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 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!

 

REVEREND MlLTON T.WELLS  (1901-1975)

EASTERN BIBLE  INSTITUTE

GREEN LANE,  PENNSYLVANIA

1957 – (Public Domain)

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

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

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

 

CHAPTER I  –  WHAT CONSTITUTES MARRIAGE?

The true definition of marriage is given by Christ in Matt. 19: 1-12 and Mark in 10: 1-12.  These passages will be discussed detailedly later in this book.   Christ based his ·definition of marrlage on the principles laid down “from the beginning”,  as described in Genesis 2: 21 -24. These principles did not permit polygamy “from the beginning.”  The man, of his own choice, was to “leave his father and mother”  and “cleave unto his wife” and the Scripture adds, “they shall be one flesh.” The taking of the wife was to be for life, for Christ said:  But   from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; and they twain shall be one flesh; so then they are no more twain; but one flesh.  What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder   (Mark 10:6,9).

The underscored words can leave no doubt that it was God’s intention from the beginning that man should have but one wife at a time, for the Scripture above states that the husband shall “cleave to his  wife” not to his wives.  Such a union of a man’s choice is a union which “God hath joined together”; as we shall see in the study of the harmony of Matt. 19:1 -12 and Mark 10: 1- 12.  Indeed it is not man but GOD who joins husband and wife together as one.  Neither the clergy­man nor the justice of the peace ties the knot. Marriage is not of civil political or human origin.  It was instituted by God in the Garden of Eden when God joined Adam and Eve as husband and wife.  God has not given any government the right to legislate any matrimonial laws contrary to His revelation.  Those who circum­vent the true laws of marriage by adopting the human laws of marriage will an­swer for it at the eternal judgment bar of God Almighty.  Any judge who dis­solves a marriage is dissolving it contrary to the law- of God and will himself answer before the ­true Judge of all men for his action.   Any minister who marries anyone to a divorcee who has a living mate will himself answer in eternity for participating in the sin of adultery for allegedly joining together those whom Christ has forbidden to be husband and wife.

Marriage is more than cohabitation between a male and female.   Christ’s statement in John 4: 17, 18 proves that fact, as do the many Scriptures of the Old Testament which affirm that an unlawful union of a single man with a single girl is fornication.   If,  however, one party to the unlawful union is married,  sin is called adultery.   The passage In John follows:

The [Samaritan] woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband.  For thou hast had five hus­bands; and he whom thou now has is not thy husband; in that saidst thou truly.

Some have supposed that physical union of itself constitutes marriage.   Christ’s above statement, “he whom thou now hast is not thy husband” makes it exceed­ingly clear that this is not so. It seems that she was a divorced and remarried woman because the men with whom she had earlier lived were called “husbands” by Christ.  It is unlikely that the five husbands died one after the other prior to her marrying the succeeding one. The spirit of the passage indicates that he was dealing with a dissolute woman who freely divorced one husband for another. The man with whom she now lived was not her husband despite the fact that she had married him.   Hollywood has many such women.   Indeed, marital union consummates marriage; however. the union is entered before that.   Adam took Eve to be his wife before he cohabited with her.  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man,  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh (Gen. 2:22,23a).    Note that Adam spoke of Eve as bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh (ONE FLESH) before he went in to her. This was true because her body was made of his body, her flesh of his flesh; and this was obviously before coitus.  In this light a woman becomes a man’s wife from the time  that he publicly takes her, law­fully before men and lawfully before God, to be such.  Any other view is both unscriptural and unacceptable to all serious thinking individuals, whether Chris­tian or non-Christian, To accept another view is to accept promiscuity, prostitution, and polygamy with all their polluting and degenerating customs, vile prac­tices, and evil consequences. No thinking parent would want his son or daughter to become a victim of such a society. The all-wise God provided that marriage should be socially and morally exalting by making it a life long union before God and man.

Other Scriptures show that both in the Old and New Testaments a betrothed woman was considered to be a man’s wife before marriage was consummated in coitus. See pages 61 through 62 for a more detailed discussion of this matter. The fact that a man who cohabited with a betrothed damsel (against her will) was put to death under Moses indicates that fleshly union did not of itself con­ stitute marriage; neither is there a suggestion in the Scripture (Deut, 22:25) that such a young woman was not still the wife of her husband despite her unfortunate and grievous experience,  In fact, the young man in question would not have been put to death had she been an unbetrothed damsel (Deut.22:28, 29).  Deut.22 :24 states that the man who commits fornication with a damsel that is be­trothed has “humbled his neighbor’s wife.”  Matthew’s Gospel confirms muchofthe above. Joseph was deeply distressed that Mary, the virgin, was with childbefore he cohabited with her. He would have “put her away priv!ly (Matt. I :19) had not the angel of the Lord appeared unto him and said, “Joseph ..fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost” (Matt. l :20).  Verse 24 adds, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him,and took unto him his wife…There is no doubt, therefore, that a betrothed woman was known in a Biblical sense to be the wife of a man before he “knew her” in the intimacies of consummated marriage. Even in modem society a woman is known and recognized as a man’s wife immediately after the wedding ceremony before coitus.  In fact, should such a husband be killed on the same day before coitus. the wife would have legal rights to a wife’s share of his property. This is common to the laws of most Western nations.  A man or woman cannot expect to be (nor are they later) properly united when they take their vows of matrimony unless they expect to give to each other conjugal rights.

The Biblical idea of marriage provides for a stable home and the interests of the children of that home .It is not a mere human contract which may be scrapped whenever one or the other may choose.  Such a contract would permit divorce by withdrawal of either spouse from the contract upon dissatisfaction with the man­made union. The tiny sect of early Christians were in the midst of a society which practiced that kind of marriage. They were bold to teach and practice Christ’s teaching respecting marriage and, as a result, revolutionized marriage in the civilized world in subsequent generations. The early Church created a new conception of a monogamous lifelong marriage.  It insisted that such was God’s law and that its members conform to that belief. The fact that their be­lief and practice transformed society’s view and practice of marriage throughout the civilized world can only be accounted for by the fact that it came from the teaching of the divine  Lord,  It is not strange, therefore, that for many genera­tions most Christian churches have had within their marriage ceremony, at leastin substance, the following words:

I, B.,take thee C. .to be my wedded (wife)(husband), to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish till death   do  us part,  according to God “s holy ordinance; and thereto I plight thee my troth,

Unregenerated men of the day teach that when the partners cease to love one another, marriage may cease. Christ, to the contrary, taught that when sentimental love ceased to be felt, the marriage union continued. In fact, the Scrip­tures are plain; the union of a male and female is a real marriage whether or not”falling in love” was the origin of it.  Adam did not find his wife; God brought her to him.  Isaac had no opportunity to “fall in love” with Rebekah; she was chosen by Abraharn through Eliezer for his son.  Such arrangements were common in Bible times and are common today over a large part of the world. Indeed, love may exist apart from marriage and marriage apart from love.   Hollywood has debased and prostituted the meaning of love. They have given it a purely sensual and selfish meaning. The movie world suggests that when you become “fed up” with the girl you married, you may drop her, because you are  no longer gratified with her.  Sex is the center and circumference of marriage on the screen, and.unfortunately the screen in theater and home has set the stand­ards o f marriage for a very large segment of American society and has subtly in­filtrated the thinking and standards even of evangelicals.

There are three Greek words for love: eros , philia, and agape.  The first is centered in sex and sex atttaction. It seeks its lover for its own gratification and fulfillment.  The second, philia, is the word which best explains friendship. It means a mutual sharing of common interests, attrations and ideals.  Each lives for the other while the other is loyal and true.   It is based on reciprocity.  I love you for you fondly love me.”Let the fondness of either of the two cease and the philia ceases to carry through.   The last of the three words, has within it the spirit of altruism. and selflessness. The word describes the love of  God which is commended to mankind in spite of his sinfulness. adulteries, dishonesties, hates, bitternesses, infidelity, and unfaithfulness.  SeeRom.5:6-10.  Gods aid to Israel,

“I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee” (Jer.31:3).

The last kind of love (agape) Christ expects to be existent in marriage. “Hus­ bands, love your wives.   Even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Eph.5:25). This kind of love persists in showing itself to one who neither merits nor deserves it.   True, the love of eros and philia are not superseded by agape; they are enriched and dominated bythe latter which is God-like.  The spouse is loved for his or her own sake and for God’s sake.  Human standards of love are set aside for God’s.   Marriage in this sense of love as instituted at the beginning is lifelong and exclusive.  It Is indeed, in the sight of heaven, indis­soluble!

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

 

CHAPTER II  –  BASIC RULES OF SCRIPTURAL INTERPRETATION WHICH ARE UNIVERSALLY ACCEPT BY EVANGELICAL CHURCHES OF THE PAST AND PRESENT

A.  Maxims and Principles of Interpretation Follow

Bernard Ramm presents the following in his text entitled,  Protestant Biblical Interpretation:

(Bernard Ramm:   Protestant Biblical Interpretation.   Boston, W. A. Wilde Company, 1950, pp.78-96)­

A  LIST OF GENERAL HERMENEUTICAL MAXIMS

( I) The Bible is to be interpreted in view of the fact that it is an        accommodation of divine truth to the human mind.

(2)  We must interpret the Bible with the realization that it is a progressive revelation becoming more clear as it nears the completion.

(3)   Our interpretations must keep a sound historical basis,  i.e. our inter­pretatlons must not create an historlcal blunder.

(4)  In our interpretation we must discover the meaning of a            passage, not attribute one to it a priori.   Happy is the man who can approach his Bible as free from predilections, prejudices, and biases as it is possible to do, humanly speaking. Too often the Bible is approached with stock­ in·trade or mere traditional interpretations.   But the task of the inter­preter is to determine the meaning of the Bible, not to verify his preju­dices.

(5)   Give preference  to  the clearest   and   most   evident   interpretation of a passage.   Frequently the interpreter is confronted with two equally probable interpretations as far as grammatical rules are concerned.  One is a strain upon our credulity. while the other makes good sense. We are to choose that one which makes the best sense and imposes the least strain on our credulity.

(6)  No statement should be interpreted as having  more  than one meaning unless unusually strong reasons warrant.   One of  the most persistent hermeneutlcal sins is to put two interpretations on one passage of Scripture breaking the force of the literal meaning and obscuring the Word of God.

(7)   Interpretation is one; application is many.

(8)  Interpret the Bible harmonistically. This Is based on the belief in the veracity of Scripture. Therefore, the Christian interpreter seeks to in­terpret the Bible free from all contradictions.  He will sympathetically endeavor to adjust all parts of the Bible to each other so there will be a consistent system.

(9)  Everything  essential in Scripture is clearly revealed,   This principle maintains that if a truth is an essential teaching of the Bible we need not scour the Bible to find it, nor will it be taught In one passing reference. ….The basic manner in which this principle is violated is as follows: a certain point of theological debate arises and its scriptural­ness is questioned.   The defender of the view then proceeds to find a verse or passage that has a verbal or perhaps even conceptual reference to his doctrine.   The defender proceeds to invest the verse or passage with the doctrine o r dogma he is defending.  Having found a peg on which  to  hang his doctrine. he considers it Scriptural.

We may consider something Scripturally proved when the very body of the concept is found in the Bible itself; not when we can find a peg to hang a doctrine upon.

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

(11) Ignorance as to the meaning  of some passages  must be admitted.

(12) Obscure passages mu:st give right of way to clear passages. There is the danger and temptation to invest a passage of very dubious meaning with far greater content than it will bear.

(13) Check all interpretations by referring them to secular studies,  a doc­trinal system, and the great efforts of the past.

(14) Finally, the Old Testament must be continuously searched for help in interpreting the New Testament . 

(Lewis Sperry Chafer: Systematic Theology, Vol. I. Dallas, Texas, Dallas Seminary Press, 1947. p 8);

Leading theologians of the day accept the following as a fundamental prin­ciple of interpretation:

Induction is distinctly the scriptural method of interpretation. Such in­ductions are imperfect when some but not all the texts bearing on a given subject are made the foundation of a doctrinal declaration.

The following principle is universally accepted by evangelical teachers:

The consensus of opinion of Bible Scholars is against founding a doctrine upon an isolated verse of Scripture when the preponderance of Scripture states otherwise.  No one should ever attempt to bring the general tenor of Scrip­ture to the terms of an isolated verse, but should rather call the isolated verse to the terms of the broader teaching of Scripture on a given subject.

B.  The Law of Witnesses is Plain.

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established (IICor. 13:1).

C. The Treatment of Contexts Is Important.

1. 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!