HOME | MAIN BOOKS PAGE | SITE MAP | EMAIL

MAIN PAGE | NEXT

James: You have appeared puzzled lately over something John. Tell me, what is troubling your mind?

John: I have been giving a great deal of thought and study to a question of doctrine that has divided the brotherhood, in recent years.

James: Are you referring to the question that caused the division between the "Dawn" and "Berean" fellowships?

John: Yes. A great deal has been written by members of the Dawn fellowship on the subject, but so little has been written by the Bereans that I am almost constrained to study the subject exclusively from the Dawn literature; which, of course gives me their side of the argument. I wonder what the other side of the argument is?

James: The other side of the argument can be found in the Scriptures of Truth. Some brethren, such as Bro. Dowling, Bro. MacDonald of New Zealand and a few others have written to expound the scriptural position. I would suggest that you take a pencil and paper and list the arguments of various Berean brethren, exactly in their own words: then list the counter arguments of various Dawn brethren in exactly their own words matching each point discussed with the argument of the opposite side; considering it first independently, then as it bears upon the subject as a whole. Also note carefully the context in which it is found. I believe with Bro. Roberts that wrong conclusions are built upon false premises; so I advise checking each premise in the chain of arguments that support the different sides of the question, and not dropping our investigation until we have thoroughly read and investigated every quotation and reference involved.

John: That advice sounds wise. I shall endeavor to do that when the opportunity presents itself. Right now, however, I wish to ask you a number of questions on the subject.

James: Why?

John: Because, although I am still a Berean, I am becoming overwhelmed with what appears to me to be scriptural evidence in support of the Dawn position, so I entreat you to help me examine it, and to reach a clear scriptural understanding of it.

James: Very well, I shall endeavor to assist all I can in spite of my many imperfections and limitations because I am earnestly desirous of assisting those who are honestly endeavoring to keep the Truth pure; also, those well-meaning brethren who have gotten off their course in a storm at sea. Let us therefore pray that God will let his blessing rest upon this effort, so that I may open the eyes of many of our dear brethren who felt duty-bound to leave that small community of believers into which they had been herded by the faithful labor of our pioneer brethren.

John: It does seem a pity that so many earnest and faithful brethren who have labored side-by-side to uphold the truth in the past, should be rent apart when faced with this question; but I am sure that God, in His mercy will show us the correct way, if we strive hard enough to find it.

James: Then let us approach the matter with complete impartiality, accepting what truth we find and ironing out all else.

John: I would have suggested using holiness as our measuring stick to determine who is in the right in this case.

James: To be sure we must not condone anything contrary to holiness, but I suggest we approach this question from a logical, rather than an emotional standpoint. Let truth, rather than emotion guide you. Were you an objector in the last war?

John: Yes.

James: How did the men of the world regard you when you refused to fight?

John: They regarded me as a shirker; indolent and cowardly.

James: What did you think of their attitude?

John: I considered it emotional, lacking in sound logic and a part of the cross I had to bear for Christ's Name's sake.

James: Good. Then you see the folly of a doctrine which has to use emotional appeal for its foundation. If our brethren regard us as evil, we must bear this cross with determination to follow our Lord through evil, as well as good report.

James: What did you wish to ask me?

John: Do you think we are justified in fellowshipping one who lives with his present partner, while a partner from a previous marriage still lives?

James: What do the Scriptures say on the subject?

John: Mark gives us the words of Jesus in Mark 10:11-12, "And he saith unto them, whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband and be married to another she committeth adultery." And Paul says, 1 Cor. 5:11, "But now I have written unto you not to keep company if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one, no, not to eat."

James: Then what is your mind on the subject?

John: I believe I must withdraw my fellowship from those who have committed this offense.

James: Suppose the brother has acknowledged his sin, and repented; what do the Scriptures say to do then?

John: Now you puzzle me brother; for I do not know whether I can class this sin in the same category as other offenses or not.

James: Very well, then excluding this case from the list at your request, I will ask you again what the Scriptures require us to do in the case of repentance?

John: I read in Gal. 6:1 "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

James: Why do you wish to exclude this case from the list?

John: I am not sure the man is repentant as long as he lives with his last partner.

James: What do you do in the case of an alien marriage?

John: We take their word for it and leave the rest to God. We can not judge, you know.

James: How does this differ from an alien marriage?

John: In this case there is a third party involved, whereas in an alien marriage, there are but two.

James: There is a third party also in an alien marriage; the Ecclesia is to be a chaste virgin, espoused to Christ, and separate therefore from the world, so that Jesus is the offended party in an alien marriage (2 Cor. 11:2; 1 Cor. 6:15-17; 2 Cor. 6:14,18). A person marrying an alien has broken the engagement or espousal vow with Christ. If it be right to take back a man who has married an alien, it ought to be right to take back a man who has married while a former partner lives.

John: But did not Ezra command the Jews to put away their strange wives?

James: Yes, their alien wives. Ezra 10:11, "Now therefore make confession unto the Lord God of your fathers, and do his pleasure; and separate yourselves from the people of the land and from the strange wives."

John: Were not those people married before to someone else? That is, wasn't it because of adultery they were separated?

James: Yes, the Israelitish nation was married to God, and therefore any union with the world was adultery, but there is no mention of divorce and remarriage in the case (Jer. 3:14; Mal. 2:11; Isa. 62:4,5).

John: Then the case in Ezra's time only corresponds to alien marriage in our time?

James: Exactly.

John: Then why don't we separate from alien marriage?

James: Ezra's command was to the Jews at that time, not to us. We are told not to put away our wives, 1 Cor. 7:11. Do you see what I mean by emotional foundations?

John: No. What?

James: The war cry has been to be like Ezra and Nehemiah, who made the people separate from their wives, but when we analyze it, we find that those wives were alien wives, and that this was a special case, so this makes it apparent that it does not apply generally, else we would have to break up alien marriages.

John: Doesn't the divorce and remarriage question enter into it then at all?

James: If it does you will have to tell me how it does.

John: Well, I can't see now, how it does either. It must have been the emotional slogans that blinded me on that point. Now let's proceed to the next case; that of David.

James: Proceed.

John: David married Michal, and Michal was given to another man, yet David still regarded her as being his wife.

James: Quite true. What does that prove?

John: Don't you think it proves that the second marriage doesn't count at all?

James: It proves some second marriages do not count; but not all second marriages.

John: Why not include all?

James: Because I read in Deut. 24:4 "Her former husband who sent her away may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled." Now how do you apply that to David's case?

John: Frankly, I am confused. If this applied to David's case, then he couldn't have taken Michal back. Perhaps there is something in the context of Deut. 24:4 that would exclude David's case?

James: There is. The context is speaking of a divorced and remarried woman.

John: Wasn't Michal a divorced and remarried woman?

James: No. Had David divorced Michal he could not have taken her back after her second marriage (Deut. 24:4).

John: Didn't Michal divorce David?

James: No. A woman under the Law could not divorce her husband. She was taken away from David and given to another man. Neither David nor Michal had any say in the transaction.

John: What difference did that make?

James: It made this difference: their marriage vows that were made to each other had never been revoked. They were still man and wife, hence there was no law prohibiting their reunion (Mal. 2:14-16).

John: I thought I was bringing a divorce and remarriage case to your attention, but I see now I wasn't.

James: Many people make that mistake of overlooking divorce, as if it were not a factor to be considered one way or the other in the relationship between a married couple. And the solemn vows of remarriage are minimized as though God did not require them to perform their vows. David's marriage contract with Michal was not revoked; therefore his case may be proof that we should not permit polygamy but it is not proof that divorce and remarried people must return to their first partner, instead of faithfully performing their second marriage contract.

John: There is another case I would like to discuss with you. John the Baptist's reproof of Herod for marrying his brother's wife.

James: That case was a violation of a law.

John: How so?

James: It was written in Leviticus 20:21, "and if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing; he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness, they shall be childless."

John: Did that mean they had to separate?

James: That is the way I understand it. You will notice in the margin an alternate rendering: instead of "it is an unclean thing" - read, "it is a separation."

John: But I thought the Law required a man to marry his brother's wife in some cases.

James: Only after the man's brother was dead. See Deut. 26:5,6.

John: Was the Law applicable to Herod?

James: Yes, it was not only the law of the land; but was the ecclesiastical law as well, for this all took place before Christ's crucifixion. Divorce and remarriage were permitted at that time. The reason John told Herod it was unlawful to have the woman he married had nothing to do with divorce and remarriage. It was because it was his brother's wife he had taken and the Law of Moses required such to separate.

John: Then you say that all the cases I have cited for examples were under the time of the Law, and are special cases which do not apply to the divorce question?

James: Yes. Do you have any other cases in mind?

John: I had thought to mention the case of Abraham, Sarah and Abimelech, but I can see now it would be far-fetched to try to apply that to the present question.

James: Yes, you see Abraham did not divorce Sarah when Abimelech invited her to become his wife (Gen. 12:18). It is like the case of David and Michal, except that God intervened to prevent Abimelech from sinning in this matter (Gen. 12:17; Gen. 20:18).

John: I see there are no examples then which I could give in support of the doctrine that men should put away their divorced wives before breaking bread, but there are Scripture passages which appear to me to support that view.

James: It is necessary to approach Scripture with an open mind, because if we have a wrong notion in our mind, we can always read it into the Scripture.

John: I shall try to have an open mind and be fair in my reasoning. Now I ask you, how you can countenance marriage between a brother and sister who have former living partners in view of what is written in Rom. 7:1,3?

James: I read, "Know ye not, brethen, for I speak to them that know the law:" Now what is Paul speaking about here?

John: The law of Christ, of course, because the Apostle was writing to believers in Christ.

James: I'm afraid you're mistaken, because in verse four Paul tells the believers, "wherefore my brethren ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God." Now do you think the believers had become dead to Christ's law?

John: No. Obviously they were under Christ's law when they were married to him. It was the Mosaic Law they were dead to.

James: Very well, then note carefully that this law they had become dead to is the law Paul is speaking about from the first verse of the chapter. If it is the Mosaic Law in the fourth verse, it must be the Mosaic Law also in the first, second, and third verses.

John: I see your point, but pray tell why would Paul be instructing the believers in the observance of the Mosaic Law at that late date?

James: Paul was not teaching the Mosaic Law in this chapter, for he spoke to those who already knew it. He was, in fact, showing that believers have become dead to it by the parable of a woman married first to the law and then to Christ.

John: But didn't you notice that the woman was said to be married to the husband so long as he liveth?

James: Yes, but let's get back to verse one. Do you see that Paul is speaking of the Mosaic Law?

John: Yes, I do now.

James: Then notice Paul is addressing those who know that Law, telling them that it has dominion over a man as long as he lives. You must bear in mind that these are rules of the Mosaic Law. He was bringing out an illustration of the death of the Mosaic Law to believers and showing how it sets one's wife free at his death, to illustrate the point that believers are free to belong to Christ.

John: Under the Mosaic Law, divorce and remarriage were permitted; so, how can you say that the woman under the Law was bound to her husband as long as he lived?

James: It was Paul who said it. All we have to do is to consider the Mosaic Law to learn his meaning. The women under the Law were not permitted to divorce their husbands.

John: But they got the divorce when their husbands granted it.

James: That's just it. The woman could not leave her husband of her own accord. The Law prohibited her leaving, but if she were divorced, she falls under another category; namely, a woman without a husband. Paul speaks of the woman who HATH an husband. As long as she had an husband she was bound to him. She could not leave him for another man until he died. Her husband was in a different position, however. He could marry someone else, or divorce his wife.

John: I know the Mosaic Law did place the woman in that position, and since it is the Mosaic Law Paul is dealing with, he must be referring to a woman that was undivorced when he speaks of the woman that hath an husband, but why does he say, "If while her husband liveth she be married to another man she shall be called an adulteress"?

James: We can only interpret it according to what we know about the Law. Since the man from whom a woman was divorced was styled "her former husband," instead of her husband, it can only mean she was bound by law to the husband who had now married her. Certainly she was not bound by the law to her former husband who had divorced her--but Paul is not speaking of former husbands-- he is speaking of husbands. If while she had an husband she married another, she would be an adulteress. If, however, he died, she would not be committing adultery.

John: Do you think repentance and not separation would be all that would be required of the woman Paul is speaking about?

James: No indeed. As long as her other husband was living, she would be committing adultery by living with her new husband just as much as if she were living with both men at the same time. In other words, it would be bigamy.

John: Then I understand you to say that under the Mosaic Law when a divorcee remarried it was alright, but when a woman with a husband remarried, it was all wrong?

James: That is correct. Do not, however, get the impression that the Law upheld divorce. The Law permitted it because of the hardness of the children of Israel's hearts, but it was really contrary to the spirit of the Mosaic Law. The spirit of that Law was expressed in Christ's law, even though he did not permit his people to divorce their partners. His law was an advancement from the Mosaic Law rather than something in opposition to it.

John: Since divorce under Christ's law is prohibited, aren't divorcees and women with husbands all now in the same category?

James: They are all prohibited from remarrying. Nothing but death would leave them free to remarry, (unless their case is covered by the exceptive clause of Matt. 19:9 or the Pauline privilege granted in 1 Cor. 7:27, 28; 1982 revision, D.S.) because Jesus said "He that marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery." But Jesus also said, "what God hath joined together let no man put asunder." He did not say, "can not man put asunder." When a man lets man put him and his wife asunder and goes and marries another woman, he commits adultery against his first wife. Divorce and remarriage together constitute adultery (Mark 10:11). They so sever the bond between man and wife that, according to Deut. 24:4, it would be an abomination for the party to live with the first partner.

John: Even though the person can't return to his first partner, isn't he committing adultery to live with his newly married wife?

James: Adultery is an act against someone. If the bond has been broken between a couple who were once man and wife, then the man is not committing adultery against her when he lives with his new wife. It is when a man is still bound to his first wife that he commits adultery, such as in polygamy, or in the ACT of divorcing and remarrying another.

John: What did Bro. Roberts have to say about divorce and remarriage?

James: He said that "Where the law recognizes man and woman, in any case as husband and wife, there can be no question of adultery." Christadelphian, Dec. 1981.

John: But how do you reconcile Bro. Roberts' words with Mark 10:11?

James: Bro. Roberts firmly believed that marriage with a divorced woman constituted an act of adultery against the first wife, but the sin having been committed severed the man's relationship with his first wife, so that he lived with his second wife as her lawful wedded husband. Perhaps this illustration will help to clarify the matter. If you sign and give away your pay check, which should have gone to support your children, someone else has full claim on it, even though you did wrong in giving it to him. The twice married man has broken his bond with his first wife, made his vows to his second wife and signed his name to the contract. He therefore belongs to her and would be committing adultery against her to leave her for any other woman.

John: But couldn't he leave her and remain single?

James: No, not without a just cause, for Jesus said, "Let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay." If you make such a covenant, you must perform your vows. The case of the Gibeonites is also an example of the matter. When Israel solemnly vowed to spare them, Israel sinned. But, when Saul slew some of them, he displeased God because his act was in violation of the covenant.

John: Back in those days a covenant meant a lot.

James: It means just as much today. We can't make our solemn vows to a partner one day, and come to her a few days later with the explanation that we have decided to break them, unless we have a divine command to do so.

John: What were Bro. F.G. Jannaway's views on these matters?

James: According to Bro. Dowling, he stood with him and Bro. Roberts. You see Bro. Dowling was co-editor of the "Berean" with Bro. Jannaway, and had the opportunity of having his mind on the subject, as well as that of Bro. Roberts, who was of one mind with him.

John: Did you ever read Bro. Jannaway's pamphlet called, "Dare Any Of You"?

James: Yes, it is a very good discussion on divorce and remarriage.

John: Do you mean to tell me that it expresses the views that Bro. Dowling expressed in his writings, such as "The Clapham Change," and "The Clapham Folly"?

James: Certainly. Bro. Dowling did not favor divorce and remarriage. The numerous quotations from the pen of Bro. Roberts against divorce and remarriage are all in harmony with his view. There is nothing in Bro. Jannaway's pamphlet, "Dare Any Of You," or in the writings of Bro. Roberts which says the remarried couples should be made to separate. If there were, brethren would be justified in quoting them to refute the position taken by the Bereans.

John: In 1 Cor. 7:39, Paul says, "The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth: but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." Now Paul is giving instruction to believers, about marriage, in that chapter. So, do you consider his words in verse 39 to apply to believers?

James: Yes. Let us note carefully what he says in the verse. The binding together of man and wife is by law. It is because of this fact, John, that we can't break up these marriages you were speaking about. See what Paul says in the tenth verse, "And unto the married I command, yet not I but the Lord, let not the wife depart from her husband." Now can you tell me, in the face of such plain scripture, that if a wife wishes to leave her husband, she is free to do so at will?

John: Hardly; but I thought Paul meant the first marriage.

James: Divorce and remarriage was a common thing among the Jews. The history of Josephus, for instance, tells how he divorced one woman and married another. Consequently the people who embraced the Faith were composed of some who had former wives or husbands still living. Paul didn't tell them to go back to their first partner. He doesn't pick out any certain ones. He speaks to the married, making no reference to whom they were married to, or how many times they had been married before. He tells them that as long as the wife is married to her husband she is bound to him by law. And if she departs, he explains, she should remain unmarried or be reconciled. This is what wives should do.

John: You spoke of divorce and remarriage taking place before baptism; there is no such thing as marriage among the unbaptized. When they are baptized, they become married to whatever partner they have, so that is really their first marriage.

James: "If any man speak let him speak as the oracles of God." Jesus, in speaking to the Pharisees, who were not only unbaptized but antagonistic to him, explained that, "whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her." If this applied to the unbaptized Pharisees, there is no reason that I know of why it could not also apply generally to the rest of the Jews, who later became Christians. Marriage exists also among the Gentiles, for even though they may be without law, (God's law) they are in subjection to the law of the "powers that be, which are ordained of God." God reproved the greatest apostate church on earth, for prohibiting marriage, thus increasing fornication (1 Tim. 4:3). The person who thinks clearly readily perceives that, if you let or allow people to remain as they are when they enter the "Truth" (which Paul commands us to do), then you shatter your argument that people are living in adultery as long as they live with divorced people. The argument that the unbaptized are unmarried might be a way out, especially with the many clauses to get around most difficulties; but there is one obstacle in its way.

John: What is that?

James: The Scriptures of Truth. They tell us of the wives of men who were neither Jewish or Christian, such as: Potiphar, Naaman, Nebuchadnezzar, Pilate, etc. They speak of marriage as that which God has joined together, even among the Pharisees where the Truth was not obeyed. They speak of the world in Noah's day, and in the day of Christ's coming, as being busy buying, selling, planting, building, "marrying, and giving in marriage." Now if marriage only exists among believers, why did God speak this way about unbelievers? You have seen how Rom. 7:3 applied in Mosaic times; 1 Cor. 7:3 applies in our time in the same way. The husband is the man to whom she is last married; be he the first, or some other one, unless, of course, she has a previous marriage standing and unrevoked; and to this (her last) husband, the woman is bound by law, and prohibited from leaving him to take another.

John: Why do you insist that it is the last marriage that binds?

James: Because the Scriptures tell us it is an abomination in God's sight for a woman to return to her former husband.

John: But isn't that part of the Mosaic Law which was done away?

James: If one understands that Christ's law was a step higher than the Mosaic Law, he will heed the instruction of the Master and his apostles to use the children of Israel for a lesson to avoid committing the abominations they committed, and to follow the spirit of the Mosaic Law as incorporated into Christ's law. God doesn't change. Such things as abominable moral conduct never receives His commendation. For example, the practice of men defiling themselves with men or with beasts remains an abomination in our day, as well as in Mosaic times; so I see no reason why we should make an exception in the case of wives returning to their former husbands.

John: In view of the fact that the first contract has been broken and a new contract formed, and also that God prohibits the man or woman from returning to their first partner, I suppose there is no other way than for the couple to stay as they are: but, how can we take them back?

James: Have you forgotten the parables of the Pharisees and Publican, the Prodigal Son, the Lost Sheep, Lost Piece of Money, etc.?

John: Oh, I realize God forgives us at baptism, but I am talking about sins committed afterward. Since most of our brethren know more than to commit such sins, would we not do well to classify them as presumptuous and unforgivable sins?

James: We dare not judge. Other sins such as: alien marriage, lying, drunkenness, absence from the Lord's table, etc., may be committed with as much knowledge as the one in question, and therefore are just as presumptuous. Let God be the judge. If we say a sin is unpardonable, that means that regardless of whether the marriage is dissolved by death, or whatever happens, we can never take the party back. Such reasoning therefore does not help the cause of those who seek to bring about a separation.

John: Under the Law, if a person sinned through ignorance, he was forgiven, but not if he did so knowingly. Why do we not do in like manner?

James: Under the Law there were offerings for those who had committed an offense knowingly, called the "trespass offerings," but those could never take away sin; they were types of Christ's offering, which was to remove our transgressions from us. Let us not lose sight of the fact we have a merciful High Priest, who has gone into the heavens for us; and that we, like Israel who waited for their High Priest to come out from the Holy of Holies, wait for our High Priest to return and bless us.

John: Truly, I live in this hope, but I can not understand why God should forgive people who go so far as to divorce and remarry. It doesn't seem fair to the rest of us.

James: Love and forgiveness go hand-in-hand. Why is God so forgiving? Why did Christ have such mercy on his erring brethren as to lay down his life for them? Why did not God blot out all of us except Jesus, and leave him to have the earth all to himself? He is a God, slow to anger and plentious in mercy. We can never hope to fathom His greatness, or His mercy. It is as deep as the ocean and as high as heaven. Let us not be like the creditor who demanded every cent from his fellow, after being forgiven a great debt.

John: Then if I had a wife I could go and divorce her and remarry someone else, and all would be forgiven. So why do I try to do right? I can get forgiveness for whatever I do.

James: Hold on here. You have to answer to the Judgment Seat of Christ. You have to build up a character of good works. The sins you commit, you must repent of wholeheartedly, and strive to overcome. We take brethren back into fellowship, but we do not judge them. Many brethren in fellowship may be rejected because of their insincerity; it is for us to repent humbly, as the Publican, and strive with every atom of strength we have to do that which is pleasing in God's sight. Both David and Peter committed sins which they knew were wrong, but consider the great works of Peter and David. Consider their many faithful acts of obedience. These instead of penance, God requires. Sing praise to the Name of the Lord; relieve the fatherless and the afflicted. Preach the Gospel to all who have ears to hear. Strengthen your brethren in the way; and if perchance you should cross over the line, and follow the flesh where you should have obeyed the Spirit, there is a merciful High Priest, who was tempted in all points like as we are, who will plead for our forgiveness to the Father. We are prone to look on the outward appearance. The man who from his armchair complains about his brethren and sisters, may seem more righteous to us than the man who devotes his life to the work of the Truth, and has a good and earnest heart, even though he slips at times and follows the flesh.

John: When I look back over my past life, I realize I have so little to display by way of works that I almost fear for myself. And as for transgressions, I begin to realize I have let the flesh rule me many times, even when I was trying to do the right thing. Perhaps it was myself I should have been concerned about.

James: With that humble attitude you are in a position to understand this matter, not only from an academic view-point, but from a merciful and sympathetic view-point also. One fails to get the complete picture if he is unable to love his erring brethren. Jesus is touched with the feeling of our infirmities. God's love over us is compared to the pity of a father for his children. If you saw your erring brother about to be crushed by a locomotive, you would still extend your love toward him and rescue him, wouldn't you?

John: Certainly.

James: Love and mercy in desiring to spare his life eternally is far more important, and required, than rescuing him from physical danger in the present world. We do not wish to condone anyone's wicked works, but we are exhorted that, "he that turneth a sinner from the error of his way, shall save a soul from death, and hide a multitude of sins." So instead of trying to destroy that which is lost, let us seek its salvation.

Written by David Sommerville
Glendale, Avoca, Pennsylvania
November 26, 1951

Bro. G.V. "Rene" Growcott, July 1971