The violence issue is complicated by a failure to see two distinct stages. In the first stage one is acting under the 6th commandment to protect the person's life. That creates physical separation. In the event that this is not remedied in the violent person there is a second stage case for abandonment over a prolonged period of time. Abandonment is the cause for the divorce, not the violence.
Remarriage of Wrongfully Divorced People
- Thread starter Sam Jer
- Start date
- Status
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
That's what I mean by finagling. Making something into abandonment that isn't really abandonment, and thus, trying to create a path where remarriage is permissible after a subsequent voluntary divorce. When in reality the woman (in this case) already has the right to divorce, but with the caveat to remain single, or otherwise be reconciled to her husband. This is why I am trying to figure out scripturally where abuse is labeled as abandonment? Domestic violence is nothing new. Paul or Jesus could have just as easily said "and if your spouse harms you....." but they didn't.
"If your spouse harms you" the 6th commandment requires the person to take action for their own protection. You are confusing two different things.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
How so? Hagar felt the same way, she took action, yet she was commanded to go back and submit. Now I am not saying a woman should submit to abuse, I think 1 Cor. 7 gives a concession for divorce, but I am saying that divorce comes with consequences. And that consequence is to be reconciled with ones husband or remain single. I am not seeing where physical abuse is abandonment. In fact, if Paul commands Christians to not divorce heathens, who will undoubtedly spiritually pollute not only the spouse, but their offspring; why do we think leaving a spouse for physical abuse doesnt have the same repercussions if one were to leave their spouse noting spiritual incompatibility? Again, DV is nothing new, yet, the Bible never names it as a concession for divorce retaining freedom to remarry.
Last edited:
What is your argument here? You are not saying a woman should submit to abuse but you invoke a situation where a woman was told to go back and submit to her mistress. Are you insinuating there was violence in this situation? This is a bizarre example to invoke.
The purpose of divorce is not simply to end a marriage but to render a person single and marriageable. Deut. 24:2, "And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife." The divorce grants that right.
davejonescue
Puritan Board Graduate
Jesus illuminated the law, and he goes on to say "Moses gave you a bill of divorce....etc. etc. and then outlines his discourse that only sexual immorality is a justifiable reason to divorce (without causing the party to be adulterers upon remarriage.) Paul later further illuminates this by giving a concession for abandonment, and widowhood. He seems to even go as far as to say that someone can get divorced, but with the consequence; either remain single or be reconciled to your spouse 1 Cor. 7:10-11. And it is not just a situation of a runaway slave. It was a situation where Hagar was (a) wife of Abraham Gen. 16:3 (otherwise she was raped), but Abraham was allowing Sarah to abuse her Gen. 16:6. This would almost certainly include physical abuse. Yet, when she is doing the very thing you say should be done under the 6th commandment, i.e. removing herself from the situation, she was met by an angel who told her to go back and submit. What I am questioning is whether the 6th command does in fact necessitate an automatic self-removal; instead of the spouse just deciding he/she has had enough? If it is the latter (or even the former) there is a consequence as clearly illustrated in the Bible. This is what I mean why it is a moot point. If we can readily redefine the already clearly defined concession of abandonment, as anything we desire to "finagle" into that clause; then divorce and remarriage is always permissible. I dont think the Bible teaches that. I think the Bible teaches it is rarely permissible.
Last edited:
Paul does not say remain single or be reconciled. You are confusing two different scenarios from chap. 7.
You now claim the situation with Hagar "almost certainly" included physical abuse. You are effectively saying that God sanctioned it. Yet you claim you are not advocating for women to submit to physical abuse. This is very confusing.
All lawful means to preserve our own life is required by the 6th commandment. Violence endangers life. Fleeing is a lawful means to escape it.
Again, there is no "cause" for divorce in fleeing violence. If the husband is not willing to undertake what is necessary to provide a safe environment for his wife he is guilty of abandoning the marriage. Over time that abandonment becomes a cause for divorce. You are failing to distinguish things that are very different.
Last edited:
1. And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1Corinthians 7:10-11, emphasis mine). If a wife departs and is unmarried - i.e divorced (unless you want to make a third category) - she still does not have the right to remarry.
2. 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. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Matthew 19:8-9). So how far does the Mosaic permission extend into the moral lae in this case? Why should it extend for remmariage and not for divorce? Besides, one could argue verses 1-3 are only laying out the case that the law is dealing with, with the law being verse 4, or that עֶרְוַת דָּבָר (aervath davar, translated "some uncleanness in her" in the Authorised Version of King James) in verse 1 actually does refer to sexual immorality, both of which are interpetations that if true would completely overthrow your'e whole point, unless I am missing something.
I did not intend to write a whole exegetical argument... seems I did.
You are really yaking some hardline stances, and then all the sudden this. This overthrows the whole discssion, dosen't it? It's basically no-fault divorce if I am reading you right. Where does Paul say this? He says "And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband... and let not the husband put away his wife" (1Corinthians 7:10, emphasis mine). I can't see how verse 11a (But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband) is anything more than instructions for someone who either already sinned, or at the very most the deserted party (though that now on second glance seems like a weaker stance than I thought, it would have to be by implication and not directly).
Last edited:
If "she" depart. That is not the scenario in the case before us. Again, for clarity, in the first stage she flees for safety. In the second stage, the man fails to provide a safe home. "He" departs.
It is assumed "abandonment" falls within the lawful causes for divorce. "His" abandonment.
Well physically speaking the women is the one doing the departing. So unless you think a certain ammount of violance ammounts to putting away de facto, which after a while, if the presbytery and courts can't put them back together, is a just cause for divorce, I cant really see it.
I am not sure what you are trying to say and how it relates to the quoted paragraph.
See my earlier posts; you are confounding two stages of the process and making them one.
I said divorce gives right to remarry. You raised the "cause." I am assuming abandonment is equally a cause. In the case of abandonment the divorced person is free to remarry. That just cause is the thing you were missing.
You did not prove it. I mean, you did quote Deuteronomy, but did not actually reply to my objection, instead making it all about the abuse question (which I'd like to remind you is an aside to the OP). Even if abuse does qualify as desertion if the innocent party fled for safety and the danger has not been afequately dealt with after a while, this does not prove divorce automatically grants a right to remarry, either in the abuse case, or in a more typical desertion case.
I think the problem here was that I thought you were engaging the wider conversation, and you evidently thought I was strictly dealing with the aside raised by mr. Jonescue on domestic violance.
Brownie
Puritan Board Freshman
We actually had a sermon a few months ago that dealt with this. This minister said it's lawful to flee the house and live separately, but also said that there should be no divorce or remarriage, to honor the Lord. I thought that was beautifully put.
Brownie
Puritan Board Freshman
Rev. Winzer,
Could you explain why abandonment is even considered as a ground for divorce? In Matt 19, Jesus seems to say the opposite - in the beginning abandonment wasn't a ground for divorce and after the disciples ask why Moses wrote about abandonment, Jesus says it was because of their hardness of heart. Then He explicitly states only adultery is a ground for divorce. Paul later gives permission to divorce if the unbelieving party wishes to, but isn't that the NT equivalent of abandonment? The unbeliever with a hard heart of stone wanting a divorce?
The core principle is that marriage makes two people one flesh. Our Lord takes the discussion back to creation: one man and one woman becoming "one flesh" for life. Divorce was not part of the original design. It was brought in to regulate man's hardness of heart. It is a concession. However, human hardness is such that it will take a concession and expand it for one's own interests. Therefore adultery is given as the exclusive cause for divorce because it is the ultimate violation of the "one-flesh" union. It breaks the covenant at its most intimate level.
In 1 Cor. 7, Paul addresses a new situation: mixed-marriages between believers and unbelievers. This is not in itself a cause for divorce. The presence of a believer can sanctify the household. The two can function as one flesh and the children will be considered holy. But if the unbeliever physically abandons the marriage the believer is under no obligation to uphold the bond of marriage. The reason is that the marriage bond has been broken. The abandoning spouse has fundamentally failed to uphold the "one flesh" principle by physically leaving the marriage.
How should we understand Paul's extension? We call it a "second" cause for divorce but at the core level of the marriage it is the same in essence with adultery. It fulfils the spirit of what our Lord has taught and what the Mosaic law had regulated in order to prevent greater evil. The "one flesh" principle has been irreparably broken in each case -- one by adultery, the other by wilful desertion. Paul's teaching, therefore, is a pastoral and logical extension of the same principle.
While we put this down to hardness of heart we must be careful not to call that the "cause" for divorce. The hardness takes on a specific form that violates the one flesh principle in each case. The law of divorce is to give relief from these specific violations that would otherwise turn marriage into a form of slavery and oppression. Not in the modern "emotional" idea of those terms, but in the real "physical" context in which those terms had a proper meaning.
The divorce makes the person "free" from the law of marriage. The "bond" has been broken. There is no residual obligation. The person is now in the same state they were before the marriage. This makes them marriageable. This is immediate and direct for the innocent party. It raises a complication and a unique judicial case for the guilty party, who ordinarily would suffer penal consequences for his actions. The adulterer was to be put to death. Where that does not happen another principle must come into operation.
Hi Rev. Winzer,
I'm wondering how you would address William Gouge's teaching on desertion in the Second Treatise Part II of Domestical Duties. In the section on desertion he appears to allow for dissolution of marriage in these cases, while also maintaining that their churches did not permit remarriage (in contrast to the churches beyond the seas). Am I reading him correctly? The relevant portion of his writing:
This desertion is in the case of marriage so capital, as it freeth the innocent party from any further seeking after the other. In which respect the Apostle saith, If the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases (1 Cor 7:15). By bondage he meaneth matrimonial subjection [by reason whereof neither of the married persons have power of their own body, but one of the other’s]. Now they that are not under the bondage, are not bound to seek after it. That desertion therefore on the delinquent’s part is such dissolution of marriage, as freeth the innocent party from the bondage thereof. In many reformed Churches beyond the seas desertion is accounted so far to dissolve the very bond of marriage, as liberty is given to the party forsaken to marry another: and it is also applied to other cases than that which is above mentioned: as when an infidel, idolater, or heretic shall depart from one of the true religion for other causes than hatred of religion: or when both man and wife having lived as idolaters among idolaters, one of them being converted to the true faith, leaving his abode among idolaters, and goeth to the professors of the true faith, but can by no means get the other party to remove: or when one of the true religion shall depart from another of the same profession, and will by no means be brought to live with the party so left, but openly manifesteth peremptory obstinance; the matter being heard and adjudged by the Magistrate, the marriage bond may be broken, and liberty given to the party forsaken to marry another. But because our Church hath no such custom, nor our law determined such cases, I leave them to the custom of other Churches.
Last edited:
He is saying that those churches extend the cause of desertion to removing from the faith of the churches. In this section he says it is not the custom of the church in England nor of the law of the kingdom of England. I can recall he says elsewhere that he did not accept that extension of the cause of desertion and that it was expressly contrary to what the apostle teaches; but I'm not sure I could find it without a long search. In this section, however, he says that in the proper case of desertion the innocent party is not bound by matrimonial bonds. This means they are free.
In verses 10-11, where Paul expressly forbids remarriage, he uses the verbs "depart" (χωρισθῆναι) and "put away" (ἀφιέναι).
In verses 12-13, where he tells the converted beleiver to stay with their spouse, he uses the verbs are to "put away/leave" (ἀφιέτω).
In verse 15, the verb is to "depart" (χωρίζεται) and "let him depart" (χωριζέσθω).
Now, I am not sure what, it at all, the grammatical relationships between ἀφιέναι (put away) and ἀφιέτω (put away/leave), or between χωρισθῆναι (depart), χωρίζεται (depart), and χωριζέσθω (let him depart), are - because I do not actually know Greek - but at least at a glance, it seems like the departing of verse 10 and of verse 15 is using the same root (and if someone that knows Greek will correct me and show thst it is unrelated I will add an edit bellow).
Now if the same seperation which does not allow remarriage is indeed the seperation which is allowed by Paul here, then that would mean the English of Gouge's time got this one right.
The Greek is well reflected in the English translation. I don't think there is any need to parse it out.
The different scenarios depend on who initiates the action. The believer is not to leave the unbeliever. If they leave or depart they are not to marry again because they would technically still be married. But if the unbeliever leaves or departs the believer is not in bondage, that is, is free to remarry. That is because the marriage bond is broken.
Stating it is nice but you offered no proof and no argument.
So far you have used three diffrent arguments (Deuteronomy 24, a specific interpetation of "not under bondage", and this), but we have not dwelt on any of these long enough to see you actually making an argument as to why your interpetation follows or try to defend these assertions from the objections raised here. I still can't see it in any of the scriptures you have alleged. I even ended up accidentally exegeting Deuteronomy 24, despite my job in this thread being to ask the questions. I am not decided on any view yet though I see the difficulties in your view and the historical precedant for the no remarriage after desertion view more clearly now, so I am beginning to lean in that direction.
I am not sure what argument could be made when you seem intent on taking "divorce" in a manner that supposes there is still some residue of the marriage bond left behind. The very purpose for a divorce, as noted from Deut., is to free the person to marry again. When our Lord discusses it in Matthew 19 it is understood that the divorced person will presumably "marry another." And here in 1 Cor. 7 Paul asserts there is no bondage where the unbeliever has departed.
Paul very clearly states the scenario where one is not to remarry, and that is where there is a possibility to reconcile. That presumes the marriage bond itself has not been broken because there is the option to be reconciled.
One has to choose to ignore what is implicitly obvious in each case in order to insist that some explicit evidence must be forthcoming.
No Other Name
Puritan Board Senior
I agree with you, Rev. Winzer @MW (which gives me great joy because even though I have disagreed with you in the past, I have always held your thoughts overall in high esteem).
I agree that there has already been a solid case made, and while I cannot add to it, perhaps a re-framing of the case laid out might help here.
To those struggling with remarriage after desertion: Consider the audiences of each text.
In Matthew, Christ is speaking to the Jews in Palestine who are law-abiding (in self-proclaimed principle, if not fully so in fact).
These are marriages that are formed under Torah and seek to follow Torah (again, in self-proclaimed principle at least). For Christ to say to these, the exclusive cause for divorce is the violation of "one-flesh" law in the form of adultery is not the same as Christ saying to all everywhere that all violations of "one-flesh" law is exclusively physical adultery.
One needs also to recall the heavy link between physical adultery and spiritual idolatry and apostasy that permeates the Scriptures.
I suspect it is that basis where Paul hears of the case of a spouse (or spouses) who believes the gospel, repents and follows Christ while married to one who does not repent, therefore coming upon a very hard time:
"Is not my unbelieving spouse a spiritual adulterer - if not a physical adulterer?" the distressed believing spouse cries in both loving concern and fear of a holy God and poised to separate heading towards a divorcement based on Matthew 19.
Ah, but wait, dear child of God! the Holy Spirit comes calming and giving balm through the pen of Paul and says "Peace be still".
This arrangement of one believing spouse married to a non-believing spouse does not count as a violation of the "one-flesh" principle Jesus taught in Matthew 19 - not because there is no spiritual adultery present (even if no physical) but that the Spirit indwelling within the believing spouse sanctifies the entire household - even the unbelieving spouse within its walls.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Peter would later add in 1 Peter 3:1-6:
"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2;when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3;Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4;Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5;For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6;like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." (Bolded added for emphasis)
From 1 Cor. 7 it seems true that if any believing spouse left a non-believing spouse because they tried with words and the other would not hear, they would be guilty of sin, (we are all agreed here).
But if it is true that the believing spouse - walking in the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead - stays with the non-believing spouse but the other rejects the believer and runs from the sanctifying Spirit that permeates the household, the deserting spouse is not necessarily innocent of adultery even if he or she is innocent of the specific charge of physically sleeping with someone not his spouse.
Christ - through Paul and Peter - affirms this constitutes a violation of the "one-flesh" principle and the believing spouse is free to remarry ("not bound in such circumstances") and God will give peace to the scorned believer for the non-believing spouse did not - in fact - abandon her (or him), but they have indeed rejected the God of peace that is within the house.
I agree that there has already been a solid case made, and while I cannot add to it, perhaps a re-framing of the case laid out might help here.
To those struggling with remarriage after desertion: Consider the audiences of each text.
In Matthew, Christ is speaking to the Jews in Palestine who are law-abiding (in self-proclaimed principle, if not fully so in fact).
These are marriages that are formed under Torah and seek to follow Torah (again, in self-proclaimed principle at least). For Christ to say to these, the exclusive cause for divorce is the violation of "one-flesh" law in the form of adultery is not the same as Christ saying to all everywhere that all violations of "one-flesh" law is exclusively physical adultery.
One needs also to recall the heavy link between physical adultery and spiritual idolatry and apostasy that permeates the Scriptures.
I suspect it is that basis where Paul hears of the case of a spouse (or spouses) who believes the gospel, repents and follows Christ while married to one who does not repent, therefore coming upon a very hard time:
"Is not my unbelieving spouse a spiritual adulterer - if not a physical adulterer?" the distressed believing spouse cries in both loving concern and fear of a holy God and poised to separate heading towards a divorcement based on Matthew 19.
Ah, but wait, dear child of God! the Holy Spirit comes calming and giving balm through the pen of Paul and says "Peace be still".
This arrangement of one believing spouse married to a non-believing spouse does not count as a violation of the "one-flesh" principle Jesus taught in Matthew 19 - not because there is no spiritual adultery present (even if no physical) but that the Spirit indwelling within the believing spouse sanctifies the entire household - even the unbelieving spouse within its walls.
Inspired by the Holy Spirit, Peter would later add in 1 Peter 3:1-6:
"Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, 2;when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. 3;Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4;Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight. 5;For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to adorn themselves. They submitted themselves to their own husbands, 6;like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her lord. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear." (Bolded added for emphasis)
From 1 Cor. 7 it seems true that if any believing spouse left a non-believing spouse because they tried with words and the other would not hear, they would be guilty of sin, (we are all agreed here).
But if it is true that the believing spouse - walking in the same Spirit that raised Christ from the dead - stays with the non-believing spouse but the other rejects the believer and runs from the sanctifying Spirit that permeates the household, the deserting spouse is not necessarily innocent of adultery even if he or she is innocent of the specific charge of physically sleeping with someone not his spouse.
Christ - through Paul and Peter - affirms this constitutes a violation of the "one-flesh" principle and the believing spouse is free to remarry ("not bound in such circumstances") and God will give peace to the scorned believer for the non-believing spouse did not - in fact - abandon her (or him), but they have indeed rejected the God of peace that is within the house.
Last edited:
In the case of physical abuse constituting a threat to life and well-being, it is incumbent upon both the civil and ecclesiastical authorities to determine and enforce the remedy suitable to the situation. It is not just an ecclesiastical matter.
chuckd
Puritan Board Junior
So what would be the ecclesiastical remedy be? Anger management? Public humiliation in front of the church?
That's going to be determined by the particular case, but church discipline would certainly be involved.
Obviously it goes on a case by case basis, and I have only had to deal with one case of it, so I'm not the best person to speak to the point. But yes, there would have to be very clear evidence of a radical change in the person.
I don't think the church does public humiliations any more. We in the West have become too internalised in processing such things. Besides, it would be humiliating for the woman to see her husband go through that.
Brownie
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for your exposition!
I understand what you're saying about the "one-flesh" principle, but reading this thread I feel that abandonment is also used as a secondary cause within a christian marriage. Yet, Paul speaks only in the context of a mixed marriage. Although I can follow your reasoning, I'm wondering if we aren't taking too much liberty with the "concession of divorce" if we apply abandonment to christian marriages. If Jesus gives only the ultimate cause for divorce and Paul gives a very specific example of abandonment as an extra concession, can we in good conscience broaden the scope of abandonment to christian marriages?
Venator Veritatis
Puritan Board Freshman
Here is John Murray on the subject. Which I found to be helpful.
"For these reasons there is much to be said in favour of the view that I Corinthians 7:15 contemplates the dissolution of the bond of marriage. This interpretation must not be summarily dismissed as inconsistent with our Lord's teaching or as incompatible with the ethics of marriage as enunciated by Paul himself. It is, however, of the greatest importance to maintain that, if this position is adopted, the application of this liberty must be limited to the precise conditions specified or implied by the apostle.Too frequently this liberty has been applied to cases
that do not fall within the category defined by the context of I Corinthians 7:15. It is this loose and indiscriminating application that must be obviated. The following limitations must be observed.
(i) Paul is dealing with mixed marriages and not with marriage between two Christians. What he says in verse 15, therefore, cannot have relevance to a case of separation,however aggravated, where both spouses may be regarded, in the judgment of charity, as members of the household of faith. Such an application would be gross distortion of the text.
(ii) Paul is dealing with the case of wilful separation on the part of the unbeliever. He expressly disallows separation or dismissal on the part of the believer. The Christian must not take any initiative in parting from or in putting away the unbeliever. The believer may not even solicit desertion on the part of the unbeliever. To be very concrete, the believer must not make it so unbearable for the unbeliever that the latter will be induced or compelled to depart.
(iii) The separation in view must be conceived of as finding its root in fundamental religious discordance, not simply disagreement respecting certain aspects of Christian faith and practice but discordance between the Christian faith and its antithesis."
He seems to limit the "abandonment clause" for lawful divorce to mixed marriages. Which I would tend to agree with, but situations can be more complex and nuanced than first appear.
- Status
Similar threads
