married another without the former having died, or is married to one who has another living companion; . . .let the local church board see that he is not elected to any church office, or if elected that he be speedily removed. •••

Any minister or deaconess who has been divorced from one companion and has married another without the former having died, or is married to one who has another living companion, shall not be licensed or ordained, and any minister or deaconess who violates this rule shall be dismissed immediately from his ministerial standing. •••

In these days of multiplied divorces and great laxity relative to the marriage question, it is fully agreed that no minister shall unite in holy wedlock any who have been divorced.•••

Credentials of ministers who have been divorced from one companion and have married another without the former having died are not recognized.

(Manual of the Pilgrim Holiness Church. Indianapolis, The Pilgrim Publishing House, 1956. pp. 35, 88, 89,93)

The Apostle was deeply concerned about the example of believers, both before the world and the church. “Be thou an example of the believers . . . (I Tim.4: 12); “in all things shewing thyself a pattern of good. ” (Tit.2:7). “A bishop then must be irreproachable, the husband of wife”‘ (I Tim.3:2-Weymouth). The footnote of the fifth edition of this translation reads: “This was interpreted to mean that a bishop must not be married more than once.” 32

(Richard Francis Weymouth: The New Testament in Modem Speech. 5^th Ed. New York, Harper & Brothers (former publisher: The Pilgrim Press, Boston, 1939). p.501.

If John the Baptist had been married a second time while a former mate was still living, would his preaching to Herod respecting his sin in being married to Herodias, his brother’s wife, have brought any conviction to Herod? John said, “It is not lawful for thee to have her” (Matt.14:4).

The standards of Christian ministers should not be lower than those of the Mosaic priesthood. The priest of the Old Testament was forbidden to marry a divorced wife. “Neither shall they take a woman put away (divorced) from her husband: for he is holy unto his God” (Lev.21:7). See also Lev.21:14. Certainly any group which claims to cherish holiness standards should protect their testimony and heritage by requiring a clear-cut example in the life and conduct of its church leaders. “He ought also to bear an exemplary character among non-Christians… ” (I Tim.3:7 – A.S.Way).

Indeed, there are specific things a man may do in his unregenerate state which, although they be cleansed by the blood of Christ upon his repentance and acceptance of Christ, simply disqualify him for public ministry. Unlike lying, theft, murder, or a single act of adultery committed prior to salvation, the continuation of an unscripturalsecond-marriage (or subsequent union) advertises both to the world and to the church a state which Christ seven times (Matt. 5:32;19:9; Luke16:18; Mark10:11,12) designated a continuing sin by virtue of his use of the word moichaomai (committeth adultery) in the present tense. Even the world of enlightened nations look upon such relationships as a public scandal. The above is the reason why many local churches that believe in the indissolubility of marriage will not accept converted remarried divorcees or their spouses into the membership of their churches, although they do welcome these “unfortunate mates” into the comfort and nurture of the church. A church’s refusal to permit converted remarried divorcees or their spouses to hold elective or appointive offices in the church will testify that she supports the marriage standards of the Lord Jesus Christ, and thereby declares that such marriages are a continuing example of a union disapproved by Jesus Christ. May God help holiness, evangelical churches to keep their marital standards as high as the Scriptures, to protect their youth and the youth of the world about them from entering into second marriages which are disallowed in the sight of God.

The Church of the Nazarine presents the following in their Manual of1952:

We hold that persons who obtain divorce under the civil law where the scriptural ground for divorce, namely, adultery, does not exist, and who remarry subsequently, are living in adultery, and are unworthy of membership in the Church of the Nazarene . ..A woman marries a man who had been previously married and unscripturally divorced. Would she be barred from membership In the Church of the Nazarene provided her own individual case met the requirements for membership? Ans. Such a person as that referred to would be barred from membership in the Church of the Nazarene. 33

(Manual of the Church of the Nazarene. Kansas City, Nazarene Publishing House, 1952. pp.47,310.)

May every converted spouse of an unscriptural marriage walk according to the spiritual light which God grants to him as he diligently studies the Bible and earnestly seeks the face of God for His directions. “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth” (Rom. 14:22). See pages 157 through 159 for detailed suggestions for dealing with the tangled problems of converted divorcees presented by Donald Gee of England. Other pertinent comment is given there respecting this difficult matter.

Many of the FIVE WORD School hold that the conservative position of divorce makes the resolution of problems relating to unscriptural unions much more difficult to settle. To the contrary, any position which admits an exception to the strict “no remarriage after divorce” principle will place greater and more difficult burdens upon the church. When the church permits divorce and remarriage for adultery, she will find the administration of such a concession very complex if she is conscientious and fair. Many more difficulties grow out of the liberal position than grow out of the conservative position. Pastors will be at the mercyof the formal language of the divorce decree, which in most states does not disclose the grounds upon which the divorce was granted, and the self-serving testimony of the divorced individual. Special ecclesiastical counselors and courts of the denomination will be necessary to guide the local church and her pastor if the liberal view of Matt.19:9 is followed. If the local church or its denomination’s ecclesiastical court is to judge honestly and righteously, it must needs inquire and determine who is the truly more innocent party, even when adultery is in question. Furthermore, the recognition of the dissolution of marriage for one cause will certainly lead eventually to the dissolution of marriage for causes other than adultery, as the history of more than one of the great Protestant churches attests. Most church leaders of the FIVE WORD persuasion also permit divorce for desertion. If they permit divorce for desertion as well as for adultery, where can they stop if they are consistent with a divorce doctrine which accommodates itself to the unhappy circumstances of unfortunate mates?

The following quotation from Newsweek of June 18, 1956, further confirms the statements above:

Until such time as the Holy Spirit speaks a clearer word,”the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.(Southern) has taken a revamped stand on the question of marriage of divorced persons. At the conclusion of the 96th General Assembly last week in Montreat, N.C., delegates representing 781,000 church members recommended that the Confession of Faith be revised to ban marriage after divorce. (Formerly, exception was made for the innocent party in a divorce granted on the grounds of adultery or willful desertion.) At the same time, the body approved a system under which individual churches may rule on the eligibility of divorced persons for marriage after due penitence and recognition of responsibility. The assembly hoped that its action, which must be approved by the district church courts, would present a “temporary working solution” to a problem which has caused disagreement between (a) those who take the strict Biblical view that death alone can dissolve marriage and (b) those who do not.

(“Penitence and Divorce,” The Newsweek, (June 18, 1956), New York, p.81.)

The acceptance of the liberal view of Matt. 19:9 will not free the FIVE WORD School from a multitude of divorce problems relating to those which grow out of unscriptural marital unions which they themselves allow are not valid in the sight of God. These unfortunates have not validated their union by unscriptural marriages. It takes more than a wedding ceremony and a state’s marriage license authorizing marriage to effect a scriptural union of two while one has a living mate. Someone has facetiously said, “The easiest way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.” Ironically, the easiest way, therefore, for any church to get rid of divorce problems is to yield to the current standards and liberal divorce laws of many churches and states of our day. To do so, however, would be to defy the clear teaching of Christ. He did not allow innocent wives to remarry when their mates divorced them and remarried (Matt.5,31,32; Luke 16:18). Christ’s heart was filled with compassion for mankind and for all unfortunates; notwithstanding, He did not accommodate His teaching to the hardships and suffering incurred by innocent parties when their mates divorced them and married again. According to the Apostle Paul, God provides for the separation (a mensa et thoro) of a believer from a mate with whom he cannot live under cruel or unbearable circumstances (I Cor 7: 10, 11), but He does not provide for thedissolution of marriage for such a one so that he may marry again.

May God forbid that any one seeking to solve the difficult problems of unfortun ate mates and divorcees should build a doctrine of divorce on the principle of accommodation to the unhappy experiences or plight of the unscripturally married spouse rather than upon the clear teachings of the Holy Scriptures as understood by sound rules of interpretation and exegesis. To build doctrine on either the good or unhappy experiences of unregenerates or Christians is contrary to the sound practice of the long history of the evangelical branch of the Christian Church. Whenever she has presumed to do so, she has brought the displeasure of God upon herself and a blight upon both herself and the society which she has influenced by her example; nor may she reason that because God still blesses her, despite her more liberal divorce laws, _He must approve of her course. God blessed Israel with revival, and with His continual mercies while they were declining, generation by generation, from their more holy estate. The twentieth chapter of Ezekiel proves conclusively that God repeatedly blesses His people despite their dis- obediences. The Christian Church must not mistake God’s blessing for God’s approval. The Apostle Paul said, “. . . despisest thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance” (Rom.2:14)?

“The wheels of God grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly small”. The history of churches which have created doctrines suited to the proclivities and infirmities of men’s depraved nature is proof of that fact. The fruits of departure from the clear teaching of Christ respecting divorce may not be observed appreciably within a generation, but ultimately they will be seen in the full manifestation of moral corruption. Worse than the fruits of a church’s granting spouses the right to unscriptural marriages will be the fruits of total degeneration coming within a church which follows rules of interpretation that permit to accommodate its doctrine of divorce and other doctrines to the seeming carnal necessities of men.

Few churches continue beyond one generation without formulating traditions (man-made rules) which overlay and destroy the plain, clear teaching of God’s Word. Man-made traditions are but private and unfounded interpretations of Scripture. The Lord Jesus said

Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your traditions? For God commanded, saying, Honor thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me. And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Matt. 15:3-6).

Williams translates the underscored portion above as follows: “But you say,’ Whoever tells his father or mother, “Everything I have that might be used for helping is devoted to God,” is under no obligation at all to help his parent.” …Almost without exception a church’s early doctrines are found to be far purer than her later doctrines. Jesus said, “If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!”

5. The Comment of the Pulpit Commentary on Matt. 19:9 Strengthens the Conservative Position.

Are we, then, to suppose that Christ, by those words (the exceptive clause), modifies his general statement, and allows absolute divorce in the case of a wife’s misconduct? . . . It is said that Christ allows the wronged party to marry again. If so, if the oneness of the parties is wholly destroyed by the sin of the woman, why is it not permitted to a man to marry a divorced woman? This cannot be called adultery unless she is still one flesh with her husband, although separated. We must argue from this that divorce in such a case does not destroy the vinculum matrimonii, the marriage bond, and if not under this circumstance, surely under no other; for any other ground must be always less serious than adultery. If the clause in question enunciated an exception to the absolute rule elsewhere given, Christ would seem to stultify himself, to give two opposite decisions, and to introduce uncertainty in a most important verdict. The principle on which he based his dictum would be overthrown, and his hearers might have accused him of inconsistency.

(H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S.Exell, Editors: The Pulpit Commentary, Vol.ll,Matthew. Grand Rapids, Wm.B.Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950, p.245.)

6. The Greek Text of Matt.19,9(A.V.) and the Attitude of the Early Church Toward It is Worthy of Special Notice.

Many of the Church Fathers quote Matt. 19,9 without the exceptive element; in fact many of them reject it.

Not once in the first centuries did the Christian Church Fathers quote 19:9 in support of the innocent party’s right to divorce an adulterous spouse with the inherent right tomarry another; yet the meanwhile they quoteMatt.5:32 in support of the right to separate (a mensa et thoro) from an unchaste mate without the right to marry another.

More detailed information will be given relative to the above under the study of the variant reading of Matt. 19:9,which will follow the next division.

7. Christ Permitted Divorce for Fornication.

In common English usage, adultery is the sexual intercourse of two people, when one or the other is married to a third party; fornication is the unlawful intercourse on the part of an unmarried person. In the Bible, fornication is sometimes used to include all sexual intercourse, but usually it is distinct from adultery. Is it not a striking fact that Christ specifically states that a husband may put away his wife for FORNICATION while not authorizing him to do so forADULTERY? In neither Matt. 5:32 or 19:9 does Christ specifically speak of ADULTERY as being a cause for a divorce; in fact, in Matt.19:9b and Luke 16:18b, He states that adultery is not a cause for divorce. Amazingly enough, although the word ADULTERY is not found in the “exceptive clause,” in either instance where Christ uses it, the word ADULTERY occurs twice in each of the two verses mentioned above. It is used to describe the sin of a husband who puts away his wife without the cause of FORNICATION, and of the CHASTE WIFE who, being put away without a cause of FORNICATION, marries another and thus becomes herself an adulteress. One may easily perceive this if he will carefully read again Matt.5:31, 32; 19,9 and Luke 16:18. Some insist that the words FORNICATION (porneia – Greek) and ADULTERY(moicheia – Greek) are completely synonymous, so that one could be put in place of the other anywhere without changing the meaning of a given statement of Scripture. Careful study will show that the words “fornication” and “adultery” appear in some instances to be used interchangeably. This does not mean, however, that they are always absolutely synonymous on all occasions.

The words “soul” and “spirit” are admittedly used interchangeably. However, only a few would presume to insist that the two words are always used to say the same thing. Such Scriptures as I Thess.5:23, “I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless . . . . ” and Heb.4:12. “The Word of God is sharper than a two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit. ” . . … are examples of their ALWAYS being used to say the identical thing, especially when they occur in the same statement in the same verse.

Similarly, there are passages in which the words “fornication” and “adultery” appear in categories of sins. These two words are listed as two distinct sins (twice side by side) in the following lists of iniquities: Mark 7:21, I Cor. 6:9, and Gal.5: 19. The words are further set in contrast in Matt.5:32, 19:9, and Heb.13:4 (R.V.).

It is a fact that Christ never called a man who put away his chaste wife AND married another a fornicator. He always called such a man an adulterer. The sin of a woman’s putting away her husband to marry another is not called fornication, but adultery in Mark 10:12, and if she has been put away as a chaste wife and marries another, she is called an adulteress (Matt.5:32). Can a Scripture be found where a husband or wife is called a fornicator (or is said to commit fornication) when he or she unlawfully marries another? The writer can find none. He does find, however, that the term “adultery” is used to describe the sin of a married person who either cohabits with another married person than his own mate or who marries another while having his own mate.

It is striking also to note that neither the Hebrew word naaph (adultery) nor the Greek word moicheia (adultery), nor any of their derivatives are ever translated by the English words fornication, whore, whoremonger, or harlot yet the Hebrew word zanah and the Greek word porneia (porne) are translated many times by the English words underscored above. The text of John.2:1 says of the spies “. . . they went,and came into an harlot’s [Heb. zanah] house, named Rahab.” The Greek word porne is translated harlot in Heb.11:31, “. . . by faith the harlot, Rahab.” In Proverbs 7:10 are the words, “a woman with the attire of an harlot (zanah). Of the prodigal son (Luke 15:30) it was said, “. . . which hath devoured thy living with harlots [porne].” Christ said to the chief priests and elders, “The publicans and harlots [porne] go into the kingdom of God before you”(Matt.21:31). Again let it be noted that not one of the three terms – harlot, whore, nor fornicator- is ever a translation of either the Hebrew word naaph or the Greek word moicheia. both of which are, with few exceptions, rather translated by the word adultery or its derivatives. The more common usage of zanah and naaph is indicated in Hosea 4:13, 14, in which the daughters of Israel are whoredom zanah; whereas, the spouses are said to commit adultery, naaph. Indeed, in the Scriptures the “whore” or “harlot” zanah, was nearly always a single person. When these two words are placed in contradistinction,as in Hosea 4:13,14, the unchastity of the single person is always zanah, whereas the unchastity of the married is always naaph. The word naaph is never used into double for zanah. Naaph always refers to the sin of adultery as commonly understood in English. It is never used to speak of the unchastity of an unmarried person. The FIVE WORD School presents the following references (Ex.20:4; Matt.5:27-28; Mark 10:19; Acts 15:20; I Cor. 5: 1;10:8; II Cor. 12:21; II Pet. 2: 14; James 2: 10-11; 1 Thess.4:3-6; Jude 7 and Rev. 2:14) as proof texts that porneia aud moicheia are allegedly always synonymous. This allegation will not stand the light of careful examination. Clearly, neither porneia nor moicheia are used explicitly in all of the texts enumerated above to double for the other. If the words zanah and porneia (fornication) usually refer to the unchastity of the married, and always respectively refer to their meaning when set in contradistinction within the same text or passage, one would expect porneia and moicheia to be separate and distinct In Matt.5: 32 and 19:9 as the same Hebrew equivalents (zanah)(naaph) are in Hosea 4:13,14. In the LXX translation of the Old Testament, the Hebrew words for adultery and fornication are consistently translated in the Greek words for adultery and fornication respectively. This also consistently holds true when the words pass into the English translation. Never, then, are the two words interchanged in the LXX translation which was completed before 100 B. C. The Hebrew-Greek scholars in question consistently kept these two words apart in their thinking. There is a reason. It is that fornication and adultery are frequently used to translate different shades of meaning; porneia (fornication) is used in a wider sense on some occasions to mean general unchastity. However, when porneia is used in the same sentence with moicheia (adultery), we conclude that it is used in its specific sense of premarital impurity. The two words occur together in Matt.5:32 and 19:9.

A simple illustration is that, whereas the word “man” is used in English in both a specific and a general meaning, in a more specific sense it means the male in contrast to the female. A given passage. In English will reveal whether it is used in its general or more specific sense. When the word man is med in the very same sentence with the word woman, one is positive that it is used in a specific and not in a general sense. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia states that porneia is used principally of prenuptial unchastity.

(James Orr, General Editor: The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol.II, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans PublishingCompany,1915.p.1339)

The quotations which follow from three New Testament passages will confirm this fact: (1) “Ye do the deeds of your father. They said to Him, We be not born of fornication, we have one Father, even God” (John 8:41). Here, the Jews were alluding to the fact commonly believed among them that Christ was born out of wedlock. (2) In speaking to the unmarried, the Apostle Paul says, “To avoid fornication, Jet every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her owu husband” (1 Cor. 7:2). (3) “Let marriage be had in honor among all, and let the bed be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Heb. 13:4 R. V.). If the word “fornication” is always absolutely synonymous with “adultery” in the Greek, why did not the inspired writer leave out the word “adulterers”? Obviously, the writer of Hebrews wanted to show that all unlawful acts of unchastity, whether the illicit sex relations of a single or married person, are equally evil in the sight of God. He wanted all to know that God would judge both classes.

There would be no problem in Matt. 19:9 (if the words “fornication” and “adultery” in the Greek of this text are not synonymous) if the reader understands that there is a difference between the oriental and occidental customs of marriage. When an occidental uses the word “wife”, he invariably associates it with a woman who has cohabited in marriage with her lawful husband. The oriental recognizes a woman who is publicly betrothed to a man as his wife.

In the East, betrothal is indeed a serious matter. It is as legally binding as marriage in the occident. From that day, the engaged young lady is his wife, even before he more formally takes herto live in his home and cohabits with her. An example of this practice is noted in Matthew 1:19 which reads, “Then Joseph her husband …. was minded to put her away [divorce her]privily.” Although she was not his wife in the occidental sense, she was at this time his wife in the oriental sense, for verse 24 states: “Then Joseph . . . did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him and took unto him his wife.” In Matt.1:20, Mary is said to be his wife when the angel first spoke to him. God recognized this man and this woman as husband and wife before they had cohabited, because in Deut.22:24 a betrothed woman is spoken of as a wife. According to the custom of the betrothal rite, “Joseph. . .took unto him his wife; and knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son; and he called his name Jesus” (Matt.1:24,25).

In commenting on the virgin birth of Christ in Matthew, A. T. Robertson says, Betrothal with the Jews was a serious matter, not lightly entered into and not lightly broken. The man who betrothed a maiden was legally husband (Gen.29,21: Deut. 22:23f.) and an informal cancelling of betrothal was impossible (McNelle). Though they did not live together as husband and wife till actual marriage, breach of faithfulness on the part of the betrothed was treated as adultery and punished with death …. it is clear that Joseph “was minded to put her away privily.” He could give her a bill of divorcement (apolusai) . . . . One is obliged to respect and sympathize with the motives of Joseph for he evidently loved Mary and was appalled to find her untrue to him as he supposed….If Jesus was really God’s son, Joseph was entitled to know this supreme fact that he might be just to both Mary and her Child. It was in a dream, but the message was distinct and decisive for Joseph . . . . . Joseph was told that the child was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus that Mary was innocent of any sin.

(Archibald Thomas Robertson, op.cit., Vol I, pp. 6,9, 10)

It is the divorce of the kind that Joseph contemplated that Matt. 5:32 and19:9 is speaking about, since the words “fornication” and “adultery” are apparently not synonymous here, as has been indicated above. Such a relationship could be dissolved because marriage in its fullest sense had not yet been consummated. The specific reference to the birth of the Lord Jesus. They believed that Mary the virgin had been a fornicator. Such, however, was not the case for that Holy Child which was born of her was born of the Holy Ghost! He was indeed the Son of God!

Betrothal with the ancient Hebrews was of a more formal and far more binding nature than a modern engagement of the occident.t was esteemed a part of the transaction of marriage: in fact, it was the most binding part. It was so binding that if marriage should not take place, owing to the absconding of the bridegroom or the breaking of the contract on his part, the young lady could not be married to another man until she was released by a legal process and a bill of divorce. A similar custom prevails in China and Japan. Among the Arabs, it is the only legal ceremony connected with marriage. In the early centuries of the Church of England, engaged couples were united in a ceremony of betrothal, and even today the Episcopal wedding ceremony contains a part of the earlier betrothal form. Alfred Edersheim says:

A special formality, that of ‘betrothal” (erusin, Qiddushin), preceded the actual marriage by a period varying in length. but not exceeding a twelve month in the case of a maiden. At the betrothal, the bridegroom personally or by deputy, handed to the bride a piece of money or a letter, it being expressly stated in each case that the man thereby espoused the woman. From the moment of betrothal both parties were regarded, and treated in law (as to inheritance, adultery, need of formal divorce), as if they had been actually married, except as regarding their living together….. Generally a festive meal closed the ceremony of betrothal – but not in Galilee, where habits being more simple and pure, that which some times ended in sin was avoided.

(Alfred Edersheim: The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol.I. London, Longman, Green & Company. 1887. pp. 353,354).

The Jews, for generations after Christ, permitted a man to put away (divorce) his espoused (engaged) wife if when he took her to his home he found that the tokens of virginity were not found in her (Deut.22:13,14,20,21). When the elders of the Jews confirmed the fact of her non-virginity, the husband was released from her by divorce before he had cohabited with her. For centuries and until this day, branches of the Christian Church have believed that this was the only kind of divorce that Christ was talking about in Matt.5:31,32 and 19:9. Adam Clarke, the early Methodist commentator, in referring to this problem in Matt.5:32 states:

As fornication signifies no more than the unlawful connection of unmarried persons, it cannot be used here with propriety, when speaking of those who are married. I have therefore translated logou porneias, on account of whoredom. It does not appear that there is any other case in which Jesus· Christ admits of divorce. A real Christian ought rather to beg of God the grace to bear patiently and quietly with the imperfections of his wife, than to think of the means of being parted from her . . . what was permitted (by Moses) to an uncircumcised heart among the Jews should not serve for a rule to a heart in which the love of God has been shed abroad by the Holy Spirit. Those who form a matrimonial connection in the “fear and love of God, and under his direction will never need· a divorce.39

In ourday both the regenerated and unregenerated frequently marry damsels who prior to marriage have committed fornication. This usually follows because this is a matter of knowledge before marriage and is forgiven by the other before the marriage ceremony and the physical consummation of the union. It would

Appear that a Jewish man might have forgiven a Jewish damsel of the same had she confessed it beforehand, providing of course he loved her that much. Certainly it is recommended that a Christian should forgive the damsel he intends to marry of prior fornication if she declares it before marriage and he may do so after marriage, even though she had not previously told him of her unchastity. If he finds her pregnant when he marries her obviously the matter is much more serious, and it would follow that he would have his marriage annulled in some states, and in others he would secure a divorce releasing him, from her. An anonymous Christian lawyer has submitted the following respecting the domestic relations laws on this point, which may be summarized as follows:

Pregnancy by another man at the time of marriage is generally considered sufficient grounds for annulment everywhere in the United States. In addition, such pregnancy is a recognized ground for a divorce action in fourteen states.
In the majority of states, pre-marital unchastity is not considered a ground or the annulment of a marriage. However, in those states which do recognize fornication as grounds for an annulment, the defense of condonation is always available. Condonation is simply the legal term for continued cohabitation after a disclosure of the facts, Thus, if an annulment were sought on this ground after the parties had been married many months, it very likely would not be granted, if contested. (However, I recognize the possibility that a disclosure of premarital sin might not occur until years later.)

The writer believes that a true Christian would not want to annul his marriage for a disclosure that was made after any considerable period, nor would he want to do so for a shorter period in most cases. There is grave doubt that it would be scriptural to put away a spouse who had committed fornication before marriage if the two in question had already married and consummated a ONE FLESH union.

(Adam Clarke: A Commentary and Critical Notes of the Holy Bible, Vol. V, New York, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, n. d. p.74.)

The Old Testament seems to speak of the putting away of one who has committed fornication before the marriage is consummated (Deut.22:14).

It will shortly be shown that the detailed context of Matt.19:1-12 when harmonized with that of Mark 10:1-12 precludes divorce (the dissolution of marriage) in a consummated marrage for any cause.The above view of fornication in Matt,5:32 and19:9 would provide an answer to a difficult problem. This view would prevent an innocent party from divorcing a wife with whom he had cohabited or consummated marriage. If the words “fornication” and “adultery” are perfectly and always synonymous, as the FIVE WORD School alleges (which view the writer and many others reject), then why does Christ forbid an innocent wife in Matt.5:32; 19:9(A.V.) and Luke16:18 to remarry, and why did He assert that he who married her committed adultery in doing so? This is further reason for accepting the above explanation as sound. Many believe the position stated in this section is a strong one, and adequate to prove that Christ taught the complete indissolubility of marriage for cause. The author of this book, however, has not rested his case here, but has reasoned also from the position that the word “fornication” in the two passages allegedly refers to the illicit relation of a spouse with someone other than his own mate. The study of Matt, 5:31, 32, Luke 16:18, and Matt. 19:9 (A. V.), which was presented earlier in this book, proceeded on that assumption, as will the subsequent study of other divorce texts. See the statement in the Pulpit Commentary on Matt. 5:31, 32 and 19:9 for its conservative view of the divorce problem under discussion.

Back to Chapter VI

Continue to Chapter VIII

Appendix

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapter VI – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 12, 2015 standerinfamilycourt

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”.

CHAPTER VI – COMMENTS ON LUKE 16: 18 (R.V.)

Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery.

This is Christ’s second statement on divorce. In His first public statement on the subject (Matt. 5,32), He did not make provision for a spouse’s putting away an adulterous mate to marry another; neither did He make provision for a chaste woman (an innocent party), to marry another man, even though her husband had committed adultery by divorcing her and marrying another.

Before discussing this text fully, it would be well to consider the relation of the Apostle Paul to Luke and his Gospel.

A. Paul’s Relation to Luke was Like the Relation of Peter to Mark.

The ancient tradition that Mark’s Gospel is essentially that of Peter, and Luke’s essentially that of Paul is corroborated by their general character and form.

( Milton S, Terry: Biblical Hermeneutics. Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, n. d. p.558.)

Tertullian, [A.D. 160-222], who said that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, said that Paul enlightened Luke in the preparation of the Gospel of Luke. Irenaeus, [A.D. 120-200], said that Luke who was the companion of Paul presented his Gospel as it was preached by the Apostle Paul. Origen, [A. D. 185-253] said that Luke’s Gospel was the Gospel commended by the Apostle Paul. Jerome, Eusebius and other Church fathers were of the same conviction.

(W. Graham Scroggie: A Guide to the Gospels. London. Pickering & Inglis Ltd., 1948. p.360.)

B. The Context of Luke 16 :18 is Related to The Text of Luke 16:18

The words of Luke 16: 18 were addressed to the same class of people as those of Matt, 19: 1-9, namely, the Pharisees, who believed that they could freely divorce their wives for virtually any cause and especially for the sin of adultery. Those of the Pharisees who believed that one might specifically divorce and remarry for the cause of adultery were of the School of Shammai. They based their conviction for such right on Moses’ divorce permission (Deut. 24: 1 -4), which was quoted in full on page 88. They justified their right to divorce and marry another and the right of the divorced wife to many another on Moses’ divorce permission. Christ immediately, prior to Luke 16: 18, said to them (the Pharisees):

Ye are they that justify yourselves in the sight of men [for sundry evils, embracing the divorcing “of wives for manifold causes including adultery}; but God knoweth your hearts; for that which is exalted among men is an abomination in the sight of God. The law and the prophets were until John: from that time the gospel of the kingdom is preached, and every man entereth violently into it. presseth into it(A.V.)](R.V.).

Christ told the Pharisees that a new order, a new kingdom had come with the preaching of the kingdom of God and that It would require spiritual violence on their part to enter this kingdom, for its demands were very high. Truly it would take great violence of soul for these Pharisees to discontinue their loose practices relative to divorce, as well as their other ungodly deeds.

Christ knew how difficult it was for the Pharisees to hear His Word on divorce. To be denied this privilege was to them like striking off their right hands. Jesus said, therefore, that they must press(v:.16 A.V.) violently intothe moral standards of His kingdom, self-discipline being indispensable. What God hath joined together is “one flesh.” The Pharisees must, therefore, face up to God’s standard of marriage as fixed at the beginning. The innocent(spouse) disciple of Christ and of thekingdom of God is willing to be a eunuch for the kingdom’s sake..for he knows bythe grace of God how to contain himself.

Many in Christ’s day could not receive the higher ethic of His kingdom which He announced in the Sermon on the Mount and which embraced His teaching on divorce (Matt.5:31,32). It was too ideal for them. It is, unhappily, too high for many professing Christians who claim to have experienced the doctrine of John 3:5 which, indeed, should give them power to measure up to the high standards of the Lord Jesus Christ and His kingdom. Happily, the experience of John 3:3,5,6 is open to all who will receive Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord (Jn.I:12, 13: Rom.10:9,10,R.V.). The power of then new birth is described by the Apostle Paul in Rom. 8:4:

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us. who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The Spirit of God indwelling the believer will enable him to fulfill Edenic standards of righteousness, including God’s original standard of marriage.

There were many in Christ’s day who pressed into the kingdom of God. The strait gate through which they entered was indeed very narrow; so nanow they had to leave every sin behind them. The Apostle Paul spoke of the seriousness of measuring up to Christ’s standards of the kingdom of God. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; ADULTERY [He who marries another while having a living former mate commits adultery (Matt. 19,9; Luke 16:18)], FORNICATION . . .wrath, strife . . .and such like: of which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things, shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal.5:19-21).

C. In Luke 16: 18 Christ Reiterates His Abrogation of Moses’ Divorce Permission.

The emphasis of Matt. 5 :32 is on the sin of a husband in causing his wife to commit adultery by divorcing her and then her consequent sin of presuming to marry another when her first marriage was stlll intact. The emphasis of Luke 16:18, however, is twofold: first, it is the sin of a husband in marrying another after divorcing hiswife, and second,as in Matt.5:32, the sin of the divorced wife in presuming to marry another on the grounds that she had been put away and that her husband in remanying, had committed adultery. His divorce and remarriage, however, had not dissolved the first marriage union of which she was a part.

The FIVE WORD School and all evangelicals believe that a Hollywood star who divorces his chaste wife and marries another while the former wife is still living is in a state of adultery because he has not by a court’s decree dissolved his marriage union before God, nor has his subsequent marriage dissolved it. The FIVE WORD School strangely allows the first wife to marry again because it asserts that the husband by his remarriage commits adultery and thus brings (its private interpretation of) the exceptive clause of Matt.19:9 into action. How amazingly contradictory is this school’s reasoning! In one breath its followers say that the remarried Hollywood star is living in adultery because he is still before God married to his first, chaste wife, and in the next breath, they say that the wife may get a divorce from him (dissolve the marriage and marry another because he has committed adultery. If he is still married to his first wife, she ( the first wife) must still be married to him. The Bible knows of no marriage that is a one way union! To accept the FIVE WORD doctrine of divorce is to return presumptously to the divorce permission of Moses (Deut, 24: 1-4) which Christ so clearly and forever abrogated! In Matt. 5:32b; 19:9b and Luke 16:18b, He said that such wives who marry another are caused to commit adultery and that those who marry them commit adultery! Did Christ approve of such adultery? God forbid the thought! “From the beginning it was not so “(Matt.19:8b); death and death alone dissolved a marriage union. Under Moses adultery called for the stoning of the unchaste spouse(Deut.22:22), not the divorcing of such an individual. FIVE WORD theology sets up a CHAIN REACTION of divorce and remarriage not only within the Church but without the Church also. The careless, compromising Church of today is responsible for the fearful increase of divorce. FIVE WORD THEOLOGY multiplies it, and smiles upon adulterous unions within the Church.

As observed in the discussion of Matt.5:31,32, the wife could not remarry upon being divorced because Christ abrogated her former Mosaic permission to do so, and likewise He abrogated Moses’ toleration of a husband ‘s putting away his wife. Her sin of remarrying was the sin of adultery because her first marriage union remained undissolved despite her husband’s subsequent remarriage after divorcing her. Similarly, the sin of the husband in Luke 16: 18 in marrying another was adultery because, obviously, his first marriage union was still unbroken. The sin of the wife of Luke 16: 18 in marrying another, after the husband remarried following his divorcing her is adultery, notwithstanding the fact her husband had committed adultery in marrying another, because his first marriage union was undissolved. He could not by marrying another abrogate CHRIST’S ABROGATION of MOSES’ toleration of divorce which dissolved a marriage union for virtually any cause. Christ as clearly abrogated Moses’ toleration of divorce in Luke16:18 as in Matt.5:3I,32.

Does not the reader, in the light of these two texts (Matt. 5:31, 32; Luke16:18) now see clearly that the sin of adultery on the part of a spouse does not free the other mate to divorce such a partner for the purpose of remarriage? The Pharisees could not have failed to get the full import of His divorce statement (Luke 16: 18) just described. Why should we fail to do so today? Shall we look at ISOLATED text for the answer to this problem, or to all of the divorce texts given by Christ and the Apostle Paul? Indeed, the Pharisees on this occasion were of the same schools as those who later faced Christ with the respecting divorce when He spoke to them in the setting of Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark 10: 1-12. In either case, the members of the school of Shammai were represented in the group. Christ closed the door to divorce for this school, as well as for the Pharisees in general, for the followers of the school of Shammai rested their hope for divorce for adultery on Deut. 24: 1-4.

As we noted already under Matt, 5:32, Christ could not abrogate the first part of Moses’ divorce permission and not the second part without so indicating. He was dealing with Moses’ divorce permission as a unit and thus he also abrogated the right of the woman to remarry despite her husband’s marrying another. The husband under Christ’s law could not and did not dissolve the first union by marrying another; neither could the divorced wife dissolve the first union by marrying another, for Christ’s law was but a reiteration of God’s original marriage law in Eden which makes husband and wife ONE FLESH for life.

The FIVE WORD School insists that Luke 16: 18 does not treat adultery in marriage as a cause for divorce, but we have seen above that Luke16:18 contradicts this assertion when viewed in the light of Christ’s entire abrogation of Moses’divorce permission. If under Christ a divorced wife could marry another when her husband married another, then Christ’s abrogation of Moses’ divorce permission (Matt. 5:31; 32; Luke 16: 18) was meaningless, and His several statements on divorce were completely contradictory. Could Christ in the same statement (Matt. 5:3I , 32) abrogate Moses’ divorce permission and then deny it?

D. Four Possible Alternatives Within the Text of Luke 16: 18 Are:

(1) It is a chaste husband who puts away a chaste wife, or

(2) It ls a chaste husband who puts away an unchaste wife, or

(3) It is an unchaste husband who puts away an unchaste wife, or

(4) It is an unchaste husband who puts away a chaste wife.

The sum of the matter of Luke 16: 18 is that a husband of whatever sort who puts away a wife of whatever sort, and remarries, commits ADULTERY, and a man who remarries a wife (whether chaste or unchaste) who has been put away by another commits ADULTERY. There can be no doubt that this text as well as Matt. 5 :32 makes no provision for the innocent wife, of either of the two texts just mentioned, to divorce a guilty husband with the inherent right of marrying another. This holds equally true of Matt. 19:9b.

Beyond any doubt, Luke 16:18 prohibits an innocent wife from marrying another, even though her husband marries another before she marries again. How amazing, therefore, is the reasoning of the FIVE WORD School. They insist on modifying the meaning of Luke 16: 18 by the exceptive clause and their unique interpretation of Matt. 19:9. Two texts already have closed the door to the FIVEWORD School’s interpretation of Matt. 19:9, which they allege supports the right of an innocent party to remarry when he has divorced his unchaste spouse. Would it not be more reasonable for the FIVE WORD School to modify the apparent meaning of Matt.19:9 by twotexts, Matt.5:31,32and Luke16:18, not to mention Mark 10: I I, 12; Rom. 7 :2, 3 and I Cor, 7: 10, I I, 39, rather than reverse the matter and insist on modifying the many texts by the one text, and that by their singular and private (II Pet. I :20) interpretation of it?

Back to Chapter V

Continue to Chapter VII

Appendix

SIFC Note: Rev. Wells is comprehensively on target here with monumentally important forgotten and ignored truth that would revolutionize churches today if the heresy of “biblical” grounds was contritely repented of, and practices changed accordingly, so as to no longer offend a holy God, and perhaps even obtain His last-minute mercy for our nation and government. Rev. Wells makes a point in this section that deserves a bit more contextual commentary:

On page 33 of the physical book, Wells says: “He could not by marrying another abrogate CHRIST’S ABROGATION of MOSES’ toleration of divorce which dissolved a marriage union for virtually any cause.”

However, carefully-translated texts taken with the relevant cultural context narrows the application of Moses’ “permission” to the Jewish betrothal period, and to fornication (uncleanness) committed prior to consummation of the marriage. It is still possible the Pharisees were trying to apply the Mosaic allowance more broadly than its original purpose, but this is moot since the abrogation applied broadly.

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapter V – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 12, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 2 Comments

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”.

CHAPTER V – COMMENTS ON MATTHEW 5:31, 32

It was said also, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement; but I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery.

It is important to observe that the context of this passage of scripture is a part of the Sermon on the Mount wherein Christ repeatedly quotes from a commandment of the Mosaic Law or repeats a concept of the Old Testament setting forth the moral views enunciated therein, and then abruptly cries, “BUT I SAY UNTO YOU . . . ” and then immediately thereafter states a higher ethic of the same moral principle in question.

A. The Righteousness of the Pharisees Versus the Righteousness of Christ as Set Forth by Context (Matt. 5:20,32).

The moral standards of the Pharisees of Christ’s day were very low, for Christ said:

I say unto you, that except your righteousness shall exceed therighteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Matt.5,20).

The Pharisees were strong on observances of minute, external rules of mens tradition. Christ emphasized the inner state and motivations of the heart. In verses 21-25, He showed that anger is incipient murder, and in verses 38-44 that a divinely sanctioned retaliation is to “turn the other cheek” and to “go the second mile.”

To the Pharisees, care to avoid an overt act of unchastity was the important thing. To Christ, the look of the eye and the thought of the heart were more important. To Him, the look of lust (coveting one of the opposite sex unlawfully) was adultery already committed In the heart (Matt.5:28).

To the Pharisees, divorce was a moral convenience for greater personal happiness. To Christ. it was a glaring immorality. The Pharisees said, “Do we not have Moses ‘law for a basis for putting away our wives? Did not Moses say:

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth. her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband. which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after she is deilled; for that is an abomination before the LORD; and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an lnheritance (Deut. 24:1-4)?”

B. Moses’ Divorce Permission Abrogated by Christ (Deut. 24:1-4)

There can be no doubt that in Matt.5:3I, Christ specifically refers to Moses’ divorce permission(Deut.24:1-4). The Master’s statements in Matt.19:3-9 and Mark I0: 3-6 confirm that fact.

How shocked must the Pharisees have been to learn that Jesus said, “It was said.. . .(referring toDeut.24:1-4) . …BUT I SAY UNTO YOU….” It is important at this point to notice the rest of Matt.5:32:

Every one that putteth away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, maketh her an adulteress and whosoever shall marry her when she is put away committeth adultery (R.V.).

Christ’s statement of Matt. 5: 32 completely reversed Moses’ divorce permission. Indeed , He abrogated it. By His sweeping statement He said that a husband who put away a chaste wife “causeth her to commit adultery (A. V.)” and he who married such a woman, whether before or after the husband married another, committed adultery also. This is clear because in contrast Moses’ divorce law ( Deut. 24: 1.-4) permitted such a woman to marry again whether or not herhusband had married another. Christ revoked Moses’ temporary permission of divorce to bring humanity back to God’s original marriage law which was established in Eden (Gen. 2: 18-24). The permissive law of Moses (Deut. 24: 1-4) was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ’s superior way of life.

Let us inquire more deeply into the reason why the “chaste wife” above was forbidden to marry another. The Scripture states that the husband who puts her away “causeth her to commit adultery… The question is this: why would she commit adultery by marrying another if her former husband had himself committed adultery by remarrying after divorcing her? The answer is simply found in carefully answering other searching questions. Was the husband’s second marriage a valid one according to Christ? Did Christ approve of a man’s marrying another woman after he had put away his chaste spouse? Certainly He did not!True, the Pharisees did. Did the husband invalidate the marriage bond with his first wife by marrying another? If this be so, then everyone who wishes to gain a divine title to another woman as his wife has but to remarry for any cause and presto, his marriage bond is broken! By sinning, He has established his marriage before God. The ultimate conclusions to which the reasoning and logic of the FlVE WORD School lead are, indeed, frightening! Many an evangelical pastor agrees with the author in his position in this paragraph but denies it in practice by officially condoning the state of remarried divorcees in allowing them to hold offices in his church.

If the husband in question did not invalidate his first marriage bond by marrying another, then neither may the wife marry another while her first marital union stands before God. Indeed, as Christ said, she commits adultery if she remarries. Certainly the Lord Jesus did not teach that every so-called innocent might remarry while the former spouse was still living; in fact. He did not teach that any innocent mate could remarry. He said:

Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and he that marrieth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery ( Luke 16: 18 R.V.).

C. Divorcing of Adulterous Mate is not Approved by Christ According to Matt. 5:32.

Note that the sin of adultery is in the foreground in the context and text of Matt.5:32. Its immediate context begins at verse 27, where Christ refers tothe commandment, THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY (Ex.20:14), and then immediately He lifts it to a higher interpretation than the Pharisees were wont to give it. Was He referring to the lust of Pharisees forother wives more beautiful or more genial than their own when He said, “BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her [as did David after Bathsheba] hath committed adultery with her already In his heart”! Then Christ shocks the Pharisees again by linking sin to the divorce action of a man who puts away a chaste wife by stating that such a man “causeth his wife to commit adultery,” and adds that he who marries her “committeth adultery. ” Elsewhere Christ says that he who divorces her commits adultery in marrying another(Mart.19:9; Luke 16:18, 12).

Observe also that the sin of “putting away” (divorcing) a wife with the obvious purpose of marrying another (for that is the reason the Pharisees put away their wives) is likewise in the foreground. The right of a man to put away an adulterous mate to marry another is not in the foreground, nor is the right of the innocent divorced mate to marry another in the foreground. Let the reader keep the verse in focus with its context and its true intent, and he will not fall into the trap of erroneous interpretation.

The main thrust of Matt. 5:32 states nothing about the right of a man to put away his unchaste mate to another. The FlVE WORD School finds a self-originated secondary thrust in the text and erroneously makes it the prominent teaching of Christ in the passage. By emphasizing the exceptive element of the verse, they distort the purpose and intent of Christ’s declaration at this point.

Christ no more approves an “innocent mate’s right” to divorce and marry another by the exceptive element of Matt.5:32 than does the Apostle Paul approve slavery in Eph.6:5: “Servants [Greek–doulos slave], be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fearand trembling in singleness of your hearts, as unto Christ.”

The exceptive element. “saving for the cause of fornication,” was not introduced to put Christ’s stamp of approval upon a husband’s divorcing his wife for adultery. The right or wrong of it is not before the reader in the text. The man who puts away a wife because of FORNICATION is mentioned only in passing to bring out the main thought namely, that it is a heinous sin to put away a chaste wife to marry another. This practice was common among the Pharisees.

The reason for Christ’s introducing the exceptive clause in Matt.5:32 becomes apparent if one reads the verse without the exceptive clause. It follows

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife….causeth her to commit adultery ….

The text makes no provision for an innocent husband to dissolve his marriage, should his wife commit adultery, so that he might marry another. The exceptive element is introduced as a qualifying clause to say in effect: “unless he previously made herself a fornicator by her unchaste conduct.” The man who puts away (rightly or wrongly) an unchaste wife does not cause her to be guilty of her previous adultery nor does such action cause her to be an adulteress. Christ inserted the exceptive clause so that the Pharisees would not understand Him to say that one of them would have caused his wife to commit adultery in putting her away if she had of herself committed adultery already. Whether the Wife in question had committed FORNICATION before or after marriage is not stated, if we are to take the word in its widest signification.

Felix L. Ciriot, Th. D. , in his book, Christ and Divorce, has stated:

The “exception-clause” occurs twice; in Matt.5:32 and again in Matt,19:9. But the first time it does not, even by implication, give support at all to the idea that remarriage after a divorce given on the grounds of adultery is permitted. Thefunction of the “exception-clause” in 5:32 is quite different. There it is equivalent to the qualifying clause, “unless she has already made herself an adulteress by her own misconduct. The passage says nothing aboutthe remarriage of the husband. What it says is that any husband who divorces his wife makes himself morally responsible for her becoming an adulteress, it being assumed, apparently, that she will either remarry or be incontinent outside pretended wedlock, and in either of these cases will have become an adulteress. The function of the “exception-clause” in this passage is, then, to cover the obviously exceptional case that, if she was divorced for adultery, in that case the husband will not be morally responsible for her becoming an adulteress since she was one already-the reason why she was put away. Thus the “exception-clause” in this passage has no bearing at all on any right of remarriage In the husband.

(Felix L. Ciriot: Christ and Divorce. R. A. Ciriot, 3006 Wheeling Street, El Paso,Texas, 1945, pp. 3,4.)

The evil of divorcing a chaste wife In Matt, 5:32 is viewed from the standpoint of the dreadful effect upon the wife. The verb underscored in the phrase”causeth her to commit adultery” is one word moicheuthenai in the Greek. Professor John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary has indicated in his text on divorce that the verb moicheuthenai is in the passive voice and that such gives the phrase this literal effect, “he causeth her to suffer adultery. ”

(John Murray: Divorce. Philadelphia, The Committee on Christian Education , The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 1953, p.21)

The man is not in Matt. 5 :32 said to commit adultery (as stated In Luke 16: 18) in putting away the chaste wife. He is, however, said to be implicated In his wife’s sin of adultery, should she marry another after he has divorced her and married again. She obviously commits adultery because her husband had no right to divorce her. According to Christ, the divorce was invalid. In the case just described, the wife could not put all the blame for her sin of adultery upon her husband, but neither might the husband be exempted or exonerated from guilt in this matter. Indeed, the husband is morally responsible for her possible unchastity when she is put away, for it is assumed that she will find it so difficult to remain continent in her single state that she will unlawfully marry another. It would have been more difficult for an innocent wife of that kind to remainun married in Christ’s day than today, because she had been steeped in thetraditionsof the schools of Hillel and Shammai, which permitted women to marry again in accordance with their interpretation of Deut. 24:1-4.

A. S. Worrel’s translation of the New Testament is of assistance at this point:

BUT I SAY TO YOU, THAT EVERY ONE WHO PUTS AWAY HIS WIFE, EXCEPT ON ACCOUNT OF FORNICATION, MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY : AND WHOSOEVER MARRIES HER WHEN PUT AWAY COMMITS ADULTERY (Matt.5:32).

By the above statement Conservatives believe that Christ was In effect saying:

You my hearers, of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, have taken for granted that it is right to give a bill of divorcement to a wife for one (thecause of adultery) or for any cause, because of your interpretation. of Moses’ declaration in Deut.24:1-4, and have concluded the same that it is also right for divorced, chaste wives to marry again when divorced, BUT I SAY UNTO YOU, that whoever gives a bill of divorcement to a wife causes her to commit adultery (unless she has previously committed FORNICATION: and in that case it is clear that the husband did not cause her to commit unchastity), and further he who marries the divorced wife commits adultery also. By this statement I declare that the Mosaic permission for the divorcing of a wife and the remarrying of the divorcee (even though she be an innocent spouse) is not approved of God, I have come to re-establish the law of marriage as instituted by God at the beginning in Eden, for such is the law of My Kingdom, the KINGDOM OF GOD. The Mosaic law of divorce and remarriage is forever abrogated by me! Therefore the divorced wife described above who marries again, and he who marries her commits adultery since their marriage is not valid before heaven. Their union is an adulterous union because the marriage bond of the wife with her first husband is not dissolved. Under the law of marriage of the KINGDOM OF GOD a bill of divorcement is of no effect in dissolving a marriage union.

Christ could have added, according to His statements in Luke 16:18 and Matt.19:8:

Every one that putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and he that marrleth one that is put away from a husband committeth adultery (R. V.).

Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

Dean Henry Alford of Canterbury, in discussing the problem of whether the marriage of the innocent party after separation (on account of fornication) is forbidden by Matt. 5:32 or 19:9, states:

Certainly it would appear, from the literal meaning of our Lord’s words, that it should not be allowed for if by such divorce the marriage be altogether dissolved, how can the woman be said to commit adultery by a second marriage? Or how will St. Paul’s precept (l Cor. 7: 11) find place? For stating this as St. Paul does, prefaced by the words “not I, but the Lord, “ it must be understood, and has been taken, as referring to this very verse [Matt,5:32] or rather (see note there) to Ch.19:9 and consequently can only suppose fornication as the cause. Besides which, the tenor of our Lord’s teaching in other places . . . seems to set before us the state of marriage as absolutely indissoluble as such however he may sanction the expulsion a mensa et thoro of an unfaithful wife.

(Dean Henry Alford: The New Testament for English Readers, Chicago, Moody Press, p.33)

A considerable portion of the FIVE WORD School’s argument is based on the meaning of the word divorce as it views it. The liberals of the divorce questionare driven to an extensive treatment of this word because they are in such poverty of text to support their position. Indeed, they can ill afford to get along without the alleged support of Matt. 5:32 if it can be even weakly established that it is in their favor. The FIVE WORD School cannot objectively claim Matt, 5:32 as support for the reasons already given in the discussion of this text. Since this verse does not discuss either the right or wrong of putting away an unchaste mate, the meaning of the word divorce here is, therefore, of no significance in settlingthe problem of the right of an innocent mate to divorce his unchaste spouse and marry another.

The divorce liberals admit that Matt. 5:32 is a very weak reed upon which to support their doctrine of divorce, since it has nothing within it like the phrase which follows the exceptive clause in Matt.19:9(A.V.). The phrase is ~~underlined~~ [bolded] in the quotation which follows: “except it be for fornication and remarrieth another.” There is no declaration in Matt.5:32 which may be taken, even by implication to state that an innocent spouse who puts away his unchaste mate can marry again if the verse is properly understood within its context.

How do followers of the FIVE WORD School get around the problem? In the first place, their circuitous and illogical method causes them to assume that their interpretation of Matt. 19:9 on an a priori basis is sound, thereby representing Christ to teach that He authorized an innocent party to divorce a spouse who commits adultery with the inherent right to marry another while the former mate still lives. In the light of that assumption, they secondly read their interpretation of Matt. 19:9 into Matt. 5:32 because it contains the word divorce in reference to putting away one who has committed FORNICATION. They believe that the fact that 5:32 also contains an exceptive clause further enhances their a priori position. Thus, presto, they apparently have two divorce texts allegedly supporting their doctrine of divorce.

Followers of the FIVE WORD School would not have made such a glaring error had they proceeded differently, but at the very beginning of their study of the doctrine of divorce they presumptively set up their view of Matt. 19:9 as an esatablished postulate. This they did before examining objectively and independently all the divorce texts to determine their separate meaning and ultimately from them to deduce the general tenor of the Bible’s teaching as a whole respecting divorce. Hence their “postulate” reduces itself to a mere assumption made too early in the analysis. Too often in the Christian Church a teacher’s wish is the father of his theological thought. See the full discussion of the meaning of the word divorce in its bearing on the subject on pages 121 through 124.

D. Marriage Bond is not Dissolved by Adultery

The paragraphs above indicate the fact that an act of adultery does not dissolve the marriage bond. According to Matt.5:32, the chaste wife of the text cannot dissolve the marriage union by divorcing her adulterous husband and thus free herself to marry another. Under Moses, it was the death of the adulterer by stoning which dissolved the union and freed an “innocent party” to marry another. It was death and only death “from the beginning” and not divorce which erased the union of husband and wife so far as Christ was concerned. The Apostle Paul reaffirmed this fact in Rom. 7:2, 3 and I Cor. 7:39. He clearly taught that death and death alone dissolved the marriage union.

Some of the FIVE WORD School reason that because the innocent spouse was freed from the unchaste spouse by the stoning to death of the adulterous mate under the Old Testament(Deut.22:22), that that fact indicates that God apparently considers an innocent mate loosened from his adulterous partner as truly under grace as under law because such an erring mate is allegedly reckoned before God to be as good as dead when he commits the immoral act. Accordingly, the securing of the bill of divorcement from the state is taken to be but a perfunctory requirement to certify before men what has been previously accepted by God before heaven. By such a principle a spouse would today consider herself free from her marriage bond when her mate was thrown into life imprisonment for first degree murder because the Old Testament would have required the death penalty (Deut. 19: 11- 12) as do many states in our country today.

If the stoning of an adulterous mate in the Old Testament provides a principle for the dissolution of such a union in both Old and NewTestaments alike, then by the same token. parents today may consider themselves free from further responsibility for their incorrigible child (Deut, 21: 18-21). Indeed, if liberal divorce theology is correct in its reasoning at this point, a parent of today is automatically released from further obligation to a child as soon as he manifests the character described above, for under the law he would have been stoned (Deut.21:21), and would thus cease to sustain any relation to the parents. See more detail on the subject of this paragraph in the Appendix on pages 176 and 177.

Such a principle as the above would also mean that no unmarried fornicator, although converted to Christ, should be privileged to marry under grace, for although living in the new dispensation, he should be stoned to death, and is,therefore, as good as dead to the privileges of marriage ( Deut.22:22-27). There is not a vestige of Scripture in the New Testament supporting such a teaching. To the contrary, Acts 13:39 assures such an individual that he may be justified from his sin by faith in the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts.13:39; I Cor,6:9-II). Christ did not, in Matt. 5:32 or elsewhere, state that when a wife or husband committed adultery the innocent mate should not forgive such an one and perpetuate the union, or that he should marry his unchaste spouse over again because the adulterous act had automatically disolved the union. Indeed, the union of such mates is still intact. Adultery, therefore, does not dissolve the bond of marriage. Christ does not say that it is a sin to forgive an unchaste mate and continue to live with him or her, but this would be true if adultery automatically dissolved the union as many of the FIVE WORD School allege.

If it be true that adultery dissolves the marriage bond, then it would be wrong for a spouse to live with his unchaste mate for a single day. Happily, the Scripture does not support such a thought. If adultery dissolves the marriage union, then a man might cease to be married and not know it if his mate secretly committed adultery. In that case, he would be committing adultery by living with an unmarried woman !!

(Andrew Telford: Why No Divorce. Philadelphia, Berachah Church, n.d.)

A premium is put on adultery if it severs the marriage bond; a spouse unhappily married would thereby be encouraged to commit adultery or to make a pretense of committing it.

The above establishes the fact that it was not adultery, even under Moses, which dissolved the marriage union, but the stoning of the adulterer. Indeed, so long as the adulterous person lived, the marriage was, intact. The severity of the law of Moses provided for the cleansing of the land of Israel from adulterous people through stoning. Under grace, the adulterous spouse is given anopportunity to get right with God by an extension of life. His period of probation is lengthened because of Calvary.

The putting to death. of the adulterer or adulteress was not specifically for the purpose of releasing innocent mates to marry other spouses; it was to free the land of such pollution lest such evil become a destroying cancer in the society of Israel. The Scriptures (Deut. 22 :22, 24) speak of the purpose of the putting to death by the nation of such immoral men and women in this fashion:

So shalt thou put away evil from the land.

If the FIVE WORD School insists that adultery dissolves the marriage bond, it is pertinent to ask why the union should not be destroyed for other flagrant sins which, in similar degree, destroy the fidelity of one spouse to the other. Some examples of such are persistent cruelty. criminality, and neglecting to support the spouse and home because of drunkenness or gambling. It is important to remember that an isolated act of infidelity may be the result of a momentary passion; but cruelty, neglect, or desertion are deliberate. Certainly these must destroy the marriage bond even more effectively than adultery from the standpoint of human reason. How can one answer this? To such a question there seems to be no satisfactory answer.

(Kenneth E. Kirk: Marriage and Divorce. 2nd ed. London, Hodder andStoughtonLtd.,1948, p.84).

The idea that adultery is the cause that breaks the marriage union arises out of the fact that there is an overemphasis on the sexual side of marriage in this adulterous generation. It is made the focal point of the happiness of marriage, a kind of marital recreation. Rather, marriage is a vocation, a high calling from God for a purposed, life-long union in outpoured (agape) love, regardless of the unworthiness of the mate. Such love is Christ’s love, and has He not asked God’s children to love their mate as He loved the Church(Eph.5:25) ? A marriage which is built upon and centered in sex is bound to come to grief. Even modern psychologists are deeply aware of this fact.

Many actors of the movie world, who have been divorced and remarried a number of times are, as Billy Graham has said, ”living in adultery, ” even though their several marriages have been legalized by some state’s divorce laws. The probability is that many of these people could have obtained a second, third, fourth or fifth divorce on the grounds of FIVE WORD theology, for does not this school permit one to divorce an adulterous mate and marry another? And does not this school permit a mate to marry another when his spouse has married again? The Hollywood practice of divorce and remarriage will be the practice of many in evangelical churches which adopt FIVE WORD divorce doctrines. This is proven by the fact that today so many professing, divorcee Christians are marrying again contrary to Scripture (Luke 16: 18), because they are strongly encouraged to do so by the loose divorce doctrines and practices of the majority of Protestant churches. Not a few of these churches are evangelical in their profession of faith.

Indeed, men and women can secure bills of divorcement nullifying their marriages under state’s laws which permit them to marry again, but Christ did not permit men to do so. And what Christ forbids as unrighteous cannot be made righteous by man! Certainly Christians should not presume to secure divorces for remarriage from offices of a state when the divine government of God forbids it. A divorce parchment under Moses was important; it is not so under Christ. He does not make allowance for any document which will dissolve a marriage for any cause.

Christ’s position is supported by the Lord’s action in the Old Testament (Jer.3: 1,8, 14). Verse one states that the LORD pleaded for his adulterous wife to return, contrary to the provision in the divorce permission of Moses (Deut.24,4). Verse eight shows that He had given Israel a bill of divorcement for her adultery in accordance with His permission to Israel under Moses, but verse fourteen states:

Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you. (A.V.).

Return, O backsliding children, saith Jehovah: for I am a husband unto you (R.V.).

The LORD of the Old Testament acted in keeping with the statement ofthe LORD Jesus of the New Testament. He said:

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).

Note that the LORD did not look upon the bill of divorcement as the dissolution of His marriage union with Israel, The FIVE WORD School replies that this statement in Jeremiah is but an analogy. That is right; it is a true analogy, and the principle still holds. However, was not Israel married to the LORD? ls idolatry, the spiritual sin of adultery, less evil than the physical sin of adultery? Is it less evil to play the harlot with God than with man?

True, the LORD put away Israel and gave her a bill of divorcement because she was a harlot (Jer. 3: 1, 8) and had many lovers; but so much did He love her that He did not close the door to her return by dissolving the marriage by a divorce parchment, for as noted above. He said that He was still married to her, and that He was still her Husband. He remained true to her although she long continued unfaithful to Him. He asked that this message from His heart be conveyed to her:

Return, thou backsliding Israel, saith the LORD; and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you: for I am merciful, saith the LORD, and I will not keep mine anger forever(Jer.3:12).

The FIVE WORD School persists in viewing the reaction of men (spouses)to ADULTERY as seen under law. Christ would have us view the sin of ADULTERY and our reaction to it as seen under grace.

No trespass offering was provided for the sin of adultery under law; thank God,it is otherwise under grace. See Acts13:39:

And by him [Christ] all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

The LORD Jesus said:

Pray ye…and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors…For if ye forgive men their trespasses your heavenly Father will also forgive you; But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses (Matt,6:9, 12, 14,15).

Nowhere in Scripture does God fix for the race, as a whole, a period of so many weeks, or so many months, or so many years for them to repent of theirsin before He will be reconciled to them. He is already reconciled to sinners who offend Him.

God .. . hath reconciled us to Himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation: To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them (IICor.5:18,19).

God is reconciled to sinning men before they even turn to Him. He waits for them to accept His reconciliation and forgiveness, and does not in the meantime close His door of grace to them by fixing a universal period of five weeks, or five months, or five years, or twenty years during which they must come or forfeit the reconciliation which He offers. Christ bids us follow the LORD’S example.

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee: Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift (Matt. 5:23, 24).

If he refuses your readiness to be reconciled to him, should you close the door of reconciliation to him? This a spouse does by divorcing an adulterous mate and then marrying another. Reconciliation is henceforth impossible. Happily, God does not shut the door of reconciliation to a backslidden, worldly Christian who is considered an adulteress in His sight (James4:4). God grant that the so-called innocent party may be as longsufferingl

The Word of the LORD of Israel and of the Church is:

A new commandment I give unto you. That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another (Jn. 13:34).

May a Christian forgive another before he repents and personally acknowledges his wrong? What did Jesus say?

And when ye stand praying, forgive if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses (Mark 1l:25).

A true Christian forgives one who has wronged him before such a one even asks him for forgiveness. He is reconciled to him, like His Lord, before he returns to acknowledge his offense.

Back to Chapters III and IV

Continue to Chapter VI

Appendix

SIFC Note: Rev. Wells is comprehensively on target here with monumentally important forgotten and ignored truth that would revolutionize churches today if the heresy of “biblical” grounds was contritely repented of, and practices changed accordingly, so as to no longer offend a holy God, and perhaps even obtain His last-minute mercy for our nation and government. He does, however, make two points that do not have biblical support, or that directly contradict the biblical principles he is righteously advocating. These bear specific cautionary mention:

(1) on page 27 of the physical book he states (while referring to Jeremiah chapter 3 text): [ “Verse eight shows that He had given Israel a bill of divorcement for her adultery in accordance with His permission to Israel under Moses…”]
(We note that there does not seem to be support anywhere in scripture for any inference that God “approved” of Moses’ expediency, and in fact, Jesus’ mention of it in Matthew 19 seems to take a disapproving tone, to the careful reader. Additionally, we shall see whether materials in the Appendix deal with the very narrow cultural circumstance relating to the Jewish betrothal period to which Deut. 24 actually applied. This is not mentioned in the chapters of Rev. Wells’ main text.)

(2) on page 29 of the physical book he states:  [“If he refuses your readiness to be reconciled to him, should you close the door of reconciliation to him? This a spouse does by divorcing an adulterous mate and then marrying another. Reconciliation is henceforth impossible“. ]
(Wells does not state why he made this remark, so we shouldn’t speculate, but if that which he has so meticulously supported with faithful principles of scriptural interpretation for the first five chapters is fully true, then neither the civil divorce nor the second or any subsequent marriage is valid in God’s eyes, and remains a state of continuous adultery subject to the loss of inheritance in the kingdom of God reiterated in 1 Cor.6:9, Gal. 5:21 and Heb. 13:4.   Rev. Wells seems to be stating a presumption while not (here) offering any scriptural support for it, which seems a bit unreasonable in light of all the arguments he has so authoritatively made. It could be as simple as his personal doubt that a once-adulterous mate would ever be convicted by God to stand for their covenant marriage, once the spouse they wronged had entered an adulterous remarriage. He could be implying that physical termination of the ongoing remarriage adultery, with reconciliation / restitution toward the only true spouse God recognizes would be “compounding the sin”.   If so, then soul matters less than the appearance of propriety and man’s sensibilities.   He seems to be also forgetting that “nothing will be impossible with God”, and that it is God who pursues a wandering spouse and changes the hearts of both spouses, unbound by any such circumstances.
To be fair, Rev. Wells did not live long enough to see such reconciliations and restorations start to very frequently occur in the faithful church, nor the prevalence arise in unmarried cohabitation entrapping spouses and producing children–as immorality proliferated far more than he could ever have envisioned prior to the unilateral divorce regime implemented in the last 5 years of his life.   He did not live to see how much more rapidly the resulting foundationless subsequent civil-only “marriages” fell apart than did the forsaken covenant marriages.  He did not live to see the move of God where disciples become convicted upon discovering they had married someone else’s spouse by these very standards, and they voluntarily exit the adulterous union. In recent practice, neither a non-covenant “marriage”, nor non-covenant children in such a “marriage” has proved to be a permanent barrier to reconciliation of covenant spouses to the only valid marriage in God’s eyes. )

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapters III and IV – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

Image April 12, 2015 standerinfamilycourt

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”.

CHAPTER III – THE POSITION OF THE FIVE WORD SCHOOL

A. The Five Word School Builds a Doctrine of Divorce on One Text

A group of believers today as in the past, insist that the Scriptures teach the right of an “innocent party” to put away his adulterous spouse and marry another even though that mate is still living. This group admittedly build their doctrine on one isolated text, namely, Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) and more specifically on five words (as in the Authorized Version) of the text. Certainly it is fair and appropriate that they be called the FIVE WORD School of Divorce, for without this text, and particularly its exceptive clause of five words as stated in the Authorized Version, they would have no support for their doctrine.

Rather than first collating all the divorce texts and then making an objective study of each before deducing a doctrine from their general tenor, the FIVE WORD School proceeds on the assumption that Matt.19:9(A.V.) alone provides the answer to the problem of the right of an innocent party to divorce an adulterous mate and marry another while the first mate is still living.

Instead of bringing this text into the light of all the texts bearing on the subject, they bring all the texts bearing on the subject into the light of their biased interpretation of Matt. 19:9 and insist on interpreting all other divorce texts strictly in its illumination. It is amazing that they presume to interpret the MANY texts in the light of the ONE text and not the ONE in the light of the MANY, which has been the method of the Church of Christ over the centuries. Certainly this same group of evangelicals do not follow this method of interpretation in other areas of Christian doctrine. They would be among the first to repudiate and decry teachers of cults who follow the principle which they themselves pursue in arriving at their doctrine of divorce.

The reasoning of the FIVE WORD School is very much like the reasoning of advocates of evolution. The latter start with the premise that evolution is true, and therefore conclude that the facts of biology, geology, and paleontology must support the doctrine of evolution. The FIVE WORD School starts with the premise that its distinctive interpretation of the one isolated text, Matt.19:9(A.V.), is conclusively proven and therefore, all other divorce texts of the Bible must follow the same interpretation, namely, that all innocent parties have the right to marry another upon divorcing their adulterous spouses. To a legally trained mind, this kind of reasoning is like a lawyer’s brief drawn to support his pre-determined conclusion. Indeed they reason in a circle, for they use the conclusion to prove the premise.

Charles F. Kettering of the General Motors Corporation once said, “I have a friend who gave me a definition for logic. He says logic is an organized procedure for going wrong with confidence and certainty.” This statement contains more truth than humor. How careful, therefore, must any teacher be in developing a statement of doctrine. Certainly he must eschew the method of building a doctrine on an a priori postulate, or the teacher himself may bedeceived by his own presumed logic. The greater peril will be that multitudes may follow the self-deceived teacher to their temporal and eternal sorrow. The danger will be especially grave for those who follow an erroneous doctrine of divorce, for such may lead them to commit the sin of adultery, which precludes entrance into the kingdom of God (I Cor.6:9,I0).

If the FIVE WORD School’s exegesis of Matt. 19:9, standing by itself, were seemingly correct, it would still be unsound to interpret all other divorce texts strictly in its isolated light when the preponderance of Scripture states a position which sharply modifies what appears superficially to be the meaning of Matt. 19:9 (A. V. ). John Owen once said. “Error under the notion of truth takes firm root in the carnal mind.” May God sanctify our minds that they may be kept free from error.

How scripturally poor must be a doctrinal school which insists on resting its case on ONE principal text when there is a preponderance of texts presenting the doctrine in a totally different light. It cannot claim that it has two texts upon which to rest its case because Matt.5:32 does not specifically declare that one has either the right to divorce an adulterous mate or to marry another when such a one has been put away. This point will be discussed more fully under the treatment of Matt.5:32.

Some members of the FIVE WORD School unwittingly admit the scriptural weakness of their position by accepting and appealing to some or all of the false assumptions which follow, and many more which will be discussed at some length in the Appendix under the heading A CHARGE TO THE JURY OF READERS. There are twenty-one points under this section in which the writer has presented the major objections of the FIVE WORD School to the position of the Conservative School and has there given an answer to them.

B. Five Erroneous Postulates of the FIVE WORD School are Stated

The doctrine of divorce of the FIVE WORD School appears to be based chiefly on five major erroneous postulates relating totext (Matt. 19:9, A.V.). They follow:

I. The assumption that because the Pharisees understood the word divorce in Matt.19:9 to mean what it meant in Deut.24:1-4, namely, to dissolve a marriage, therefore Matt. 19:9 obviously teaches that an innocent party may dissolve his marriage for adultery and marry another.

2. The assumption that the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9 (A. V.) must modify the clause, ”and marrieth another,” which immediately follows it, thus permitting an innocent spouse to dissolve his marriage and marry another.

3. The assumption that the Greek text which supports Matt.19:9 (A.V.) has been proven beyond any possible doubt to be the finally approved text, despite the fact that no true textual scholar would presume to make such an assertion and despite the fact that many outstanding Greek scholars have believed the variant reading, which is in complete accord with the context of the text in question, to be the more accurate one.

4. The assumption that one principal divorce text Matt. 19:9(A.V.) must scripturally settle the right of an innocent party to divorce an adulterous mate and marry another.

5. The assumption that the almost intolerable situation of many remarried divorcees who profess Christ as their Saviour necessitates a liberal view of Matt.19: 9 , permitting at least the innocent spouse to marry again while his former mate is still living.

===================================================

CHAPTER IV – A SURVEY OF THE SEVEN PRINCIPAL DIVORCE TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

A specific item of evidence might,if taken by itself, prove an innocent man to be guilty, whereas the accumulated evidence that might be painstakingly introduced in a court, when viewed as a whole, would prove the seemingly guilty one to be innocent.

The proof of God ‘s existence does not rest on one or two evidences but on many evidences. Any of the several evidences would not prove that the God of the Bible is, and is the Creator of the Universe, but the cumulative evidence from many sources within and without the Bible establishes that fact.

The cumulative evidence, both within and without the Bible for the Conservative view of Matt.19:9 seems to the author of this book, and to many others who have read it, to be conclusive. It has been stated that a doctrine cannot beaccepted as true unless it has been established beyond reasonable doubt. In that case, a far greater burden of doubt lies with the FIVE WORD School’s position than with the Conservative position. The pages which follow will establish that fact.

The cumulative evidence will show that the exceptive clause of Matt.19:9 and the exceptive clause of Matt. 5:32 do not grant an innocent party the right to marry another if his mate should commit adultery.

A. Five Texts Which State That One Who Is Married May Not Marry Another While His First Mate IsLiving

Mark 10:11,12; Luke 16: 18; Rom. 7 :2, 3; I Cor. 7: I I; I Cor.7:39.

With the five texts above and the two texts which immediately follow, we have the seven principal divorce texts of the New Testament. The text of I Cor.7: 15 will be treated in the Appendix. The great divorce passage (Deut. 24: 1-4) of the Old Testament will be treated also. It will be shown that it has been abrogated by Christ.

B. Five Texts Which State That One Who Marries Another While His Former Mate Is Living Commits Adultery. They follow under two heads.

Two Texts With Exceptive Statements Which State That a Divorced, Chaste Wife (An Innocent Spouse) Commits Adultery in Marrying Another.

Matt. 5:32and 9:19

A statement of Ralph M. Riggs, General Superintendent of the Assemblies ofGod (1956), is pertinent here:

There are seven New Testament scriptures on the question of divorce and remarriage. In five of them (Mark I0:11; and also verse 12; Luke 16:18; Rom.7:3;I Cor.7:11,39) the Lord and the Holy Spirit definitely and unequivocally forbid remarriage after divorce. Separation is allowed on the ground of fornication and (if the initiative is taken by the unbeliever) upon the ground of incompatibility because of one being a Christian and the other not. But in no one of the five mentioned scriptures is remarriage ever permitted but in all is distinctly forbidden. In Matt.5:32 and 19:9 statement is made that no one shall put away his wife save for the cause of fornication, and the statement continues that whoso shall marry herthat is divorced committeth adultery. To some people the inference is carried here that if an individual divorces another because of fornication, he or she is then free to remarry. If there were no other scriptures than these in Matthew, such an inference might be taken and such a position maintained, However, these twoscriptures al lowthis position only on inferential ground, and neither makes a positive statement that any divorced person may remarry. In all of the five scriptures (referred to above) the absolute and positive statement made that remarriage is always forbidden. The two passages in Matthew must therefore be interpreted as consistent with the teaching of the other scriptures. It is only thus that we can get the tenor of teaching of God’s Word and arrive at a final understanding of its laws. Thus, taking all seven of these scriptures (all that are given us in the New Testament) we come to the inevitable conclusion that although separation is allowed under some circumstances, remarriage while the former companion is living is never allowed. This is the law for Christians.

(Ralph M. Riggs: “Standards of Membership …” The Bulletin of the Illinois District of the Assemblies of God, (June 1953), Springfield, Illinois.)

2. Three Texts which State That He Who Puts Away His Mate and Marries Another Commits Adultery, and She Who Is Put Away as a Chaste Mate Commits Adultery If She Marries Another.

Mark 10: 11, 12; Luke 16: 18; and Rom, 7:2,3.

An extended, chronological treatment of the seven principal divorce texts of the New Testament follows in the succeeding chapters.

SIFC: Can an adulterous relationship ever be converted to holy matrimony just by civilly divorcing to in order to legalize? Find out in Rev. Wells’ Chapter V discussion of Matt. 5:32, next….

Back to Chapters I and II

Continue to Chapter V

Appendix

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series – Chapters I and II – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 10, 2015 standerinfamilycourt

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”.

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.

Back to Introduction

Continue to Chapters III and IV

Appendix

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Divorce, marriage, morality

Book Series: Introduction – DOES DIVORCE DISSOLVE MARRIAGE?

April 10, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 1 Comment

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. His work would be considered “judgmental”, “legalistic” and “graceless” in many of the Assembly of God churches like the one SIFC belongs to today, and virtually any other evangelical Protestant church in America.

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”. Until 1973, so did all of Rev. Wells’ peers in the ministry. Rev. Wells’ cautions in the Preface to this book, of course, went shamelessly unheeded by denominational leadership, and his words predicting the consequences proved prophetic.

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” to justify remarriage after civil divorce. It is interesting to read that even with the much-lower divorce rates of the 1950’s, the author even then refers to “a storm center of controversy among evangelical church leaders and other churchmen……especially over the past 3 decades.” Some men of God will never take Christ’s “no” with a submissive spirit….as an undershepherd concerned primarily for souls above human esteem.

FOREWORD

We are living in perilous times. One of the most serious perils of our times is divorce, a danger which threatens the very foundation of our society; the marriage institution and the home. One out of four American marriages breaks to pieces in a divorce court. So many people are mixed up in their marriage relations today that our social fabric is seriously weakened. Sensuality and promiscuity are all too common in the American scene. Hell and Hollywood contribute freely of their vulgarity and sin. These are indeed the days when men have “eyes full of adultery.”

Against this tide of evil the church stands as the only remaining bulwark. It was reassuring. recently, to have a member of the British royal family stand firmly with her church against the temptation to marry a divorced man. Certain churches in America also stand resolutely against marriage after divorce. That Holiness and Pentecostal churches be among those that resist this evil is properly consistent. They refuse to countenance easy divorce and remarriage after divorce for any reason.

Such a position is Scriptural! “Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another committeth adultery against her.” Mark 10: 11. In his book, “Does Divorce Dissolve Marriage?” Reverend Milton T. Wells has presented this position in an able manner. He has done the church and its moral standard a real service in this complete and convincing document which he has prepared. May it bring reassurance and strength to the church and Christians in general as they resist the pressure and help stem the tide of modern laxity and compromise.

Reverend Ralph M. Riggs

General Superintendent

The Assemblies of God

=================================================

PREFACE

The frightening increase of divorce in the past two decades is tragic. Even more tragic is the departure of some evangelical churches from the clear teaching of Christ respecting marriage and divorce. Today, a large segment of the Christian Church accommodates the Scriptures to the seeming necessities of divorcees. This compromising practice has led to a vitiated doctrine of divorce with terrible and consequent results. Indeed, divorcees and their mates need the sympathetic concern of every true pastor, but a church must not build doctrines of divorce to suit the practices of expediency and heart-felt sympathies, neither must such doctrines be adjusted to fit the Christian experiences of these unfortunate lives. Christian experience cannot settle Christian doctrine; Biblical doctrine alone must determine and qualify Christian experience and the practices and rules respecting the divorce problem within the Church.

God is regenerating the lives of spouses of divorce unions. This fact however should be no excuse for the Church to alter her doctrine of divorce. To do so will increase the rate of divorce and remarriage both within and without the Church, and consequently will blight the lives of millions of innocent children now living and yet unborn. The blame for the dreadful increase of divorce is properly laid at the door of the compromising segments of the Christian Church.

The purpose of this book is to draw believers back to an objective study and exegesis of the Scriptures bearing on the doctrine of divorce, that they may see whether Christ did, indeed, teach the doctrine .of the indissolubility of marriage for any cause,

The further matter of the status of converted divorcees within the Church is treated at considerable length in the Appendix.

The writer is deeply indebted to the following for their substantial help in the preparation of the manuscript: Paul H. Chappeli. Esq., member of the Maryland Bar; Richard J. Crozier, S. T. M.; Hobart E. Grazier, B. A.; Nicholas Tavani, B.A. and R. E. Watson, B. E. D._, A. M., Ph. D. It is doubtful that the writer could have completed such a comprehensive treatment of the subject except for the inspiration, encouragement, and practical assistance of these brethren, some of whom contributed brief sections which they have permitted the author to include in the text without identification of their authorship. In addition, other anonymous friends generously assisted in preparing the manuscript copy. A hearty “thank you” is extended to them.

The writer is also grateful for the kind permission of many publishers to quote and print portions of their publications, acknowledgements of which are contained in footnotes.

INTRODUCTION

Divorce with its attendant evils is one of the most serious blights upon modern society. Recent statistics reveal that there are three times as many suicides among divorced persons as there are among married people and that more delinquent children are found in homes broken by divorce than in homes broken by death. Whenever God’s laws are broken, someone has to pay. Nations and churches are only as strong as their homes. God ordained the family to be the core and strength of the moral and spiritual welfare of mankind; therefore it is important that society know the teachings of the Holy Scriptures respecting divorce and remarriage.

All Bible-believing Christians will agree that Jesus did not permit divorce between husband and wife, except in the case of fornication on the part of the one or the other. The following scriptures leave no doubt about this matter: Matt. 5:32, 19:9; Mark 10: 1-12, and Luke 16:18.

True evangelicals, however, do disagree as to whether or not the Scriptures teach that a chaste mate may BOTH “put away” his unchaste mate and marry another. One group of believers, whom we shall call the FlVE WORD School of Divorce, insists that the Scriptures teach that a “chaste mate” may put away a mate who commits adultery or fornication and then marry another while the first mate is still living. The writer of this paper is of the Conservative School, which believes that the Scriptures teach that a “chaste mate” may be separated from an “unchaste mate” but MAY NOT remarry while that mate still lives. The writer, at the close of this paper, will show that there may even be a grave doubt as to whether Christ authorized one to DIVORCE an adulterous wife.

Numbers of churches, including some of the older denominations, which in the earlier years of their existence retained rigid views on divorce, going so far as to forbid the right of the so-called “Innocent party” of Matt.19:9 who divorces his “unchaste wife” because of fornication to remarry, have in later years liberalized their doctrine of divorce. Is this a fulfillment of II Thess.2:3. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day [the day of the Lord] shall not come, except there come a falling away first ..and that man of sin be revealed the son of perdition..? Will our denomination follow the pattern of other apostatizing churches? God forbid!

Is the more liberal view of Matt. 19:9, and divorce as a whole, based on a better exegesis and exposition of the sacred Scriptures and is therefore more to be desired for the glory of God. Should changing moral standards and mores of modern times cause us to re-examine the Scriptures with a direct effort to seek for a more liberal interpretation of Scripture, as it touches upon the subject of divorce and remarriage, so that the Church may more..realistically “establish standards” in keeping with the more universally accepted moral tone of the timesl

It is true that students of either side of a given doctrine are prone to regard only that which will entrench them further in their previous convictions. It is, unfortunately, doubtful whether many students or readers of studies on either side of the interpretation of Matt;19:9 will alter the opinions with which they approached the study of this subject. It is my hope that the reading of this paper will accomplish two purposes: first, to clarify the thinking and convictions of those who are still uncertain as to which of the two views is correct; and second, to resolve the problem for those who, while they have accepted the conclusions and interpretations of the FIVE WORD School, still have deep misgivings because they know that strong segments of the Christian Church for centuries have held the conservative view of this question, and further, because they realize that a loophole for divorce and remarriage for the one cause of fornication will certainly lead to permission for divorce and remarriage for other causes.

The very fact that the doctrine of divorce has been one of the storm centers of controversy among evangelical church leaders and other churchmen for centuries, and more particularly in the last three decades, should impel him who approaches this subject to come humbly with an honest heart and open mind, prepared to study diligently and painstakingly all the Scriptures in the Bible dealing with the subject. No easy, snap judgments are in order here. Thorough thinking is needed. Obviously, the Conservative School and the FIVE WORD School of the divorce controversy cannot both be right. Let us, therefore, think prayerfully under God until by God’s grace we truly think God’s thoughts after Him in this great problem of the Christian Church. The Holy Spirit through the Apostle Paul has bidden us:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth (II Tim.2:15).

An old French writer made an observation in the nineteenth century which is far more true today. He said that Democratic societies prefer books which may be easily procured, quickly read, and which require no learned researches to be understood …they must have what is unexpected and new. Accustomed to the struggle, the crosses, and the monotony of practical life, they require strong and rapid emotions, startling passages, truths or errors brilliant enough to rouse them up and to plunge them at once as if by violence, into the midst of the subject. I

A. W. Tozer: the editor of the Alliance Weekly, has said:

Our “vastly improved methods of communication” of which the short-sighted boast so loudly now enable a few men in strategic centers to feed into millions of minds alien thought stuff, ready-made and pre-diagnosed. A little effortless assimilation of these borrowed ideas and the average man has done all the thinking he will or can do. This subtle brain-washing goes on day after day ad year after year to the eternal injury of the populace — a populace, incidentally, which is willing to pay big money to have the job done, the reason being, I suppose , that it relieves them of the arduous and often frightening task of reaching independent decision for which they must take responsibility.

It is necessary that all who approach the study of this subject do so dispassionately, for admittedly there are scholarly and godly men on either side of this question who are deeply convinced that their position is the correct one. May we come to the Scriptures in the study of this subject, by the help of God, without fixed prior prejudice or bias and without desire to wrest the Scriptures to suit them to the convenience of our denomination’s supposed need, our seeming necessities, our proclivities, or our carnal sympathies! Alas, so often one’s expressed thought in a matter of diverse opinion is fathered by what suits his biased wish or apparent necessity rather than by an objective study of the facts in the case. Most everyone sees the folly of this in others, but all are prone to do thesame thing. How desperately each one who studies this subject needs the illumination and direction of the Holy Spirit. May God help each of us who approaches the subject of divorce and remarriage to be free from this grave evil which has so many times blighted the Church of Christ. May this question not be settled by the traditions of great branches of the Protestant Church, no matter on which side of the question they may stand, for it is a fact that two of these, the Church of England and the Presbyterian Church, have had equally eminent scholars championing opposite sides of the divorce problem under discussion. Surely it must be settled on the same sound principles of interpretation which have characterized the Christian Church for centuries in establishing the vital and essential doctrines of Holy Scriptures which have been virtually universally accepted by Bible-believing Christians for many generations.

The pastor who has dealt with earnest, believing divorcees, or their mates, tempted to desire a doctrine of divorce which will enable him will be peculiarly to solve more expeditiously, at least, some of the complex problems of divorcees with the sympathy of his heart rather than with the conviction of his soul borne of a clear understanding of the teachings of the Holy Scriptures. Many of these unfortunates have come into evangelical churches as a result of the easy divorces secured during World War II. They need Christ, He died for them. A pastor should not presume to give such people hasty and severe counsel lest they be precipitated into worse moral pollution. God will guide them if they are encouraged to seek the Lord earnestly and study the Word of God diligently for light on their problems.

A pastor whose relatives have been blighted by divorce will find it difficult to be completely objective as he studies the Scriptures on this subject. Obviously, a divorced person who is still unmarried will find it difficult also. Man’s depraved nature tends to press him to favor interpretations which make his way and the way of others easier and to favor such views of Scripture as shall not make him an exile and stranger (foreigner) (I Pet. 2: I I) to the spirit of his age (Rom. 12: 1.2V.) or church. May all of us who pursue this study seek to be true Bereans, who search earnestly for the truth under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. May we seek the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth regarding this matter, cost what it may to us, or to those nearest and dearest to us, or to any others for whom we have the deepest sympathy and compassion. The Bereans “were more noble than those in Thessalonica , in that they received the word with all readinessofmind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:I I). Certainly the unfortunate divorcees need our sympathy, but we dare notbuild a doctrine of divorce on our sympathy and at the same time claim tobe honest with ourselves and the God of the Holy Scriptures.

Tangled problems of divorcees within the Church must be settled; however, they must not be settled by a prejudiced accommodation of the sacred Scriptures to them but by bringing them to the light of the truth gained by a straightforward and exact exegesis of the divorce texts of the Bible. Christ said,”Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word isTRUTH” (John 17:17). All should heed the call of the STANDARD BEARER who during a fierce battle was bidden to return the flag to the retreating troops. As he turned to press forward, he cried, “BRING THETROOPS UP TO THE STANDARD, I SHALL NOT BRING THE STANDARD DOWN TO THE TROOPS!”

May God help all who write on this subject, and all who diligently study it, to regard prayerfully the warning by V. H. Stanton: ..When once we have thought ourselves into a particular theory, a conviction of its truth is apt to be bred in the mind, which is altogether beyond the evidence, while inconvenient facts are ignored…V. H.Stanton: The Expositor, Vol.Vll.

Continue to Chapters I and II – Does Divorce Dissolve Marriage?

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Church Discipline, Discipleship, marriage, Marriage Restoration, morality

Rebuttal to ERLC: “IS DIVORCE EQUIVALENT TO HOMOSEXUALITY?”

Image April 4, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 4 Comments

by “standerinfamilycourt”

“standerinfamilycourt” responds to a blog dated September 24, 2014 by Dr. Russell D. Moore, President of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention (ERLC)

“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

‘If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” Luke 14:26

In the fall of 2014, Dr. Moore and the Southern Baptists, and separately, the Roman Catholic Church held conferences on the future of the traditional family and “inclusiveness” issues in the Church. Following this, we started hearing a lot from the Catholics about how remarried divorced people should be made to feel “better- included” in their church life. It seems neither church was talking much about holiness, true repentance, or pleasing the Lord. The Catholics may need to watch who they seek to emulate, and retain their own saltiness, rather than seeking to stem the loss of divorced members, at all costs, to permissive Protestant churches. Dr. Moore’s blog is from this conference time frame.

We shall start with the title to Dr. Moore’s blog, because the obfuscation of the biblical truth actually begins right there. “Is Divorce Equivalent to Homosexuality? The answer is “yes” and “no”. In the first place, the manmade concept of legalized civil divorce has absolutely no meaning in God’s eyes. Divorce’s impact in the Kingdom of God depends on its motivation. If civilly divorcing the partner of one’s youth, it is willful rebellion against God’s law. If civilly divorcing someone in order to separate from an immoral subsequent union, it is a step in repentance, restitution and surrender to God’s law. Either way, God is standing firmly in covenant with the original one-flesh union, which He exclusively and permanently joined at the time of those holy vows.

We need to point out that Dr. Moore’s view is based on an explicit presumption that Jesus supported adultery as grounds for His disciples to both divorce and remarry, based on a phrase in Matthew 19:9. Moore presumes no debate on this point, and because this view is so broadly accepted by the vast majority of the evangelical Protestant Church, he offers no biblical defense of it in this piece. We will therefore not lengthen our response by addressing something Moore did not argue, except to point out the significant conflict with the preponderance of other marriage scripture and church history. All of the early church fathers of the Rome-based church up through the 4th century (Tertullian, Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Basil, Augustine) as well as Paul, instead centered the adultery discussion around the exceptionless pronouncement of Jesus in Luke 16:18 strictly forbidding both, consistent also with the tone of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount which raised the moral bar for a wide swath of Jewish life-conduct. Marriage revisionists, beginning with clerics in the Emperor Constantine’s court, later persisted in shifting the debate to instead focus on Matthew 19:9 in order to accommodate Constantine’s ongoing adultery / polygamy, and this trend carried forward beyond the Reformation. Dr. Moore assumes that some of the subsequent unions Jesus said were adultery, are not sinful and not adultery based on this revisionist view.

Nevertheless, God uses the Hebrew word שָׂנֵ֣א [sa-ne] in Malachi 2:16 for detesting and intense hatred of the “putting away”- the wrongful repudiation or abandonment – שַׁלַּ֗ח [shalach] , literally “sending away”, which He states is an act of violence against one’s family. Notice that there is no mention in Malachi of any civil piece of paper nor an allowance granted by Moses to divorce, many centuries after the journey through the wilderness. Contrary to the false direction of Luther, God never intended for adjudication of covenant marriage to be a permanent matter of civil government ( 1 Cor. 6:1).

All that said, civil divorce is an easily reversible one-time event that (in isolation) is not at all comparable to the two ongoing states of sin entailed in homosexuality or unrepented, continuing adultery via remarriage while an estranged covenant spouse is living. Marriage revisionists have grown quite accustomed to arguing (straight-faced) that the first abomination automatically confers God’s permission for the far worse abomination of trampling His holy matrimony covenant and misrepresenting His very character to the watching world. We all know that the pagans know a bit of scripture, too, and of late they’ve grown quite vocal in letting us all know they are watching.

So, let’s suggest a more forthright title to Dr. Moore’s blog: “Is Legalized, Unrepented Adultery Equivalent to Homosexuality?” Based on the two scriptures quoted above, we can respond to the honestly-restated question, which now reflects the main issue of consequence before the eyes of God, with a well-supported and unequivocal “Yes”. Continuing, unrepented practice of both adultery and homosexuality are God-substitutes of equal degree: idols. Consequently, as long as either of these relationships continue, they continue in idolatrous competition with any relationship or fellowship with God. Neither is worse than the other, both must be repented in exactly the same way. Neither can be cleansed in any way other than cessation and permanent severance.

1 Corinthians 6:11 goes on to say:

“Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (An exchange was made, idolatry was laid down for genuine fellowship with the Most High.)

Dr. Moore opens his piece as follows:

This week my denomination, through its executive committee, voted to “disfellowship” a congregation in California that has acted to affirm same-sex sexual relationships. This sad but necessary move is hardly surprising, since this network of churches shares a Christian sexual ethic with all orthodox Christians of every denomination for 2,000 years. One of the arguments made by some, though, is that this is hypocritical since so many ministers in our tradition marry people who have been previously divorced.

In fact, “SIFC’s” own large, conservative evangelical denomination did likewise up until 1973 with any pastor who performed a wedding ceremony where either the bride or the groom had an estranged living spouse. The reason for that is, quite simply, a holy reverence for God’s unconditional participation in the indissoluble marriage covenant, which the bible teaches is a supernatural 3-party entity that scripture also tells us is broken only by the physical death of one of the spouses. (Ephesians 5:29-32, Romans 7:2, and 1 Cor. 7:39). Ministers in the evangelical tradition who perform vain marriage ceremonies over people who have been previously divorced civilly, (but still bound spiritually to their 3-party original covenant), are jeopardizing their salvation and aiming two souls, if not their own, towards hell. They are also destroying the power and witness of their church, for He is a jealous God. He is a God who is most especially jealous of His symbols and the image they cast, of which biblical marriage is paramount.

Dr. Moore arrives at an entirely different conclusion, one that demands physical repentance only of homosexuality (even if legalized), but gives full accommodation to the continuance of adultery if it has been legalized. “Grace” he says, is owed to the adulterer, but not to the homosexual, unless (only) their immoral and idolatrous relationship is terminated. Let’s address the misuse of the concept of grace momentarily, but first let’s gain a proper understanding of the marriage covenant, what breaks it, and God’s revealed character toward it. Once this is correctly understood according to the word of God, all of the rest of the fallacies laid out by Dr. Moore have proper context.

Covenant is a very deliberate choice, and by God’s very nature, a permanent choice. Throughout His three-year public ministry Jesus very deliberately walked around announcing to us that He is our Bridegroom, and that He will never leave or forsake us, that He was going to lay down His life for us, that He was going to be spiritually responsible for us, even allowing God to punish Him for our transgressions by allowing God to break fellowship with Him, His only Son, for those agonizing moments on the cross. His first miracle was by no accident performed at that wedding in Cana when He turned water into wine – not just a beverage, but symbolic of His blood and of covenant, of the indwelling Holy Spirit Who cannot abide in a sinful vessel . He told us that nobody can contain new wine in old Pharisaical (Deuteronomy 24) wineskins. At His last meal on earth before going to the cross, He very deliberately recited nearly all the traditional vows of the Jewish betrothal ceremony in order to comfort His disciples and to institute Holy Communion. When He spoke His Revelation to the Apostle John, He again spoke of His wedding supper, the consummation event.

Ephesians chapter 5 gives us a definite glimpse that the marriage of our youth goes far beyond the civil certificate, and would permanently exist even without it. True marriage represents the oneness of the Godhead, also the relationship between Christ and the Church, whom He will never permanently send away and never replace. To blasphemously suggest that God would break covenant, and betray a living covenant spouse to join into an adulterous union suggests that He would allow His Own holiness to be defiled, and His faithfulness to be miscast as unfaithfulness. In Malachi 2, when God is fiercely defending the covenant wife of the offender’s youth by withholding His fellowship from the adulterer, He could have referred to Himself as “YHWH” or “Jehovah”, but He did not. He called Himself Elohim Tsebaoth, the God of Angel Armies, the Lord of Hosts. God is also El Kannah, the Jealous God, and whenever He sets up a symbol, lacing it in and out of holy scripture from Genesis to Revelation, it is a very big deal!

Next, Dr. Moore continues…

We don’t necessarily affirm this [welcoming of divorced and remarried people into their congregations] as good, but we receive these people with mercy and grace……

Anyone who has attended an evangelical church for any length of time can define these terms, mercy and grace, by rote. Mercy is not receiving the bad consequences that we’ve earned or that we deserve from God. Grace is receiving unmerited favor from God due to Jesus going to the cross for forgiveness of our past sins committed by us before we surrendered control of our lives to Him, while accepting His completed work on the cross and renouncing our own efforts to keep the law. Another way to describe grace is the empowerment that regeneration gives us to keep moving toward holiness, due to the infilling of the holy spirit, in response to His mercy. It is the empowerment to make it to the finish line without sin hardening our hearts again and causing us to fall away, as warned of repeatedly in the book of Hebrews. Grace is a divine attribute that cannot be bestowed man to man, but only extended by men where God extends it. Forbearance, on the other hand, tends to become confused with “grace”. It is the patience and forgiveness Christ commanded us to have toward one another when we’ve been offended in some way. Grace is never cowardly and silent (nor affirming) acceptance of a sinful way of life in a person, which the word of God makes clear will cost that person their place in the kingdom of God. That kind of “grace” is actually man’s license, and it is decidedly unloving, because it leads to hell without warning. Naturally, these words are offensive to a denomination which has embraced “once saved, always saved”, but not surprisingly, this false doctrine seems to accompany heretical teachings about divorce and remarriage. In these last days, we can only call these brothers and sisters in the Lord back to the words of Jesus Himself, much of whose unpalatable truth Calvin, Luther and Knox summarily rejected. Jesus warned:

^“Many false prophets will arise and will mislead many. Because lawlessness is increased, most people’s love will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end, he will be saved. “ Matthew 24:11-13

It is absolutely right for SBC congregations to welcome both adulterers and homosexuals into their congregations, but if they do, that local body is fully responsible for discipling them into the likeness of Christ, Who laid down His life and took up His cross. Calvinist bodies, including the Southern Baptists, embrace the “once saved, always saved” mantra which is erroneous, in light of Peter’s instruction to “walk out your faith with fear and trembling”, and in light of Paul’s repeated warnings not to fall away, not to wander from the faith, and to finish the race. The teaching that Christ died for present and future sins has no scriptural basis without active, ongoing mortification of those sins. We are quite literally urged by Paul not to let sin reign in our mortal bodies. By contrast, we are urged to confess and turn from our sins on an ongoing basis after salvation, and believers are repeatedly warned “do not be deceived” with regard to the controlling addiction of sexual sin, before being warned at least twice by Paul that this will cost them their inheritance in the kingdom of God.

The charge of hypocrisy is valid in some respects. I’ve argued for years and repeatedly that Southern Baptists and other evangelicals are slow-motion sexual revolutionaries, embracing elements of the sexual revolution twenty or thirty years behind the rest of the culture. This is to our shame, and the divorce culture is the number-one indicator of this capitulation.

We would admonish that his is a much more perilous and urgent admission than Dr. Moore seems to grasp, in light of the rapidly escalating lawlessness of our times and the fully-evident meltdown of our society that resulted from outright licentiousness of the evangelical church in its unwillingness to call sin sin, and deal with it as Christ and Paul commanded. The notion that it will take this cowering bride 20 or 30 years to embrace homosexuality in light of the persecution that is building at and within our borders is absurd. We would further remind historically that the immoral compromise with God’s definition of marriage (Matt. 19:4-6) did not originate doctrinally for the Southern Baptists in the 1960’s but with Erasmus, Luther, Calvin and Knox in the 16th century.

It seems furthermore ridiculous to think that a church or denomination who wouldn’t risk offending congregants even for the sake of their souls over enforced societal normalization of adultery would suddenly develop an appetite and the discipline to weather persecution over enforced normalization of homosexuality as long as they cling to a belief of “once saved, always saved.” After all, “grace” will cover it, and Jesus’ death paid for all present and future sins – so insisting on physical repentance from remarriage adultery is “legalism”.

The preaching on divorce has been muted and hesitating all too often in our midst.

As we’ve just demonstrated, it’s a very good thing that it has been “muted” in many churches, for it has also been heretically distorted and false, when it does occur. Better to have muted teaching than loud teaching that defies Luke 16:18 by claiming that an ongoing state of sin doesn’t persist in adulterous civil remarriages, or put forth blasphemous slander against the very character of God by denying His character revelation that He never breaks or abandons an original marriage covenant. Better for such a compromised pastor to remain silent in his deception than falsely claim from the pulpit that exiting immoral civil unions is “repeat sin” rather than the repentance and restitution it actually is. Or to blaspheme that a Holy God would enter into “covenant” with adultery. His position is very clear. In Malachi 2, He says “I stand as a witness between you and the wife of your youth…she IS (not was) your partner, the companion of your marriage covenant.” In Numbers 23:19, He says of Himself, “I am not a man that I should lie, nor a son of man that I should change My mind. Do I speak, and not act? Do I promise, and not fulfill?”

We love what Sam Crabtree, Executive Pastor of the Salem Baptist Church said in the blog DesiringGod, April 9, 2014:
“We are free to divorce when Jesus divorces the Church, which is never. (Even the divorce in Isaiah 50 is not a divorce from those he predestined, called, justified, and glorified, but rather a temporary action taken against ethnic Israel, who was never en masse the true bride in the first place.). We are free to remarry when Jesus remarries a bride other than the elect bride, which is not as long as the spouse lives.” AMEN!

Continuing with Dr. Moore….

Sometimes this is due to what the Bible calls “fear of man,” ministers and leaders afraid of angering divorced people (or their relatives) in power in congregations. Sometimes it’s due to the fact that divorce simply seems all too normal in this culture; it doesn’t shock us anymore. Exactly, Dr. Moore!

The fear of man brings a snare,
But he who trusts in the Lord will be exalted. Proverbs 29:25

Continuing…

…there are arguably some circumstances where divorce and remarriage are biblically permitted. Most evangelical Christians acknowledge that sexual immorality can dissolve a marital union, and that innocent party is then free to remarry (Matt. 5:32). The same is true, for most, for abandonment (1 Cor. 7:11-15). If the church did what we ought, our divorce rate would be astoundingly lowered, since vast numbers of divorces do not fit into these categories. Still, we acknowledge that the category of a remarried person after divorce does not, on its face, indicate sin.

Dr. Moore is here arguing with Jesus Himself when he makes his last fallacious assertion. It matters not one whit what “most evangelical Christians” opine. All that matters is what Jesus actually commanded. One day, He’s going to ask, “Why do you call me Lord, Lord but do not do what I say?”

Luke 16:18: ¹⁸“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.

Matthew 5:31-32: ³¹“It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce’; ³²but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.“

Jesus made this statement in the midst of His lengthy Sermon on the Mount, where He talked extensively about suffering for the kingdom of God, where He completely abrogated numerous points in the Pharisaical Mosaic law that embellished the Ten Commandments to the point of conflicting with them, and where He was unquestionably raising the moral bar, requiring forgiveness and reconciliation, and demanding that we keep our hearts clean and soft. Against this backdrop, the street-speak version of what He said in this passage Matthew 5:32 is:

“You married a ‘Ho’ you say? Too bad! You [are] one-flesh with her and I’m also a party to that, until one of you ain’t no more . So, if you kick her out and run, even if you get a piece of paper from the rabbi, you makin’ her a ‘Ho’ if she ain’t one already!”

Permission to divorce for adultery? Don’t think so, dawg! Permission to marry someone else? Not unless you want a wife and a concubine, and not if you want Me to bless it! I just got done telling you that if you say one unworthy word about her, you are in danger of hell, and if you so much as reach for another woman, you’re at strong risk of wishing for all eternity you had cut off that hand first!

The Greek tense used here for “commits adultery” is vitally important as well, but some scripture revisionists like to falsely assert, like Moore, that even if the marriage was sinful, it’s “still a marriage” or “the adultery is only a one-time act, covered by grace”. If that were so, let me suggest that the One Who never spoke an idle word would have saved His breath for something important rather than repeat it twice! Jesus used the present-indicative tense to refer to an ongoing state of adultery. This is not a marriage in anything but the 2-party civil sense, and it doesn’t become one just because the parties are “sorry” but do not terminate the relationship. The original marriage(s) still stand(s) undissolved! There is a difference between being sorry for the evil consequences of transgression, and being sorry because fellowship with God is broken, leading in the latter situation to removal of the competing idol. Adultery, and any form of idolatry always leads to a hard heart, which leads to enmity with God and, if not corrected, eternal separation from Him. This is the reason John the Baptist told King Herod, an unbeliever civilly married to another unbeliever who remained the covenant wife of his brother, “it is not lawful for you to have her.” (Matt. 14:4), and showing, as well, there is also no exception for spiritual condition.

Dealing now with the inexcusable misuse of 1 Cor. 7:15, this too comes courtesy of Paul in the midst of a passage that was teaching exactly the opposite of a “right” to divorce and remarry after abandonment. For that very reason, remarriage is not even mentioned in this chapter. In verses 10 and 11, Paul has stated that the Lord commands the husband not to divorce his wife (no exceptions mentioned), and the wife not to separate from her husband, but if she does separate, to remain unmarried or be reconciled with her husband. The chapter ends with verse 39 reiterating the reason: the marriage bond δέδεται (dedetai) “deo” cannot be broken by anything but physical death. It is no coincidence that Paul’s teaching taken in correct context correlates more so to Luke 16:18 than to any other gospel rendering. Several church fathers’ writings, such as Tertullian, give extensive account of the two of them travelling and ministering together, along with Paul’s mentorship of Luke as eyewitness to Christ’s teaching.

Aside from the obvious context issue, 1 Cor. 7:15 has for centuries suffered significant Greek language translation abuse, with several of the words in that isolated verse, including the words “departs” and “bound”, that are best resolved by looking up Romans 7:2-3, 1 Cor. 7:15 and 1 Cor. 7:39 in a Greek interlinear text tool. Upon doing this, it becomes clear that the word δεδούλωται (dedoulōtai) or “douloo” is not the word for marriage bond at all, but means “compelled to meet the absent spouse’s needs”, rather than follow Christ with single-minded focus. Consistent with the rest of scripture, abandonment indeed does not break the indissoluble covenant marriage bond, either.

If the church “did what we ought”, pastors would immediately cease performing weddings over anyone with an estranged living covenant spouse – no excuses. That’s what the Assemblies of God did up to 1973, until unilateral divorce became the domineering blight on the land. The immorality of the world system and culture should never drive doctrine or practice in the church!
With actual souls on the line, if the church “did what we ought”, pastors would start telling their flock that the only biblical grounds for divorce is to undo falsely-sanctified, legalized adultery so that they can go reconcile with the spouse of their youth, as Hosea did with Gomer. If the church “did what we ought”, false doctrine would be rewritten and seminary courses on marriage returned to a biblical basis based on full and faithful application of the laws of hermeneutics. Yes, those actions would indeed cause the divorce rate (and, most likely, lukewarm membership in the body of Christ) to precipitously drop , but more importantly, it would restore power and witness to the church which has been missing for centuries. In the two scriptures Dr. Moore cites to claim a “biblical justification” for remarriage, Matthew 5:32 and 1 Cor. 7:15, the mere application of just one of the “5-C’s” of hermeneutics (Context) would immediately debunk his perennially popular, ear-tickling assertion. See above.

From this point on, we’ve probably made our case where addressing the remaining presumptions in Dr. Moore’s blog becomes redundant, but now that we’ve laid the essential groundwork, we soldier on to a few more points. We’ll ignore a few, too, because they are too irrelevant to bother addressing.

Continuing…

The second issue, though, is what repentance looks like in these cases. Take the worst-case scenario of an unbiblically divorced and remarried couple. Suppose this couple repents of their sin and ask to be received, or welcomed back, into the church. What does repentance look like for them? They have, in this scenario, committed an adulterous act (Matt. 5:32-33). Do they repent of this adultery by doing the same sinful action again, abandoning and divorcing one another?

How embarrassing it must be to these churches, who have “married” people into soul-endangering adultery, when with increasing frequency, the Lord mercifully brings full reconciliation between the original covenant spouses! In my own church, a covenant couple who has been divorced for decades is in their 80’s and dating again, taking care of each other, and coming to church together for the first time over the past two years. We published an amazing story a few weeks ago that made national news when a man, divorced for 43 years took an engagement ring into Wal-Mart and wooed back the wife of his youth! It has been well-documented that there is a 60-80% failure rate for serial legalized adultery that builds in direct proportion to the number of adulterous civil-only marriages one undertakes, and indications seem to be that civil “marriage” entered into from adulterous cohabitation fails at a 97% rate. Yet that doesn’t seem to stop the harlot church from demonizing the covenant spouse (who actually has God’s intense favor), nor from treating him or her like an interloper in many churches because they continue to wear their wedding rings, to obey 1 Cor. 7:11 and to take a biblical stand for the restoration of their covenant relationship, most importantly, the errant spouse’s very soul following adulterous remarriage. God is jealous for His symbols, and for the soundness of the generations of their covenant family, and for their souls. In many cases, God glorifies Himself in restoring two marriages as a result of such repentance, and He snatches 3 or 4 people from the fire in such cases! Any bloodguilt from “breaking up [non-covenant] families” falls right back on the false shepherds who ignored God’s word and abused their ordination by immorally joining one person to another’s spouse in direct conflict with Luke 16:18.

Given the scriptural fact that nothing breaks the marriage covenant short of physical death, there is no need to carve out a “worst case scenario” for hypothetical purposes, as Dr. Moore suggests. God has laid down and clearly defined the seventh commandment. Violation thereof is violation thereof, regardless of the circumstances. Repentance looks exactly the same as for any other sin: cessation and restitution. Failure to repent leads to an ever-hardening heart, continued idolatry and continued broken fellowship with God. The act of repentance is hard, so hard that the apostate church’s utter lack of remorse for their part in fostering serial adultery is shocking, to say the least! But the understanding of how to repent is not hard at all. As long as these pastors keep performing weddings over biblical adultery, this entire line of argument is incredibly shallow and disingenuous! We would set up an entirely different “worst case scenario” and pose this hypothetical to Dr. Moore: a civilly-married homosexual couple has been born again, and they realize they are living in sin, so they come to you asking how to repent. They have “been together” for 15 years and have children, two through depriving the covenant parent custody after a civil, unilateral divorce that God does not recognize, and the other child through renting somebody’s womb. Are you going to tell them that breaking up that “family” is a “repeat sin”, (so do they repent of this sodomy by doing the same sinful action again, abandoning and divorcing one another? ) The obvious answer for both scenarios is “only if they, and we as their church body, care about their eternal destinies. ”

In most cases, the church recognizes that they should acknowledge their past sin and resolve to be faithful from now on to one another. Why is this the case? It’s because their marriages may have been sinfully entered into, but they are, in fact, marriages.

In most cases? In what case would the church not recognize their (and the organizational) past sin? Furthermore, adultery, covetousness and discontent are hard habits to break, because if the baggage they brought with them was actually shed, the irreplaceable, supernatural one-flesh condition naturally draws a repented heart back to their covenant spouse, because that is always God’s will and way. For all of the reasons already laid out above, we will agree that these are indeed 2-party civil marriages, for so says the piece of paper, but it is only in this sense they are “marriages” and adultery. The very same could be said of legalized homosexual unions, however. Neither will ever constitute holy matrimony in God’s eyes, but rather unrepented adultery, exactly as Jesus said. 1 Corinthians 6:9 applies equally to these civil unions where God is not a covenant party, as it does to the practice of homosexuality.

Jesus redemptively exposed the sin of the Samaritan woman at the well by noting that the man she was living with was not her husband. “You have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband” (Jn. 4:18). It could be that her husbands all died successively, but not necessarily.

Just like today, this woman most likely had quite a complicated mix of covenant husband, deceased partners, cohabitation and / or legalized adultery partners. The fact remains that if the husband of her youth continued to live, all subsequent relationships were adulterous, and her present relationship was definitely adulterous. If the husband of her youth was deceased, it’s possible a subsequent husband still living is now her estranged covenant husband. We can’t speculate and there’s really no need to. Again, looking at John 4:18 in the Greek interlinear tool, we find that one of the two words used here for “husband” is quite familiar –ἄνδρας (andros), and ἀνήρ (aner) , either of which could also simply mean “man” or “companion”. There is are numerous other Greek words for “husband” used in other New Testament passages, but not used here. It is impossible to speculate from this passage which of her relationships beyond the first one constituted covenant marriage, and which were mere civil unions blessed by the rabbi under an outdated Mosaic “bill of divorcement” law that Jesus was about to abrogate. (See above). Therefore, there is no more basis here for using this passage to support divorce and remarriage than there is in using Jacob, Elkanah, Solomon or David’s experiences to support polygamy. Jesus declared new rules as a result of the Sermon on the Mount.

Even if these marriages were entered into sinfully in the first place, they are in fact marriages because they signify the Christ/church bond of the one-flesh union (Eph. 5:22-31), embedded in God’s creation design of male and female together (Mk. 10:6-9).

As discussed above, God remains exclusively in the first covenant, rendering none of the above true of any attempt at remarriage, except of remarriage solely following widowhood. If civil marriages are entered into adulterously while the original covenant is unbroken by death, they can’t be marriage and adultery in God’s eyes at the same time, for that violates His holiness and misrepresents His faithfulness. Jesus made it clear in Luke 16:18 that this is ongoing adultery not marriage. The more-relevant scriptures, on which the Eph. 5 and Mark 10 scriptures cited by Moore actually depend, are:

Matthew 19: 4 -6 and 8: And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, ⁵and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? ⁶So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” ….⁸He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.

Mark 10: 6-9: But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. ⁷For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, ⁸and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. ⁹What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

Ephesians 5:31 echoes this, right after saying that any man who hates his covenant wife (obviously out of a hard heart, and due to the irreversible one-flesh connection exclusively indwelt by God) hates himself, hates his own body. This is because a civil piece of paper cannot separate one-flesh or make it two again. Physically and spiritually impossible, this is. It is clear that what was established in God’s creation design per Genesis 2:24, to which Jesus was resetting the moral compass, is the husband and wife of youth being joined for life, and never again to be two separate people in God’s eyes. God doesn’t issue “ideals” or “intents” with a Plan B- we are talking about the 7th commandment here. This is the basis on which Jesus took the no-excuses hard line he did in Luke 16:18.

Same-sex relationships do not reflect that cosmic mystery, and thus by their very nature signify something other than the gospel. The question of what repentance looks like in this case is to flee immorality (1 Cor. 6:18), which means to cease such sexual activity in obedience to Christ (1 Cor. 6:11). A state, or church decree of these relationships as marital do not make them so.

All of what Moore has flatly stated about homosexual relationships applies in exactly the same fashion to the very relationships Jesus unambiguously described in Luke 16:18. In fact, those verses about fleeing immorality and honoring Him with our bodies were originally written to primarily address heterosexual sin including concubinage, false divorce, prostitution and polygamy. Moore’s last statement is particularly salient with regard to remarriage adultery, in light of what Jesus said in Matthew 19:6 and 8. Jesus made it crystal clear that man was never given authority to dissolve covenant marriage, nor to solemnize adulterous unions.

Instead, our response ought to be a vision of marriage defined by the gospel, embodied in local congregations. This means preaching with both truth and grace, with accountability for entering marriages and, by the discipline of the church, for keeping those vows. We don’t remedy our past sins by adding new ones.

So long as the definition of marriage is corrected to the Matthew 19:6 scriptural basis, we couldn’t agree more. However, once again, Moore’s last statement is particularly salient. The SBC may legitimately lay claim to that declaration the moment they stop creating new cases of sanctified adultery through performing immoral weddings and counseling civil divorce on fabricated “biblical grounds”.

We conclude by returning to the (adjusted) question: “Is Legalized, Unrepented Adultery Equivalent to Homosexuality?”

For purposes of restoring the church’s witness, restoring her power, overcoming her enemies, for being pure and ready to meet her Bridegroom in the clouds, for withstanding the persecution of the last days, and for coming through the evaluation Jesus applies in Revelation 2 and 3, we say, yes indeed, they absolutely are equivalent. Civil divorce, however, is only equivalent to the extent that the root is equivalent to the fruit.

The attitude of evangelical churches in refusing to admit that remarriage after divorce is always biblically immoral has created an enormous obstacle over the past 40 years to driving any sort of godly family law reform that could rebalance constitutional protections between offending petitioners and non-offending, religiously objecting respondents. The latter suffers oppressive religious discrimination in a myriad of circumstances as they are invariably punished, and made an example of, by the courts for taking a biblical moral stand. Pro-family, religious liberty legal ministries turn a deaf ear when embattled Christian spouses seek help in challenging the constitutionality of unilateral divorce, because these ministries don’t accept that it is morally unacceptable before God to remarry, hence they don’t readily recognize the extent to which unilateral divorce laws burden a faithful believer’s free religious exercise and right-of-conscience. Ideally, the government would not have any jurisdiction whatsoever over marriage, but the church would govern it righteously as Christ intended (1 Cor. 6 :1-2). The government is an exceedingly unworthy steward of holy matrimony, and the harlot church no longer accepts her Christ-assigned accountability!

Additional resource: Milton T. Wells, Does Divorce Dissolve Marriage? Eastern Bible Institute (1957), available through Flower Pentecostal Heritage Center, Springfield, MO (archives@ag.org)

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

Discipleship, Marriage Restoration, morality, Prayer, Spiritual Warfare

ONE-FLESH AND SPIRITUAL WARFARE

February 13, 2015 standerinfamilycourt 2 Comments

Have a blessed Valentine’s Day, covenant marriage standers!

When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” ¹⁷And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.” And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood. (Luke 22:14-20)

“Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.” (John 14:1-4)

“He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. (Ephesians 5:28-32) “But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” (Mark 10: 8)

When Jesus shared His last intimate moments over a Passover seder meal in the upper room with His beloved disciples, He did something very symbolic–apart from washing their feet. He spoke to them in some very intimate and familiar terms which they all would have instantly recognized, for He re-enacted the traditional Jewish betrothal [“kiddushin”] ceremony, reinforcing His role as the Bridegroom to His Church by invoking the timeless word script (bolded above) spoken by Hebrew bridegrooms for centuries, so that it would forever be “married” to the sacrament of communion He was establishing.

Lord, may these words this stander shares this day be only the words sent by the Holy Spirit, and may they powerfully encourage all other covenant standers on this Valentines Day. In Jesus’ name, I pray. Amen.

I was in the early months of a project assignment in London when I found out that instead of arranging his work so that he could join me there, my husband had become involved with someone who coveted my God-given helpmate assignment. She coveted my assignment instead of the one assigned to her, which I later found out she had forsaken and abandoned some 20 years earlier. The bad news of my beloved’s betrayal arrived in a credit card statement and was later confirmed by the further investigation of our adult children.

I was blessed to be in fellowship while in the UK in a small nondenominational country village church, a collection really, of a few very warm, large families who loved the Lord. One day in my pew in that quaint little rock church, I was preparing to receive communion. As the Scottish pastor richly spoke the words of Jesus from Luke 22 over the bread and the wine, the Holy Spirit strongly impressed on me on that day nine years ago, that the communion elements corresponded perfectly to the permanent one-flesh relationship with my husband (bread) and to our indissoluable marriage covenant (wine) of which Jesus was a party. Not only that, but because of our one-flesh relationship, I would be taking communion for the benefit of my life partner who was now running from his once-close walk with God. I would be doing so until my beloved was back in fellowship with his King and could resume doing so for himself. This was now my second stand for what was at that time a 31-year marriage. During my first stand, 25 years earlier, the Lord did not speak this to me, because my beloved had not yet come to faith in Jesus. We are told not to eat the bread or drink of the cup unworthily, but to do so only in self-examination and remembrance of the Bridegroom (1 Cor. 12:27).

Most covenant standers, we who know that the Living God permanently and uniquely inhabits our pure union with the husband or wife of our youth, we know that the Jewish custom around betrothal [“kiddushin”] is far different from our western tradition. We know that Mary, mother of Jesus, was legally Joseph’s wife as a result of becoming engaged to him, though they had not yet come together. Few of us know the rich details that go into the Jewish ritual of covenant engagement, so we cannot fully appreciate the deeply significant and comforting ceremonial words that Jesus spoke in the upper room before He said, “this do in remembrance of Me”.

At the Jewish betrothal ceremony, which usually took place over a meal in the bride’s home, a marriage contract [“Ketubah”}, was presented to the father of the bride. The Ketubah consists of all the bridegroom’s promises to his bride. The bride cherishes her Ketubah. ( A loving sister-in-law once decoupaged our wedding invitation onto a plaque that was given to us at our wedding, which has hung on the wall of every new home of ours for forty years.) We in the Church, too, have a Ketubah from our Bridegroom. Our Ketubah (God’s Word) shows us all we are entitled to as the Bride of Christ. All, not some, but all the promises in God’s Word, are for us. As the Bride of Christ, we are entitled to them — they are part of our Ketubah.

At this ceremony the bride was given an opportunity to accept or reject the proposal. If she accepted, she usually remained silent Rebekah, however, chose in faith to verbalize her desire leave her home to go with Abraham’s servant be wed to Isaac, whom she had not yet seen or spoken with (Genesis 24:58). After the terms of the Ketubah were accepted, a cup of wine was shared to seal the marriage covenant. In Matthew 26:29, Jesus said, “I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s Kingdom.”

The bridegroom would speak the ceremonial words sealing the covenant before the family witnesses, “I go to my father’s house to prepare a place for you. I will not drink of this cup again until I drink it new with you in my father’s house”. The cup that Jesus took at His last Passover on earth was the cup of the new marriage covenant with His Bride. In Luke 22:20, Jesus said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for you.” The second cup of wine would be partaken many months, perhaps a year or more later at the wedding supper.

Once the marriage covenant was sealed, the bridegroom left his bride to return to his father’s house where he would spend a year or so preparing the living quarters for his bride before returning for her. It was actually up to the father to decree when the quarters were acceptably complete and the bridegroom could go after his bride to bring her back for the wedding supper and consummation of the marriage. When Jesus said that only His Father knew the day and the hour He was to return for us, He was also likening that day to the wedding day to come. The bride, therefore, knew with certainty that her groom would be returning for her, but did not know when, so she waited in faith and in preparedness.

We all know what a powerful spiritual weapon we have in the shed blood of Jesus!

Nothing is more important than family restoration, because in it is tied up our loved ones’ very souls. In the same way that regular ministry can’t take precedence over our families and its generations, standers ministry is no exception. But, in Hebrews we are sternly warned that a hardened heart that won’t repent will cause us to walk away from our salvation, and in some cases, run out of time and grace. We must never give up praying for that not to happen. It’s on my heart every time I’m taking communion – the Lord showed me years ago that as my beloved’s ONLY covenant one-flesh, I’m taking communion with and for him while he is spiritually unable to (the unbelieving/backslidden husband is sanctified by his believing wife)!

The one-flesh relationship is just as powerful as a spiritual weapon.

I also invoke this uniquely-appointed spiritual weapon against the spiritual ravager of my beloved’s soul whenever singing a praise chorus with “I” or “me” in the lyrics, but I sing “we [one flesh]” turning that chorus into a golden bowl of prayerful incense that rises to the throne of El Elyon (God Most High), and reminding all the spiritual host of God’s indissoluable covenant with my beloved and me, as I’ve done since way back in my first stand for marriage restoration:

“Draw [us] close to You [as one flesh], never let [us] go. [We] lay it all down again, to hear You say that [we’re] Your friend. This is [our] desire. No one else will do. ‘Cause nothing else can take Your place, to feel the warmth of Your embrace. Help [us] find a way to bring [us] back to You [as one flesh]. You’re all [we] want. You’re all [we’ve] ever needed. You’re all [we] want. Help [us] know You are near. “

“Take [us] by the outer court, and through the holy place Past the brazen altar, Lord [we] long to see Your face Pass [us] by the crowds of people and priest who sing Your praise. Lord, [we] hunger and thirst for Your righteousness, and it’s only found in one place…. Take [us] into the Holy of Holies, take [us] in by the Blood of the Lamb [as one-flesh]. Take [us] into the Holy of Holies, take a coal, cleanse [our] lips, here [we are]. “

In that one act of worship, a stander is wielding at least three spiritual weapons: praise of God, the sword of the spirit, the blood of the lamb, and invoking the unique one-flesh relationship that sanctifies the prodigal spouse, according to God’s word. This provision for sanctification by the indissoluable one-flesh relationship is not just for estranged spouses, but also for those intact homes where a beloved spouse is estranged from Christ because he or she has not ever come to saving faith.

Could this be why Satan’s deception is so strong over the apostate church which teaches in direct contradiction of God’s word, that divorce and remarriage (legalized and church-blessed adultery) is justified due to being “unequally yoked” ? “But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.” (1 Corinthians 7:12-14)

Just as covenant marriage perfectly represents the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Spirit / Christ, Husband, Wife), holy communion perfectly represents covenant marriage. When Jesus took the cup and began to speak, He deliberately chose to use the Hebrew ceremonial words for the betrothal ceremony in Luke 22:15-20. The covenant and the one-flesh relationship. The marriage supper of the Lamb. I’m urging that covenant standers should never skip communion, and should never take it without a strong consciousness of the spouse of your youth, otherwise you are missing a potent and uniquely-appointed spiritual counter-attack, one that you are the only person on the face of the earth who can perform. Grasping this truth alone would separate counterfeit , adulterous stands from authentic ones, and save a lot of “quitter’s anguish”.

This revelation by the Holy Spirit instilled in me a righteous indignation at all forms of desecration of God’s definition of marriage, both the front and back ends of Matt. 19:4-6, and it called me to a purpose to invest my gifts in restoring His kingdom to this holy realm. I have captured only a few elements of the rich custom that our Lord walked out as a metaphor establishing Himself as the one who prepares a place for us, and is coming for us. This link will be helpful to standers who would like to go deeper in their understanding.

This stander is going to mark Valentine’s Day 2015 with a private communion ceremony. Satan possibly has plans for my one-flesh to attempt to legalize his adultery that day with a hollow counterfeit, someone else’s covenant wife, in a civil contract that will forever lack this powerful covenant blessing with the presence of El Kanna (our Jealous God).

Father God, in the Garden You said to our spiritual enemy: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers. He will crush your head, and you will strike his feet.” We thank and praise You, Lord, that it’s not the other way around! When You formed the covenant helpmate out of the rib of her husband, You were already putting in place the divine provision for this, and when You declared over them “no longer two but one flesh, let no man put asunder”, You were sealing them in a spiritual weapon far greater than any carnal weapon the evil one could form against the holy covenant that stands sealed in Your shed blood. Thank You that You are not a man that You should lie, nor a son of man that You should change your mind, but that which You promise, You, by character, are flawlessly faithful to fulfill. May this word comfort the hearts of those who are permanently faithful to their covenant with the One who is faithful and true! In Jesus’ name, amen.

(Scriptures in prayer: Genesis 3:15, Genesis 2:21-23, Matthew 19:5-6, Isaiah 54:17, Luke 22:20, Numbers 23:19, Revelation 19:11)

7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!

www.standerinfamilycourt.com

Let's Repeal No-Fault Divorce!