A Mennonite view of divorce and remarriage

[lesterb]

I found this on my computer. I had written this and posted it on MennoDiscuss as my personal interpretation of these passages. In my opinion, the Anabaptists deviated somewhat from the Biblical perspective.

Anyway, I thought I'd repost this for the record....

===========================================================================

First of all I’d like to state two premises that I operate by when studying the Bible.

1. I believe that the Bible does not contradict itself within a covenant. In other words, all teaching about a subject in the NT must agree. If it doesn’t then I am not understanding something right.

2. We must always understand the complex in light of what is clearly stated, rather than the other way around

Also I believe that God uses marriage is a figure of the relationship between Christ and the church. If we misunderstand the one, we will probably misunderstand the other. If we adulterate the one, it reflects on the purity of the other.

Eph 5:31-32 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. (32) This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

And finally, I believe that God created marriage for the good of mankind and that He is pleased by godly marriages. It is not just a way out for people who can’t stay pure otherwise. But the devil has taken this good gift from God and, like he so often does, he has tried to spoil it and use it to destroy us.

Heb 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

Now, I’d like to look at each of the proof texts normally referred to in these discussions, starting with the teaching of Jesus. Mark is the classic passage, so we’ll start there.

Mar 10:2-12 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. (3) And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? (4) And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. (5) And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. (6) But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (7) For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (8) And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. (9) What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (10) And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. (11) And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. (12) And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

Jesus went back God’s initial plan for marriage in his answer to the Pharisees. The language here is fairly clear. A man and woman become “one flesh” on marriage. This may speak to the intimacy of marriage, but I believe it goes further than that, and speaks of a union that can’t really be broken by men. God recognizes marriage and it is folly for people to try to break what God has joined.

Now it is true that God ended up allowing divorce in the Old Testament era, because of the hardness of people’s hearts. But Jesus makes it clear here that this is not God’s will, and never was. He states clearly that any deviation from God’s will is adultery. (I’ll return to the “exception clause” later.)

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
This basically reiterates Jesus’ teaching in Mark.

Mat 5:27-28 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: (28) But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

Jesus took OT teaching against covetousness and gave it a moral twist in this passage. In essence he is saying that you don’t have to commit a physical act of adultery to be guilty of it. If you covet that beautiful woman, you’re guilty. This is important because many marriage breakups start in the mind.

Paul also wrote of this subject, though he tended to allegorize the teaching somewhat, using it to illustrate other areas.

Rom 7:2-3 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. (3) So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Here Paul was assuming that his readers were familiar with the Christian teaching against divorce and remarriage. He used the illustration of a wife whose husband died as a parallel of the changes that took place between the two covenants and why it is now proper for God’s people to turn away from the OT Law to serve Christ. This is important because it shows us that the Christian teaching took root very early and that later differences in teaching were probably deterioration. The Jews would not have related to this, because of their toleration of divorce and remarriage.

Again, even though he is making another point, this passage does show that Paul also agreed that remarriage was adultery.

1Co 7:39 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.

This passage is similar to the last one.

1Co 7:11-16 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (12) But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. (13) And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. (14) For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. (15) But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. (16) For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

This passage is very practical, and probably shows us something that happened a lot in Paul’s time. Paul’s advice was for a believing wife to stay with her ungodly husband if possible. After all, more than one godly woman has won the heart of her husband by her kindness and submission in such circumstances. However, Paul also knew that sometimes it was impossible to hold together such a union, and he didn’t want the Christian partner to feel guilty about the situation.

The use of the word “bound” has created a lot of discussion. Paul really didn’t say what he meant here, and lots of people would say that the abandoned partner is free to remarry. However, it doesn’t say that. It is merely supposition, and I’m very uneasy about going against the direct teachings of the scriptures that we have already quoted here just because our human reasoning concludes that this is reasonable. Most Christians know that God’s ideas don’t always seem reasonable to men, so how can we be sure that thinks like we do in this case? I stated earlier that it is always safest to interpret the unclear passage in light of the clear passage, and that test definitely applies here.


I don’t want to drag this on unnecessarily. It isn’t a apologetic, simply a statement of my personal viewpoint. So I would like to look at the so-called exception clause found in Matthew.

I feel that the audience of these passages is significant. Mark was writing to Romans. Paul wrote to both the Romans and the Greeks. Matthew, however, was writing to Jews. Eidershiem, a Jewish Christian scholar from the 19th century, picks up on this and proposes the theory that Jesus was speaking of a betrothal in these verses. Apparently, the Jews required a writing of divorcement to break a betrothal. This was probably because a betrothal was an economic agreement. Joseph, for instance, thought of doing “divorcing” Mary when she became pregnant during their betrothal period.

While this makes sense to me, it is still a theory. Remember though, it wasn’t dreamed up by Conservative Mennonites and was accepted as fact by the highly educated Edersheim (he pushes the idea much more strongly than I have, here.)

Having said that, here are the verses…

Mat 5:31-32 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: (32) But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Mat 19:3-9 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

This is very similar to what Mark says, with the exception of the clause, “except it be for fornication” in verse 9. Many conservative Mennonite people do not realize that Menno Simons and various other Anabaptist teachers actually taught that in the case of immorality, the Christian partner was free to divorce his (or her) partner. In some cases, this person was even allowed to remarry, under the specific guidance of the congregation and its leaders.

So why has this changed?

Part of the reason is a practical one. It is becoming harder and harder to discern when a situation actually would fit this passage. Only a very small percentage of cases fit it, and it has become the whipping post of every “Christian” who tires of his or her partner.

Another part of the reason is the desire to err on the side of caution. There is so much warning against immorality in the Bible that it is safer to back away from it, rather than to take advantage of every possible loophole.

It is clear in the verses above that it is permissible to separate in some cases. God will not hold his children accountable for impossible situations. It does not follow that the right to divorce automatically gives the right to remarry. I can’t truthfully say that God would never allow it, since I can’t speak for him. But I do feel that it would be a step downhill to swing the door open like most churches today do.

[Neto]

2. We must always understand the complex in light of what is clearly stated, rather than the other way around

This brings to my mind the prescriptions of the Law regarding redemption of a first-born son. There are a number of places where this in mentioned in the Law, but you need to bring it all together in order to properly understand it, and, to some extent, allow the complex passages to give additional light for the passages which appear very clear, but are, in fact, incomplete. Some just simply say a first-born, others (as I recall) specify a first-born son. Almost everyone knows that this only applied to sons, not daughters, but for me, at least, it required a good deal more study until I understood the whole picture, because it actually is specified in a few texts that it was also “one that opens the womb”, a woman’s first child, in other words.

What I want to say here is that sometimes the complex passage will clarify the briefer clear one.

Many conservative Mennonite people do not realize that Menno Simons and various other Anabaptist teachers actually taught that in the case of immorality, the Christian partner was free to divorce his (or her) partner. In some cases, this person was even allowed to remarry, under the specific guidance of the congregation and its leaders.

I feel that this wording may allow the reader to infer something which is not the case. (I would like to suggest adding the word 'persistent' or 'unrepentant' before the word 'immorality'.) I don’t think that Menno ever taught that it was OK for a Christian to initiate a divorce. As I understand it, he acknowledges that if one party is persistent in adultery, that the marriage bond has been broken. It is recognition of the true state of affairs, not permission to initiate that state of affairs. The booklet titled The Wismar Articles contains the most complete presentation of the [Dutch anabaptist] teaching on this subject.

Article IV
… if a believer and an unbeliever are in the marriage bond together and the unbeliever commits adultery, then the marriage tie is broken. And if it be that [the unbelieving partner] … desires to mend his ways, then … the believing one [may] go to the unfaithful one to admonish him…. But if he be a bold and headstrong adulterer, then the innocent party is free … and [may] remarry ….

The conditions outlined here are the same as was taught and followed in the MB (Mennonite Brethren) congregation in which I grew up.
[Note: The Wismar Articles of 1554 were the work of 7 Dutch Anabaptists; Menno Simons, Dirk Philips, & Leonard Bouwens among them.]

[Wade]

Thank you Lester!

Mat 19:3-9 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Interesting how adultery is always brought up for an exception clause when the scripture doesn't says that in Matthew 19 - as it says: fornication. It is something I could never quite piece together in my mind, but this has been very helpful.

[RZehr]

I would like to insert that while we Mennonites may discuss what Menno Simons wrote and thought, we do not hold him up as a prophet or his writings up as super important or semi-inspired.
I hope anyone reading this doesn't go away with the wrong impression.

[Ernie]

Here are some additional thoughts from another Mennonite that I think are valuable to this discussion...

Early Christian Understandings of Scripture on Divorce
A Simple Approach
If you want to know what the early Christians believed on nearly any subject, you can simply look at all the New Testament passages that deal with that subject, apply those passages very literally and very seriously, and the result will match what they believed on that subject. Divorce and remarriage is no exception to this rule.

Two Big Questions
Our investigation of the scriptures on divorce and remarriage has left us with two significant questions:

What is the significance of the word porneia, (sexual immorality)?
Why does Matthew record an exception, while Mark and Luke do not?
General Quotes on Divorce
Just as in modern Western society, divorce was common in Roman culture during the early church era.
Tertullian wrote,
“Where is that happiness of married life, ever so desirable, which distinguished our earlier [Roman] manners, and as a result of which for about 600 years there was not among us [Romans] a single divorce? Now, women have every member of the body heavy laden with gold; . . . and as for divorce, they long for it as though it were the natural consequence of marriage.” [1]

This passage shows that the early Christians had to deal with this issue just as we do in modern Western culture.

In the following sections, we will look at some typical quotes that help us understand how the early Christians understood the Gospel passages we just read, and how they applied them to the subject of divorce.

Athenagorus, an apologist writing about the year 175, wrote:

“A person should either remain as he was born, or be content with one marriage; for a second marriage is only a specious adultery. ‘For whosoever puts away his wife,’ says He [Jesus] ‘and marries another, commits adultery;’ not permitting a man to send her away whose virginity he has brought to an end, nor to marry again.”[2]

Tertullian wrote,

“Christ prohibits divorce, saying, ‘Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband, also committeth adultery.’ In order to forbid divorce, He makes it unlawful to marry a woman that has been put away.”[3]

Origin wrote,

“As a woman is an adulteress, even though she seem to be married to a man, while the former husband is still living, so also the man who seems to marry her who has been put away, does not so much marry her as commit adultery with her according to the declaration of our Saviour.”[4]

Finally, the Apostolic Constitutions:

“If a layman divorces his own wife, and takes another, or one divorced by another, let him be suspended [banned from communion].”[5]

Early Christians and the Exception Clause
After hearing those quotes, you might be thinking, “What about the exception clause for porneia?” The early Christians, including some of the writers just quoted, addressed that question. Following are some quotes where they discuss this.[*]

In about the year 205, Tertullian wrote,

“The Lord holds it more pleasing that matrimony should not be contracted, than that it should at all be dissolved: in short, divorce He prohibits, except for the cause of [porneia].”[6]

Again, around the year 207, Tertullian wrote,

“I maintain, then, that there was a condition in the prohibition that He now made of divorce; the case supposed being that a man put away his wife for the express purpose of marrying another. . . . ‘put away,’ that is, for the reason wherefore a woman ought not to be dismissed, that another wife may be obtained. . . . Permanent is the marriage that is not rightly dissolved. To marry, therefore, whilst matrimony is undissolved, is to commit adultery. Since, therefore, His prohibition of divorce was a conditional one, He did not prohibit absolutely; and what He did not absolutely forbid, that He permitted on some occasions, when there is an absence of the cause why He gave His prohibition.” [7][†]

In about the year 245, Origin wrote,

“After this our Saviour says, not at all permitting the dissolution of marriages for any other sin than [porneia] alone, when detected in the wife, ‘Whosever shall but away (sic) his own wife, saving for the cause of [porneia], maketh her an adulteress.’ But it might be a subject for inquiry if on this account He hinders any one putting away his wife, unless she be caught in [porneia], for any other reason, as for example poisoning, or for the destruction . . . of an infant born to them, or for . . . murder . . . . To endure sins . . . which seem to be worse than adultery or [porneia], will appear to be irrational; but again on the other hand to act contrary to the design of the teaching of the Saviour, every one would acknowledge to be impious.”[8]

Novatius wrote in about the year 235,

“Christ . . . said that a wife must not be put away, save for the cause of adultery. . . . Laws are prescribed to matrons [married women], who are so bound that they cannot thence be separated.” [9]

Finally, sometime in the years 304–313, Lactantius wrote,

“He who marries a woman divorced from her husband is an adulterer. So is he who divorced a wife for any cause other than adultery, in order to marry another.” [10]

These passages show that the early Christians did recognize a limited exception for divorce, just as Jesus did in Matthew. That exception allowed a husband to divorce his wife for porneia, or sexual immorality.

Early Christian Understanding of Porneia
The quotes also make it clear that the early Christians, who spoke Biblical Greek as their everyday language, understood porneia as referring, not specifically to sexual relationships before marriage, but to any sexual immorality. This would include premarital sex, of course, but it would also include adultery by a married person, as well as any other sexual perversion.

A classic example of this is the following passage from Irenaeus. Referring to the Samaritan woman Jesus met at the well, he wrote,

“That erring Samaritan woman . . . did not remain with one husband, but committed [porneia] by many marriages.” [11]

In light of this evidence, Christians today who claim that porneia only means premarital sex are clearly mistaken. As these quotes illustrate, the people who lived soon after Christ, and spoke the same Greek language He did, used porneia as a broad term that included adultery.

Divorce as a Christian Obligation
Interestingly, the early Christians did not teach merely that a man was permitted to divorce his wife for adultery, but that he had an obligation to divorce her. This requirement did not apply to a wife who fell into adultery once and repented. Rather, it was applied to woman who was sleeping freely with multiple partners or carrying on a continued affair with another man. If the husband knew about such an ongoing situation and remained in the marriage, he was seen as essentially cooperating in wife-swapping

In about the year 150 or a bit earlier, Hermas wrote an allegory called The Shepherd. The following dialogue is carried on by some of the figures in the allegory:

“I said to him, ‘Sir, if anyone has a wife who trusts in the Lord, and he detect her in adultery, does the man sin if he continue to live with her?’

“And he said to me, ‘As long as he remains ignorant of her sin, the husband commits no transgression in living with her. But if the husband know that his wife has gone astray, and if the woman does not repent, but persists in her [porneia], and yet the husband continues to live with her, he also is guilty of her crime, and a sharer in her adultery.’

“And I said to him, ‘What then, sir, is the husband to do, if his wife continue in her vicious practices?’

“And he said, ‘The husband should put her away, and remain by himself. But if he put his wife away and marry another, he also commits adultery.’

“And I said to him, ‘What if the woman put away should repent, and wish to return to her husband: shall she not be taken back by her husband?’

“And he said to me, ‘Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.’” [12]

(That final sentence seems to refer to the previous one; just as a divorced wife cannot remarry, the husband who has divorced her should not remarry, leaving open the possibility for her to repent and return to him.

In a work refuting the followers of a heretic named Marcion, Tertullian writes,

“Well, then, what is a husband to do in your sect [the Marcionites], if his wife commit adultery? Shall he keep her? But your own apostle [Paul], you know, does not permit ‘the members of Christ to be joined to a harlot.’ Divorce, therefore, when justly deserved, has even in Christ a defender.”[13]

These quotes show that their writers saw divorce as an obligation for a man whose wife is living in ongoing unrepentant adultery; in such a case the husband, as head of the household, is responsible to take action rather than overlooking the sin.

One passage from the Apostolic Constitutions, compiled in the 300’s, both forbids divorce when the woman is blameless and requires it when she is living in adultery.

“Nor let it be esteemed lawful after marriage to put her away who is without blame. For says He, ‘Thou shalt take care to thy spirit, and shalt not forsake the wife of thy youth; . . .’ For the Lord says: ‘What God has joined together, let no man put asunder.’ For the wife is the partner of life, united by God unto one body from two.

“But he that divides that again into two which is become one, is the enemy of the creation of God, and the adversary of His providence. In like manner, he that retains her that is corrupted [by adultery] is a transgressor of the law of nature; since “he that retains an adulteress is foolish and impious.’ For says He, ‘Cut her off from thy flesh;’ for she is not an help, but a snare, bending her mind from thee to another.” [14]

Common Questions on Divorce and Remarriage
After looking at what the Scriptures say and what the early Christians believed on divorce and remarriage, people often have further questions. The rest of this article attempts to address the most common questions I have received on this subject.

Jewish Betrothal and the Exception Clause
In an attempt to harmonize Jesus’ marriage teaching on divorce in Matthew 5 with His teaching in Mark and Luke, some people claim the Matthew passage refers to the Jewish betrothal period, rather than to what we would call marriage today.

According to this argument, the Greek word porneia, when used in Matthew 5 and 19, refers specifically to premarital sex, rather than to sexual immorality in general. It is argued that the Gospel account tells of Joseph’s intention to “put away,” or divorce, Mary when he thought she was immoral, even before they were married; thus betrothal in Jewish culture must have been a binding relationship which could be broken only through divorce. Jesus, so the argument goes, was referring to this betrothal period when He mentioned an “exception” for divorce. Matthew, writing primarily to Jews, recorded these words of Jesus; Mark and Luke, who wrote for Gentile readers, left them out, since they were irrelevant to their audience.

Although this theory seems ingenious at first glance, it has several serious flaws. The first is that the Greek word porneia never had a limited meaning at all; it always meant sexual immorality in general. No one in the first century who heard Jesus say, “He who puts away his wife except for porneia . . . .” would have thought He was saying, “except for unchastity during betrothal.”

This is clear in the quotes we looked at from the early Christians. These writers spoke the same Greek as the writers of the Gospels, and none of them ever suggested that Jesus was referring to betrothal in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. In fact, I don’t think anyone put forth such a theory until the late 19th or early 20th century. It is a very modern interpretation, with no historical support whatsoever, so if it is correct, that means that for 1,800 years the entire church was mistaken about the meaning of Jesus’ words, including personal disciples of the apostles themselves.

Rejecting the interpretation of the Christians who actually lived in the Apostles’ era is historically questionable all by itself; but it’s also extremely inconsistent. The whole betrothal interpretation depends on the idea that Matthew wrote his gospel for a Jewish audience, but the book itself identifies neither its audience nor its author. The only way we know the identity of the author is that the early Christians tell us it was written by Matthew in Hebrew for the Jews and later translated into Greek for the rest of the church. Does it really make sense to accept the early Christians’ testimony regarding the author and audience for the book, but then reject their testimony on what it says?

Furthermore, the claim that parts of the New Testament apply only to certain religious or ethnic groups means adding things to Scripture that are not there. Matthew never says, “Now, the following section is only for Jews,” nor are there statements like that anywhere else in the New Testament. The idea that the New Testament contains a patchwork of teachings intended only for specific groups, so that we must pick and choose which ones apply to us, is supported neither by the words of the New Testament itself nor by the early Christians.

My final objection to the betrothal theory is based on Jesus’ statement that Moses allowed Jewish men to divorce their wives because of the hardness of their hearts. The early Christians seemed to understand Jesus as saying that during the Old Testament era, God permitted divorce, even on grounds other than porneia, because of the hardness of their hearts. However, the betrothal interpretation interprets the passage to say that divorce exclusively for porneia had been permitted in the past, but was now forbidden.

The problem with taking the position that divorce in the case of porneia is always a sign of hard-heartedness is that God describes Himself as divorcing Israel for her unfaithfulness. One example of this is Isaiah 50:1
“Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement, whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities have ye sold yourselves, and for your transgressions is your mother put away.”

God makes it quite clear in the Old Testament that His relationship to Israel was not just a betrothal; she was officially married to Him through the Mosaic covenant. If we say divorcing a wife for repeated unfaithfulness is wrong, and that it was permitted for Jewish husbands only because of their hard hearts, aren’t we suggesting that God Himself is a bad example for divorcing Israel on the same grounds?

Resolving Differences in Documents
Although I’ve shown why I do not see the betrothal interpretation as helpful, I have still not explained why Matthew mentions an exception, while Mark and Luke do not. What light do the early Christian writings shed on this discrepancy?

Interestingly, none of the early Christian writers ever talk about this. As we’ve discussed earlier, I believe it’s clear from their writings that the early Christians did allow and even expect a husband to divorce his wife if she was practicing adultery. They seem to have simply taken the exception for granted, considering it to be understood even in Mark and Luke where it was not specified. In fact, some of the early Christian writers did the same thing themselves: in some passages Tertullian says, “Divorce is unlawful. Any second divorce is adultery.” Yet later, in another work, he makes it clear that cases where the wife is unfaithful are exceptions to that rule.

At first, the silence on this matter from the early Christians seems odd, but on second thought, their way of dealing with the differences between the passages on this issue is the natural approach most of us use when faced with two documents discussing the same subject, one more detailed than the other. We automatically give the more detailed writing precedence over the one with fewer details.

In my law practice, if I’m reading two contracts between the same parties involving the same subject matter, but one provides more details than the other, I naturally give credence to the details that are included in the one but omitted from the other, and any court would do the same; it’s simple common sense. To give the abbreviated account precedence over the detailed one would be absurd.

The only real discrepancy between the records of Jesus’ teachings on divorce is that Matthew simply gives a more detailed account than Mark does. On the other hand, Mark mentions some details Matthew leaves out; for example, Mark mentions that the disciples asked Jesus about His words when they went to a house apart from the Pharisees. Does anyone suggest that since this house isn’t mentioned in Matthew, maybe that part didn’t really happen? Of course not. We simply use Mark’s extra detail to fill out Matthew’s account.[‡]

An illustration of how this works is in the differing accounts of Jesus’ Triumphal Entry as recorded in Matthew 21:4–7 and Mark 11:4–7. Matthew records a donkey and a foal, while Mark mentions only the foal. The common-sense interpretation of that difference is that there were two animals, and that Mark mentioned only the one that played a key part in the story. No serious student would attempt to “correct” Matthew’s more-detailed account with Mark’s less-detailed one.Again, harmonizing two accounts in this way is so natural that we do it all the time without thinking about it. There is no reason to treat the accounts of Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage any differently. If Matthew records a detail Mark omits, we should simply accept it as true, and if Mark records a detail Matthew admits, we should accept that, too.

[Wade]

Looks like I should have waited to post on the word fornication... Hope I didn't detract from what Lester said...

Thanks Ernie.

Although with things like this in that article:

“And he said to me, ‘Assuredly. If the husband do not take her back, he sins, and brings a great sin upon himself; for he ought to take back the sinner who has repented. But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God. In case, therefore, that the divorced wife may repent, the husband ought not to marry another, when his wife has been put away. In this matter man and woman are to be treated exactly in the same way.’” [12]

(That final sentence seems to refer to the previous one; just as a divorced wife cannot remarry, the husband who has divorced her should not remarry, leaving open the possibility for her to repent and return to him.

I sense a fairly strong persuasion against remarriage when accepting on certain occasions divorce. I got the same conclusion from the original post, but appreciate the clarification.

[lesterb]

Thank you Lester!

Mat 19:3-9 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? (4) And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, (5) And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? (6) Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (7) They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? (8) He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. (9) And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Interesting how adultery is always brought up for an exception clause when the scripture doesn't says that in Matthew 19 - as it says: fornication. It is something I could never quite piece together in my mind, but this has been very helpful.

The word fornication had a broader meaning in 1611 than it does now, I think. Anyway according to Thayer, this is the meaning of the Greek word used in both Mt 5 and 19.

G4202
πορνεία
porneia
Thayer Definition:
1) illicit sexual intercourse
1a) adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism, intercourse with animals etc.
1b) sexual intercourse with close relatives; Lev. 18
1c) sexual intercourse with a divorced man or woman; Mar_10:11,Mar_10:12
2) metaphorically the worship of idols
2a) of the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols

[Josh]

I'm not sure how willing I am to let Tertullian interpret scripture for me; he felt young women needed to cover their faces like very strict Muslims do nowadays in his treatise "On the Veiling of Virgins". I expect Tertullian's view on anything to lean towards the ascetic.

What Ernie quoted I feel is rather accurate; notable is that the scenario of men whose wives commit adultery, divorce their husbands, and marry another men is a scenario early Christian writers simply did not deal with. It's a very common scenario today. Scripture is mute on how to deal with such a situation as well.

I think we would do well to rely on brotherhoods to discern the best in each situation and for a brotherhood to exhort new members how to seek reconciliation with people in their past. I have seen very little fruit in applying rigid rules, unless the goal is to try to keep worldly people out with messy lives and pasts.

[Josh]

What's this saying?

But not frequently. For there is but one repentance to the servants of God.

I'm wary of the idea if one just sins too much, he's beyond repentance. A few groups like Apostolic Christian Church used to believe this, with permanent excommunication for some sins with teaching one can never repent enough for Jesus to forgive you again.

I think that really goes against scripture. I'm not a fan of cheap grace, but I don't like repeated wilful sin being put in a "can't ever be repented from" category.

[Neto]

I would like to insert that while we Mennonites may discuss what Menno Simons wrote and thought, we do not hold him up as a prophet or his writings up as super important or semi-inspired.
I hope anyone reading this doesn't go away with the wrong impression.

I also agree that we should not follow the beliefs of Menno Simons, unless they are reiterations of Scripture. I just wanted to fill out some missing details.

Another element in this is that in that time they were dealing with "first-generation" Christians (That's really the only kind there is, but bear with me) who were found in situations that people in our communities don't as often find themselves. It is this; One member of an already existing marriage union had become a Christian, while the other did not, and the unbeliever was the persistently wayward partner. Notice also that in the quotation I gave, the text of the statement reveals that they took the same attitude toward a woman's position as the believing spouse of an unbelieving adulterous husband as the Scripture texts take of a believing husband with an adulterous wife. (But if we include the OT, we do also have the example of Hosea.) The specific area of understanding where the Dutch Mennonite statement differs with the typical present-day conservative Swiss Brethren position is that the Wismar position would never countenance breaking up two existing marriages in order to "restore" one of them. Once an unbelieving wayward spouse had remarried, the believing spouse was free to remarry. I suspect that the underlying thinking followed the OT teaching that this would be an abomination. I think that there is an unspoken teaching in the Wismar Articles as well, one which would prohibit a believing spouse from leaving an unbelieving but morally faithful spouse, or one who was repentant. But I will repeat that they viewed the adulterous & remarried partner has having broken the marriage bond, not the believer who they said was then free to remarry (with the guidance of the brotherhood). (A separate question would be whether an unbeliever can truly repent of an individual sin such as adultery w/o repenting of Sin, that is, coming to Christ for salvation.)

[There can also be a tendency to put these statements into our current cultural and legal environment without consideration of how some elements of their culture & time may have differed. For instance, I'm not sure that there was any "legal" marriage process other than through the state church. So anabaptists who had married within the faith were not, in the eyes of the state church and state authorities, legally married, and you will see these accusations in the Martyrs' Mirror, that they were 'living in immorality' because they had not been married in the legally recognized church. We have civil marriage, and Christian marriage, and I think that we emphasize the former at the expense of the latter. I think that, especially considering what our nation of residence has made of 'marriage', it is time that we stop conducting the civil marriage process in the Christian marriage ceremony, and conduct only the true marriage as it is defined by God. (I am not advocating avoidance of the civil marriage document, only that this not be done in the Christian ceremony - it should be done prior to the actual marriage, as it is by law in some other countries, such as Brazil.)]