HOME | MAIN BOOKS PAGE | SITE MAP | EMAIL

MAIN PAGE | NEXT

Amongst those who have borne the name of Christadelphian, there have been those who believe that it is permissible to go to law against the offending partner in order to obtain a divorce. In fact, there are those who believe that it is a commandment to do so to remove the adulterous partner. Now it is a fact, that these people would state that they are not going to law AGAINST the offending partner and therefore are not in violation of the Lord Jesus Christ's commandments concerning this. It is this that we would like to look at first.

In this day and age, as would be readily acknowledged, in order to obtain a divorce one has to go to COURT, and appear before a JUDGE, and demonstrate that there is GOOD CAUSE in the eyes of THE LAW, to obtain a divorce which is dependent upon THE JUDGE'S DECISION which is LEGALLY BINDING on all partners. Furthermore, LAWYERS are involved, as well as, the payment of LEGAL and COURT COSTS. Furthermore, once THE JUDGE renders his DECISION that DECISION is GUARANTEED by THE STATE. How can anyone logically, and rationally and reasonably say that such an action is not the same as going to law in the same sense as every other forbidden sense? It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to do so! No matter how hard the issue is labored, in order to explain it away, it still comes down to trying to convince the devil politically manifested to enforce the will of the innocent spouse against or upon the spouse who is guilty of porneia. Because of this obvious fact, Brother Roberts does not permit going to law to obtain a divorce, even when divorce is permitted by the exceptive clause. You can not violate the clear commandments in another area to exercise a privilege which is permitted so long as the permission does not violate these other commandments. For example, just because you have been granted the privilege to drive, does not mean you can violate another law by driving down the opposite side of the road, because your side is too crowded! Again, just because someone has stolen from us, does not give us the right to steal from him. Furthermore, if we see the stolen property in his hand, we can do no more than remind him of the fact of where he obtained them, for the Lord Jesus Christ's commandments forbids us from taking it back from him by violence or going to law. We find his teaching concerning this in such chapters as the fifth chapter of Matthew.

For the proof that this is Brother Roberts' stand, see point 16 of my introductory article in the front of this book. Also, for his stand on going to law for any reason, see the unabridged edition of Christendom Astray, available from "Logos Publications", chapter 18, point 4, pages 432-439. Our position, in harmony with this stand of Brother Roberts, clearly set out under point 5 of The Berean Basis of Fellowship, which is available from the publishers of this book, entitled, "Suing At Law." Also, how can anyone fulfil numbers 1,2,3,4,5,8,9,10,11,12,13,15, 24,25,30,32,33,34,35,42,45,46,47, and 53 of "The Commandments Of Christ," which are a part of each of our basis of fellowship, if you take someone to law to enforce what is claimed as rightfully belonging to oneself? A discussion of these principles will be found in the unrevised Christadelphian Instructor, available from Logos Publications, in a section entitled, "Concerning The Commandments of Christ," Questions and Answers 64 through 69. We assent to this position because it is Scriptural and it is the understanding of our pioneers.

It might be asked, Why do we believe that divorce for porneia is only a permission and not a commandment? The answer is quite simple, for the Greek words translated "whosoever," in the phrase, "...whosoever shall put away his wife,..." in Matt. 5:32 and 19:9, are HOS and AN. E.W. Bullinger in his A Critical Lexicon And Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament, on page 880, defines them as follows:

"1. HOS, who which. (a) with AN, perchance, perhaps, giving a stamp of uncertainty, and implying a dependence on circumstances..."

Thus the Lord Jesus Christ is only permitting it for it is uncertain whether one is going to divorce their spouse or not. If he was going to command that the innocent partner divorce the one who is guilty of porneia, then he would not have used terms that leave open the application of his statement. In other words, there would be no uncertainty as to whether one was going to divorce their partner or not!

Another point which can be brought forward to prove that Matt. 5:32 and 19:9 are expressing a permission and not a commandment, is that contrast which is recorded in verses seven and eight in Matt. 19. When the Pharisees refer to the "writing of divorcement" given by Moses, they refer to it as a "command." However, the Lord Jesus Christ immediately rectifies this statement by referring to it as something which was "suffered." "Suffered" is a translation of the Greek word EPITREPO which is defined by E.W. Bullinger on pages 447, 450, 581, and 748, of his above mentioned work as follows:

"to turn upon, direct upon, turn to or towards; entrust to any one's care, to entrust, refer a matter to a person, to rely upon him, to give up, leave it to his arbitration; hence, give up, yield, allow, suffer, permit."

Bullinger's definition is agreed to by the various Greek authorities, such as: Grimm-Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament; Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich's, A Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament; Liddell and Scott's, Greek-English Lexicon; Moulton-Milligan's, The Vocabulary Of The Greek Testament; Abbott-Smith's, Manual Greek Lexicon Of The New Testament; W.E. Vine's, An Expository Dictionary Of New Testament Words; and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible. Furthermore, it is translated as follows by the various versions:

"Suffered": K.J.V., The Modern Reader's Bible by Moulton, A.S.V., Diaglott, R.V.

"allowed": R.S.V., J.B. Phillips, George Ricker Berry, Charles B. Williams, The Jerusalem Bible, Alfred Marshall.

"Let": William Beck, The N.A.B.

"Permitted": Rotherham, The N.I.V., Kenneth S. Wuest, James Moffatt, N.A.S.B., Richard Francis Weymouth, The Amplified Bible, The New Berkeley Version, Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, Diaglott.

"gave permission": The N.E.B., George M. Lamsa, Good News Bible.

"permits": Concordant Literal.

"Made the concession": New World Translation.

It is quite obvious from all of the above information that even that which was given to the nation of Israel in Deut. 24:1-4, was only a permission and not a commandment. Since he was so careful to rectify the Pharisees' statement and establish that Moses only gave a permission, it is very unlikely that he would change the spirit of the law and now make a commandment out of something which was only a permission all these years. No, he was careful to correct their statement to prepare them for his answer concerning divorce. In the midst of his teaching concerning marriage and divorce, would be found a permission, and not a commandment, which has come to be known as "The Exceptive Clause." The innocent partner does not have to divorce the partner guilty of porneia. However, a divorce is permitted under such circumstances if the innocent partner feels the need of such. Of course, it is obvious that this can only be done when it is not necessary to sue at law to obtain the desired divorce, such as was the case in the days of The Lord Jesus Christ. At that time, a mere formal statement was all that was necessary to divorce one's wife.

Is it possible to bring forth other examples where the Lord Jesus Christ makes a statement in one place which he modifies in another? Yes! In Matt. 22:21, he clearly states that we must "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's."

Again, we find the following being said in Rom. 13:1-7, "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."

Furthermore, we find the following in 1 Peter 2:13-17:

"Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king."

Can we conclude from these passages that if Caesar requires us to be a conscript in his military establishment, that Yahweh requires us to submit to this ordinance and render honor and tribute to him as he requires? Of course not! The above passages are modified by what is taught in other passages that would prohibit their use in this way. Consider such passages as the following to see how the above passages are modified: Matt. 5:11-12, 21-26, 38-48; 6:14-15; 7:1-5, 9-12; Luke 3:14; 6:27-38, 41-42; Rom. 12:10-13, 17-21; Eph. 4:31-32; 1 Peter 2:18-24; 3:8-18 etc. It is quite clear from these passages that there is no way that we can be a soldier in Caesar's army and that it would be Scripturally incorrect to use the former passages to do so even though there have been those in the world that have, including Nazi Germany. Thus, to teach that the Lord Jesus Christ would not say something in one place that is modified in another to justify going to law to obtain a divorce, is very faulty reasoning to say the least.

Below are the only two passages by Brother John Thomas that are used to justify suing at law to obtain a legal divorce. Let us read them and consider if they support their view.

But, I suppose, the real question is, was marriage originally a divine or merely a human institution? If this is meant, the answer is, it was divinely instituted in the implantation of the sexual organism in our nature, and in the creation of one of each sex, the one being taken out of the other, and in the command, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth." All this was arranged before sin entered into the world, and, consequently, before religion (which is the system of means for the healing of the breach made by sin) was ordained. The Laodicean apostacy has made matrimony a "holy sacrament of the church," which the same apostacy has forbidden to its pseudonymous "holy priests!" It is, however, no part of Christianity, or of Judaism. These only regulate it for the special benefit of Israel, and Israel's lords, the saints. The world of outer darkness is a law to itself, and orders it to suit its own notions of right. The law of Moses allowed a plurality of wives, and divorce, and punished the "social evil" with death. Jesus, who was "made under the law," did not interfere with the law, but forbad divorce upon any other ground than the wife's unfaithfulness. The apostles, whose authority he declared equal to his own in teaching the things of Deity, allowed divorce on another ground, and for the sake of peace to the Christian party. But to carry out this gospel liberty would place a man or woman as a criminal at the bar of Gentile justice and law. Therefore, Peter has said: "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake;" provided, of course, that in so doing, his precepts were not transgressed; this apostolic tradition applies also to their ordinances of marriage. They forbid two contemporary wives, allow divorce on unscriptural grounds, and tolerate the "social evil" to any extent without punishment. Hence, a saint regulated by the word, would have only one wife at a time; he would seek divorce only on scriptural grounds, and avoid the "social evil" as the plague. After this manner is the human amativeness regulated by the Word, and placed by the New Man in subordination to it.

The Ambassador of The Coming Age,
Vol. 3, Page 95.
A letter from Dr. John Thomas to certain brethren in Britain entitled,
"Is It Lawful To Marry Unbelievers?"

"'If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away...for the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband. But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage to such'. 'Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But, and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned'. This, of course, is for brethren in Christ-not outsiders; for, says Paul, 'what have I to do to judge them that are without?' Still, on the principle of being subject to the ordinances of men for the Lord's sake, it would be necessary for such not to marry a second contemporary wife without a legal divorce."

-John Thomas
Herald of Kingdom and Age to Come 1860,
Sept. pg. 202
(1 Cor. 7)

1. It seems obvious that Brother Roberts knew the mind of Brother Thomas on this subject better than anyone else since he lived during the same period. Therefore, it would be highly unlikely that he would take a stand contrary to Brother Thomas on such an important issue. This point is even more obvious when we understand how Brother Roberts viewed the work of Brother Thomas. See page 25 of the first edition and page 22 of the second edition of the book on fellowship!

2. It would be wrong of us to make Brother Thomas take a different stand to that of Brother Roberts on this issue, for Brother Roberts' position is that you can not sue at law for a divorce.This point was made quite clear in point 16, on page 6 of this book.

3. Brother Thomas is clearly teaching that unless a person is legally divorced, then he can not be remarried.

4. Since Brother Thomas teaches that a divorce must be both legal and scriptural, then we must interpret it in light of the Scriptural principles involved and how Brother Roberts applied them. Following this procedure we come to the following conclusions:

a. If the offending partner obtains the legal divorce, then the innocent partner is free to remarry.

b. If the innocent partner can obtain a legal divorce without suing at law, then he or she can obtain it and then can remarry.

c. The innocent partner can not remarry until either "a" or "b" brings about the necessary condition for a remarriage to take place.

5. Brother Thomas' qualifying statement, "he would seek divorce only on scriptural grounds" is all encompassing. In other words, if the law of the land requires suing at law to obtain the divorce, then "a saint" would not seek a divorce for it would not be "on scriptural grounds."

6. Brother Thomas teaches the same thing as in point 5 when he says, "Therefore, Peter has said: 'Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man, for the Lord's sake;' provided, of course, that in so doing, his precepts were not transgressed;..." In other words, we can obey the law of the land, or, indeed must obey the law of the land, as long as it does not conflict with the law of Yahweh. Therefore, a divorce can be obtained as long as it does not require suing at law in order to obtain it for suing at law is against Yahweh's laws as shown above.

7. Brother Thomas clearly teaches in both articles that what is referred to as the Pauline Privilege is a Scripturally acceptable basis for divorce. The correctness of this position is expounded in detail in the article by Brother Myron Biernat found on page 78 of this book.

Julio B. Scaramastro,1996

Bro. Myron Biernat, "What Saith The Spirit -- 1 Cor. 7 Exposed"