HOME | MAIN BOOKS PAGE | SITE MAP | EMAIL

MAIN PAGE | NEXT

Burnet, Texas
February 23, 1949

Dear Brother Wolfe,

I received your letter of June 30th, 1948, that read thus:

Brother Erby Wolfe, May I protest against your intelligence in the Berean for May 1948, page 169. While I knew Bro. and Sister Lucas and others left the Houston Bereans in expressed agreement with others in various parts of the world and myself on responsibility and divorce, I had no knowledge of their being "reimmersed into the Livermore fellowship." You as a native of Texas should be personally acquainted with the Brethren Greer; and should also know that their father, the late Bro. W.J. Greer, not only taught the same as we do, but also personally practiced it - some 40-60 years ago - before I ever heard of the Truth. Brethren in New Zealand taught it; Brother Roberts taught it in the Law of Moses (pages 58-60), and in Resurrection to Condemnation, etc. more than 60 years ago.

Why call it "Livermore"? I have no reason to be ashamed of my name; nor of the Truth I have defended for some 25 years. But it is not my invention; it is BIBLE DOCTRINE -- that neither "Berean" nor "Clapham" have ever faced or answered. Are you prepared to?

In hope of redemption,

Walter J. Livermore

My answer to your above letter is in no way Ecclesial. It is my personal understanding of the divorce question.

I am sorry that you took exception to the expression "Livermore fellowship", which in reality is no more than saying, "In fellowship with Brother Livermore," but to conform to your objection, send me your title name, as the No Divorce Christadelphian, or what ever title name you use. This will enable us to drop the expression we now use. I am sure the name Christadelphian alone will not define your position, because there are four or five other branches known as Christadelphian, who believe different than you.

Brother Livermore, since I once thought (before I came into the Truth), it possible that your convictions were right, I feel entirely free to write to you on this subject, and give you the reason I changed my mind on this question.

It was several years after I came into the Truth before I knew that there were any Christadelphians divorced and remarried, before or after immersion. Therefore I do not feel that I could have been biased by love or in sympathy with someone, as some accuse us of. My mother and oldest sister were on your side of this question for quite some time after I came into the Truth, and those were as dear to me as any mother or sister could be. So the conditions at home could not have been the cause of my present convictions.

I do not take this or any other subject of the Bible in the attitude that, I know, but that, I believe this or that. This leaves room for God to be true even though it makes you or myself a liar, or in case at the Judgment Seat you and I are both wrong, then God be true though it makes both you and I liars. But maybe by both of us giving the reason for our convictions, we might learn what the will of the Lord is on this question.

You made the statement, in your letter above, that you believe as Brother Roberts did some 60 years and more ago. Your words are, "Brother Roberts taught it", and for proof you referred me to pages 58-60 [pages 57-59 of the sixth edition], in the Law of Moses. You say that you believe like Brother Roberts, and I say that I believe like Brother Roberts and the most peculiar part of it is that we both use pages 58-60 to prove that he taught what we believe-that is we use pages 58-60 of the Law of Moses as part of our proof.

Brother Livermore, do you recognize the fact that Brother Roberts is explaining the seventh commandment to the children of Israel in Mount Sinai? And do you recognize that Brother Roberts is not even attempting to explain the divorce question recorded by Moses in Deut. 24:1-4; neither the teaching of Christ, recorded by Matthew in Matt. 5:32, and 19:9. Neither by Mark, Mark 10:11, or Luke, Luke 16:18; neither the teachings of the apostle Paul on divorce recorded in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7. But he is explaining "Thou shalt not commit adultery" recorded by Moses in Exodus 20:14. And let us remember that, though a man took a second woman to be his wife, while the first was still alive, he was not a transgressor of this seventh commandment. Although to have more than one wife was a violation of the law in the beginning, before sin entered into the world, it was not a violation of the Law of Moses. For proof, we sight you Moses, who gave the Law, had more than one wife; also King David, and neither of them were adulterers-for no adulterer shall inherit the Kingdom of God.

Some say that the law on divorce in Deut. 24:1-4 is forgery, that Moses instituted it himself, and that it was not of God. They use these for proof:

1. After Moses enumerated the Ten Commandments, recorded in Deut. 5, in the 22nd verse he says: "And he" the Lord, "added no more." The law on divorce was given after that incident, and therefore it originated in Moses. But Brother Roberts says: "Moses, in rehearsing these impressive circumstances forty years afterwards, says the Lord spoke these words 'with a great voice, and he added no more' (Deut. 5:22). This cannot mean that he added no commandments after the Ten Commandments, for he immediately proceeds to narrate that the Ten Commandments having been delivered, the Lord ordered Israel to their tents, and said to Moses, 'But as for thee, stand thou here by me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments that thou shalt teach them!' (Deut. 5:30-31)." Law of Moses pages 19-20. So we see that this argument does not stand up, for Moses and Brother Roberts both teach different to them.

2. Another proof they use is that Christ taught that it was instituted by Moses, and not of God, when he said: "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives; but from the beginning it was not so," (Matt. 19:8; Mark 10:5-6). They think because he used the term "Moses" that he is teaching that Moses forged the commandment. But God told Joshua "Be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee" (Joshua 1:7). Not only God uses the term "Moses...commanded", but Moses uses exactly the same term. Many a time he speaks as though the law was given by himself. "All the commandments which I command thee this day shall you observe to do it" (Deut. 28:1). We will let one more illustration suffice. Jesus said, "Did not Moses give you the law?" (John 7:19). Now would you say that the whole law was a forgery, because of the term, "Moses gave you the law"?

So when Christ said, "What did Moses command you?" means, What did God command you through Moses? They said Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement (Mark 10:3-4). It looks like any could see from the above quotations, that God spoke through Moses and that Moses gave the Law to the children of Israel as he had received it from God.

With this thought in mind we will endeavor to study Brother Roberts' writings and see who believes like he believed. We will begin with the Law of Moses, pages 58-60 [pages 57-59 of the sixth edition], as this is the only exact reference you gave where Brother Roberts taught as you believe.

1. I believe that: "The adjustment of male and female is just as purely mechanical as the adjustment of the food to the mouth." And that:

2."The intervention of the law of God, and this alone, imparts a moral character to the relation." (page 59 [page 58 of the 6th edition]). This statement refers to all the descendants of Adam, and that the violation of this moral law was the grounds for the destruction of the demoralizing Sodomites, even though they were not in the covenants of promise.

3. I believe that: Once a man is enlightened in the Truth, he will "have a very short and decisive answer to all demoralizing theories and speculations on the relation of the sexes: 'Get thee behind me Satan'!" They will say too: "...free love, promiscuous use, harlotry or temporary marriages by so-called 'affinity'." (page 60 [page 59 of the sixth edition]).

4. I believe, "It is wrong because God forbids it, and for no other reason, and (that) there cannot be a moments compromise with what is wrong." (Page 60 [page 59 of the sixth edition]).

5. I believe: when you "marry whom you will, but once married, man and woman are one flesh by Divine law, and 'What God hath joined together, let not man put assunder.' Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled; but whoremongers and adulterers, God will judge to their own utter destruction. (Heb. 13:4), page 60 [page 59 of the sixth edition].

Here he ends the (moral character) of the relation of the sexes, then he proceeds with the law of Christ. But first we will point out the difference between your teachings and Brother Roberts'. The above is Bro. Roberts' and the following is yours:

a.1 Once you marry, man and woman, and the man or woman has been divorced from a living wife or husband, are not one flesh by Divine law, and

a.2 God hath not joined you together. Therefore the,

a.3 Man must put his wife (or the woman) asunder, for

a.4 Marriage is not honorable in such cases. And

a.5 The bed is defiled.
Back to Brother Roberts, The Law of Moses, page 60 [page 59 of the sixth edition]

6. I believe that the foregoing relates to the moral law, and that: "The law of Christ lifts the matter a stage higher, and kills disobedience in its very inception...but I say unto you that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." page 60 [page 59 of the sixth edition] Robert Roberts.

It is very evident, to any one who will persue pages 58-60 [pages 57-59 of the sixth edition] of The Law of Moses, that Brother Roberts does not have under consideration, the divorce question. For proof: He does not even mention Deut. 24:1-4; Matt. 5:32; 19:9; Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; nor the seventh chapter of 1st Corinthians: and these are the only places that Christ, Moses or the Apostles gave a law concerning divorce and marriage with one another.

You made the statement above in your letter to me, that you believed like Brother Roberts did some sixty years ago. Your words, "Brother Roberts taught it" (referring to your teachings). Now to see if you do [teach the same things] I will quote you one of his statements directly on the subject, some fifty-seven years ago, made after being asked in regards to divorce and remarriage. In the cover notes of the December Christadelphian 1891, the following is found: "Divorced" of which the following is an extract: "Where the law recognizes man and woman in any case as husband and wife, there (cannot be, or) can be no question of adultery." Robert Roberts. The words in parenthesis is mine. Now do you believe that or not? If you agree with Brother Roberts here, then you and I are in agreement on this point, if not, then please refrain from saying that "Brother Roberts taught it", that is your teachings, before you ever heard of the Truth.

BROTHER W.J. GREER

I feel quite thankful that you have chosen these two men for your witnesses, especially since I am somewhat acquainted with Brother Roberts through his writings, and Brother W. J. Greer by personal acquaintance, and close relation. Brother W. J. Greer is my Uncle William. His last wife was my Grandmother Wolfe's own sister, by whom he had six sons, of whom you spoke as the Brethren Greer. The oldest, Jim, and the youngest, Jess, married two of my mother's sisters, so you can see our close relation. Then to make them feel closer still, Uncle William and my Grandfather Wolfe, were pioneers together in bringing the Truth to light in Texas.

Brother W. J. Greer was in fellowship with my grandfather (the late Brother W. K. Wolfe), until my Grandfather's death. He was also in fellowship with my father until his (W. J. Greer's) own death, April 1928. His sons, the Brethren Greer of whom you spoke, were in fellowship with my father something over two years after their father's death in the latter part of 1930. (As I have been informed that the division came that year.)

It is true, as far as I know, that Brother W. J. Greer in the latter days of his life, something over twenty years ago, did lean very strongly towards your position on this question. We visited him in the Fall of 1927, before he died in the following spring. He impressed me very much, when he arose and gave us a stirring talk. I was only 19 years old. He spoke some on this very subject. I remember that he said that he had prayed and had cried over this subject, and as far as I remember, he leaned your way quite strongly, but not to the point that you do, or, that you say he did. The reason I say this is, he was in fellowship with Sister Soloman, who was divorced and remarried. He also was in fellowship with Sister Linerweaver, if that is spelled correctly, who was divorced and remarried. And to Sister Isaac Forsythe, if that is spelled correctly, who was divorced and remarried.

Now with these facts, how do you say that "Brother W. J. Greer, not only taught as you do, but personally practiced it some 40-60 years ago."?

1. Do you call, fellowshipping the sisters named above, personally practicing your teachings?

2. Will you personally fellowship those that he personally fellowshipped?

3. Will you personally fellowship my father, who is personally in fellowship with those who have been divorced and remarried? Brother W. J. Greer did. And not only he, but his sons also, for over two years after their father's death -- until the 1930's.

Now if you will not personally fellowship the above named cases, then you should by all means publically withdraw your statement that "Brother W. J. Greer personally practiced it", that is your teachings.

BIBLE DOCTRINE

It is true that you say you are teaching "Bible Doctrine," but we will not take your or my word for it. To be Bible doctrine it must be according to Christ and the Apostles. As thus saith the Lord. I do not have any of your writings on this subject, but I have read some of them. I believe that your teachings are thus:

1. Whosoever putteth away his wife, for any cause, and not even excepting the one cause "fornication" named by Christ, in Matt. 5:32, Matt. 19:9, is living in a sinful state, adultery.

2. This sinful alliance must be broken by "putting asunder" regardless if children have been born by this union, or marriage and he has been legally and lawfully divorced from his first wife by the powers that be.

3. And that this also applies to men and women who have never heard of the Truth, aliens or what not. When they come to the waters of baptism, they must "Seek to be loosed," and "put asunder" this second person, prior to entering into the waters of baptism. Even though Christ was not sent to any except "the lost sheep of the house of Israel," (Matt. 15:24), his command to his apostles before the call of the gentiles, must also be applied to the gentiles, even though Christ says, "All men cannot receive that saying," and the Apostle Paul says, That Christ left no commandment, "I have no commandment of the Lord." 1 Cor. 7:25. "To the rest speak I (Paul) not the Lord" (7:12).

4. Although this second wife had never been married before, she is not married to this man who is divorced from a wife, she just thought she was. Therefore, she is at liberty to seek to be loosed, divorced, and at liberty to marry another man with no sin being committed in this second marriage.

And then you call it "Bible Doctrine"?

Then you say, "It is not my invention."

"IT IS NOT MY INVENTION"

To this I am inclined to agree with you. At least part of it is not your invention; for part of it was invented in the twelveth century by Peter Lombard (1100-1160). It was he that defined the "Seven Sacraments." I will give you two of the sacraments, which he introduced into the Catholic doctrine, as he defined them. He introduced all seven, to cleanse a child from original sin, and from all previous sin, and make him a Christian, a child of God, and an heir of heaven. The seventh he defined thus:

1. Baptism: The pouring of water with saying of certain words, cleaned the child from original sin, and from all previous sin and made him a Christian, a child of God, and an heir of Heaven.

And the seventh he defined thus:

7. "Matrimony was the sacrament by which men and women united themselves in Christian marriage, which was held to be indissoluble by human authority." (Ancient and Medieval History, by Hayes and Moon, page 624).

To this seventh sacrament you agree, and history says: "It was not until Peter Lombard's time that their nature was clearly defined" (page 624). So according to history you have Catholic doctrine, and you call it Bible Doctrine.

That neither "Berean" nor "Clapham" have ever faced or answered.

"ARE YOU PREPARED TO?"

To this I must admit that I am not as prepared as I should be. But since you have challenged me for an answer, I will do my best to define my convictions, and to give you the reasons for my convictions. Although if you have read Brother Dowling on this question, then it would seem foolish for me to try to add anything thereto.

We will try to be as brief as possible

Marriage In The Garden of Eden, Its Origin

1. Marriage, "was based upon the great fact of her formation out of man: and consisted in Adam taking her to himself with her unconstrained consent." (John Thomas, Elpis Israel, page 50).

"This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman because she was taken out of man. Therefore, 'or for this cause,' shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh" (Adam) (Gen. 2:23-24).

"He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh" Christ (Matt. 19:4).

Although this forms a one flesh union, it did not form an indissoluble one flesh union. For proof: Eve died and was not the union dissolved? Adam died, and both their bodies have dissolved, returned back to the mother earth. Is that marriage union dissolved?

You might say: But we recognize that death dissolves the union. But you are only admitting that it is a dissoluble one flesh union, for there was no more cause for death to dissolve the one flesh union than there was for sin, for there was no sin or death in either Adam or in Eve (Gen. 2:22-24).

2. This marriage in this very good state, where no sin or death existed, is a perfect foreshadowing of the Lord from heaven and his bride, in the perfect state, where no sin or death exists, and never shall be. Though the first Adam and his bride that was taken out of his side, was dissolved by sin and death, the last Adam (the Lord from heaven) and his bride, that was taken out of his side, are made free from sin and death, and, therefore, they shall become indissoluble.

1. "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery." Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11.

2."Whosoever putteth away his wife,"...is the cause of her marrying another, or, he "Causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." If a brother of Christ divorces his sister-wife and marries another, he has made a breach in the law of Christ, and his case must be dealt with as such. I believe he has committed adultery, and I only have one reason that I believe it. Why? Christ said so. We can still draw it down to a finer point than that: Whosoever divorces his wife, has already made a breach in the law of Christ, if he himself never marries another, for Christ said: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, causeth her to commit adultery."

I also believe that Christ's words "putteth away" and "Put away" have reference to divorce, and not just living apart-that Solomon had reference to when he said, "It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman." (Prov. 21:19).

The Apostle Paul throws a little light on this first case that we are considering, in the seventh chapter of 1 Cor., verses 10-11, "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord". These words of the Apostle Paul give us a key to what he is about to say, and that is, Christ has left commandment to the following-so we would not be far wrong to apply Christ's teachings in Matt., Mark, and Luke. "Let not the wife depart from her husband." I do not believe that this is a divorce case, for he adds, "But and if she [does] depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: And let not the husband put away [divorce] his wife."

These are the outstanding points of the above case.

1. Do not separate; but if they do separate,
2. Do not divorce.
3. This leaves room for reconciliation. (1 Cor. 7:10-11)
4. But if they do, divorce and remarry, they have committed adultery. Matt. 19:9, Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18. Brother Roberts, when asked for his explanation on Matt. 5:32 and Luke 16:18, says: "Christ's words relate to divorce for insufficient cause (as was at that time common among the Jews)."

Christ is the only person that I know of that gives us any light at all on this case; that is, of the New Testament writers. And he only mentions it twice. Once during the sermon on the mount, recorded only by Matthew (Matt. 5:32), and the other time he mentions it is in the "coasts of Judea beyond Jordon," recorded by both Matthew and Mark (Matt. 19:9; Mark 10:11).

Outside of these two discourses of Christ, we are totally in the dark as to what the mind of God is in the above condition. But we do have his mind on this case for which we are thankful.

First we will consider his discourse in the coasts of Judea. (Please see Matt. 19/Mark 10 chart.)

This closes Christ's discourse with the Pharisees and throws light on the moral law. As Brother Roberts shows on page 60 [page 59 of the sixth edition] of the Law of Moses, "Marry whom you will, but once married, man and woman are one flesh by divine law, and what God hath joined together, let not man put assunder." To show definitely that Brother Roberts thinks Christ is speaking up to this point on the moral law, he not only says on page 59 [page 58 of the sixth edition], "The intervention of the law of God and this alone, imparts a moral character to the relation."; but on page 60 [59 of the sixth edition] in the very next paragraph, he says: "The law of Christ lifts the matter a stage higher." (also see page 50 of Elpis Israel.)

When we realize how the Jews had corrupted the Law of Moses, (by putting away their wives, not only for untidy housekeeping, but purely for lust, such as the case of Herod and Herodias. I don't suppose there was ever a more rotten and unlawful marriage than this, for Herod to have his brother's wife, was unlawful by the Law of Moses. And to add to it a greater sin yet, Philip had not given her a bill of divorcement in her hand. Then to add further sin, Herodias would not marry him unless he would put away, that is divorce his wife, the daughter of Aretas, (which he consented to do, according to history). Then we can understand Christ's words, why he said "let not man put assunder."

By Observing Closely the Chart,
These Points Will Appear:

1. That Matthew and Mark are definitely recording the same discourse.
2. That neither Matthew or Mark recorded the entire discourse, but that each recorded the points that impressed them most. And that this is a peculiarity of different writers on all subjects of the scripture.
3. That from verse 7 through verse 12 [of] Matthew, and from verse 10 through verse 12 of Mark is the only private exposition of Christ to his disciples on this subject.

Back to our subject, Case No. 2

We find in this discourse of Christ's the desired information, for he says, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marry another committeth adultery." (Matt. 19:19)

These words of Christ are very simple, plain, clear and decisive. They need not the slightest comment.

Christ gave an exception. Everyone seems to believe that Christ said: "Except it be for fornication." But some do not believe that Christ meant the exception. Some accuse Christ of slipping in this statement; others try to overthrow it by other scriptures. Christ did not only give an exception, but he informed us as to what sin the exception would apply, namely, "fornication." So as far as I am concerned, Christ meant the exception.

I believe that if a man puts away his wife for the one cause, "fornication" (and she is actually guilty of such a demoralizing practice, which is very unseemly for the basest of men, much less a saint of the Most High God), and marries another, does not commit adultery and I only have one reason for believing it, and that reason is that Christ gave an exception for that one cause, and I value that exception.

God "Hateth Putting Away" (Malachi 2:16)

Putting away to fulfill the lust of the flesh is sinful, but when it comes to the point of living with a prostitute, which would be nothing short of living in whoredom, and would constitute [such a person] a whoremonger, then putting away looses its dark color and becomes sweet. If being one flesh with an harlot is high morals, then it leaves me out. Some brethren have even used this statement [Mal. 2:16] to prove that a man cannot put away his wife for fornication, but I personally cannot see that the Spirit is referring to the natural, but is using the natural as an allegory for the Spiritual state Judah was in at that time. Who is the wife of the youth of Judah? Was it not the promise of life and peace made to them by the Lord God at mount Sinai while the nation of Israel was in their youth? And because they had left these covenants and had gone to serving other gods, that is, committing adultery with stones and stocks, worshipping other gods after being married to Him-God was going to cut them off, give them a bill of divorcement, as He had prophesied in Jeremiah 3, and Ezekiel 23, and other places. In the meantime, God is pleading for Judah to return unto Him.

The Spirit gives this difference between the natural and the spiritual. Concerning the natural he says: "If a man put away his wife and she go and be another man's, shall she return unto him again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted?" (Jer. 3:1) "Her former husband which sent her away may not take her again to be his wife." (Deut. 24:1).

But concerning the spiritual, he says: "But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, yet return unto me, saith the Lord" (Jer. 3:1).

Some say that there is only one place that the exception is given, and that it would be wrong for anyone to take that one statement and ride it through other plain testimonies. But this is not the Truth. Christ only mentions the subject of divorce three times that we have any record of. Once while on the Mount, recorded in Matt. 5:32. Here he mentions the cause, "fornication" and excepted it. He mentions it again when he was in the coasts of Judea, beyond Jordon. And here he mentions the cause of fornication again, and he excepted it there too. Matthew records both the case of fornication and the exception. Mark in recording the same discourse, does not record anything about the case of fornication, so naturally he would not mention the exception. (Mark 10:10-29; Luke 16:18).

Why did not Mark record it? Would you try to disqualify the "except it be for fornication" in Matthew just because Mark did not record it? We have several brethren who do. Would you say that Christ did not say, "except it be for fornication," on this occasion that Mark is recording just because he failed to record it? To say so would be making Matthew a false witness! Just because Mark did not record, "except it be for fornication" does not disqualify it in Matthew because of the fact that Christ said it on this occasion, but rather qualifies it in Mark, because Christ actually said it in his discourse that Mark is recording.

And the third occasion is mentioned by Luke, or is it a third occasion? It is the only time that Luke mentions divorce. I cannot tell if Luke is recording one of the occasions mentioned above or not, but rather believe that he is not, but a third occasion. It apparently is addressed to the Pharisees between two notable parables. It reads thus: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery" (Luke 16:18). Almost the exact words of Mark. Luke, like Mark, does not mention in case of fornication, so naturally he wouldn't mention the exception. Why did not Luke mention how the case would stand in case it was for the cause of fornication? He could have used the same reason that Mark did.

Now for me to say that if Luke had brought in the case of fornication, that he would have made an exception for it, would be based entirely on what Matthew said about it. And for you to say, that if Luke mentioned "fornication," that he would have said: Whosoever putteth away his wife, including the cause of fornication, and marrieth another, committeth adultery, would be entirely speculation, without precept or example.

Now in the place of the usual cry, "you are riding on an inference, or an apparent exception right on through, against plain testimonies." We find it right the reverse. We find only three plain testimonies on this subject, in which Christ even mentions the divorce question. On two of the occasions, he brings in the case of fornication, and gives an exception to it in both discourses. In the other place, he never as much as mentions how the case would stand in case of fornication.

Brother Roberts says: "Christ's words relate to divorce for insufficient cause (as was at that time common among the Jews)" (Luke 16:18). [See page 22 of this book, quotation #10, for whole quotation.]

Some use the case of Herod and Herodias to prove that all second marriages while the first partner is still alive, is no marriage at all, and that it is a state of sin, and that they are adulterer and adulteresses as long as they remain together, even if they were legally and lawfully divorced and remarried by the powers that be.

Where they get such an idea from the case of Herod is beyond the records. The only accusation that John the Baptist brings up is, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife." (Mark 6:18). His accusation is not because it is the second marriage, or hers. In other words, he did not say: "It is not lawful for thee to have a woman who has been divorced." No it was not lawful for him to have his brother's wife, for the law says: "Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife," (Lev. 18:16). Again, "If a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing." (Lev. 20:21).

But if you still insist that it was because she had a living husband, a divorcee, we will consider it from that angle. Since the Bible does not give any details about her divorce and remarriage, we will go to history. History says, "Herodias...was married to Herod Phillip...who had a daughter, Salome; after whose birth Herodias took upon her to confound the laws of our country and divorced herself from her husband, while he was yet alive and was married to Herod Antipas, her husband's brother." (Josephus Antic, B. 18, C. 5, S. 4) And in the footnotes reads thus: "Herod Phillip, whose wife, Herod the tetrarch had married...for which adulterous and incestuous marriage, John the Baptist justly reproved Herod the tetrarch."

Notice these points in the above. (1) Phillip had not given Herodias a bill of divorcement in her hand. For that reason, she was not lawfully divorced. (2) Without Phillip writing her a bill of divorcement, she could not lawfully be another man's wife, and if she did go and be another man's wife, without this writing of divorce, she shall be called an adulteress. (Rom. 7:2-3).

Another case that is exactly like Herodias': "When Salome happened to quarrel with Costobarus, she sent him a bill of divorce and dissolved her marriage with him, though this was not according to the Jewish laws; for with us it is lawful for a husband to do so; but a wife, if she departs from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another, unless her former husband put her away." (Josephus). So even from your own point of reasoning, you are trying to prove false, or void, a legal and lawful divorce and remarriage, by one that was illegal and unlawful.

Romans 7:1-4

This is the only passage of Scripture that seems to prove your point, and to my mind, at one time it definitely proved it, though I could not prove by any other Scripture that there was any such thing as a state of sin in a legal and lawful divorce and remarriage by the powers that be. But by this Scripture, I have proved it many times, for this passage says, "So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress." And to cap it off, I would say: and no adulteress shall inherit the Kingdom of God. Now you may ask, Do you believe that Paul is saying that this union is a state of sin? My answer is: Exactly. I do believe that Paul is saying that this marriage union is a state of sin.

Then you might ask, What is our difference then? Our difference is in this one point. Is Paul speaking of a legal and lawful divorce and remarriage or an illegal?

If Paul is speaking of a legal divorce and remarriage, then you have one Scripture in your favor. But if he is speaking of an illegal divorce and remarriage, your whole theory will collapse-for your whole theory hangs on this one testimony, for there is no other Scripture that says-she shall be called an adulteress, signifying a sinful alliance. All other Scriptures say, Whosoever putteth away his wife and marry another committeth adultery. Signifying that it is in the act of marriage, that he hath committed adultery even if he never lays with her as his wife, and saying nothing as to whether the bed is defiled or not. So we would have to find out from some other Scripture if the bed is defiled. And this Romans 7:1-4 is always used to back up the position that the bed is defiled. So let us examine the first few verses of this seventh chapter of Romans.

"Know ye not brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law) (The Law of Moses) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?" This verse seems easy to understand, for we already knew that the law didn't have dominion over a dead man.

Then turning to one point of the law he says, "For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law (The Law of Moses) to her husband as long has he liveth..." verse 3. "So then if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress."

Is it true that under the Law of Moses, that a woman could not divorce her husband? It is absolutely true, for there were no provisions made that a woman could loose herself from her husband. As far as her part was concerned, she was bound to her husband as long as he lived. If there were no provisions made for a woman to divorce herself from her husband and be married to another man, what would be the results if she did? Would she not be called an adulteress for going and becoming another man's wife without her first husband writing her a bill of divorcement and giving it in her hand?

This is exactly what Herodias did. "Herodias took upon her(self) to confound the laws of our country" says Josephus, "and divorce herself from her husband while he was alive, and was married to Herod (Antipas)." And concerning another exact case he says, "For with us it is lawful for a husband to do so: But a wife, if she depart from her husband, cannot of herself be married to another." This shows the mind of those that "know the Law."

The Law hath power over a man as long as he lives. The question arises then, how is a man going to get loose from the Law of Moses that he might be joined, or married unto Christ seeing that the man that has transgressed in one point is guilty of death, and all men have sinned? He finds himself in exactly the same condition that the wife was in under the Law of Moses. Powerless. He cannot divorce the Law, and one thing is sure, the Law will not divorce him. How is man going to get out from under the curse of death, that came by the law that he might live?

So, as the man lost his power over his wife when he died, also the Law, when it cursed Christ, a righteous man who did no sin in return, it brought a curse on its ownself by God taking away its cursing power that the man who had broken one of its commands might become free from the curse of death, that he might live, or be joined unto Christ. For fuller details read the Law of Moses. Brother Roberts uses many pages to clarify this point.

Paul's illustration here is apart from a man's power to give his wife a writing of divorcement. And those who use it to prove anything on the present day divorce question do so by perverting the Apostle Paul's meaning, as I once did, and kills the beauty of the Apostle's illustration.

Case Number Two - Concluded

In concluding, I say, "Whosoever putteth away his wife, that is a habitual fornicator, does not commit adultery, if he marries another. And whosoever putteth away his wife, except it be for fornication, and marry another, committeth adultery."

John Carter: "Adultery is not to be compromised with at any time, but marriage with a divorced woman cannot be put in this category." Cover note, Christadelphian, November 1891.

J.E.B. Writing to Robert Roberts: "Divorced," I have been requested to ask your explanation of Matt. 5:32 and Luke 16:18 in view of the statement of J.C. on cover last Christadelphian, that marriage with a divorced woman cannot be put in the category of adultery.

Robert Roberts: (Reply) "Christ's words relate to divorce for insufficient cause (as was at that time common among the Jews). He recognizes no divorce as lawful "save for the cause of fornication." This severs the bond. Human law recognizes, and we are commanded to submit to human law where it does not conflict with Divine law. Where the law recognizes man and woman in any case as husband and wife, there can be no question of adultery." R.R., Cover note, Christadelphian, Dec. 1891.

You believe: "Whosoever putteth away his wife, for the cause of fornication and marry another committeth adultery. And not only that, but is living in a state of sin." You do not believe that fornication severs the bond. You do not believe in submitting to human law in this, do you? You are not a follower of Brother Roberts on this question as you claimed to be in your letter to me, are you? You do not believe that: "Where the law recognizes man and woman as husband and wife there can be no question of adultery," do you? Brother Roberts did.

The Following Are A Few Points That Appear in Christ's Teachings:

1. God made them male and female, and for this cause man is joined unto his wife, and they two become one flesh. But not an indissoluable one flesh.

2. What God hath joined together let not man put asunder. But not: What God hath joined together man cannot put asunder.

3. There is only one cause for which a man can lawfully put away his wife and marry another.

4. Christ defines that one cause, fornication (Matt. 19:9).

5. Whosoever putteth away his wife, for any cause except fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, that is, caused her to marry another or was the cause of her marrying another. And whosoever marrieth her committeth adultery (Matt. 5:32).

6. If he marries another, he hath committed adultery. He is not only guilty for his own actions, but for hers also.

7. All men cannot receive that saying; that is we cannot say that all men have committed adultery who have divorced and remarried, even for some cause other than fornication (Matt. 19:11). Only those to whom it is given.

8. Those to whom it is given are those that have made themselves eunuchs (that is, cut off the desires of the flesh) for the kingdom of God's sake. These are able to receive the saying, so he that is able to receive it let him receive it. (Matt. 19:12).

In regards to points number 7 and 8, these are in exact agreement with the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 7:12, "But to the rest speak I, not the Lord." And again, in the 25th verse, "I have no commandment of the Lord."

This seems to be about all that Christ taught about divorce, and his teachings were to "The lost sheep of the house of Israel," - the people of God, and his Apostles. Matt. 15:24.

Concerning Gentiles

Although the above was all sufficient for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, in the days of Christ, before the call of the gentiles, there were other problems that arose after their call. We will give a few.

(a) A man who was a gentile learned the Truth; he was baptized into the Abrahamic faith; his wife positively refused to learn the Truth and to be baptized, therefore, she remained the daughter of the land, or an alien. Upon her refusal, must he put her away, and take him a wife of the seed of Abraham, or of the faith of Abraham, as in the days of Ezra?

(b) If he was permitted to live with this alien, what would he do in case she divorced him and refused to live with him, and him live the Truth?

(c) If she divorced him, is he still under bondage to her, or are they still bound together?

(d) If a man came to the knowledge of the Truth, already loosed from a wife, divorced, could he marry?

These questions are all answered in the 7th chapter of 1 Corinthians, and this is the only place in the Bible that these questions are answered. But, first let us check the foundation he lays for this subject.

(a) The apostle informs us that he is answering questions "whereof ye wrote unto me."

(b) "It is good for a man not to touch a woman, Nevertheless to avoid fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband."

Right here you and Paul disagree. You say, "Let every man that has his first wife, have his own wife, and all of those that have their second wife, he must 'put asunder,' and let them have NO wife at all. That is exactly what Paul is saying will cause fornication, for the simple reason all men cannot contain.

I doubt very much, Brother Livermore, that you would have been able to follow your own teachings, if your wife had divorced you when you were a young man-and go clear through life without a home, without a wife, without children-unless you are one of those "Born eunuchs," or one that is made a eunuch by man. Or, unless you are one like the apostle Paul, can make yourself a eunuch for the kingdom of God's sake. And even if you could, there are some that cannot contain. If God required it, it would be a different thing, even though it is a hundred times harder to live up to than the Law of Moses for some.

(c) Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time-and come together again, that SATAN TEMPT you not.

(d) When he said, He would that all men would live single, BUT EVERY MAN HAS HIS PROPER GIFT OF GOD, ONE AFTER THIS MANNER AND ANOTHER AFTER THAT, for this cause says Paul, to the unmarried and widows it is good for them to remain single, BUT IF THEY CANNOT CONTAIN LET THEM MARRY, FOR IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN.

Now since he has his foundation laid, he proceeds in verses 10-11. "Unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord." This is very, very important information that Christ has left command concerning the case that he is about to bring to our attention, he did not bring up the case until he informed us of this fact.

Case One: Both Believers - Command Is To Both

"Let not the wife depart from her husband, But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband, and let not the husband put away his wife."

By this command being from the Lord, Matt. 19:3-12, Mark 10:3-12, it qualifies the application of Matthew, Mark, and Luke where Christ also gave the command.

Case Two: One Believer - Command To Only One
No Command to the Unbeliever · Christ Left No Command (vs. 12-15)

Here the Apostle Paul starts on the new problems that have arisen by the call of the Gentiles, which did not exist during the days of Christ's teaching. Therefore Christ, did not give any law that concerned all their cases. This point Paul makes very clear, for he says: "But to the REST speak I, NOT THE LORD: If any man hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away." And vice versa with the woman.

If Paul had not informed us here that a man could live with an alien, no doubt some Brother would try to make Brethren who had alien wives divorce them, and take a wife of the seed of Abraham, as in the days of Ezra. The Apostle even gives the reason that a believer can live as husband, or as wife with the unbeliever and that reason is: The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Otherwise their children would be unclean, but now are they Holy.

But, says the Apostle, "If the unbelieving depart, let him depart, a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases."

Under the Law of Moses, a woman was bound to her husband as long as he lived (Romans 7:2). And because she was under bondage to him, she "cannot of herself be married to another." To do so, she would be called an adulteress. But in case he died, she was not under bondage to him any longer, and in such cases she could be married to another man, and not be called an adulteress. How was it that she could marry another? Was it because the Law had said that she could marry another man in case of her husband's death? No, the Law did not say that. So there remains only one reason that she could marry another, and that is, she was not under bondage any longer. So she was free to marry another, and not be called an adulteress.

Now if the brother or sister is not under bondage in the case which the unbelieving departed, how can we forbid marrying another? If the Apostle releases the "bondage in such cases," who are we that we can say that she (or he) "is bound by the law to her husband as long as he liveth"? Shall we not rightly divide the Word?

Case Three: A Man Comes To The Knowledge of The Truth,
Loosed From A Wife-That is Divorced-Can He Marry?

Before the Apostle answers this question he exhorts, "As the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk." Again, "Ye are bought with a price." Again, "Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." Now concerning these called out ones-these virgins of Christ-Paul's words, "Now," that is, In such circumstances, or, things being so as he has described in the callings "Concerning virgins," -Virgins to Christ- "I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgement... I say that it is good for a man so to be," or to be thus: "Art thou bound to a wife?" If the answer is yes, "seek not to be loosed," that is, seek not a divorce. Then he asks another question, "Art thou loosed," signifying a former tie "from a wife," signifying a married woman? Then he exhorts, "seek not a wife," but adds, "but and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned."

These words are plain, simple, easy to be understood. It is the Apostle's judgment of equity and judgment, not colored at all with Catholic doctrine.

What could be more just than the Apostle's judgment when a man is called? Art thou called bound to a wife, seek not a divorce; or, would you say, seek not to kill her? As these are the only two ways that a man can seek to be loosed that I know of. Then he adds, "are thou divorced from a wife?" When called, "seek not a wife, but and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned."

I believe this is all that could come up in the divorce cases.

The trouble with you people, Brother Livermore, is that you have invented your own rules for judging divorce cases and ignore both Scriptural precept and example. For instance, we have the matter of marriage relations treated of throughout the Scriptures, from Eden on down to the time of Christ and the apostles, yet there is not one single instance of any man of God taking any such position toward divorce and marriage as you do, or the teaching of the "Clapham folly"-- that forgiveness is impossible unless the wedded couple separate, and Clapham and you people make living together of the man and wife who have been divorced and remarried living in adultery. In fact, you show a lack of understanding of the very meaning of adultery. Adultery is an act, not a condition. It is the act of unfaithfulness against the other member of the union. There is no such thing as adultery being committed by a lawfully wedded pair. The great error committed by you and others is that you ignore the plain teachings of Christ that the sin in the case is the dissolution of the marriage bond by unfaithfulness-adultery-committed against the other member of the union. You entirely pass over this obvious teaching of the saviour and make the getting of the divorce and remarrying the great sin. Christ makes unfaithfulness the first and great sin, remarrying without the bond being Scripturally dissolved merely adds sin to sin. If the marriage has not been dissolved, then, of course, the act of remarrying is an act of adultery committed against the other party.

Here are a few points of difference between you and Paul, as I understand it.

1. Paul says: "it is good for a man not to touch a woman, never-the-less, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife."

You say it is good for a man not to touch a woman, SO FOR THIS REASON, and to avoid fornication, let every man put asunder his second wife, and have no wife at all, for all men CAN contain.

(1) I believe that you and Paul are exactly opposite.

(2) Paul separates each case that differs and gives a different application of judgment according to its circumstances, thus:

(a) To the unmarried and widows (1 Cor. 7:8)

(b) To the married (1 Cor. 7:10-11)

(1) Both in Christ, and that Christ left commandment concerning them.

(2) A brother, with a wife that believeth not. No command from Christ.

(3) One that is called, loosed from a wife. No command from Christ.

You say there is a command to the above, 1, 2, 3 classes, which includes the man that has the most precious wife, and the man that has the most contemptible wife. It is directed the man that believeth not, (alien and what not), and he that is divorced. The command to the above mixture is... Whosoever putteth away his wife, for any cause, including fornication, and marries another commits adultery, and not only that but is living in a state of sin that cannot be forgiven, except he put her asunder. Yet you cry, God hateth putting away.

I say thanks to the God of Abraham, Isaac and the God of Jacob, the God of heaven, for His judgments of justice and equity, for He is more just than man.

Christ says: Whosoever putteth away his wife. You say, in the case in which he has been divorced and married: Whosoever doth not put away his wife.

In conclusion we might point out that there is no such thing as "indissolvable union" in this sinful state. Our body proves that if our finger gets blood poison, we cut it off. Just because it is one flesh, does not make it indissolvable. We have it cut off to save the rest of the body. So it is when a husband or wife gets that awful disease, fornication, if left together, it will contaminate the whole body.

• That: Romans 7:1-4, has nothing to do with a divorce case.
• That: The case of Herodias was not only his brother's wife, but was an illegal divorce.
• That: Brother Roberts did not teach as you do. And that: Brother Greer did not practice it.
• That: Christ taught not to put away and remarry, except for fornication, and
• That: All men cannot receive that saying, only those to whom it was given, and
• That: He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
• That: Paul did not teach an indissolvable union, as you do.
• That: Death does dissolve the union.
• That: Fornication does dissolve the union.
• That: The brethren of Christ, though they are commanded not to divorce and marry another, if they do divorce and marry another, it does dissolve the union. Now if you don't believe that divorce does dissolve the union, you divorce a wife and see if you can go in unto her as your wife. You would be committing adultery. Worse still, if she marries another then you try going unto her as your wife. You may say, Oh, I know that I could not do that because of the laws of the land. But it was not the laws of the land, it was you. The laws of the land only granted you your petition. The law did not command you to put away your wife. You might say that according to the laws of the land they are married, but it is not only that, they are married also according to their word and their signature, and that is exactly what makes it effective; the law only confirms it. So the brethren of Christ should cease from all sins that even lead toward divorce, much less divorce itself, for there will soon be a day of account.
  When God told Israel, concerning the people of Canaan, "Thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them, Thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them," God did not mean that it could not be done, neither did He mean that if they did make a covenant with them to let them live, that they could just break that covenant and go ahead and destroy them, and everything would be alright. NO. For when they broke the command of God, and made a covenant with the Gibeonites, they were then obligated to perform their words, to stick to it though it was a snare unto them. After they had broken the command of God, "make no covenant with them," to go ahead and break their covenant with the Gibeonites and slay them would only be breaking another covenant; to perform a broken command, with the results of adding sin to sin. A broken vow, or a broken command, or a broken covenant is worthless. Man being the offender by breaking a command in the covenant gives the other party in the covenant (God in this case) full power to withdraw the covenant entirely, or to make the conditions of reparation.
  

When God told Israel to cross Jordon and possess Canaan, they would not. They broke this command. Then after Moses showed them the mind of the Lord, they repented and went up. But what did it profit by performing a broken command? It was only another sin, and resulted in their destruction. [Numbers 13-14].

So is it when a man divorces his wife. He has broken his vow to his wife, and if he has made a covenant with his God by baptism, he has broken a command in that covenant too (speaking apart from fornication) and he is responsible for his actions. Of course, in the Bible when they spoke of a man divorcing his wife, it was in the prospective view of either he, or she, or both marrying another. And even if the man had more than one wife, (which was lawful in the days of Christ, as Herod the Great had nine wives at one time, and his son Herod Philip II, had two wives; one was Salome, the daughter of Herod Philip I, who requested the head of John the Baptist; and the other Herodias (not the mother of Salome) and they were Jews (Josephus says by birth, and the Bible dictionary says by faith), the results would be the same. Was Salome Herod Philip's wife, or was Herodias his wife? If he put either of them away, he was guilty of her committing adultery, or caused her to commit adultery; that is, was the cause of her marrying another (Matt. 5:32). A man is responsible for his words and his actions.

Now shall we invent him a way whereby he can regain favor in the eyes of God? And which will repair the breach in the broken command? And command him to go take his former wife away from her husband, and have her to return unto him, and that by this means he will heal the breach in the law of God? and this without command or example? Or, is it God's place to make the conditions of reconciliation? If a man sins, God has left a command to repent. And that does not mean to restore your wife to her former husband, nor to take your wife to her former husband. But it means REPENT, or have another mind and disposition. When a man breaks a command of God's, and he recognizes that fact, and he comes with a broken and contrite spirit, and confesses: I have sinned, forgive me, I will live differently from here on out, (let him that hath not sinned cast the first stone), I believe that we should forgive him and receive him back, lest he be overcome with much sorrow, and lest we be tempted. Those who refuse to forgive him, and to receive him back (a person who has repented and confessed), becomes transgressors themselves, by refusing to forgive except they conform to man-made laws. For God has commanded us to forgive. He has not commanded us to invent a way by which we will forgive. Now, if we are too hard-hearted to forgive men their trespasses, and also too rebellious, how shall we be forgiven? For it is written: "If he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again unto thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him." I had rather be in the shoes of him that repented, than his who refused to forgive.

Some say, "Well, according to your theory, it is all right for a man to be a member of the armed forces, if he has made an oath to that effect before he learns the Truth, for you said a man must not break his vow." But we do not teach any such thing. If a man comes to the knowledge of the Truth while he is in the armed forces and comes for baptism, I would not refuse him, with the understanding that he apply for a discharge, and of course if they refuse to grant it, there would be nothing he could do but walk out. For, we have both precept and example by Christ, and history, that Christ commanded his servants not to be conformed to this world, to not use the sword, etc. In other words, it is lawful for a man to have a wife, and it is unlawful for a follower of Christ to be a member of the armed forces.

You said in your letter to me that the divorce question, as you see it, that is, the way you are teaching it, was in the doctrines of the Christadelphians many years before you came into the Truth, twenty five years ago. Your words, "Brother Roberts taught it...more than 60 years ago."

My great grandfather was a strong Christadelphian, and my grandfather was a strong Christadelphian, and also my father, and none of them have ever held the position towards divorce and remarriage that you people do. And in 1931, one year after the division in Texas on the divorce question, when Brother G.W. Banta was 91 years old, and he had been in the Truth 57 years at that time, he wrote an article on the divorce question, and from which I will quote you a few of his words. "It is claimed by some, that persons with a second companion after the first had been divorced under gentile law, and while the first companion is still living, are living in adultery. This is a new doctrine. Is it true? It cannot be true." Etc.

This has far exceeded what I intended to write when I started this letter. Although it has been somewhat of a long and tiresome task, it has afforded me great pleasure in bringing you a few of the many facts that caused my present convictions on this question. And I hope you have read it in the same spirit of meekness that I have endeavored to write it.

Now Brother Livermore, in your above letter to me you challenged me for an answer and here it is. Since you widely distributed your challenge to me, I am going to ask of you a small favor in return-that you mail a copy of this letter to those individuals and Ecclesias to whom you mailed a copy of your challenge to me. Then I will feel that you have done me justice.

With love and best wishes to you and yours
Your brother in Christ

Erby Wolfe

An Answer To Those Who Think You Can Go To Law To Get A Divorce