Grounds for divorce

[davejonescue]

2. The case of all the rest is harder. They
that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again: Nor the
party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of
estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of Worship, as aforesaid:
Because it is but an intermission of Conjugal fruition, and not a total
dissolution of the Relation: And the innocent party must wait to see
whether there be any hope of a return.


This does not address willful desertion. There is not consent in willfull desertion.

Here is another Puritan for you, if better to clarify:

"Of divorce are two sorts. 1. One lawful. 2. The other unlawful: lawful
divorce is that, that is made for lawful causes: Now, hereabout is all the
controversy. What are lawful causes of divorce? ...

Madness, or danger of life.

Answ. Neither doth this break marriage. In such cases, holy means may be
used, for avoiding the danger; but, no attempt of divorce permitted;
perhaps, that which they call separation, â thoro, & mensâ; but none such,
as whereby marriage should be utterly dissolved.

Lawful causes two only. 1. Adultery, Matth. 19. & 5. 2. Malitious
desertion."

William Sclater - A Brief and Plain Commentary w/notes on Malachi

 

[CovenantPatriot87]

And in verse 12 where he says "And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery..." would be talking about abusive men how?

"Quest. 20. Who be they that may or may not marry again when they are
parted?

Answ. 1. They that are released by divorce upon the others Adultery,
Sodomy, &c. may marry again. 2. The case of all the rest is harder. They
that part by consent, to avoid mutual hurt, may not marry again: Nor the
party that departeth for self-preservation, or for the preservation of
estate, or children, or comforts, or for liberty of Worship, as aforesaid:
Because it is but an intermission of Conjugal fruition, and not a total
dissolution of the Relation: And the innocent party must wait to see
whether there be any hope of a return. Yea, Christ seemeth to resolve it,
Matth. 5. 31, 32. that he is an Adulterer that marrieth the innocent party
that is put away: because the other living in adultery, their first
contracted Relation seemeth to be still in being. But Grotius and some
others think, that Christ meaneth this only of the man that over-hastily
marrieth the innocent divorced Woman, before it be seen whether he will
repent and reassume her: But how can that hold, if the Husband after
Adultery free her? May it not therefore be meant, that the Woman must stay
unmarried in hope of his reconciliation, till such time as his adultery
with his next married Wife doth disoblige her. But then it must be taken as
a Law for Christians: For the Jew that might have many Wives, disobligeth
not one by taking another."

Baxter - A Christian Directory

His context is reciprocated to the opposite sex. If the Jewish man according to their laws allowed them to divorce their wives for any reason, it follows that women may also not think themselves exempt from Christ's law. Abuse is not "any reason". But a violation of "to love and cherish" . Even the heathen understand this.

 

[davejonescue]

His context is reciprocated to the opposite sex. If the Jewish man according to their laws allowed them to divorce their wives for any reason, it follows that women may also not think themselves exempt from Christ's law. Abuse is not "any reason". But a violation of "to love and cherish" . Even the heathen understand this.

And that is why I follow the argument many on this page have made. That while redefining terms; (I mean who is to say a husband playing rap music at the wife's disapproval cannot be construed as abuse) to say abuse is adultery and dissertation; which it is not within the context of the scriptures they are mentioned, opens the flood gates for all forms of grounds for divorce. It is the remarriage aspect I am more concerned about. Because I believe if the church were to be more strict, in calling anathema unrepentant adulterers who so quickly run to remarriage after divorce, feeling free from the consequences thereof; by classifying everything, like you with abuse, under adultery and abandonment; they would take the vows, and the unionship of marriage more seriously. But as it is today, if one cant find someone to agree with them, they will simply go to a pastor or church that does. Or, everything becomes so subjective; that all things can be classified under three things that should retain specificity.

 

[MyCrows]

So if someone remarries after being deserted by their spouse(dissolving their marriage), the church is to call them anathema based on their unrepentant adultery?

 

[py3ak]

Can you demonstrate these principles from Scripture? 1. When Christ says "except" is this not establishing different criteria? 2. So if someone divorces and it is unwarranted but they remain unmarried/celebate they are guilty of adultery? Is the concept of marriage being a "bond" the same as it being a "covenant"?

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4, emphasis added)

1. No. The exceptive clause is attached to the putting away (Matt. 19:9) not to the remarriage. (ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ)

2. Yes. We often think of adultery as being exclusively sexual in nature, but in a broader usage we can call all grave infidelity to the marriage covenant adultery. Abandonment under legal cover is still abandonment. And abandonment is a betrayal of the marriage covenant of cleaving to the spouse.

Marriage is a bond that is instituted by a covenant.

 

[davejonescue]

So if someone remarries after being deserted by their spouse(dissolving their marriage), the church is to call them anathema based on their unrepentant adultery?

No, not if the desertion of the offending spouse ends in adultery, or remarriage. But this is under the appropriate term of desertion; i.e. leaving the home, and especially in an adulterous relationship. But, simply leaving, the innocent spouse must give proper time for reconciliation, especially if what has become of the offending spouse is clouded with ambiguity. The issue isnt really is desertion or abandonment a reason "one is no longer bound" but a redefinition of abandonment and adultery by many that opens the doors for divorce and remarriage for any grounds. This is what happens when you take those terms out of their immediate context, and use them to license anyone to divorce and remarry. Biblically, divorce and remarriage has been confined to adultery, and abandonment; the latter especially because it almost always includes adultery thus falling under the former. Widows may also remarry. But saying abuse, addiction, laziness, lack of wealth, health, and the list can go on is either of the former, is eisegesis; and the reason many in the church can get divorced and remarried for practically any reason. It is like others have said, divorce is a choice of either party; but only certain reasons allow no consequence for that choice. Some want to make any reason for divorce, by calling it either adultery or abandonment; non-consequential.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I largely agree with this post, but I also think it is important not to conflate the case of Joseph and Mary with what what is discussed by Christ and the Apostles regarding divorce. Joseph and Mary were betrothed (Mt.1.18; Luke 1.27) not married (see Mt.1.20 "fear not to take Mary as thy wife.).

Though the practice of betrothal/endowment is mostly foreign to our present Western culture, it is very clearly delineated from marriage in Scripture (see Exodus 21-22 and Deuteronomy 20 and 22). Joseph considering quietly ending the betrothal may have been a gracious act, but this is different than writing a bill of divorcement which is never mentioned in relation to betrothal (as reflected in the WCF - see below). The Law very clearly distinguishes between adultery ("If a man be found lying with a woman married to a man, then they shall die..." Deut.22.22), unfaithfulness during betrothal ("If a maid be betrothed unto a husband, and a man find her in the town and lie with her, then shall ye bring them both out unto the gates of the same city, and shall stone them with stones to death..." Deut.22.23-24), and fornication ("If a man find a maid that is not betrothed, and take her, and lie with her, and they be found, then the man that lay with her, shall give unto the maid’s father fifty shekels of silver: and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her: he can not put her away all his life." Deut.22.28-29, see also Ex.22.16-17). A betrothal was taken as seriously as marriage, but it was still separate.

In the case of Mary and Joseph, Joseph could not prove who the other man was so there could be no trial. He did have the right to accuse her, but if he could not prove the charge, he would risk his own life - see Deut.22.13-21. Accusing Mary of unfaithfulness during their betrothal, even if unproven, would have permanently damaged her reputation for the rest of her life, but it also would have exposed Joseph to the danger of making an unprovable accusation. I think we often overlook Joseph's predicament. He was indeed a righteous (and wise) man.

While I am not a total reconstructionist, I think there is much to be gained from examining the expounding of the moral law in the legal code given to Israel, especially with regard to the 4th Commandment and matters such as divorce and remarriage. For starters, I believe this would help us understand why our forefathers in the faith left us such delineated statements (notice that they recognize the possibility of adultery before marriage) as found in WCF 24.5: "Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. 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."

If we're in essential agreement in regard to my earlier comment, there's little to add to what I've already written.

I may have somewhat of dissent to make respecting those "distinctions" in the law of Moses ("...The Law very clearly distinguishes..."). The different cases presented in Israel's ancient constitution shouldn't be understood in distinction from one another at all, but they form a whole-cloth of social jurisprudence for Israelites. The variety of offenses and penalties represent the reality that each instantiation of sin against the 7th commandment requires a careful examination and application of an appropriate just settlement. There was then no one-size-fits-all solution to sexual immorality situations, nor even one-size-fits every sub-category where Israel's judges might prefer to pigeon-hole a case, and dispense with it summarily.

The fact that Joseph contemplated a divorce (as one betrothed though not yet married) even though the Law's stipulations did not explicitly state its propriety other than under the married estate, is adduceable evidence that there was no appreciable legal difference from the "bill" described in Dt.24:1 (cf. Mt.5:31; 19:7). I suspect the contemporaneous legal procedure and outcome would have been indistinguishable if not identical, whether the parties were betrothed or married; given that betrothal was so far regarded as the legal contract for a marriage, imposing rights and obligations, and was enforceable. The "quiet" aspect of Joseph's plan doesn't speak to any legal difficulty pertaining to his decision, but of his unwillingness to shame Mary any further.

It is beyond doubt to me that Joseph's righteous intent was not determined by whether he could or couldn't make a public trial of Mary without risk to his reputation, or his being in any kind of legal predicament. 1) Reasonably doubtful of Mary's fidelity, 2) Joseph meant to free himself legally from the marriage contract, 3) by acting in accordance with the law and obtaining a divorce, 4) still not forsaking mercy--all that together demonstrates the righteous character Matthew attests in his Gospel. Joseph wasn't righteous on account of how astute a lawyer he was, on how ironclad his case and presentable and provable in the fine points.

 

[MyCrows]

No, not if the desertion of the offending spouse ends in adultery, or remarriage. But this is under the appropriate term of desertion; i.e. leaving the home, and especially in an adulterous relationship. But, simply leaving, the innocent spouse must give proper time for reconciliation, especially if what has become of the offending spouse is clouded with ambiguity. The issue isnt really is desertion or abandonment a reason "one is no longer bound" but a redefinition of abandonment and adultery by many that opens the doors for divorce and remarriage for any grounds. This is what happens when you take those terms out of their immediate context, and use them to license anyone to divorce and remarry. Biblically, divorce and remarriage has been confined to adultery, and abandonment; the latter especially because it almost always includes adultery thus falling under the former. Widows may also remarry. But saying abuse, addiction, laziness, lack of wealth, health, and the list can go on is either of the former, is eisegesis; and the reason many in the church can get divorced and remarried for practically any reason. It is like others have said, divorce is a choice of either party; but only certain reasons allow no consequence for that choice. Some want to make any reason for divorce, by calling it either adultery or abandonment; non-consequential.

But if the desertion did not end in adultery or remarriage, and the deserted party has remarried, the church is to call them anathema based on their unrepentant adultery?

 

[Taylor]

I mean who is to say a husband playing rap music at the wife's disapproval cannot be construed as abuse...

Brother, I find it increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you make such ridiculous caricatures as this. I don't know if you think it's funny or some clever attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but whatever it is, it does not have the effect you may think. Everyone here recognizes that people today make abuse a wax nose. Your own denomination is one of the worst, so I understand your concern. At the same time, you must know that annoying habits (e.g., rap music) and violent behavior (e.g., beatings) are matters different not in degree but in kind.

 

[davejonescue]

Brother, I find it increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you make such ridiculous caricatures as this. I don't know if you think it's funny or some clever attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but whatever it is, it does not have the effect you may think. Everyone here recognizes that people today make abuse a wax nose. Your own denomination is one of the worst, so I understand your concern. At the same time, you must know that annoying habits (e.g., rap music) and violent behavior (e.g., beatings) are matters different not in degree but in kind.

With all due respect brother, at first you said you find it hard to follow me, now you say its hard to take me seriously. There is always the option not to respond to my posts.

My whole point, is that a redefinition of something clearly explained in context, opens the doors for almost anything to be included due to its allegorical misappropriation and subjectivity. YOU may think physical abuse is the pinnacle or line in the sand to justify divorce and remarriage; but since adultery and abandonment has already been redefined to include it, why is your opinion the words set in stone? You claim violent abuse as the worst, yet fail to realize that the military used unwelcomed music to degrade and break prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay . Again, it is your opinion, and rightly so because you have taken an objective ideal and made it subject to fit a foreign situation. See to you it may be "just" annoying; to another it may be torturous; that is how subjectivity works. And that is what happens when texts are eisegeted. That is my point. If you cannot get that, there is nothing I can do to further explain it to you. Have a great night brother; I hope this helps to explain.

 

[Taylor]

…since adultery and abandonment has already been redefined to include it…

Again, you keep saying this, but you haven’t demonstrated it to be the case.

You claim violent abuse as the worst, yet fail to realize that the military used unwelcomed music to degrade and break prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay .

This isn’t the situation you presented. You said “playing rap music at the wife’s disapproval,” not “use music to torture military intelligence out of the imprisoned wife.”

…you have taken an objective ideal and made it subject to fit a foreign situation.

Can you prove this? I’m not trying to be ornery here, but there are a lot of bare assertions being made.

 

[davejonescue]

But if the desertion did not end in adultery or remarriage, and the deserted party has remarried, the church is to call them anathema based on their unrepentant adultery.

This is where I think the context of that abandonment comes into play. I dont believe, and I may be by myself here, that this is talking about every time a person is absent from their spouse. Paul is clearly talking about a person who is in the midst of a marriage, an already legal bond; becomes a Christian, then the non-Christian spouse leaves them on account of their Christian faith. Or, putting caution to the side marries an unbeliever. Since it is common knowledge that the husband has not committed adultery, nor has remarried, even if they divorce, the innocent party must stay single until adultery has occurred, in hopes of repentance. I also think this is one of the reasons Jesus says that men should not marry women who have been divorced; he didnt go into any detail about that. But we know those that are victims of adultery have the right to divorce and get remarried. If the offending spouse is keeping themselves pure; and since the offended spouse is in contact with them to know such things; they must wait to see what will come of it, or remain single until they die or annul the marriage by adultery. If adultery has not occurred, nor has the offending spouse left due to the others Christianity, they are obliged to remain single, as they chose their spouse before marrying them. At some point, someone has to be held accountable for their actions. Remember, Adam was punished with Eve, though Adam was not deceived, but Eve. Though they were redeemed, they both suffered from the consequence.

 

[davejonescue]

Again, you keep saying this, but you haven’t demonstrated it to be the case.


This isn’t the situation you presented. You said “playing rap music at the wife’s disapproval,” not “use music to torture military intelligence out of the imprisoned wife.”


Can you prove this? I’m not trying to be ornery here, but there are a lot of bare assertions being made.

Yes I have demonstrated this to be the case, by posting the scriptures in their context, that neither have the idea or inkling of violent abuse within them.

 

[Taylor]

Yes I have demonstrated this to be the case, by posting the scriptures in their context, that neither have the idea or inkling of violent abuse within them.

You do know that quoting Scripture is not the same thing as positive demonstration, yes? If I’ve missed something, forgive me, and please point me to where I can find argumentation (not just Scripture accompanied by bare assertions).

 

[davejonescue]

You do know that quoting Scripture is not the same thing as positive demonstration, yes? If I’ve missed something, forgive me, and please point me to where I can find argumentation (not just Scripture accompanied by bare assertions).

No problem, since I am busy at the moment; please feel free to argue why it is, and I will respond to that. If what I have posted is not good enough for you; I cannot help you. I have said what I have said, in many different ways, if you do not accept it as a form of argument, that is on you. Others have quoted it, and know exactly what I am/was saying, but for some reason, you keep missing it. Its OK if you dont get it, we cant win them all.

 

[Taylor]

No problem, since I am busy at the moment; please feel free to argue why it is, and I will respond to that. If what I have posted is not good enough for you; I cannot help you. I have said what I have said, in many different ways, if you do not accept it as a form of argument, that is on you. Others have quoted it, and know exactly what I am/was saying, but for some reason, you keep missing it. Its OK if you dont get it, we cant win them all.

I’m just asking for a clear presentation and defense of your position.

 

[davejonescue]

I’m just asking for a clear presentation and defense of your position.

They have been presented, multiple times. Even to the point that others have been able to agree or disagree with my position. You are the only one who keeps pressing the issue and pretending like you do not know the position that I hold on this topic. But, in the sake of brotherly love, I will try to summarize it for you in a clear concise way the best I can at your request.

1. Nowhere in the texts where Jesus or Paul talk about divorce, and divorce and remarriage is physical abuse mentioned.

2. Physical abuse is not a new invention or plight.

3. Jesus gives an exclusive reason to approve divorce and remarry.

4. That reason is adultery.

5. The definition of adultery in any dictionary is literally a spouse having sexual relation with someone other than their spouse.

6. Paul further expounds on this to include a physical dissertation clause; within the context of someone leaving based on the faith, or new conversion of a believer.

7. The command to remain single unless one has been a victim of adultery is still in effect for the disserted, if it is known that the offender has not committed adultery, as this would fall under Pauls command that a woman shall not divorce her husband, or vice versa; or is to remain single unless reconciliation is achieved. Paul is giving a deserted believer the option to remarry in the case of a desertion where the status has a known cause, but unknown status of infidelity, because this would be in the context of 1. Non-belief, in which the command of reconciliation cannot be ecclesiastically enforced to the offender; and, 2. given man kinds innate nature to be sexually tempted, which he covers earlier in the text, it is assumed on the part of the offended that ultimate adultery will occur, since it is human nature to have sex; and thus being abandoned for their faith, they are not bound by the same party who would desert them because they find their spouses Christian dictates unreconcilable.

8. Separation and remarriage for any other reason in the NT, according to the text of Jesus and Paul, in the New Covenant is not included; for, widowhood is not a form of divorce, but an actualization of the taken vows.

9. The reason a church should consider someone anathema if they have not divorced for a reason that approves of remarriage, is because it is premediated sin, in which one is knowingly, and unrepentantly entering into a bond of adultery. The same way a church may anathema homosexuals', or fornicators who actively engage in sinful relations.

10. Then it would be up to the church when and if genuine repentance has been achieved, welcome them back, even though their act is irreversible; for we cannot fight sin by sin and demand a divorce, yet, given the marriage has been consummated, the offended in the previous relationship is free to remarry if they have been faithful to wait for reconciliation until the hope is no longer applicable; unless they broke the bond first by remarrying before adultery occurred, in which they would also be an adulterer; the former for their divorce for another reason besides sexual immorality, the latter for knowing the status of the offender pre-adultery, and not waiting patiently to see if reconciliation is possible. Yet, despite this God can forgive both, but, neither would be qualified for pastoral or eldership within the context of the local church, since both (not knowing if the offended or offender is male or female) remarried unapprovingly, and are now bound in an adulterous relationship.

11. Even if people divorce, they do not lose ministerial rights, but when one remarries for an unapproved reason; they do. The approved reasons are sexual immorality, or physical desertion culminating in adultery, or an unknown status of the unbelieving spouse.

12. Violent abuse towards the spouse is not fornication, homosexuality, pedophilia, beastiality, sodomy, etc, (though that is violent abuse to the child, the animal, the neighbor, etc.) that is sexual immorality towards the spouse; which is adultery; where, though those acts were outside her body, they were an offense to her body, since the two are now one. 1Cor. 6:18 Violent abuse by definition is not physically leaving a spouse because of their faith; and because of this, redemption and reconciliation is possible. Even post divorce.

13. While a divorce may occur to preserve the life of the one being abused, as divorce was permitted in the Bible for various reasons; remarriage is only approved for two; which violent abuse is not included in; by the very definition of the words being used in the text, and the context of the text.

14. If a woman or man divorce their husband or wife due to abuse, they must remain single or seek reconciliation. If the offender remarries, and adultery has occurred, than as a victim of adultery, the offended is free to remarry and no longer has to wait for the chance at reconciliation; especially now since a desertion has been solidified as irreconcilable due to a new covenant being formed.

15. Yet, the initiator of the divorce, even if the offended, is co-offender in the unapproved dissolution to the union (in the case of an approved reason for remarriage) because he or she, if they release the offender from the hopes of reconciliation by first forgoing reconciliation by committing adultery in a new marriage; will also be barred from the qualifications of pastor or elder, because they removed the hope of repentance and reconciliation from the offender without either beforehand committing adultery.

16. All of this can be forgiven by God. But anyone who remarries except for being a victim of sexual immorality, is an adulterer, and anyone who marries someone who has been divorced for any reason except for sexual immorality causes him/her to be an adulterer. The Pauline passage assumes adultery in the case of desertion, since them being unbelieving are controlled by their nature, and our nature is sexual activity, which Paul, again addresses earlier in the text as being a major factor in human nature, going as far to say that "each man should have a wife;" for lack of self-control, of even the elect.

17. Redefining abuse as adultery or abandonment is eisegesis, because it is (or can be) an attempt to approve of premature remarriage, on the grounds of the offense itself, by trying to apply it to terms that it doesn't allude to in those terms given context, rather than the patience to seek reconciliation until the actual approved reason occurs (if it does) which is adultery, whether actuated or assumed. Again, people can divorce for various reason, but not everyone can remarry.

I hope this makes it a little clearer where I stand on this issue. I really do not have the time to write a whole paper and go into deep research. If this is not good enough for you, please do not ask me to further clarify, unless you would like to address a certain point for further clarification. God Bless.

 

[Taylor]

You are…pretending like you do not know the position that I hold on this topic.

Brother, you cannot possibly know this, and it is very uncharitable to approach me in such a manner. Thank you for the clarifying post but, in light of this comment, I don’t think I wish to proceed any further with this discussion.

 

[ABrauny]

Brother, I find it increasingly difficult to take you seriously when you make such ridiculous caricatures as this. I don't know if you think it's funny or some clever attempt at reductio ad absurdum, but whatever it is, it does not have the effect you may think. Everyone here recognizes that people today make abuse a wax nose. Your own denomination is one of the worst, so I understand your concern. At the same time, you must know that annoying habits (e.g., rap music) and violent behavior (e.g., beatings) are matters different not in degree but in kind.

If you read or listen to enough first hand accounts of those being divorced you will find the word 'abuse' used. Is the quarrelsome wife in Proverbs 21:9 'abusive'?

 

[davejonescue]

Brother, you cannot possibly know this, and it is very uncharitable to approach me in such a manner. Thank you for the clarifying post but, in light of this comment, I don’t think I wish to proceed any further with this discussion.

And for this I apologize, I really do. My goal is not to offend you, but just talk to you like we were having a normal conversation. I am still growing in my articulation of things to a point where potential offenses are minimal. I have often enjoyed conversations with you, so I hope you do not stop responding because of this posts miscommunication back and forth. And I will try to work on the way that I express what I am trying to convey in the future, in and if we have future discourses. Have a great day, and God Bless.

 

[Taylor]

And for this I apologize, I really do. My goal is not to offend you, but just talk to you like we were having a normal conversation. I am still growing in my articulation of things to a point where potential offenses are minimal. I have often enjoyed conversations with you, so I hope you do not stop responding because of this posts miscommunication back and forth. And I will try to work on the way that I express what I am trying to convey in the future, in and if we have future discourses. Have a great day, and God Bless.

Thank you, brother. I’m not angry or anything. And of course I’ve enjoyed talking with you, and I love your work. I just know my own sinful tendency to escalate things rather than to de-escalate, so I decided bowing out was best.

God’s blessings to you.

 

[MyCrows]

9. The reason a church should consider someone anathema if they have not divorced for a reason that approves of remarriage, is because it is premediated sin, in which one is knowingly, and unrepentantly entering into a bond of adultery. The same way a church may anathema homosexuals', or fornicators who actively engage in sinful relations.

So if my wife abandoned me to live with another man, and adultery was all but certain but not provable(they have yet to be married), but I remarried, I have entered into a state of adultery?

 

[pgwolv]

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.
And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.
And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife;
Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
(Deuteronomy 24:1-4, emphasis added)

1. No. The exceptive clause is attached to the putting away (Matt. 19:9) not to the remarriage. (ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ)

2. Yes. We often think of adultery as being exclusively sexual in nature, but in a broader usage we can call all grave infidelity to the marriage covenant adultery. Abandonment under legal cover is still abandonment. And abandonment is a betrayal of the marriage covenant of cleaving to the spouse.

Marriage is a bond that is instituted by a covenant.

I really benefited from this explanation. Where do you stand on physical/mental abuse and divorce? Do the elders have to assess whether something constitutes abandonment on a case-by-case basis to assist a congregant who feels abused, and according to which guidelines?

 

[py3ak]

I really benefited from this explanation. Where do you stand on physical/mental abuse and divorce? Do the elders have to assess whether something constitutes abandonment on a case-by-case basis to assist a congregant who feels abused, and according to which guidelines?

Abuse is a legitimate reason for divorce, because it violates the commitments made in the marriage vow. E.g., the British woman who over a course of years added antifreeze to her husband's meals was not, as far as I know, carrying on an affair; but slowly poisoning someone is not what I would call fidelity.

Sometimes the presence of abuse is very clear; sometimes it is less clear, or it goes both ways. So yes, there can be a lot of work to do to sort out if the violation of the marriage vow is egregious, or if it's a discernible pattern.

 

[ZackF]

Abuse is a legitimate reason for divorce, because it violates the commitments made in the marriage vow. E.g., the British woman who over a course of years added antifreeze to her husband's meals was not, as far as I know, carrying on an affair; but slowly poisoning someone is not what I would call fidelity.

Sometimes the presence of abuse is very clear; sometimes it is less clear, or it goes both ways. So yes, there can be a lot of work to do to sort out if the violation of the marriage vow is egregious, or if it's a discernible pattern.

However, the husband is not permitted to divorce if the meals only taste like antifreeze.

 

[Northern Crofter]

1. No. The exceptive clause is attached to the putting away (Matt. 19:9) not to the remarriage. (ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ)

2. Yes. We often think of adultery as being exclusively sexual in nature, but in a broader usage we can call all grave infidelity to the marriage covenant adultery. Abandonment under legal cover is still abandonment. And abandonment is a betrayal of the marriage covenant of cleaving to the spouse.

1. I'm not sure what this proves - that exceptive clause is followed by the conjunctive clause "and marry another." It is all one connected statement.
2. I do think of adultery as being exclusively sexual in nature - isn't it always so when referring to human-to-human relationships throughout Scripture? Is there a place in Scripture where it is not? As I've mentioned above, I believe there can be dispute over what constitutes adultery and I have suggested that there may be a "lower bar" than how it is commonly defined today. Again note Christ's words in Matt.5.32: "But I say unto you, whosoever shall put away his wife except it be for fornication [πορνεία = sexual promiscuity of any type] causeth her to commit adultery [μοιχάομαι = breaking the covenantal bond]: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, committeth adultery." That adultery can happen prior to marriage proper is discussed in WCF 24.5: "Adultery or fornication, committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, giveth just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract. 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." To allow for a non-sexual definition of "adultery" or a broader usage of adultery to include "all grave infidelity to the marriage" seems as harmful as expanding the Biblical teaching on abandonment in I Cor. to include other forms of abuse or neglect. Considering how often marriage, adultery, and divorce are used to teach us about our relationship to God, we need to take care how we define such issues (consider Hosea or Romans 7.1-4).

Abuse is a legitimate reason for divorce, because it violates the commitments made in the marriage vow. E.g., the British woman who over a course of years added antifreeze to her husband's meals was not, as far as I know, carrying on an affair; but slowly poisoning someone is not what I would call fidelity.

I don't think anyone in this thread is denying abuse as a legitimate reason for divorce - the unsettled question is whether or not remarriage is then allowed. But the original OP was not on this topic but rather related to the question of whether or not someone who is the cause of divorce via abuse is still identified as a Christian, with M. Henry seemingly arguing the latter: "There is not a greater piece of hard-heartedness in the world, than for a man to be harsh and severe with his own wife. The Jews, it seems, were infamous for this, and therefore were allowed to put them away; better divorce them than do worse, than that the altar of the Lord should be covered with tears, Mal. 2:13. A little compliance, to humour a madman, or a man in a frenzy, may prevent a greater mischief. Positive laws may be dispensed with for the preservation of the law of nature, for God will have mercy and not sacrifice; but then those are hard-hearted wretches, who have made it necessary; and none can wish to have the liberty of divorce, without virtually owning the hardness of their hearts....The law of Moses allowing divorce for the hardness of men’s hearts, and the law of Christ forbidding it, intimate, that Christians being under a dispensation of love and liberty, tenderness of heart may justly be expected among them, that they will not be hard-hearted, like Jews, for God has called us to peace. There will be no occasion for divorces, if we forbear one another, and forgive one another, in love, as those that are, and hope to be, forgiven, and have found God not forward to put us away, Isa. 50:1. No need of divorces, if husbands love their wives, and wives be obedient to their husbands, and they live together as heirs of the grace of life: and these are the laws of Christ, such as we find not in all the law of Moses." I don't think anyone has really answered Henry's assertion(-s) in bold above.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

MHenry is preaching, is counseling those who are under the rule of Christ, who know and love him above all, and who should (!) attend their Lord and Master, loving and forgiving one another, willing to be reconciled to each other as far as in each of them lies. But this ideal does not always obtain, and especially when situations such as Paul writes of in 1Cor appear. Paul, and I'm sure Christ also, does not expect the unbeliever to think or act like a child of God; but of the believer certain expectations are meet.

The believer should, as the general rule, abhor the very idea of divorce, breaking asunder what God has united. He (or she) does not take only his personal counsel in so grave a matter as judging the fracture of not only his personal foundation, but the foundations of society in general. Not being "left to their own wills and discretion," it remains the duty of the church through its ministry to make a proper judgment, whether to encourage by law (divorce) what is in fact already the state; or to discourage the one or the couple seeking counsel in their case from carrying through any plan other than unity and reconciliation.

One would need to know individual situations where Pastor MHenry, in his capacity as a church minister, gave his various counsels respecting marriage and divorce; in order to know if he had but a single policy he followed in all cases, never varying when giving guidance to professing Christians regardless of their lives. He writes that when true believers whose hearts have truly been softened by the grace of God heed the word of God, yes "there will be no occasion for divorces." But of the situations where true believers are victimized, mocked, and driven quite literally to madness--of them he writes nothing in the place.

Christ has ordained a ministry with duty and obligation to fairly, justly, reasonably and holily, with due attendance on the dangers and ramifications of their decisions, make rulings that support and defend the church, its society and its members. It is not the case that this task is simple or merely a matter of overlaying a decision chart on any case, in order to set matters in order. If that was true, there would be no need for maturity and discretion in leaders; all that would be called for would be the skill of a bureaucrat.

I have respect for MHenry, and more than is sometimes found among judges of commentators. But he does not here supply a full and sufficient practical exposition of the mind of Christ on the whole subject. Here is given a summary of a concise response by Christ to the question posed him at that hour. Paul's own contribution in 1Cor.7 is not divisible from Christ at all, but is a further exposition of the Lord's mind beyond that taken from the Gospel account. And more, there is the full accounting of Scripture on the whole subject and in connection with all the Christian life, in the world and in the church.

Also, MHenry speaks and writes into an historical context of his own, which is all at once 1) as broad as common humanity across time, 2) with commonality in many respects with our modern time, and 3) with distinction in certain social respects from our time and past time. He writes in the above quotation with an overly accusatorial prejudice against the ancient Jews (esp. their menfolk) as a class, which does him no credit as he interprets the Savior's expression. This leads him to some level of inaccuracy in his judgment. So, we need to get beyond that when reading his opinion, among other things. We should be inquiring above all to know where MHenry's opinion is consonant with the best interpretation of the church over its long history.

 

[chuckd]

Another observation. I'm reading Deut. 24:1-4 which is where the Pharisees objection comes from and don't see anywhere that is says Moses commanded them "give a certificate of divorce and to send her away" as they said in Matt. 19:7.

Then I realized it's a matter of translation. The ESV uses the word "if" in Deut. 24:1, making it sound like an allowance.
if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house

However, the KJV does not, making it sound like a command.
and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

 

[chuckd]

MHenry is preaching...

I didn't want to quote the whole post to crowd the thread, but I appreciate your responses. I will post one more quote from MHenry (I keep reading this as McHenry when you write it) that helped me with all of the "what ifs" regarding divorce and remarriage:

2. The fundamental law of marriage, which is, that a man shall leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, Matt. 19:5. The relation between husband and wife is nearer than that between parents and children; now, if the filial relation may not easily be violated, much less may the marriage union be broken. May a child desert his parents, or may a parent abandon his children, for any cause, for every cause? No, by no means. Much less may a husband put away his wife, betwixt whom, though not by nature, yet by divine appointment, the relation is nearer, and the bond of union stronger, than between parents and children; for that is in a great measure superseded by marriage, when a man must leave his parents, to cleave to his wife. See here the power of a divine institution, that the result of it is a union stronger than that which results from the highest obligations of nature.

Under what circumstances can a parent disown their children and adopt different ones, or a child leave their parents and find new ones? This should put it into perspective the extreme nature of divorce and remarriage.

 

[MyCrows]

I didn't want to quote the whole post to crowd the thread, but I appreciate your responses. I will post one more quote from MHenry (I keep reading this as McHenry when you write it) that helped me with all of the "what ifs" regarding divorce and remarriage:


Under what circumstances can a parent disown their children and adopt different ones, or a child leave their parents and find new ones? This should put it into perspective the extreme nature of divorce and remarriage.

“And he who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death."

Exodus 21:17


I don't think MH is commenting on the immutability of the relationship, so much as the intimacy.