WCF: Scripture Proofs

[Romans922]

My friend was reading through the WCF and came to the chapter on Marriage and Divorce (Ch. 24). In section 5 he stated that he had a hard time believing what it says.

"V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives 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."

The Bold and especially underlined part were really troublesome and as I think about it, it is hard for me to see this in Scripture. Could someone first explain what is going on here (especially in the underlined part)?

He stated that the Scripture proofs were horrible on this and wondered why they would use something like Romans 7 to back it up. I explained about the history of the Scripture proofs (that they weren't originially wanted by the Divines but he then wondered why they hadn't been revised). His thought was why have them if they aren't good. I said, does there need to be Scripture Proofs in a Confession, he said yes there did probably for people to understand and hold to these doctrines. Can someone respond about the Scripture Proofs please

 

[Puritan Sailor]

As if they were dead, refers to the status of the marriage bond, not necessarily your personal feelings about the person. Death is the ordinary end of marriage. In the case of adultery, if the innocent party sues out a divorce, she/he has every right to pursue it, as if that person were dead, in other words, they have legitimate grounds to sever the marriage bond completely and finally just as if the person had died. Hope that helps.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Can someone respond about the Scripture Proofs please

Respond how? I lost the question.

 

[Romans922]

Respond how? I lost the question.

Well, my friend is viewing the WCF as below adaquate because of the Scripture proofs [1) Scripture Proofs are not good; 2) They don't always fit; 3) They don't make the doctrine true]. How would you respond to a friend who views it this way and wants to see better Scripture proofs there or just a better understanding of what is going on?

 

[Romans922]

So you are saying that it is saying (let me use my marriage as an example so I can understand it, and I'll use myself as the bad person here) that if I committed adultery then my wife can sue out a divorce (meaning get a divorce) and then she can marry again. That is because the divorce has been undergone (that is it breaks the marriage as if it hadn't happened) and so she can marry again. Is this correct?

As if they were dead, refers to the status of the marriage bond, not necessarily your personal feelings about the person. Death is the ordinary end of marriage. In the case of adultery, if the innocent party sues out a divorce, she/he has every right to pursue it, as if that person were dead, in other words, they have legitimate grounds to sever the marriage bond completely and finally just as if the person had died. Hope that helps.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

V. Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract.11 In the case of adultery after marriage, it is lawful for the innocent party to sue out a divorce and, after the divorce,12 to marry another, as if the offending party were dead.13

11 MAT 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. 20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

12 MAT 5:31 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: 32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

13 MAT 19:9 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.
ROM 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

This is really a no-brainer. I'm shocked your friend was tripped up over this.

1. I hope it's first clearly established that the Scriptures permit divorce in the case of adultery. If a man commits adultery, she is free to divorce him. She is then free to re-marry based on the dissoloving of the marriage over the fact that the husband has violated the covenant and she is not at fault. She is no longer bound to remain in relationship with the man. If she re-marries she is not an adulteress.

In like fashion, if a husband dies then a woman is free to re-marry. Why? She has been released from the vow because marriage covenants are only binding "until death do us part." The Saducees question to Jesus is silly but, in the hypothetical, she is not married to any man after he dies. Paul's purpose in Romans 7 is larger than the marriage covenant but it is true as far as it goes. He's pointing out the obvious (that you're no longer bound to a covenant when one of the members dies).

I don't know if there is a grammar comprehension problem in the reading of the paragraph by your friend to assume that Romans 7 is meant to "prove" the entire paragraph.

The paragraph is not saying that a woman is released from the marriage covenant in the case of adultery on the basis that her husband is dead. The point of Romans 7 is to show that women are not adulteresses if they re-marry after their husbands die. Now for the connection...

Other passages demonstrate that a woman who remarries after divorcing a man on grounds of adultery is not an adulteress.

Thus, she is free to re-marry and not be an adulteress in the same way that she's not an adulteress if her husband was dead.

The point is that she's not an adulteress in both cases.

 

[crhoades]

Put yourself in an OT mindset. The offending party would be dead. No as if there. Like Rich said, till death do us part was taken seriously at one time.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

So you are saying that it is saying (let me use my marriage as an example so I can understand it, and I'll use myself as the bad person here) that if I committed adultery then my wife can sue out a divorce (meaning get a divorce) and then she can marry again. That is because the divorce has been undergone (that is it breaks the marriage as if it hadn't happened) and so she can marry again. Is this correct?

Yes, she is free to marry again, just the same as if you had died. It's not adultery for her to remarry because the bond is completely severed upon completion of the divorce. Rich may have said it better.

 

[SRoper]

I think it's the remarriage question that trips most people up. A lot of people believe that remarriage is not allowed until the offending party is dead. We had this discussion in Sunday school this past Lord's Day; while studying Mark 10 someone brought up the fact that John Piper does not allow remarriage. I countered that the WCF does.

 

[KMK]

The wisdom of the Divines was so thorough that it is often difficult to give a single passage as support for their confessional positions. I once was like your friend and thought the Divines must have been off their rockers because their proof texts seemed to have nothing to do with anything. But I have learned over time that if there is a proof text that eludes me it is because the Lord has not yet given me the same wisdom He did the Divines. I am continually humbled by them.

 

[caddy]

I hope this is not deemed too silly or far-fetched, but what about the sins that are in each of our minds at times throughout our lives. Does this ever come into effect or are we ALWAYS talking about the cold hard act?

Obviously, I think I know the answer, but we are ALL guilty in our minds of a lot of different sins that we have never actually committed.

Jesus' distinction, however, cuts right to the quick on just how guilty we ALL are.

Matthew 5:28 28 "But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[bookslover]

...the Lord has not yet given me the same wisdom He did the Divines. I am continually humbled by them.

Yes, I've had to learn the hard way that the early church fathers and 17th-century theologians are never, ever wrong - about anything.

 

[KMK]

Yes, I've had to learn the hard way that the early church fathers and 17th-century theologians are never, ever wrong - about anything.

I don't know if they are ever wrong or not, but their wisdom definitely surpasses my own. I think that most of the Divines were pastors at heart and their work reflects that. The WCF is not just mental gymnastics.