REVEREND MlLTON T.WELLS  (1901-1975)

EASTERN BIBLE  INSTITUTE

GREEN LANE,  PENNSYLVANIA

1957 – (Public Domain)

 

Note by Standerinfamilycourt:    Rev. Wells was an Assemblies of God Pastor and served as President of the Eastern Bible Institute in Pennsylvania,  now known as the University of Valley Forge.

Our Lord Jesus Christ would have called his scholarly work, with its rigorous application of all the principles of hermeneutics to the scriptural texts on marriage “faithful”.

The author uses the term “Five-Word-School”  for those who reject Christ’s teaching, centered around Luke 16:18 and other scripture, that the marriage covenant is dissolved only by the physical death of one of the spouses; those who instead prefer to center their view around Matthew 19:9 according to the Erasmean / Lutheran / Calvinist rendering, in such a way as to contrive a “biblical exception” (except-it-be-for-fornication) to justify remarriage after civil divorce.  

 

CHAPTER 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.

1. 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!