Divorce
The following letters are representative of a number that have been received on this subject.
Dear Brother Don,
You are to be commended for your excellent article on divorce. It was a well-balanced and reasonable presentation of the subject. Unfortunately, in some quarters, it is treated with the same fanaticism expressed by the Pharisees regarding the Sabbath issue in Christ’s day. I am hopeful that your lucid treatment of the subject will put to rest some of the extreme views that pop up from time to time.
Your brother in our one hope,
Charles DiLiberto,
Largo, FL
Dear Brother Don,
I have read your editorial on divorce and it appears that you have done considerable thinking on this subject. Regarding your comments on my letter on divorce, I have a few comments on your comments.
My own conclusion of my letter is that the original marriage union should not be resumed. It may have appeared that an official divorce was required and not optional; however, it was not my intention to carry it past the optional stage.
You stated that two people becoming “one flesh” is figurative language and to prove your point you quote a section of the Mosaic law. I question the validity of using this law to prove your point, a law which was decaying and waxing old and ready to vanish away.
The one flesh relationship, as the basis of marriage, was arranged in the beginning before sin entered the world. Thus, Jesus went back to Gods ideal of one man and one woman as the basis of marriage for his followers. It is only under this condition that the one flesh relationship can attain its true meaning. This accentuates the seriousness of putting asunder (splitting) this relationship.
After the introduction of sin’s flesh, men were permitted to have more than one wife but not to have the wife of another. The multiplicity of wives resulted in friction in the household because it departed from God’s ideal for marriage.
The proof that this one flesh relationship is literal (physical) is in I Cor. 6:15-16. “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two shall become one flesh.’ “(RSV) Jude has a comment about flesh. The fornication which those of Sodom and Gomorrah committed was called going after strange flesh, a physical relationship.
Regarding your editorial on divorce, I would like to suggest an explanation for Luke 16:18. Verse 16 states that the law and the prophets were until John. Since that time, the kingdom of God is preached. This indicates the law was finished. Yet verse 17 reads “it is easier for heaven and earth to pass than for one tittle of the law to fail.” To show that the law had failed and so heaven and earth (the Jewish state) would pass away, Jesus reveals that “whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (v.18) This ordinance nullifies the divorce bill in Deuteronomy 24 and so establishes the fact that heaven and earth (Jewish state) is to pass away. Jesus had already given his ruling on divorce (one cause) and is here eliminating the divorce bill with its many excuses for putting away a wife.
You thanked me for the courage to state my views on divorce. I thank you for the much greater courage to print what! had written.
With brotherly love,
Harry Perks, Stayner, ONT
Thank you for the clarification of your previous letter and for your interesting comments on Luke 16. Thank you, as well, for your gracious closing comment. In our experience, no great courage is required to discuss Bible problems within the Christadelphian community. Generally speaking, we are reasonable people who become agitated only when someone persistently distorts clear Bible teaching. What often appears to be hostility among us is little more than frustration at our inability to verbalize properly the concepts we can sense with our hearts but have trouble putting into words.
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in our one hope.
My first introduction to the problem of divorce and remarriage within the household goes back some 44 years. In the ecclesia in which I was baptized, there was a well respected, happily married couple. They were a brother and sister, both of whom had previously been divorced from other partners. Their presence did not split the ecclesia but did cause troubled minds to many and certainly to myself I had been instructed by a sincere brother who, on scriptural grounds, to this day would be called antagonistic to any who have been divorced and remarried. He would be labelled a “hardliner.” Perhaps that is why I have been inclined to sit on the fence. I have observed over the years that both pros and cons in this divorce and remarriage problem seem to have some justification from scripture for the view they take. Yet is seems inconsistent for the Almighty, whose judgments are right, to leave His children without the clear sound of a trumpet or a guiding light to follow in the darkness of worldly confusion and of human emotions.
One can understand the position of those who stand by one tenet. They regard as paramount only those passages of scripture we all know so well (Gen. 1:27; 2:23,24; Mark 10:6-9 ,11,12 rejecting Matt. 19:9 as not applicable; Lev. 20:10; 1 Cor. 6:9-10 ; Eph. 5:29-32; Rom. 7:2,3; Luke 16:18 etc.) and conclude any who divorce and remarry must be disfellowshipped. To those in Christ’s day, it would have been easy to cast stones at the woman taken in adultery. Today, it is also easy to say to the offender:
“In view of your unChristlike behavior, having transgressed the commandments of God in committing adultery and continuing in sin by having more than one partner, we regret we have to withdraw fellowship from you” and bar one from the Lord’s table and perhaps all ecclesial activities. It is easier to do that than to understand the circumstances, the anguish, the loneliness, the dependence on a caring partner which led to remarriage. Indeed, were we not blessed with a relatively compatible partner, perhaps we, too, would succumb.
Examining the guidelines of scripture, one can be drawn into a conflict of wills in considering divorce and remarriage and fail to address the eternal matters involved. Can we demand that another must follow the course which our own alleged understanding of scripture would dictate?
When all is said and done and the combined wisdom of an ecclesia has been applied, there is still a relationship between those involved and the Lord their God who made them male and female. Really, what counts is whether a person falls into the likeness of Psa. 36:1-4, the deliberate, calculated sinner, or that of Psa. 38:1-4, the believer who has sinned and repents with true contrition. We may judge but there is a great Judge of all from whom nothing is hidden. Surely God is not looking for the human weaknesses in each individual but for the heart that is humble and contrite and that trembles at His word.
Stepping out of the waters of baptism does not make us less prone to sin. It does assure us of the grace of God. Raised from the water, we are freed from our sins and our feet are committed to the straight and narrow path to life. Yet, unlike our supreme example, we are still pitiable sinners. In spite of our continual waywardness, the mind of a godly man manifests the humble and contrite heart that trembles at God’s word and rejoices in the mercies of the Almighty who fully knows our thoughts and intents (Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4; Heb. 4:12,13; Acts 1:24; I Sam. 16:7 ; I Kgs. 8 :39 ; 1 Chr. 28:9).
Conversely, repeated examples confront us in the household which reflect the mindset of a hardened sinner. One of my associates in the brotherhood was a young brother raised up in the fear and admonition of the Lord. He became a shining light. He was loved, enjoyed and looked up to by his peers and by younger babes in the faith. His elders admired his grasp of scripture and his spirited exhortations. At the same time, he progressed to high position in his employment, reflecting his diligence. That position required extra business activity — dinners, social functions, dancing, club life , etc. He took to the activities like a fish to water and made a complete turnabout from the path of life. Withdrawing from fellowship in Christ, committing adultery, leaving his wife and family home to live with other women, his Creator was no longer in his thoughts. His denial of the Father and Son and the gospel, his unbelief and arrogance, all made it clear to his ecclesia the only right course lay in following Matt. 18:15-17: “Let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Finally, he sought divorce from his faithful wife, married another and to this point has not turned from the way of the world.
The different attitudes of these divorced and remarried men stand out clearly. In my first ecclesia the remarried brother was aware of his imperfections and less-than-ideal marital situation but felt the compelling need to appear at the Lord’s table. He was hopeful of the Father’s mercy and devoted his life to service in the gospel. In contrast, there is the attitude of the wayward man who rejected the faith and, unrepentant, turned to the world.
“Let not man put asunder.” If a man does put his wife asunder in spite of her appeals and those of his brethren, is not his wife put asunder? Yes, surely, and before God and man she no longer has a husband. As a willfully sinning husband, he has broken the bonds of marriage; he has sundered that unity. God had joined them together as one flesh, but the man has broken the bond of unity; he is no longer her husband. They are no longer one flesh. She is no longer bound to the sinning husband. Such is our understanding of the position of the divorced sister and it permits her to remarry.
If a divorced believer remarries a believing partner instead of turning to the world and consistently attends all ecclesial functions, surely this is indicative of a good attitude. The new union is based on a mutual love and adherence to the Truth. Together, they present themselves at the table of the Lord, confessing their sins, pleading forgiveness through the blood of Jesus. Where else can they go? For what purpose is that table provided? Is it not provided for those who need a physician?
If any are sufficiently repentant, surely the Lord’s table is the place where we should encourage them to be. We advocate this, assuming they come in sincerity and not to flaunt their situation before others. We should be like minded with David who, though a sinner, was a man after God’s own heart. Sometimes we wonder who of us today would welcome king David to attend “our” ecclesial table.
There has been and presumably always will be a problem with divorce and remarriage. From I Tim. 3 :1-13 , this very situation evidently presented a problem in the early ecclesia. If some did not have more than one wife, the stipulation of verses 2 and 12 would never have been given. The plurality may have resulted from divorce and remarriage or by the coexistence of more than one wife. In either case, it would appear that such an undesirable situation required careful selection of overseers in carrying out ecclesial affairs.
It would seem that such a principle could be used to double advantage in the brotherhood today and would help to bring some measure of order and peace to troubled ecclesias or individual members. First, the tendency to become divorced/remarried would be curbed in those who seek equal standing in the ecclesia. Second, it would emphasize the error of that situation to all while not preventing the sincere in heart, if weak in the flesh, from acknowledging their unworthiness. If some might feel unjustly victimized, they might consider I Peter 2:20. Inevitably, there would be shades of grey.
Regrettably, some divorced and remarried among us do not appear to have any humility and even exhibit arrogance. Others, in order to save an ecclesia from trouble, withdraw themselves from fellowship and continue to attend because that is where they want to be.
In the final analysis, adultery will be forgiven certain ones who, in spite of their error, have a right spirit. “For I acknowledge my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.” (Psa. 51:3) We might all ask ourselves the question: “If sinners are not to attend the table of remembrance, why am I in fellowship?” If we are honest with ourselves, we ‘could, like the publican, go to our house justified.
Dear brother, I don’t purpose to have all the answers but maybe you will find something worthwhile in my observations. I do know that much of what I have written is in the minds of many. Perhaps I write because I fear that my own attitude could become harsh and unyielding when mercy and understanding is required in ecclesial decisions that have to be made.
Sincerely your brother in Christ,
Don Jenkinson, Nanaimo, B .C.
While the foregoing is a lengthy letter, we feel it contains some useful reflections from scripture and experience. The idea of restricted activities suggests a practice that has been successfully implemented by some ecclesias.
Dear Bro. Don,
Loving greetings in Christ.
Your conclusions are very wisely stated: a) “each case must be examined on the basis of its own circumstances with individual decisions made by a prayerful application of godly principles.” In hundreds of hours of study over 10 years, our arranging board came to the same conclusion; b) “We are thus forced to consider specific situations in the light of principles and not a rule book:” and c) “…we are talking about ecclesial decisions made after careful deliberation with ecclesial elders playing the key roles and time for advice to be asked of others familiar with the case.”
May I respectfully suggest that this last quoted principle contradicts your own conclusion: that an ecclesia should not “workout guidelines before personal feelings become involved and emotions start running high.” Anyone who has had to deal with the position of divorced and remarried members without the ecclesia having previously established some guidelines based on scriptural principles will agree that it is far too late to do this when confronted with a current problem. As in all ecclesial problems, should we not first be clear on the principle before we have to deal with the application of the principle? This can be done only through long and patient study of the passages you and your correspondent have touched upon, plus, perhaps, some others. Guidelines are just that: they are not hard and fast rules.
May I take the space to correct one error in exposition in your editorial? In 1 Cor. 7, you link v. 15 with vs. 27 and 28 to conclude “the believer is free of marital obligations, if their unbelieving partner leaves them: ‘if thou many, thou hast not sinned’.” The last quote is from verse 28. Paul’s letter, as we see it in chapter 7, is divided into sections; verses 25-28 begin: “Now concerning virgins:” that is, preciously unmarried (engaged) couples. Paul is addressing male “virgins” who were engaged or under Hebrew law bound to a wife (cp. Joseph and Mary).
The first occurrence of “loosed” in v.27 is the Greek LUSIS (the only occurrence in scripture) meaning a loosening from any tie or constraint. The second occurrence of “loosed” in this verse is the Greek LUO “to release or free ;” it is used 43 times in the New Testament and never of divorce (see postscript). Paul is urging those males who are engaged to follow through with their commitment; but if they don’t, it is not a sin (v.28). So the phrase from v.28, “if thou marry, thou hast not sinned,” has no bearing whatsoever on the phrase “not under bondage” in v.I5.
Very briefly: “bondage” is the Greek Douloos from Douloos, a slave: to be made subject to someone, with no limitations in kind or time of service. This word Douloos is never used of divorce in the New Testament. It is my understanding of Cor. 7 that nowhere in this chapter does the apostle Paul countenance divorce.
We found in our studies over the years we inevitably came back to the foundation question: what is a marriage? Or, if you like, what is a marriage in God’s sight? Until that question is settled, all further study is unprofitable and probably will end up in a deadlock.
Sincerely, your brother in Christ,
H.D. Bartholomew
P.S. Strong’ s Concordance has an error in the reference to “loosed” in I Cor. 7:27. The reference numbers are reversed. They should be 3080 first and 3089 second (cf. Young’s Concordance).
Bro. Bart’s comments are very useful and we feel his understanding of I Cor. 7:27-28 is correct. Incidentally, his criticism of Strong’s Concordance is accurate and underscores a point we should all recognize: concordances are not infallible (we sometimes quote them as if they are).
The criticism of our use of the word “guidelines” is accepted. We had intended it as a synonym for “hard and fast rules.” If there should be occasion to reprint the editorial, we need to find a substitute word that more accurately conveys our meaning.
Dear Bro. Don,
Greetings in the one hope!
I was quite disappointed in the last editorial concerning divorce for several reasons.
First of all, I was disappointed that you would state that scripture gives us no hard and fast rules about divorce and remarriage. By making such a statement, one is saying they have scripture all figured out correctly on the matter and there is no clear answer. Therefore, putting such in print, the majority of the North American ecclesias will follow the Tidings’ lead and will feel that the door is wide open for individual interpretation on this matter. I feel that this is quite dangerous. My heart goes out to the small ecclesias that do not have the experience and scriptural background to do other than wholeheartedly take the advice of the Tidings magazine on such issues. Perhaps the better way to deal with such a matter is to leave it alone unless one feels that they do have clear scripture to back up their position.
Secondly, I was disappointed in the discussion. For such an important issue, I found the logic and reasoning very shallow. We must remember that we are talking about the salvation of our brethren and sisters in these cases. We all have a tremendous responsibility to guide them in the way to life eternal.
Often, we conclude that scripture is unclear on a matter only if we look for ways to please the flesh. If we wish to make this life comfortable and pleasant in all ways, then the ways of God are going to be difficult and unclear. This is the danger that arises when we use man’s logic. If the simple teaching on this issue were read and adhered to, perhaps the confusion and uncertainty would disappear. Mark 10:11 reads: “Whosoever shall put away his wife, and be married to another, committeth adultery against her.” This is, of course, the divine ideal as all would admit. We must remember that even though none can attain unto the divine ideal, failure to attain unto that ideal is sin! All sin must be repented of and laid on the mercy and forgiveness of Yahweh. Scripture gives us no license to be comfortable with anything less than the ideal.
For the sake of brevity, we will only deal with the section in your editorial entitled “A continuing state?”
I doubt that there really can be a “state” of adultery. The definition of adultery is having an illicit relationship with someone other than your spouse. Surely, each time the act is committed it is adultery and none are in a “continuing state” of adultery. The question here is who is your spouse, since, by definition, it is impossible for anyone to commit adultery with their spouse. All would agree that relationships outside of marriage are adulterous. So, once we determine who our husband or who our wife is, we have the problem solved.
The scriptures of truth clearly tell us! In the verse quoted above, God clearly informs us that this second “marriage” has not provided the man with a new wife. This is obvious, because he is guilty of committing adultery with her! It is, as mentioned before, impossible to commit adultery with your wife.
The position put forth in the Tidings editorial is telling us that someday down the road, the woman does finally become his wife. The question must be asked, “If she was not his wife after their wedding and after the consummation of that wedding, then just when, in God’s sight, does she become his wife?” Clearly, God does not recognize this divorce. He considers the first marriage as binding and the one who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her! If indeed the man has put her away, and if God, who hates putting away, does in fact recognize this dissolution of the marriage, then the man cannot commit adultery against her! Marriage, as constituted by our heavenly father is for life; “What God hath joined together, let not man put asunder,” regardless of the consequences.
In considering marriages prior to baptism, we would all agree that knowledge is the basis of responsibility. Certainly no one can be held accountable for things they are not aware of Prior to the knowledge of the divine ideal, responsibility cannot be fixed.
The editorial stated that, on the basis of the oath given to the Gibeonites, oaths made prior to baptism are as valid and binding as those made after baptism. The oath to the Gibeonites was made before Yahweh and was indeed binding. Today, those married prior to baptism rarely, if ever, make their vows before Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the father of the Lord Jesus Christ. Furthermore, if we were to teach someone the truth who Had previously sworn an oath to uphold the principles of the armed forces or the Masons, we would insist that these allegiances be abandoned as one started his walk to the kingdom of God. Certainly, oaths made prior to baptism must take a back seat to the commands of Yahweh.
We do not ask those married prior to baptism to repeat their vows made prior to “knowledge” as their marriage is sanctified by Yahweh once they put on the saving name of Christ. They are married in the eyes of the land; and, as they cohabit, this new brother and sister of Christ are declaring to the world and to Yahweh that they intend to continue their marriage under the principle of Christ as laid down in the word of God.
Hopefully, we have been able to show that the teachings of God are not unclear at all. Yahweh has told us that marriage is for life and that nothing less than fulfilling His ideal is acceptable in His sight. If the ideal is unattainable in a particular instance, then we are not at liberty to hope that God will accept that lesser position without an effort toward repentance on our part! Repentance requires a turning away from that sin and a sincere asking for forgiveness. If, when we ask for forgiveness, we know that we are not really going to try and repent of our sins, then there is no forgiveness. If there is no forgiveness, there is no salvation!
The salvation of our brethren and sisters is really what this discussion is all about isn’t it? These “reasoning’s together” are merely academic to those who are not divorced. We must not lose sight of the fact that our brothers’ and sisters’ salvation may depend on our “rightly dividing” the word of truth. Once we stray from the divine ideal in any area, whether it be in marriage, in suffering ourselves to be defrauded or in doing all to the glory of God, we are treading on very dangerous, if not fatal, ground. God has uttered these commands and it is our responsibility to adhere to them the best we possibly can and not look for rationalizations when we stray from the ideal. Surely, everyone’s salvation is on more solid ground by continually exhorting each other that anything less than a constant striving for the ideal is not acceptable in God’s sight.
Your brother in Christ our Lord,
Tom Graham
We make a serious mistake on this issue when we infer brethren who disagree with us are callous and unfeeling or that they are trying to please the flesh. In our experience, earnest brethren have honestly studied out this matter and have come to different conclusions. If we start imputing wrong motives where there may be none, we are asking for trouble when Christ judges us.
The weakness in relying on hard and fast technicalities is evident in the foregoing letter. While space does not allow extended comment this month, the critical weakness in the letter is the approach taken to those who divorced and remarried before learning the Truth. The letter takes the position that upon baptism such couples should not be asked to separate or refrain from normal marital relationships.
The conclusion is fine but the reasoning behind it is faulty. The above letter says, in effect, that marriages before knowledge of the Truth are not reckoned as real marriages and adultery is not regarded as real adultery. There is absolutely no Bible basis for such a stand. Before coming to the Truth, people were regarded by God as “fornicators …adulterers …thieves…revilers…etc.” (I Cor. 6:9-10). Those who are in darkness, ignorance and blindness of heart are still reckoned by God to be practicing lasciviousness, uncleanness, whoredoms, etc. and for these things are subject to His wrath (Eph. 4:18,19; 5:5,6). Sins done in ignorance are more susceptible of forgiveness than those done with knowledge but they are still sins.
Furthermore, “marrying and giving in marriage” (Matt. 24:38) is a condition in the world at large. Herod “married” his brother’s wife (Mk. 6:17). There is no difference in Bible vocabulary between what is done by ignorant Gentiles and what is done by the saints of God.
The distinctions drawn in the foregoing letter are not scriptural. They are employed only because an erroneous premise has been assumed: the erroneous premise being that the marriage bond is unbreakable. On that premise, the letter argues that divorces are a figment of man’s imagination and are not recognized by God; a man leaving his wife for another woman is still married to the first and thus commits adultery every time he has sexual relations with his second woman.
With such an idea, what do we do about people who are divorced and remarried before coming to the Truth? The letter takes the position that their first marriage was not a real marriage; they are not really married to anyone until they have a knowledge of the Truth. That position has no Bible basis as we have just demonstrated.
There are only two alternatives left 1) divorced and remarried people are living in adultery and cannot be baptized until they separate. This is a wrong conclusion as indicated by New Testament practice, 2) the marriage bond is breakable and, in this situation, God recognizes the second marriage as a marriage.
Does this mean that people in the Truth can divorce and remarry and have God sanctify their new union? By no means! Those in the Truth who divorce and remarry commit calculated, deliberate sin. How can they ever claim true repentance before God when they are living happily in their situation that resulted from willful sin? Some may say they know of an instance of true repentance. Perhaps that is theoretically possible but it is very difficult to imagine it.
Every case needs to be considered in the light of Biblical principles. If we start appealing to technicalities instead of principles, we end up in some pretty unusual positions such as saying nobody is married and nobody commits adultery except those who know the Truth.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One