# AW Pink on Divorce & Remarriage



## py3ak (Feb 22, 2006)

Mr. Pink says:



> Marriage is not a mere civil thing, but is partly spiritual and Divine, and therefore God alone has the power to appoint the beginning, the continuance, and the end thereof. Here the question is likely to be asked, What of the innocent party where a divorce has taken place: may such a one marry again with Divine sanction? To the writer it seems strange that, though there is a decided consensus of agreement, yet all Christians are not one on this matter. In seeking the scriptural answer to the question, let it first be borne in mind that infidelity on the part of either husband or wife annuls the marriage covenant, the man and woman being no longer "one flesh," one of them having been adulterously united to some other. Divorce goes yet farther, for it legally dissolves and removes the marriage relation. We are therefore in hearty accord with the Westminster Catechism of Faith which declares: "In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce, and after the divorce to marry another, as if the offending party were dead" (Chapter 24, section 5).
> 
> In his excellent piece, "Of Marriage after Divorce in Case of Adultery," John Owen pointed Out that to insist that divorce simply secures a legal separation but does not dissolve the marriage relation would bring in a state harmful to men. God has appointed marriage to he a remedy against incontinence (1 Cor. 7:2), but if innocent parties lawfully divorced may not marry again, then they are deprived of this remedy and debarred from this benefit. If the divorced person has not the gift of continency, it is the express will of God that he should marry for his relief; yet on the supposition of the objector he sins if he marries again, yea is guilty of the horrible crime of adultery. Is not this quite sufficient to expose the untenability of such an anomaly?
> 
> ...


(An Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, s.13).

Does anyone else think that he contradicts himself in stating that it is not consistent with God's character for an innocent person to be penalized for the fault of a guilty person, but then not allowing remarriage in the case of irremedial abandonment?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BJClark (Feb 27, 2006)

"Does anyone else think that he contradicts himself in stating that it is not consistent with God's character for an innocent person to be penalized for the fault of a guilty person, but then not allowing remarriage in the case of irremedial abandonment? "

I noticed that too. The believer in this case is forever in this life bound to an unbeliever, which then contridicts "be ye not unequally yoked to an unbeliever."



[Edited on 2-27-2006 by BJClark]


----------



## LadyFlynt (Feb 27, 2006)

I can only speak for myself and for the testamony of those that I have heard. If I were to be abandoned, I would remain as I was in the hopeful even of repentence and return of my spouse, even if it meant that it would not happen until my deathbed. I find that would be my duty as a wife...that my spouse might be won by my behaviour and silence. I am fortunate to have a believing spouse.

[Edited on 2-27-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## BJClark (Feb 27, 2006)

LadyFlynt,

I guess I could put this on my own thread, but as I'm reading your reponse here, I will just ask it here 

Do you take the stand as some of the Preachers listed in my post take, that if a person has remarried, they MUST divorce their spouse and go back and to their former marriage? Or was that the area you refered to that you were NOT as hardline?




> I can only speak for myself and for the testamony of those that I have heard. If I were to be abandoned, I would remain as I was in the hopeful even of repentence and return of my spouse, even if it meant that it would not happen until my deathbed. I find that would be my duty as a wife...that my spouse might be won by my behaviour and silence. I am fortunate to have a believing spouse.
> 
> [Edited on 2-27-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## py3ak (Feb 27, 2006)

Bobbi, 

I think Deuteronomy 24:1-4 *absolutely* contradicts what those people you reference are saying.


----------



## BJClark (Feb 27, 2006)

py3ak




> I think Deuteronomy 24:1-4 *absolutely* contradicts what those people you reference are saying.



To which *I* would agree with you, though many of them would not.


----------



## py3ak (Feb 28, 2006)

Well, I guess *they* will just have to be wrong, then! Unless they want to join us where it's warm and snug.


----------



## BJClark (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Well, I guess *they* will just have to be wrong, then! Unless they want to join us where it's warm and snug.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

No doubt Dr. McMahon or the Huguenot from Virginia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I was looking through SWRB's stuff from the Puritans on divorce and remarriage, and they seemed to be arguing this way:
*If the divorce was legitimate, then so is remarriage.*

Would those who know more agree that such is the general tenor of Puritan thought on this topic?


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott: I would not call her remarriage a marriage. I would call it adultery.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> No doubt Dr. McMahon or the Huguenot from Virginia can correct me if I'm wrong, but I was looking through SWRB's stuff from the Puritans on divorce and remarriage, and they seemed to be arguing this way:
> *If the divorce was legitimate, then so is remarriage.*
> 
> Would those who know more agree that such is the general tenor of Puritan thought on this topic?



I'm not an expert in this area by any means, but my understanding of the Puritan view concurs with yours. This PCA position paper gives a helpful outline of Puritan thought on the matter.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott, that is an interesting point. Plainly our Lord distinguished between some form of official union and merely 'shacking up'. At the same time, it seems clear from that context that He considered it all as sinful. Perhaps He was just speaking her language, as at the moment the vital thing was not to debate the nature of her sin but to demonstrate the fact of it.
I see your point. To me it would seem that if adultery was the grounds for divorce, _and it was not mutual_ then the innocent party can remarry; the guilty is not likely to be constrained by commands. But once another union is established, it too cannot be dissolved without sin, and there is no return (Deuteronomy 24).


----------



## LadyFlynt (Mar 10, 2006)

Sorry, I just saw this thread back up...didn't know, or expect anyone to ask me anything. (sorry, BJ  ) I do not agree with divorcing a second wife to go back to the first. However, IF my spouse were to divorce me and remarry...I still would not remarry until after his death, if he preceded me...but would NOT expect him to divorce his second wife...and in fact, would not remarry him if he had been married to someone else.

[Edited on 3-11-2006 by LadyFlynt]


----------



## py3ak (Mar 10, 2006)

Scott,

Sometimes something is wrong, but still real. There is a real union between a harlot and a man, but it is wrong (1 Corinthians 6). When people act without right what they get into may be sinful, but that doesn't mean that it is not real. For instance, I don't believe that a heretic has a right to this; yet many heretics are in a pastoral office and do preach (of course, they preach poison and kill the flock).
I don't think Jesus justified the woman by His use of the term marriage; indeed, He was convincing her of sin in that conversation. But Scripture is silent on what He instructed her to do afterwards.
From what you have said your wife is in the wrong. If she should ever come to repentance (which in God's mercy she yet may), I don't believe you could take her back (Deuteronomy 24). But what she should do at that point is a more difficult issue.
I am not sure I am understanding your question or what you are driving at however, so if this post seems wide of the mark that may be why.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 3, 2006)

Deuteronomy 24 and if she goes and becomes another man's wife, 3 and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, 4 then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the Lord. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance. 

Can the Lord decree that His revealed will would not be done here?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 3, 2006)

What do you mean by decree? If you mean have some people disobeyed God in this way, thus demonstrating that it was all part of God's sovereign plan, yes. If you mean approve of, no.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Apr 4, 2006)

I mean your first statement, some willingly disobey God and in so demonstrate that it was all part of God's sovereign plan. So God can say one thing and will another.


----------



## py3ak (Apr 4, 2006)

God can _command_ one thing and decree another, yes. The alternative is that every sinful act is outside of God's control.


----------

