HOME | BOOKS/BOOKLETS | THE MAGAZINE
SITE MAP | EMAIL

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT

PAGE 90

WE have considered a number of matters all bearing on the question of marriage -- matters none of which were free from difficulty, but which are so related to the subject that without considering them it would have been impossible to deal with practical questions both individual and ecclesial.

What is the divine will on this subject of marriage relationships? The answer in this, the last chapter of this book, as in the first, is the announcement made at creation. Woman was not made of the earth, as the females of other species, but "out of" man, therefore her name "Out-man" or Woman. The purpose of this method which God has employed is given in the words: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh." It is not of much moment whether these words of Gen. 2:24 were the pronouncement of Adam or a divine declaration; if Adam's, we are sure the words were approved of God, all doubt on the matter being eliminated by Christ's appeal to them.

PAGE 91

Marriage, then, has its fundamental principles rooted in the creative purpose. One woman was made for the one man and they two became one by marriage as they were one in creation before the woman was made. But the method of creation indicated that it was intended that marriage should fulfil social and spiritual purposes besides those aspects of life common to beast and bird. Therefore, the original creation is a type of the new creation which consists of a second Adam and his bride. The revelation concerning the Lord and his bride should be allowed to illustrate the relationships of husbands and wives, as is set forth beautifully and profoundly by Paul in Eph. 5:22-33.

By a question on the subject of divorce, much disputed through differing interpretations of Deut. 24:1-4, the Pharisees thought they could entangle Jesus -- whatever answer he gave to their question would offend someone. They seemed incapable of learning that their best efforts failed to ensnare him, for while their guile was met with the skill of a clear thinking teacher sent of God, their sophistries were exposed by a statement of principles. The fundamentals of the matter, he said, were to be found in the words of Genesis, which were God's declared will for men. He that made man said: "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh." On this Jesus made the comment: "Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." By God's arrangement a man and woman who accepted each other in marriage were man and wife for life, and man should not by his laws sunder that union. The Lord's answer is a firm endorsement of God's revealed purpose, and all the Lord's

PAGE 92

disciples should uphold his declaration as the divine standard.

But in this matter, as in everything else, man has often gone contrary to God's purposes. There has been an evident decline from the divine standard in the past; God has permitted some things and regulated others in patriarchal and Mosaic times, as we have seen. Even so, the words of the prophets, who often laid hold of the vital relationships of human life to illustrate their message, touch the subject in a way that unmistakably shows God's mind. Hosea, for example, had to go through a painful domestic experience in order that God's relationship to Israel might be graphically set forth. God sternly charged Israel with unfaithfulness like a woman who became "a wife of whoredoms" and foretold dire judgments; but with a yearning love that shows no unfaithfulness on His part, He tenderly called for a return to Him, and foretold a restoration when His people would be betrothed to Him in faithfulness for ever. What is but the negative side of this attitude revealed through Hosea was bluntly declared by the later prophet Malachi: "The Lord the God of Israel saith that he hateth putting away."

In God's dealings with Israel we have a divine example to guide us. There may be actions and arrangements that fall below the divine ideal which on occasion may be permissible, or have to be permitted; but the ideal must never be lost sight of, and it should be so plainly and so persuasively maintained that at least none who knows the Truth has any excuse for any lapse.

From the earliest days of the revival of the Truth the major problem affecting British ecclesias in connexion with

PAGE 93

marriage has been the upholding of the rule that a marriage must be "only in the Lord". Among English speaking brethren abroad other problems have arisen through the facilities for divorce provided in the civil laws under which they live. In the last forty years, however, great social changes have taken place in Britain. Two world wars have loosened moral standards, while at the same time interest in the Bible has so far declined that the majority of people know nothing or next to nothing of its contents. In 1937 the Matrimonial Causes Act laid down new conditions for divorce, including desertion for a period of three years. The promoters of this new legislation had in mind relief for what were regarded as hard cases, and probably did not realize that the floodgates were being opened for a spate of appeals reaching about 50,000 a year. At the present rate (written in 1950) the number of divorces increases yearly by about 100,000. In many cases re-marriage at once is contemplated, and in the majority of cases re-marriage at some time might be expected. Clearly a new social environment is in the making in a land which two generations ago was marked by strict conventions.

But as a consequence of these changes there will, sooner or later, arise problems for Christadelphian ecclesias. Any one of these men and women who have been divorced may come to know the Truth. There may have been a second marriage, with perhaps children of the second marriage. The first marriage may have been entered upon in the glamour of uniform in war-time, without any home life at any time having been established. What should an ecclesia do? Probably by far the majority of men and women in these circumstances entered upon married life

PAGE 94

ignorant of the character of marriage as revealed in Scripture. The strong leavening of evolutionary thought, imbibed from school days, fosters a view of marriage in which biology rather than religion dominates the thought. From the start such marriages are regarded as terminable by recourse to the divorce courts -- a process now so common that little stigma is felt to attach to it. In fact, in many ways some modern marriages are little different from pagan marriages of the first century, and many of the converts in Paul's ecclesias before they knew the Gospel had much in common with the modern pagan. It is clear that in these cases the clock cannot be put in reverse; to seek to do so would create endless problems. But there are some things that must be done. The Scripture teaching on this subject should be plainly set forth; conviction of an error, even one made in ignorance, leading to confession, is necessary to forgiveness for shortcomings. Assent to the divine principles on marriage in the case of a divorced or divorced remarried person is essential before baptism.

A greater emphasis upon the divine ideals of marriage has become necessary. We are all creatures of environment and the conditions which prevailed sixty or seventy years ago made such emphasis less needful than today, but present circumstances make instruction on this subject of great importance.

If, despite instruction, or through some failure to obtain it, a brother or sister seeks divorce and re-marries, what then is the duty of the ecclesia? The matter cannot be overlooked, but the action of the ecclesia may vary with circumstances. To cite a precise problem, a brother or sister may have been forsaken by a partner for many years

PAGE 95

and the partner may have formed a further alliance without a marriage ceremony. Here the "exceptive clause" would appear to apply. But even in such cases caution may be necessary, as another illustration shows. A brother or sister may be unfaithful to their partner and the behaviour of the erring one pains and shocks the ecclesia. The offended partner may adopt an air of injured innocence and claim the right to divorce. It may be, however, that the "innocent" one is largely responsible for the other's lapse; persistent cruelty, or the continual wearing of a critical tongue, may have built up a repressed resentment that at last has burst the bonds of convention to the surprise of all friends and acquaintances. While no justification can be advanced for an open wrongdoer, a divorce under such circumstances can present an ecclesia with the problem of dealing with two erring people: and who can assess which may have sinned most in the eyes of the Almighty? The best an ecclesia can do is to judge every case patiently and carefully on its merits.

As a means of protection for children, divorce provided for by the "exceptive clause" may on occasion be desirable, but a divorce from an erring partner when another partner is already chosen, violates both spirit and letter of the Lord's teaching. The lesson of God's dealings with Israel in Hosea's prophecy shows the need for forbearance and patience that forgiveness may be exercised and recovery achieved; it also excludes the rigorous view, which some brethren have held, which regards divorce of an unfaithful partner to be a duty.

It is important for all who find married relationships strained to think of the words of Hosea, of Malachi, of

PAGE 96

Paul, and above all, of the Lord Jesus. It is important also to remember the teaching of the Lord in his reference to eunuchs. When the disciples expressed their surprise as Jesus so uncompromisingly laid down God's rule for the sanctity of marriage, and said that if that were so, "it is good not to marry", Jesus replied that some were eunuchs for the Kingdom of heaven's sake. In its immediate context Jesus was recognizing that a celibate life might be deliberately chosen for the sake of the Kingdom. At the same time he recognized that all could not receive the saying. But we do not violate the spirit of his teaching by giving the saying a larger context. Like several of his declarations there are many applications: and one application would be to the case of a brother or sister who finds it necessary to secure full separation from an unchaste partner -- when the path chosen voluntarily by the eunuchs for Christ's sake may be the best choice. Even so, it must not be forgotten that Jesus added, "he that is able to receive it, let him receive it". He recognized human weakness and was sometimes kinder and more understanding than his followers to fellow mortals.

It has been reasoned, and we can enter into the views of those who do so, that repentance of necessity involves a change of conduct. For example, the exacting tax gatherer not only ceased his exactions but repaired the wrong done when Jesus brought salvation to his house (Luke 19:8). On obeying the truth the thief ceases to steal, but labours to give; the drunkard puts temptation far from him by complete abstinence. The incestuous person in Corinth had to break the unlawful relationship before he was forgiven. So it is said, a divorced person who is re-married should separate as a condition of fellowship. It should be

PAGE 97

remembered, however, that in these cases two, and possibly three people are involved. Full reparation may be impossible to the one who is sinned against; a new marriage may have been entered into; a further divorce would add sin to sin; and we might ponder the fact that God forbade a return to a former husband of a divorced wife (Deut. 24:4). The real difficulty felt by brethren who call for this stern attitude to fellowship arises from the view that such a marriage is not really marriage but an illicit union -- that there exists "a state of adultery" (a vague phrase which can cloud thought). But in the examination of Christ's teaching we saw reason to conclude that he recognized the new union as marriage, but regarded those who entered into it as comparable to persons who cherish lustful thoughts and who, in the view of Jesus, thereby commit adultery. That it is a marriage which contravenes the Lord's teaching is fully evident, and this should not be disguised: but so also is a marriage "not in the Lord". Therefore, in both cases it is requisite that the sin of entering into such a marriage should be recognized and repented of; and when the true teaching of Scripture is devoutly acknowledged, we can conceive it possible that some who recognize the grievousness of their error may feel that for them the saying about eunuchs applies and for them indicates the only possible course; but it is not in the power of any to impose this. Others finding themselves in a position where there are difficulties in whatever course of action they may take, may endure the torture of conscience that comes with the feeling that wrongdoing has put them in a position where to do right altogether has become impossible. Such a situation is one of the products of sin -- the tragedy that the sinner is so enmeshed in the consequences of his sin that there is no way open entirely free from further wrong. Thus a man who

PAGE 98

has divorced his wife for desertion and married another, has wronged the first wife, and any attempt to rectify it can only be by doing a further wrong, this time to the second wife.

An ecclesia which feels moved to take the extreme action of withdrawal and maintain that attitude when there is repentance, may find itself in the position of accepting a convert who has been divorced and re-married, and refusing a brother or sister in exactly the same relationship. There is, of course, a difference in responsibility and culpability, calling for different approaches to the offenders, but repentance in each case is the way to divine forgiveness and should therefore be the way to fellowship. It should hardly need saying that when a brother or sister enters into a marriage which contravenes the Lord's teaching and persists in justifying the action, there can only be one course of action for an ecclesia -- that of withdrawal.

The subject of divorce and re-marriage has been a fruitful cause of division in Christendom; it has been a cause of division among some sections of Christadelphians. On some points there will be a difference of opinion until the Lord comes: but if recognizing the difficulties which are inseparable from the subject we can follow the lines suggested in dealing with offenders, it should be possible to maintain a united body. In particular cases only the ecclesias concerned can judge the deserts of the parties. Earnest upholding of the exalted ideals of the Lord's teaching must be so combined with patient seeking to recover a sinner from error that in both respects we do the Lord's will.

CONTENTS | PREVIOUS | NEXT