|
"They received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Therefore many believed."--Acts 17:11 |
The Berean Christadelphians |
||||||||||||
Index
|
THE FOUNDATION PRINCIPLES ON DIVORCE AND REMARRIAGE
The following is the foundation position of the Christadelphians. We do not offer this as proof of the validity of our position. We think it is proper in any discussion, and especially in discussions among Christadelphians, to first establish what the foundation position was. With that clearly established, then the question can be discussed as to whether or not the foundation position was wrong. First, we would like to give the true Scriptural stand of bre Thomas and Roberts on the subject, and which bro. Jannaway shows to have been the accepted and unquestioned belief of the Christadelphian Body at least into the 1920's. It was subsequent to that time that new errors were introduced. The following are all the statements by bro. Roberts on Divorce and Remarriage that we have ever been able to find. Quotes by
Robert Roberts 1. 1879, Aug., Inside front cover: We regret being (un*)able to think you did right by marrying, first wife being yet alive. *The "un" in parenthesis is not in the original - We suspect it's omission is an error. 2. 1882, Apr., Inside front cover: There is nothing in the law of Christ to interfere with the remarriage of a man and a woman who have been previously divorced from one another. The law of Christ rather favours every kind of reconciliation and triumph of peace. 3. 1883, Pg. 31: Question: Can Christadelphians lawfully disannul the marriage contract and marry for any other reason than that given in Matt. 5:32? If a husband or wife renounce the Truth, does that free the other from the marriage tie, so that he may marry again? Answer: No. "The Lord hateth putting away" (Mal. 2:15). 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." (1 Cor. 7:39). Nothing disannuls the marriage contract but death or adultery. Incompatibility, from belief or other cause may lead to separation, but the separated parties must remain unmarried. (1 Cor. 7:11). 4. 1884, Mar., Inside front cover: Divorce is inadmissible according to the law of Christ, except in the case he mentions in Matt. 19:9. Where this case arises, and the parties are divorced, they are at liberty to marry again, both by human law and divine. Objection may be well meant, but it is without ground.. 5. 1885, Sept., Inside front cover: There is nothing in human law or divine to prevent a man marrying again, from whom his wife has been divorced for unfaithfulness. 6. 1883, May., Inside front cover: Marriage is the voluntary, professed, and consummated companionship of man and woman for life, recognisable, and (if necessary) enforceable by the community in which they may dwell. 7. 1888, June., Inside front cover: The law - at least in England - will punish neglect, but divorce is only granted for cruelty or adultery. 8. 1888, July., Inside front cover: It is a man's prerogative to pardon the worst offence in his wife. If a brother chooses to exercise this prerogative, his brethren are not called upon to interfere. If he becomes a partaker in her wickedness, that would be a different thing. 9. 1891, Nov., Inside front cover: The safest way, in the doubtful position of the case, would be to receive the brother back. Adultery is not to be compromised on any terms, but marriage with a divorced woman cannot be put in this category. It was wrong to marry an unbeliever. If the brother admits the wrong, receive him, and let the Lord judge. 10. 1891, Dec., Inside front cover: Question: I have been requested to ask your explanation of Matt. 5:32 & Luke 16:18 in view of your statement on cover of last Christadelphian that marriage with a divorced woman cannot be put in the category of adultery. Answer: Christ's words relate to divorce for insufficient cause (as was at that time common among the Jews). He recognises no divorce as lawful "save for the cause of fornication." This severs the bond. Human law recognises this, and we are commanded to submit to human law where it does not conflict with Divine Law. Where the law recognises man and woman in any case as husband and wife, there can be no question of adultery. 11. 1892, Pg. 422: There seems nothing difficult about Matt. 5:31 & 32. The words of Christ amount to this, that his law recognises no cause of separation between husband and wife except conjugal infidelity. Human law in his day recognised many other causes, and even allowed a man to put away his wife if he had lost taste for her. By the law of Christ, a wife put away from any cause "saving for the cause of fornication" is the man's wife still, and anyone marrying her is guilty of adultery. He does not mean that if divorced from a proper cause, a woman may not marry again. His words must be taken in their connection. 12. 1898, Pg. 377: We returned to Melbourne on Fri. May 6th. Some pain has been caused by the shocking misbehaviour of one brother, and the highly unscriptural action of another in connection with it, in seeking redress in the Divorce Court. The incident has discouraged the brethren somewhat. They have not, however, the cause for shame that they would have if they tolerated or countenanced such infractions of the divine law. When brethren confess their sins and forsake them, they are entitled to forgiveness; but when they defend and vindicate them, they stand in the way of their own mercy. (The following is the Melbourne intelligence relating to this matter in "The Christadelphian" - 1898, Pg. 363 - the previous month). "We regret that we have had occasion to withdraw from bro. Middleton, on account of his maintaining the principle that he was justified in petitioning before a Gentile court of law for divorce from his wife. Bro. & sis. Roberts sailed for New Zealand on May 25th. 13. 1898, Aug., Inside front cover: If it is right for a sister to be married to an alien (which will not be maintained by those who are enlightened in the law of the Lord), it is not wrong for a sister to be married to a divorced husband 14. 1898, Sept., Inside front cover: It was the children of a "mixed marriage" that were the subjects of a passing allusion in 1 Cor. 7:14, and the "cleanness" and "holiness" had reference to legitimacy. (End of Robert Roberts quotes). Note from No.'s 3 & 11 (10 years apart) that bro. Roberts not only had absolutely no doubt of the meaning of Matt. 5:32, but that he could see no room for anyone having any doubt about it. To his clear discernment, it was inescapably obvious. Some of us with less discernment have taken longer to see it. Quotes by John Thomas Herald 1860, pg. 202: "...We have met with such in our travels; and our experience of them is in exact coincidence with Paul's, with whom we conclude that their folly will be manifest to all, as those who have turned aside to Satan to do his will. Of this class of evil spirits, Paul says, 'If any brother have a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away***for the unbelieving wife is sanctified by her husband. But if the unbelieving depart let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage to such.' 'Art thou loosed from a wife: Seek not a wife. But, and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned' (1 Cor. 7:12, 14, 27, 28. This, of course, is for brethren in Christ--not outsiders; for, says Paul, what have I to do to judge them that are without? Still, on the principle of being 'subject to the ordinances of men for the Lord's sake,' it would be necessary for such not to marry a second contemporary wife without a legal divorce." Ambassador 1866, pg. 94: "The world of outer darkness is a law to itself, and orders it to suit its own notions of right. The law of Moses allowed a plurality of wives, and divorce, and punished the 'social evil' with death. Jesus, who was 'made under the law,' did not interfere with the law, but forbad divorce upon any other ground than the wife's unfaithfulness. The apostles, whose authority he declared equal to his own in teaching the things of the Deity, allowed divorce on another ground, and for the sake of peace to the Christian party. But to carry out this gospel liberty would place a man or woman as a criminal at the bar of Gentile justice and law. Therefore, Peter has said: 'submit yourself to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake' provided, of course, that in so doing, his precepts were not transgressed; this apostolic tradition applies also to their ordinances of marriage. They [the world] forbid two contemporary wives, allow divorce on unscriptural grounds, and tolerate the 'social evil' to any extent without punishment. Hence a saint, regulated by the word, would have only one wife at a time; he would seek divorce only on scriptural grounds, and avoid the 'social evil' as the plague." * * * The following is by bro. Jannaway, "Christadelphian Answers", an oft consulted standard work among us (published in 1920) Pg. 212. "For one reason, and only one reason, does the Lord permit divorce, and that reason he gives is adultery (Matt. 5:32). In certain circumstances the parties are permitted to separate, but they must not form any other alliance. (1 Cor. 7:11) * * * I would like to add two quotations not directly related to divorce and remarriage because it is obvious, from both reason and experience, that the more divorce and remarriage are discussed among us, the more important it is to keep the basic Edenic marriage law clearly before the mind. One is by bro. Thomas, 1848, before all the above quotations, one from bro. Roberts in 1895, after most of them. 1848: Elpis Israel, Pg. 50: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." Thus Adam pronounced upon himself the sentence that was to bind them together for weal or woe, until death should dissolve the union. This was marriage. 1895, Chdn, Jan. (Law of Moses): Marry whom you will, but once married, man and woman are one flesh by divine law, and "What God hath joined, let not man put asunder." |
||||||||||||
