Early Anabaptist writers on Divorce and Remarriage

[Bootstrap]

But it certainly is ironic when people suggest that you can't be an Anabaptist or a Mennonite if you believe what the original Anabaptists and Mennonites taught.

I don't know of anyone who believes this. Do you know of some?

I think I've seen some of that here on MD - ironically, it's not usually the Anabaptists and Mennonites.

[Bootstrap]

I agree that we should not blindly follow what the early anabaptists did. But I also think that if we followed what they believed, we would look beyond them, and follow Christ, because that is what they taught, more than anything else. What i see too often is the tendency to try to validate or support one's own viewpoint by representing it as "what the early anabaptists taught" without actually KNOWING much at all about them or their actual beliefs.

Ditto for the early church.

Understanding much about either is a pretty deep dive. They can definitely give us useful insights for what discipleship looks like. But often, looking straight to Scripture is much more efficient, and more accessible to most people.

[MaxPC]

What i see too often is the tendency to try to validate or support one's own viewpoint by representing it as "what the early anabaptists taught" without actually KNOWING much at all about them or their actual beliefs.

X3

[lesterb]

This subject doesn't seem to have caught the attention of most of the Anabaptist writers. Or at least not the attention of the compilers of books like Anabaptism in Outline (which I now own, thanks to Edsel) and Sources of Swiss Anabaptism.

According to The Writings of Pilgram Marpeck, Marpeck doesn't touch any of these passages either.

James Lowery's book Brotherly Love has the following footnote with some sources about the divorce proceedings issued against a Christian galley slave. These sources appear to be in Dutch. I doubt that they would be of much help.

[Robert]

if these are not Anabaptists or Mennonites, what difference do they make? they aren't establishing membership rules. are they learning/inquiring/speculating? .. all fair for this open forum.

Because, as adults we should be courteous and understand when someone asks for someone with original writing information, that those who have it, would be the ones to post. Open forums stay open when we are respectful to one another. Rules develop when people can not show each other kindness and difference.

Excluding individuals is not really healthy either. Setting boundaries for a topic is that does not exclude an individual, but targets a topic and those who are connected to it is.

Being passive aggressive and bringing in grudges from the past that taints your posts about the topic is not helpful either. It drives off interested readers.

[EdselB]

This tract on divorce is sometimes attributed to Michael Sattler. It was part of a sammelband, a collection of Swiss-Brethren pamphlets that included the earliest known printing of the Schleitlheim Brotherly Articles. This translation was done by J.C. Wenger ans was published in MQR (April 1947):114-119.

CONCERNING DIVORCE

The Pharisees sought to catch Jesus, saying, Is it also right for a man to separate from his wife for every small reason? To them Jesus upheld the regulation of His Father (Genesis 1, 2; Malachi 2) saying, "Have ye never read that He who made them in the beginning made the man and his wife one ; therefore will a man leave his father and-mother and cleave to his wife. And the two shall be one flesh, so that they are now not two but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together shall man not put asunder." Yet the tempters were not satisfied and introduced Moses, citing his permission to separate for every displeasure, Deuteronomy 24. Christ answered them, "Moses, for your hardness of heart, permitted you to separate from your wives; but from the beginning it hath not been so. And I say unto you, He who separates from his wife (saving for the cause of fornication) and marries another, commits adultery ; and he who marries the divorced one also commits adultery," Matthew 19.
Hence we, like Christ, do not permit a man to separate from his wife except for fornication; for when Christ in Matthew 5 often saith, "But I say unto you," he thereby annuls the Law insofar as it is grasped legalistically and not spiritually, Ephesians 2, Romans 10. As He is also the perfection of the Law, therefore He is the Mediator of a better Testament which hath been established upon better promises, Hebrews 8. Therefore He does away with the old divorcing, no longer permitting hardness of heart to be a valid occasion for divorce but renewing the regulation of His Father, saying, "It hath not been so from the beginning, when God ordained that man and wife should be one; and what God hath joined together man shall not separate." Therefore one may not separate for trifling reasons, or for wrath, that is, hardness of heart, nor for displeasure, aversion, faith or unbelief, but alone for fornication. And he who separates or permits to separate except for the one cause of fornication, and changes [companions], commits adultery. And he who marries the one divorced causeth her to commit adultery, for Christ saith, "These two are one flesh." But he who cleaves to a harlot, as Paul says, sinneth against his own body and is one flesh with the harlot, I Corinthians 6. Therefore he is separated from his own flesh in that he has attached himself to the alien flesh of the harlot, and his marriage is broken for they are no more one flesh, but the fornicator has become one flesh with the harlot. Therefore the abandoned one [innocent companion] may marry whomsoever he wishes to, only it must be in the Lord, I Corinthians 7, so that he may not marry among a faithless people that is without God, but among a believing people that keeps itself -in God, in order that he may not apostatize with those who do not believe in God, Deuteronomy 7.
Paul teaches in I Corinthians 7, If the unbelieving one doth not desire to dwell with the believer and departs, so let him depart; a sister or brother is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us in peace. This cannot weaken the words of Christ, nor does it contradict Him, otherwise Paul would be speaking after Moses (if hardness of heart or unbelief could permit divorce) and he would be "scattering," as Christ says in Matthew 12, "He who gathereth not with me scattereth abroad," and that could not edify the body of Christ. The meaning of Paul's words depends rather on what Paul has in mind10 in this chapter, just as he says in I Corinthians 2, "But we have the mind of Christ," and I Corinthians 7, "I think that I also have the Spirit of God." There are many reasons for the unbeliever to separate, one this, the other that ; yea, furthermore because unbelief hates and persecutes faith with its works, just as Christ testifies in Matthew 10, "They of thine household shall be thy foes." And therefore from aversion and wrath the believer will be driven out and expelled. Nevertheless that is not a separation in God's sight for they are still one flesh inasmuch as neither of them has attached his own flesh to the alien flesh of a harlot and become one flesh with the harlot. Therefore ,it is only fornication which can effect a divorce. He who cleaveth to the Lord is one spirit with Him, 1 Corinthians 6, flesh of His flesh, and bone of His bone, Ephesians 5. This is a great secret, but I speak concerning Christ and His church. For we are also the spouse and companion of Christ, married to Him through faith, Hosea 2, Apocalypse 19, forsaking father and mother, wife and child, and lands, and our lives, Matthew 16, 19, Luke 14, cleaving to the Lord, being one spirit with Him. But if it comes v to the point where we must separate from one spouse and companion and cleave to the other, yea, either separate or do that which is wrong, forsaking the love and communion of God, as well as faith, and cleave more to the earthly companion and render greater obedience thereto than to the spiritual companion Christ, thereupon a struggle results in order that one may see whom he loves most, wife, child, lands, or his own life; and hereby is revealed who the chosen ones of God are (as Esdras 22 says, IV Esdras 16), who leave all and follow Christ, Mark 10, being ever under the cross ; and then, or now, a brother or sister is not under bondage in such cases.
Marriage is indeed a bond and an obligation as Paul calls it, I Corinthians 7, so that one hath not the control of his own body, but the other, and neither may depart from the other. Yet the obligation is not so strong in God's sight that the believer for the sake of the marriage must do" wrong, the man rendering greater obedience to his wife, or the wife greater obedience to her husband, than to God, so that the unbeliever may remain one flesh with me. But now the spiritual marriage and obligation to Christ, yea faith, love and obedience to God (so that no creature precedence over the earthly marriage, and one ought rather forsake such earthly companion than the spiritual Companion. And by not removing the designated one from the bond of marriage we give evidence that we care more for earthly than for spiritual obligations and debts, as it is written, He who loveth father or mother, wife or child, more than me, is not worthy of me, Matthew 10 ; yea also he who doth not hate and forsake all, even his own life, and renounce all that he hath, Luke 14.
Therefore you hear from the foundation of God's Word that hardness of heart and unbelief may not occasion divorce, but only fornication, and as long as there is not a change to another flesh, we declare that when a man or woman separates except for fornication (that is, adultery), and takes another wife or husband, we consider this as adultery and the participants as not members of the body of Christ, yea, he who marries the separated one we consider a fornicator according to the words of Christ, Matthew 5, 19.
He who further divorces and will not hearken to Christ, scatters abroad and knows nothing, and him we will avoid as faithless, as one who damns himself, Titus 3. To the wise I am speaking; judge ye what I say. May God give us understanding from above in all things, to the knowledge of Himself and to His glory. Amen.

[Neto]

This tract on divorce is sometimes attributed to Michael Sattler. It was part of a sammelband, a collection of Swiss-Brethren pamphlets that included the earliest known printing of the Schleitlheim Brotherly Articles. This translation was done by J.C. Wenger ans was published in MQR (April 1947):114-119.

CONCERNING DIVORCE

[See Edsel's post above for the text of the article.]

I'm a bit confused as to what he is saying in the third paragraph, where he deals with the issue of a spouse who finds that their marriage partner means more to them than does Christ. Is he suggesting that this would be grounds for separation?