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” [ i.e., except-it-be-for-fornication) to justify remarriage after civil divorce.
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. 5th 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.
www.standerinfamilycourt.com
7 Times Around the Jericho Wall | Let’s Repeal No-Fault Divorce!
