Review
of “What God has Cleansed” by Robert Revie; Bell and Bain Ltd.; 2012
(Revie suspected of plagiarising Michael Penfold. See addendum below this blog)
The subtitle is Marriage, Divorce, Remarriage, Salvation,
and reception into a local Church.
The title is an abuse of
Scripture. The words “What God has cleansed” are taken from Acts 10: 15, 11:9.
The rest of the sentence is ”call thou not common”. They were spoken to Peter while he was in a
trance and related to the offer of salvation now to be taken to the Gentiles.
The title and subtitle of Revie’s book do not relate to each other.
This is further underlined
by the misuse of 1 John 1: 7 The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us
from all sin. (p.84). This verse, we are told, absolves the fellowship seeker
from the sin of pre-conversion divorce. But here, “cleanseth” is in the
present tense and provides cleansing of
post-conversion sin for the confessing believer.
The foreword is written by
Jim Allen of Newtownabbey, N.I. who, like Revie, is hostile to the Authorized
Bible. Allen is concerned about those
who hold “entrenched positions”, i.e. they don’t agree with him. For those who
don’t agree, he says,” [their] teaching [is] concise and cold as ice
One infers from Allen’s
foreword that the genuine loving believer will come to see that God allows
fornication, and adultery, and remarriage.
In the preface are the names of a few in
sympathy with Revie’s views. Bert Cargill (whose parents entertained me in
their home nearly 60 years ago) Douglas Mowatt,
Alistair Sinclair, and Bill Stevely. There are many others actively
engaged in promoting this error.
Revie gives several reasons
why divorced and remarried persons prior to salvation may be received into
church fellowship. All are unsound and require mutilation and misinterpretation
of the Scripture:
Three of his reasons are
given below.
1.When
divorce has taken place and remarriage has been entered into that person is not “still married in the eyes of
the Lord to the first husband”.
This argument is based on
Mosaic Law that Revie interprets to mean that God allows divorce.
2.
The word fornication does not mean premarital sexual relationships only.
The ten usages of the word
fornication in the Authorised new Testament do not suggest anything else but
premarital sexual intercourse.
3
When a person trusts in the Saviour, all their sins have been cleansed and no
accusation can be brought against them.
This is serious error. There
is nothing in the New Testament about sins being cleansed. They are forgiven.
It is not possible to have clean sin. Revie is teaching that the believer can
go on sinning.
Chapter 16 is headed, “What
does 1 Corinthians 7 Teach?” He claims
that vv. 10-24 teach Marriage and Divorce.
Divorce is not mentioned in
1 Corinthians 7. It is not alluded to. Provision is made for an unbelieving
spouse to leave their partner. Paul says to the believer, if they want to go,
let them.
Revie is compelled to alter Scripture to press his pernicious
argument. Thus we read:-
Note that there is only one marriage in view in [Romans 7]v.3.
The Authorised version translators, presumably in order to assist with their
understanding of the verse, have inserted a word that does not appear in the
original which is the word “married”! Darby’s Translation and Young’s Literal
Translation are more accurate. ̶ p.40
Romans
7: 3
….though
she be married to another man. AV
“though
she be to another man”. JND
“….having
become another man’s.: YLT
R Revie, in his book
defending what God hates; “What God has Cleansed”, tells us
that the word married does not appear in the original. He tells us that Darby’s translation and Young’s Literal
Translation are more accurate.
Darby’s
translation is mere gobbledygook. It may be neither he nor Revie could not even
grasp the meaning of Young’ phrase. The apostrophe in man’s begs the question
“man’s what?” the answer is of course, “his wife”.
We
notice however that ginomai (married) is not only in the Received Text, it is
also in Westcott and Hort’s, and the latest NA critical text. So we find it
represented in the NIV and about all other versions.
Revie,
in order to promote his obscene doctrine of devils, that God allows divorce,
remarriage, and even church fellowship, must rubbish the word of God. He does
this again in v.4
In
many other places Revie allows his opinions to conflict with the word of God.
Michael Penfold of Hebron Hall Bicester holds and promotes views identical to Revie's. I suspect that Revie has plagiarised some of his comments. See below.:-
Addendum
One of the weirdest arguments in
support of divorcees remarrying has been put out by M Penfold of Penfold Book
and Bible House. Penfold, a severe critic of the AV Bible, claims that only the
act of remarriage constitutes
adultery. The pair still together the next day are therefore NOT committing
adultery. Therefore, he argues, they are fit for fellowship.
This argument is based on what he
calls the ‘gnomic’ present. He writes,
….in Matthew
13v14 we are told the man “goeth and selleth….and buyeth that field.” Here are
three present tenses, none of which refer to an ongoing series of events. The
man was not always going, he was not always selling and certainly he was not
always buying that field. It was, by the very nature of the story, a once for
all transaction and yet it is related in the present tense. Such examples could
be multiplied. The present tense is very frequent on statements of general
principle and fact. Grammarians call such a tense the ‘gnomic’ present.
Penfold chooses to ignore the
consequences of actions described in the present tense. The field remained the
man’s purchased possession. The divorced person remarrying remains in the
adulterous relationship.
Maxims or aphorisms may be described as
gnomic. Because they are wise sayings and permanently true they are usually in
the present tense. For example: A rolling stone gathers no moss. These sayings
are not restricted to the present tense. Thus they have sown the wind and they shall reap the whirlwind (Hos 8:
7) may be regarded as a gnomic saying but has no present tense.
However, it debases the words of
the Lord to reduce them to gnomic utterances (as the wisdom of gnomes) as
though some of His words were maybe not so wise as to be considered “gnomic” I
personally regard the implication as blasphemous
.
So moicatai found in Mtt.19: 9 and translated “committeth” is claimed
to be gnomic and applies only to the act of marrying!
It is in any case a matter of
opinion among the “scholars” as to whether the statement is gnomic. It remains
an opinion which not many Bible believers will adhere to.
--taken from Waymarks 35. This whole article may be found in my archived blogs for 2007. The Biblicalm Teaching Relating to Marriage.
Penfold has invited D Gilliland to speak at the Bicester Easter Conference, 2013. Gilliland is a notorious proponent of the Reception of Adulterers error.